1

2

3

4 Introduction

Part A Conceptualisation

8 A1 Design Futuring

12 A2 Design Computation

16 A3 Composition/Generation

20 A4 Conclusion

21 A5 Learning Outcome

22 A6 Algorithmic Sketches

23 References

Part B Criteria Design

28 B1 Research Field

32 B2 Case Study 1.0

38 B3 Case Study 2.0

44 B4 Technique: Development

52 B5 Technique: Prototype

56 B6 Technique: Proposal

66 B7 Learning Objectives and Outcomes

67 B8 Appendix - Algorithmic Sketchbook

68 References

Part C Detailed Design

72 C1 Design Concept

80 C2 Tectonic Elements and Prototypes

88 C3 Final Detail Model

98 C4 Learning Objectives and Outcomes

111 References

Contents

4

My name is Joe Chapman, and I am currently in my third year at the University of Melbourne, majoring in architecture. My interest in and love for architecture was stirred at a relatively young age as I scoured through my parent’s large collec-tion of architecture magazines. My desire to become an architect was cemented through a primary school project on modern archi-tecture. My other interests also revolve around similarly creative fields, particularly art and design of all kinds.

I have always been drawn to sim-plicity, emerging from my ideas that architecture should be about creating rational, functional and in-viting spaces for people to inhabit. As a result, prior to commencing this subject and the research for this journal, I was hesitant about

the use of computational design processes. I therefore came into the subject with little knowledge or understanding of digital design theory.

In terms of practical experience with digital design tools, my knowl-edge is even more limited. I have virtually no experience with any modelling programs and have managed to get through my stu-dios with the use of reasonably skilful hand drawing and a limited understanding of Adobe programs such as Photoshop and Illustrator. Consequently I have viewed Studio Air as a relatively daunting pros-pect. However, I am keen to take this opportunity to learn as much as I can and develop my skills in what I now see as a crucial part of the design process into the future.

Introduction

Fig 1

5

6

Part A.

7

Conceptualisation

8

A.1. Design Futuring

It is almost impossible to predict what the future will hold for the environment, technology or popu-lation, however what we can do is become aware of, and understand, our current situation and speculate and plan for a desirable future. De-sign futuring refers to the practice that aims to make time for human existence by negating the factors that take time away. Firstly we must recognise that our actions and habits up until this point have left the earth in a precarious state. Once we

accept this fact, we consider more sustainable alternatives. These begin with our own “values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours” 1, and extend to a harnessing of design to plan against the state of unsustain-ability we have heaped upon our-selves2. The approach to achieve this that this journal will focus on is computational design. Design is more of a process that continuously defines a system’s rules, rather than its outcomes.

1 Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby (2013). Speculative Everything: De-sign Fiction, and Social Dreaming (MIT Press), p.1 2 Tony Fry (2008). Design Fu-turing: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), pp.1–16

9

10

Archigram was a group of six radical architects based in London in the 1960s who were able to impact and shake up the world of architecture without actually building any physical structures. Instead, they pro-duced paper architecture and a magazine that successfully conveyed their concepts and interests in subjects ranging from pop culture, expendability, mass production and megastructures1. These ideas are succinctly dis-played in both Plug-In-City and The Walking City. These highly avant-garde designs addressed issues of space and social poli-1 Mallgrave and Contand-riopoulos, Architectural Theory, p.209

cy, and advanced their idea that architecture must promote ‘living’ and ‘being’ rather than creating fixed, mass volumes2. These designs sustained ideas about technological modernism and mass production in architecture3. inspiring the later High Tech movement as well as impacting on the postmodern movement in the following decades, and promoting ideas that are still relevant to today’s society.

2 Simon Sadler (2005). Archi-gram: Architecture Without Architec-ture (The MIT Press), p.53 Mallgrave and Contand-riopoulos, Architectural Theory, p.209

Council House 2 was a project completed in 2006 by DesignInc for the City of Melbourne. The goal of this building was for it to become a working example for how to reduce energy and water consumption in commer-cial buildings in Melbourne, and in turn contribute to the City of Melbourne’s target of zero emissions by 20201. It could be considered revolutionary for its type as it was the first new commercial office building in the country to exceed the 6 star Green Building Council rating system. Council House 2 has contributed significantly to sus-tainable thinking not just within Melbourne but globally. Radical

1 DesignInc (2006). CH2 Mel-bourne City Council House 2. http://www.designinc.com.au/projects/ch2-melbourne-city-council-house-2

environmental features include the provision of 100 per cent fresh air to all spaces through the use of changing ventilation patterns on the façade, chilled ceiling panels to circulate water, evaporative cooling towers, high thermal mass materials and a computer controlled night purge of excess heat in summer, wind turbines, solar hot water, pho-tovoltaic’s, shower towers and numerous other features. These features are all long lasting and have created an environment that improves the patterns of living and well being of all its oc-cupants, creating a connection between them and the building, and built form with nature.

Archigram: Plug-In-City (1964), The Walking City (1964)

DesignInc: Council House 2 (2006)

11

Fig 2

Fig 4

Fig 3

12

A.2. Design Computation

When analysing the importance of design computation, it is important to first clarify the meaning of the term, as it is often incorrectly interchanged with computerisation. Comput-erisation refers to the process of translating an analogue idea into a computer system and manipulating or developing it digitally1 whereas computation refers to the use of these systems themselves as the design formulators.

In relation to architecture, design computation has brought a level of continuity previously not possible in the field. From the earliest stages of design and form generation through to final production, a continuous relationship has been established. Digital design is therefore allowing performance simulation and testing of forms, materials and systems to be integrated into programs from the very beginning. The scripting of al-gorithms is augmenting the analysis between architecture and engineer-ing, creating “digitally integrated performative design environments in which form is driven by perfor-mance” 2. This contrasts with Louis Sullivan’s ‘form ever follows func-1 Terzidis, Kostas (2006). Algorith-mic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier), p.xi2 Oxman, Rivka and Robert Ox-man, eds (2014). Theories of the Digi-tal in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), p.4

tion’, which was an important con-cept for much of the 20th century. While form still occupies a second-ary position, through design com-putation it is the performance, as well as the formation process itself, which guides the end result3. Com-putation, and particularly parametric design, the development and logic of algorithmic systems, has created a wider and more easily accessible variety of design outcomes in real time through the altering of param-eters and constraints, rather than having to develop complete new systems for each different iteration or solution. The ability to link these systems or algorithms and alter their inputs and constraints has created the possibility for computation to produce differentiation4 and varia-tion within its results, creating forms and geometries that would not have been possible without computation. The paradox that is created is that with the increasing use of computers in the designing process, we are able to produce forms that act or re-semble, in a deeper sense than just appearance, more natural, organic systems despite being controlled and fabricated by computational algorithms (Oxman, p.8).

3 Oxman and Oxman, Theories of the Digital, p.34 Oxman and Oxman, Theories of the Digital, p.3

13

14

The Kerf Pavilion is the result of research and development of both digital design and digital fabrication techniques. While kerfing, the cutting of wood to aid bending, is a well known technique, using computation-al design techniques allowed the designers to input this logic along with the tolerances of the material used, into flexible para-metric modelling algorithms 1,

1 Brian Hoffer, Gabriel Kahan, Tyler Crain and Dave Miranowski (2012). ‘Project: Kerf Pavilion’, Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology Architecture and Planning. https://ar-chitecture.mit.edu/architectural-de-sign/project/kerf-pavilion

giving them the ability to alter and test the structure through digital design. As well as de-sign, the fabrication process was also then controlled via the parametric model, as unrolled parts could be sent to a CNC router and precisely milled to allow physical testing, with the plywood shapes gaining strength through bending into a spatial form (Crain, in Jenny Xie, 2012).

Bloom is a responsive computa-tional structure that explores the effects of temperature on bime-tallic metals (Shing, 2013 ). Its 14,000 pieces curl or flatten depending on the temperature to which they are subjected. Rath-er than being pre-programmed with actions, Bloom is able to provide shade, as well as natu-ral ventilation when necessary,

as a result of the computational algorithms used to map and test the geometry of the panels, both individually and as a group (Shing, 2013 ). As the struc-ture has been computationally designed it is able to adapt to the environment without further input, allowing different spatial experiences to users.

The Kerf Pavilion: MIT Architecture Students (2012)

Bloom: DOSU Studio (2012)

15Fig 7

Fig 5

Fig 6

16

A.3. Composition/Generation

Generation in design is the product of a shift form the traditional com-positional process of design, often arbitrary and lacking in reasoning, to a process driven by computation, with computation itself becoming the process. From the external, some might consider generation to be the formulation of chance, how-ever generation and computation are guided by algorithms which in their nature are definite and com-prised of a set of rules (Wilson and Frank, p.11). Rather than simply being tools to aid the designer in their process, computational soft-wares have become integral to the formation of the designs themselves. Independent design concepts and intent are present as they always must be, however it is the computa-tional process which generates the actual physical forms. The designer creates the algorithms or script that the process feeds off, but it is these scripts which interact and formulate a result. They create based on the parameters input into them and so have shifted architectural focus and the designing process away from a strictly visual or aesthetic pursuit, or even an idealised functional ambi-tion, to an architecture that is firmly based in performance logic. It is this concept that impacted upon the writ-ing and thinking of many architects. They saw the opportunity to analyse performance aspects of designs continuously throughout all phases

of conception through to produc-tion and use, generating changes and variations with ease ( , p.13). There became a focus on algorith-mic thinking, that is the interpretation and modification of generative code to produce a multitude of results (Pe-ters, p.10), and this led to changes in the structures of certain architec-tural companies. Firms, particularly those focusing on large projects, increasingly employed individuals or even teams dedicated to these computational technologies and the development of scripts, and this is a trend that continues today.

One issue with the use of genera-tion in architecture is the potential loss of some level of control over the physical outcome of the process. While parameters are input, the way the programs reacts to these can at times produce unexpected results, and if changes are made to the model rather than the algorithm, then these will be lost with any further regeneration of the model (Margari-da, Fernandes, p.32). However the opportunities computation provides to parametrically experiment with designs far outweighs the possible negative outcomes. The oppor-tunity to gain information about a design once in use, for the design to analyse and react to this, and then improve itself is generation in a com-pletely practical sense.

17

18

This ongoing project by rvtr involves the development of ‘environment responsive inte-rior envelope systems’. The systems are computationally designed and input with vari-ous environmental performance requirements creating structures which respond directly to their surroundings. The algorithms used allow continual information exchange between the systems,

users and environment, cre-ating a generative design that changes when it senses energy, movement, temperature change, light and even carbon dioxide. The sensors embedded within the system then create reactions such as the extraction or supply of air, cooling fans, added light or the physical alteration of the system’s shape due to a user’s presence.

The aim of the Trip Pavilion was to create as open and usable a space as possible with minimal structure. As a result of this, performance became the key determinant for the development of the design. The main param-eters for the project were the six defined points where the struc-ture could touch the ground, as well as the use of triangles for the base geometry due to their structural qualities as a shape.

A generative process was then used, creating a varied triangu-lated pattern. The pattern densi-fies the closer the structure is to the ground to allow more mate-rial to spread load, whereas the opposite is the case for areas further from the ground where triangles are enlarged and the structure lightened. The over-all arc form of the pavilion is an emergent form due to its struc-tural logic.

The Stratus Project: rtvr (2010-Ongoing)

Trip Pavilion: LEAD (2012)

19

Fig 9

Fig 8

Fig 10

20

A.4. Conclusion

What is clear from the research un-dertaken in Part A is that as humans, we have reached a point where our actions within the environment are not sustainable in the long-term, and consequently responsibility falls on us to rectify these issues. This jour-nal argues that the method to do that is through innovative and effective design. Part A1 utilises past and present examples of design to repre-sent the proposition that a change in approach and thinking is required. It formulates the concept that through design we can negate the process of defuturing and states that design is about defining system rules rath-er than outcomes. Part A2 and A3 then turn the focus onto the specific

methods we can use to make these changes, namely computational and generative design. These processes bring continuity to the design, fabri-cation and occupancy stages of any project, allowing specific parameters to be input and tested, driving the formation of the design. Creating algorithms based on performance and continual analysis, and in turn creating systems that are capable of generating their own changes is an innovative concept that can be utilised to answer the questions of sustainability. In developing my designs this semester I will further explore these concepts and aim to achieve a more creative approach to sustainable architecture.

21

A.5. Learning Outcomes

I came into this subject with very little knowledge, but a number of misconceptions as to the possi-bilities and use of computational design. From the first lecture my concepts were challenged though the comparison between computeri-sation and computation, a distinction I had either not realised existed, or at the least had never given much thought. Initially I saw the use of these digital technologies as a purely aesthetic tool and was hesi-tant about their effect on diminishing an element of the design process. However, through the actions of research and experimentation I am now conscious that the opposite is in fact true, and that the opportunities both in terms of design performance

as well as complexity of design are increased immeasurably. The use of algorithms and parameters to create solutions to architectural problems has been clarified as a concept and its effectiveness is obvious. In Stu-dio Earth I developed a design for a series of public spaces that aimed to respond to the steep topography of the site. Through the use of a computational design program such as Grasshopper I could have input topological data into the algorithm and let this drive or generate a result that was more intricately linked and responsive to the site. Numerous iterations could have been tested in a time efficient and ultimately effec-tive manner.

22

A.6. Algorithmic Sketches

23

24

References

Furuto. Alison (2012). ‘Bloom / DO|-SU Studio Architecture’, ArchDaily. http://www.archdaily.com/215280/bloom-dosu-studio-architecture/

DesignInc (2006). CH2 Melbourne City Council House 2. http://www.designinc.com.au/projects/ch2-mel-bourne-city-council-house-2

Dunne, Anthony & Raby, Fiona (2013). Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming (MIT Press) pp. 1-9, 33-45

Fernandes, Rita Margarida Serra (2013). Generative Design: a new stage in the design process (Tecni-co Lisboa). https://fenix.tecnico.ulis-boa.pt/downloadFile/395145541718/Generative%20Design%20a%20new%20stage%20in%20the%20de-sign%20process%20-%20Rita%20Fernandes-%20nº%2058759.pdf

Fry, Tony (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Prac-tice (Oxford: Berg), pp. 1–16

Hoffer, Brian, Kahan, Gabriel, Crain, Tyler and Miranowski, Dave (2012). ‘Project: Kerf Pavilion’, Massachu-setts Institute of Technology Archi-tecture and Planning. https://archi-tecture.mit.edu/architectural-design/project/kerf-pavilion

Laboratory for Explorative Architec-ture and Design, The Pavilion.http://www.l-e-a-d.pro/projects/trip-pavilion-2012-competition-en-

try/2812

Mallgrave, Henry Francis and Con-tandriopoulos, Christina, eds (2008). Architectural Theory: Volume 2 – An Anthology from 1871 to 2005 (Mal-don MA: Blackwell Publishing).

Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds (2014). Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), pp. 1–10

Peters, Brady (2013). ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 08-15

rvtr, The Stratus Project, http://www.rvtr.com/research/research-b/

Sadler, Simon (2005). Archigram: Ar-chitecture Without Architecture (The MIT Press).

Terzidis, Kostas (2006). Algorithmic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier), p. xi

Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil, eds (1999). ‘Definition of ‘Algorithm’, The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cogni-tive Sciences (London: MIT Press), pp. 11, 12

Xie, Jenny (October 2012). ‘Archi-tecture@MIT: More than objects’, The Tech Online Edition, 132. http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N46/kerf.html

25

26

Part B.

27

Criteria Design

28

B.1. Research Field

The research field I have chosen to analyse, and which will form the foundation for my technique, is tes-sellation. Tessellation as a design technique is not new, in fact its use dates back thousands of years to the traditional ornamentation of Ara-besque patterns. However, with the use of modern computational soft-wares the possibilities for this tech-nique are being developed and real-ised, from what was predominately a decorative treatment to a complete structural solution. Tessellation, more so than any of the other para-metric fields, focuses heavily on the use of repetitive individual elements to create a larger form. This allows the opportunity to create complete wholes or organic overall forms from repeated, simplified panels, as is the case with the Cellular Tessellation pavilion by the Abedian School of

Architecture. This project uses 380 flat sheet cells to create a flowing, curved shell. The use of tessellated panels also allows the possibility for them to act or react in an individual manner, as opposed to as an entire system. Structures can be designed so that panels can react to envi-ronmental changes such as sun or wind, moving or altering depending on the strength of the environmental change on the specific panel. Tessellation also enables designs to be linked with systems of sensors or motors that again alter the forms based on environmental changes such as light, sound or temperature. This is the case with both Transform-er by I.M.A.D.E and The Stratus Proj-ect by rvtr. Both of these designs feature tessellation embedded with sensors and motors, which allow the panels to respond individually.

Figure 1

29

Figure 2

30

31

This technique has implications for fabrication and assembly, which can both be simplified through the use of smaller elements to make a larger whole. As a result of the computa-tional process these elements can also easily be sent to machines such as CNC routers or laser cutters and fabricated and labelled with ease.However as tessellation involves the use of numerous elements, this means that there is also the possi-bility for negative implications for the feasibility of fabrication and con-struction of designs dependent on their levels of complexity. Designs with large numbers of variations in element sizes, shapes or general forms will increase the cost of fab-

rication and the difficulty of assem-bly. Adding in constraints to help minimise this in the conceptual and design phase will improve the ease of construction.As well as overall form and individual element design, designing in fea-tures that will aid assembly should be considered from the start of the process. With tessellated forms of design, connections such as tabs and slots are very effective, such as in the Dragon Skin Pavilion. So while the design opportunities for tessel-lation are vast, considerations of fabrication and constructability must be incorporated from an early stage.

Figure 3

Figure 4

32

B.2. Case Study 1.0

For case study 1, I have chosen to work with the Voussoir Cloud project by IwamotoScott. This project utilis-es form finding techniques to help create a structure of vaults that fo-cuses on compression, and the use of light weight materials. The form is then tessellated to aid in achieving the desire structure through vary-ing cell densities depending on the

requirement of the structure at cer-tain points. The use of tessellation also produces a more aesthetically interesting design. I will attempt to alter this form through the use of the grasshopper plug-in Kangaroo, as well as then modifying the outcome of that process to create different tessellation.

Figure 6

33

Figure 5

Figure 7

34

IterationsIteration 1 Iteration 3Iteration 2

Species 1

Species 3

Species 2

Species 4

Iteration 4

Species 1 uses the initial geometry provided in the script and instead alters the form by adding an attractor curve, creating different patternation on the mesh surface.

Species 4 is again a post Kangaroo alteration that applies a different form of tessellation to the mesh surface that creates varying light effects through the structure.

Species 3 tests alteration to the initial geometry by changing the scale of the internal anchor curves. Creates varying covered ‘spaces’ if the design is con-sidered as a pavilion of sorts.

Species 2 is an alteration that adds spheres to the vertices to test patterna-tion effects, with the idea that the spheres could be used to hold something, for example plants. Tests without the use of Kangaroo.

35

Species 5

Species 7

Species 6

Species 8

Iteration 1 Iteration 3Iteration 2 Iteration 4

Species 8 alters the initial bounding geometry, changing it from a rectangle to a curved form, and then uses populate 2D as the input points rather than manually inputting points.

Species 6 experiments with different vector field tools by adding a spin force to the definition and altering its strength.

Species 7 focuses particularly on the Kangaroo components, altering the spring stiffness levels and pressure levels as well as unary force inputs.

Species 5 creates extra anchor points in the original geometry.

36

Iteration 1 Iteration 3Iteration 2

Species 9

Species 10

Iteration 4

To properly analyse the resulting iterations and forms of this stage of experimentation, I had to firstly de-velop an initial brief or idea of what I was aiming to achieve, which would in turn inform the selection crite-ria. Primarily, I wanted to create an interactive architectural form which would foster interaction between

both users and the design, as well as increasing interaction between users and the site. In order to create something that entices users away from the path, the design should be so visually appealing, innovative and interesting that it demands explora-tion and participation.

Analysis

Species 9 alters the initial bounding curve again and utilises the populate ge-ometry component to place the anchor points on the curve rather than inside it like the previous examples. This is tested without running the form finding toggle.

Species 10 uses the exact same inputs and functions as species 9, however is tested with the running of the form finding Kangaroo toggle.

37

In this example the initial geometry utilised in the Voussoir Cloud project was main-tained with some slight alteration to the spring stiffness. This creates a space that is highly functional beneath the canopy, allow-ing users to move through and between the space. The use of an attractor curve to alter the patternation is also successful in that it allows the design to be altered. This tech-nique provides flexibility to a structure, al-lowing it to be more open or more enclosed in response to the particular environmental or aspect opportunities or constraints from the site in which it is located.

This outcome is successful in that it also creates useable open space, however the alteration of the geometry to form much wid-er closed ‘columns’ provides the opportunity to create differing interactive experiences within each of the spaces. Each column could focus on a particular sound, smell or sight of the environment in which it is locat-ed.

This iteration was highlighted due to the opportunities created by its surface patter-nation. As well as being visually interesting, the alternation between panels and gaps would also create a dynamic relationship between the structure and sunlight, creating a secondary level of patternation from the shadows cast on the ground. This would have the effect of creating an experience that was self-varying and ever changing.

This result was chosen because it high-lights the idea that any initial geometry can be used and altered through the Kangaroo process, allowing the development of future designs to be completely site responsive in their form, thus creating a heightened level of interaction between the structure and the site. The creation of smooth mesh geometry also lends itself to further alteration through tessellation across its surface. This tessella-tion could then create a stronger interaction or connection with the site if it enhanced or focused on some aspect of it.

38

B.3. Case Study 2.0

For case study 2.0 the project I have chosen to reverse-engineer is the Shadow Pavilion by PLY Ar-chitecture, located at the University of Michigan. The concept of the pavilion was to create a space that brought into focus the sounds and sights of the landscape it sits in, realised through a structure that is predominately made of holes. To achieve this, the architects have looked to nature and specifically the concept of phyllofaxis, which refers

to the spiral packing form of a plant’s elements. PLY have utilised this idea successfully through the packing of circles on the outer face of the structure to create the overall form, with these circles then funnelling into the interior to create cones, directing sound and light. The pavilion is also successful in displaying some of the concepts relating to tessellation, in that a relatively complex form can be created though the repeating of more simplified forms.

Figure 8

39

Figure 9

40

Process

Step 1: Base curve is created in Rhino and a hexagonal grid is overlayed.

Step 6: At the centre of each curve a plane is created by evaluating the curves and using Plane 3Pt. This is then used to scale the curves, move the scaled geometry and then loft between the two curves to create the cones.

Step 5: Curves or circles are then creat-ed by running the Interpolate component through the midpoints of each segment of the hexagons.

Step 4: This is the form finding phase, where the previus steps are input into the Kangaroo components Springs, Pressure, UnaryForce and CurvePull, which are in turn input into the KangarooPhysics com-ponent which optimises the form.

Step 3: A mesh is created from the grid using delaunay mesh, and the external points of the grid are turned into the anchor points, with the initial geometry the curve these points are pulled to

Step 2: Grid is deformed with a point charge method, mapped onto a surface created by the base geometry, and culled to fit this geometry.

41

Outcome

42

The above diagram displays a sim-plified version of the process un-dertaken to achieve a form as close to the Shadow Pavilion as possible. This task was extremely challeng-ing at times and often required numerous attempts to solve various

aspects of the design. However, it facilitated a much more compre-hensive learning process that was ultimately highly beneficial in provid-ing a more practical understanding of the Grasshopper technology.

Curve

Point

Scale

Polyline

Point Charge

MoveHex Grid Map Surface

Cull (those which have one index ie. edge points)

Cull (unwanted grid sections)

Delaunay Mesh

Curve Points Curve Pull

List Item (3 times for each point of triangulated mesh)

Pressure

Mesh Components Vertices

SpringsMesh Edges

Polyline

Mesh Components

KangarooPhysics

Unary Force

Scale

Planar 3P

Move

Evaluate (3 times to get 3 points on curveInterpolate CurveEvaluate (at midpoints)

Explode

Loft

Bounding Box

Parametric Diagram

43

While I was generally satisfied with the final result and the level of sim-ilarity achieved, there were still a number of differences between my result and the actual pavilion that were unable to be resolved. Firstly, the overall slope of the structure dif-fers in that it is a relatively balanced, even shape, whereas the Shadow Pavilions form slopes from low at the back to a higher, larger structure at the end with the opening. While ini-tially this was achieved through the use of XY unary forces, this had the effect of deforming the base grid too much and so had to be removed. The deformation of the hexagonal base grid during the Kangaroo pro-cess also had the consequence of squeezing or overlapping the edge shapes, which in turn created de-formed cones. While manipulating the initial grid and the number slid-ers into the forces reduced the de-formation to some extent, it did not totally solve the problem. Another difference was the variation in size of the cones that was achieved. In the Shadow Pavilion, smaller cones surrounded any openings or holes in the structure, which then gradu-

ally increased in size away from the opening. By using a hexagonal grid to create surface curves (which were in turn used to create the cones), this variation was unable to be re-solved in my design.

It was established at the completion of the reverse-engineering project that the method used to design the structure was in fact based on the development of leaves along a plant’s stem known as phyllotaxis. As a result, my project is more a visual representation of the pavil-ion than the direct method that was used in its creation.

However as already stated, this task and the precedent were extremely useful and will form the basis of my own proposal. I intend to alter the design to focus solely on sound through developing the cones into reflective elements to create an interactive and varied structure that engages people, encourages partic-ipation and appropriately responds to the environment in which it is located.

Figure 10

44

B.4. Technique: Development

Figure 11

45

46

IterationsSpecies A Species CSpecies B

Iteration 1

Iteration 4

Iteration 3

Iteration 2

Iteration 5

Hexagonal Grid Square GridTriangular Grid

47

Species D Species E Species F

Lofted Input GeometryKangaroo to Deform GridRadial GridSquare Grid

48

Species G Species ISpecies H

Iteration 1

Iteration 4

Iteration 3

Iteration 2

Iteration 5

Square Grid from Species C with Geometry from Species G

New Curve as Initial GemoetryNew Lofted Initial Geometry

49

Species J Species K

Square Grid from Species C with Geometry from Species G

Delaunay Mesh to Create Grid Initial Geometry Changed to two Seperate Curves

50

Successful Iterations

Species A Iteration 5

Species I Iteration 4 Species K Iteration 4

Species C Iteration 2

51

Species A, Iteration 5

I consider this species to be a success, not as a result of it answering the brief, but rather for the structural possibilities it elic-ited. While in actuality the effect achieved in this example is not structural, but rather a tessellated effect applied to the surface as the final step in the process, the spoked form drew attention to the possibility of using this to support some form of tessellated or panelled surface treatment.

Species C, Iteration 2

This iteration was considered successful for two primary reasons. The first is its use of a square grid to both centre the overall form and as the basis for the tessellated surface design. What the square grid does is give a very even, balanced overall shape to the form. As well as this it also creates very even surface geometry with minimal deformation, resulting in surface tessella-tion, in this case circles that maintain their shape well. The second reason I found this iteration successful is due to the use of point charges to impact the surface tessellation. While its specific use in this example to control the offset of the circles may not be appropriate for my brief as the holes will allow too much sound to escape through the pavilion, the effect it has is visually interest-ing and is an idea I would potentially like to pursue in my future design.

Species I, Iteration 4

I consider this example to be highly useful to the progression of my own proposal with-in the next phase of development. The over-all shape successfully provides a semi-en-closed space and its elongated form lends itself to my developing ideas about my de-sign, particularly the possibility of it crossing the creek and creating a space that spans from bank to bank, enveloping the creek as its aural focal point. As well as the shape, the cone-like tessellated surface that was developed for the reverse-engineering phase provides the most valuable approach to delivering my ideas about reflecting sound, with potential alterations including the closing of the holes.

Species K, Iteration 4

While the form lends itself less to the pos-sibility of straddling the creek, it none-the-less highlights some beneficial techniques. The base grid that was used for this ex-ample was a hexagonal grid. While it was discussed previously that the square grid produced good results, after further itera-tions and testing, [it is believed OR I con-cluded that] the hexagonal grid reduces the amount of unoccupied space between dishes to a greater degree than any alter-nate grids tested. This will be most effective in retaining sound emanating from within the enclosure of the pavilion. The hexagonal grid also allows greater ease in creating the framework for the structure, as arms of the frame can easily be created from the verti-ces of the hexagon to a centre point.

The iterations created in this section were designed to test a multitude of factors including structure, form, tessellation and patternation. They also explored and tested my over arching brief which is to: create an innovative, experiential design that con-nects people with the environment they are in through their aural senses.

Utilising these concepts as a base, I wanted to create an architectural space most likely through the creation of a pavilion type struc-ture. Prior to the process of creating these 55 iterations, the overall form or shape of the pavilion was undecided so this process was constructive in helping test and decide on a structure that was both visually pleas-ing, and importantly helped me achieve my brief.

52

Frames

Total System

Top Connection Nodes

B.5. Technique: Prototypes

The prototyping phase required the development of the work conducted in B4 from a level that was based predominately on visual form, to one that was structurally feasible and

able to be fabricated. This involved the formulation of a frame-like sys-tem that would then support the par-abolic dish elements on the surface of the structure.

53

Frames

Base Connection Nodes

Frames and All Nodes

Top Connection Nodes

54

Prototype Fabrication

Ease of fabrication was vital for all elements and as a result the frame components were designed so that they could be digitally arranged on a flat surface and laser cut. This tech-nique could then be translated into fabrication at a 1:1 scale, with either thin plate metal or plywood laser cut or milled with a CNC router.

Connections were then required be-tween these frame elements. Nodes were designed as an efficient method of connecting multiple ‘arms’ within a single component. In keeping with the use of digital techniques and to facili-tate ease of production, it was decid-ed to digitally fabricate the elements through 3D printing. This process also allows a high level of accuracy to be achieved and could be manufactured at a 1:1 scale through the moulding of synthetic products.

The cones themselves were simple to produce as they could be unrolled within Rhino and laid flat, allowing them to be digitally cut from card. It would be straightforward for this pro-cess to be repeated at a real life scale with thin sheet metal.

55

56

B.6. Technique: Proposal

A site analysis of Merri Creek was conducted at the start of the project and observations and analysis from this initial experience have helped to guide my ideas throughout Part B and the Criteria 1 will follow onto Part C.

The Merri Creek Trail site is unlike any other within central urban Mel-bourne. It is surrounded by dense development on all sides and yet when interacting with the space it was remarkably peaceful and this ambiance had the effect of remov-ing the visitor from any sense of the close proximity of the urban context. As population and development in-creases in central Melbourne, these sort of calm, natural landscape pockets will only become scarcer

and more valued.

However, despite its beauty and tranquility, it was observed that most people using the space were either walking, running or cycling along the man made trail, without deviat-ing from the path. As a result, users were also avoiding engaging with the creek itself, the defining feature of this natural setting. However, once the creek was approached by divert-ing from the path, and particularly in the specific area I have chosen to fo-cus on, where there are some small rapids, the sounds of water flowing over rocks was the most special and engaging aspect. Within the urban context the sound of running water is a rarity and carries with it a soothing and meditative quality.

Figure 12

57

This section of the creek presents an opportunity to create a height-ened level of interaction between the users of the trail and this flowing waterway. My design proposal aims to slow people down, draw them away from the existing path and en-gage their aural senses by creating

a space that focuses on, and en-hances the aural aspects of the site. To achieve this objective, a pavilion structure will extend from one side of the creek to the other and will be covered in a tessellation of parabolic dishes (represented at this stage of the design process as cones).

Figure 14

Figure 15Figure 13

58

Parabolic dishes work by reflect-ing any form of energy, in this case sound, towards a focus point. One use of parabolic dishes that was analysed for my proposal was ‘whis-pering dishes’. These allow even low levels of sound to be reflected across space between dishes to a focal point.

Rather than using two opposing dishes, my proposal uses a multi-tude of dishes repeated across its

surface, each reflecting a different point in the river or landscape and the sounds that may emanate from there. This will create an interactive structure that provides constantly differing and changing experienc-es. It will immerse the visitor in the peaceful sounds of the creek and remove them completely from the busy, urban environment that is in reality so close.

Figure 16

59

Figure 18

Figure 17

60

Proposal

61

62

63

64

65

66

B.7. Learning Objectives and Outcomes

As a result of consistent research, online tutorials, lectures and the pro-cess of working sequentially through phase B, a deeper understanding of the possibilities of computational design has been attained. Through observing the objectives of this course, I believe I have successfully developed and then utilised a brief to drive my concepts and learning. I was able to formulate ideas about an interactive and engaging aural struc-ture and then work towards realising it in a developed design.

In my previous studio classes, I have completed all my design projects by hand drawing. There are obvious-ly huge limitations to this method, however one of the key drawbacks is the ability to feasibility generate a variety of design alternatives for any given situation. The ease with which this is achieved through parametric modelling has been invaluable to my design process. The ability to create a multitude of iterations that each test different input factors allows a design process that is thorough and varied.

Objective 3 of the learning objec-tives discusses the development of “skills in various three dimensional media”. As previously mentioned,

prior to this subject my computation-al skills were almost non-existent. My newly acquired technical skills, including the development of design capabilities in both Rhino and Grass-hopper and various plug-ins, as well as an enhanced understanding of digital fabrication methods, will be highly useful for me into the future.

In addition, research into precedents and architectural discourse has al-lowed more considered ideas to be developed. However, I believe the development of critical thinking in analysing these precedents, as well as in my own work, is an area I need to continue to work on.

While my understanding of com-putational techniques is still limited and the concept of design through programming is at times daunting, my comprehension of the principles behind it, and some of the funda-mental aspects such as data struc-tures, has developed significantly. The broadening of opportunities that even a limited understanding of the software provides is exciting, and as my personal repertoire of computa-tional techniques continues to de-velop, these opportunities will further expand.

67

B.8. Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

68

References

Figure 1http://architecture.bond.edu.au/CELLULAR-TESSELLATION-VIVID-SYDNEY-2014Figure 2http://designplaygrounds.com/deviants/transformers-by-i-m-a-d-e/Figure 3http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com/2012/04/24/dragon-skin-pavilion/Figure 4http://www.rvtr.com/research/research-b/Figure 5https://djcadteam6.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/inspirational-images-screens-and-layers/Figure 6http://www.bdonline.co.uk/iwamoto-scott-architecture’s-voussoir-cloud/3127520.articleFigure 7http://www.modlar.com/inspiration/pavilions-around-the-world-part-i/Figure 8http://www.archdaily.com/192699/shadow-pavilion-ply-architecture/50170fb028ba0d-235b000c20Figure 9http://www.archdaily.com/192699/shadow-pavilion-ply-architectureFigure 10http://designedobjects.blogspot.com.au/2009/09/shadow-pavilion-project_20.htmlFigure 11http://www.archdaily.com/192699/shadow-pavilion-ply-architecture/50170fb028ba0d-235b000c20Figure 12https://www.google.com/maps/place/Merri+Creek+Laby-rinth/@-37.790048,145.006351,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xd7e7de525a739b34Figure 13http://www.weekendnotes.com/merri-creek-trail/Figure 14http://www.mayvenstgeorges.com.auFigure 15http://www.mayvenstgeorges.com.auFigure 16https://www.google.com/maps/place/Merri+Creek,+Melbourne+VIC,+Austra-lia/@-37.788719,145.0083725,641m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x6ad645405fe-2931b:0x2a0456754b38dc50Figure 17http://www.zemax.com/ZMXLLC/media/images/Knowledgebase/Demystify-ing-the-Off-Axis-Parabola-Mirror/tocci1.gifFigure 18https://www.flickr.com/photos/smailtronic/855841801

69

70

Part C. Detailed Design

71

Detailed Design

72

C.1. Design Concept

While I was relatively happy with what I was able to achieve for Part B of this project, a number of sug-gestions were made by the panel during the interim presentation that would have helped create a more successful project. Designing for a more complete experience was one issue that was raised. Initially my project did not consider the connec-tion between the designed object and the path from where potential users would access it. In addition, the design did not provide an obvi-ous entry point and as a result had the effect of turning its back on the people it was attempting to connect with.

One of the other significant concerns raised related to the functionality and performance capabilities of the dishes to successfully reverberate and amplify the sound of the river. My concept focused on the ability of the tessellation of parabolic dishes to reflect the sound of the river to fo-cus points where people could sit or stand to experience it. However, the viability of the concept was called into question by the panel. Without

thorough testing of the concept, which would require considerable fabrication and time, I rely on the precedent examples researched and discussed in Part B as evidence of the parabolic functionality.

For Part C we have been assigned to work in groups of four based on students who had similar concept for Part B. Along with myself, I will be working with Scott Rowe, Lee Cody and Queenie Li. As the basis for our group design, we chose to continue with the concept I had formulated in my Part B design that worked to focus sounds, as well as views. One of the first decisions the group made was to simplify and reduce in scale the project to something that was usable by one person at a time. This would reduce the need for a more elaborate approach of entry and create a more personal, intimate experience. To help achieve this, the design has also been raised off the ground, and will be hung from the branches of a tree. This will allow us-ers to walk under the structure and be enveloped by it, fully engaging their senses.

73

To avoid any possible doubts about functionality or performance of the structure, the individual dish ele-ments have also been altered. They are no longer closed parabolic dishes aiming to refocus internal sound in the structure, but rather are cone-like forms that focus external sounds to the internal with far less ambiguity. The cones work by redi-recting the sound to a more focused area, creating a more intense audi-ble experience.

An extra element has also been added to the design, in the form of a series of tubes that connect into the cone structure, whilst also having a cone at their other end. The effect of these tubes is to provide an alter-nate, whimsical method to transfer and focus sound into the space. These tubes can either be left in the surrounding environment to pick up natural sounds, or they can be held

and moved by other users, spoken into and interacted with. Aestheti-cally they add to the slightly wacky overall form of the design.

In terms of siting, the design will again be situated close to the creek in order to focus on the aural sounds that emanate from it. However, as there are cones facing in all direc-tions, the aim of the design is to also pick up the other sounds of the natural environment such as birds, movement in the trees, wind through the bush.

As it is designed parametrically, there is scope to expand the form by increasing the number of cones, allowing future development and the possibility to create a space that could function for numerous people at once.

74

Shadow PavilionLight and Sound Funnel

RuupSound Megaphones

Precedents

Pavilion for One SummerTessellated Double Curved FormFigure 1

Figure 5

Figure 3

75

Figure 6

Figure 4

Figure 2

76

Concept Development

77

78

Tests and Iterations

79

80

C.2. Tectonic Elements and Prototypes

Prototype A

As the physical form of our design was a combination of the ideas de-veloped by both Scott and myself for our individual Part B assignments, the prototyping and construction also utilised elements from both de-signs. Rather than having any gaps in between the cones, the structure was designed so that all cones join along their edges creating a more solid dome that will provide better acoustic capabilities. Prototype B demonstrates this technique through the use of overlapping double curved geometrics that are capable of being constructed from flat sheets of laser cut materials.

Two connection types were used for the polypropylene cones. To fasten

the cones themselves, metal rivets were placed in pre-cut holes to hold the cones in their 3D shape. To join these cones together to create the cloud-like form, cable ties were used as they are simple, economical, and until fully tightened, allow some flexibility which was useful during fabrication.

The external parabolic shaped fram-ing system was laser cut from Luan plywood with holes also cut to allow zip ties to connect the individual ele-ments. However, this system proved somewhat difficult to construct, and having only a single cable tie be-tween most pieces did not provide sufficient rigidity or alignment of the elements.

81

82

Prototyping

83

84

Prototyping

85

86

Prototyping

87

88

C.3. Final Detail Model

89

90

Model A

91

92

Model A

93

94

Model A

95

96

Model A

97

98

C.4. Learning Objectives and Outcomes

The final presentation and critique was a constructive process that provided us with a number of ideas for improving our design. Some of the comments related to the frame, and whether it was too aggressive or intimidating, as well as questioning its purpose considering it was not performing any structural function. In addition, the detail and connec-tions of the frame were highlight-ed as needing some redesigning. In response to this feedback, the framing system has been altered. While it maintains its parabolic shape, the severity and size of the spiked frames has been reduced to create a less aggressive and sub-sequently more inviting structure, while retaining the visual interest provided by the frame. The framing also now adds rigidity and strength to the structure as each segment is connected via a series of cable ties to the cones below, resembling a sewn connection. The issues sur-rounding the connection details of the framing segments have been resolved through the inclusion of a connection disk with slots that match up with slots in the frames, locking the frames into place and helping to maintain a slim gap between the framing elements. Another modifica-tion is the addition of a second hole for cable ties on either side of the connection disk to reduce the possi-

bility of contortion.

In relation to the polypropylene cones, detailing was again one of the points raised by the panel, as well as limiting any gaps within the structure that could allow sound leakage. To rectify this, smaller, sim-pler rivets have been used to hold the cones and an increased number of smaller cable ties have been used to connect the cones together, as well as to the frame. To improve the aesthetic qualities, white, as op-posed to opaque, polypropylene has been used to minimise the visual dif-ference between the cones and the ties (which are also white), creating a cleaner visual appearance.

The idea of sound curation was also raised in the critique process. The suggestion was that we could utilise the tubes to play with sensory per-ception, or deception, by altering the direction the sound emanates from compared with our expectations of where the sound will be emitted.

The tubes themselves have also been reduced in diameter, making them lighter and more elegant, and allowing the holes in the tops of the cones to be smaller. This creates a visually cleaner, sharper design whilst still satisfying the aural pur-pose of the structure.

99

100

Model B

101

102

Model B

103

104

Model B

105

106

Model B

107

108

Model B

109

110

At the conclusion of Part B, I dis-cussed my development in relation to the learning objectives listed in the Handbook. As I complete the final section of this subject, it is clear that this development and learning has continued to progress in all aspects. My technical skills in both Grasshopper and Rhino have con-tinued to improve to a level where I feel comfortable that I will be able to effectively utilise both softwares into the future.

I have a much stronger understand-ing of and enhanced abilities in, the overall process of interrogating and developing a brief, formulating a concept and continually testing and refining a design. For Part C this pro-cess was repeated within a group format. While this adds a layer of complexity, it was a very beneficial stage of the process, and facilitated the combining of ideas to create a more successful overall project.

Part C of the project also had a large focus on producing a high quality

scale model with the use of digital fabrication techniques. Preparing files to be sent to the laser cutter was not something I had done be-fore, but it is an extremely useful technique for reducing error, saving time and simplifying the fabrication process.

The core outcome from the three stages of learning was an enhanced understanding of the increasing importance of computational tech-niques in architecture and an ap-preciation of the opportunities they provide. These opportunities include creating aesthetically interesting forms and structures that react to, or are a result of the environment, as well as an ease of manufacturing provided by computational tech-niques. Overall this has been one of the most challenging subjects I’ve undertaken, however it has also been one of the most rewarding and beneficial in terms of developing my knowledge and skills for future archi-tectural endeavours.

Learning Objectives

111

References

Figure 1http://inhabitat.com/wooden-pavilion-for-one-summer-in-austria-uses-parametric-model-ing-to-mimic-sea-urchin-skeletons/

Figure 2http://inhabitat.com/wooden-pavilion-for-one-summer-in-austria-uses-parametric-mod-eling-to-mimic-sea-urchin-skeletons/karamba-3d-wooden-pavilion-manuel-fabian-hart-man-4/

Figure 3Photo by Henno Luts, http://www.designboom.com/design/estonian-students-for-est-megaphones-library-pahni-nature-centre-09-22-2015/

Figure 4Photo by Henno Luts, http://www.designboom.com/design/estonian-students-for-est-megaphones-library-pahni-nature-centre-09-22-2015/

Figure 5Photo by PLY Architecture, http://www.archdaily.com/192699/shadow-pavilion-ply-archi-tecture

Figure 6Photo by PLY Architecture, http://www.archdaily.com/192699/shadow-pavilion-ply-archi-tecture