Studio: Air

Journal

Adam Kelsey

607974

Table of Contents:

Part A: Conceptualization 3

A.1: Design Computation 8 A.2: Composition/Generation 9 A.3: Conclusion 10 A.4: Learning Outcomes 10 A.5: Algorithmic Sketches 11 References 13

Part B: Criteria Design 14

B.1: Research Field 15 B.2: Case Study 1.0 16 B.3: Case Study 2.0 23 B.4: Technique Development 26 B.6: Technique Proposal 32 B.7: Learning Objectives 33 B.8: Algorithmic Sketches 34

Part C: Detailed Design 38

C.1: Design Concept 39 C.2: Tectonic Elements and Prototypes 49 C.3: Final Detail Model 53 C.4: Learning Objectives and Outcomes 54

Page 4

My name is Adam Kelsey; Architecture Student and I have some experience with Rhino and design programs although my preferred method is drawing by hand or just visualizing in my head. However I am eager to learn the digital aspect of design if only as a way to formalize the ideas I draw.

The architecture I enjoy is the kind that makes an immediate and strong impression, the kind that could be described as monolithic or monumental. This can’t be really be reduced down to any system or set of rules for me but comes more from what the design or architecture makes me feel at the sight of it or moving within its space. I have experienced this most recently on Holiday in Penang from the Peranakan Mansion in the suburb of Georgetown where the old Chinese fam-ily tradition makes prominent display in the ancestral monument and shrine (Figure 2). The overall design of which reminded me of the atrium of a roman villa, the overall height and presence established by the columns and materiality creates the monumentality effect I enjoy and wish to emulate. The age of the structure and its significance culturally play some part in my enjoyment of it as well.

I am somewhat interested in parametric design in that it creates very flowing form based designs, but I don’t think I’ve seen enough actual examples of buildings that emphasize the parametric process. Work by Zaha Hadid or Frank Gehry I think is good for demonstrating its ef-fects and shows effectively the potential for parametric design. As Patrick Schumacher, director of Zaha Hadid Architects argues for in his thesis;

“Parametricism is the great new style after Modernism”1

I am starting to agree with this statement as the shift from hand-drawing to digital design model-ling necessitates a standard method being adopted (or several) to be able to achieve results from the technology. I think it is very much too soon to say that parametricism is the next great style after modernism but I do think that there is something to it.

Page 5

Me, Figure 1

Peranakan Mansion Figure 2

Introduction:

Part A: Conceptualization:

A

Webb Bridge:

The Webb Bridge is one of the few crossings over the Yarra that does not also incorporate a road. It caters for pedestrians and cyclists splitting them into 2 lanes within. The design was inspired by the netting web of an eel-trap used by the aboriginal people 200 years ago and incorporates a continuous box beam structure.1 The architects words for the design sug-gest “a new connection, or a knot, between the old and new, past and future”2, this being emphasized by the additional extension of the bridge around 360 de-grees before it reaches the South Bank, similar to the movement of a snake. However having been to this site the extra dimension creates a mixed response, it exaggerates the design and adds time to transit. Also its location behind the Jim Stynes Bridge hides it from the East approach. So the attractive design is hidden from view while walking from the CBD. The bridge is meant to however support the transit of people in the area from the residential developments on either bank , for those who want a more purpose built walking route or even to add choice. The bridge was built with pre-fabricated segments that were connected with a barge at high tide, the bridge also incorporates pieces of the old railway bridge. A concrete ramp sits atop the steel box beam structure which also rests over existing railway remains, the curved lattice steel has been laser-cut and modelled with CAD to locate the encompassing hoops.

The bridge represents a development in integrated technology and expertise as throughout the design process the potential models were put through CAD software to ensure that they were structurally sound and maintained design integrity and called for further people to be involved; a shop-drawing special-ist and a fabricator part way through. At all stages of adding hoops, straps, cladding supports and structural steel components the design was assessed through CAD in 3-D. Designing in this way also meant that the individual segments could be adjusted or changed if need be and not compromise the rest of the structure, treating every piece as unique 3.

Although the design is restricted by location and the outcome very metallic and bland, the bridge represents an integration of technology and profes-sions. Having appreciated the complexity behind bridge design and the depth of information in its con-struction the Webb Bridge takes on a different appeal and becomes more interesting.

This pavilion was installed for the ZA11 Speaking Architecture event in Cluj, Romania 2011; a student proj-ect working with parametric design and a limited material budget to create a welcome piece for the festival. The work is comprised of 746 unique pieces which intercon-nect to create a encompassing ring (Figure 5). The design varies material thickness to compensate for load stresses and for less joint stiffness 4. The piece functions largely as an art installation of design technique; and while the design is interesting and overcomes major issues its lon-gevity is interesting to consider. After the event the piece would likely be dismantled and taken away, as it would no longer be needed. But because of the depth of design it really should stand built for longer. The design is parametric and demonstrates an in-novative engineering solution in that the pieces can be fit-ted together with no welding or bolting, they are designed like a jigsaw or a puzzle (Figure 6). While this presents a problem of each piece fitting uniquely in a certain place, it also eliminates costly construction in that the design can be dismantled and re-assembled if need be. So while the structure may not be permanently installed it can be recre-ated through its parametric design. This circumvents the issue of longevity, while the physical construction may be removed it can still be recreated as its plans exist digitally. This achieves an immediate benefit over design-ing statically with parametric modelling in that the design more easily responds to varied inputs and can change dynamically. For instance the design can be recreated or adapted to multiple environments or users as the typol-ogy is created through parameters rather than as a static model or composition.

Page 6

Design Futuring:

Fabrication Layout, Figure 5

Joint Detail, Figure 6

ZA11 Pavilion, Figure 7

Webb Bridge, Figure 4

Webb Bridge, Figure 3

ZA11 Pavilion, Figure 8

ZA11 Pavilion:

Page 7

A.1: Design Computation A.2: Composition/Generation

The parametric design process is largely based on establishing parameters and develop-ing within those parameters. This simplifies many aspects of designing; it somewhat incorporates engineering and building concerns as the software used can simulate real world forces and loads as well as calculate material quantities and therefore approximate costs. Computational design facilitates integration and cooperation between relevant professions and their clients, the client establishes an initial parameter of what is being designed and the architects, engineers, build-ers work on those parameters to develop something that can be built and used. This is a change from previous norms where parts of the design process have been separated and experience little interaction until finished products are arrived at which may then need to be amended. A shifting typology raises many questions on the nature of design and architectural practices. Is the modern software or program designing for the architect?, Is this new method superior or inferior to previous ideas?, What is the future of design practice? For the most part it seems that technology has been adopted eagerly but because it is very different from previous norms makes it awkward to assess as beneficial or negative. It may give some perspective to point out that algorithmic design is not necessarily brand new in human history.

The Shulba Sutras, part of the Vedas; a rare source of Indian mathematics from the Vedic period was a process, similar to an algorithm, used for the construction of fire shrines. The book describes procedures for constructing geometric objects like altars using a peg and chord as well as an example of theoretical mathematics 5. While algorithm and mathematics have been pro-gressing for centuries recently Genetic Algorithm design from the mid 20th Century that used much simpler computers is its modern interpretation. In 1950 Alan Turing created a “learning machine” which copied evolutionary principles, modification and change over generations. Australian ge-neticist Alex Fraser published papers on simulating artificial organism selection with controlled variables, which constituted the basis of modern genetic algorithms. Throughout the 60’s further papers and research was conducted which established evolutionary principles as legitimate opti-mization techniques. Predictive logic and evolutionary design are part of its application and take advantage of setting parameters and experimenting with successive generations and iterations of problem solutions to arrive at an optimum solution. This took further application with the develop-ment of computer technology in the 1980’s that added increased computational power. The first algorithm product for desktops was “Evolver”, released in 1989 which would solve computational problems using genetic algorithms and was available commercially 6, 7.

The situation seems to now be to manipulate algorithmic processes, understanding what they do, and utilize them in architectural design, i.e.: in grasshopper for Rhino. The development of algorithm and computational design has been largely assisted by advancing technology, it is interesting to think that these design solutions have historical precedent going back 50+ years but also reflects how technology has impacted their development. The power of computers has been exponential and so to its associated programs. It is only through more powerful computers that more complex and demanding algorithms can be performed and even be made into the commer-cial software that performs them. The advance of technology is important but its increased avail-ability which allows more people to learn it and design with it is a significant part of its progress. With ancient and early 20th Century examples, in order to work with algorithms would require huge experience and talent for mathematics, today it is not necessary to be a mathematical genius or spend decades learning to make use of its processes, it can be understood conceptually.

The introduction of advanced design tools for architectural design has created a duality of approaches; “the representation and production of the geometry and topology of designed objects” and the “representation and use of knowledge to support to carry or carry the synthesis of designs”. These refer respectively to the use of CAD design tools that increase efficiency and generative computational approaches 9. Generative design systems seem to regard formation over form, affecting a systems logic rather than the object, whereas the compositional is the opposite. The difference can be seen in that rather than affecting the design directly, the generative would change the input parameters to result in change. This can work well when the accuracy and precise mathematics of a computer can be applied to an already existing design to remove inefficien-cies and resolve issues; the 100% digitally designed Boeing 777 8 is a good and complex example (Figure 9). This reflects the development of computa-tional design that an entire commercial aircraft can be designed, tested and analyzed digitally and then constructed. Its success as a result of its design process is huge; “...the 777 is the most popular and commercially successful twin aisle aircraft of all time. The 777 is always outperforming.”10 Its design already existed, generative modelling came in to refine the product. A twist on the process used by Frank Gehry in his design process; constant model-ling at various scales “keeps the architects focused on the building, so that the model is not an end in itself, but a representation”11. In the design of the Walt Disney Concert Hall, a famous and well-known piece of modern archi-tecture, the design originated as hand drawings on paper exploring geometry which then passes through multiple stages of physical and digital modelling to eventually arrive at a final product (Figure 10 - 11). It may be that genera-tive design works best when applied to something that was compositionally designed.

The underlying meaning behind architectural action can be seen as another distinction here. When an architect designs compositionally; by hand or directly in some program it can be assumed that every spatial and visual relationship, dimension and element of the design was intentional. This makes it very easy to distinguish great design work as every design can be assumed to have originated deliberately. While the architect sets the parame-ters, the computer is generating the product, which may satisfy all criteria but not be an intended result, just input variation. This assumes that the architect is leaving the product to the generative process to create when in reality the architect would be aware of the result they would achieve if they enter certain parameters and inputs. But its the possibility of lazy design work that should be a relevant concern so that the architect is really the person and not the computer. This is best done I think by the adaptation of compositional design then into generative design; for example the airplane constantly being rede-signed for a century before generative design modelling and Frank Gehry’s Concert Hall where he worked from a design he drew by hand.

Parts of a Boeing 777 Figure 9

Walt Disney Concert Hall Concept, Figure 10

Walt Disney Concert Hall, Figure 11

Page 9Page 8

A problem of generation is that it can be used to generate results that are devoid of meaning, they have no starting concept or rationale to direct them. The generative does not allow infinite flexibility, its constrained by input parameters. The best approach to modern design in the future is to never lose the compositional approach, to retain that flexibility and origin concept even in a simple way of having an idea and putting it to paper or mate-rial and working to create a digital representation.

A.3: Conclusion

A.4: Learning Outcomes

A.5: Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

The generative design process may seem new but it has more history and precedent than expected. The ability to vary input data and set parameters can make experimentation easy as you don’t have to completely re-design if some-thing goes wrong. It is important I think to not model only in the software, getting perspective is interesting and necessary for architectural design. Working by hand as a starting point and then by computer is then my intended design approach as I want to use both compositional and generative ideas. I intend to use drawn im-ages to help base my generated designs in some concept and also using that to modify the design as it progresses. I can use that to apply my concept of monu-mentality by viewing it from multiple perspectives to ensure I’m on track. This will result in a better result as it encourages a good objectivity about the design which could be lost if only working in one medium.

Thinking parametrically and logistically for me is an adjustment from what I have been comfortable with. My first works are simple but help me to grasp the functionality of algorithmic processes. I have found that once I have a knowledge of how inputs combine and work to produce a result I can use that later on, my most interesting designs have come from just experimenting with what works and doesn’t in my own time using what I pick up from tutorial exercises. My early Virtual Environments design, a lantern (Figure 12-13), could have been improved by using Grasshopper in particular as I designed in Rhino but was meticulously straightening lines and flattening planes manually so it could be fabricated. With Grasshopper I could have had the algorithm solve it and generate the planes flat automatically saving me a lot of time.

Page 10Page 11

The simple line geometry I put through different lofting out-lines, polygonal and then circu-lar by creating frame grids along the lines at equal spacing. This achieved different results as the line segments were considered separate and so lofted surfaces in-dividually. Also the circular surface twisted the orientation of succes-sive curves at points along the line and so twisted the loft surface.

Original image above of a simple tree branch with no leaves. Mapping polygo-nal frames along the curve length achieved 2 different results, 1 in polygon and the other in circular then lofting along that frame path.

Week 1 task mapping a voronoi pattern to simu-late this piece of brain coral. By shadowing the pattern I managed to extrude the pattern in the x plane and make the “brain” pattern.

Lantern, Figure 12

Lantern, Figure 13

Images:

Figure 1 - Me, own photograph, taken 12/02/2015 Figure 2 - Peranakan Mansion courtyard, own photograph, taken 16/02/2015Figure 3 - Webb Bridge, own photograph, taken 13/03/2015Figure 4 - Webb Bridge, Sourced from: http://www.dentoncorkermarshall.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/06/WEBB_BRIDGE_02.jpgFigure 5 - ZA11 Pavilion, Fabrication Layout, Sourced from: http://www.arch2o.com/ za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan/Figure 6 - ZA11 Pavilion, detail of panel connectors, Sourced from: http://designplay grounds.com/deviants/clj02-za11-pavilion/Figure 7 - ZA11 Pavilion, close-up of finished pavilion, Sourced from: http://design playgrounds.com/deviants/clj02-za11-pavilion/Figure 8 - ZA11 Pavilion, finished pavilion, Sourced from: http://designplaygrounds. com/deviants/clj02-za11-pavilion/Figure 9 - Boeing 777 construction map, http://www.newairplane.com/777Figure 10 - Frank Gehry, Walt Disney Concert Hall concept drawing, http://www.ago. net/frank-gehrys-processFigure 11 - Frank Gehry, Walt Disney Concert Hall complete, http://www.huffington post.com/adel-zakout/top-10-buildings-parametr_b_838268.htmlFigure 12 - Lantern, Virtual Environments Model, Own Photo, taken 14/05/2013Figure 13 - Lantern, Virtual Environments Model, Own Photo, taken 27/05/2013

Sources:

1 - Zaha Hadid Architects and Parametrics – The New Architectural Style, http:// inhalemag.com/zaha-hadid-architects-and-parametricism-the-new-architectu ral-style/2 - Australian Institute of Architects, http://dynamic.architecture.com.au/awards_ search?option=showaward&entryno=200530063 - Hart, Sara, Architectural Record, http://archrecord.construction.com/resourc es/conteduc/archives/0406edit-6.asp4 - Megan Jette, Arche Daily, 5/07/2011, http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11- pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan/5 - Plofker, Kim (2007). “Mathematics in India”. The Mathematics of Egypt, Meso potamia, China, India, and Islam: A Sourcebook. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11485-96 - Rechenberg, Ingo (1973). Evolutionsstrategie. Stuttgart: Holzmann-Froboog. ISBN 3-7728-0373-37 - Markoff, John (29 August 1990). “What’s the Best Answer? It’s Survival of the Fittest”. New York Times8 - Kolarevic - Architecture in the Digital Age - Design and Manufacturing _2003_ COMMENTED - Annie Walsh, pp. 3-629 - Ipek Gursel Dino, 2012, Creative Design Exploration by parametric generative systems in Architecture, DOI: 10.4305/METU.JFA.2012.1.1210 - Boeing 777 and 777X,The Boeing Company, 2008, http://www.newairplane. com/77711- Art Gallery of Ontario, http://www.ago.net/frank-gehrys-process

References:

Page 13Page 12

Starting with a twisted box for interesting geometry then mapping boxes to that surface. Then creating a curve faces from the intersection of those box surfaces

from an offset surface which radiates at 45 0 from center. Extruding those surfaces back to make them solid surfaces again leaves an interesting result of the starting

twisted box.

The result is the box tower being broken down further into planar geometry.

Part B.1: Research Field

Biomimicry:

As this is a focus of our Studio work I think it is appropriate to select a case example to analyze that is based in that idea.

Biomimicry is basically researching and un-derstanding biological systems and imple-menting their principles in design. It is not as simple as copying what is created in nature, but understanding how it is engineered and how it forms and using that in the design pro-cess. Because nothing in nature is wasted it can be seen as a million year old design program moves toward the most efficient outcome. For example the facade design of the Beijing Water Cube based on the struc-ture of water bubbles, making it earthquake resistant (Figure 1). The 2003 Nobel Prize was awarded to the discovery of Aquapo-rin, a protein membrane that allows water to pass through, this is applied as a new ap-proach to seawater desalination (Figure 2). Also the nose design of the high speed rail in Japan that limits noise pollution and maxi-mizes aerodynamics is based on the bill of the Kingfisher bird (Figure 3). These designs have utilized the principles and evolutionary properties already developed by nature to achieve results.

Page 15

B Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Part B.2: Case Study 1.0

Spanish Pavilion - Foreign Office Architects

This design definition was for the Expo 2005 in Aichi, Japan to develop a facade and interior en-vironments. The Spanish Pavilion by Foreign Of-fice Architects developed a hybridization of Jew-ish-Christian cultures with an Islamic influence that is evident in Spanish History. The buildings design reflects different organizations of spatial elements and structures, those found in church-es, courtyards and chapels and their enveloping lattices and traceries. A new lattice style was cre-ated inspired from Islamic lattices and rose win-dows found in late Gothic cathedrals in Toledo, Segovia, Seville and Palma. The lattice consists of 6 different hexagonal tiles organized in a color coded grid (like Gothic tracery). The tiles were manufactured using glazed pottery, a technique common in the Mediterranean, the 6 colors area

Although not based explicitly on a biological structure the pattern is highly similar to coral structures or certain geological formations. It is essentially a repeating interlocking hexagonal pattern.

Page 16

Definition for Spanish Pavilion:

The definition for the grid pattern starts by establish-ing point parameters that can be manipulated in x and y. These control the dimensions of the internal hexagonal pieces by shifting the location of the ver-tices points. Then taking the black and white image opposite as an image sample and offsetting the hexagons that intersect at integers determined by brightness. This creates a repeating hexagon geom-etry with the added detail of a pattern offset within.

Only the hexagon definition was used for the Spanish Pavilion facade but the effect is distinct as the hexa-gon wedge together forming a rigid surface. At first glance the hexagons are basic but further inspection reveals how they are subtly different to each other and seem to wedge together

Reversing the offset also makes an interesting varia-tion using this base geometry

ORIGINAL OFFSET REVERSE

Page 17

Iterations:

Species 1:

Species 1 created by affecting the x, y and z coordinates of the point distribu-tion to alter the pattern shapes gener-ated

Page 18

Species 3:Species 2:

Species 2 created by changing the image sample to create different offset patterns

Page 19

Species 3 created by varying the im-age sample as in Species 2 and with a different base pattern from Species 1

Species 4:

Species 4 created by varying the offset distance from the very small to the point where it breaks away from the base geometry to experiment.

Page 20

Selection Criteria:

I am preliminarily proposing to create a shared bridge to cross Merri Creek near the St. George Street bridge that is specifically for cyclists and pedestrians.

Some basic criteria for a bridge could be;

1 - Is it able to span a space and remain standing

2 - Does it suit aesthetic design requirements

3 - Does it fit with a pre-determined biomimicry principle

These are simply initial criteria to suit the assessment of Case Study 1 Species iterations that have been generated entirely in 2d, particularly their aesthetics and potential application of biomimicry will be relevant.

Page 21

Best Examples Analysis:

Example A:

1 - Not met2 - Design is somewhat interesting and inter-

links geometry pieces3 - Small polygon pieces is similar to the Span-ish Pavilion, drawn from geological columns or

coral

This is a slight variation on the original pavilion design and is just as successful, it shows the

versatility of the design definition.

Example B:

1 - Not met2 - Repeating cells with slight differences in size and shape creates an even distribution

although a little lacking in depth3 - Drawn from cellular biology mimicking a cell

and its nucleus

The way these cells align together is interest-ing , creating small rises and drops between

successive cells, this is more elaborate than the previous as well

Example C:

1 - Not met2 - Repeating pattern of conical and surround-

ing curve faces is not entirely successful despite being better than others in its species

3 - Not apparently drawn from any biomimicry example or natural feature

Another cell manipulation that takes the pre-vious examples to a slightly more dramatic

degree. This works in showing the minute detail under the point of each larger cell where the

space has been compacted to a sliver between layers

Page 22

B.3: Case Study 2.0

Reverse Engineering the ZA11 Pavilion:

The design can be re-created with a loft surface boolean split with a hexagonal voronoi 3d box. This creates the individual panels that form the encompassing space. The second loft surface to boolean split I’ve moved into position as the tool did encountered an error when trying to split a second time from the same brep. The shape is then left boolean split on both sides to leave a section of the voronoi pattern that approximates the original curve. Then cutting back some of the cells to bring it closer to the ZA11 Pavilion.

Page 23

Page 24

Line Drawing of Process:

Page 25

Steps of Recreation process:

Page 26

B.4: Technique Development

MATRIX TABLE

Page 27

Sp

ecie

s 4

Spec

ies

3

Sp

ecie

s 2

Spec

ies

1

Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3 Iteration 4 Iteration 5

Page 28 Page 29

Spec

ies

6

Sp

ecie

s 5

Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3 Iteration 4 Iteration 5

These Species largely revolve around manipulating the finished ZA11 recreated model by dividing and compli-cating the existing surfaces or revealing line work

Page 30 Page 31

Sp

ecie

s 8

Spec

ies

7

Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3 Iteration 4 Iteration 5

These Species take a small part of the orignal ZA11 recreated model and vary it more minutely to create unique cell properties that could be applied to the final proposal at large. Each of Species 7 and 8 are working with this base group of cells as a starting point.

Orig

inal

Cel

l Gro

up

B.6: Technique: Proposal

I’m proposing to use a repeat-ing cell pattern similar to what was used for the ZA11 pavilion. This struc-ture is very similar to what is seen in images taken from seed particles when viewed under an electron mi-croscope. The shell structure shelters and protects the interior seed and allows the seed to become airborne with minimum weight and pollinate other plants. For example; the seed of the Seed of Castilleja flower or the Foxglove seed where this structure is created on a minute scale . Some of my Matrix Iterations already achieve this.

So the idea will be to create a spanning bridge with an encompass-ing shell of unique cell pieces. This will allow for views out, ventilation as partial shade as well as contrasting with the already existing bridge.

Castilleja Flower Seed

Foxglove Seed

B.7: Learning Objectives and Outcomes

I have developed skill with grasshopper; becoming more com-fortable with some basic interactions and functions. These could be applied to various situations, for instance in some of the matrix iterations I have been trying to develop a small cell piece, this can be applied to an over arching net structure simi-lar to my early examples and case studies of the Webb Bridge and the Spanish Pavilion. Applying Grasshopper principles in 3D space has been difficult however as the associated part of manipulating data trees is often confusing and sometimes too hard for me to resolve. But familiarity with the Grasshop-per tools and using the same definitions repeatedly has helped me learn and work out some things that work. The cell pieces I have made from Species 8 of the Matrix Table will work best for applying to the design I have in mind. The idea will be to create a definition for a surrounding shell of individual cell frames, similar to my case study examples and to certain coral and seed designs in nature.

The proposal of a shell casing around a Bridge I think is a good solution to a simple problem of public circulation. This doesn’t resolve anything specific to the creek system but is more ca-tered towards the people using the area and this will indirectly help the minor littering and rubbish problem. The bridge design will contrast with the George St. Bridge and this may be a good thing. The intent will be t create a bridge that stands on its own and to develop the definition I am working with to the point that it can produce a complete model. The outcome of Part B for me seems to be an increased understanding of Grasshopper and a better appreciation of its and my own limitations while using it.

Page 32 Page 33

B.8: Algorithmic Sketches

General sketches map-ping points and curves and creating interesting results from the resultant

surfaces

Created a mesh egg shape from line work cut along contour lines

For some reason this only worked for some surfaces; some intersec-tions failed and odd gaps were left over

General examples working with lines and point attractors to create line work and color gradients

Page 35Page 34

Page 36 Page 37

Using the starting box with ra-dial curves and points several different organizations of points can be made to create different shapes and forms

A simple population of boxes at different size val-ues can give interesting dispersion results

This is a small spiky sphere experimenting with surface alignment

Finally got Smooth Mesh to work consistently:

Part C.1: Design Concept

Page 38 Page 39

PART C

From the new selection criteria only this cell seems to the most viable and also the most appealing visually.The structure of it can be applied easily as a viewing window with a lightweight appearance and consequent build. But also the option to increase the material density of the surrounding frame to make the interior an extension if it needs to be reinforced. Its relative ease of construc-tion is also a positive and it stems from a replicable definition.

However,the shape of this is hard to utilize, it is irregular and blocky and would not work when repeated in a pattern as the edges do not match, this is after all an extraction from the Case Study exercise, so it must be refined as well.

Removing the back panel and simplifying the definition has helped to uniformly recreate the previous cell results. This will work in a repeated pattern and incorporates the features of the original.

This is easily manipulatable to change the base shape dimensions and side numbers and is easily pattern-able as it is based on a standard piece of geometry.However the number of sides used cre-ates odd spaces in between elements.

Page 40 Page 41

However, taking consideration of how flimsy this construction would be, as it is just thin panels and where this would be placed would be under some environmental stress it needs to be stronger.

So the cell needs to still incorporate a central view but have a stron-ger frame structure around it. These iterations are closer to a more realistic result all still revolving around a hexagonal base shape but with some variation. The variation brings back some of the earlier designs from the Matrix Table iterations in simple forms.

This revision to the cell pattern will work best. Does it satisfy the revised criteria:

1. Is the shape structurally sound? 2. Does it allow for views in and out? 3. Does it restrict air movement or create an enclosed effect? 4. Can the form be constructed, and if so, how easily?

1. Yes, solid form depending on material can be strong but lightweight 2. Yes, big opening in centre 3. Unclear, untill fabrication as a whole it is dif ficult to ascertain how restrictive this will be, needs to be assessed when fabricated 4. Yes, shape is relatively simple and pattern able

Page 42 Page 43

Site Analysis

The current path along Merri Creek is awkward as it takes peo-ple in a disjointed circle around off the path over the George St. Bridge to resume the path on the other bank.

The Bridge I am proposing will act as a link between the banks to make the Merri Creek trail more streamlined at this point.

As can be seen (Figure 1) there is a large amount of space to develop and build on here with minimal vegetation and a decent;y large area to cover. The bridge will take people up to the level of the higher bank on the Eastern side and take them across to resume the trail, circumventing the bridge.This bridge will compliment the bridge by separating pedestri-ans and cyclists from proximity to cars and trams and make a prettier crossing for students and local residents.

Figure 1Page 44 Page 45

Due to the risk of flooding at Merri Creek, any structure where people can walk must be above a certain level. This will simply avoid that issue completely by keeping the bridge itself above that level. Its support structure can be below but areas where people transit should be above, to avoid the problem and to make the bridge usable even with flooding.

Section taken from the line:

The red area represents the area that only support structure should exist in, the blue area is higher but still close enough to warrant little structure being pres-ent. The approximate position of the George St. Bridge behind corresponds to this spacing as well, although with a large array of support columns of concrete and metal so it would largely be able to withstand flooding and other forces.

Page 46 Page 47

Designing from the single cell it is good to design further and see what the final result would be if that pattern shape is tesselated com-pletely. 3 main iterations I developed that entail different connection types based on the same hexagonal base cell.

C

onne

ctio

n 3

Con

netio

n 2

Con

nect

ion

1

Part C.2: Tectonic Elements and Prototypes

Page 49

Connection 3 seemed strongest as it involves the strongest connection detail and gives an extra dimen-sion in visual appeal. This connection makes it seem more solid as well, as it ‘grips’ the cell shape and locks them together. This outcome I’ve taken further to a more complete version of the overall bridge.

Page 50

Part C.3: Final Detail Model

(No Model Developed)

The grasshopper definition for the project is not com-plete as it only partially models the final result. This definition attempts to fit hexagonal shapes to a cylinder surface and allign them with the cull tool to fit in an alternating pattern. The result needs to be worked more manually to fit connection details however as I am unable to make these through Grasshopper. Also the cells seem to want to repeat themselves multiple times, I haven’t been able to figure out how to stop this.

Page 52 Page 53

Part C.4: Learning Objectives and Outcomes

I had wanted to learn grasshopper to the point that I felt comfortable and capable of designing with it. This has not happened. Grasshopper has been difficult for me to grasp, although I am familiar with basic commands and functions, anything that steps into data manipulation and more complex interactions I either do not understand or cannot make work. I have been just generally frustrated with the actual execution of Grasshopper tools in Rhino although the interface is easy to understand and work with. The result from my Grasshopper definition was almost unworkable and I have found it significantly easier to just model in Rhino straight to achieve any result, I have not found Grasshopper any more useful than just using Rhino for devel-oping a final model. It has been interesting for making concept designs and manipulating those to a limited extent, I like my results for the matrix table (despite being under the minimum number required) but actually creating something buildable or functional is absolutely beyond me. I don’t see how I could have created any of the connection joints through Grasshopper, so they were just made manually. I had wanted to integrate hand drawing in developing an idea but most of my time was spent trying to understand Grasshopper so nothing happened with that.

It is just personal opinion but parametric design is barely preferable to any thing else for designing and just seems to be needlessly digitalizing and complicating things. For someone who can learn this, Grasshopper can be helpful, I see that, but for me it is redundant. Overall I have gained a minimal amount of ability with Grasshopper, increased my own knowledge of Rhino in order to compensate and produced a mediocre result. The bridge idea I think was good but it needs far more development and thought to bring it to any satisfactory end. At the moment the general form is there but its con-nection to the Merri Creek trail, ground supports or any finer detail is missing. However I have learned InDesign, Photoshop and been exposed to Grass-hopper so there has been some learning outcome despite having struggled in the later part of design work.

Page 54 Page 55