P a r t B

B . 1 r e s e a r c h f i e l d As part of my design development, I have chosen to focus on geomet-rical research, particularly the use of grid shells. Grid shells are par-ticularly interesting, for they allow self-supporting structures, which can follow unusual, organic forms. Similarly, they can be created from pre-fabricated, repeated elements, and thus can be assembled either off site, or quickly on site.

Grid shells have proven particularly useful in creating organic forms, particularly at their simplest domes and spheres. An architect who has explored the use of gird shells, geodesic domes and their future potential, was Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983), who in 1947 created his first geodesic enclosure.1 He would later incorporate geodesic domes and grid shells into a number of his later project, the cost effective, easy to assemble nature of such designs interesting Fuller. The differences however with Fuller and contemporary practice, is that he did not have digital methods for deigning and experimenting with form, advanced construction methods, or an abundance of ma-terials to his disposal (many construction materials in short supply following the end of the Second World War).2

Despite its lightweight nature, geodesic domes never entered the mainstream, the forms considered too rigid, with the spherical form difficult to use practically.3 Thus apart from a handful of major pro-jects, the most recent being the Eden Project in Cornwell England (2001), geodesic domes and grid shells have largely been confined to experimental projects, and more abstracted installations and pa-vilions.

For my project, which will focus on highlighting the rubbish collection in the Merri Creek waterways, the use of geometry will be important in creating a structure which is able to withstand the currents of the river, sit comfortably within the landscape, and collect the desired rubbish. The reason rubbish collection was chosen, was to highlight the wasteful, disposable nature of contemporary society, and how it is unsustainable into the future. Similarly, the reasoning behind research into grid shell structures, is the hope that through a similar shell pattern, the structure could be largely self-supporting, thus ne-gating the need for a sub frame.

1 ‘Biography’, Buckminster Fuller, https://bfi.org/about-fuller/biography, accessed 20 April 20162 ‘Biography’, Buckminster Fuller, https://bfi.org/about-fuller/biography, accessed 20 April 20163 Miles Lewis, Architectura: Elements of Architectural Style (Melbourne: Barron’s Educational Series, 2008) pp 237.

Students of Buckminster Fuller testing Geodesic Dome, 1949.

B . 2 c a s e s t u d y 1 . 0

Species 1:

Species 2:

Species 3:

Species 4:

B . 2 f i n a l s e l e c t i o n

Above are the final four forms which I have selected, as they have the greatest potential for further development within the breadth of the project. There are a number of requirements which are important when assessing the potential of an indi-vidual form.

Firstly, because the design needs to filter rubbish, it needs to have enough density to act as a net, catching the rubbish as it flows down the river. While not all the chosen forms have such a density, the density could be easily increased, while still maintaining the initial form.

Secondly, the form of the final designs must appear as an interesting and aesthetically pleasing barrier, yet still inhibi-tive enough to prevent the flow of rubbish. Many of the forms disregarded, while unusual and visually appealing from an architectural and sculptural perspective, would not have acted appropriately when trying to collect rubbish. This primarily due

to the large holes in the form, which would have allowed debris and other foreign items to flow freely through.

Similarly, rather than alternating the general pattern within the variations, the alterations to each iteration focused on the varying form. It has been hypothesised that as part of the final design, the sculpture would be lifted out intact, and moved to CERES where it would be used as an educational tool, highlight-ing the amount of rubbish in Melbourne’s waterways. For this reason, the chosen forms, were believed to be appropriate for removal, their gentle curves and ridges holding the collected rubbish during transportation.

Thus, taking all these characteristics into account, the final four designs where believed to be most suitable for further develop-ment throughout the progression of the project.

Pavilion Design, Andrei Jipa, 2010

B . 3 c a s e s t u d y 2 . 0

Hypothetical Grasshopper

Define a Sphere Divide surface into points Connect points into pattern Create second inner circle

Montreal Biosphere, Buckminster Fuller, 1967

The project I chose to reverse engineer, is the Montreal Bio-sphere, designed by Buckminster Fuller in 1967. I chose it is due to its grid shell structure, and its potential for incorporating a variety of materials into its final design. Similarly, I felt that the experimentation with a grid shell would be useful for the final project, as it experiments with structure and surface pattern simultaneously. Likewise, the structure is self-supporting, and does not require further structural support.

The final outcome, while resembling the original biosphere, did have a number of differences. Firstly, the inner circle and outer circle were not offset with each other, but rather followed the same shape. This was due to my inability, to cull the correct points on the inner circle, thus offsetting the triangular frame. Similarly, the pattern which the biosphere adopted differed

from that which I inevitably created in my reverse engineered project. The difference was largely due to my inability to cull the correct points along the surface, or offset certain rows, thus altering the inherent placement of the original points. I did however, create a triangular pattern similar to the original de-sign, thus providing similar structural qualities.

There were however similarities with the design as well. Firstly, the final design contained two spheres, not just the one, and had a layer of glass that sat on the outside sphere. Similarly, the final reverse engineered example was constructed of pipe-work, rather than just single lines, thus aligning my design with the original conceived by Buckminster Fuller.

Final Render with Glass

B . 4 t e c h n i q u e d e v e l o p m e n t

B . 4 f i n a l s e l c t i o n

As our project is centred around the structures ability to collect rub-bish, this is central to the final selection of projects. The projects selected needed to have a network of cables/wires which while large enough to allow water to flow easily through, were also small enough to catch the rubbish. This reduced the number of potential it-erations, by culling those whose wire pattern was too extreme (either too closely or largely spaced). There were also aesthetic considera-tions in the decision process, whereby a number of iterations were excluded simply for the fact that they were deemed unattractive, or similarly, out of place if situated along Merri Creek.

Whereas the previous iterations had focused mainly on form vari-ations, this set of iterations dealt with both the form and pattern alterations that could take place within the structure. Indeed, in the case of the flatter iterations, they were specifically examining the patterns, rather than the potential form of the final design.

The final five forms chosen, highlight the spectrum of potential ideas which could form the basis of the design. Of the final selection, I believe the first and the fourth have the greatest potential with future designs. The first design, with its almost conical shape, and internal swirls, would provide a clear and distinct barrier to the rubbish, while still maintaining an overall aesthetic. Similarly, the many layers of cables, provide plenty of assurance, that any and all rubbish within the river system would be collected.

The fourth is successful, as it could clearly be lifted out, capturing all the rubbish in the process. With its shape reminiscent of a fishing net, it is a proven form in capturing item in waterways. Similarly, because of its looser, less structured nature, there is the beneficial potential for it to move with the tides and floods.

B . 4 f i n a l s e l c t i o n

Early group experimentations with material properties

B . 5 t e c h n i q u e p r o t o t y p e s

Prototype 1

Prototype 2 Prototype 3

As part of my early prototyping stages, I examined a variety of different forms and iterations, which will each be analysed for their success and potential future development.

The first prototype examined how a form could change as it decays. In each photo, a subsequent rope has been unattached, as if it has snapped following weathering of the material. While this form is interesting, particularly how it changes, the form only succeeds if the ropes decay in a certain order. It would be highly difficult to predict the order in which ropes would decay, thus limiting the true potential for such an idea.

The second and third porotypes, both examined similar con-cepts, whereby the rope was used to hold a solid plane in ten-sion. What is particularly interesting about these prototypes is that both the paper and wool have little tensile properties, yet when combined together in such a way, can produce interest-ing shapes, which hold their own form. This concept, the use of potentially un-structural elements to create structure, creates

interesting and unusual geometries, and thus proved useful for future refinement.

Prototype four followed a similar vein as the previous two, how-ever this time, a pattern had been cut into the paper surface, representative of a pre-fabricated patterned surface. Despite the removal of large sections of the surface, the design still held its form. The pattern itself had been achieved through the use of a triangular grid, whereby a repeated pattern of points was culled, thus creating a varied grid structure.

Following on from the previous prototype, number 5 was a square, which housed a pattern deduced from a heavily culled triangular grid. The hope with this prototype was that material-ity could be experimented with, different materials using the same pattern, attempting to create the same shape.

In prototype 6, I cut the pattern out of single piece of paper (representing a pattern cut into a planar surface). This proto-

Prototype 4 Prototype 5

Prototype 6 Prototype 7

Prototype 8

type was successful, the grid easily created the desired form. Following this, I attempted the same pattern, this time using wool (as rope). It quickly became apparent that the rope did not have enough structural qualities to support itself. Likewise, creating tight junctions and ensuring the rope was the correct length was difficult, this could be a region for future research. Finally, in prototype 8, I attempted to create the form, by cut-ting singular sections of card (representing structural beams), and then gluing them together before the form was attempted. This proved successful overall, however one of the joints did disconnect, the change in form too extreme. Likewise, the card

used would have different properties to any structural beam, thus making bending in the final installation difficult.

Through the variety of prototypes undertaken, which examined both different forms, and different materials which could be used to achieve them, it is clear that singular planar surfaces which would then have a pattern cut into it would be the most successful. Rope could be used to hold the form together, or it could be self-supporting, this would depend on the final design.

B . 6 t e c h n i q u e p r o p o s a l

It is clear that through the process of researching and experi-menting with geometry, I have devised a unique form, one which is a combination of geodesic and grid-shell principals.

The form is created by creating a pattern over a single planer surface, from which the frame is cute from. The bending and folds within the final design have been considered so to create a funnel for the rubbish as it heads down the river. The second section, that held behind via the rope, is designed so to catch any rubbish which seeps through the first section.

While the pattern over the surface is not final, it is designed so that the floating rubbish will get caught at the top, where it meets the water line, whereas fish, who swim under the sur-face, will be able to continue along the water course, uninter-rupted by the installation.

The use of both the planar surface and the rope, creates struc-tural interest as it combines two non-tensile forms, to create a self-supporting structure. There are limitations however, to the involvement of drones within this design. While digital fabrica-tion would be used when creating the initial pattern, there is no weaving or other element that a drone could be used in. During installation however, drone would be useful, as it would allow for the installation to be lowered into place, and shaped without the need for human intervention. Whether the drone

has a predetermined flight path, or is controlled via a human will have to be determined at a later date, as it will be highly dependent on the final design.

Location of Site Along Merri Creek

Final Prototype

B . 7 l e a r n i n g o b j e c t i v e s a n d o u t c o m e s

B . 8 a l g o r i t h m i c s k e t c h e s

Throughout the course of this project, my understand-ing of grasshopper has increased greatly. Whereas my early iterations in section B showed a naivety with grasshopper, the later designs, particularly the reverse engineering and second Case Study showed greater skill with the program. Likewise, I believe that the mixture of digital and analogue techniques in developing my prototype proved particularly fruitful. Similarly, I feel that the I have developed a certain sty-listic repertoire, whereby lofted curves of some variety have patterns overlaid over them. This, coupled with the manipulation of lists has helped produce a variety of forms and iterations, which have been beneficial to contemplating prototypes.

My research has indicated to me, both the structural and geometric opportunities available to my disposal. It has become clear that triangular forms hold the greatest structural prospects, while still allowing for

varied forms. Similarly, my iterations have proven that triangular patterns are generated when even simple al-gorithms are used. This, pattern generation, is a realm of potential further research into the future.

Future development for my project is threefold. Firstly, it would be highly beneficial if I could, using grasshop-per or another digital tool, experiment with both the form and patterning simultaneously, rather than de-veloping the two separately, and then combining them through the use of analogue techniques. Secondly, current prototypes have been obtained through pains-taking cutting of materials by hand, it would speed up prototyping, and allow for greater precision if fu-ture prototypes were obtained via digital fabrication. Finally, further experimentation is needed to finalise how rubbish and drones are going to be incorporated into the final design, they central pillars to the design.

Throughout part B I have conducted a variety of sketch-es in grasshopper, examining different forms. While many proved useful, due to blatant impracticalities, the progress has ensured I developed a greater under-standing of grasshopper. On the accompanying page are a small segment of these sketches. Most of them examine different ways pattern and form could be integrated, as this was the greatest interest of mine throughout the project.t Indeed, the first has clearly taken the greatest inspiration from grid shell design, which is where my idea originally spawned. The tech-nique of the last sketch is closest to that which was used in my final prototype. This sketch highlights the pattern examination undertaken before different

forms are examined using analogue methods.

The sketch to the left, which contains a series of re-peated forms, did not work the way I intended it. The original design was to use an abstracted grevillea bud, and have it swirl around a predefined geometry. I de-fined the geometry and the bud, yet was unable to create the swirl, rather just a generic grid. It is thus clear, that despite great advances being made through my use of grasshopper, there is still room for improve-ment before my final design, as it is still limiting my creative output.

a p p e n d i x - r e f e r e n c e s

BooksMiles Lewis, Architectura: Elements of Architectural Style (Melbourne: Barron’s Educational Series, 2008)

Websites‘Biography’, Buckminster Fuller, https://bfi.org/about-fuller/biography, accessed 20 April 2016

Image CreditsBuckminster Fuller Studentshttp://theredlist.com/media/database/architecture/sculpture1/richard-buckminster-fuller/013-richard-buckminster-fuller-theredlist.jpeg

Grid shell pavilion https://wewanttolearn.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/2014-01-16-17-16-37.jpg

Grid shell Roofhttp://www.emraanmayow.co.uk/assets/images/savillgardengridshell-rooflattice.jpg