Jessie (Jie Wen) Wen

Student No: 586655 Semester 1/2011 Group 8

Module I Abstract: Key Ideas to consider

The natural process I chose to study was the sporing of mushrooms. I explored the different aspects of the natural process, in particular the whole cycle from the production of the spores to their release. In the design process, I focused on the idea of representing aspects that aren’t visible to the naked eye. Only then was I able to represent what I believe to be the natural process in an abstract form.

I really wanted to incorporate my original ideas of panelling that I believed empha-sized characteristics of the process: the curved edge of the beginning of the process of spores being released, the triangulated panelling of wavelike structures of the spores flowing away. One of the components re-ally important to me was to be able to show the density and through panneling, I hope to achieve a model that I’m happy with.

Digitization: Trials to Final Manipulation

First Trials- Using Contours

I quickly realized that digitizing my clay model would be difficult becuase of the curvature and overlapping of the surface.

My first plan was to use the contouring slice meth-od but decided to experiment with the lofting command firstly to examine if my model could be modelled definitely with this method as my model would be hard to remake.

Unfortuantley, I could see that the loft trials re-sulted with all the digitized models all twisted and folding upon itself into very irregular shapes which would obviously not allow for panelling.

I then decided to halve the model and model each half separately and then attempt to join them. However, Rhino did not allow for the surfac-es to be joined.

Second Trials- Using Planarsurf

I then decided to try utilizing the planarsurf command. Firstly, I traced the shape of my model when it was laid flat, then made a cyl-inder structure. Using planarsurf, I was able to get a curved cone-like plane.

However, the plane would need to be man-ually manipulated a lot to get my desired outcome and this would be not only very time consuming but also very inaccurate, relying heavily on intuition.

Third Trials- Using Sweep2

Experimenting with sweep2, I found this as the easiest method to create my desired outcome of digitization for my clay model.

It used the two curves with an intersection, and followed the flow of the curves. The outcome looked more simliar to my model than any previous trials.

This method relied heavily on trial and error as it was dif-ficult to draw the curves in perspective with each other. By slowly altering the curves, I was able to get a more fluid and in proportional digitizatized model.

I also used AddSlash to make the left hand side smooth-er. By rebuilding with less points and manipulation I was then able to get a much smoother and flowing surface, to achieve my final digistized model.

Views of Final Nurb Surface

Design Development through Software: Panelling Tools

2D Panelling ExperiementsPanelling with 2D patterns proved to be very insight-ful. I was able to learn how patterns etch onto and interact with the nurb surface. It was fun to experi-ment and gain a better understanding of different panelling commands, such as offset edges, extrude, changing the measurements and customizing with variables.

However, I found 2D panellings to be a bit plain for my model and it didn’t give it as much depth as 3D panels. Also, there wouldn’t be as much chance for varying lighting effects by employing 2D panels. Many of the custom panellings had holes, making the structure very weak which would not be suffi-cient for my final product.

Top row: Customized panel curves

Bottom row: Basic 2D diamond panel, Basic 2D box panel, Box variable, Fin edges, Customized offset 2D panels

3D Panelling Experiements

Top: Extruded basic 3D pyramid 1, Ba-sic 3D box panel, Offset edges, Basic 3D Box, Basic 3D Pyramid with differ-ent offset points and density

Bottom: Customized 3D ‘column’, Customized 3D ‘curved’, Customized 3D ‘Pyramid’, Customized 3D ‘triangu-lar flaps’

I then decided to experiment with 3D panelling which was both more inter-esting and successful. 3D panelling requires the grid points to be offset to a cetain heigh, which was a small problem because of the close proximity of the crossed over curve. To counter this, I moved my curve a little further away and tested out different offset point distances.

Using the basic 3D panels and then customizing patterns, I could see some were more structurely stable than others such as the columned customized one compared to the customized curved solid panels. Also, testing out dif-ferent density, attractor points, curve attractors, I was able to add another aspect to my model.

Pyramid Panelling with fixed offset faces border: I decided that the Pyramid panelling was able to project a wavelike motion in varying paths whilst also being structurally strong. Employing offset faces border, it added another dimension which I want to experiment further.

3D Custom Variable: Using a customized circle panel, I thought it may express ‘spores’ better however I decided that circles would be too im-practical to make during the constructing part.

Pyramid Panel with attractor points offset fac-es border: The idea of light shining through something less dense compared to more dense was able to be realized through the use of attractor points instead of fixed points. The triangular offset faces get larger the further from the start, indicating the density of spores lessening as more light is able to shine through.

I tested offset border faces on the inside of the model (right) but it didn’t have the same ef-fect.

Thinking further, I added extruded spikes to show the flying away of spores into different directions by the flow of swift wind.

Views of Final Panelled Model

Orthographic Images

Precedents/Theory

The Louvre Pyramid is a large glass and metal pyra-mid surroudned by three smaller pyramids in Paris. It was designed by the architect M. Pei and com-pleted in 1989.

The pyramid structure and also the panelling re-minds me very much of what I want to achieve. Not only does it look aesthetically very pleasing but also, it is known that the triangle is the most stable struc-ture. Even though it is basically a simple diamond panel, the complexity comes from the interlinking by the steel frame that would’ve taken a lot of consid-eration and although a simple pattern, it looks very effective.

There was also much evident thought on the lighting of this structure. With the use of glass and the shining up of lights from the bottom of the glass structure which can be viewed from all angles, the whole bu-liding is illuminated in a gentle and elegant way.

The Zlote Tarsay relates very much to our project, and especially my own desired model outcome. It is a free-form glass roof de-signed using software modelling.

It is an interwoven with a ‘basket-weave’ ciruclation plan and the free flowing wavy surface is very much like my own curvy plane. The surface of Zlote Tarsay is made up on flat triangfular panels which can still reflect the wavy nature of the original shape. I hoped to try and employ this knowledge in how to keep the flow-ing nature of my original model. However, I hoped to build upon this to create more depth and ideas into my final outcome.

Also, the use of Arup software to create the Zlote Tarsay roof is very much how I am trying to experiment and tackle the prob-lems that arose when I tried to panel my model.

In architecture, a space frame is a truss-like rigid structure constructed from interlockign stuts in a geometric pattern and can be used to span large areas. It is strong because of the inherent rigidity of the triangle (shown in bottom right picture).

An example of work related to space frame is the Space Frame by Davide Del Guidice and Andrea Graziano. It is composed of three dimensional triangles wtih parametric triangular holes in the interior faces, following attractor points with larger holes at the top and smaller at the bottom which I employ onto my model because it not only creates a very interesting surface ef-fect but also has a meaning behind the varying parametric triangular holes which can also be related back to my own model to signify density of the sporing.

The panels can be unrolled and are realized with lasercut technologies, very much identical to the process we have to go through. The precision of lasercut can be seen in this example, as the pyramids are very rigid and exact.

I really hope I can employ this precedent into my work as I really like the aesthetic look, the structural stability of space frame and the opportunities to experiment with this surface to create something interesting.

The Pavilion 21 Mini Opera Space, Coop Himmelbau design studies the impact of physical influences on our hearing perception and how to apply soundscape ef-fects to alter our sensation through transforming build-ing materials and volumes. They aim to have a ‘zone of silence’ next to the pavilion by changing the sound-scape.

I was drawn to this architecture because the exterior of buildings is usually ignored but in this structure, the bold unconventional shape spikes add another layer of depth by creating awe and interest and also inspira-tion.

I hope to experiment with this idea, and the idea of a ‘zone of silence’ reminds me of my own project of how the wind blows the spores around silently. The process cannot usually be observed with the naked eye but we know it is something happening around us.

Prototype

With the simple prototyping excericise, I firstly learnt that cutting straight and scoring the edgs makes a big difference to the aes-thetic and ease of construction.

An important point I made sure was that the larger the offset triangles, the more light that shone through. Evidently, this is the case, with the pyramid with no holes trapping the light therefore, the dimmest whilst the pyramid with the largest offset triangular faces released the most light, making it the brightest. This relates back to my natural process, where more light shines through less dense particals, so as the spores fly further away from the mushroom, the density decreases, light increases on the model. The offset bor-ders allow me to realize my conceptions form Module I of holes and how light can shine through.

I also wanted to make sure it would create a nice look on a curved surface indicated by top rigth photo and to make sure the pyramids do not become structurally weaker because of offset borders adn I was reassured as the framework was still sturdy.

THE LARGER THE OFFSET BORDER FACES, THE BRIGHTER THE LIGHT

Critical Analysis

By the end of Module II, I can already see the large difference be-tween designing with analogue and digital techniques.

One thing that stood out was the ease of experimenting and iterat-ing quickly and accurately using the computer program. It was a matter of copying and pasting, trying out different commands that were already all inbuilt with a few clicks of the button. It’s obvious with why there is a shift towards the parametric design in architec-ture; the consistency, ease, effectiveness, cost and time.

However, I find that using a computer program feels unnatural, that there isn’t as much spontantiy and free flow as I would like. This may be due to my lack of ability but I feel that analogue techniques give much more freedom to designing and the random sketches in note-books which can prove to be the most useful and creative.

There was a lot of choice with the computer program, and it was able to give a much more realistic view of the model, to be able to see the structure and function all on one screen and instead of con-struction at the end of designing, it was very much the same process when using the software.

I had to refine my model many times to get it looking how I wanted it to with the software as the computer can only do what we tell it to do. I think there needs to be an integration of both analogue and digital to achieve the best results as both have strong and weak points.

Reflection

This module was very strenous and very time consuming for me but also greatly rewarding. As I’m not very good with learning new com-puter software skills, the need to be pro-active and self learn most of the skills was very difficult. When many technological problems arose, I felt at a lost.

However, experimenting and with many trials with Rhino was very useful and it slowly opened my eyes to the endless possibilites pro-vided by digitization and I came to have an appreciation for the software.

Through the use of Rhino, I have been able to utilize a range of dif-ferent digitizing technqiues to realize my conceptualisations and to reiterate, improved and synthesise all my ideas. This made me real-ize how technology is a very useful tool for design, especially in the accuracy and construction of more complex structures.

Even though, there are some changes to my model and panelling scheme, these were all chosen because of many trials and thought processes. Without the trials, I believe I wouldn’t have been able to come up with as many ideas and to come to my final product that I believe has kept to my original design integrity.

I hope to be able to improve my software skills, in particular Rhino to explore more options and to get the most I can out of the program.