Date post: | 07-Mar-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | alice-khoury |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
ARCHITECTURE DESIGN STUDIO
AIRALGORITHMICSKETCHBOOK
ALICE KHOURY587451
TUTORS: HASLETT AND PHILIP
2
WEEK ONEPARAMETR IC AND
ALGOR ITHMIC DES IGN
WEEK ONE
VORONOI 3D TRIANGULAITON ALGORITHM
Parameter, in the most sense, is a factor that helps to define the overall limits and performance of a system
PARAMETRIC DESIGN:- working parametrically- understand how data flows- divide a model into manageable parts- think Abstractly- think mathematically-think algorithmically
3
CURVESLOFT ING IN GRASSHOPPER
WEEK ONE
I created a series of 4 curves in rhino and lofted them to produce the form (left). Following this, I added these curves into rhino, which allows for the manipulaiton of the lofted form multiple tmes.
Lofted grasshopper forms, manipulated using control points.
Loft: Nurb surface that is created through a set of curves
4 WEEK TWO
WEEK TWOUNDERSTANDING GEOMETRY, TRANSFORMATIONS
AND INTERSECTIONS
CURVE MENU
Creating a set of points then con-verting them to lines and curves in grasshopper
Examples of using curves in grasshopper as ele-ments in ideas for our parametric model; drives a more complex geometry
Interpolate curves
Polyline
5WEEK TWO
OR IENT COMPONENT2D REPRESENTAT ION OF GEOMETRY
XY plane - 2D projection of surface. The image left de-scribes a 2D representation of geometry which is good for working with 2D panels. Much fater to construct in grasshopper.
It shows potential for use in the project proposal as a means of preparing for laser cutting.
Grasshopper component
Left image: orient component turned into hundreds of pieces, I only wanted about 20 to 30 to work with, so I employed a slider attached to the contour/grid and changed it from .250 to 5. The right image despicts this change in panels drasticall reduced. The image on the left slowed my computer down when I tried to work with it.
6
WEEK TWOUNDERSTANDING GEOMETRY, TRANSFORMATIONS
AND INTERSECTIONS
WEEK TWO
Rolled out components of original curved surface, much quicker than
manually adjusting in Rhino like we did in Virtual Environments
Approximating 2D geometries using 2D elements - placing a rectangular surface on the points within a curved plane. Links to ‘centroid’
7WEEK TWO
Design iterations and playing with point reference to 2D shape. The rectangular component has been copied onto the curve here, and the centroid of the component is on the curve. X-Y planes have minimal rotation, just chang-ing the position.Below: Baked component
8
WEEK TWOUNEXPECTED RESULTS
WEEK TWO
When trying to experiment with 2D shapes on a curve, I ended up with this form and texture of a grid. I was not intendingfor the form to take this shape.
During experimentation, I was trying to link ideas of 2D shapes to that of materiality, as computa-tional design allows us to take those notions into account.
9WEEK TWO
10
WEEK THREECONTROLLING THE ALGORITHM: LISTS, FLOW
CONTROL, MATCHING
GRID SHELL
WEEK THREE
Construction phases of shell. 1 - dividing curve, 2- arc loft then rebuild (missing component apparent in third image). All incorporating Grasshop-per utilities of curve, shift and BANG
1 2 3
11
GR ID SHELLGRASSHOPPER AND M ISTAKES
WEEK THREE
Final grasshopper layout, provided for an interesting pattern on the grid shell
Attempt at creating my own form, Grasshopper didn’t like it but this bold shaped ball form was the result
12
WEEK THREECONTROLLING THE ALGORITHM: LISTS, FLOW
CONTROL, MATCHING
WEEK THREE
CREATING POLYLINES FROM POINTS
Utilising voronoi components to create polylines for points. These patterns created were made by creating a sequence of numbers representing all of the indexes in voronoi list (cells)
The numbers are shuffled so cells are not stored in an order. The Jitter component shuffles numbers
13
SURFACE ITERAT IONSVORONOI COMPONENTS
WEEK THREE
Partition list componet, where the cells were offset by -0.05, therefore linking some of the cells to one another. This component created the most interesting surface pattern
14
WEEK FOURFIELD FUNDAMENTALS
WEEK FOUR
The points in the field either atract their sur-ounds or repel them, depending on their numeri-cal value (ie positive or negative).
15WEEK FOUR
FRACTAL TECTRAHEDRAIRREGULAR FORM
Triangulated form
Variations within the form, manu ‘unbalanced’ outcomes
16
FRACTAL TECTRAHEDRAOUTCOMES
output of one function as input of new function deconsstruct brep
Baked component, aesthetically pleasing
17
EXPRESS IONSIRREGULAR FORM
Expressions - mathematical expressions, with notions of - input parameters- associative definition by scaling points on lofted surface using attractor point, then manupulate radius of circle
WEEK FOUR
output of one function as input of new function deconsstruct brep
18
EXPRESS IONSIRREGULAR FORM
Small changes in circles, where a point attractor is used to make variations in the circle sequence
WEEK FOUR
19
EXPRESS IONSIRREGULAR FORM
WEEK FOUR
20
I TTERAT IONSVOLTADOM 10 ITERAT IONS
Perspective View Perspective ViewTop Top
WEEK FOUR
21
PAV IL IONLAG I PAV IL ION EXPLORAT ION
From the VoltaDom precedent, I created 10 iterations from the provided script for the VoltaDom project. Some of the forms resulted in a maze like pattern, whereas others showed potential to be utilised in the LAGI brief.
The baked surface above was one of the more suc-cessful iteraitons of the 10, where a pavilion like structure was created. the circular shapes provide a sheltering from the external environment, and create a
WEEK FOUR
22
WEEK FIVEGRAPH CONTROLLERS
Base Y value from 0 to 1The following patterns are all variations in graph mapper, where a series of infinite patterns could be generated.
WEEK FIVE
23
Graph Mapper script, allowing for many variations withing the patterning
WEEK FIVE
24
IMAGE SAMPL ING
Variable y=0.266, Surface divide component, then re-paramaterise
WEEK FIVE
25
IMAGE SAMPL INGSOMETHING HERE???
Low U and V count Two images imposed on one another Balanced U and V count of com-bined images
Green differentiates one image from another
WEEK FIVE
26
IMAGE SAMPL INGTAN INPUT
Tan input expression to offset circles upwards
Iteration 1
WEEK FIVE
27
UNEXPECTED RESULT
This was the second iteration, where a series of cones forms all projected to a designated point due to the tan input, producing a very strange form
Iteration 3
WEEK FIVE
28
EVALUAT ING F IELDSUSING PO INT CHAR GERS
Using positive point chargers, and curve division components, the points in space put lines through the fields.
The process of pushing points through the field and interpolating the design points, where a ‘field line’ component was utilised.
WEEK FIVE
29
Merge Field component
Chargers pushing the points away from field, line component utilised as opposed to circle
WEEK FIVE
30
EVALUAT ING F IELDSLINE CHAR GE
Line charge component within the field, chargers pointing away from it. Provides variation within the overall form, where the baked from below looks split at the charge of the inserted line.
WEEK FIVE
31
Using line charge to create this field, both baked components, not merged with ‘Merge Fields’
WEEK FIVE
32
REVERSE ENG INEER INGATMOSPHER IC TESSELLAT ION
Formulate the frame/skeleton on grasshopper Populate a triangle
surface with the ‘barnacles’. 3, four edged elements on each triangle.
Triangulate the surface
PHASE ONE PHASE TWO
Combining the two creates the Atmospheric Tessellation installation
ASSUMED DES IGN PHASES
WEEK FIVE
33
ATMOSPHERIC TESSELLATION
REVERSE-ENGINEERSTEPS 1-4
1. Tri-grid, 2D grid with triangular cells, size of 6, element X 10, element Y 7
3. Point Component fol-lowing output of polygon centre, X and Y direction
4. Voronoi component, plugged into region inter-section
2. Polygon Centre - area centroid of polygon shape focused on
WEEK FIVE
34
ATMOSPHERIC TESSELLATION
REVERSE-ENGINEERSTEPS 5-6
5. Scale component - objects were then scaled, creating a series of 3 four edges shapes within the triangles, just like the precedent project.
6. Loft - Following graft tree and region intersec-tion, two lofitng processes occur. This is the underside.
WEEK FIVE
35
ATMOSPHERIC TESSELLATION
REVERSE-ENGINEERSTEPS 7-8
7. Loft - Upper loft, attaching to the underside through a mesh component. The ‘simple mesh’ and ‘mesh join’ components need to be utilised.
8. Loft - Combining the two loft meshes together as one.
WEEK FIVE
36
WEEK SIXARANDA LASCH CONTINUOUS PATTERNING
1. Previous fractal tetrahedra component 2. Evaluate curve component, finds and con-nects the mid point of every edge to znother random edge. Creating a continuous pattern
3. Bezier span, combined with ‘jitter’ compo-nent
4. Shift Paths, shifting the indices in all data paths, joining bezier span and unroll
WEEK SIX
37
ARANDA LASCHUNROLL ING BREPS
Python scriptable component. Allowing the abil-ity to work with the form in a 2D mode
WEEK SIX
38
TREE MENUSHIFT PATH COMPONENT
FIRST PHASE SECOND PHASE
Set three surfaces
Surface Divide U-20 V-10
Average the points
Surface Divide -sphere
Divide Surface U-10 V-10
Polyline component{0;0}{1:1}
Polyline component{0;0}{1;1}{0;1}
Polyline component{0;0} set boolen true{1;1}{0;1}
WEEK SIX
39
Polyline component{0;0}{2;0}{0;2}
Polyline component{0;0}{2;0}{2;2}{0,2}
WEEK SIX
40
TREE STAT IST ICS AND V ISUAL ISAT ION
Tree StatisticsL=11 C=11Next phase is to visualise how objects are stored in a tree
Simplify and Graft- alternatively (and much easier/quicker) to just right click and graft
Text statistics component and text tag
Baked text tag
WEEK SIX
41
Baked text tag
BASE FORMSREVERSE ENG INEERED PROJECT
SCRIPT 1CONSTANT QUAD SUBDIVIDE
SCRIPT 2HEXAGON CELLS
SCRIPT 1SUBDIVIDE TRIANGLES
BASE FORM
BASE FORM
BASE FORM
WEEK SIX
42
MATR IX50 ITERAT IONS
WEEK SIX
SPECIES 1
PETR
USIO
NS
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.450Z FACTOR: 5SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM):0.371
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.225Z FACTOR: 4SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.130
TRIANGULATED SUB PANELSCAE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.560Z FACTOR: 1SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOOTTOM): 0.1635PATCH DISABLED
TRIANGULATED SUB PANELSCAE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.560Z FACTOR: 1SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOOTTOM): 0.162PATCH DISABLED
TRIANGULATED SUB PANELSCAE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.560Z FACTOR: 1SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOOTTOM): 1PATCH DISABLED
TRIANGULATED SUB PANELSCAE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1Z FACTOR: 1SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOOTTOM): 1PATCH ENABLED
TRI PANELCONSTANT QUADSCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 2.3Z FACTOR: 1SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM) 0.41
U DIVISION: 1V DIVISION: 3SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.488SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.846Z FACTOR : 2PATCH DISABLEDTRIANGULAR PANELS
U DIVISION: 1V DIVISION: 3SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.6SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.488Z FACTOR : 2X FACTOR: 6PATCH ENABLEDTRIANGULAR PANELS
U DIVISION: 1V DIVISION: 3SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.795Z FACTOR : 2SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.914
TRIANGULATED SUB PANELSCAE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.560Z FACTOR: 1SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOOTTOM): 1PATCH ENABLED
43
MATR IX50 ITERAT IONS
WEEK SIX
SPECIES 2
SOLI
D FO
RMS
SPECIES 3
HEXA
GONS
TRI PANEL: CONSTANT QUADSUBDIVIDE: 2SCALE FACTOR 1 9TOP0: 0.853Z FACTOR: 6SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM) 0.964PATCH DISABLED
U DIVISION: 4V DIVISION: 7SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.795Z FACTOR: 4SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.914
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.548Z FACTOR: 2SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.769PATCH DISABLED
U DIVISION: 5V DIVISION: 5SUBDIVIDE: 1SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9Z FACTOR: 2X FACTOR: 2Y FACTOR: 2
U DIVISION: 1V DIVISION: 5SUBDIVIDE: 1SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 2SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.908Z FACTOR: 2
HEXAGONSCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.417Z FACTOR: 6SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 1.316PATH ENABLED
HEXAGONSCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.097Z FACTOR: 15SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.854PATH ENABLED
HEXAGONSCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 3.4Z FACTOR: 1SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.264PATH ENABLED
HEXAGONSCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.48Z FACTOR: 3SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.8PATCH DISABLED
HEXAGONSCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1Z FACTOR: 1SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 1PATCH ENABLED
TRI PANELCONSTANT QUADSCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.189Z FACTOR: 6SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.964PATCH DISABLED
U DIVISION: 10V DIVISION: 15SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 7Z AFCTOR: 3SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 1.3
44 WEEK SIX
SPECIES 4
POD
POTE
NTIA
L
U DIVISION: 8V DIVISION: 10SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.6Z FACTOR: 5SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9PARAMETER (T): 0.75PATCH DISABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.680Z FACTOR: 4SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.807
U DIVISION: 13V DIVISION: 15SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.6Z AFCTOR: 2SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9PARAMETER (T): 0.1, 0.3PATCH DISABLED
U DIVISION: 13V DIVISION: 15SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.6Z AFCTOR: 4SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.869PARAMETER (T): 0.1PATCH ENABLED
U DIVISION: 6V DIVISION: 8SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.6Z AFCTOR: 6SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9PARAMETER (T): 0.75PATCH ENABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.928Z FACTOR: 1SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.769PATCH ENABLED
U DIVISION: 8V DIVISION: 20SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.0Z FACTOR: 1SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.7PARAMETER (T): 0.8
REVSRF 3: REVERSE UVU DIVISION: 6V DIVISION: 2SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.8Z FACTOR: 7SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9PATCH ENABLED, SUBDIVIDED QUADSKEWED QUADS T: 0
U DIVISION: 6V DIVISION: 8SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.6Z FACTOR: 6SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9CAP HOLES, CULL FACESBOOLEEN (FTFFF)
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.555Z FACTOR: 2SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.807PATCH ENABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.000Z FACTOR: 1SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.908
U DIVISION: 4V DIVISION: 7SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.795Z FACTOR: 4SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.914
45
SPECIES 5
EXTR
USIV
E PO
D PO
TENT
IAL
U DIVISION: 5V DIVISION: 8SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.488SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.846Z FACTOR: 2PATCH ENABLEDRANDOM QUAD PANEL S:5
U DIVISION: 3V DIVISION: 5SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.3SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9Z FACTOR: 5PATCH DISABLEDRANDOM QUAD PANEL S:1, SUBDIVIDE QUAD
TRI PANELCONSTANT QUADSUBDIVIDE: 1SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1Z FACTOR: 1SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 1
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.555Z FACTOR: 2SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.807PATCH DISABLED
TRI PANELCONSTANT QUADSCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1Z FACTOR: 2SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.8PATCH ENABLED
TRI PANELCONSTANT QUADSCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.432Z FACTOR: 8SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 2PATCH DISABLED
U DIVISION: 5V DIVISION: 10SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.3Z FACTOR: 5SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.3PARAMETER (T): 0.9, 0.7PATCH ENABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.325Z FACTOR: 6SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9
REVSRF 3: REVERSE UVU DIVISION: 2V DIVISION: 1SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.3Z FACTOR: 7SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9PATCH ENABLED, TRIANGULAR PANELS
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.539Z FACTOR: 3SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.899
U DIVISION: 3V DIVISION: 3SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.3SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9Z FACTOR: 7PATCH ENABLEDSUBDIVIDE QUAD, SKEWED QUAD T=0
U DIVISION: 1V DIVISION: 2SUBDIVIDE: 3SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.427SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.583Z FACTOR: 2
46
SUCCESSFUL ITERAT IONSSELECT ION CR ITER IA
WEEK SIX
SELECTION CRITERIA - Ease of fabrication/assembly- Aesthetically pleasing and interesting- Differs from original base pattern- Creation of suitable pod structure to house
algae
In terms of feasibility and generation of the pod structure, our chosen successes in the iterative pro-cess need to be able to be applied to the concept of a ‘pod’. This pod pattern and form must be aesthetically pleasing and intriguing for the viewers of the pavilion, as the form generated will respond directly to the energy source of algae biofuel.
47
Second Definition - Hexagonal Pod Potential in tessellating hexagons, clean form and spatial diversity
Third Definition - Blockwork Interesting surface pattern stray-ing from original definition, limited pod use
Second Definition - Pertrusions Spacing between pod structures for possible pipes, interesting assembly
Third Definition - Valuted Interesting patterning that varies on top and bottom of design, pod structures evident
48
NON TEACHINGCLUSTERS - TRAVELLING SALESMAN
Populate a 2D surface, thinking about how to cluster a definition to a single point
Cull Index - after list item, use cull index to search through points to find the closest point
Create a line between the two points, show-ing what we did ‘visually’
Travelling Salesman - script for Cluster
NON TEACHING
49
GRAD IENT DECENTRECURS IVE PATTERNS
1. Set one surface
2. Surface divide and graft, keeps track of points
3. New surface point and number comp. + Unit Z (-1 downwards)
4. Surface closed point. Then cluster
5. Continue Cluster for 5 times, then attach to NURBS curve
NON TEACHING
50
GRAD IENT DECENTRECURS IVE PATTERNS
6. U+V count of 25
NON TEACHING
51
7. U=64 V=10
7. U=15 V=90
NON TEACHING
52
FORM EXPLORAT IONCURVES
Applying the three different scripts to differnt sets of base curves to see the results. In general terms, the curves seemed weel supported by the tessellating patterns.
NON TEACHING
53
PODS ON FORMEXPLORAT IONS
Constant Quad Subdivide
LUNCHBOX BAKED FORM
Hexagon Cells
FORM VARIATION
Subdivide Triangle
NON TEACHING
54
LARGER FORM GENERATION
55
GENERATED FORM
This is a render of what we propose our final design to look twards, as it curves adjusting to the levels of sunlight throughout the day in a Southeen manner. the curved surface provides a visually interesting object to
look at, where the pods can be seen in all of their presence.
In terms of parametric design, Part B has encouraged us to push our boundaries and creativity to the absolute limit with the aid of Grasshopper, and many of the designs that both myself and my peers have come up with suggest that we have taken a lot away from this subject already in terms of computational design and thinking.
NON TEACHING
56
PART CDETAILED DESIGN
Following the interim presentation, we explored form variation at a greater level and concluded on a form
that incorporated the pods, spacing for pipes and a steel frame to hold the structure together. The form
showed highlights the first major iteration we came up with, but this form was not optimized to our site just yet. We needed to develop our form in response to the sun and angle at which it hits the site.
PART C
57PART C
58 PART C
59PART C
60
FORM EXPLORAT IONGRID SHELL
This is the grid shell form utilized for the final of our design. In order to rationalize this form, we conducted a series of analytical tests, such as:- Radiation Analysis- Shadow Studies- Pod Studies
AERIAL VIEW
EASTERN VIEW
SOUTHERN VIEW
PART C
61
PROBLEMPRINT F ILE
In order to 3D print there had no be no revealed edges on the form. Therefore, on the open polysurface, the command ‘show edges’ was used, then ‘naked edges’ was selected to then ‘join edges’ to one another. This occurred on our polysurface.
UNJOINED EDGES
PART C
62
SOLUT IONPRINT F ILE
JOINED EDGES
REVEAL EDGES
NAKED EDGES
JOIN EDGES
PART C
63
JOINED EDGES
OPEN SURFACE - NEEDS TO BE CONVERTED TO A MESH IN ORDER TO PRINT IN STL FORMAT
CLOSED MESH - ABILITY TO BE USED AS AN STL FILE FOR THE 3D PRINTER
PART C
64
PR INT F ILESIMPL IF ICAT ION
Using Meshlab, specializing with 3D objects and fil-ters, I was able to simplify the mesh created for the
print file. While our mesh was quite simple and small in size, reaching just over 10cm in length, the more simple the object, the faster it will print.
Using the filters tab, then remeshing, simplification and reconstruction, quadric edge collapse deformation, and specifying the percentage of reduction at 0.5, (by half) a simpler version of the mesh is created.
This mesh was too simplified, and did not give a smooth surface, such as the one that would be generated from the connecting pods. This mesh was reduced by a percentage of 0.5 four times.
This mesh was a better percentage of simplifica-tion than the first, as there are no hard edged peaks such as the one above has. The mesh was simplified throguh Meshab at a reduction of 0.5 twice.
PART C
65
PODSTEMPLATE FOR LASER CUTTER
PART C
66
FIRST FORM - INTERIM PRESENTATION SECOND FORM - GENERATION
LADYBUGRADIAT ION ANALYS IS
PART C
67
THIRD FORM - FINAL FORM
HIGH
LOW
LEVELS OF RADIATION
PART C
68
FINAL FORM - NO PODS
FINAL FORM - POD INTEGRATION
SOLAR RADIATION IN LADYBUG DEFINITION PART C
69
LADYBUGRADIAT ION ANALYS IS
HIGH
LOW
LEVELS OF RADIATIONThis is the final form optimised with ladybug for solar radiation. The pavilion relies on the sun to promite alge growth, and the pods need the maximum amount of sun-light that they can access.
PART C
70
LADYBUGSHADOW STUD IES
LADYBUG GRASSHOPPER DEFINITION
PART C
71
WESTERN FACADE
NORTHERN FACADE
SOUTHERN FACADE
EASTERN FACADE
The lighter the shadowing, the less exposed it is to shade. These diagrams depict the final form over a shadow study of the annual amount of sunlight projected over the site (in a southerly direction).
PART C
72
LADYBUGPOD SHADOW STUD IES
These are the projected sun paths of Copen-hagen over 5 different pod shapes. We chose to cotinue with hexagons as they produced the least amount of shadowing onto sur-rounding pods.
HEXAGONS
CIRCLES
SQUARES
TRIANGLES
TRI GRID
PART C
73
1CM THICK
2CM THICK
3CM THICK
4CM THICK
7CM THICK
8CM THICK
KEY
Ideal range
High in compression
KARAMBASTRUCTURAL ANALYS IS
Karamba was used to analyse the strcture, and yielding an 8cm steel system as effective to work across the paviion. By this stage, our framing traced the pod shapes in a hexago-nal manner, differing from the form gener-ated after the interim presentation.
PART C
74
STEELSTRUCTURAL DEF IN IT ION
PART C
75
FORMSURFACE DEF IN IT ION
PART C
76
PODSPATTERN DEF IN IT ION - HEXAGONS
FINAL POD SURFACE PATTERN DEFINITIONUSING LUNCHBOX TO GENERATE HEXAGONAL POD SHAPES AND HEIGHTS
PART C
77
WESTERN FACADE
SOUTHERN FACADE
EASTERN FACADE
NORTHERN FACADE
PART C