Assignment 2 - Tier 2 - Research Paper and Modelling Proposal

Research Paper

The intersections of Topological design processes and Reactive Architecture are many and have many intricacies which allow them to be combined with unique and fascinating results. This paper will concern itself with the specifics of some of these intersections and the potential interpretations of the results, which will be discussed in a more technical light in the accompanying modelling proposal. My two major sources will be a paper by Reza Esmaeeli entitled “Topology – From Mathematics to Architecture”, and a report on Responsive Model Design by a group from RMIT, Melbourne.

Esmaeeli considers topology as such: “Topological architecture is one which the ‘potential to shift’ from one level to another level, through the time. Architecture can be topological in its skin, space, form, structure, etc, or all of them. An architectural project can be topological both

‘in the process’ of its design, or ‘in the product’ of it “ (Topology: From Mathematics to Architecture, 2007). This provides the first, and most important link between topology and reactive architecture, namely, that topology at its most basic level, is at least dynamic, if not reactive. Topology describes the mathematics of shifting between two forms which maintain homeomorphic equivalency, or in simpler terms, how one form can change into another without tearing or requiring adhesives. On the surface of it, this is quite challenge for architecture to emulate, especially given the commonly cited coffee mug to donut example, which presents not only architectural but also physical impossibilities. But as it is examined with the current capabilities of reactive architecture in mind, mainly the mechatronic limitations and level of potential parametric design, it becomes clear that there are many possible architectural applications of the underlying concepts of topology.

One such application is to create a single topological surface which employs pistons to simulate topological morphing when given some parametric stimuli. An example of this, which is referenced in both papers, is the Aegis Hypo-Surface. This installation, designed by Decoi, is not literally topological, but it provides a clear insight into the realm between reactive architecture and topological concepts. It is, however, more of an artistic installation than a complete architectural form. The main barrier that stops such ideas being implemented on a larger scale is cost. While conceptually, a large scale reactive topology is not too difficult to create, the cost of engineering such a vast number of actuators which, due to the size of a building, must be exceedingly powerful, as well as either keeping said actuators out of sight or making them a feature of the building, is beyond what most investors are willing to pay, especially since a static version of the building can be built at a greatly reduced cost, while giving a similar effect, as Flora Salim says “The introduction of parametric modelling to the design process offers interesting possibilities in simulating the aggregate behaviour of responsive elements, but also poses challenges in negotiating the differences between the reality of the digital world and the reality of the physical world” (Designing Responsive Architecture, 2011).

A major consideration when creating any kind of reactive architecture is what to react to. The two main areas of triggers are environmental and human. Environmental triggers are currently the most common, they include such variables as temperature, light, time, etc. They are common due to the relative simplicity of obtaining their values, i.e. thermometers, clocks. The reactions they cause within the architecture are also relatively simple to enact, such as opening windows, closing blinds, switching lights on and off. Human causes are more difficult to analyse and require more complex effects. Monitoring human locations is difficult, and anything more than a slight change to the architectural composition requires large amounts of engineering, as discussed above. These kinds of reactivity are the most suited for topological architecture, however, as topology deals entirely with movements of surfaces on a form, and while environmental reactions are possible, there are few natural stimuli, except for wind and possibly earthquakes, that can be represented by physical deformation. Movement of people is the easiest to create conceptual reactions for, but alternative  prompts can provide more abstract representations of circumstances, such as the number of people in a space, noise level inside a room, or more obscure variables like the average shoe-size or amount of money in peoples wallets. These can be used to represent less obvious features of a group of people in an immediately accessible form, without simply creating a visual representation using a screen of projector, which detracts from the tangibility of the data.

There is an overlap in the psychological effects of topological surfaces and reactive architecture. Topology creates a sense of wonder and engages the viewer through the desire to understand the geometry of the form, which is often complex and unusual. Reactive architecture, at the current stage of development at least, also causes amazement within its viewers, as they frequently do not expect to be confronted with anything more than a static form. Reactive architecture also engages users to a much higher degree than other architecture due to the potential for experimentation on their part, an area usually limited to architects. This experimentation is also a fundamental part of the general experience of topology, which is rarely translated into architecture, but thanks to the current drive for research in areas such as high-strength flexible materials and large scale mechatronics, it could soon be a much more common appearance.

There is a great amount of potential for reactive topology in architecture, though it is limited by engineering costs. The most important part of topology is its dynamism, as Giuseppa Di Christina says “What most interests architects who theorize about the logic of curvilinearity and pliancy is the meaning of ‘event’, ‘evolution’ and ‘process’, that is, of the dynamism that is innate in the fluid and flexible configurations of what is now called topological architecture. Architectural topology means the dynamic variation of form facilitated by computer-based technologies, computer-assisted design and animation software.” (The Topological Tendency in Architecture, 2001). Topology and Reactive architecture are intimately linked and present an incredible array of architectural possibilities that move beyond the enforced staticism of the past.

Modelling Proposal

Introduction:

This proposal documents the attempted combination of topological modelling processes and reactive architecture. While this combination presents architectural, mechanical, and metaphysical problems, only those specifically related to the design of the initial system will be addressed in this paper.

Problem Statement:

The primary architectural problem that this paper is attempting to address is that of understanding the forms generated through the combination of reactive architecture and topology, and in doing so, how the form can interact with the site more meaningfully than static or linear architecture.

Purpose:

The purpose of this study is to examine the methods by which a reactive topology can be created using parametric modelling tools, with the intention of creating a space which acknowledges it users more directly than traditional architecture.

Research Question:

Can a dynamically responsive topological space be used in such a way as to create a system which allows its users to engage with it on a personal level, in a non-linear fashion through the redistribution of building elements, as defined by a topologically-informed parametric program that reacts to said users position?

Procedure:

There are essentially three important elements of the research question that must be addressed by the procedure.

1.  Whether it is possible to create a topologically-informed parametric program.

·         This is the most fundamental part of the procedure, as the program initialises the structure that the remaining questions are based around.
Multiple variations on the central theme of topology will be created, mostly involving a vertical translation of points on a surface in accordance with their position relative to some central point. This surfaces basic geometry will provide a base point for the responsive repositioning.

2.  Whether that program can be used to reposition elements of the building in response to the occupants position.

·         The responsiveness of the program will be approached from two angles, the first being responding to a single position, i.e. that of the user, and creating a space specific to that user through the movement of the geometrical base points that have been created in accordance with that position. The algorithm defining this movement can vary greatly, and will produce movement vectors that represent an intricate reaction to the users position.

·         The second angle is that of the path of a user, as defined by a curve. The algorithms used will be quite similar, but focus on analysing the movement of the user and the way circulation can be represented dynamically.

3.  Whether this system allows its users to experience their position within the structure and engage with it on a personal level.

·         This aspect is difficult to predict due to the potential variance depending on the outcome of the previous two questions. A large amount of experimentation, combined with rendering and possibly physical modelling, will, however, most definitely be required in order to fully understand the way the user can understand the form created by the above two procedures.

Significance:

The results of the outlined procedure will create a single cross-section of the possible solutions to the initial problem. The parametricity of the program will allow for continued exploration in the area of reactive topology, so the question, who’s meaning shifts through the movement of time and space, can continue to be answered.

Test Definition Results:

Bibliography:
Main Paper 1: Designing Responsive Architecture. Daniel Davis, Flora Salim, Jane Burry. In C. M. Herr, N. Gu, S. Roudavski, M. A. Schnabel, Circuit Bending, Breaking and Mending: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, 155–164. ©2011, Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA), Hong Kong.
Main Paper 2: On Topology (Originally: Topology - from Mathematics to Architecture) Essay. (2007) Reza Esmaeeli, A. A. School of Architecture.

Reactive:

• Shape Control In Responsive Architectural Structures– Current Reasons& Challenges, Tristan d’Estrée Sterk (2006) from the 4th World Conference on Structural Control and Monitoring. 
• Research on Hybrid Tectonic Methodologies for Responsive Architecture. Chiu, Hao-Hsiu (2009) From Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia / Yunlin (Taiwan) 22-25 April 2009, pp. 493-502. 
• Degrees of Interaction: Towards a Classification, Achten, Henri (2011). RESPECTING FRAGILE PLACES [29th eCAADe Conference Proceedings / ISBN 978-9-4912070-1-3], University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture (Slovenia) 21-24 September 2011, pp.565-572. 
• Interaction and Social Issues in Human-Centered Reactive Environment, Jeng, T.S., Lee, C.H., Chen, C. and Ma, Y.P. (2002) CAADRIA 2002 [Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia / ISBN 983-2473-42-X] Cyberjaya (Malaysia) 18–20 April 2002, pp. 285-292. 
• Responsive Shading | Intelligent Façade Systems, Beaman, Michael Leighton; Bader, Stefan (2010). ACADIA 10: LIFE in:formation, On Responsive Information and Variations in Architecture [Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA) ISBN 978-1-4507-3471-4] New York 21-24 October, 2010), pp. 263-270. 
• A Breathing Building Skin, Crawford, Scott (2010). ACADIA 10: LIFE in:formation, On Responsive Information and Variations in Architecture [Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA) ISBN 978-1-4507-3471-4] New York 21-24 October, 2010), pp. 211-217. 
• Soft Façade: Steps into the Definition of a Responsive ETFE Façade for High-rise Buildings, Cardoso, Daniel; Michaud, Dennis; Sass, Lawrence (2007). Predicting the Future [25th eCAADe Conference Proceedings / ISBN 978-0-9541183-6-5] Frankfurt am Main (Germany) 26-29 September 2007, pp. 567-573. 

Topology:

• Irregular Vertex Editing and Pattern Design on Mesh, Kobayashi, Yoshihiro (2011) From ACADIA 11: Integration through Computation [Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA)] [ISBN 978-1-6136-4595-6] Banff (Alberta) 13-16 October, 2011, pp. 278-283. 
• Topological Design of Sculptured Surfaces. Ferguson, H., Rockwood, A. and Cox, J. (1992) From Computer Graphics, no. 26, pp.149-156. 
• An Interactive Shape Modeling System for Robust Design of Functional 3D Shapes, Akleman, E., Chen, J. and Sirinivasan, V. (2001). Reinventing the Discourse - How Digital Tools Help Bridge and Transform Research, Education and Practice in Architecture [Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Design in Architecture / ISBN 1-880250-10-1] Buffalo (New York) 11-14 October 2001, pp. 248-257. 
• Integrated Design with Form and Topology Optimizing, Lentz, Uffe (1999). Architectural Computing from Turing to 2000 [eCAADe Conference Proceedings / ISBN 0-9523687-5-7] Liverpool (UK) 15-17 September 1999, pp. 116-121. 
• Topological Method of Construction of Point Surfaces as Physical Models, Kozlo, Dmitri (2008). Proceedings of the 8th European Architectural Endoscopy Association Conference. 
• Free-Form Shape Design Using Triangulated Surfaces, Welch, W. and Witkin, A. (1994). Computer Graphics, no. 28, pp. 247-256. 
• Diagrams, Modeling and Rapid Prototyping: Interface Between Design of Form Process and Topology, Sperling, David (2003). Digital Design [21th eCAADe Conference Proceedings / ISBN 0-9541183-1-6] Graz (Austria) 17-20 September 2003, pp. 329-332. 

Intersection:

• Augmented Membranes: Design explorations into responsive materials. Nancy Diniz (2007). 
• Developing an Interactive Architectural Meta-System for Contemporary Corporate Environments: An investigation into aspects of creating responsive spatial systems for corporate offices incorporating rule based computation techniques, Biloria, N. (2007). Em‘body’ing Virtual Architecture: The Third International Conference of the Arab Society for Computer Aided Architectural Design (ASCAAD 2007), 28-30 November 2007, Alexandria, Egypt, pp. 199-212.

Assignment 2 - Tier 1 - Review

Responsive Architecture

o   One of the main limiting features of responsive architecture is the need for high-power mechanical operators capable of moving large amounts of structure for a relatively low cost. This problem is slowly being overcome simply through the continual improvement of materials (Lighter materials means less power required to move them.) and more powerful, smaller mechanical operators. At the moment, however, there are very few examples of architecture that has been fully mechanised, due to the large cost required. Instead, there are a number of examples, albeit mostly built for exhibitions, of responsive architecture on a single axis, such as dECOi’s Aegis Hyposurface or LAb[au]’s fLUX Binary Waves. These installations show what we can currently cost-effectively achieve in terms of the engineering of responsive architecture. More elaborate installations exist within the ever-increasing digital environment, such as the Dynamic Tower in Dubai. Another problem is that it is difficult to design or simulate large-scale moving architecture. Calculating stresses and tensions is difficult enough on stationary buildings, having to account for hundreds or even thousands of configurations or permutations for each calculation means even a simple piece of responsive architecture requires a long period of structural analysis, pushing up the cost and pulling down the likelihood of the project being built.

o   An interesting aspect of responsive architecture is the sensor input, or data flow, used to control the architecture. The two main kinds of input are environmental, such as temperature or amount of light, and entity analysis, such as the location of a car or the number of people in an area. Environmental analysis is generally easier to use in terms of the complexity of the sensors themselves, such as a thermometer or rain-meter, and can be used to benefit the users in an immediately obvious fashion, such as providing shelter from rain or shade from sunlight. Entity analysis is slightly harder to achieve, since it often requires recognising elements such as a human that can be quite difficult for a computer. Installations using these kind of inputs generally provide a more interactive, engaging experience, to the point where people will stop and examine how the architecture reacts to their presence or actions. These kind of installations have therefore generally been placed in exhibitions or public spaces such as parks, where they exist in a fairly isolated environment to engage people on a more personal level and allow them to explore it, rather than on a footpath or street where the user is unlikely to be able to give the installation much thought.

o   There are a variety of applications for responsive architecture, especially in terms of adapting to environmental conditions. A common one is having a building that responds to changes in the light conditions to allow the maximum amount of light to reach the interior, by actions such as opening and closing windows or even rotating the entire building. Another, more extravagant idea is that of a space which expands to accommodate the number of people inside it. This kind of variable space allows a single building to have a much larger number of uses.  These examples dealt with physical problems, but responsive architecture can also be used to answer more abstract problems. A floor which responds visually to people walking on it can allow the user to experience a crowd in terms of personal space, usually an invisible concept, while also allowing social analysts to easily study crowd behaviour through data collected from the floor. A more subtle example might be a room which uses a number of bio-sensors to analyse the temperament of the current user, and change things throughout the room, like temperature, light, colour, noise, etc. to match or improve the aforementioned temperament.

Architectural Topology                                                

o   Topology is a word which has many meanings, since it originated in mathematics, where it was used to describe the analysis of what happens to an object when you stretch and morph it, without creating a tear or morphing two surfaces together. Topology in Architecture, while varying in meaning from architect to architect, is generally concerned with surfaces and the deformations they undergo to achieve their final shape. This means that topology is generally used in relation to curved or fluid-like surfaces, such as can be seen in many of Gehry’s works. While topology is usually used to describe the process and techniques used to achieve the final shape of an object, it can also be used to define the final object itself. This means that the object must be deformable in some way. A good example of this is the Water Pavilion at the FreshH2O eXPO in the Nederlands , designed by NOX. This is a building which continually morphs in a topological fashion in accordance with the people inside it. This means that the building is not just produced by toplogical means, but actually embodies topology over time.

o   One of the main problems with surfaces that have been topologically modified is converting the conceptual form, be it digital or physical, into an accurate set of plans for construction. The most common way to do this is by creating a skin of panels, generally glass or sheet metal, around the form. An alternate method involves creating large, complex formwork and pouring high-strength concrete into it. Both methods, however, require a skin to be created from the shape of the initial form. The main challenge is then finding an appropriate panel shape for the skin, which often contains sharp points and irregular curves, making the use of simple squares or triangles quite difficult. Once increasingly common method, given the rise of high-level modelling software, is to create a mesh of standard polygons around the complex shape using a ‘shrink-wrap’ technique, which, as the name implies, shrinks the outer shape until it completely wraps the inner shape. This results in a form almost identical to the original form, but now with a regular polygonal pattern which can be easily used to create a construction diagram. A good example of the panelling technique is the Kunsthaus Graz by Peter Cook and Colin Fournier, which has distinctly separate panels which combine to create a very complex shape.

o   Homeomorphism is one of the main features of topology, if two objects are homeomorphic, they can be stretched, squashed and bent, without tearing, until one becomes another. This means that, topologically, they are the same.  While most mathematical applications of this feature are rather too extreme to apply to architecture (e.g. Turning a mug into a donut), the idea of simplifying an object down to its basic features, namely; points, surfaces and holes, is something that can easily be applied to architecture, especially when generating parametric models using a program like grasshopper. Such generation can be used to create a series of buildings that, while looking completely different, are topologically identical, giving a designer a variety of choice within the bounds of the initial topological definition. Technologically, creating an actively topological homeomorphic building is effectively impossible, it requires materials that can stretch and compress without losing any structural integrity, as well as some way to accurately stretch and compress that material. An attempt to create something close to a hormeomorphicly active object is the Variable Class Parametric Structures by ORAMBRA (Office for Robotic Architectural Media and Bureau for Responsive Architecture), which lacks a skin, but has a highly flexible structure that can morph while maintaining its theoretically topological shape.

Bibliography:

1.       Main Paper 1: Designing Responsive Architecture. Daniel Davis, Flora Salim, Jane Burry. In C. M. Herr, N. Gu, S. Roudavski, M. A. Schnabel, Circuit Bending, Breaking and Mending: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, 155–164. ©2011, Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA), Hong Kong.

2.       Main Paper 2: On Topology (Originally: Topology - from Mathematics to Architecture) Essay, A. A. School of Architecture, 2007.

3.       Shape Control In Responsive Architectural Structures– Current Reasons& Challenges, Tristan d’Estrée Sterk (2006) from the 4^th World Conference on Structural Control and Monitoring.

4.       Augmented Membranes: Design explorations into responsive materials. Nancy Diniz (2007)

5.       Irregular Vertex Editing and Pattern Design on Mesh, Kobayashi, Yoshihiro (2011) From ACADIA 11: Integration through Computation [Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA)] [ISBN 978-1-6136-4595-6] Banff (Alberta) 13-16 October, 2011, pp. 278-283.

6.       Research on Hybrid Tectonic Methodologies for Responsive Architecture. Chiu, Hao-Hsiu (2009) From Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia / Yunlin (Taiwan) 22-25 April 2009, pp. 493-502.

7.       Topological Design of Sculptured Surfaces. Ferguson, H., Rockwood, A. and Cox, J. (1992) From Computer Graphics, no. 26, pp.149-156.

Matthew Kruik, 3376172, 11/4/2012