–In your lecture, you discuss “form active structures”, this idea of behavior and integration of performance. Can you elaborate on this?
Form-active structures are the newest category of structural systems where textile or foil materials develop significant structural capacities. Based on the combination of pre-stress and double curvature the membrane material is enabled to not only work as cladding on an existing structure, but to become a leading component of the structural system. This allows a high level of integration and at the same time extremely long spanning and lightweight structures.
Since the shape of such a membrane structure is developed in a physical or digital form-finding process the designer only has limited influence on the resulting surface geometry. It seems like some contemporary architects want to have a more direct influence on the shape, motivated by design ideas or supplementary functions they want to assign to the surface. Sadly this often leads back to the membrane acting merely as a cladding on a significant steel structure… Introducing elastically bent rods in the surface element opens completely new possibilities in the interaction with the form-finding process and at the same time is a new step in integrating the primary structure into the membrane surface. We call such structures that base their geometry on the elastic deformation of initially straight or planar elements ‘Bending-Active’.
Image: Julian Leinhard, Prototype of funnel Membrane with bending-active support system
Image: Julian Leinhard, Form-finding of funnel Membrane with bending-active support system
–We discussed ways of simulating material performance and in your talk, you discussed elastic deformation as a way of giving form in architecture. How does this relate to the ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion and your role doing finite element simulation of the deformations?
In the research Pavilion ICD/ITKE we elaborated the potentials of such bending active structures in a digital design process. We were able to show the great potentials of bending active-structures in creating complex geometry based on planar building components and were also able to prove a stiffening effect based on the bending pre-stress.
Image: Julian Leinhard, Research Pavilion ICD/ITKE 2010, Interior view
Image: Julian Leinhard, Research Pavilion ICD/ITKE 2010, Finite Element form-finding
In other projects we have shown how this approach may also be integrated in form-active structures and even kinematic structures. In all of these projects the aspect of reliable material data (eg. young’s-modulus) and precise finite-element simulation of the bending deformations were the key for a successful realization. The material testing and simulation procedure however is still very time consuming. We are currently working on refining our routines and finding ways of directly integrating the finite element simulation in the design process.
–How do you see material performance simulation giving the designer more feedback for the design process?
In Bending-Active structures the material performance is inseparable from the resulting geometry. Material behavior therefore gives the designer important feed back in this particular approach. As much as this may be stimulating for the design process it also requires a certain commitment to the necessity for extensive simulation. We therefore work a lot with scaled physical models made of the real foreseen material (eg GFRP) for extensive material study and design investigation.
Image: Julian Leinhard, Simulation of elastic kinetic shading system Flectofin®
In Kolding the discussion took a very nice turn at the end where we contemplated the potentials of integrative design approaches; which is one of the greatest potentials of Digital Crafting. It also showed though that the Architects and Engineers’ role in these procedures have to be redefined. On the one hand, we have to broaden the set of skills to foster the close collaboration and communication with each other, on the other hand, we are asked to input a high degree of specialized knowledge. Even though a lot has been said about these new design procedures I still have questions about my role as an engineer within such a community. It was very good to have Jan Soendergaard join our discussion, we need such experienced Architects to give us feedback, a kind of reality check…
Digital Crafting Report from Seminar 5: Textiles and Fibre-based Materials in Architectural Construction
The fifth Digital Crafting Seminar “Textiles and Fibre-based Materials in Architectural Construction” was held at the Design School in Kolding on August 24, 2011. Four guest speakers: Joy Boutrup from Design School Kolding, Johan Bettum from Städelschule Architecture Class, Julian Lienhard from the Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design (ITKE), University of Stuttgart, Germany and Sean Ahlquist from the Institute for Computational Design at the University of Stuttgart.
Textile engineer Joy Boutrup presented “Scales of Performance, Fibres, Yarns and Textiles” which addressed fundamental research questions relating to material potentials, scale and chemical composition. Drawing on her background and experience as a textile chemist she is able to precisely research the properties of textile materials. In her lecture she was able to explain in a clear and interesting way, the defining characteristics and potentials of textile material design including variables, stress distributions, . She illustrated her discussion with intricate models of fibre compositions and types of weave and materials.
Architect and researcher Johan Bettum presented “The Material Geometry of Fibre- Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites”, a lecture which showed examples of projects by his office ArchiGlobe. His work explores the architectural potentials of fibre reinforced material systems.
Architect and researcher Sean Ahlquist presented “The Computational Perspective” which gave a theoretical background to computational design relating to ideas of system principles, system behaviour and system simulation. Also from Stuttgart, structural engineer and researcher Julian Lienhard from the Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design (ITKE) presented his research of “Bending Active Membrane Structures” using examples from built projects such as the Madinah Piazza Shading Project.
Three shorter presentation were made by Guenther H Filz, Delia Dumitrescu and Karen Marie Hassling about their current work and its relation to themes in Digital Crafting.
The presentations of the 5th Digital Crafting Seminar are now online. Please follow the link to the presentations:
Ongoing Work Presentations:
An overview can be found on Vimeo
Dates: 24.th August 2010 11.00 – 16.30
Venue: Designskolen Kolding, Ågade 10, Kolding, 1. Sal i auditorie 1.4
Ongoing Work Presentations:
The seminar examines the use of fibre based materials in architecture. During the last decade textiles and fibre-based materials have undergone dramatic development resulting in their use and implementation in host of new contexts. From the extreme scales of geo-textiles to the minute details of bio-textiles, textiles are entering new fields of fabrication hybridising existing technologies and inventing new. At the same time, developments in polymers and reinforcing materials are leading to new opportunities for computational design and processing methods for fibre reinforced composites, which in turn provide designers with new means of engagement and control.
This seminar holds a dual focus. Bringing together researchers from architecture, engineering and textile design our aim is to discuss the traditions by which textiles and fibre based materials has been understood as an architectural material as well as present a perspective for their future implementation in the built environment. By deliberately expanding the discussion to include soft/compressive textiles as well as fibre reinforced composites our aim is to foster discussion of the parallels and differences in these two material design led fields.
The seminar asks:
– The Stuttgart tradition of designing and calculating membrane structures led to a reinvention of the use of textiles in architecture in the mid 20th century. What is the new perspectives in these traditions and how can they embrace questions of complex geometry and material variegation?
– The recent focus on fibre reinforced composites presents architecture and the built environment with a new engineered material that can be devised and develop in respect to its performance. How can we work efficiently with composites and what are their future implementations?
– As we enter a new era in which material design becomes part of the architects remit and where materials are engineered directly for their implementation and use, we also enter a new practice of work with complex composites. What are the environmental consequences of these new materials and how can we work in a sustainable fashion?
Date: January 19th, 2011
Roland Snooks, Kokkugia
Jan Henrik Hansen, whist.ch
Christian Derix, Aedas research
Åsmund Gamlesaeter, Aedas research
Generative processes based on algorithmic techniques offers new possibilities to the design process. These techniques enable the exploration of spatial and structural configurations that are inaccessible through traditional architectural design methodologies. Through these design approaches new potentials for informing and specifying architectural space becomes available. At the same time they raise a series of challenges to traditional notions of representation, of authorship, of control of the design intent and outcome.
Seeking out external influences, specific examples, lines of thoughts the seminar discusses the potentials, strategies and challenges of such algorithmic design approaches.
Seminar programme: Digital Crafting 04
Venue: The workshop takes place at Aarhus School of Architecture – Nørreport 20 – 8000 Århus. Studsgade Auditoriet.
Ole Sigmund is a Professor at the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Section for Solid Mechanics, Technical University of Denmark. He researches the design of extreme materials, smart materials, compliant mechanisms, MicroElectroMechanical Systems, crashworthiness, fluid systems and wave-propagation problems in acoustics, elasticity, nano-optics, meta-materials and antennas.
His lecture was about the applications of topology optimization, and about how materials can be designed to be better performing, solve complex design problems and be beautiful. Following the lecture the group discussed optimization in relation to material and material design. The group discussed some ideas about gradient rather than absolute material performance, and materials with potential for form change.
–Could you elaborate a bit on the design potentials of designing for optimization and the challenge of scale (for example nano-scale to building scale in material design) as it applies to your research?
OS: Of course there is a scaling issue since currently our nano-material based structures are very small. However, with improved manufacturing methods this will come soon. For example, one of our current research projects is concerned with surface structuring of plastic parts or bottles with the goal of saving costly painting. We do it using mass-manufacturable, nano-imprint technology we can stamp nano-structures into plastic surfaces, in turn changing their colors or making the hydrophobic.
–This relates to the toy example you described in your lecture – the Harry Potter figurine by Lego? You mentioned that the most expensive part of the process is not the creation of the ten parts which are assembled to create this figure but actually the way that the glasses and face need to be painted on the figure´s head, separate from the injection moulding process? In your lecture you proposed a new way of creating this, using actual material deformation rather than pigment.
OS: Yes we are using the ideas from butterflies – where if you take a microscope and look at the surface they have nano-structured surfaces that actually create the colours that we see. The butterflies actually designed their surfaces in order to absorb light at different frequencies. In this project our job is to make the nano-structuing of the Lego surface so that we don’t have to use paint it just becomes an absorbing surface that makes it look like we painted it. With regard to scale, of course from smaller plastic parts to building parts there is still quite a step. However, I am convinced that this gap will be bridged within the coming decade.
–There was some discussion about manufacturing constraints and how this must be built into topology optimization design, how do you design with these limitations?
OS: Different manufacturing methods have different limitations. For example in concrete casting it is not directly possible to introduce internal voids. In many cases void regions inside the structure would be structurally good and hence the results of the optimization would contain holes. Therefore we introduce constraint in the optimization that hinder the creation of internal holes (at the cost of worse performance/weight) of the structure.
–This led to a discussion about the aesthetics of optimization – how can and should something “look” optimized or perhaps look “not” optimized? You said “Whenever I see a structure with circular holes I know it has not been optimized”. What do you think about the relationship between aesthetics and optimization?
OS: I certainly think that an optimized structure is beautiful. However, due to my training I see many flaws in “optimized structures” that ordinary people would not see. Hence, a structure with many circular holes may look light and efficient for many people, however, in my eyes I see stress concentrations and waste of material. Also if I see a curved bar that is supposed to support longitudinal forces I know that the structure is not optimal. Unfortunately one of the workshop structures has such features –this I partly attribute to bad post-processing steps in the used software. A good example of this faulty optimization is the CCTV tower in China. The outer structure is claimed to distribute the forces in an optimal way, however, to me it is clear that it is by no means optimal and that a much better (and possibly even better looking) could have been obtained using topology optimization. Unfortunately I never found time to test it but I will try to find some students who can perform the optimization study.
–What did you think were the most interesting aspects from this Digital Crafting Seminar?
OS: It was interesting to see the broad range of speaker topics –from my very basic engineering structures that fulfill well-defined optimization goal to the very artificial and complex structures produced by various digital processes. For me, structural beauty is a natural bi-product of the structural optimization process. I hope that this message will be remembered by the participants. The artificial digital processes are also very interesting but I think they should be hooked up with some measures of efficiency to become well accepted in a world that becomes increasingly aware of limited natural resources.
Report and Interview by Terri Peters
The third Digital Crafting seminar “The Architect as Material Designer” was held at the Danish Institute for Technology in Copenhagen on August 20, 2010. Four guest speakers: Neil Leach from University of Southern California, Ole Sigmund from the Technical University of Denmark, Marco Poletto from ecoLogicStudio and the Architectural Association (AA) in London, and Tobias Bonwetsch from the Institute for Technology in Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, ETH Zurich presented ideas about the changing role of the designer with regard to material design.
During the seminar, participants discussed the role of material in design, the nature of optimization, and the creative possibilities of digital fabrication.
Interview with Tobias Bonwetsch “The Architect as Material Designer”:
-In the workshop and seminar, we talked about optimization in relation to material and material design, how does optimization relate to your work?
Optimization in architecture is somewhat a fuzzy concept, which is often applied to functional, engineering aspects, where the optimization criteria can be more easily defined and made explicit. But architecture is also about spatial qualities, aesthetics, usability over time etc., properties that that can hardly be put into fitness functions. In the robotic processes we develop at ETH, we inform building elements through the selective placement of material all these factors play together. This results in a lot of redundancies in the final material-system or element, but at the same time give them a unique appearance and sensuality. I think it has to be seen in whole, just as architecture is not just engineering it is also not just about material.
In our work at ETH and with the students we look at the aggregation of material. It is always a combination between material, the definition or creation of a certain fabrication process (material manipulation), and computation that drives and controls the process. The student work examples I showed take a given material and rethink its use (also concerning performance issues) when applying the potential of a computer controlled, self-defined fabrication process. Having control of the actual build up process shifts the architectural design from the design of geometry and surfaces towards the design of the fabrication/construction process.
-We talked a lot about the aesthetics of optimization – how can and should something “look” optimized? What is the role of the designer in optimization?
Again, optimization can be applied to many different and very diverse requirements in architecture. Can and should something look optimized? Probably not. In the simple (material wise and construction wise) elements we look at, the interplay of the individual parts create a complex system, beyond the functionality of its single members. They are not specialized/optimized for a specific function, but their appearance is a combination different functions as well as aesthetic considerations.
-In your opinion, what makes this Digital Crafting seminar relevant in the context of contemporary practice?
I believe “digital craft” is highly relevant for architectural practice (at least if you believe that architecture constitutes itself in its physical form). The tools are here today, but we are yet only scratching the surface. The architect is now in the position to directly intervene with the process of making. The design can be driven by the definition of a physical fabrication process rather than by an overall geometry. This requires developing an understanding of architectural and structural potentials.
Report and Interview by Terri Peters
During the workshop, participants visited the topology optimized concrete structure produced during the Unikabeton research project by researchers Per Dombernowsky and Asbjørn Søndergaard. Fabricated using large-scale industrial CNC-milling facility at Danish Institute of Technology, the structure represents the first realized topology optimized concrete structure. A full-scale version of the optimization experiments undertaken at the Digital Crafting Workshop 3, the prototype reflects the morphogenetic principles of design and conceptualization facilitated by the method of topology optimization. For more details of the research project see http://fluxstructures.net/
–As workshop leader, what were your intentions with “How to Mould”?
AS: The idea was to offer a platform for a 1:1 experience with the morphogenesis of topology optimization in relation to robotic fabrication, in order to facilitate a discussion of the implications of the field in regard to related theoretical discourses and technological aspects of production. In the workshop, we explored the cycle of optimization, remodeling, full-scale milling and casting all within 3 days. I think the most successful part was delivered by the participants in their dedication to the workshop content, and the discussion that arose from it.
–In your two introductory lectures during the workshop, and in the Seminar on the final day, there were discussions about topology optimization and the aesthetics of optimization. What parts of this discussion do you think are the most relevant for designers?
AS: It is often the case that a type of formal language emerges as the result of intensive work of experimentation and reflection – and then this language is adopted by others that take interest in the appearance, but not in the process behind it. The language then becomes a self-referring, self-explanatory image of the original thought, but without its coherence.
This sometimes happens with so called “optimized” structures. Actually, the first large-scale topology optimized structure to be realized – the Qatar convention hall by Mutsuro Sasaki – is a good example of this. The structure was originally conceived by a process of optimization, but then simplified into an internal steel rod skeleton clad with non-load-bearing steel plate that imitates the original optimization output. This means that it lost most of it initial structural logic in the process of realization, although it still formally appears “optimized”.
–How can we interpret the optimized results? Can something be really “optimized”?
AS: We discussed two opposite positions on this: the first position is to say the most interesting results arises directly from computation, without the designer interfering or polluting with his formal preferences. The other position is that the most interesting results arise as a work of the interpretation of the designer, and that the computational process should only secondarily contribute to the appearance of the design. In my opinion, the first position does not take into account that the premise for any computational process is manmade, and so subject to inter-subjective conventions. No matter how strictly mathematically the process may be, there will always be a modeling setup preceding it, in which several design threads can be pursued, tried and discussed. Also, the computational results need subsequent interpretation in preparing the shape for production and manufacturing – and this is also an area of aesthetic evaluation.
The optimization result within architecture is something derived by both structural and aesthetical consideration. To misunderstand this is to repeat the modernist attempt to avoid the difficult but necessary question of aesthetics by claiming a false objectivity to the process. I think the question is rather: how do we affect the process of optimization prior to its execution? And how do we choose to interpret the optimization results formally? I believe many answers can be developed to these questions, varying on both cultural and technological conditions. The optimization process may actually result in unexpected design discourses that could influence the spatial concept.
Report and Interview by Terri Peters
Research events examine the relationship between the encoded and the crafted. Seminar sits at the end of workshops and allow a theoretical framing of the event. The seminar holds talks by the guest researcher, the network participants and other interested parties. The seminar includes presentations of the partners’ and guest researcher’s existing research inquiries, active participation with assignments given up for discussion in focus groups and ends with a reflective discussion in respect to the overall aims and objectives of the Digital Crafting bid.
Seminar 0 – Parametric Design in Practice
Seminar 1 – Parametric Design – Encoded Behaviour
Seminar 2 – The ideal of the tectonic: The tectonics of the joint
Seminar 3 – The ideal of the tectonic: The variable and the mould
Seminar 4 – The ideal of the formal: Emergence as design strategy
Seminar 5 – The ideal of the tectonic
The third seminar was as well documented on video and we are happy to share those now.
Neil Leach, University of Southern California
Ole Sigmund, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet
Marco Poletto, ecoLogicStudio and Architectural Association (AA)
Tobias Bonwetsch, Institute for Technology in Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, ETH Zurich.