Computational Design Modelling: Proceedings of the Design Modelling Symposium Berlin 2011 PDF
Preview Computational Design Modelling: Proceedings of the Design Modelling Symposium Berlin 2011
Computational Design Modelling Christoph Gengnagel, Axel Kilian, Norbert Palz, and Fabian Scheurer (Eds.) Computational Design Modelling Proceedings of the Design Modelling Symposium Berlin 2011 ABC Editors Prof.Dr.ChristophGengnagel Prof.Dipl.-Ing.NorbertPalz UniversitätderKünsteBerlin UniversitätderKünsteBerlinUDK Hardenbergstraße33 Hardenbergstraße33 10623Berlin,Germany 10623Berlin,Gemany E-mail:[email protected] E-mail:[email protected] Prof.AxelKilianPhD FabianScheurer PrincetonUniversity designtoproductionGmbH PrincetonNJ08544 Seestraße78 USA Erlenbach/Zurich,Switzerland ISBN978-3-642-23434-7 e-ISBN978-3-642-23435-4 DOI10.1007/978-3-642-23435-4 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2011935739 (cid:2)c 2011Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.Allrightsarereserved,whetherthewholeorpartofthemate- rialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation, broadcasting, reproduction onmicrofilmor inanyother way, andstorage indatabanks. Dupli- cationofthispublicationorpartsthereof ispermittedonlyunder theprovisions oftheGerman CopyrightLawofSeptember9,1965,initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalways beobtainedfromSpringer.ViolationsareliabletoprosecutionundertheGermanCopyrightLaw. Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,etc.inthispublicationdoes notimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. Typeset&CoverDesign:ScientificPublishingServicesPvt.Ltd.,Chennai,India. Printedonacid-freepaper 987654321 springer.com Foreword Now in its third edition, the Design Modelling Symposium Berlin constitutes a platformfordialogueonexperimentalpracticeandresearchwithinthefieldofcom- putationallyinformedarchitecturaldesign. Contemporary architecturalproduction employs an increasing number of com- putationaltoolsthatundergocontinuousproliferationoffunctionsandexpandtheir role within the design process. CAD/CAM technologieshave matured into appli- cations with increasingly user-friendly programme structures and an efficient ex- change between variousanalytical tools. Computationalgeometry enables the de- sign and manufacturingof complex surface configurations,a capacity beyondthe repertoire of analog architectural practices constrained by the limitations of de- scriptivegeometry.CAD/CAMtechnologieshavebeenusedsuccessfullytoachieve novel architectural expression by enabling digital geometry to drive digital fabri- cation processes. These innovations that have changed the work flow and design approachofawiderangeofarchitecturalpracticesandwithinacademia. Yet in parallel to these advances, limitations have become apparent. In many casestherelationshipbetweendesignideaandcomputationaltoolseemsreversed. Theresultingbuildingsappearasreductionistmaterializationofthepossibilitiesof softwarethatshapedthem.Onlyfewexamplesexistwherecomputationaltoolsare usedtodevelopdesignsolutionsforcomplexbuildingprogramswithinamoderate budget,yetdrivenby a richconceptualapproachthatventuresbeyondestablished theoreticalparadigmsofcomputationalpractice. On the basis of these observations,a critical evaluationof the relationshipsbe- tweentool,conceptualmodelandfinalmaterializationappearsnecessaryandvalu- able.Thepromiseofanincreasedroleofcomputationalprocessesinthedesignof architectureliesinthemanifoldsolutionsthatexceedhumancalculativecapacities. AgoodexampleistheintegrationofFiniteElementMethod(FEM)basedanalysis proceduresandgenerativeformfindingmethods.However,theseprocessesdepend stronglyonboundaryconditionsinducedintheproblemsetupdefinedbythearchi- tect or engineer. Each optimization—be it structural or environmental—therefore canonlyproducearesultwithintherealmoftheabstracted(computational)model, andinnowayrepresentsafinalsolutionfortherealworldorevenanindicationfor VI Foreword changingthe designconceptually.Thecomplexityoftheinterconnectedandoften conflicting information required to shape a building—be it explicitly describable or not—remains a challenge for contemporary computationalprocesses. A future architecturalpractice needs to cultivate a critical awareness of such limitations in ordertodevelopsuccessfulfuturestrategies. The critical dialogue that we envision and encourage at the Design Modelling SymposiumBerlin2011shouldbeachievedbyacollectivecontemplationofthese currentapproachesandtheirentwinedtechnologicaldevelopments.We wouldlike to promote discussion on future strategies for a reasonable and innovative imple- mentationofdigitalpotentialsguidedbybothresponsibilitytowardsprocessesand theconsequencestheyinitiate.Thefactthatthedisciplineofarchitecturehasinre- cent decades turned towards a scientific modus operandi—a process that leads to a communally orchestrated establishment of a rich, reflected and globally shared referencebody in accordancewith the protocolsof science—shouldproveadvan- tageousforadialogueontherelationshipbetweencomputationaltool,conceptand practice.Thisscientificturninarchitecturehasmanifesteditselfinhundredsofpa- pers,casestudies,doctoralresearchandpeer-reviewedpublications.Thisresearch coversmanifoldfieldsandinclude—amongothertopics—designtheory,digitalfab- rication,computationalformfinding,geometryandpedagogy.Theconstructiveat- mosphereofthelastDesignModellingSymposiumandcomparableeventshascre- atedacommunitycharacterizedbyopenness,scientificrigorandcuriosity.Itisfair toassumethatinthecomingyearsaproliferation,specificationandbroaderappli- cation of the investigated concepts and tools will take place in building practice, potentiallyalteringtheavailabilityanddistributionoftheseresearchfindings. This editorial preface is the result of a shared perspective on the core qualities thatweconsidernecessaryfora constructiveinvestigationoftheactualandfuture challenges of computationaldesign and architectural practice. These qualities are centered on a practice of scientific verifiability, shared availability of knowledge and a continuous and constructive reflective monitoring of the manifold develop- ments.Wehavethereforechosentoidentifyfourareasthatarespecificallyrelevant tothefieldofcomputationaldesign,fabricationandarchitecturalpractice.Thebrief statementsthatfollowaddresstheconceptualviewonthethinkingmodelsthatwere introducedinthefieldsofarchitectureandengineering;portraytheirboundarycon- ditionsin regardto a realizationonsite; andgivean outlookonfuturechangesof functionalandstructuraltectonicswithinbuildingcomponents. Models ofDesigninComputation Modelsareat theCoreofScientific Thinking Design and even more so computational design relies heavily on abstraction and modelsofthought.Thechallengeofanyabstractionistheinventionofaconstruct that can stand for the actual phenomenawith a goodenoughapproximationto al- low for making accurate predictions about the future solely based on the abstract Foreword VII model.Thisisthecoreofscienceandreasoningandsoessentialtoourculturethat itishardtosingleitout.Theformationofnewmodelsmaystartoutwithamental modelwhichisfluidandfluctuating,shapedbythoughts,dismissedandresurrected as needed. Defining a more stable, externalized and rigorous model requires sub- stantially more effort. Translating it into a computationalmodel requires an addi- tionallevelofrigorasitcanbeoperatedindependentlyofitscreatorandbereused essentiallyasablackboxprocesswithoutfurtherscrutinybyanunawareuser. MergingModelRigor and DesignProcess Creating new models is difficult and hence the tendency is to work with existing models of thought. In computation this is even more likely due to the reusability ofalgorithmsintheformofcode.Thispathofleastresistancehasledtoalimited setofcomputationalmodelsfordesignbeingusedoverandoveragain.Therefore a key motivationfor holdingan internationalconferenceon designmodelingis to enablethesurveyanddiscussionofdifferentapproachestoconceptualmodelsand thetranslationofideasintonovelcomputationalmodels.Asecondmotivationisto encouragetheoftensubstantialresearchinvestmenttodevelopnewandbetterfitting computationalmodelsfordesign.Thenotionofanoverallmodelhereisnotlimited to a 3D geometric data set but refers rather to the holistic, abstract representation oftheoveralldesignprocessincludingtheroleofhumansintheprocess.Abstract modelsforthedesignprocesshaveconcreteconsequencesinthedesignresults.It isthereforenotaquestionofdesignphilosophybut,aswepushformoreinterdisci- plinarydesignworktotakeplace,aquestionofhowtheunderlyingmodeldefines theoutcome.Thereforeitisa coreresponsibilityofthefield topushforwardwith more integrated models of design, to test their capability to deal with real world complexity,andtoevaluatetheirpotentialforimprovingdesignresults. From Analysisto Simulation FromAnalysis ofKnown Problemsto SimulationofNewScenarios From a historic perspective the use of computers in structural engineering began muchearlierandunderdifferentstartingconditionsthaninthepracticeofarchitec- ture.Crucialforamoreholisticdeploymentofthecomputerwasthedevelopment ofhardwareinthe1980s,whichallowedthecomputertobecomeaneverydaytool for structural engineersalready in the 1990s. Contrary to the developmentsin ar- chitecturecomputinginstructuralengineeringwasusedasatoolfortheanalysisof structures.Onlylaterits use astoolto speedup andrationalizedesignrepresenta- tionsfollowed. Exemptionswerethedesignandexecutionoftensileconstructssuchascablenet and membrane roofs or the mostly in compression shell structures. In these areas liethebeginningsoftheuseofcomputersasadesigntoolforformfindingincom- binationwithstructuralanalysis.Theformfindingoftheseloadbearingsystemsis VIII Foreword basedonthesearchforamembranegeometry,whichrepresentsequilibriumoften- sile forcesinthesurfacegiventhegeometricedgeandsupportconditions,aswell as possible external loads. This inverse question is based on the assumption of a prescribedstateoftensioninayetunknowngeometry,isindependentofdeforma- tionsandthereforedoesnotrequireanymaterialdefinition.Thefirst formfinding methods such as the force density method use the possible numerical simplifica- tionthatfollowformthisdefinition.Today,theconstantlyincreasingcomputational performanceofthehardwareandthecontinuedimprovementofFEMallowforthe combinationof form finding under considerationof the materiality in directcom- bination with structural analysis. Through these steps a change is taking place in structuraldesignandconstructiondevelopmentfromanalysistosimulation. ComputationalDesignas Experiment Computationaldesignbecomesanexperimentwhichinvestigatesthestructuralbe- haviorofincreasinglycomplexsystems.Mostimportantarethepossibilitiesofin- vestigatingtheinterplaybetweenasystem’selementswithexternalforces.Thefirst crucialstepofasimulationisalwaysthedefinitionofthemodel.Whileforalong timethefoundationofthedesignprocesswasadaptingthestructuretobedesigned to known static based models, today the process begins with the definition of a modelthatis fine tunedto the task at hand.Modelingthe problemrequiresa new creativityonthepartoftheengineeraswellasknowledgethatinvolves,besidesthe numericbasics, a substantialamountof craft. Here materialand assembly knowl- edge are essential. The possibilities of increasingly complex simulations open up thequestionastowhatextentwearecapableofrealizingthesimulationoutcomes inphysicalstructures.Thereforeagoalcouldbetousethenewsimulationpossibil- itiesofcomplexinterdependenciestoarriveatsimpletechnicalsolutionsthatstand outfortheirmulti-functionalbehavior.ThisNewLowTechdesignischaracterized by the use of multifunctional,robust,material- and energy-efficientconstructions, basedontheuseofhighcomplexitycomputationalexperimentsandadeepunder- standingofmaterialsandjointingtechnology. Computational ControlledFabricationinArchitecture Architecture IsBuilt fromHeterogeneous Components The sheer size of buildingsmakes it practically impossible to fabricate a building asonehomogeneousstructure.Therewillalwaysbebuildingcomponentsthathave tobeassembledandconnectedinonewayoranother.Inordertoefficientlycreate largestructures,thecomponentshavetoreachacertainsize,orthecostofassembly willbecomethemainfactorinthebudget. On top of that the multitude of different functions a building has to fulfill requires a multitude of different building materials. Since they all have their spe- cific properties and most likely different fabrication technologies, designing and Foreword IX fabricating building componentsthus requires specialist knowledge from a multi- tude of domains—usually not found in one single place or brain. The integration ofvariousfunctionsintopolyvalentcomponentsmayreducethenumberofdiffer- ent component types but increases the complexity and the embedded knowledge of each type while at the same time eliminating clear interfacesbetween different trades.Thustheintegrationofallrequiredknow-howthroughclosecooperationof allinvolvedpartiesbecomesindispensible,alsoforhandlingtheresponsibilityand risksoftheprocess. DigitalFabricationMeansPre-Fabrication Apartfrom very few exceptions(e.g. robotsfor the rather monofunctionaltask of brick laying or the robotic high-rise-building"factories" that never really made it outside ofJapan),digitalfabricationequipmentis too large,costly anddelicate to moveit to site andto buildcomponentsdirectlyattheir finallocation.Thus,digi- tal fabricationalmostalwaysmeanspre-fabricationof buildingcomponentsin the controlledenvironmentofthefabricator’sworkshop,shippingthemtothesiteand assembling them like a big puzzle. That adds a number of challenges, mainly for just-in-time procurement, production and logistics that have to be carefully dealt withbeforetheactualbuildingprocesscanstart.Theplanningefforthastobemoved almostcompletelytothefrontoftheprocess,sincefindingmistakesduringtheas- semblyon-siteandfarawayfromthefabricationfacilitiescanbecomecatastrophic intermsofbudgetanddesignintent. DigitalFabricationNeeds PreciseDescriptions Computersaredeterministicmachinesandneedcorrectinputtodelivercorrectout- put. That also holds true for the controllers of CNC-fabrication machines. Every drilling,milling,bending,planning,glueingor cuttingoperationa machinehasto executemustbeunambiguouslydefinedinthedigitalmodelthatisfedintothema- chine,downtolastscrewhole.Ingeneralitisnotsufficienttocreatea3D-modelof thecomponenttobeproduced,becauseasidefromsimple2D-cuttingor3D-printing operations,thetranslationofgeometricdescriptionintothemachiningsequenceofa multi-axisCNC-machine,maybeinvolvingseveraltool-changesduringtheprocess, isfarfromalinearproblem.So,tocomeupwitha workingfabricationmodelfor acomplexcomponentrequiresthefullsetofproductionknowledgeforthespecific machineryused. DigitalFabricationIsFirstand ForemostaQuestionoftheProcess Thetechnologyfordigitalfabricationiswidelyavailabletoday.Thechallengenow is to understandhow those machinescan be integratedinto the existing processes of building and how this might change the traditional way to design in order to X Foreword exploitthefullcapabilitiesofthefabricationequipment.Ontheotherhand,through adeeperunderstandingofthecurrenttechnology,wewillbeabletobetteridentify shortcomingsandspecificneedsofthebuildingsectorand(re-)directthedevelop- mentoffuturetechnologiestobetterfittherequirementsofthearchitecturalprocess. RapidManufacturing inArchitecture FabricationofMaterialand StructuralHeterogeneity Rapid manufacturing has proliferated in the past years due to an improvementof additivefabrication(AF)processesinregardtomechanicalproperties,greaterma- terialdiversityandscaleoftheproducibleartifacts.InarchitectureAFcanexceed priorrepresentativeapplicationsandprogresstowardsthefabricationoffunctioning componentsof high complexityof structure and material composition.First signs indicatesuchapotentialimplementationthroughresearchconductedbyseveralpri- vateandacademicinstitutionsonadditivelyfabricatedbuilding-scaleparts.Techno- logicalprogressis accompaniedby recentstandardizationeffortsof AF processes and material quality through academic institutions and industry that can promote utilizationofAFcomponentswithinthebuildingsector. Yet additive fabrication of functional building parts requires a phase of wider experimentalinvestigationtobeconductedinthecomingyears.Aninterestingseg- mentofcontemporaryAFresearchisherebynotonlyinvestigatingtheproduction possibilities of specialized parts butalso the calibration of the material itself with regard to its structural performance and composition control. The benefit of this researchliesin anachievablecongruencebetweentechnologicaldevelopmentand designactivityoncetheAFprocessesaresuitedforarchitecturalapplications. The envisioneddigitally driven calibrationand constructionof novelstructures andformationsherebyaltersthehistoricaldialogueonmaterial,structuralandfor- mal coherency. The conceptual approach between construction typology and ma- terial use that persisted architectural history until now is about to change again. The questionin the futurewill notbe centeredona best fitting structuralsolution fora givenmaterialwith moreor lessknownpropertiesthatdrovethe thinkingof Viollet-le-Ducandothers,butareverseprocessthattailorsacustommaterialwith gradualandnon-repetitivecharacteristicstoachosenformandperformance. Towardsa NewBuilding Tectonic Theachievablecontroloverstructure,material,andformopensupadesignpotential thatisadirectdescendantofthecorepropertiesofthefabricationtectonicandcan givebirthtonovelbuildingcomponents.Onaconstructivelevelamergingofmul- tiplebuildingfunctionsintoasingularcomponentappearsachievable.Thetimeline ofassemblythatisusuallycoordinatedfromtheerectingofaprimaryload-bearing structuredownwardsandshapestheappearanceofthebuildingsarounduscanpo- tentiallyblendmultiplebuildingfunctionsinanewconstructioncomponentwhose Foreword XI dimensionsarethenbasedonbuildingchambersizesofthemanufacturingtechnol- ogy.Formalcomplexityandease ofassemblythroughnewjoinerysystemscanso be achieved. The designed structural morphology could be guided by shape- and topologyoptimization proceduresand by that integrate a material saving building practice in the load-bearing core of the project. This rethinking of architectural, structuralandmaterialpracticeholdsmanypromisesandamanifoldoftechnologi- calchallengesthatwilltakedecadestobeovercome. Theimpressionthatawiderangeoffunctionalitiescanbetunedandoptimized mightbemisleadingincontextofpotentiallyopposingoptimizationgoalsthathave tobesynchronized.Besidesuchrestrictingaspectsresearchintheseareasisofgreat interest since it holds a manifold of possible innovations for the design and con- structionprocesswithinarchitectureandmayleadtotherewritingofthehistorical discussionontherelationbetweenmatterandform. The following collection of papers presented at the Design Modelling Sympo- sium Berlin 2011 is a cross section through current cutting edge research in the field.Someofthepapersrespondtothechallengesandquestionsformulatedabove, others open up new discourses departing from the topics outlined here. Most im- portantly,allauthorssucceedin challengingourcurrentunderstandingofthefield throughtherigorofthepresentedwork.Indoingso,theyfosteradvancesinarchi- tectureandengineeringaswellasthediscoursethatcreatestheconceptualbasisof ourdisciplines. ChristophGengnagel,UniversityoftheArts,Berlin AxelKilian,PrincetonUniversity,Princeton NorbertPalz,UniversityoftheArts,Berlin FabianScheurer,designtoproduction,Zurich
The list of books you might like
