Table Of ContentComputational 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
