Monday, March 2, 2009

March 2nd - Presentation

Today was the Midterm presentation. I got some good and various comments and feedback from instructors in order to progress my design.
In the next step, I am going to go further in order to achieve next step goals as I mentioned today.

Here is the ink to my presentation:
http://blackboard.tudelft.nl/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_23854_1%26url%3d

2 comments:

  1. Hi Sara,

    Here to make clearer the aspect I wanted to point out during the yesterday discussion: the needed quantification with respect to causes-effects.
    You have now a concept idea – your spongy-skin for a breathable façade. It is time to jump into the quantification of the aspects you are working with. This need to be done with awareness of physical effects you are dealing with. Therefore you also need to move on from your first GC sketch model which is not enough anymore. Your GC model should now take into consideration that your façade will face and indoor space and an outdoor space. And your skin is a filter between the two. You need to quantify what of your skin changes with respect to what and to affect what. Examples: if your system works by changing volume (as inflatable system) you should therefore be able of measuring volumes’ changes and to establish the cause-effect chain on which the volumes’ changes are based. It might be a change aimed to affect indoor RH by using condensation induced by outdoor air temperature, it might react to the outdoor wind pressure for indoor ventilation or other, what you think relevant for you application. But the key point is that you have to be able of quantifying your skin changes as reaction to a certain quantifiable factor and in order to achieve a quantifiable effect. Please, post some first numerical quantification.

    This leads also to a second need: a more detailed level of design. The studies about materials you did last week need now to be integrated in your design. Please, post sketches about how your skin system can be materialized (how do your cylinder-like shapes contact and expand? Are you using elastic material? are you using small scale foldable materials? Etc.)

    As third pint, I also think is time to come back to your starting sketches about the penalization of a simple volume – might be also a simple box, as you did at the beginning. This would lead to an idea of how in architecture (i.e. in you small pavilion like design) you can use the system you are developing. As you correctly categorized at the beginning, there are various possible combinations (example ventilation from top, from bottom, from the opposite side when wind pressure is too high and so on – or other similar scenarios RH related). It is time now to correlate these studies with the use of your skin panels.

    Send files if needed – and looking forward for your blog posts.
    Michela

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for posting the link to your presentation, Sara. It would also be helpful if you could write something about the main points which you were presenting and of the feedback you received, relating these to your further work.

    In case it helps, here is a summary of my thoughts from the notes I took during your presentation:

    - the presentation was very thorough regarding describing the steps you had taken in the course so far, but there was little attention given to the current state of your work - that is, the model(s) with which you plan to produce varying designs for testing

    - also, the relationships between the independent variables (e.g. temperature and humidity) which you're taking as inputs and the dependent variables (e.g. geometry of 'pores') which you're modeling is not yet clear; clearly you have some ideas on this, but they need to be made explicit in order to be tested

    - finally, the mechanism you've proposed (inflation of tubes) as a way of responding to changes in the independent variables is just one possibility, so it would be sensible for you to compare the performance of such a system to at least one alternative, such as fixed-dimension 'pores'/tubes (possibly of various sizes, as in the image you posted earlier) whose variable behavior is opening-closing

    André

    ReplyDelete