Regarding the presentation I mentioned three main stimulants and variations making the faced to react as followed:
• Temperature
• Relative humidity
• Ventilation
After presentation I did a lot of research on these topics in order to combine and restrain their various effects on the facade.
Thus, the first step is choosing a test volume for making calculations on document data that I gathered so I chose a simple cubic pavilion (3*3*3) for this issue.
In the next step, I found optimum indoor climate conditions and try to embed them in the design in order to find and adjust the number, size, step and time reactions of the pores.
For the first test, I assume my reaction time as 60 min, pores’ radius as 15, 30, 60cm with various functions and got some results. Then I found that not only I can reduce my reaction time to 10 min but also keep the pores’ size. Afterward, I am working on my GC model to improve it.
• Temperature
• Relative humidity
• Ventilation
After presentation I did a lot of research on these topics in order to combine and restrain their various effects on the facade.
Thus, the first step is choosing a test volume for making calculations on document data that I gathered so I chose a simple cubic pavilion (3*3*3) for this issue.
In the next step, I found optimum indoor climate conditions and try to embed them in the design in order to find and adjust the number, size, step and time reactions of the pores.
For the first test, I assume my reaction time as 60 min, pores’ radius as 15, 30, 60cm with various functions and got some results. Then I found that not only I can reduce my reaction time to 10 min but also keep the pores’ size. Afterward, I am working on my GC model to improve it.
About ventilation rate and total area, all what you need to do from my point of you is "knowing what did you calculate". If you do not know because you are not sure or because of some confusion/doubts there might have been, simply ask by e-mail the definition of the area you have been calculating or whatever else doubt you have. For the aim of this course, you do not need complex calculations/data - you only need to be aware of the few values you are working with. Do not wait for extra data - just please you must know the meaning of the numbers you calculated and you are using.
ReplyDeleteThe same suggestion also for materialization. What you have till now is on one hand a list of materials rightly selected on the base of their technical properties and on the other hand the geometry of the skin system you are designing. I believe these two information should be linked. To do it, you do not need to reach an exhaustive level of detailed design of your skin system. What I am suggesting, is to have information/ideas/details on how you are going to use these materials to realize your system - in other words, to involve in your design process the information you collected about the materials. You can do it for example by zooming in one of your holes and showing us how it works, but it does not need to be in rhino - might be just hand sketches. Or whatever you prefer. The important thing is that you show the idea in connection with the data you are modeling.
You therefore do not need a complete design process covering all the aspects - you need a loop that connects the few selected aspects you are focusing on.
Example: sponge idea - interactive pores for façade - quantification of the needed air circulation or humidity absorption or other (VERY FEW DATA/CALCUTATION, BUT CLEAR) - quantification of needed deformability of pores according to these data - idea for materialization of the system according with the required deformability and humidity absorption (or other). This is all embedded in you GC model.
This is in fact also an example of what I mean with "use your GC model to get information" for you design.
For example, if you vary your circles, you get the Bspline surface (cylinder like shape) deformed. In order to design the details of your skin system, you might need to know how much the surface changes. This is something you can extract from your GC model. So you will compare it with the elasticity of your material to see whether it is feasible or if it gets too stretched and so. And you will choose a material that allows that extendibility/contraction. If this is not feasible, you will need to find a different solution (changing material or changing geometry).
An other example, the activation system: how are you going to activate the contraction and expansion of the holes? What is the element that physically makes them changing? At the very beginning, you were talking about inflatable systems - so activation would have been done through air pressure. Is it still like that? Does your materials allow to do it (is it air proof?) ? You were also talking about a possible double layer (an inner one, not movable - an outer one that would have been inflated. But there are no details/modeling/drawings to see this (or other) idea to solve these design aspects. If you work with inflatable systems, than volume of air is a relevant data you need to know. Therefore changes in volumes could be extracted from a GC models (after including volumes in it of course).
And so on, many other possible examples.
Once more: a whole exhaustive design process is not expected. I am suggesting a complete loop process which focuses on very few and precise/selected aspects.
It is very important you close the loop from hypothesis to testing. Move on from steps too slow, simplify everything can be simplified - but close the loop.
Hoping it helps - let me know.
Pass by the office (room 01.West.080) when you need.
Michela