Super Super worked with Michal Piasecki on a set design for Przemiany Festiwal, taking place between 1st and 4th of September at Centrum Nauki Kopernik in Warsaw. The project team is: Hanna Kokczynska, Jacek Majewski, Michal Piasecki and Ignacy Kaim. Jakub Skladanek was the production manager. Dedicated algorithm is used to close pack circles and extrudes them into 3d to approximate given NURBS surface. The whole set is made of 16000 tubes with over 200 different lengths.

Super Super pracowało z Michałem przy projekcie scenografii na Festiwal Przemiany, który miał miejsce między 1 a 4 września w Centrum Nauki Kopernik w Warszawie. Zespół projektowy to Hanna Kokczyńska, Jacek Majewski, Michał Piasecki i Ignacy Kaim. Jakub Składanem był menadżerem montażu. Opracowany na potrzeby projektu algorytm upakowuje okręgi i wyciąga je na odpowiednie długości tak by odwzorować zadaną powierzchnię NURBS. Scenografia składa się z 16000 tuleji o ponad 200 różnych długościach.

Michal Piasecki recently worked for NEX Architecture on Times Eureka Pavilion. The project, commissioned by Times newspaper and Kew Gardens, was undertaken in collaboration with landscape architects Marcus Barnett. It is about to be opened during RHS Chelsea Flower Show on 25th of May 2011 in London. Detailed description is available from NEX.

Michal’s responsibility was to develop a series of scripts and parametric models for all design stages. Early concepts used an implementation of L-systems – algorithms simulating the growth of trees – in Processing. Grasshopper was put to work on later stages when the form became controlled by a Voronoi diagram. It was also used to develop final fabrication data, including layout and labeling, for two technologies: 5 axis CNC milling for timber structure and laser cutting for plastic infill.

Michał Piasecki pracował niedawno dla NEX Architecture nad projektem Times Eureka Pavilion. Projekt, opracowany na zlecenie gazety Times i Kew Gardens, powstał we współpracy z architektami krajobrazu Marcus Barnett. Otwarcie nastąpi na RHS Chelsea Flower Show 25 maja 2011 w Londynie. Szczegółowy opis jest dostępny na stronie NEX.

Zadaniem Michała było opracowanie szeregu skryptów i modeli parametrycznych , których używano na wszystkich etapach pracy nad projektem. Na etapie koncepcji użyto L-systemów – algorytmów symulujących proces wzrastania drzew – zaimplementowanych w Processing. Grasshopper został użyty na późniejszym etapie, gdy forma zaczęła być kontrolowana przez diagram Voronoi. Wykorzystano go również do przygotowania końcowych danych do cyfrowego wspomagania wytwarzania. W projekcie zastosowano dwie technologie CNC: frezowanie 5-osiowe do wytworzenia konstrukcji drewnianej oraz cięcie laserowe przy plastikowym wypełnieniu.

PROJECT: To + Fro Table

LOCATION: London, UK

KEY DATES: Competition June 2010
Completion of prototype: September 2010
Production: January 2011

PROTOTYPE MANUFACTURER: Metropolitan Works

PRICE: Price on application

DESIGNER: NEX – Alan Dempsey, Paul Loh, Michal Piasecki

COLLABORATORS: Engineering consultation: Buro Happold

DESIGN STATEMENT:

The to-and-fro table is designed to expand the range of communication between users through a sophisticated arrangement of material and structure. As verbal communication accounts for only a small part of how we interact, the to-and-fro table facilitates more open full body communication with certain individuals while remaining discreetly hidden to others.

Like the reciprocating back and forth of a good conversation, the table is made up of a field of delicate wooden fins that vary to-and-fro in relation to each other and interlock to form an intricate lattice that appears most transparent in the vicinity of the person sitting diagonally opposite the viewer and increasingly opaque elsewhere. While the variation of the transparency of the table leads to a more engaging interaction, it is also intended to produce a piece of furniture that actively contributes to the atmosphere of the space it is placed within by creating complex patterns of light and shadow.

The table is designed from individual components that are precisely machined on computer controlled routers, which are then hand assembled by skilled craftsmen. The table is made from solid walnut with an iron free glass top.

You can get much more information about the event in the past workshops section on Workshops Factory blog.

On Friday (3rd of April) we have started quite late – at 18.00 (or 6PM if you wish). The evening was filled with presentations. Dorota spoke about computer aided digital manufacturing, Krystian spoke about design process as a control of flow of information and   I spoke about the spectrum of potential of generative procedures – trying to have the notion of optimization processes in mind.

Saturday (4th of April) started early. We begun with type-along session beggining at 10.00 and lasting till 14.00. After quick lunch participants divided themselves into groups of three. Their task was to write additional function to the script which we have provided them with. It was the function determining the actual shape of the seating.

Sunday (5th of April) was another, slightly less successful try to start early. Let’s say it all begun at 10.30.  Groups gathered together to continue work on their scripts. Eventually first group (Michal, Lukasz and Andrzej) was ready and we’ve started the fabrication process. By the end of the day their prototype in 1:1 scale was ready.

Through Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday we’ve managed to fabricate two more 1:1 prototypes by Ewa, Kama and Marta and Karolina, Gal and Tomek.

This post follows the previous one on plugging Excel to Processing. As part of the Msc AAC I was presented with a task of visualizing data from scanning for blue-tooth devices in the city of Bath. I was working on this with Zeta Kachri, Ankon Mitra and Kensuke Hotta.

I’m skeptical about usefulness of the data from blue-tooth scanning as a mean of representation of any patterns of human presence in the city (since it turns out that only 8.5% of people have blue-tooth enabled in their devices). My group decided to try to explore the patterns of presence anyway. The generative procedure in Processing was driven by two parameters: number of scanned devices and (what we called) “persistence” of each device – the period for which it remained in the range of the scanner. We choose those parameters in order to represent places where people stay for longer period of time in opposite to places which majority of people just pass through. Next step might be an evaluation of the results of representation in the light of axial map analysis of the city of Bath coming from Space Syntax.

DXF exports from Processing needed a bit of tweaking with Rhinoscript before final export to STL.

The models where printed at the DMC London – a 3d printing centre located at the Bartlett School of Architecture. We have used a Z-Corp machine, but DMC offers a range of SLS machines from EOS too. I’m looking forward to using one of them next time.

We have chosen to print only the most representative data from the range of information provided by blue-tooth scan. You can see the whole set of data visualized in Processing underneath:

Workshops Factory is an association dedicated to spreading the knowledge on digital paradigm in design. We are planning to operate in Poland and beyond collaborating both with educational institutions and commercial entities.

WF_091 is the first workshop in collaboration with Warsaw University of Technology, School of Architecture. The language of the workshop is polish. It is going to take place between 03.04.09 (Friday) and 05.04.09 (Sunday) and it’s theme is Rhinoscripting and digital fabrication. We are going to deal with a design of parametric urban furniture and we are then going to fabricate their mock-ups in 1:1 scale. More information about the workshop follows here (unfortunately in Polish only). There are also some general information about Workshops Factory in English available. Finally – third option is just to take a look on our blog.

Many thanks to WAPW’s ZPAWK and Marcin Brzeski for their support.

Expedition Engineering decided to use genetic algorithms (GA) to optimize the canopy structure, because it has to fulfill overlapping conditions. The structure has to both provide shading for the elevator platforms (red on the diagram underneath) and allow sunlight to reach the lower level of the train platforms (yellow).

GA operates across a pre-set number of individuals and through a pre-set number of populations. Each individual is represented by a genotype and a phenotype. First generation of individuals is a random one. Then the process of optimization begins to take place. First step of the process is decoding the genotypes into phenotypes. This means that the strings of 0s and 1s drive the generation of the actual canopy structures in Rhino. The “fitness value” is then assigned to each of the genotypes depending on how well does it’s phenotype fulfill the “fitness conditions”. The fitness condition in the case of this project is the amount of shading mentioned above. Each of the phenotypes is then tested against the position of the sun during few days in the year. Next step is the usage of the genotypes to create next generation. This step of the process is called “mating” – the “parents” of each of the next genotypes are selected randomly, but before this selection each of the genotypes is assigned a particular amount of space in the “wheel of lottery” depending on how fit it is. The most fit individuals become the parents of the next generation much more often than the less fit ones. The process is then repeated starting from the first step. The diagram below shows the phenomena of convergence – with time GA tends to produce phenotypes with similar fitness value.

The usage of artificial selection in GA for purpose of optimization is quite close to Darwin’s original model of evolution. There is however another kind of optimization taking place outside of the GA in the design process devised by Expedition Engineering. It is the structural optimization of each of the member. Initially each of the member in every individual was structurally optimized using finite elements methods. This process took place within the loop of members’ distribution optimization using GA. This approach was then changed due to time constraint. Finally, the thickness of each of the members was approximated depending on it’s position, based on the thickness of the optimized members in an evenly distributed grid. Final outcome of the GA optimization was then structurally optimized again, using proper finite elements methods.

Expedition Engineering was optimizing across the spectrum of 400 individuals in 70 generations. This means 28 000 canopies generated using Rhino script.
The process was conceived as a parametric tool. The designer is able to change the importance of every fitness condition. Presumably, assigning 80% of importance to shading and 20% to sunlight would result in quite a different outcome than assigning 50 / 50% or 20 / 80%. In reality the designer needs to wait considerable amount of time for the each of the outcomes, so it doesn’t feel like interacting with a parametric device. This however does not diminish the virtues of the approach which leads towards aesthetically satisfying spatial intervention, whose form is actually informed by it’s performance on the site. To some extend, this approach could be called a bottom-up approach to design.