| Computational Design and Fabrication Technologies in Architecture | TU Delft | METU | |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Product Design | NEWS | |||||||||||
|
Course contents Design of a technically innovative façade scenario from the conceptual phase all the way through to the definitive design, during which all aspects of façades are taken into account. Students use computers to model/test aspects of the design, structural tension and building physics, as well as of the characteristics of materials and production techniques of a yet-to-be-realized full-scale building, working on the basis of a scaled prototype. Introduction Conceptual architectural design is often apart from tactile or visual aspects not in any way materialized, while Building Technology specifically focuses on the materialization of architectural concepts. Bucky lab design as the first semester design course of Building Technology emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between design, material and production techniques. For this reason the semester is directed to the elaboration on technical aspects of an, by students generated, architectural concept. Methodically, 'design by research' is the key element in this course with the deliberate exception of the material prototyping with the hands on confrontation of students with material and production techniques in realizing his or her own design. Deliberate, because most designers do not easily come down from the heaven of drawings to the hell of realization. The design assignment Unquestionably a façade as building skin is architecturally a decisive part and technically a very complex part of a building. For this reason the assignment in this "Bucky Lab Design" course is the innovative design of a façade for an office building with given proportion, orientation and on a given site. The concept for the façade, 'the scenario' is to be developed by each student individually within the first three weeks of the semester. The physics used in the scenario itself should be convincing and innovative. The best 50% of the scenarios is chosen to be developed by teams of two students into a final design. Building physics, mechanics, production technology and material science, virtual and material prototyping are the key research elements in this development. The main reason for forming teams of two students is time consuming character of this 'design by research', i.e. computer modeling of all the different aspects of the façade scenario. Although computer modeling is the main part of the design by research character of this course the full scale material prototyping of the best 50% of the designs by teams of four students is the very highlight of the semester. Making real shop drawings on the one hand and instruction in metal sheeting, welding and machining on the other hand facilitate both the building of the full scale material prototype by the teams of students. Every designer should once in a life time really be confronted with material properties and production techniques. All this modeling, this design by research, will not by itself result in an excellent final design of a façade. To integrate all the results of the separate model research in the scenario is the center the design process itself. Design methodology is for this reason a natural part of the course. The scenario: week 1 until 3 Design an innovative façade for an office building with given proportion, orientation and on a given site. The physics used in the scenario itself should be convincing and innovative. The façade scenario should take the architectonic, building physics, environmental and functional qualities into account. The concept for the façade, 'the scenario' is to be developed by each student individually within the first three weeks of the semester. After a presentation of the collective scenarios by the students the best half of them is selected to be further developed. Products:
The presentation of the facade scenario can either be on paper or digital on a projector. The presentation should ideally answer three questions. The first question is "what is the innovation you propose?" The second question is "why this particular innovation has been chosen?" The third and last question that should be answered is "how will the proposed innovation be realized?" The presentation of the façade scenario is by the nature of the design process focused on the defense of the decisions that are being made. This defense is ultimately only possible by being convincing about the assumptions on which the design decisions are being made. Because calculations are of not much use in deciding, it is very important to at least present an overview of all the options that are available to the designer. The decisions in a technical design process are always disguised as problems to be solved. All the options available to a designer can be translated as all the solutions for a given problem. In answering the three questions it is imperative to present all the options available or to present the main problem or problems to solve and to present all available solutions.
This report has to be made individually. It focuses on the description of the process of developing the preliminary design concept, i.e. the façade scenario. It will explain which goals/ innovations the student wants to achieve, why the student has chosen for this particular innovation, the possible solutions that are being researched and a proposal how the proposed innovation can be realized. In the end the students makes an evaluation of the façade scenario in comparison with the formulated goals/innovations. Preliminary design: week 3 until 7 In groups of two students the façade scenario is being developed to the formal and functional requirements. The students have to think about the functional performance, static behavior, methods of assembly and the overall appearance. After an informal presentation of the collective scenarios of the students, the best or the most interesting of the presentations are selected to be developed to shop drawing level for a full-scale material prototype. Instructors Peter van Swieten (responsible instructor) |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||