Last monday February 9 the presentation about the research questions was done. In order to present this research question, some reduction of posibilities was done to get a quite an almost definitive research topic in which most all factors were defined.
Since I had 3 possible questions to search on structure and that at the same time they were interenting for me, I decided to extract from them the most meaningful part of each one (change configuration, self supporting and daylight), and tried to bring them into a single and global question:
Is it possible to create a 3D structure such that it can be stable in three different configurations without changing its elements?
In order to get this question answered in the right track, some delimitations have to be settled. The context on which I want to persue this topic is having the structure on an open space such as a square. This structure should serve as a canopy, providing shade to the people, and when changing configuration, letting direct daylight go through. So the main objective is to demonstrate that a single structure can be transformed in such a way that has multi-stable configurations and by this it can provide spatial quality* without decreasing efficiency.
In order to test this hypothesis, some parameters have to be defined. In this case, th following are considered:
1.The structure should open at least for 50% the span
2.Avoid disconnection of originally attached elements
3.Change from one shape to another (floor plan)
There are still some factors to be determined, such as the surface treatment, the waterproofment of the structure, the size of the structure and the square, and other that may arise while the search is being done. In this case I would appreciate if anybody can point out anyother element that hasn't been taken into account.
*For this case the spatial quiality will be daylight income.
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminar(This comment has been integrated with the previous one).
ResponderEliminarHi Perla,
Your progresses are quite promising and your focus is getting more precise. However, still some clarification would be needed in order to better define your research work.
Particularly, I would suggest you some thoughts on the relationships between your field of interest (integral design of structures in the architectural design, with specific reference to reconfigurable structures) and the application you propose for it (achieving benefits in filtering and controlling the daylight). Especially you speak about openable roofs – which are for sure of big relevance in respect to structural aspects, but could bring critical points with respect to daylight control. Here some provocative questions I think you should deal with: why do you need to open 50% of your roof in order to control the daylight? Wouldn’t an adjustable louver system be easier and probably also more effective with respect to daylight? Daylight needs a control distributed on the entire roof, while opening a part of the roof would commonly bring a very local effect: is that the case of your system too? What the configuration of your structure when it rains? (Usually when it rains you would need relevant daylight’s income, but also protection from rain water). I think these and other similar issues might be taken into consideration when starting your research. Particularly, the general meaning of these issues is also related with two aspects:
1)the scale of the kinematism you are working with
You correctly pointed out the scale factor. But while working on your research, ‘scale’ does not refer only to the roof’s span. The roof’s span is one point, but you should think also of the scale of its elements and the scale of the movement. You might have in fact a quite large span roof which has small elements that move in a small scale movement or vice versa a small span roof which entirely slides along the overall span. And while thinking of the scale of the movement (How big is the movement you need?), I would suggest you to take into consideration the aim of the movement.
Particularly, you are talking about designing a kinetic structure by using elements that does not change. I am assuming this means you would like to work with rigid structural elements which do not change their shape but that can be reciprocally moved in order to achieve different configurations of the roof. This is an option you have chosen among many possibilities (there might be in fact other ways, like using deformable elements: see i.e. pneumatic structures). Within this option, you still have a lot of sub-possibilities, among them, the mentioned scale of the structural elements and of the movement. The scale of your rigid elements can be various and this further choice is related with the scale of the movement you want to achieve. To exemplify, there are two extremes cases: having a roof made by few elements that can reciprocally move (i.e. arenas usually use this solution since they do need only the totally open and close configurations, and commonly not any other intermediate configurations rather than the two extremes); having a roof made by small reconfigurable modules that allow small scale adjustments (it might be either with a few degrees of freedom by relating each other the kinematic behaviors of the modules or with many degrees of freedom by allowing independency of single modules’ behavior).
And so on. So, please, while talking about scale, keep into consideration all these factors (scale of roof, scale of its components and scale of movement).
2)the idea of designing a one layer roof instead of a multi-layer roof.
This reasoning leads to the second point: thinking of your roof, what are you moving and in respect with which aim? Why are you moving the structure instead of only the skin of your roof? (Which is an interesting possibility, but I am making you thinking of this aspect in order to rightly approach your research work). Why not a stable structure with adjustable skin? Or an adjustable louver system if you deal with daylight? Are you researching and designing a single layer roof which aims at achieving various functional requirements with one layer (or somehow an integrated system) instead of more independent (or somehow separately designed) layers? Since you talk about open and close, I assume you would like to reconfigure the overall roof, not only some of its layers (like usually you would have: structural system; cladding system for air and rain control, maybe with openable parts; adjustable louver system for sun thermal and light control; and so on, these or other possible combinations). While doing that, I would recommend you to deeply think about all the functions required to a roof. Please, analyze them one by one. You need rain water protection, sun protection, wind control, natural ventilation, and so on. And all of these requirements can be variously combined: in certain moments you need protecting from rain water while allowing sun income; in others, you need to stop both at the same time; or you need to allow air ventilation while stopping sun radiations and so on. Various needs variously combined. Once you have in mind all these requirements then you can focus only on daylight, which is already more than enough. But I believe you should be aware of the general context before making choices on the system you are researching for. (Especially if you are talking about a roof and not only about a lover system, you have to be sure of not developing a system which works for daylight but would not allow any other combined functions.)
3)One more aspect about the aim of the movement. Usually in the design process you would have a design task and you would work to solve it. Like in this case, you are dealing with daylight and you would like to design a system to achieve a better comfort. As you already noticed, in research you might start with a system and you are going to test if it works or not with respect to that issue. But I think the balance between these two possible approaches in you case is still missing. Do you have in mind a specific reconfigurable structure that you would like to test for daylight applications? And then the answer might be that it works or not with respect to more specific cases, aspects and so on. Or do you want to studies various reconfigurable structures to find a good one for daylight applications? These seem similar, but actually bring to two different research approaches. So please, formulate your choice and, as a consequence, you research methodology: what is your starting hypothesis, what are you going to test, how do you think to test it and so on.
4)While defining your methodology, you might want to start thinking about digital support. What kind of digital tools are you going to use during your research? How are you going to use them? (Have you been to the lectures on last Thursday? Any idea about what has been shown there?)
5)The answer to your research question is already yes. It is possible to it is possible to create a 3D structure such that it can be stable in three different configurations without changing its elements. There are examples of it. the crucial point I think is its integration in architecture and its applications (like in your case the daylight issue). So I really believe you should assume the possibility of designing multistable or reconfigurable structures as hypothesis and formulate your research question by including aspects related to their architectural applications.
6)I totally support your choice about the design context, a canopy or roof for open spaces, since this allow you focusing on your research topic without having to take into consideration further complications (as the ones due to partitions, floors or other quite relevant but also difficult further tasks). So I totally agree on that.
7)I would advice you also to have a look at precedents in kinetic architecture. I will send you some information about designed or built examples. Please, check on blackboard.
Michela