deconstructive architecture

[miguelsantos]

I' brazilian, and my english isn't very nice, but I like to knohw, how projets like Zaha hadid ones, are represented or dimensioned, I don't belive that kind of project cam be dimensioned, using normal annotative methods, so, how these projets "deconstructive" with irregular curves are "ploted" how the builders know how to make those curves? They use leptops to view 3d models on the building place?

[Corey Beaulieu]

Please, anyone you knows better, correct me immediately....

 

I think that while they likely dimension out as much as they can for the usual construction documents, when it comes to the pieces that you are talking about, the strangely curved walls and roofs... These pieces are often poured concrete and so the really need to worry about how to build the form itself, not the wall. For this there is most likely a file share with the fabricator that then constructs the necessary form work. The form can be built in a much less fluid way that a builder can put back together on site. While the model is likely viewed on site from time to time, the real bulk of the solution is going to come from the form work fabricator.

[Scott Schroeder]

The architect hands the basic plans to the structural engineer and says, "Figure out how to not make this collapse and kill everyone." The structural engineer creates the plans and hands them to the contractor and says, "Ehhh, it's close enough." The builders did not make the curves, the steel company contracted was responsible to make the beams and they got those plans from the structural engineer who has a very specific structural program, probably either the structure versions of AutoCAD or Revit. These know exactly how to plot and get proper steel dimensions so they can send them down to the plant floor to get made off-site. In fact, most buildings this day in age are fabricated off site and then assembled together on-site like a giant Lego project.

 

The 3d model is rarely used on site, unless it is to check conflicts while they are working in the head shed on in the trailer on site. Any construction site I've ever been on or worked at, the model was never used as reference. The model rarely ever represents real world conditions, you rarely ever follow the prints to a perfect match when you are building a structure. There is always some fudging and on-the fly engineering going on. The most used tool on any site is still the good ole surveying equipment. Sure it's beefed up with GPS these days, but the concept is still the same.

 

There was a show on the Science/Discovery channel with Danney Forster called "Build it Bigger" and they did the Olympic aquatic center on London as one of their shows. Check it out for some insights on how they built the structure. The roof was a whole lot of steel. http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/build-it-bigger/videos/season5-olympic-aquatic-center.htm

[Dimitris Tolios]

There are a few "panelization" tools out there, that analyse and simplify complex shapes and faces into simpler, flat or single curvature panels, that then can be "transferred" into real world materials for a reasonable cost (sic).

 

Think of it as a way of "removing" a smooth modifier from a 3D mesh, turning it from a smooth shape to a faceted one.

 

Through these workflows, seemingly free-form volumes can be rationalized and materialized using a set number of different panels of predefined sizes that form a parametric construct that is "inscribed" in the original conceptual mass, and from a distance is even indistinguishable.

 

If you search on Vimeo or Youtube tutorials on Rhino Paneling tools for example, you might understand better what I am talking about.

[salvador]

It comes down to lots and lots of hard work from the engineering firm (s). Like Scott said, engineers break down the structure into much more simple elements that can be plotted out for fabrication; just figure that instead of 200 beams that can be made with four type-models, you have to figure 200 different models because each beam is different. It's just a sample in a nutshell about all of the work that needs to be done.

 

The concrete contractor alone has to run an ordeal organizing the way to systematically pour the concrete into an already complex form-work, not to mention the re-bar work over the also complex structure. That's why these projects cost what they cost, from the NURBS to the carpenters.

[miguelsantos]

Thanks for the answer, It's true, the pre-made pieces are certainly a way to make complex shapes in concrete or any material that com be used do form the surfaces.

[miguelsantos]

There are a few "panelization" tools out there, that analyse and simplify complex shapes and faces into simpler, flat or single curvature panels, that then can be "transferred" into real world materials for a reasonable cost (sic).

 

Think of it as a way of "removing" a smooth modifier from a 3D mesh, turning it from a smooth shape to a faceted one.

 

Through these workflows, seemingly free-form volumes can be rationalized and materialized using a set number of different panels of predefined sizes that form a parametric construct that is "inscribed" in the original conceptual mass, and from a distance is even indistinguishable.

 

If you search on Vimeo or Youtube tutorials on Rhino Paneling tools for example, you might understand better what I am talking about.

 

I understand what you mean by 3d mesh faceted, that way, you can put coordinates in the vertices.

[miguelsantos]

The architect hands the basic plans to the structural engineer and says, "Figure out how to not make this collapse and kill everyone." The structural engineer creates the plans and hands them to the contractor and says, "Ehhh, it's close enough." The builders did not make the curves, the steel company contracted was responsible to make the beams and they got those plans from the structural engineer who has a very specific structural program, probably either the structure versions of AutoCAD or Revit. These know exactly how to plot and get proper steel dimensions so they can send them down to the plant floor to get made off-site. In fact, most buildings this day in age are fabricated off site and then assembled together on-site like a giant Lego project.

 

The 3d model is rarely used on site, unless it is to check conflicts while they are working in the head shed on in the trailer on site. Any construction site I've ever been on or worked at, the model was never used as reference. The model rarely ever represents real world conditions, you rarely ever follow the prints to a perfect match when you are building a structure. There is always some fudging and on-the fly engineering going on. The most used tool on any site is still the good ole surveying equipment. Sure it's beefed up with GPS these days, but the concept is still the same.

 

There was a show on the Science/Discovery channel with Danney Forster called "Build it Bigger" and they did the Olympic aquatic center on London as one of their shows. Check it out for some insights on how they built the structure. The roof was a whole lot of steel. http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/build-it-bigger/videos/season5-olympic-aquatic-center.htm

 

Thank you so much, I have this show here and I simply forgot to watch. Now I can understand the process better.

[Dimitris Tolios]

I understand what you mean by 3d mesh faceted, that way, you can put coordinates in the vertices.

 

Well, the problem is no more "annotating" dimensions, and computer models can generate coordinates for each and every point on a surface - that's how they "visualize" the model anyways, is it not? If we could 3D print in full size, we would not need most of the 2D construction documents, but we are far away from doing such in a "relatively" economical way.

 

Nevertheless, there are many CNC production methods that can produce pieces that can be assembled nearly seamlessly directly from the 3D mesh.

The issue is that you want to panelize / simplify your shape into flat, or in the worst case curved pieces that can be either cut from sheets or post-formed on a single axis curve and then assembled. This method has been around and used for nearly 20 years in architecture by architects like F. Gehry among others, and longer in object and vehicle manufacturing. Getting dual curvature shapes is VERY expensive in a massive scale - such as cladding a building.

 

Again, the "economical" factor is relative. Those methods are by default ridiculously complicated and require very specialized engineers and trained construction workers to materialize them efficiently on the field, ontop of enormous material and pre-fabrication costs.

Edited October 18, 2012 by dtolios

[salvador]

... This method has been around and used for nearly 20 years in architecture by architects like F. Gerry among others, and longer in object and vehicle manufacturing. . .

 

Please don't take this the bad way but the name is Frank Gehry. Just a tiny side note.

 

Cheers

[Dimitris Tolios]

None taken...was writing it on the fly and I'm worse with names than the English (American, pun intended) language...go figure.