The 3DH Design Idea Competition

Judges: Metamechanic

Award: $100 cash
1 Bottle of Liqour (max $75 retail)
12 pack of beer (max $20)

Due Date December 15th, 2007
Winner Announced January 1st, 2008

due to overwhelming amount of information winner will be announced January 15, 2008, i apologize for any inconvenience

Rules and Objectives:

Very open competition. One may expand on the logic and math behind 3DH in theory and modeling. One may expand on it in construstion and construction ideas.

Posting of work on thread ONLY! Bustler doesn't care. Even sharing models encouraged. .

Yes any fastener, and please, for me do it with mechanic wire tension within the sheer shell of structure, so little are nessery, before you ror real has ensured a 3dh , and as you say, when that problem are solved, then we have the strongest possible kind of structure, a cube structure idealy as 3dh , ready for plastering ; what's wrong having all options for organic shaped condo's , if 3dh are enough to fit, an exact volume ,cheap , so cheap that using it as just the mold, for the real material concrete, what's wrong cast the brick where it shal reside ?

But don't go wrong ; I don't at all say you are wrong or I the arogant clever guy, who push you in some way no , as you I am here to change things, -- I guess ; and no matter you would belive so, then yes you are right -- still this mean, that by small adjustments, a 3dh easily will make a cheap new family house ? By local materials even, as suggested with using the framework as mold.

preliminary site plan...

I must say, that I find it most disturbing this contest is not registrated yet. Why is it I can't find it announced under Competisions ?

this is the competition Per.

apu, the fastener thing has always bothered me. to get my structural grid members, i'm going to need to cnc route a 20'x40' sheet of osb. i don't think they stock those at home depot. how are you guys planning on making the structural grid? are you somehow going to try to stick to a 4'x8' cut sheet or do you have other ideas? ;)

that is a good question ja, but if you can use some sort of fastener to connect the members, you can cut smaller pieces out of 4x8 and then connect them. The issue really is continuous members, which seem to be near the core of "the system theory". You can get really big members cut from steel at steel mills in massive CNC machines, but it will up the cost of the project substantially.

i thought of cutting members from steel too, but it defeats the point. it seems that the advantage the "honeycomb" provides is redundancy, thus being able to use a relatively weak material like osb and get the most out of it structurally. if you start using steel, there are much more efficient shapes than the honeycomb structure.

this one's going to puzzle me through the weekend.

is it sarcastic friday?

You could cut sections of 4'x8' OSB so that they overlap-- making your own laminated beams.

The stress skin OR a rigid is essential, right? Otherwise I think the structure can easily collapse.

This /\
\/ becomes this ||
||

Per has told me I'm wrong about this at the same time as he brings out that picture of the bomber with the lattice airframe (which proves my point). If I recall, Per, you think that the structure needs only to be cemented into the ground? That's bonkers. The plane has stiffeners running along the longitudinal length of the frame.

Look! I'm doing Per's work for him!!

Whoops, sorry that's so small, but we've seen it before, right?

yeah, with a limited osb sheet size, you would probably need to make some sort of bolted connection between members. the problem then becomes that not all members of the rib fall in the same plane, making it much more difficult to accurately locate the slotted connection. i suppose it could all be modelled, but the structure becomes more a kit-of-parts, similar to a standard moment frame, than the monolithic honeycomb structure i think per envisions. i'm almost tempted to say that it would be easier to field cut the slotted connection than try to manufacture the ribs off-site. i don't think per is going to like that.

maybe i should call it a day and make a fresh start of it tomorrow. this 3dh design work is grueling.

per, you crack me up

dammson, that's a spectacular site plan! Can't wait to see the final submission.

I better get cracking on my plan...so much to do, so little time!

That might be the point of this exercise -- to do Per's work for him ! <G>

Ignoring for a moment Per's mention of overlaps at joints to connect pieces, may I ask if a layout like the one below is of any structural advantage ?


Then there's the issue of connections. Assuming that the structural frame is to be exposed (and not clad) the appearance of the connections is an issue.

stronger/cheaper/cruder


weaker/more expensive/prettier

This one wouldn't work for SIPS, though they'd be an obvious choice for 3DH, no ?

By the way, CNC machines can cut at an angle now, so that's not an argument against a grid whose elements are not parallel. But the tight fit in wood (or any material) is a problem. How about injecting an adhesive into the joint ? Seems to me glue is the future (they're assembling aircraft with 3M pressure-sensitive tape, now, for Pete's sake).

...ah, SDR, you pose many good questions! You better get cracking at your submission. The clock is ticking!

how about aluminum (or ceramic) and friction-stir welding (creating stress-skins)?? or is the point to come up with the cheapest method, not necessarily the most efficient/strong?

this is a small portion of my thesis (aircraft aluminum stress-skin modular building blocks used to create housing--the visual similarity to "turning torso" is a coincidence that I unfortunately didn't discover until a few weeks before my final review)


The idea was to use friction-stir welding, effectively creating a continuous skin throughout the project (80 units encompassing a city block); making the entire system share the loading. Apparently there is a hand-held version of the welder that is similar to a router and doesn't require a certified welder to use.

I think efficiency and strength are important factors – I personally weigh it above cost but Per may have a difference in opinion. Wow - the entire system shares the load? And how did you come across the aircraft aluminum stress-skin modular building blocks? It's interesting to see industry [re]use. Good job.

Yeah -- how big are those units ?

Stressed skin is cool. We finally have an admission from Per that some kind of shear resistance might be called for.

Jafidler, I believe (despite the appearance of the visuals) that Per has always assumed the assembly of smaller pieces. It seems to me that the opportunity is there for larger (ie, longer) pieces where they would do the most good, structurally.

yeah, i missed per's post where he explained you would need to use some sort of steel dovetail joint between members in the ribs.

It's in the last post on the previous (first) page of this thread. In the posts strarting just above the (second) honeybee pic, Per suddenly (after all these years) gives some hints of his ideas about details -- including the idea of filling in parts of the outermost cells (as I understand it) with solid material, shaped (he doesn't say how -- "sanded") to conform to the outer surface of the frame.

Wow, the more we talk about it, the more un-simple a workable system is. Who would have thunk?

Yes. As I have absorbed it, to be 3DH it has to be a spaceframe composed of parallel square cells of a uniform size, oriented at 90 degrees, and carved internally and externally into the form of a building, which is drawn and fabricated digitally. Period. It may be that anything which follows this description will be acceptable. Per's in bed right now, so we'll find out in a bit.

Sorry but there proberly are a tile leap , day here when evening there ?

The aeroplane structure has a specific name , -- and I tried to explain that even they look alike , then they are as different as they can be, it's like talking oranges and apples . The Real surprise for me was walls, when I realised how smart this work I looked up to see if someone was grinning ; every place a section hit a wall (when you are 45 deg off the tradisional planes xy. like the Manzart house ) then the other section set , form a row of ; X X X X 's, not a row seen from top of ; / \ / \ / \ 's.

Please look inside the Mansard house and look at the "wall" , when you reconised how every vertical cross of frames form an "X" you be surprised as I was ---- That mean that "collums" and wall fondations will be X'et to ensure the vertical stiffnet ,and that will be greater than with pine pins and plaster of paris sheets offcaurse the walls then be thicker if they must add structural strength but my point --- well the grid ensure that there be X'es not plates with no real strength.

Now I know -- but it ask a bit historic explanation. Back when CAD programs came into architect schools long before any firm even talked about it, the choices was simple polymeshes , these zero thickness vector meshes ontop was small strait lines and you had to know about things like develoble surfaces and non develobla surfaces, -- changing things in very small details would create an unfoldable from na un unfoldable, but ofcaurse it would not strictly be the same, then triangulation would make sure that it worked partvise but , what years of trouble proved --- these zero thickness polymeshes was more trouble than fun. all sorts of practic problems if you tried use them for anything, anyway ; the sort of structure with a polymesh allway's indicate a wrapping of the surface . Architecture school workshops in those times was full of polymesh models aææ being surface models offcaurse, as that was the limitation with these, they could form organic forms, but everything would be a thin shell. Impossible structures even a few of them was tried out in huge size making ten times the trouble you realise with 3dh , why -- becaurse there was no thought of the structure to hold them . There a combination of 3dh and polymesh structures would work but then polymesh structures are good for only polymesh structures ,there are no real way to transform them into the surface they represented , there realy was holes in them and all the faces had to be made into triangles to make any sense.
But as said this is the opposife of a framework structure, and so are the structure in the aerolane , -- the "faces" are all trying to be paralell with the surface and the stringers are mimicing a polymesh , where following a surface and mimicing a polymesh was jettisoned with 3dh as othervise the frames would be impossible to assemble,

Allmost forgot holes --- holes equaly distribuated over the sheet material offer you several side effects ; first the N.C. cutter like that as then there are a callibration grid , secondly there are a grid so you would be able to "see" thru the model from one end to the other --- using these holes that is so smoothly intergrated into the measure and callibaraion in fact a third "plane" will be there with holes put into or allready in the sheets , put rods thru them or just a number of them and the structure are ancored.
How to make long sheets , holes. --- instead of one 8 millimeter sheet you uses two 4 millimeter thick sheets, by distribuating their butt ends on the middle of the one under, and continue like that there are no limitation for the length, glue the sheets together or use the holes in them, to rivit them -- that would even allow you to build from scrap metal in a most comic book way as "assembling" old scratch steel pieces are not just possible, but think about it ; if you has not a router but a strong N.C. cutter, then even offcuts can be dowetailed together by the cutter, holes can make sure it can be rivited --- well I agrea this part of it would liik better in comic book story.

Think about it -- holes, and how these can allow you to laminate or rivit huge panels, how they can be transfered to the CAD drawing used to callibrate -- or if you don't like holes so plenty, just prepare by grid, for the ones you would find handy having cut, cut to ease the assembly.

metamechanic ;

"this is the competition Per."

I am afrait not -- this is a tread about a possible competition , that will newer recive the same entities as if it was announced as a competition must be. This is a competition for fun . Sorry but I had much more "fun" that you proberly would be able to face , and it would be wrong, not to bring this contest to the public.

How difficult would that be, just starting here announcing a competition -- offcaurse then it would be nice with several openings, higher prices, more fame if you want to say it out loud, --- fact is that sites look for new competitions , we all look for the new architecture, and this is so different, that it is bound to become a succes ; case it is continued as a serious attemt.

And it is not difficult to start here ;

http://bustler.net/index.php/archinect/

To registrate it there.

then write a brief Per, but i think this is much better anyway.

i posted it per, but this thread is still part of the competition.

metamechanic I guess you understand my attitude --- stay away as much as possible, allow others to reconise a vision that is different and chalancing , so others who know better to run a competition get the space to control in a much better way I would ever know.

My role in this must be limited ,I find it relevant to answer questions, but to much can easily be way to much amd that I would like to avoid.

Now my humble suggestion also deal with the fact that maybe not so many has realised what a pandoras box we are opening, that not that many know what it will mean, when there are a simple process to project a house and get the main structure Delivered, --- what savings what new possibilities , and if you think 3dh is good for organic forms, then belive me that boxes as we know them, is a far greater oppotunity.

You suggetsed this contest, need I say more ?

@katze/SDR-- there were three basic stress-skin blocks: small, medium, and large. By connecting them in different ways I could create units for a single person, a couple, and a family. The one in the image above is a 600sf single unit--I called this one a vertical shotgun since each floor (there's 4) in the unit is a different room.
The entire complex uses the space between and above existing buildings in the city, therefore I needed to create some sort of bridging structure. The stress-skin blocks came about because the units themselves are the spanning structure and the habitable structure, connected by "branches" (I was using a banyan tree as a metaphorical generator) that are themselves stress-skins. Since I was proposing friction-stir welding; the connections between the skin on the units and branches were fused seamlessly together, effectively creating a continuous skin. This is a similar concept to how a composite floor works, with the concrete of the floor tying everything together so the entire floor works in concert.

as far as the shape goes--since it's occupying the space between buildings I needed a way to control the distribution of light so that existing windows (and the street for that matter) still received daylight. I used parabolic curves with foci that rotate 1 degree every 16" vertical, thinking this twisting will help distribute more light throughout the complex.

I'm actually still working on this, and teaching studios dealing with some of the larger issues (how do you build in a city when there's no available lots and you "can't" tear down existing buildings?)

I feel like I'm jacking this thread, which is kind of funny considering how many threads Per has jacked. . .

my issues with 3Dh--how do you make the transition between a horizontal "rib" to a vertical section without a sharp corner (a weak point subject to stress)? Some of the images show continuous pieces that go from floor to wall, but the relationship between the two is the same as normal "stick" construction--my gut reaction is that it won't work effectively as shown in Per's images. There should be a soft transition, otherwise the walls will shear off, even if there's a structural skin.

the other issue I have is with the 45degree orientation of the ribs--this will most likely use way more material than a system of ribs that follows the contour lines (normal to the curve?); gets to the whole "what's the shortest distance between two points?" argument.

Just wonder --- how would you make this, with sticks ( is that their name in english ? ) How would you use "sticks" in this ?
Could you make this with "sticks" ????



http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/images/1969.jpg

Per--

you've misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't suggest that 3Dh could be made with typical stud ("stick") construction. Based on the images that I have seen posted it looks like your interior walls are perfectly perpendicular to the floor with 90degree transitions (the same relationship between floor and wall as typical stud construction). Now, if those "interior walls" (like the ones creating the "corridor" in the pic above) are part of the same piece that creates the floor there will be problems at the transition point between vertical and horizontal, namely that piece will want to break there because all of the forces experienced by that piece will be concentrated at that transition (i believe the technical term would be moment-induced shear). This will be a problem even if there is a structural skin applied to the "ribs", since I'm assuming this is a semi-monocoque design which needs a sound framework and structural skin in order to work. The skin alone can't handle the loading, and neither can the framework, but the two together can handle more than either separately. Does this make sense?

It'd be great if you could post a image of an "assembly drawing" that shows each individual piece in plan view and then an isometric of the final piece (hopefully one that is not done in autocad so that we can see where each piece meets another). This would be greatly beneficial to the rest of us that are trying to understand your system

What I wonder, is how huge steel ships hulls survive the same forces ; now There you can compare with a tight construction, try make a house do what a super Tanker is made to resist , or how northsea trawlers get thrown around ,without any structural trouble ; I wonder if a honeycomb structure as any modern ships hull shuldn't be a reliable building structure aswell, why not --- except offcaurse only the structure, paneling, the whole structural compare very much, to that of a 3dh.

Now who would think en egg ,such rigdi shell with a most unstable substance inside, would in theori be able to restand just the change in internal preasure , going from zero to a hundred deg. celcius , without the rigid thin shell cracking, --- guess it's like the humblebee that in theorie can't fly, dis you know it also fancy honeycomb.

Forgot to comment ;
"The skin alone can't handle the loading,"

Now that also depend what load we talk about , strangly enough, it is exactly the skin that most commonly been the carrier of all sorts of forces, think about an aeroplane hull, where the tight skin , the fuselage tube so to say, is what is expected by design to withstand forces it realy is not placed well, to distribuate. Bow there also are "ribs" as you say, but these is newer or allmost newer distribuated so, that the forces are equaly shared among the structural framework no, these are individual rings, ---- then "the forces" can only be shared thruout the thin paneling , guess that effect how fragile these types of hulls are, when the skin is thoughtless the only carrier of "strength" , a thin tube and the ribs only to ensure the form, now something ought to be done there.

Ship hulls don't typically have those 90degree transitions like you're showing, nor are the hull and interior walls cut from the same piece of material.

As far as the egg--it's about how the force is delivered and at which point it is delivered (force applied to a very tiny area creates large stress, the same force applied to a large area creates a much lower stress). Though, you're talking about thermal changes which is completely different and is more dependent upon the nature of the material and not necessarily the shape of the material, although shape can affect heat transfer…bumblebees don't know they "can't fly", that's why they can.

so, do you have a 3Dh design that you can show us plans of each individual piece along with the isometric of the completed design? How do you decide the shape of your design? Do you start with a "shell" massing and then "3Dh" it, or do you come up with one rib design and arrange multiples of it in such a way in order to create a habitable space? Why are the "ribs" typically oriented at a 45 to the contour of the shape you're creating, and how does this not use more material than ribs oriented along the contour lines?

Per, look up "monocoque" and "semi-monocoque"

What I notised is how "as things are" is often taken as some sort of argument. I find no argument in how things are , esp. when "how things are" is defending against changes. I been very surprised about these arguments that is often said, but to say that a ships hull in any way shuld offer different frces towerds it's cube structure than that of a 3dh that I find difficult to belive. True the sections and bulkheads, the longships stringer replacements all the structural entities follow the tradisional construction planes --- they have done so since the late 15' century where building after plans became the methods mainly used today, look up sipsbuilding history and you be surprised , how up to pase century, huge ships was build allmost without drawing even, but realy ; just becaurse things was made like "this" for 400 years, that don't mean they are the best for computers to, I don't think that sort of prepareness was build into the mainly 2D calculations, that is the basic grounds for so much structural projecting, likevise an isometric drawing allway's was just a primitive 3D represantation where you sure enough, uses the true measures just looking wierd, in an isometric drawing -- but realy today we have something much better than isometric drawings, and they yield something better see , an isometric drawing also are a scale presentation, a CAD drawing is not scaled m and you can pick the measures from that, even easier than from an isometric drawing.

I don't know what you are up to, but you shuld allready have realised.

Still it lookes like you found out, that a 3dh structure can be round withouts and offer square rooms within ain't that just smart , and then you ask why the 45 deg. --- well that is what make it all possible, that's the new thing, as you obviously can see , and yes it is quite a new concept newer tried bedore, it's called an invention, even I don't use so grand words, but then it must atleast be newthinking ; now newthinking is what anyone are shouting for, even that is becaurse it is needed not becaurse it has to be fought. Also structural newthinking isnot wrong just becaurse it is different, ot's only different.
To answer your last question no, the frames is not placed 45 deg. to towerds the contour, they are placed 45 deg. out of the tradisional construction planes that is usealy 4 planes, here there are only two planes and they, seem very well, to do the job even smoother, than the old tree planes --- a third less isn't that good step in direction of the obvious savings, that don't just deal with questioning how things are allready done, and therefore has to be different, but also things like replacing intire production lines, unifying the material into one, or realy not one that's not what I say, but one type of material, beside the fact offcaurse, to use computers, now they can offcaurse do the old tricks the 400 year old tricks develobed when no computers was there, the isometric that is just a smart way to describe simple 3D measures, but also so many other things --- please expect the new to be different, it seem we has to overcome that hurdle before anything else-

Per

Is this 3DH in your mind?

It is a curved surface, it's just a small detail of it, and those horizontal Tubes are sprinkler, it is not structural, the only structure is the wood.

You can see the memebers are slightly offset where the ends meet, this allows the two memebers to be fastened to the middle member by a sinlge bolt that passes through all three members.

No I don't see that as 3dh at all.

rehiggins gave good responses to your points per. can you not do same? i would love to hear something as intelligently phrased. more, it would be wonderful if you could refrain from claiming everyone a fool for not getting it. as far as i can tell this "competition" has already developed your primitive idea miles beyond anything you have shown to date...it even almost begins to make sense, its limitations and its possibilities...the other treads about per i am not sure i get, but this one is quite cool...

Thank's , and please be aware how what you say is positive, that yield a positive response.

Now the system is fairly simple but I would vaste your time, by in detail go into an even more simple aproach to a surface construction ; I can see what that picture show, now each stick are placed and why they are distribuated like that -- and it is not 3dh.

The best I can explain is, that this simply are a new and different aproach ; ------ something that allow the designer to use a Solid model to generate the framework to build the thing. This is nwe in the sense that you don't have to "translate" anything so it can be build, the forms will be exactly what you by computer project, the projecting change into the actural building compoments, the real frames and this very different compared how things was done before computers, even how other methods work -- it's a new worls, and you can't blame it to be different, as different it must be , what else would you expect newthinking to aproach the old technikes, but in a compleat different way, but a way with no compromises and a way that is fit for today's projecting --- think about that before you try compare it whit how things was, there are no point in that.

Per--

I think we're all having trouble figuring out where one piece ends and another begins; that's why I've been asking for an "assembly" drawing. The isometrics you've been showing are carefully contrived views of a 3D object in a 2D plane (the monitor screen). We can only see your design from the views that you give us, but in order for us to truly understand your design we'd need to be able to control how we view the design. Does this make sense? It's like looking at a physical model compared to renderings on a board.

If you don't have something resembling an assembly drawing, would you mind giving us one of your model files (in dxf or 3ds format)?

and Per, please think about your answers some more--you haven't really addressed anyone's questions yet; you've just been rephrasing the same half-worked-out argument. Responding to someone's question about how the system works with "it's new and different" therefore better than traditional methods does not answer the question on how it works. Just because something is new, doesn't mean that it is better.

what we need is a 200'x200' 3d printer!

now that would be badass!

I don't understand rehiggins are these examples not better than thousands words ;



I would happily post a 3ds or simular , but please, for me these structures are even simpler than anything, --- there are two cutting planes to make the sections from, emagine how small each section is in fact and how weak any other sectioning will be, look at how the form can change or how two different frames can make any "length" of such structure framework --- what about this also from 2002 , isn't that "explaining better than my english ? :

These are old and I agrea , but please remember not to critic the design --- these are only graphics to explain what is possible , with a different attitude, an attitude that beside make some real suggestions about the actural structure ;



http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/images/2019.jpg

For me a project as this, one that clearly show the structure , one that don't try to hide the structure is far more interesting than any shipping-container project, --- the basic Solids are shipping containers thick walled to deliver the framework, but why stay bored with a box, when two containers can be connected as this ;



http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/images/1774.jpg

Do you find it so difficult to become inspired further, from these graphics ?

Now something quite different and sorry a bit off-topic ; but if I can write a spiral stairs generator-program , then why wouldn't 3dh be irelevant, -- remember it all started when I started to share this idear, this is som of what I did before , just some of it ;



A suggestion I made to a friend of mine.

Per, renderings/isometrics alone are rarely as informative as a physical model that one can hold or a series of drawings that show 2D views and the isometric/rendering. You know your system well (and can read things into you images that we can't), but the images that you post are not nearly as informative as you think they are. It's not about being inspired or not; it's about understanding your system. Think very hard about what you are trying to get across with your images and ask yourself if the images you produce are clearly expressing that idea to someone who has no knowledge of your system.

What "story" are you trying to tell and are your images telling that "story?" Are axons alone (which are 2D representations of a 3D object) truly the best way to represent your idea?

It'd be great if you could distill your idea to a simple black and white concept diagram that explains the entire rationale behind your idea--that way we'd all be able to understand the underlying methodology/spirit and be better able to run with your ideas for this competition.

I promise to give it a serious thought, -- still Im'e also expect this contest to yield something greater than we all expect.

off-topic It seem my newest invention work so much better than I thought, --- "invention" well you think different about it ,when it come natural develobed within a project, --- and that is what I hope for ; projects where 3dh is just a tool to ensure the buildability but also adding greatly to the creativity ,such as this daytime picture ;



http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/5885/sta60117ej6.jpg

Per, I think we all understand what it is that you're trying to achieve (it's commendable), but now is the time for us to understand how you want to achieve "it."

Ask yourself how you'd explain to someone how to assemble a 3Dh design, and show us--it doesn't have to be "right" the first time; design is an iterative process and you're almost never "right" the first time.

Ok if you understand what I try to achive, in fact that shuld be more than enough , think about it, the method I suggest is great to make you a house at a third the cost, just as good as the one you have now. It's just one of those small things, you know ; like producing things in a compleatly new fasion, And it involve computers ; simple, handy and accurate. --- And I presume those qualities are worth trusting , newthinking , but you Romans are so stubern , that even you found out it's no drawback it revolusionise eo plenty, bring new materials, new angles, why not trust it even further, realise this realy ask a masters, hand, not an amature.

No, Per, it's not enough because there are other ways to do what you propose that take less energy to understand, less material to build and, most likely, perform better. I'm asking for a clear understanding/explanation of your system.

Can you explain your system in three words? How about one sentence? If not, there's a problem and your idea is not fully "fleshed-out".

I'm also surprised that you've resorted to name-calling. I figured you'd be the last person to start that given how much you complain about the insults you get.

I'm trying to help, Per; I don't know why, but I am. Quite frankly, it's becoming a waste of my time--I have assignments/lectures to prepare and work of my own. You obviously don't know enough about the underlying concepts of your own invention to have a productive discussion.

Well the strange thing, contribuating as I do, I am trying to help you, and allready there are plenty examples that it is not so difficult.

Btw -- what other system go from 3D model to calculated building part, as smooth, at all ?

Seem results come in bundles, two more paintings in each less than 15 minuts ;



http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/4148/sta60137jy0.jpg



http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/2076/sta60141qu3.jpg

Ok if what I showed you ISN'T 3DH how come the Serpentine pavilllion is?

I will answer you shotly, it's an interesting queasion , but the answer ask some thruout resoning, and there are many resons, many things that pavilion is not, till then ... here are Silver Screen Galleri in yellow street light :




http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/2619/sta60130eu2.jpg

here's just one automated method using MEL scripting:
(SOFTlab)

Waffle

Per, your system seems to need gravity in order to work, what happens to your system when there is no gravity or there isn't a "ground" on which to rest? (btw, this question has nothing to do with the above link)

rehiggins..
are you starting to get it now?

there are never any answers. and if you ask too many questions
he just insults you...

per

there's already a whole thread for you galleri..why don't you stop
hijacking your own thread.

yeah, but I've got a bit of a masochistic side…

oh humble Per, quit posting your crappy artwork on this thread, this thread is about 3DH.

also, Bustler has not yet posted this competion...

thanks, archinect.

I propose that whomever/whoever/whatever enters this competition that they also post their model file for the rest of us to play around with…

rehiggins, the competition brief has been updated.

i'm not personally up to the task of designing and/or building anything in 3dh but i did write a short essay about it back in july 2005. i'll try submitting that as my entry...and i'll repost it here since i don't think anybody actually read it (or anything else) on the fancy graphics thread:

a short essay on the work of per corell
by puddles

although i do not yet claim to fully understand per's 3d honeycomb (and admittedly allowing per some slack in his renderings/images) i have to admit that given some time to reflect on the matter, i am beginning to see the "danish-ness" of this potential architecture that per has been so faithfully proselytizing. as an additional caveat, i should point out that i am drawing heavily on christian norberg-schulz's text "nightlands, nordic building"* since i haven't actually visited denmark (although i have spent time in the rest of scandinavia: norway, sweden, and finland). even so, i'm going to take a stab at adding another perspective to the work of per corel.

amongst the fundamental characteristics of nordic architecture is an inspiration from nature and obviously the 3d honeycomb is evocative of the natural structure employed by bees in their hives. further, the anti-classical north would seem to be congruent with the topological potential of the honeycomb structure. more particular to denmark, the land's repetitive order has informed a building tradition of half-timbering, a skeletal-like construction method that uses a bay of constant width (typically without interior support). half-timbering achieves order via its repetitive modules while remaining open-ended. though this building tradition has its roots in the rural, it also informs denmark's urban building which also exhibit orderly rhythms and adjacent facades of similar heights. disregarding the formal immaturity of many of per's images which like to feature such fantasy shapes as airplanes, eastern (russian) churches, or ice ceam cones, i feel that the similarities between the 3d honeycomb and the danish building tradition are, surprisingly, quite evident if prejudices against bad form are, at least temporarily, suspended.

now, although per's 3d honeycomb expands the gestalt qualities of the danish building tradition by effectively merging the ideas of, one, repetitive window openings and, secondly, a unifying roof into one cohesive mesh, it remains to be seen how per (or another danish architect) might articulate the secondary links within this system, the use of infill, and details. moreover, the question of material cannot be easily dismissed as wood has long been a staple of nordic building tradition as opposed to the implicit permanence of stone in southern europe. still, these are not necessarily limitations, but rather opportunities for maintaining a pliable building tradition rather than reverting to historicist nostalgia or foolishly embracing the new for its own sake in a desperate attempt to be as modern as everybody else.

moreover, even the method by which per has been inviting us to his process, allowing the 3d honeycomb to evolve in a public forum (sometimes at an admittedly glacial pace) has exhibited a braveness for the unknown, a sympathy for the unfinished, and a comfort with the search that may well be called nordic. still, i can't shake the idea that per might actually be onto something more than most of us are recognizing (although it may also be beyond per's ability to communicate to us.) perhaps his biggest mistake is simply in straying too far from home...the internet is a great universal forum and has a broad reach, but i suspect that the real potential in the 3d honeycomb needs to be explored locally first. one cannot conquer the world without first conquering the neighborhood. if per and his fellow danes take this seriously, in ten or twenty years we may be considering 3d honeycomb not as an internet oddity commemorated by t-shirts and inside jokes but as an exemplar of contemporary design working within a pliable building tradition that many other places could only wish they could replicate.


* norberg-schulz, christian. nightlands: nordic building. cambridge, massachusetts: massachusetts institute of technology press, 1996. of particular importance were the first three chapters. images on pages 54 through 59 succinctly demonstrate the relevant characteristics of danish building tradition.

personally i'm more interested in taking this on from the standpoint of assembly. the model will be incidental. i plan on making the model to be building scale, then try to deconstruct it's components (ribs) into pieces (parts) that can be layed out on 4'x8' sheets of osb. from there, i see two major problems of assembly. first, attaching the parts with per's steel dovetail joint to create the ribs, and second, creating the slots and connections for the ribs. that's essentially what you would need to construct the 3dh framework, ignoring other important elements of construction (foundations, the skin, etc.).

right now this all conceptual, but that's the basic direction i see my entry taking.

question for everyone:

should this system be able to be assembled by anyone (provided they can get the pieces cut or shipped to them--eMachineShop comes to mind, not just experienced professionals?

A clarification about my gravity comment: if this system is the future of architecture, how will it work in what could arguably be the next frontier of architectural "sites"; namely microgravity (orbit/moon/Mars) or zero gravity (deep space)?

I heard there is this thing called 3dh. I'll bet I wouldn't be able to find any threads on it...

The Google

Search all words;

"3D Honeycomb Per Corell"

You will see!

Try Google image search

Search all words;

"3D Honeycomb Per Corell"

You will see!

Given that structures designed for zero gravity would be almost entirely different from structures built on terra firma, doesn't the gravity-free environment remove most of the structural engineer's traditional challenges ?

The term "model" has become difficult to interpret, now that it is used in a new way, to designate a computer-drawn "3D" representation of an object, as well as the original definition, a physical representation at scale. The very term 3D is similarly polluted. . .

Scale model

true--but if this is to truly break from tradition, then it shouldn't behave like a traditional building built on a foundation with a slab and walls and columns/beams--right now it seems that 3Dh is just another way to replicate those funcitons (it'd be like saying a nuclear (fission) power plant is truly revolutionary--it isn't since it is just another way to produce steam to spin a turbine). What I'm getting at is a system that has it's own integrity without gravity, so it's not a catenary cable, or ? (sorry I'm blanking this morning).

The human body is a prime example--it's a discontinuous compression system utilizing the tension of muscles/tendons acting on the skeleton for its rigidity. This is why you don't go mushy when laying down--your body is rigid no matter what position you're in; no matter which way gravity is acting on you…sorry if I'm not making sense, I'm right on the edge of my own understanding of these things and may not be explaining things clearly. I'll see if I can dig up some links that may explain things better.

I agree with Per that there "needs" to be a fundamental shift in how things are done, but only if it's better than what's been done before--new for the sake of new doesn't really get us anywhere.

don't the terms 'model' and '3D' exist as abstract ideas, and the physical thing or the virtual thing are just ways of interpreting those abstract ideas??

Gravity , cubic measures, center of gravity everything , the point to act the piece perfectly ballanced geometric midpoint , everything you would expect, is there ,remember it's flat , in Massprop as I remember.
The volume the intire structure enhance, each property of each and not just any, but whatever the structure at that point present. whatever other method requier remember, this also smooth in handy, in more than it's own aspects , build a boat, sound silli --- but you will learn to value, a relevant construction fasion, or do you expect you are going to start right up with a highrise, offcaurse you can not ; and wanting to learn 3dh well, then build a boat. Not a halve boat as the old boatsbuilding students was asked, as exame sort of thing ... after the neat handywork was jettisoned no, I talk about a real boat.

I got it - I've figured it out. Per is a Turing Test and we all all its test subjects. Very clever you folks in whatever Danish university cooked this one up! The horrible spelling and grammar had me fooled for the longest time, but its all so clear now!

I can get with the desire to achieve a completely new paradigm -- just to see if such a thing is possible. But is that just to out-Per Per ? Aren't we talking about constructions to be built on the planet, and if so aren't we constrained by the traditional Earth-bound conditions ? The superiority of someting new can only be judged if the background criteria are constant, no ?

But just for the sake of seeing what can be done, by all means proceed !

Certainly the terms "model" and "3D," like many nouns and adjectives, are both general and specific. But when we add a new definition or meaning to an existing term, and fail to differentiate when using the word, the reader/listener is left to guess which use we mean, possibly relying on context -- which isn't always present or reliable.

I would have been happier to see a new term, like cadmodel or imodel ? As for 3D, this is a misuse, I think. The only difference between a traditional perspective view of an object (animated or not) and a computer-generated view, walk-through or video-game environment, is the fact that a digital program weas used to create the latter. Why is one "3D" and the other not ?

Sorry to hijack the thread. This issue may have been discussed elsewhere ?
I am unclear whether a physical or a digital model will be presented by entrants of the contest.

"Sorry to hijack the thread. This issue may have been discussed elsewhere ?"

no such thing as hi jacking a thread...proceed...

I guess the machine is failing the test, no ?

realise it, a house is a mashin to live in.
With modern construction , you can subtract troublesom on site obstrkles, like halve cliff's or water falls ---- this mashin will remote it's structure, when the computer calculate one, that fit exactly to local condisions, and deliver a flexible structure for a house.
In this concept, the designer has total dreedom to build a cabin at a third the cost, provided relevant fabrication occour.
All ready FLW and his kinds, proven awsom how great the oppotunities was ,think about the mountain af money , a new way to put things together will accumulate , new jobs --- atleast, some nice houses some change in what is othervise a sad tale, that is what I hope this contest would provide.
Beside the mountains of money offcaurse --- btw ; a few hours ago this was morning at yours, that's where it was 18 in the evenings here ; Is everything broken at your site Romans --, even your time pieces are hours behind it havn'e even started getting morning when I am in the late afternoon, Think about it -- want a nice house or not, how difficult can it be --- and btw. a fair nice combined sail motor vessel, at a resonable size survivour size, --- a nice side effext, a nice boat compared a project where the item has no second use.

I'm not going to get an answer am I?

Best of luck. Have we seen an illustration of the Serpentine Pavilion ?

Offcaurse I would soften the princip that a house is a mashin to live in -- sure it is but it is also so many other things. Still the mashine angle is still an issue in architecture I guess, I think mashin looking buildings , as the early Sowjet factories, and other buildings are the essense in modern architecture.

But whoever claimed a house to be a mashin, did not even, have a vision about what's acturly possible, when digital options make it possible to do those things, even more progressive, today , just using the right tools with the computer.

"Best of luck. Have we seen an illustration of the Serpentine Pavilion ?"

But why, is it relevant to the subject the contest, has the contest been rendered public , where is the cake?

Here's a link to the [http://www.arup.com/europe/feature.cfm?pageid=6897] 2005 Serpentine Gallery Pavilion by Álvaro Siza, Eduardo Souto de Moura and Cecil Balmond [/url].

Whom it is alleged [http://arch.designcommunity.com/post-3247933.html]"stole the intelectural property of the danish designer Per Corell"[/url].

Which I came across while google Per Corell as he suggested to.

And here's an image of the Serpentine Pavillion

It's relevant because we're trying to understand what 3DH is. You say this is, but other things that look just like it and are built in the smae manner are not. So we can't figure out what the distinction it.

…how publicized the projects are?

but seriously, SDR--I understand…I'm asking questions about things that probably don't matter; at least as far as 3Dh is concerned. It's my take on what a "revolutionary" system means--it's not just a new/novel way for effectively doing the same thing as what's come before. The gravity stuff was just one place where I see a flaw in the concept of 3Dh as a revolutionary, paradigm flipping system.

psycho-mullet I am a bit confused -- this is the most beautified foto-- if it is a foto, the pavilion I remember was overly fiddled, standing on slli legs, sectioned from not just only two , but bang All tree , strict engineering top, side front, Yes the theorie partvise they did have, but not an inderstanding and was this , great volume realy N.C. cut frames acting a structural framework, projected so and build as build from scale drawing , or was it a joke.
It stayed at the basic first replacement for a shell ; no vision about that this shell could enhance floor structure, frames within, acting all those building compoments old methods requier, was the frames water-jet cut or jigsawn why was the newer any foto's of that. among my pictures found easy by Google , there are a scale model of how put just a good will, to allow a different aproach to the build works, What I blame that pavilion, is acting as 3dh destrouing 3dh's reputation, as this is the last way to design a structure that form, doing it as it was, sorry I guess I just found it ugly and not as elegant 3dh can perform, and as I back then, had been insights full describing 3dh for years all over the web ; even then this army of engineered craftsmen this grandiouse firm put into heroic handycrafts, then this --well it try byt try lazy, it also newer had a messeage --- it shuld have had think about it, what did that pavilion had to profit architecture, why ; becaurse 3dh allready was there.

I just thought this tread was about the contest --- a silli pavilion, that in terms of understanding 3dh is at kindergarden state, and a sorry , sorry for artists who are that generation, and has spended a decade trying acturly to deliver.

Remember it's night here and my mind is maybe into contructoring when I develob exiting new projecting technikes and see an instant result, also I think the best thing is that I interfere as little as possible , allow the contest issues to be solved could be a good idear.

It will be interesting to see to what extent Per is willing to accept other definitions of 3DH than his own.

I'm interested in the way(s) that you see 3DH (as opposed to any other structural system ?) as dependent on/reacting to gravity, reh. Can you elaborate ?

i really wish per spoke english fluently..or i spoke danish.
but i guess your sentence structure and paragraph structure
would still be the same.


rehiggins:
wouldn't the structure in space have to be different? instead
of gravity it would be pressure right? i mean there must be
a reason why most space stations are made of cylinders no?
or is it just because that's what fits in a space shuttle?
it's been a long time since i took physics.

I suspect that the cylindrical form of space station modules has to do with the containment of a pressurized atmosphere ?

sdr

i think what per finds exciting about 3dh (and what i see as
a potential liability) is that the walls, floors and ceilings etc
are all made out of the same material...somehow this is cheaper
i don't quite understand how that's true.

to me 3dh depends on a lot of slotted connections which aren't
all that stable imo... and do they really carry loads effectively?
again this is what i see as a limitation and per sees as an
advantage.

as far as reacting to gravity and stresses in general...what
material works well in compression and tension? seems to
me that any concrete like structure would be bad....since
it would need a lot of rebar...maybe steel, but then it would
be really, really heavy...osb or plywood perhaps? but then
there would have to be metal connections...which would seem
to be labor intensive and again expensive...at least more
expensive than our current type of construction. especially
since it seems as though it would rely on a more man hours...
but maybe not.

Those are all open questions, no doubt. I can't tell if Per has moved beyond the slotted connections in his conception. He has referred to metal connections, lately. I agree that the simple slotting together of long pieces of material is fraught with hazard, and implies (to me) impossibly large pieces, weakened by those slots -- an unrealistic unlargement of a miniature idea.

Per has shown renderings in which the cells are oriented diagonally or (almost) horizontally, resulting in large peices which are seemingly unsupported and are certainly performing no structural function.

Per seems fascinated by the way in which interior elements like floors and partitions "grow naturally" or "appear magically." To me these are just normal functions of the technique. They are certainly not surprising, as far as I can tell.

Even with today's (and tomorrow's) materials and techniques of fabrication, there are limits to the degree in which things can be enlarged in scale. Isn't it true that an insect enlarged to the size of an elephant would collapse ?

Intriging that there are submarines due for 6 Kilometer deep dive ; that's 500 Atm. preasure in space, the same forces are minus one atm. if it even work as expected, a contant stabiliser so to say.

;agnetic shields proberly be handy a structure that offer a thruout access in the matric structural web, emagine how pover to the exact section , where the wires from one section general, meet with the supply's of a frame in the other matrics compoments, one cube defined for meny uses, by it two contensts I see many happy side effects just there.

I wonder if anyone realised how to solve the slot connection "problem" that this problem was transformed into a simple universal fitting , cut in same sheet material and numbered ? another suggestion for a entrance type, earthquake safe houses ; and if it is allowed me to ask something ; was earthquake safe houses or addisional earthquake securing structural additions irelevant, or is this no issue to "answer"" ?

"Isn't it true that an insect enlarged to the size of an elephant would collapse ?"

Exactly , that's why it is designed as an elefant.

I think they're cylindrical because pressure is exerted uniformly on a spherical surface (that's why bubbles are typically spherical) though I may be explaining it somewhat incorrectly…

a Catenary curve (like those in a suspension bridge) is the shape that it is because of the weight of the cable (gravity acting on that cable) and that cable is able to take load because gravity has already deformed it, making it rigid, the additional loading then becomes a function of the nature of the material (?--any structural engineers here?). I'm guessing, that without gravity the cable wouldn't be able to carry as much loading as it would with gravity. Gravity is creating tension in the cable, thus it is rigid, thus able to carry load.

I guess what I was really driving at is a system that is rigid regardless of which direction gravity is acting on it; most buildings are designed to react to gravity in a particular direction, change that direction and the building has problems.

I think the way stress-skins behave is one example of something approaching (or achieving) independent rigidity because of the nature of its construction, not because of how gravity is acting on it.

Am I making any sense, or should I change my name to PerCorell JR.?

I think it is important to realise that if cheap trusted waters, can replace a lot of expensive bridge engineering, then a float bridge is the right thing to make . True tradisional float bridges are thought heavy, clumpsy and ugly, as functions , so a row of impossible flowtation tanks and a road deck. There are much better options fitting an actural ships hull, designed with care, as a replacement for a bridge. ---- there are huge promises even for the tradisional engineering thinking, but would you searching a solution, realise a nice bardge bridge, adding life to a boring harbour, flexibility to the trafic ,real solutions allowing you protected acces to the opera, by a ceat float bridge design --- or would you stay with an advanced spetacular bridge placed the wrong place ?