Your specialisms are; facade engineering, building physics, integrated design, facade technology and R&D, building performance simulation. What do you find so fascinating about the building skin?
I find the building envelope fascinating because of its obvious impact on architectural expression and the spaces we design. Successful design, engineering, and production of building envelopes require integration across disciplines. The building envelope has a – for me at least – unparalleled impact on the perceived qualities of architecture – in terms of both aesthetics and performance.
At the seminar you said: “there is definitely science in what we do”, This, I believe, is related to your understanding of Material Evidence! How is Material Evidence developed and evaluated in your praxis?
We would probably never use the term ‘Material Evidence’, but our Firm [Arup] is generally known for its creative and innovative approach to Design. As engineers – or designers – we are often trying out solutions beyond ‘the known’ and forced to work from first principles. One of my tasks is to spot research elements embedded in our engineering work – Research which would normally go undetected because the engineer sees it as a natural part of solving an engineering problem or challenge. Communication is instrumental to the creative approach and the testing of innovative ideas involves mathematical, physical, and virtual modelling.
In the Material Evidence seminar you talked about the idea of “total design” as a practise taking place between the disciplines. Could you elaborate on this idea and explain how this new interdisciplinary process creates a new platform for research in architecture?
Total Design takes on different meanings depending on context. I guess it’s shorthand for integration of disciplines and the aspiration to not try and engineer an architectural vision, but develop solutions, which work well at every level. For sake of argument: the shape of a roof may be driven by a certain ventilation strategy, while at the same time working well structurally and generating a beautiful space. Another example is the way building design should be sustainable, integrated with the urban context as well as the use of resources and energy – aspects which require a range of skills not necessarily pertaining to traditional building engineering disciplines.
This Material Evidence or knowledge you produce. How is that spread within the Firm? How do you recycle knowledge within the Firm?
The harvesting and dissemination of knowledge is the corner stone of development and innovation. In Arup, we have recognised the importance of knowledge sharing a long time ago and the result is a wide range of tools and platforms, ranging from skills networks and online forums to project databases and various forms of publications. We have also recently launched the Arup University, which takes our in-house training to another level with well-defined learning standards and collaborations with Universities.
At the seminar you mentioned the roadmap; what is the role of the roadmap?
Roadmapping is a type of management forecasting tool that can be used in a number of ways: as a method for capturing a time sequence of trends, targets and responses, as a living agenda covering tactical and strategic level objectives as a company-wide project plan. It can also act as an enabler for sharing market goals in supply chains and promotes team buy-in to corporate strategy and planning. We develop the roadmaps in workshops with key people in the firm and use the roadmap when prioritising our internal investments.
In the seminar you present the project “THE INTEGRATED BUILDING ENVELOPE” What is the main motivation for entering into such a project?
We were invited to a pre-project, exploring innovation and future building technology. It was an interesting opportunity to network and explore development opportunities. After a series of workshops, we proposed to create a consortium and develop new technology, employing new materials in a commercial building envelope application. It was a way of ‘pushing the envelope’ in terms of technology and the way facade systems are developed. Clearly we were also interested in the networking aspect.
At the seminar you said: It is because we feel that we can do better; according to seeking an alternative to aluminium! Could you elaborate on this professional drive for inventing better solutions?
We were not specifically seeking and alternative to aluminium, we were rather seeking to see how far we could get, using composites in a commercial curtain walling applications. Aluminium is the de facto standard in curtain walling frames. Because of the very high thermal conductivity of aluminium and the need to reduce thermal transmission, the frames need to be thermally broken which introduces complexity and cost. We started with a material with a lower thermal conductivity – a material with modifiable characteristics – and wanted to design around the properties of that material instead of mimicking conventional materials such as steel and aluminium. We set ourselves a series of very ambitious goals and worked to what we saw as a commercially relevant set of performance requirements.
The participants involved in this project represented a section through the supply chain. How does this group of different trade groups help to create new knowledge /Material Evidence?
We put together a consortium across the supply chain in an effort to develop technology, which was considered in a 360° view. We facilitated sharing of knowledge through a considered combination of workshops, site visits, and in-depth research and design. The sharing of knowledge and the development of concepts took place through use of sketching, modelling, and prototyping as appropriate. We went to great lengths to create an environment where information could be shared and the participants were free to contribute, using the most appropriate means of design communication.
What is the role of the demonstrator in this particular project?
We developed a number of models – both virtual and physical – during the project. We delivered what we called a visual mock-up on the conclusion of the first stage of the project (which was supported by Realdania under the Building Lab DK programme). The purpose of the visual mock-up was to communicate to ourselves and to our prospective clients ‘the look and feel’ of the new material in a novel curtain walling application. Clearly, an important element of this activity was to learn about the material and the challenges associated with the assembly processes.
You described a model on Buildability as a trinity of financial, technical and architectural importance. You said; “If you can solve this triangle you have a project”. Could you elaborate on the three aspects?
Did I? Well yes, when we deal with the relatively complex projects, we need to develop solutions which are technically feasible within the available budget, while ‘delivering’ the architectural vision. Compromises are inevitable and so the challenge is to develop a solution which meets (or exceeds!) the client’s brief, manage expectations along the way, and work closely with the contractors to minimise or avoid problems during construction. A typical example would be the delivery of a fluid form architectural building envelope in a relatively rational and economical way. The way you break down the fluid form into discrete elements is inevitably a compromise for the architect. Technically it needs to be feasible and buildable. And it needs to be realised within a given budget or it’s ‘back to the drawing board’.
At the seminar you talked about the many buildings being thought in two dimensions; you talked about the ability to think in build dimension, could you elaborate on this?
I was referring to the way details are traditionally drawn up in two dimensions whereas the real challenge is to resolve the interface details in three dimensions. The widespread use of CAD means the details may be mistakenly read as resolved, whereas they may not be fully developed at all. We say that ‘the devil is in the detail’ and this is particularly the case for complex building details. An experienced designer will be able to think the detail in three dimensions and also be able to sketch it freehand. The ability to sketch is key to ‘thinking on your feet’ and developing buildable solutions. There is a generation gap between, on the one hand, the wiz kids who master advanced CAD software but have limited design experience and, on the other hand, experienced designers with limited knowledge of – and interest in – CAD tools.
You talked about this “hands on” - material and - building process. How does that contribute to the development of knowledge?
Again, I was referring to the way your knowledge of materials and the way things are put together naturally informs the way you go about designing – whether you are designing building envelopes or other things. If you are exploring ways of using new materials in architecture - or using materials in a new way in architecture – it is probably a good idea to spend some time in the workshop or the factory to gain an understanding of their characteristics and behaviour. An example is our building envelope development project, exploring the use of fibre-reinforced polymers (glass fibre) in facades. The experience of cutting the material and testing different types of bonded connections gave the designers an appreciation of the limitations and the possibilities.
You presented a series of beautiful hand drawn detail drawings and discussed these as being a particular way of solving problems. How do you learn from this material evidence?
The sketches are a fundamental part of the development of facade details and communication between the various members of the design team and other stakeholders. The sketch is powerful as a very immediate means of communication and, while the format clearly sets out principles and subtle details, it also clearly shows that it is design in development. A CAD drawing may be seen as a final design even if, in reality, it is an early draft and full of flaws. A catalogue of sketches is a good starting point for development of solutions in response to project-specific requirements.
How does material evidence like the demonstrator intersect with other sorts of material evidence such as detailed hand sketches and cad drawings?
The hand sketches are part of the exchange of ideas and the development of solutions, which are then firmed up as detailed drawings and shop drawings. The mock-up allows the designer to explore the materiality and also experience the issues associated with working the material and assembling the components and the system. The mock-up communicates to other stakeholders what the concept is in a way which a sketch would only do to specialists.
Would it be right to say that the demonstrator tests solutions suggested by the sketches? What is a shop drawing?
The sketches are used to develop the solutions while the visual mock-up (or the demonstrator) is a physical representation of the preferred option. Shop drawings are the production information which is fed from the designers to the workshop or factory.
You talked about the sketch book as a way to document this process and to communicate it. What is the role of the sketch book?
The sketch book has become our preferred way of communicating our design process because it captures the process and sets out options and solutions in a condensed way. The graphical nature of the sketchbook appeals to architects and clients and helps steer the conversation towards design decisions. It is also a quite powerful medium for back tracking the process you have been through and avoid time-consuming discussions. The sketchbook usually does not capture ‘hard core’ engineering calculations, but deliberately seeks to provide examples of previous projects and suggest alternative solutions and recommendation.
How do you as a project manager create breeding ground for this kind of knowledge production?
It depends on the context. In our development project it was interesting to observe the ‘creative tension’ between the abstract and open-minded architects wanting to explore unchartered territory and – in sharp contract – the detail-focussed engineers, who were keen to agree on a solution to be able to go away and work it up in detail. I put the group in different situations and different settings to facilitate and encourage new perspectives and new collaborations. Sometimes it worked very well, sometimes it worked less well. Again, it comes down to people and it is intrinsically challenging to free up the most gifted designers to spend time on what can be seen as an ‘esoteric’ activity.
Would you re-use this method in future development projects?
Overall, I was pleased with the method. Ideally, the process would have been more intensive and the meetings would have been more frequent, but the idea of meeting in different locations and doing workshops followed by research and engineering activity worked well and – unsurprisingly – the group worked better and better as the project progressed.
Could you maybe specify or sum up on the overall method “workshops followed by research” in relation to our topic?
In this context the workshop is a forum for presentation of work carried out by individuals and working group, discussion and exchange of ideas, collaborative design and identification of areas for further research and development. The participants leave the workshop with an understanding of the challenges across the board and not just from their own perspective. Their efforts during the following stage will ideally be informed by considerations brought to the table by the project partners and the impact of their research will potentially be higher.
E.g. how is material evidence from the workshops evaluated or transferred into research or knowledge? And what kind of “engineering activity” follows after each workshop?
The activities in a workshop will span across presentations in various forms, enquiry, discussions and collaborative sketching, model building, and ad hoc testing. There is a sense of validation after the review in the workshop, but the theories need backing up by some analytical work such as engineering calculations and physical testing.
[Dr Kragh, interviewed by Maria Hellesøe Mikkelsen, Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture]
No comments:
Post a Comment