Experimenting Graphically with the Relationship between Form and Function through Parametric Digital Models

Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized in SpringerLink Book Title Graphic Horizons Series Title Chapter Title Experimenting Graphically with the Relationship Between Form and Function Through Parametric Digital Models Copyright Year 2024 Copyright HolderName The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG Corresponding Author Family Name Díaz-Moreno Particle Given Name Fernando Prefix Suffix Role Division Organization Universidad de Sevilla Address Sevilla, Spain Email [email protected] Author Family Name Almeda Particle Given Name Eduardo Acosta Prefix Suffix Role Division Organization Universidad de Sevilla Address Sevilla, Spain Email Abstract This paper describes a teaching proposal for the Drawing subject in Year 1 of Architecture focused on the use of digital graphical tools to learn about the relationship between design intention and architectural form. Based on a specific problem presented at the beginning of the year—the reconstruction of an important architectural work—students are required to model the work, focusing on the ideation process that has made it possible rather than on the end form. They then develop a personal design preserving the original creative premises. The novelty of the proposal resides in the fact that the digital model incorporates conditioned geometric control parameters that simulate the intentions of the work’s authors, enabling students to investigate possible formal variations by altering the parameters. The student architects can therefore investigate, question and rework their solution to the problem, with guidance from the teachers as and when necessary. The students’ active role in the learning process leads to very positive results, in the opinion of both students and teachers, as gleaned from the surveys conducted at different times, students’ participation in class and their performance in the practical tasks. Keywords (separated by '-') Architectural Graphical Representation - Parameterised Digital Model - Problem-based learning Experimenting Graphically with the Relationship Between Form and Function Through Parametric Digital Models Fernando Díaz-Moreno(B)and Eduardo Acosta Almeda Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain [email protected] Abstract. This paper describes a teaching proposal for the Drawingsubject in AQ1 Year 1 of Architecture focused on the use of digital graphical tools to learn about the relationship between design intention and architectural form. Based on a specific problem presented at the beginning of the year—the reconstructionof an AQ2 important architectural work—students are required to model the work, focusing on the ideation process that has made it possible rather than on the end form. They then develop a personal design preserving the original creative premises. The novelty of the proposal resides in the fact that the digital model incorporates conditioned geometric control parameters that simulate the intentions of the work’sauthors,enablingstudentstoinvestigatepossibleformalvariations by altering the parameters. The student architects can therefore investigate, question and rework their solution to the problem, with guidance from the teachers as and when necessary. The students’ active role in the learning process leads to very positive results, in the opinion of both students and teachers, as gleaned from the surveys conducted at different times, students’ participation in class and their performance in the practical tasks. Keywords: Architectural Graphical Representation ·Parameterised Digital Model ·Problem-based learning 1 Introduction and Background At architecture schools the teaching of drawing revolves around the creation of a graphical discourse that enables us to understand the complexity of architectural production; to explore, ideate and communicate it. This is how it is presented in the aptitudinal competences of the syllabuses of the graphical subjects we teach at the Seville School of Architecture. The teaching experience described in this paper was conducted in Drawing 2, taught in the second semester of Year 1. The subject lasts fifteen weeks, during which students take part in four-hour sessions grouped into one class per week, leading to a total of sixty hours in the classroom and at least ninety hours of personal tutored work. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 L. Hermida González et al. (Eds.): EGA 2024, SSDI 43, pp. 1–8, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57575-4_6 Author Proof 2 F. Díaz-Moreno and E. A. Almeda One of the main topics addressed in the subject is the analysis of the ideas behind the geometric forms in architecture. Drawing and architectural thinking are understood as two inseparable dimensions of the same process, which must be present as such from the initial stages of specialised training [1]. It is not easy to introduce students to the relationship between geometric configuration (concrete thinking) and the intentions behind a specific architectural proposal (abstract thinking). In our opinion, the greatest difficulty lies in the use of methodological models that treat students as passive subjects, which means that they do not construct this relationship for themselves. The traditional use of static analysis in the teaching of drawing, which is appropriate for a transmissive methodological model, tends to be accompanied by a degree of finalism in the interpretation of the form. However, with the teaching proposal described here, students investigate and experiment with the form-intention relationship through their own proposals based on the reconstruction of an important work of architecture. They will add to this knowledge as they progress through the subsequent years of the degree course. 2 Discussion The methodological model we followed is a problem-based learning model [2,3] that we divided into four phases. The time dedicated to each phase varied. The first phase, more theoretical and introductory, only occupied five teaching hours. The second and third phases formed the core content of the subject, focused on the intention-geometric form relationship, and occupied forty-five hours. The fourth and final phase, dedicated to validating the procedure, occupied the remaining ten hours. The first phase consisted in introducing the notion of the architect as a creator, able to transform reality based on a set of prior personal intentions defined through drawings. The problem the students had to consider was a project by the Aires Mateus brothers’ studio, which we chose for the clarity of its compositional geometric structures and the high degree of intentionality of the graphical proposals [4]. The students had to investigate the configuration process for the Accommodation for Researchers of the Interpretation Centre at Lagoa das Furnas, in the Azores (Fig. 1). There were three key reasons for this choice: first, the formal simplicity of the building. Second, the clear relationship between the architects’ creative intentions and the geometric configuration of the proposal, as documented in numerous publications [5] (Fig. 2). Third, the existence of a second work by the same authors, the house in Coruche (2007), where similar creative intentions are applied with a different formal result (Fig. 3). The second phase was dedicated to analysing the geometric relationships of the proposed model: typology, geometric structures (axes, symmetries…), solid-void, etc. The students contrasted their ideas with the design intentions analysed in the first phase, supported by the teachers from the point of development they arrived at themselves, in line with Vygotsky’s theory [6]. The purpose of this debate was to agree a hierarchised system of conditions, relating each geometric operation to specific aspects of the architectural proposal. Author Proof Experimenting Graphically with the Relationship 3 Fig. 1. Interpretation Centre at Lagoa das Furnas. Aires Mateus. Extracted from [5], photograph corrections by the authors. Fig. 2. Diagram of the configuration process of the Interpretation Centre at Lagoa das Furnas. Aires Mateus. The full-empty relationship is highlighted on the original drawing extracted from [5], modified by the authors. The third phase focused on familiarising the students with digital modelling [7], including an introduction to the use of conditioned parameters such as geometric control [8–10]. For this, we created the digital scale model with parametric 3D modelling software. Due to the simplicity of the model, we were able to concentrate all efforts on learning how to use the conditioned parameters to conduct the geometric transformations of the model [11]. Fig. 3. House in Coruche. The full-empty relationship is highlighted on the original drawing extracted from [5], modified by the authors. Author Proof 4 F. Díaz-Moreno and E. A. Almeda The students implemented their diagrams of hierarchised conditions, developed in the previous phase, by translating them to parameters and their interactions [12], without establishing any metric values to determine the final geometry. Specifically, as the baseline condition we defined the existence of a prism-shaped object with a pavilion hipped roof, from which we removed the volume delimited vertically by one of the roof planes. Into this piece we inserted a central courtyard formed by two planes that determined the position and orientation of the main interior spaces. The accesses to these objects were defined by the intersection of these spaces with the central void. All of this was achieved thanks to the displacement conditions defined on the vertices, edges and planes of the model, leaving the dimensions of these elements variable. In the fourth phase the students constructed their own proposals using the parameterised model as the starting point to define circumstantial and concrete forms. The students’ models included the geometric conditions deduced from the creative intentions but they did not contain any metric or angular values. The students were asked to create two works of architecture; one corresponding to the proposal by the Aires Mateus studio, and a personal one where they had the freedom to choose the value of certain parameters. The steps followed were to import the plans of the real building into Revit and then draw the main lines to reconstruct the volumes that make up the work, defined during the second phase. Reference lines were used but not included in the project file. These lines gave rise to two types of forms: a solid form and voids. The solid volume is the general pavilion and the voids are the interior spaces and the courtyard, obtained by removing them from the general volume (Fig. 4). In the Type properties the “Cuts Geometry” box was enabled. Fig. 4. 3D drawing process: general pavilion with transparent interior volumes and prism-shaped void of the courtyard. Having defined the volumes, the constraints were imposed. Revit offers different methods for establishing relationships but we chose levels as the most accessible option in view of the increasing complexity of conditioning the model. Two types of levels were defined, which we can classify according to their relationship: the ones that govern the dimension of the volume (internal) and the ones that govern its position with respect to another element (external); and the ones based on measurement: Aligned dimensions or Angular dimensions. Author Proof Experimenting Graphically with the Relationship 5 Thestudentsdiscussedwhichelements theywantedtoconditionbasedontheoriginal ideas of the project analysed in the first and second phase of the task. This debate was conducted in groups and then each group defended its ideas to the rest of the class. The teachers’ intervention was focused exclusively on resolving technical matters related to the software. Lastly, the students agreed which constraints they were going to apply to the final model. Fig. 5. (a) Digital model with levels, labels and conditioned parameters. (b) Example of parameterisation applied to the courtyard void. The procedure for assigning the parameters was as follows: First, to be able to mark the levels properly, the students drew reference points at all the intersections between lines. Next, they assigned a name (label) to each parameter, i.e., to each level (Fig. 5a). For this, they used the “Create parameter” option in the Global Parameters Properties dialog box. This is a family-type parameter because it only stays in the family and in the project where it is inserted. The parameter is also associated with the type and not the prototype, which meant that the students could assign these parameters to any solid. Having created the reference points and the names of the parameters, the students then assigned a label to each level in the Prototype Properties panel. Lastly,andmostimportantly,theyassignedconditionstocertainparameters(Fig.5a). For this they used formulas whereby the numerical result is the function of a range of values or other parameters [11]. Consequently, the latter were related. For example, it was decided that the passing width to the courtyard from outside (H.REF1) and to the internal spaces (H.REF2, 3, 4) had to have a minimum value. Meanwhile, the height of the courtyard void (PATIO) always had to exceed the maximum height of the general pavilion (ALT0) (Fig. 5b). Lastly, using the unchanged model—i.e., the Aires Mateus proposal—the students experimented with the spatial transformations that occurred when they modified the values of the parameters. This showed them that while the personal versions were all different, they still fulfilled the general intentions devised by the architects who authored the project, since the relationships were preserved between the geometric elements imposed by the model through the conditioned parameters (Fig. 6). Author Proof 6 F. Díaz-Moreno and E. A. Almeda Fig. 6. Examples of graphical documents created by some of the students (Ana María Alba Rivas, Ramón Cano Morgado, José Jesús García Álvarez, Paloma Páez Grund, Elisa Romboux, Marc Vives Baron). A: Floor plan of the model with dimensional values deduced from the Aires Mateus plans. B-F: Floor plans recreated by the students. 3 Some Methodological Considerations The course year in which this teaching experience takes place was devised according to a constructivist and investigative model, based on a set of projects focused on the ideas put forward by the students as constantly evolving alternative conceptions. As the teachers, we acted as experienced advisers and drivers, using strategically chosen contrasting activities. Based on this general approach, we defined the baseline methodological programme and drew up the map of contents and problems, the sequence of activities in the classroom (where the experience described in this paper took place), and the procedure for evaluating the results. We would like to highlight this latter aspect in particular [8,13]. The students filled in questionnaires, before and after the educational experience, and we transferred the answers to step charts to confirm the improvements achieved [14]. The questions were focused on the relationship between form, intention and graphical representation, aimed at obtaining objective data that would enable us to check whether the teaching strategy implemented had been able to dislodge the static, fixed vision of the relationship between thinking and architectural form which students usually have at the beginning of the year, and replace it with a more open and complex approach in which ideas are understood as the origin of multiple modes of formalisation. As an example of this evaluation process, we include the chart corresponding to one of the questions that students had to answer (learning ladder), where the aim was to identify their understanding of the relationship between the design idea and the resulting form based on their opinion of a partial element of an architectural work. Specifically, as if acting as members of the jury in a competition for the construction of a building, they each had to appraise the facade. Our role was to check whether they related the principles governing the general proposal with the formal definition of the facade. In the chart, the width of the step corresponds to 100% of the students in the year. The overlaid volumes represent the percentage of students situated on each step, both in the initial stage (yellow) and in the final stage (green). This enabled us to track the evolution graphically, comparing percentages between stages and in each case with reference to the entire class. We noted the students’ response next to the step treads (blue) and the obstacle motivating the step on the risers (red). The ladder includes a step with a higher riser, more difficult to climb, which coincides with a basic learning obstacle (Fig. 7). Author Proof Experimenting Graphically with the Relationship 7 Fig. 7. Evaluation of the learning process for the relationship between design idea and resulting form. 4 Conclusions The main reason that inspired us to present this teaching experience is the positive result obtained, as evidenced by the results of the practical tasks and the analysis of the aforementioned questionnaires. In terms of the learning process, we highlight the following aspects: The students gained direct experience of the complexity of the relationship between architectural form and intention, and of the need to control the relationship through graphicalrepresentation.Thestudents’active immersionfromtheoutsetand oursupport, which was backseat at all times, fulfilled the objectives and improved involvement, both in terms of attendance and participation in the classroom. The initial questionnaires show that Year 1 students begin the course with the preconceived idea that architectural form is the fixed result of an aesthetic expression. The final questionnaires demonstrate that this methodological model has enabled them to overcome this simplified vision and gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of the ideation process by carefully assessing the relationship between the creative intentions and their subsequent configuration in different proposals focused on the transformation of reality. Author Proof 8 F. Díaz-Moreno and E. A. Almeda The choice of a simple geometric model enabled the students to compare the simplicity of building the baseline scale model (possible final form) with the complexity of defining the intention-geometry conditions that underpin it (form parameters). Lastly, during the course of the year we saw the possibility of implementing this hierarchised parametric system in subjects taught in our department in subsequent years where other analytical topics are introduced, such as function, matter, place, etc. This approach could be used to establish other types of relationships between the idea and the architectural form in the context of sustainability and efficiency, studies of privacy gradient or the evacuation of buildings, to name just a few examples. References 1. Ampliato Briones, A.: Sobre lo interior y lo exterior al arte y la arquitectura: punto de partida para una teoría analítica contemporánea. Revista EGA 23(34), 172–179 (2018) 2. AlmeidaDelSavio,A.,ZuloetaCarrasco,L.D.,CanahualpaNakamatsu,E.,GalantiniVelarde, K.P., Martinez-Alonso, W., Fischer, M.: Applying project-based learning (PBL) for teaching virtual design construction (VDC). Int. J. Eng. Ped.13, 64–85 (2023) 3. Besné, A., et al.: A systematic review of current strategies and methods for BIM implementation in the academic field. Appl. Sci. 11(5530), 1–23 (2021) 4. Marcos Alba, C.L.: Materia y espacio. Metafísica en la obra de Aires Mateus y de Chillida. Rev. EGA 14, 188–197 (2009) 5. Aires, M.: 2002–2011. El Croquis editorial, Madrid (2010) 6. Porlán Ariza, R.: Enseñanza universitaria cómo mejorarla. Morata, Madrid (2018) 7. Nakapan, W.: Challenge of teaching BIM in the first year of university. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA 2015), pp. 509–518. Daegu (2015) 8. Velandia, D.: Modelado digital y diseño paramétrico como opción en la experimentación, desarrollo, visualización y toma de decisiones para estudiantes de arquitectura. In: XV Congreso SIGRADI, pp. 1–4. Santa Fé (2011) 9. Marasco,G.N., Gisbert, A. de M., Marimon, J.R.: Tecnologíascreativasparalarepresentación en arquitectura. El diseño paramétrico en las aulas. In: Echeverría Valiente, E., Castaño Perea, E. (eds.) El arquitecto, de la tradición al siglo XXI, pp. 515–522 (2016) 10. Vázquez-Rodríguez, J., Otero-Chans, D., Estévez-Cimadevila, J.: Incorporación de herramientas paramétricas para la generación y análisis del modelo virtual del edificio en la formación de los estudiantes de arquitectura. Spanish J. BIM 1, 22–27 (2016) 11. Wan, Y.: Integrated BIM and parametric modeling: course samples with multiple methods and multiple phases. In: Murphy, A., Goulthorpe, M. (eds.), 100th ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings, Digital Aptitudes, pp. 198–207 (2012) 12. GarcíaAlvarado, R.,Lyon Gottlieb, A.: Diseño paramétrico en Arquitectura; método, técnicas y aplicaciones. Arquisur 3, 20–31 (2013) 13. Fialho, B.C, Costa, H.A, Logsdon, L., Minto Fabrício, M.: CAD and BIM tools in Teaching of Graphic Representation for Engineering. Blucher Design Proceedings, pp. 961–968. Editora Blucher, São Carlos (2018) 14. Rivero, A., Porlán Ariza, R.: La evaluación en la enseñanza universitaria. In: Porlán, R. (ed.) Enseñanza universitaria. Como mejorarla, pp. 73–88. Morata, Madrid (2017) Author Proof