About a century ago, the modernist architect and theorist Adolf Loos declared that applied ornament was a retrograde, even criminal, waste of labor. Smooth, white stucco exteriors and plaster interiors became the signature of progressive modernity and architectural honesty.

It is all too easy, when looking at a finished project, product, or building, to forget that it took a massive effort to reach that point of refined completion. Those sleek lines once existed only on screen, that site was covered for months in construction dust and raw materials, and the showroom-quality shine was previously the dull plastic or plywood surface of a rough prototype.

Research can be hard to justify, even in an industry that prides itself on results. Regardless of whether success is measured in portfolio-perfect pictures or kilowatts of energy savings, innovation in architecture wouldn’t happen without individuals willing to put themselves out there.

“We are teaching performance but no competence to produce meaning. Parametric design today offers infinite options, but contemporary architectures show no variations. In all moments of lateness, there is always the possibility of the new, but an avant-garde is needed to symbolize a paradigm shift and to create a new architecture.”
Peter Eisenman

NEC3 contracts

NEC was first published in 1993 as the New Engineering Contract. It is a suite of construction contracts intended to promote partnering and collaboration between the contractor and client. It was developed as a reaction to other more traditional forms of construction contract which have been portrayed by some as adversarial.

In 1994, NEC was strongly recommended in the Latham Report (Constructing the Team) which investigated the perceived problems with the construction industry, describing it as ‘ineffective’, ‘fragmented’ and ‘incapable of delivering for its customers’, proposing that there should be greater partnering and teamwork.

The NEC contracts are intended to:
- Stimulate good management.
- Be clear and simple, written in plain English, in the present tense and without legal terminology.
- Be useable in a wide variety of situations from minor works to major projects.

The third edition, NEC3 was published in 2005.
NEC is a division of Thomas Telford Ltd, the commercial arm of the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE).

In 2009, as NEC3 became more popular, ICE announced that it would withdraw from the ICE Conditions of Contract (CoC) in favour of NEC3. The UK government also stopped updating the GCWorks contracts in favour of NEC3.


The contract documentation under the NEC Engineering and Construction Contract (ECC) comprises:
- The form of agreement.
- Conditions of contract.
- Contract data (setting out information needed to operate the contract and identifying the documents which contain works information).
- Prices, activities schedules and bill of quantities.
- Works information (describing what is to be done on the site).
- Site information (describing the condition of the site before the work starts).

Most NEC3 contracts have nine core clauses:
- General terms.
- Contractor's main responsibilities.
- Time.
- Testing and Defects.
- Payment.
- Compensation events.
- Title.
- Risk and insurance.
- Termination.

https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/NEC3#Criticism

JCT contracts

The Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) was formed by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) In 1931 when the first JCT standard form of building contract was issued (although the forms were not referred to as ‘JCT’ until 1977). JCT became a Limited Company in 1998.

It now produces a range of standard forms of contract for the construction of buildings accompanied by guidance notes and other standard forms of documentation, such as:
- Consultant agreements.
- Sub-contracts.
- Sub-sub-contracts.
- Design agreements between an employer and a specialist designer.
- Forms of tender for main contractors, sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors.
- Forms of contract for the supply of goods.
- Forms of bond.
- Collateral warranties.

The range of JCT construction contracts comprises:
- Standard Building Contract
- Intermediate Building Contract
- Minor Works Building Contract
- Major Project Construction Contract
- Design and Build Contract
- Management Building Contract
- Construction Management Contract
- JCT-CE Contract
- Measured Term Contract
- Prime Cost Building Contract
- Repair & Maintenance Contract
- Home Owner Contracts

JCT has seven member organisations, each representing a different sector of the construction industry, each of which nominates a Director to the JCT Board:
- British Property Federation.
- Contractors Legal Grp Limited.
- Local Government Association.
- National Specialist Contractors Council.
- Royal Institute of British Architects.
- Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
- Scottish Building Contract Committee Limited.

The JCT Council comprises 47 representatives who form the company’s five ‘Colleges’. It is these colleges that produce and amend the forms of contract:
- Employers, Clients and Local Authorities (British Property Federation, Local Government Association).
- Consultants (Association for Project Management, Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors, Royal Institute of British Architects, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors).
- Contractors (Contractors Legal Grp Limited).
- Specialists and Sub-contractors (National Specialist Contractors Council).
- Scottish Building Industry (Scottish Building Contract Committee Limited).

Many building processes still involve sub-standard working conditions and are not compellingly sustainable. Current research on the integration of digital technologies within construction processes promises substantial contributions to sustainability and productivity, while at the same time enabling completely new forms of architectural expression. The multidisciplinary nature of integrating digital processes remains a key challenge to establishing a digital building culture. In order to fully exploit the potential of digital fabrication, an institutional and funding environment that enables strong interdisciplinary research is required. Traditionally separated disciplines such as: architecture, structural design, computer science, materials science, control systems engineering, and robotics now need to form strong research connections.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170217160931.htm

[CAD Note] 

AEC (UK) BIM Protocol
Implementing UK BIM Standards for the Architectural, Engineering and Construction industry.

Version 2.0 September 2012

Updated to unify protocols outlined in AEC (UK) BIM Standard for Revit and Bentley Building. 

https://aecuk.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/aecukbimprotocol-v2-0.pdf
https://aecuk.wordpress.com/

[CAD Note] 
BIM levels

Level 0 BIM
Unmanaged computer aided design (CAD) including 2D drawings, and text with paper-based or electronic exchange of information but without common standards and processes. Essentially this is a digital drawing board.

Level 1 BIM
Managed CAD, with the increasing introduction of spatial coordination, standardised structures and formats as it moves towards Level 2 BIM. This may include 2D information and 3D information such as visualisations or concept development models. Level 1 can be described as 'Lonely BIM' as models are not shared between project team members.
This typically comprises a mixture of 3D CAD for concept work, and 2D for drafting of statutory approval documentation and Production Information. CAD standards are managed to BS 1192:2007, and electronic sharing of data is carried out from a common data environment (CDE), often managed by the contractor. This is the level at which many organisations are currently operating, although there is no collaboration between different disciplines – each publishes and maintains its own data.

Level 2 BIM
Managed 3D environment with data attached, but created in separate discipline-based models. These separate models are assembled to form a federated model, but do not lose their identity or integrity. Data may include construction sequencing (4D) and cost (5D) information. This is sometimes referred to as 'pBIM' (proprietary BIM).
In the UK the Government Construction Strategy published in May 2011, stated that the '...Government will require fully collaborative 3D BIM (with all project and asset information, documentation and data being electronic) as a minimum by 2016'. This represents a minimum requirement for Level 2 BIM on centrally-procured public projects.
This is distinguished by collaborative working – all parties use their own 3D CAD models, but not necessarily working on a single, shared model. The collaboration comes in the form of how the information is exchanged between different parties – and is the crucial aspect of this level. Design information is shared through a common file format, which enables any organisation to be able to combine that data with their own in order to make a federated BIM model, and to carry out interrogative checks on it. Hence any CAD software that each party used must be capable of exporting to one of the common file formats such as IFC (Industry Foundation Class) or COBie (Construction Operations Building Information Exchange). This is the method of working that has been set as a minimum target by the UK government for all work on public-sector work, by 2016.

Level 3 BIM
A single collaborative, online, project model with construction sequencing (4D), cost (5D) and project lifecycle information (6D). This is sometimes referred to as 'iBIM' (integrated BIM) and is intended to deliver better business outcomes.

Level 4 BIM

Level 4 introduces the concepts of improved social outcomes and wellbeing.

https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BIM_maturity_levels
https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/bim-levels-explained

[CAD Note]

According to Laiserin and others, the first implementation of BIM was under the Virtual Building concept by Graphisoft's ArchiCAD, in its debut in 1987.

The concept of BIM has existed since the 1970s. The term Building Information Model first appeared in a 1992 paper by G.A. van Nederveen and F. P. Tolman.[3] However, the terms Building Information Model and Building Information Modeling (including the acronym "BIM") had not been popularly used until 10 years later when Autodesk released the white paper entitled "Building Information Modeling".[4] Jerry Laiserin helped popularize and standardize the term[5] as a common name for the digital representation of the building process as then offered under differing terminology by Graphisoft as "Virtual Building", Bentley Systemsas "Integrated Project Models", and by Autodesk or Vectorworks as "Building Information Modeling" to facilitate exchange and interoperability of information in digital format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_information_modeling

Departures from basic geometries in architecture have historically often coincided with the development of new materials. This correlation is obvious in the 1950s, `60s, and `70s, during which developments in concrete and later plastics inspired architects and engineers to treat form in a less restrained manner.

The translation of a freeform into a built structure requires the development of new models of thinking from all project participants. It is essential that architects and engineers collaborate from the very beginning of a project. In the case of freeform architecture an important aspect of this collaboration is that the structural engineer has to “speak the language” of the architect and fully support the particular design approach.

Three approaches of a free form finding process.

1. The first approach (Shaping form) relies heavily on computational tools to generate the shape. This is a proper approach and all other ways are just simple simulations, as a non-alcohol beer. In the beginning of this approach architects have no preconceived formal idea. The “parametric design process starts with a briefing by the client. Architects translate program- and site-specific parameters into virtual forces using software environments such as Maya etc.  Architects set up a 3D matrix that was initially shaped according to the virtual forces. Adjacent objects on the site further impacted the shape through a series of specially designed force fields. The initial shape can be deformed and altered by parametric software, until the design parameters in architect’s option are sufficiently represented. The approximate shape can be also corrected for geometrical errors in order to establish 3D Master geometry of the project. This master geometry provides the dimensional reference for all project participants during design development and construction.
The design process is more or less defined as a linear increase in detailing of the architectural ides. Logically, designing a structure in such a planning process begins after the architectural design and is not intended formally to change the shape. From that point of view architectural design is not related to the structural logic of form, but structural design is nevertheless is a key factor in realizing the architectural idea.
The first approach we are given the external surface as the master geometry of the project. We generally have two options for developing the structure: we either design a system of linear or curvilinear structural members that support a secondary and nonstructural skin, or the skin itself is conceived as the primary load-bearing system and becomes “skin deep” – a surface –structure with shell-like behavior. Since the master geometry is fixed, we cannot optimize the structure through modifications of the overall shape. High local forces or bending moments have to be accepted: a structural optimization of the overall shape would call the underlying design approach into question.

2. The second approach illustrates a different approach. Here the design process does not start out in a virtual design environment; instead, the architects manually build a series of physical models, many of which are 3D digitized in order to correct and check the shape with respect to program and site in a computer-aided design environment.  The CAD-corrected data enables the building of more accurate physical model that often explore the implementation of the overall shaping strategy in partial and more detailed models of the project. This approach generally concentrates on the effects of the exterior surface and the interior spaces, and relies largely on physical model to verify that the original design intent is met. The most important difference from the first approach (form finding process) is that the second approach does not define a 3D master geometry as a dimensional reference before starting the design and structural development. Rather from finding turns out to be a kind of “iteration process” in which from changes are digitized and refined. In this approach we are given the database of the outer and inner surface and the interstitial space “between” results to integrate a structural system and embed all necessary mechanical elements. The loadbearing structure – often a series of steel frames – is hidden from user and architecturally almost irrelevant. In this “undercover role” the main part of structural engineering is a geometrical optimization that means to identify the layout of structural members in the interstitial space and optimize the arrangement so that it works in a structural way. The internal and external surface themselves act as enclosures without any primary load-bearing function; their geometry establishes boundary parameters for us that cannot generally be changed.

3. In the Third approach the conceptual design phase during the architectural competition does not rely heavily on computers, and physical models. The 3D model generated during design development is shaped to capture the design intent of the original handmade scheme. While following the initially proposed shape, it is built independently and does not contain digitized data taken directly from the physical models, like in the second approach. The third approach creates the digital model when translating the scheme from the conceptual status to a design development phase in a digital environment. Though the objective is to remain close to the original shape. And in contrast to the first approach the structural behavior could have influence on the shape, driven by the idea of possible structural systems and the understanding of their behavior. The external skin can be designed as a series of discrete layers , each responding to a specific set of functional requirements.

The practice of architecture is and will remain primarily an information system, but architecture within this given phase of modern process is transforming as a result of the radical shift in the conception, production, and communication of ideas and subsystems. The transformation into an electronic culture is as socially and politically significant as the development of written language.
The advent of an alphanumeric system altered the political and social structure due to its ability to disseminate information and create decentralized power structures. The utilization of digital information systems, the concept of information working through the use of numerically controlled processes - allows the individual to move directly from abstraction to object without typical meditation. Historically, to develop a system of a certain complexity, that is a spatial construct which is not easily described by Euclidean geometry or the juxtaposition of the rectilinear and the measured, required an unwieldy amount of information to be transmitted from designer to fabricator, making such projects economically prohibitive. Through the use of the computer and computer-numerically-controlled technologies, this complex information moves directly from idea to product. Due to these technologies the individual obtains increased control relative to the production of ideas. The ability for direct dialogue between virtual and actual provides a substantial  incease in artistic autonomy. With the removal of traditionally mitigating forces in the logistics of architectural production, the onus  of accountability received by the architect becomes greater.

[CAM Note] Additive Manufacturing.

With Additive Manufacturing parts are built by melting thin layers of powder. Material is added instead of removed, as is the case in traditional machining.

Each layer is melted to the exact geometry defined by a CAD model. Additive Manufacturing allows for building parts with very complex geometries without tooling, fixtures and without producing any waste material.

Choosing Additive Manufacturing for production provides great benefits for the entire production value chain. The geometrical freedom allows you to engineer/design your part as you envision it, without manufacturing constraints. This can be translated to extreme light-weight designs. It is also a fast production route from CAD to a physical part with a very high material utilization and without the need to keep expensive castings or forgings on stock.

http://www.arcam.com/technology/additive-manufacturing/ 

[CAM note] Optimization in Paneling Architectural Freeform Surfaces.

The emergence of large-scale freeform shapes in architecture poses big challenges to the fabrication of such structures. A key problem is the approximation of the design surface by a union of patches, socalled panels, that can be manufactured with a selected technology at reasonable cost, while meeting the design intent and achieving the desired aesthetic quality of panel layout and surface smoothness. The production of curved panels is mostly based on molds. Since the cost of mold fabrication often dominates the panel cost, there is strong incentive to use the same mold for multiple panels. There is a way to cast the major practical requirements for architectural surface paneling, including mold reuse, into a global optimization framework that interleaves discrete and continuous optimization steps to minimize production cost while meeting user-specified quality constraints. The search space for optimization is mainly generated through controlled deviation from the design surface and tolerances on positional and normal continuity between neighboring panels. A novel 6-dimensional metric space allows us to quickly compute approximate inter-panel distances, which drastically improves the performance of the optimization and enables the handling of complex arrangements with thousands of panels. The practical relevance of this system is demonstrated by paneling solutions for real, cuttingedge architectural freeform design projects.

Rationalization of large-scale architectural freeform surfaces with planar, single-, or double-curved panels. The algorithm computes a paneling solution that meets prescribed thresholds on positional and normal continuity, while minimizing total production cost. Reuse of molds and predominant use of simple panels are important drivers of the optimization. Just one single application of the discrete optimization greatly reduces cost without loss in surface quality . The full paneling algorithm interleaving discrete optimization with global continuous registration produces a high quality paneling. This solution contains 90% single curved panels and a very small number of custom molds, leading to a significantly reduced cost compared to greedy and local methods.

Different relative costs for mold fabrication and panel production for two different materials affect the distribution of panel types. For glass, costs for producing double curved molds are significantly higher than for concrete, resulting in a solution with more cylindrical panels.

http://gmsv.kaust.edu.sa/people/faculty/pottmann/pottmann_pdf/panelization_sigg10_small.pdf

The Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques is an international non-profit organization serving over 8,300 Members and an average of 25-30,000 annual conference attendees. ACM SIGGRAPH's Mission is to promote the generation and dissemination of information on computer graphics and interactive techniques.
http://www.siggraph.org/

We live in the world of a sad separation that began some five hundred years ago when art and science split apart. Scientists and technicians live in their own world, focusing mostly on the “how” of things. Others live in the world of appearances, using these things but not really understanding how they function.
We humans live in two worlds. First, there is the outer world of appearances - all of the forms of things that captivate our eye. But hidden from our view is another world - how these things actually function, their anatomy or composition, the parts working together and forming the whole. This second world is not so immediately captivating. It is harder to understand. It is not something visible to the eye, but only to the mind that glimpses the reality. But this “how” of things is just as poetic once we understand it - it contains the secret of life, of how things move and change.
This division between the “how” and the “what” can be applied to almost everything around us - we see the machine, not how it works; we see a group of people producing something as a business, not how the group is structured or how the products are manufactured and distributed. (In a similar fashion, we tend to be mesmerized by people’s appearances, not the psychology behind what they do or say.)
We must make ourselves study as deeply as possible the technology we use, the functioning of the group we work in, the economics of our field, its lifeblood. We must constantly ask the questions - how do things work, how do decisions get made, how does the group interact? Rounding our knowledge in this way will give us a deeper feel for reality and the heightened power to alter it.

[CAM note] 

" 3D printers shape up to lead the next technology gold rush. A number of young companies are racing to corner the burgeoning consumer market for 3D printing"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/05/3d-printers-technology-gold-rush

"Viewed against the backdrop of epochal changes registered in industrial technology, architectural technology, since late modernism, seems to have ceased evolving. The development of new technologies, methods and materials, unrelated to existing ones, gives architects little resource to historical techniques and representations. Despite the heterogeneity of current movements and theories, architectural discourse remains principally concerned with the ideology of all things retinal. Technology was long ago served from the autonomy of architectural art. An abundance of practical and intellectual constructs have been erected around identical buildings techniques, producing in mainstream architectural culture and unbroken tectonic and representational tradition three decades old. Once again we see the institution of architecture dealing with arguably the most important spatial technology (the computer) in only a visual way.  Some applications of computer technology have radically redefined how one sees and conceptualizes the marking of space. Until recently, general use of the computer has been relagated to the world of the "virtual", as well as that analysis. However, recent advances in electronics and computer processing found in computer numerically controlled technologies now allow us to move directly from a computer model/computer drawing to built form. This technology not only eliminates the distance between "virtual" architectural hypotheses and the physical test of construction, but also forces us to examine our roles as architects in a condition allowing greater potential input the processing of building construction."

William Massie (1997)

[CAM-CAD note]
"SHoP designed the exterior of the building in CATIA, which allowed them to deconstruct the model into its fabrication elements. The weathering steel panels were unfolded and exported into a program that “nested” (generated a material-efficient layout) the parts and produced the cut file that was delivered directly to the CNC machine via USB stick for production. All 12,000 weathered steel panels were cut from 3/16-inch thick, 62-inch by 156-inch A588 steel sheets. Months before the first panel was to be hung on the weathering line, the architects provided the facade contractor with a fully nested facade for purposes of the early procurement of the A588 material, which was essential due to the time period required for the pre-weathering process prior to unit assembly. In all phases tracking the components was essential. SHoP linked 4-dimensional (schedule) models with a database, prototyping a functional iPhone interface. This allowed the architects to not only track the individual panels as they were processed, but to also coordinate the installation sequence of the assembled megapanels with the design build team."
http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6284

Typically two critical concerns are voiced regarding the research presented by SAI. The first concern relates to the manufacturing and assembly costs of buildings made from parts that are all different in dimension. However by and large it is now accepted that feasible production is possible owing to contemporary computer-aided manufacturing techniques. Because of the financial crisis of 2008-9, however, this concern has been repositioned now, highly differentiated architectures are more often that not seen to stand for an exuberant capitalism out of control that does not consider expenditure or the lack of resources. Yet, the approach presented here may well be accomplished in a context of sparse material or technological resources, except those that drive the design process. SAI  programme has embarked on research to investigate this issue.
The second criticism, which is frequently voiced, is that the approach introduced by :SOHO Architects  relies heavily on very specific knowledge, skills and tools. True as this may be, it needs to be seen within the context of the insufficiency of current answers to the problem of local, and eventually global, climate change. The question is whether architectural education and practice needs serious rethinking and repositioning. With this also comes the necessity of re-skilling and re-tooling. When seen in this context it may become more evident why first-principle knowledge in physics, computation and engineering is indispensable as a first step, and that more knowledge in this field may be required. In any case it is easy to imagine that this way of working may well soon become as ubiquitous as it is necessary.

In design, architecture and many other disciplines, Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) fabrication equipment has given designers unprecedented means for executing formally challenging projects directly from the computer. By surpassing the limitations imposed by manufacturing systems based on standardization, the impact of these technologies has fundamentally challenged the paradigm of production, thus opening a wide field of research and experimentation practices and unimaginable design opportunities.

In this new context, :SOHOArchitects has been a leading institution in Russia by incorporating these technologies as part of its research agenda and work environment. With the intention to continue this agenda, in 2011 :SOHOArchitects launched a 2-week intensive research program for individual participants called R-DIGITAL FABRICATION (RDF). Given the successful results of the first edition, reviewed by renowned architects and expressed by both participants and industrial partners, :SOHOArchitects presents RDF 2.0 from Oct 01 to Oct 14, 2012.

The RDF program provides participants with fundamental opportunities:
-Full-Access to CNC technologies
-Direct engagement with INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS
-Work sessions with LEADING EXPERTS in the field of digital production

The RDF program is open to students and professionals who are interested in developing a specific research agenda in the field of digital design and fabrication.

PARTNER COMPANIES
The RDF Program is a unique research program because it is developed as a non-profit partnership between  :SOHOArchitects and a series of well-established industrial partners and companies. The objective of this collaboration is to offer participants the possibility to engage in a professional environment.  Throughout the RDF program, participants will be in direct and close contact with representatives of the companies, thus building up a potential collaboration that may be continued after the program has been completed.

For the second edition of RDF Program in 2012, :SOHOArchitects is setting up a wide variety of partnerships, including material, technology and design-oriented companies.

ACADEMIC STAFF
The academic staff of RDF is composed by a group of permanent advisors and a series of invited guests, who act as external reviewers and give lectures on relevant topics for the development of the projects.

PROGRAM STRUCTURE
The RDF program will be structured for a total duration of 2 weeks. Within the duration of the RDF program, several parallel activities will be proposed and organized, with the objective to provide participants a wider vision on the specific applications of digital production techniques.

For more information, please contact us at London@sohoarchitects.com

[CAM Note] From 3D formwork drawings to CNC milling.
The specifications and two-dimensional drawings normally employed in construction of buildings are only useful in certain areas. Coordinate information should be made available, in part, for the formwork planning, whereby it is necessary to differentiate between those which will be determined by a surveyor using global coordinates. The coordinates for the surveyor can be prepared as Excel charts, and in addition, can be denoted in the plans to facilitate cross checks. However, the surface model can be the basis for constructing the framework. 
The shell geometry can be attained through the milled egg-crating supporting formwork skin. Within the framework on the workshop planning, the virtual model can be elaborated upon in such manner as to provide the information necessary to automate the CNC cutting of the egg-crating. For such automated processes, in order to rule out mistakes that would unavoidably become part of the entire process chain, it is necessary to develop the appropriate control mechanisms. Correspondingly, in connection with the construction of the formwork tables, the calculations determing the form of the shells should be inserted in a separate three - dimensional model in order to compare the resultant surface with that of the original model. 
A further aspect is the automated evaluation of the three -dimensional model, which ensured by means of scripting - a simple form of programming. The scripts make it possible to efficiently process and evaluate repetitive rule-based tasks. In addition to saving time and increasing the level of precision, another advantage of the automation is the reduction of monotonous - and consequently mistake-ridden - work steps.

[CAD note]
Computational design lends itself to an integral design approach as it enables employing complex behaviour rather than just modelling a particular shape of form. The transition from currently predominant modes of computer aided design (CAD) to computational design allows for a significant change in employing the computer's capacity. In computational design form is not defined through a sequence of drawing or modelling procedures but generated through algorithmic, rule-based processes. The ensuing externalisation of the interrelation between algorithmic processing of information and resultant form-generation permits the systematic distinction between process, information and form.
Hence any specific shape can be understood as resulting from the interaction of system-intrinsic information and external influences within a morphogenetic process (Menges, A. (2008) Integral Formation and materialisation: Computational Form and Material Gestalt, in B.Kolarevic and K.Klinger (eds), Manufacturing Material effects: Rethinking Design and making in Architecture. New York: Routledge.)
http://www.achimmenges.net

"The relationship between biology and building is now in need of clarification due to real and practical exigencies. The problem of environment has never before been such a threat to existence. In effect it is a biological problem. Not only has biology become indispensable for building but building for biology."
(Otto, F. 1971. IL3 Biology and Building Part 1. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart, 27.)
http://www.formakademisk.org/index.php/formakademisk/article/viewFile/65/87

[CAD/CAM organisational issues]

The advanced descriptive, analytical and communicative capabilities of digital tools are encouraging their ever wider adoption in the building industry, which is now beginning to come to grips with the practicalities of leveraging the computing power that has revolutionized the industrial design, electronics, aircraft, boat-building, and auto industries. A significant number of architects have been encouraged by these technologies to propose and undertake projects of much greater complexity (whether formal, organizational, or both) than are found conventional practice, and the engineers and builders with whom they work are correspondingly challenged to bring CAD/CAM to bear in their own work. But it is precisely this concept of “their own” work that poses the largest question, the greater challenges: in blurring the lines between architecture, engineering, and building, what becomes of the lines of ownership and responsibility?

Decades, even centuries, of effort have gone into creating the present sets of regulations and contractual forms governing the design and construction of buildings. Older still are the concepts of property that are underlying motivation of much human activity. Digital working, on the other hand, implies (if it does not demand) a significant transgression of many of these boundaries. Certainly a good number of the most significant digitally produced buildings have, in one or more respect, succeeded by bringing over these barriers, allowing these projects to make the most of interdisciplinary collaboration and in many cases the elision of normally distinct building functions. Should all digitally produced works strive to do the same? What can architects, engineers, builders, building owners (perhaps even regulators and attorneys) do to facilitate such blurring where it is deemed desirable?

To be sure, questions like these are not entirely unique to the building industry. Ever widening adoption of the internet has raised a host of intellectual property issues, and a burgeoning branch of legal effort is emerging to address these. On the other hand, many of the other industries to which the digital evangelical in architecture point as exemplars do not face the same hurdles. Specifically, the aircraft and automotive industries, as well as industrial design producers (of consumer goods, and so on) tend to encompass the entire conception and production in-house, with only limited outsourcing. Design-build, if you will. Boat-builders differ somewhat, more nearly approaching the fragmented supply chain typical of building construction as noted earlier, and they are therefore perhaps a more relevant example to architecture, though their logical challenges are still not as extensive. Yet the problems in building persist. The architects develop a digital model which their various engineering and other consultants can readily analyze, and, where necessary, reconfigure. Assuming that after all of the modifications are made someone can check that the design “documents” are correct: Who owns the design? Say that constructability and other logistical and economic factors are successfully addressed through early involvement of the contractors: Who is responsible for “means and methods”?

Rethinking the procurement process required to fully exploit CAD/CAM’s advantages leads generally to design-build as the preferred paradigm, in which many of the customary defensive obstacles are mitigated or eliminated by sharing financial risk and reward. Whereas the conventional “throw it over the fence” organizational model does at least have the advantage of giving fairly hard and fast rules about responsibility and the compensation for accepting it, the seamless flow envisioned by digital working methods requires much greater flexibility (and perhaps agility) from the participants.  The success of a collaboration among architects, engineers, and builders depends to a great extent simply on their willingness to “throw away the rule book” and streamline the flow of information and ideas where they see mutual advantage in doing so. Often, if the majority of the project team proposes to work this way, the building owner will go along with this.

As an alternative, recent studies have indicated that negotiated-bid (or “construction manager" at risk) contracts result in only slightly greater cost and time but much greater client satisfaction that does design-build. In order to effect this, architect can in some cases work from the outset of a project (or special part of a project) with contractors able to use CAD/CAM effectively, negotiating a price and allowing the design to evolve longer into the construction documentation phase. In so doing they may eliminate conventional documentation and its attendant production costs, duplications of effort, and inaccuracies in large measure.

Within a more conventional procurement scheme, architects can  prequalify contractors with CAD/CAM capability, recognizing that they must also accommodate conventionally skilled ones for particular aspect of the project. Success on this front depends largely on the designer's abilities to either produce fabrication information that the contractors can use with confidence or find contractors who have already converted to digital production. Frequently the result is not a less expensive project but an equally expensive though more complex one, and the amount of the designer's time required for troubleshooting is substantial.

 In any procurement scheme, then architects and engineers can aim to design mainly in 3-d and derive the required 2-D documents (as need by building officials, some non-CAM-capable contractors, and so on) from 3-D models, in order not to incur a large premium for duplicated effort. This of course requires software with appropriate capabilities "out of the box" or jury-rigged in-house. The former is less prevalent and the latter more so, leading all but the most committed designers to continue working in 2-D, but the emerging availability of better tools with more seamless modeling - drawing integration and object-oriented data structures means that we can look forward to more widespread adoption of " whole building" digital models in the coming years, with more promiscuous information-sharing as a result.

What sorts of checks and balances can the project team bring to bear in order to maintain the quality of their work in such fluid circumstances?  Some sort of “master model” in digital format is essential. Typically this model will describe the primary geometric characteristics of the project and, in the case of components that are "digitally contracted", also the scope of the work as a quantity output from the model. Sometimes the geometric relationships are definable by rules (as in parametric relational modeling) and in this case it may suffice to transmit these rules to each of the project's participants for them to reconstruct their own copies of the model. In the absence of such rules, as with "point clouds" and other highly complex special data, the individual data points themselves must be transmitted to all concerned. In either case it is then the responsibility of each party to verify the accuracy of the model upon which they will build their own components of the project.

Of course, updating the master model and all derivative models will be necessary as the point evolves, and the amount of effort and degree of reliability associated with these updates is a matter of significant concern.  Clearly the updating process is easiest when all parties use a common modeling platform (and in some cases consultants' and contractors' participation in the project may be made contingent upon obtaining the requisite software), but this is not always possible. Parametric and similar modeling capability may also be preferable when design changes are definable as incremental rather than whole-sale modifications. Let us bear in mind , though, that the entire issue of design change notifications is not well resolved in the building industry generally (visualize the difficulty of spotting individual but not always explicitly specified changes by overlying physical drawings or layers of digital drawings), so we can expect that digital technologies will perhaps improve upon and not degrade current performance if proper contract standards are developed. In the short term, and for project teams not yet wise in the ways of digital production, it is possible that the rate of increase in complexity (of buildings or just of data structures) outpaces the improvement in the ability to coordinate complexity.

The significance of these advances depends on which participants (in the design, engineering, and fabrication process) develop the complete technical model. To get the most from this approach architecture and engineering teams need to be more aware of fabrication issues but, many architects simply do not want the level of involvement (and corresponding control and responsibility) that the CAD/CAM continuum can offer. It is true that architects typically do not have, nor perhaps even want, the skills required to specify means and methods of construction. However, they can synthesize the abilities and coordinate the efforts of contractors, suggest construction systems and design within, or nearly within, the constraints imposed by available means of production supported by accurate (digital) documentation that contractors can rely on. Where successful, this method can result in improved economy as well as more ambitious design, because much of the contractor's effort expended in interpreting and re-presenting the design becomes unnecessary.

For those architects and engineers who do take on this expanded area of responsibility, careful consideration is necessary of the skills required to produce reliable data for digitally driven manufacturing, lest they end up producing and "owning" a pile of scrap. Currently there are only limited technological means of assuring such quality. Instead, it is matter of designers acquiring the necessary knowledge through formal or informal education, ranging from early exposure to such issues in their university coursework through opportunities to practice at the entire design/detail/fabricate continuum on the job, and perhaps even to internship or other practical experience in the employment of CAM-capable builders. (This is not a new prescription, by the way, but only a reiteration of a long-standing call for designers to reacquaint themselves with the problems of building in order to be more effective designers, a call now lent additional weight by the integrative potentials of CAD/CAM).

The outcome of the emerging power of information technology is that architects should leverage their improved design and communication capabilities in order to continue to be able to offer "architectural design" - that is, inclusion of attention to human factors - at an acceptably low premium. Otherwise building owners may resort exclusively to ordering buildings from design-build firms which will be able to design facilities using parameterized models of building types, for example. Thus, the ultimate questions are not about how to use computers but: Who will take the best advantage of them, and what will be the effect on the built environment?

To summarize, existing contract forms require some modifications, to encourage information flow among the parties involved in a project and best realize the advantage of CAD/CAM, if the current multiparty model of project-team composition is to survive, such as where architects work with contractors through a CM at risk. Education of designers requires some modification to better qualify them for working within such procurement processes. Collaboration between architects, engineers, fabricators and contractors must be encouraged, beginning in schools. Sadly, the opposite is often the case today - at both the educational and professional levels. Software (and to some extent hardware) must continue to develop in the direction of more useful functionality (both general and building-oriented), more transparent and reliable data-transfer among applications, and better user interfaces that do not require extensive programming skills in obtaining useful results with reasonable effort.

And as for the revolutionary impact of new materials and fabrication processes, it seems likely these will take care of themselves inasmuch as human inventiveness continues to unearth heretofore unimagined materials and processes and continues to rediscover and reapply old ones.

*[:SOHOArchitects] would like to thank Andre Chazar and Jim Glymph for the provided information.

[CAM Note] Shaping the glazing unit.
Gravitational bending.
This manufacturing technique is generally based on the production of a mould the size of a single modular unit. A flat plane of glass is placed into the mould and sent to furnace; it then sinks due to to its own weight and takes the form of the mould. In their final geometry , the outline of the element must correspond to the facade grid within the allowable tolerances of glass. In addition, to ensure the intactness of the different glass coatings, it is of prime importance to have accurate control of the specific furnace temperatures, as the rate at which the glass is heated and cooled affects the integrity of the glass unit.
The double glass unit should consist of 2 layers of laminated glass; each of the layers is composed of 2 single panes (outer panes : 8 mm thick, inner: 6 mm).
In the single glazing unit consisting of 3 panes of glass is used. Note: From a technical perspective, prints (i.e. printed dots etc.) on curved glass initially acts as sunscreen, improving the G-values of the glass by about 25%.

Technical Visualisations and Animations – which constitute a communication platform between architects and the other project participants – play an important role in the construction process. They expedite examination and discussion of the modifications in the entire development process. The modification can be experienced – both in terms of complexity and of their repercussions for the project. In a conventional planning process, one would avoid such dependency at all costs. When planning with a comprehensive parametric-associative model accompanied by continuous program, it turns out to be a simplification.  Architects and clients can be integrated more quickly and intensely and remain a part of the planning and building process much longer than was previously the case. Planning highly integrated projects within a framework of tight budgets and schedules would be difficult in any case without digital work processes. Because the new formal vocabulary employed in architectural designs is constantly gaining ground, there are ever changing challenges to be met in their realisations.  Our purpose is to reduce and analyse the complexity and to make the structure legible. In terms of time frame and budget, holistic thoughts in digital process chains from preliminary design to construction can assist in making the realisation of such projects more precisely calculable.

 [CAD Note] Structure as set of data.

A basic tenet of engineering holds that before acting, one should always integrate a more fundamental level in the investigation – i.e. not only examine the depiction itself, but also how the CAD programs function. This facilitates linking all relevant data and evaluating it.  The FEM (Finite Element calculation) can be coupled with CAD data: ultimately, a digital transformation occurs, i.e.:
1.    Drawings, Sketches, 3D models, images…;
2.    Rhino, 3DS, Catia, ACAD, STEP … (standard input);
3.    Line model as basis (!!!);
4.    Generation, design, structural engineering, building physics, installation, manufacturing, data base (digital transformation);
5.    Massing model;
6.    Rhino, Pro-E, Catia, ACAD, STEP… (standard output);
7.1 Drawings, Sketches, 3D models, images…;
7.2 Fabrication specifications;
 And this makes it possible to examine the entire development and construction process of the project visually and analytically in all of its complexity. To be able to respond to the greatest variety of input – standards for the data should be developed. From generation, design, analysis, structural engineering, and building physics – all areas relevant to the sequence of construction – are taken into consideration and filed in a central data bank. The material supplied by the architects – ranging from simple concept sketches to generative digital models – serves as the basis.

Interesting note about Standards:
- The British Engineering Standards Association was founded in 1902,
- The German national equivalent was founded in 1916,
- The American Standards association was founded in 1918.

"Standardization and rationalization are identified to be prerequisites to a modern architecture of formal and ethical excellence. Rationalization enables heightened efficiency and allows for the incorporation of prefabricated and ready-made components into the architectural process".*
* Gropius, Walter. (1955) The Scope of Total Architecture

Once, as "master builders" architect both designed and built structures. However, architects relinquished their direct role in the building process centuries ago and have instead relied on 2-D drawings to describe their visions to specialised builders. Today this communication process is rapidly changing as a direct result of digital fabrication introduced in 1971 by technology developed at the French automotive company, Renault*. Drawings are being augmented - if not entirely replaced - by process that permit 3-D fabrication of complex forms directly from Architects' data.
*(Paul Bezier, "Mathematical and Practical Possibilities of UNISURF". Computer Aided Geometric Design, 1974, 127-52)
Digital direct communication has reinvigorated the concept of master builder for a few architects. Repopularized some thirty years ago the design-build method means the responsibility for design and production are provided by the same party. Pedagogically significant since it opens up a fertile dialectic between design and tectonics, there is again tremendous interest in this model in academia. Many schools have adopted design-build in their curriculum, often relying on digital fabrication for components in such things as material research, formal investigation, and community-based initiatives. The upshot of this is that more emerging practitioners are once again enthusiastic about possibilities inherent in varying levels of participation in the actual making of design. Design-build today has two distinctly different branches - the decidedly larger one (dominated by contractors) deals preliminary with profit optimisation, while the smaller (but more interesting tectonically)) deals with product optimisation. A few architectural firms have thrown themselves into the opportunities presented by this latter area by exploring the union of 3-D design with 3-D fabrication, creating works that range from sculptural objects and surfaces to full-sized buildings. Further reason that architects should pay more attention to this area is that at the current rate of change in the building industry , design-build project delivery is expected to surpass traditional design-bid-build methods by 2014. For architects with the courage to branch out from their well-entrenched methodologies, tremendous opportunities for increased complexity, control, and economies of scale through digital fabrication lie ahead. Such endeavour permit industrious architects to focus design efforts and materials exploration on specific areas of architectural significance (regardless of scale) and thus reassert themselves as master builders!

[CAD Note] BIM issues.

Inherent to BIM is parametric design software tied to data contained in spreadsheets. Changes made to either the digital model or the database automatically update and coordinate throughout the model and spreadsheet.
Due to the extent of the previsualization it allows prior to construction, BIM reduces errors and generates savings for Clients.
But in practice benefits will not be realized without some possibly serious drawbacks.
While BIM possesses fairly powerful tools for error reduction, it is simply incapable of error elimination.
Thus underscoring that for architects there is a distinct danger that bim will result in a triple-whammy: more-work, less profit, and increased liability.
Full BIM modeling for singular enterprises is ultimately not beneficial for architects, since the time (and thus, cost) of such a complex endeavor is much higher than normal one-off design services.
Development of a full BIM model is almost as complex as physically making the actual object and one that makes economic sense only in a mass-production / customization context.