univ of oregon responsive surfaces workshop

led by Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew PayneRESPONSIVEsurfacesA Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng

University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011

JONATHAN IZEN + MAXWELL MORIYAMA

The idea for the social wall began as an exploration into the idea of creating a collaborative interaction that breaks the boundaries of physical space. Based on the interest in having two human inputs to initiate the responsive output in the surface, the project requried at least two individuals to trigger the surface interaction. Depending on where the two people are in physical space determines the location where the wall reacts. The wall illuminates on the opposite side of the user, allowing the second user to see their collaborate reaction and vice versa. In effect, the wall allows visual contact with another individual without physically seeing the person. Using the digital model and a scale module of the wall, the behavior of the installation was simulated as the installation would react within the lobby of the A&AA Building. Light sensors detect the proximity of the users. Depending on their distance from each other, the light appears at a faint illumination. When the people move closer to each other and ultimately reach a point where they would be face-to-face in the physical world, the wall illuminates to full brightness, where the wall communicates the union of their interaction.

RESPONSIVEsurfacesJason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng


Photo by Andrew Payne

Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng

The design evolved as an experiment to have two inputs and connect two or more people in space. Cells in the wall struc-ture were created with a voronoi algorithm, with a variation in the density of the cells decreasing towards the center, encour-aging movement to the middle of the wall. A barrier in the center of each cell blocks the light to the opposite side while still allowing light through the transparent skin of the surface. The installation could lead to a new kind of communication in the physical world by digital means. This also implies a com-pletely radical interpretation of contact with another human between physical barriers and could explore new and unex-pected interactions between people.

This installation might lead to a flurry of new architectural applications. If the idea for the social wall was implemented over the scale of an entire building, program could be distrib-uted by a response in the surface conditions. If a room bustling with activity displayed a kind of message indicating the interior social conditions, it might influence how people navigate through the space of the building. Futhermore, the architecture could dictate if a space was too crowded or if human activity was sparse, creating a flow and balance within the building program and within social interactions in the space.


Sara Vernia with Roussa Cassel

RESPONSIVEsu r facesJason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng


INITIAL THOUGHTS ON REINTERPRETING REAL TIME IMAGERY..........................................................................

Every act of seeing is a visual judgement; it is immediate and composed of indivisible ingredients. What we see gives

us a way to orient ourselves, a way to navigate through an extremely complex world. What if however, we tran-

scribed these visual ingredients (light and shadow) into a tactile or physical language. Our initial thoughts were to

mimic the camera obscura, an optical devise that was first conceived in order to view an external image which would

be projected onto a two dimensional screen. Our intent was to be able to represent a scene in real time through a

static lens and filtered onto a dynamic surface. For the sake of time we decided to simplify our project by using

photo light sensors instead of a live image feed to collect our data.

For this project we were interested in locating a particular spot within the White Stagg Building in Portland, Oregon,

where we could place our theoretical responsive surface installation. Our immediate thoughts were to find a space

that would be animated with motion and changing light. This in the end turned out to be an interstitial space within

the main lobby where skylight windows connect two existing brick buildings. We felt this would be an interesting

place to reflect images of the cloud cover and daylight conditions throughout the day.

RESPONSIVEsu r facesJason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng


+5 VOLTS

PHOTO RES.

ANALOG PIN #

RES. 10K

GROUND GROUNDSERVO

DIGITAL PIN #

+5 VOLTS

ANALOG INPUT SCHEMATIC DIGITAL OUTPUT SCHEMATIC

GETTING IT TO WORK............................................................................................................................................

To implement our design we used Grasshopper, a plug-in for McNeel’s Rhino modeler, and Firefly, a set of compre-

hensive tools that bridge the gap between Grasshopper and the Arduino micro-controller, allowing for real-time data

to flow to and from the three dimensional digital world and the physical world.

For our simulation, our objective was to use light meters that would feed into the analog inputs on the Arduino board

and produce readings in a gradient using pulse-width modulation. With the data we translated the 10-bit numeric

values (0-1024) into three specific rotations. The light values between 0-333, 334-666 & 667-1024 would respec-

tively correspond to 0°,90°,180°. This data would then be sourced to the digital output and direct the servo motors

to turn the cubes so they would display their appropriate tonal value.

FOR THE FUTURE...................................................................................................................................................

As the next step, we would like to develop the digital model more fully so that one could read the pixilated image on

the face of the boxes within the 3D model. I would also like to continue investigating the initial idea of translating real

time data collected through the lens of a camera to a digital model that would instantaneously average the pixels of

the photograph and then output to a responsive surface. An even more ambitious continuation of the project would

be to translate the visual data into a tactile surface, allowing for one sensory experience to be interpreted with a

different sensory language, perhaps giving a more wholistic understanding of reality.

THE RESPONSIVE SURFACE..................................................................................................................................

Our initial inspiration for the responsive surface was a project done by Daniel Rozin which utilized 830 square pieces

of wood and a built-in camera to rotate blocks which would recreate the images directly adjacent using light and

shadow. Our project also used a grid of blocks, sized at two inches on edge, but the faces of the blocks were

colored white, gray and black, each face representing the average value of the pixel detected above. Each block

would be connected to a motor and a light sensor and rotate to display the face with a tonal value depending on the

light reading. We envisioned the surface as an elongated floor installation composed of a 15x240 grid of blocks

which would mimic the sky above.

3-cogs

rotating cube

servo

The prototype we constructed for our project evolved from a set of

three cubes mounted directly on servo motors, to an apparatus which

would conceal the mechanical parts and expose only the critical

elements. Because the motors we were working with only rotate 180

degrees, we were limited to using three faces of the cube.


Roussa Cassel with Sara Vernia

Our design concept was to build a responsive surface that would act as a camera or a lens and reflect dynamic changes from the outside into an interior space within the building. We were initially inspired by the Wooden Mirror project by Daniel Rozin which utilizes 830 square pieces of wood and a built-in camera to rotate the blocks and recreate the image using light and shadow. Our project also used a grid of blocks (pixels), but the faces of the blocks were colored white, gray and black. Each block would be connected to a motor and a light sensor and rotate to display a face with a tonal value depending on the light reading. We envisioned the surface as a freestanding floor installation that would be located under a long linear skylight in the Whitestag building. The image of the sky would constantly update on the surface depending on cloud cover and daylight conditions.

We constructed a prototype model with three cubes to test our ideas. Because the motors we were working with only rotate 180 degrees, we were limited to using three faces of the cube. A challenging part of the project was getting the cubes to rotate in exact 90 degree steps. Light meters that feed into analog inputs produce readings in a gradient using pulse-width modulation. Translating a range of light readings into a specific rotation, we were able to rotate and stop the cubes with their faces properly displayed. Another challenge was devising a way to mount the motors underneath the cubes, ultimately we settled on three cogs per cube, so that the cubes could be seamlessly mounted in a plane.

Given more time, I would like to develop the digital model more fully so that one could read the pixilated image on the face. We were able to make the concept work, but we can’t really know if it would be visually successful. I would also like to figure out how to make the rotation of the cubes, the “refreshing” of the image, occur in a cyclical wave instead of all the cubes rotating simultaneously. I can imagine this idea evolving in a number of different ways. One suggestion was to use cylinders rather than cubes, which would allow the pixels to be closer together and a produce a gradient of tonal values, perhaps making the image more legible.




GEOFF SOSEBEE Associated LEDsAssociated LEDs explores the lost spaces of a building, the un-programmed circulation spaces that we often pay no attention to. The project tries to draw attention to the space through an interactive surface composed of an array of LEDs and proximity sensors. As a person walks into the area, LEDs begin to light, growing brighter as the person comes closer. The LEDs represent the influence or "personal space" of a person. As people circulate through and around the space, these LED "fields" begin to interact with one another, merging together as people move into one another's space.

The prototpe consists of 4 LEDs in a 2x2 array and 4 light sensors that mimic the output of proximity sensors. This interactive prototype has two uses, one to show the light levels of 4 LEDs of the full size array represented graphically in Rhino. These 4 LEDs can be selected by moving an encompassing box around, so one can view the differing light levels throughout the imagined surface. The second use is to actually sense presence (or in this case light levels) which defines the overall values of the LEDs in the graphic array.

The site of the imagined surface is in an atrium space in the University of Oregon's White Stag building in Portland, Oregon. However, the surface has also been imagined to be an entry canopy to a building or a bus shelter, where the interactive responsive surface will show users how they and others move around a space and interact with one another. This could also occur in a pubic open space, a square or sidewalk; where people could begin to understand their presence among others and how each person circulates through a space both interacting with and avoiding one another.

Prototype in action, LEDs showing the proximity of the person.

Prototype with the Rhino interface.

PD(X) Lab / Performance-driven Design & Ecology Lab

Furthering the investigation into a performance-driven design and ecology laboratory, I explored the addition of

(Figure 1A & 1B). As a means of developing strong per-formance correlations between this studio design environ-

served as a real-time sensing and actuation interface

physical and digital prototyping, allowing simultaneous adaptive form and control design development and testing.

Growing Tectonics

Growing Tectonics is a PD(X) Lab research framework and curriculum study with the goal of increasing the rate of propagation and survival of autotrophs in urban and

adaptive responses to changes in environmental fac-tors which affect plant growth, in this case lighting levels.

-sponsive autotroph envelopes which mitigate exaggerated changes in environmental conditions. The resulting sketch module as show in Figure 1B & 1C and described in the evoltuionary Figures 2A - 2F could become part of a larger assemblage of modules serving as either stand alone systems or subsystems within larger building systems and surfaces. The Primary behavior explored in this sketch was an automatic plant protection resonse at night and a full sunlight exposure response during the day. In addi-

cultivation”, studying potetnials at the intersection of urban

design and real-time decision making.

William R. Taylor / PD(X) Lab Report / Sketches

Figure 1C - Studio as Ecosystem

Figure 1D - Day / Night Behavior

Figure 1B - Arduino Growing Tectonics Kit

Page 1 of 2

Agile Methods / Test-driven Development

Agile Software Development Methodologies and related Test-driven Development practices have emerged from complexity management and rapid prototyping needs in the develop-ment of large software systems in fast moving markets. Many of the ideas which have emerged from Agile Methods research are potentially applicable to architectural design.

-lar attention to the concepts “working software is the primary measure of progress” and

http://www.agilemanifesto.org/principles.html

Embracing the related software development practice of Test-driven Development I broke

of each generation of the physical and behavioral components of the system. Studying Rodney Brooks work on evolving rather than designing centralized control (http://www.evolvingmorphologies.com/?p=15) I thought of each iteration as the building up of complexity in small jumps. As part of the PD(X) Lab process, I have documented each of the basic goals for the system at each iteration as a form of test case. A new iteration of the system was initiated only after the last test-case was passed. In this way the embodiment and the intelligence of the system were evolved as a whole, neither was advanced further beyond the bounds of the test case which could potentially add complexity without testable performance.

Iterations

Passing autonomy tests, removing the designer fromt the system through a series of small evolutionary steps:

Figure 1A: Test hand over light sensor, establish calibration / remap data to 0-180 servoFigure 1B: Test cup over light sensor, re-establish calibrationFigure 1C: Test hand in front of sensor in plant, re-establish calibration Figure 1D: Test cone over light sensor in plant, re-establish calibration Figure 1E: Test lamp as sun simulating a day, re-establish calibration Figure 1F: Test lamp as sun with plant protection behavior, re-establish calibration

Conclusions

curriculum development as it serves as a critical function in the task of modeling the design -

-ing Tectonic modules and subsystems including self monitoring, irrigating, shading, and additional protective responses.

Figure 2A

Figure 2B

Figure 2C

Figure 2D

Figure 2E

Figure 2FPage 2 of 2

Claire Alyea This project is meant to approach the topic of how to generate varying levels of privacy through a kinetic screen. The specific site is an open partition along one wall of a multi-purpose classroom in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts. This classroom is used for classes, workshops, pin-up critiques, and other meetings. It is located off the main access corridor for -most architecture studios, and thereby receives a lot of passing-by traffic and general interest by students.

The project is based on the theory that with increased volume in the classroom, the less private the function is, and the more accessible the activities inside should be perceived. By increasing views into this classroom during events such as informal critiques or workshops, students not directly participating


Univers i ty of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011


in these activities would feel more welcomed and engaged in the work of their peers. Using grasshopper, firefly, and a sound detector on an arduino board, the curtain would respond in corresponding levels of opacity.

The first step for this project was establishing the parameters -for the screen. With the concept of pulling a curtain aside to provide a peek into the room, I established a grid of smaller operable screens, allowing for small portholes to give a glimpse inside. A grid of smaller screens keeps a minimal amount of separation between room and corridor, even at the maximally opened position guided by the sensor when volume recorded is high. These screen snapshots show two versions of this screen, based on two types of pattern parameters.

As a new Grasshopper user, the main challenge for me was knowing enough functions in order to understand how I wouldset up this idea of repeating, kinetic screens. I found that the path to proficiency in Grasshopper is predicated upon broad exposure to all the tools available. Once I understood a base -level of what functions were possible, it was very exciting to begin to combine them and think through a logical path to creating the design I had imagined. By contrast, I found the Firefly functions and Arduino operation very straightforward as they require less introduction to begin operation. Anotherchallenge was that my initial idea involved the possibility of a randomized screen, changing its pattern every time a volume recording would be taken. Although I did not discover how to do this during the workshop, I was able to create a different pattern for opening the screen using the same grid geometries.

This workshop opened the door to thinking about how -architecture can be thought of kinetically, and the potential for interactive, communal spaces. I see Firefly as a gateway to -creating new perceptions and feelings about congregation or -movement and making these activities perceived in the built environment. These tools can be used to awaken our senses about the places we inhabit.

Univers i ty of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011

MICHAEL PROHOV + LUKE SMITHAs our first exercise in leveraging the power of these new software tools, we decided to explore a relatively common architectural application: a photoresponsive canopy system. While it may be possible to achieve this through innovative materials, we chose to focus on mechanical solutions fostered by the arduino technology.In this iteration of a mutable canopy structure we proposed a grid of identical cells that would rotate independently such that each cell would maintain a position normal to the brightest point. Maximizing the condition of brightness for each cell could greatly increase the brightness exposure of the system as whole as opposed to a single orthogonal angle for the entire grid. If achieved, this could be potentially valuable for photovoltaic applications. The physical model depicted on this pagerepresents one cell in a modular system.

RESPONSIVE surfacesJason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng

Univers ity of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011

RESPONSIVE surfacesJason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng

Given the scope of the charrette, we decided to simplify our model by assuming the brightest point to be the location of the sun.

After this was established, we created an arc to serve as the sun path and a point travelling along it to serve as the sun. From each typical panel a maximum brightness reading simulates a typical noontime condition (with the highest altitude angle at due south) whereas the darkest reading simulates a sunrise or sunset condition (with the lowest altitude angle).

Part of understanding the logic of the firefly-arduino toolset requires stating what the proposed inputs and outputs are, before attempting to manipulate any data. In our case, bright-ness yields position. Or put another way, the photoresistor inputs brightness levels as analog data and our script outputs two angles corresponding to tilt and pan rotation. The level of brightness will define the sun’s distance along the arc which in turn will define the rotation of the panel.

Using the previously defined arc we created a vector defined by the center of each cell towards the sun point. The plane of each hexagonal cell is defined as normal to this vector. Then by decomposing this vector into its constituent parts we were able to measure the two angles of rotation. To find the pan angle we created a ‘shadow vector’ constucted from the x and y compo-nents of the original vector and then measured the angle from this new vector to the global x-axis. The tilt output was defined by the angle between each cell’s local (rotated) xz-plane and the original vector.

We then isolated the values of a single cell (highlighted in green) so that our physical model would correspond to the behaviour of a particular cell. The two angles of this cell were set as outputs to their respective servo motors and the physical model responds to light input from the light sensor.

Our model has shown that each cell could respond indepen-dently to light levels such that they would each maintain an orthogonal position to the brightest point. In order to justify responding on a microlevel we would need to incorporate an additional level of complexity: the true direction of the brightest point sensed by each cell. Rather than each cell responding on a microlevel to a global condition: i.e. the position of the sun, each cell would need to respond to its own brightest point. This would certainly be feasible with additional light sensors per cell and a modified definition in grashopper.

Univers ity of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011


Emma Chen with Ray Tam

The design concept for the installation was inspired by the artistic installations of Ned Kahn, an artist whos work allows viewers to oberve and interact with natural processes. Similar to his alluminum panel installations that enabled people see undulating patterns across a series of hung aluminum panels in the presence of wind, we wanted to create an installation that enabled people in an indoor space to be able to notice what was happening outdoors. The location of the installation would be in the central lightwell area of the first floor of the White Stag building. While the lightwell allows users to see the whether it is sunny or cloudy, bright or dark, it is complete sealed off from the outdoor environment. The intention for the installa-tion is to create a mechanism for people to able to observe an additional natural process, that of wind. The panels would be translucent to conintue to allow light wash down the lightwell into the space. The presense of outside wind would be picked up by sensors and cause each of the installation’s panels to rotate at a specific time thereby creating an interesting undulating motion effect.

Our primary focus was on the Rhino/Grasshopper model and trying to find an elegant way to make the Grasshopper script work properly. The biggest challenge was trying to figure out how to make each row of panels move in sync and have that pattern flow throughout the installation, smilar to seeing a wave ripple accross the ocean. The other challenge was trying to figure out how to apply this scrip to a non rectalinear surface. We used the majority our time debugging the buffering portions of the Grasshopper model, experimenting with different settings and input value ranges to make the ripple effect of the panels move across the installation.

With the help of Geoff, Jason and Andrew, we were able come up with the undulating effect on the Grasshopper model we were pleased with. Had we had more time, we would have liked to further develop the physical model. Given we only had one serve motor, we were only able to mock up on panel, which made it difficult to illustrate the undulating effect. Further investigation would involvie multiple servo motors and panels as well as replacing the llight sensor with an actual wind sensor, which would allow us to create a more interesting effects in the physical model.


JonathanÊ InternicolaÊThe focus of my project was how to create responsive furni-ture. By utilizing heat, bend, and pressure sensors I was interested in making a planar surface read human contours and movement and support it using a series of motors and pistons. The planar surface would be composed of a Òq uiltÓ of individual mechanisms to provide optimal responsiveness. Durring the workshop I focused on creating just one of those mechanisms that would respond to curvature, local body pressure, and global body pressure.



David Taylor & James YamadaThe idea behind Light Control was that it would be a seriesof rotatable louvers & LED lights that would interact withwith persons in proximity to the installation. Each louverwas designed to open independantly as a direct function ofa persons proximity based on an x and y axis plane, and theLED was designed change color for the same reason. Light Control currently is only a scaled down prototype thatmeasures approximately 10”x10”x8”. The intent was for theidea to grow into a more human scale 10’x16’x1’ modular wallsystem. The analog input for sensing proximity on the protype forLight Control were two light sensors and two potentionme-ters. A light sensor was combined with a potntiometer to simu-late the x and y movement of person in relation to the protype throughthe Rhinocerous, Grasshopper, Firefly, & Arduino softwares.



univ of oregon responsive surfaces workshop

Documents

social wall

wall illuminates

wall structure

boundaries of physical

physical world

department of architecture

surface interaction

social interactions