Add To Collection
Add to Collection
Cocoon EVO
Cocoon EVO
Rome, Italy
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
View Original
Add To Collection
Add to Collection
Cocoon EVO
Rome, Italy
. design team: Co-de-iT (Andrea Graziano) + Mediterranean FabLab + Picernocerasolab (Amleto Picerno Ceraso)
. structural consultancy: Luca Patruno and Domenico Melchionda (Università di Bologna)
. sponsored and fabricated by: TEKLA
[.] pavilion data
- material: Etalbond PE White / Black
- Sheet size: 4 x 1500 x 4000 mm
- Etalbond used sheets: 18
- Number of panels: 360
- Surface area: 50.31 m2
- Pavilion size: 637 x 666 x 351 cm
- Estimated weight: 247.42 kg
- CNC milling lenght: 1294.75 meters
.
Cocoon EVO is the second pavilion in the ‘Cocoon’ series, the result of an ongoing collaboration between Co-de-iT and the Mediterranean FabLab about the exploration, in terms of computational design, aesthetics and digital fabrication, of the PHEX (Planar HEXagonal) tessellation method for the description and construction of double-curved surfaces.
Cocoon EVO is the evolution of ‘Cocoon’, a temporary pavilion built in May 2013, and tries to push forward some ideas and feedbacks we got during the design, production and assembly of the first prototype.
Here are some of the main points that have guided the design process:
- Openings
In the first prototype the entrance opening was obtained by removing some of the hexagonal panels, thus somehow compromising the integrity of the overall design. In the design of the new Cocoon the attempt is to embed them in the shape of the initial surface, without any removal operation.
- A different material system
The idea was to move from undulated cardboard, used in the previous experience, and to test a stiffer material verifying the possible implications. Through the collaboration with TEKLA we had the opportunity to use Etalbond, a sandwich-type composite panel consisting of a non-toxic polyethylene core bonded between fine aluminium sheets.
- Surface pattern
We wanted to apply here another ongoing Co-de-iT research called ‘pattern seeker’, in order to enrich the tessellation effect of the surface.
‘Pattern Seeker’ is an ongoing investigation into how information can at once be stored and expressed through the data structure of a 3D model, becoming explicit through patterns. The sheets of Etalbond provided by TEKLA have a different color on the two faces (black/white) so we could play with double color skin effects.
- Testing a more complex structure
The first prototype was touching ground on the entire perimeter. The intent was to add leaning parts in order to test the thin shell system’s structural behavior and extend design opportunities.
The computational design process
1) Starting from the previous experience of the ‘Cocoon’, the first step was to test different shape configurations and the related feasibility in terms of panels planarization. The planarization process itself isn’t always convergent and it’s influenced by many aspects: surface curvature, anchor points, tolerances, number and size of the hexagonal cells, etc..
The hexagons planarization is based on a two steps process:
- a first honeycomb tessellation [using lunchbox grasshopper plugin ]
- a subsequent planarization of the honeycomb edges made using the kangaroo plug-in and a grasshopper custom modified definition based on a prior Daniel Piker definition [ planarize_polygons.gh - http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/planar-hexagons-kangaroo]
2) After generating a series of surfaces, which were then selected for their balance in maximum complexity vs visual & functional simplicity we evaluated the results of the planarization process with different numbers of subdivisions of the surface in the domains U and V, and we evaluated the pros and cons in terms of production and the possible structural behavior.
3) basing our decision on the above mentioned factors we chose the final surface. Then we started to make some evaluations based on new criteria: how much the unit of tolerance would influence the relaxation time, the number of process iterations, the number of subdivisions of the surface, the weight and maximum size of the panels
4) the result of this series of assessments was a model characterized by a 80×8 Honeycomb U_V subdivisions and a Kangaroo planarization based on a unit tolerance of 0.01 cm.
5) a pre-evaluation of the structural behavior under self weight load was done with Kangaroo. It allowed us to adjust some parameters of the surface in order to obtain the best positioning of anchor points on the ground. Then a mor comprehensive structural analysis was done in collaboration with Luca Patruno and Domenico Melchionda of the University of Bologna.
6) Once the final solution was obtained we studied the surface pattern using the ‘pattern seeker’ grasshopper definition.
7) Files were then optimized and nested for manufacturing via 3-axys CNC milling machine
Product Spec Sheet
Were your products used?
Join as a manufacturer to add your products.