0x010088F6312065A70A44B630A6848498EAD80093CFEAFE161DC94D83C7C5C9A5A748B8

This was the fourth session of AAR4209 and the third time I have served as the Course Coordinator. There were three main issues carried over from last year: ▪ Ensuring space for exercises (rather than design rooms)▪ Creating an environment where lecturers can answer questions while students watch videos, rather than video-only exercises.▪ Reconsidering the order of the exercises. The first and second issues were related to the recorded exercise lectures, and the third issue was related to group work. The former was resolved by having instructors conduct live sessions in the classroom instead of using recorded videos. The latter was addressed by reducing the number of group work activities from two to one. As a result, no related requests or complaints were heard from students this year, so I believe these changes were successful.

This course is a 7.5-credit elective, but the workload is substantial. The curriculum was developed based on NTNU's guidelines, and adjustments have been made continuously based on feedback from the reference group and assessing dropout rates. This year, 25 students registered for the course, of which 20 completed the curriculum. Seventeen students passed the exam. It seems that a few students will take the exam in the autumn. There were no active students who dropped out midway this year, indicating that the workload appears now appropriate. There were no compromises on the content taught, on the other hand. As in previous years, the course consisted of four columns: lectures on structural design in architecture, lectures on physical and digital methods that can be used in design, individual assignments, and group assignments. Additionally, this year, the task of performing structural calculations by hand was made mandatory for architecture students in one of the assignments. Although this may have been challenging for the architectural students, they kept up well. These are skills that can be applied in practice, and I hope the interested students will make use of them in the future. Furthermore, this year, the teaching staff was enhanced through various adjustments. A top-level practitioners from the United Kingdom was invited as guest lecturer and critic for the assignment. Experts from both inside and outside the university lectured on parametric design and architectural geometry. There were also guest lectures from faculty with practical backgrounds, making this year's course more enriching than ever before. Through this course, I believe the students have acquired the following skills:<ul><li>Architectural design by interaction between architects and engineers</li><li>Both physical and digital modeling techniques, particularly parametric design using Rhino/Grasshopper, and structural analysis using hand calculations and Karamba.</li></ul>Of course, it cannot expected that they have mastered these completely within the limited time. I hope that each student will continue to study the areas they are interested in moving forward.

The following issue remained this year: Enforcing stricter deadlines for individual assignments in the first half of the course.This issue arose because, without set deadlines, many students ended up working on individual assignments simultaneously with their group work. The individual assignments were intended to prepare students for group work, but this dual workload not only made the preparation less effective but also increased the students' overall workload before the deadlines. This is something that should be improved in the next iteration of the course.

NTNU:TIA:REST

Department of Architecture and Technology

Institutt for arkitektur og teknologi

Engelsk

Norsk

Mer om vurdering

Karakterer er basert på vurdering av mappe og muntlig presentasjon. Det vil bli kunngjort i semesterstart om art og omfang av de ulike arbeidene. Evaluering av den muntlige presentasjonen er knyttet til evaluering av prosjektarbeidet.Klagerett gjelder kun etter at sluttkarakteren er gitt. Utsatt eksamen legges normalt til neste ordinære eksamensperiode.

Anbefalte forkunnskaper

Studiebakgrunn og personlig interesse for konstruksjonsutforming og bygningsutforming, enten fra NTNU masterprogram i arkitektur eller NTNU masterprogram i bygg- og miljøteknikk, konstruksjonsteknikk spesielt. Erfaring med og interesse for digital parametrisk modellering er en fordel men ingen absolutt forutsetning.

Forkunnskapskrav

Emnet er valgbart for studenter på videregående nivå i NTNU master i arkitektur program, studenter på NTNU masterprogram i bærekraftig arkitektur og for studenter ved NTNU bygg- og miljøteknikk som gjennom å være opptatt på emnet «Introduksjon til arkitekturprosjektering for ingeniører» (AAR4208) er opptatt på Minor i arkitektur for ingeniører.

Faglig innhold

Emnet gir en innføring i bruk av digitale og fysiske modeller for utvikling og analyser av konstruksjonskonsepter som del av arkitekturprosjektering / bygningsutforming. Temaet innbefatter både formgiving ved optimalisering av kjente konstruksjonsprinsipper og mer fri generering av konstruksjonsgeometri og konstruksjonssystemer. Temaet inkluder også hvordan rent arkitektoniske formkonsepter kan undersøkes og utvikles gjennom konstruksjonsløsninger. Ved å inkorporere konstruksjonskonsepter i arkitekturprosjketering, tar vi sikte på å gjøre mer effektiv bruk av begrensede materialer og samtidig bidra til attraktiv arkitektonisk design.

Læringsutbytte

GENERELL KOMPETANSE: Emnet skal gi en oversikt over sammenhenger mellom konstruksjonskonsepter og konkret bygningsform og fysiske og digitale modeller for å studere dette. KUNNSKAP: Etter endt kurs skal studentene ha praktisk erfart kunnskap i utvikling og analyser av konstruksjonskonsepter gjennom bruk av fysiske modeller som «hanging chains models» og «minimal surface models» og bruk av digitale verktøy som kobler vurdering av konstruksjoner som form og uttrykk sammen med ingeniørmessige konstruksjonsanalyser typisk i form av elementmetodeanalyser. FERDIGHETER: Studentene skal på selvstendig grunnlag kunne anvende digitale og fysiske modeller for å utforme og analysere konstruksjonskonsepter som integrert del av arkitektonisk form.

Læringsformer og aktiviteter

Forelesning og øvinger. Øvinger inkluderer både bruk av fysiske modeller og digital modellering. Vekting av digitale versus fysiske modeller kan variere, blant annet ut fra studentenes kompetanse.

Konstruksjonskonsepter i arkitekturprosjektering, modeller og metoder

Arkitektur

Arkitektur - masterstudium (5-årig)

Bygg- og miljøteknikk - masterstudium (5-årig)

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(27110)/FieldValuesAsText

This is the ver.3 of the same course. Version 2 identified the following problems for the coming year: <ol><li>Consider the order of the tasks (from simple to complex tasks)</li><li>Way to improve getting the feedback of teachers during design tasks</li><li>More private tutoring opportunities</li></ol> Suggestions were made regarding the order of tasks last year. Although attempts were made to change the order before the course started, due to the scheduling of guests for each assignment, the order had to be the same as in Version 2. Despite this, I think the students did a good job of following along. This will continue to be an issue for next year. In terms of tutoring, we increased the time per assignment by two hours compared to last year and set up a mid-term critique in which all students could participate. In addition, during the tutoring time outside of the mid-term critique, each tutor took it in turn to visit the group's desk. This seems to have been favourably noted in the reference group reports.

The course caters to both architectural and engineering students, offering comprehensive instruction in structural design and parametric design simultaneously. In terms of workload, this course is not one of the more manageable ones, as it adheres to the NTNU guidelines on study hours per credit. It presents a unique challenge for architectural students in their 8th semester, as it stands as an independent knowledge course without a design component. Typically, students in their 8th semester undertake a design course (15 credits) along with its corresponding knowledge course (7.5 credits), in addition to an Experts in Teamwork course (7.5 credits). Therefore, I express my gratitude to the architectural students who voluntarily took on this additional course. The objectives of this course are multifaceted. For both groups of students, it offers an opportunity to collaborate between architects and engineers, aiming to enhance the design from both perspectives. Moreover, the course aims to foster proficiency in parametric design tools such as Rhino and Grasshopper. Architectural students benefit from the chance to review structural mechanics and apply that knowledge to their designs. Engineering students, on the other hand, seize one of the few opportunities during their studies to collaborate with architectural students, honing their skills in formulating and solving challenging structural problems. Given the limited timeframe, it is unlikely for anyone to achieve mastery in all aspects covered. Nevertheless, I believe that each student was able to appreciate the possibilities by attaining proficiency in these areas. Through engaging in group assignments, we were able to apply our knowledge rather than merely acquiring it in a top-down manner. While some students may view this course merely as a means to earn credits, I encourage those with a genuine interest in this field to continue their learning journey, even if it is to a modest extent.

According to the reference group's report, improvements for the coming year include ▪ Ensure space for exercises (rather than design rooms)▪ An environment where lecturers can answer questions while students watching videos, rather than video-only exercises. In addition, the following issues have been carried over from the previous year.▪ Reconsider the order of the exercises. As mentioned above, the order of the exercises resulted in the same order as last year, but this was not specifically pointed out by this year's students. I would like to consider the content of next year's exercises in light of this.

Klagerett gjelder kun etter at sluttkarakteren er gitt. Utsatt eksamen legges normalt til neste ordinære eksamensperiode.

Emnet gir en innføring i bruk av digitale og fysiske modeller for utvikling og analyser av konstruksjonskonsepter som del av arkitekturprosjektering / bygningsutforming. Temaet innbefatter både formgiving ved optimalisering av kjente konstruksjonsprinsipper og mer fri generering av konstruksjonsgeometri og konstruksjonssystemer. Temaet inkluder også hvordan rent arkitektoniske formkonsepter kan undersøkes og utvikles gjennom konstruksjonsløsninger.

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(21643)/FieldValuesAsText

This is version 2 of AAR 4209, which started in the spring semester of 2021. Version 1 identified the following areas for improvement:. <ul><li>Students request a permanent working space (plass på tegnesal).</li><li>Three group works (øvingsoppgaver) to be replaced by 2 group tasks with more individual tasks to provide everyone with more opportunity to get used to the tools introduced.</li><li>Sensor to be included in the presentations during the course (for better overviewing the works of the individual student).</li><li>Evaluation criteria/emphasis to be exposed beforehand.</li><li>Making the contribution of each student in the group works more visible in final delivery</li></ul> Version 2 has been improved in all the points above.

This course is open for both architectural and engineering students at the master level, introduces tools useful for architectural design projects, and simulates the collaboration between architects and engineers through a couple of group tasks. Five 3D printers were installed this semester and made freely available to students. The first few weeks were somewhat spent on trial and error with the printers, but it helped us to carry out our assignments in the second half of the semester. In addition, students were encouraged to conduct structural analysis and cross-section design, which was a different strategy from the one before. As a result, the group assignments were more realistic than in the version 1. Through the tools and applied tasks, the two student groups experienced to work in architectural projects by playing an overlapping yet different role to make architecture more rational and attractive. Reference group reports suggest that they preferred to exchange the order of the two group assignments, considering the complexity of the first task from the architectural point of view, which required more effort to solve from both fields of students. It also suggests that we should have a mid-review of each task to properly listen to each other's feedback. Considering the amount of teaching content, distributing more time on the tasks is challenging, but this shows a potential for an improvement for the next version, and the teaching staff keeps considering a good solution for this.

NOTE FOR NEXT YEAR: <ul><li> Consider the order of the tasks (from simple to complex tasks)</li><li> Way to improve getting the feedback of teachers during design tasks</li><li> More private tutoring opportunities</li></ul>

Emnet er valgbart for studenter på videregående nivå i master i arkitektur og for studenter ved bygg- og miljøteknikk som gjennom å være opptatt på emnet «Introduksjon til arkitekturprosjektering for ingeniører» er opptatt på Minor i arkitektur for ingeniører.

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(16156)/FieldValuesAsText

This was the first version of the AAR4209 course. The main topic of the course was to integrate structural engineering’s concept in architectural design at early stages of design phase. Physical modelling as well as digital modelling are introduced as good tools to enhance dialogues between architects and engineers. Therefore, the lecture part contains both structural design part and models &amp; methods part. The course had a good evaluation and feedback from participating students, with several minor issues (described later).

The aims of the course were manyfold. For all the participants, we tried to provide the competence in physical and digital modelling skills. Besides, for architectural students, it was expected to understand engineers’ proposals and integrate them in the architectural projects. For engineering students, it was expected not to “solve” the architectural proposal, but “counter-propose” with a better idea from engineering point of view to make the architectural project more rational and attractive. When it comes to the models and methods part, I felt more passions of students toward digital tools (in particular, Grasshopper), but I would like to take this opportunity to stress that physical tools are also valid and powerful, and one should be equipped with both instead of choosing one. Comments from main lecturer:As main lecturer of the course, I was satisfied to see the tasks which showed the traces of good dialogues between the two occupations, or even those of the struggle in integration. Some showed better integration of structural concept to architectural design than the others. But I believe everyone experienced both difficulty and joy of working together between architects and engineers, irrelevant of the qualities of final outcomes. I believe this experience should benefit both architecture and engineering students for the future study and carrier. It might be a new experience for architectural student to see engineering has a power to make the architectural design more attractive, while for the engineering students with all the analysis knowledge already equipped to see that the structural problems are not something you are given to be solved in the real world, but are something you can develop together with your architect colleagues in the early stages of the design task, which should be solved in the later phase.

The course started in the still prevailing corona pandemic situation, which sometimes required an immediate switch to digital only classrooms. From the beginning, we offered three ways to join, which were physical attendance (recommended), digital live attendance (second best), and video watching (not recommended). From the point of the teacher, it was sometimes too demanding to handle digital and physical classrooms at once. By giving the possibility of video watching caused the reduced liveliness of the classroom with a smaller number of live participants, while according to the student reference group report, it was preferred also for the purpose of review.  Comments from main lecturer:When it comes to the amount of tasks, three group tasks might have been a little too demanding. I observed some degree of loss in energy in the deliverables of the last task. Another problem was that the group works were led by typically a student who was good at modelling (especially digital) and thus the others had less chance to get used to it. As proposed in the student reference group report, two big tasks with smaller and more frequent individual tasks could have been thought, so that everyone could have experienced the different models and methods. A place to gather for the task was not sufficient in this version. <h1>Notes on next year</h1><h1> </h1>Based on discussions during the semester and input from students and from sensor, the following issues will be paid attention when planning next years’ course: -        Students request a permanent working space (plass på tegnesal). -         3 group works (øvingsoppgaver) to be replaced by 2 group tasks with more individual tasks to provide everyone with more opportunity to get used to the tools introduced. -         Sensor to be included in the presentations during the course (for better overviewing the works of the individual student). -         Evaluation criteria/emphasis to be exposed beforehand.-	 Making the contribution of each student in the group works more visible in final delivery

Evaluation was made based on the submission of documents (portfolio) containing the three tasks during the course. It was allowed to use the graphical contents created together, while one had to describe the projects with one’s own words.  This format was chosen because it gives students more time to prepare for during the semester, and for the teachers and sensors to assess what were learnt. From what I observed, it worked mostly well, while a minor issue was that it was hard to evaluate who made which contribution to the design, especially for the sensor who did not attend the course activity. It was also favoured by the students that evaluation criteria should be exposed beforehand.

Ingen hjelpemidler tillatt.

Obligatorisk aktivitet må være levert og godkjent før eksamen. Utsatt eksamen og ikke bestått eksamen legges normalt til neste ordinære eksamensperiode. Karakter på arbeid kan inngå i karaktergrunnlaget ved utsatt eksamen eller gjentak, i inntil 1,5 år etter beståtte øvinger.


Forelesning og øvinger. Øvinger inkluderer både bruk av fysiske modeller og digital modellering. Vekting av digitale versus fysiske modeller kan variere, blant annet ut fra studentenes kompetanse. Minst 2/3 av øvinger må være godkjent for å gå opp til eksamen.

Vurdering, øvinger: Godkjent/Ikke-godkjent

Vurdering, eksamen: bokstavkarakterer


GENERELL KOMPETANSE: Emnet skal gi en oversikt over sammenhenger mellom konstruksjonskonsepter og konkret bygningsform og fysiske og digitale modeller for å studere dette.

KUNNSKAP: Etter endt kurs skal studentene ha praktisk erfart kunnskap i utvikling og analyser av konstruksjonskonsepter gjennom bruk av fysiske modeller som «hanging chains models» og «minimal surface models» og bruk av digitale verktøy som kobler vurdering av konstruksjoner som form og uttrykk sammen med ingeniørmessige konstruksjonsanalyser typisk i form av elementmetodeanalyser.

FERDIGHETER: Studentene skal på selvstendig grunnlag kunne anvende digitale og fysiske modeller for å utforme og analysere konstruksjonskonsepter som integrert del av arkitektonisk form.

Øvingsoppgaver

Modeller og metoder for utvikling og analyse av konstruksjonskonsepter i arkitekturprosjektering

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(10569)/FieldValuesAsText

Konstruksjonskonsepter i arkitekturprosjektering, modeller og metoder - AAR4209