{"title":"Material Alignments","authors":"M. Gutierrez","doi":"10.1080/24751448.2021.1887682","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Advances in computation have fomented a new era of material and building technology invention in architecture. Architects are reclaiming the territory of material invention through processes and methodologies forged through new computational protocols. New approaches to Pareto optimization, artificial intelligence (AI) integration, and non-invasive testing protocols pave the way to transformative material experimentation. However, how do we guide experiments designed around accomplishing specific material properties in architecture vis-a-vis engineering and sciences? Materials science addresses optimal experimental design by advancing computational analysis and tools to accelerate the materials discovery process. The capacity to discover or shape materials with augmented complexity increases as a function of time despite its disciplinary approach. In materials science, this trajectory revolves around trial-and-error and intuition, where often rapid progress is made if the synergy between theorists—who can often generate and suggest a list of compounds for possible synthesis—and experimentalists is utilized (Lookman et al. 2019). How and what is its equivalence in architecture and construction? The process of material innovation in design can stem from two varying routes: a design-led approach or a science-led approach (Ashby 2019, 33). The first approach starts with the performance requirements in a design usually geared towards applications. While architecture and engineering stem from varying perspectives and overall aims, both fields share the commonality of application. However, testing protocols and development differ significantly (Gutierrez 2014). The materialsscience-driven process originates in a deep understanding and manipulation of material properties. Material invention involves two fundamental steps: the material itself and the process by which it is turned into a new entity with computational, conceptual, and numerical differences essential in each field’s corresponding operations.","PeriodicalId":36812,"journal":{"name":"Technology Architecture and Design","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology Architecture and Design","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751448.2021.1887682","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction Advances in computation have fomented a new era of material and building technology invention in architecture. Architects are reclaiming the territory of material invention through processes and methodologies forged through new computational protocols. New approaches to Pareto optimization, artificial intelligence (AI) integration, and non-invasive testing protocols pave the way to transformative material experimentation. However, how do we guide experiments designed around accomplishing specific material properties in architecture vis-a-vis engineering and sciences? Materials science addresses optimal experimental design by advancing computational analysis and tools to accelerate the materials discovery process. The capacity to discover or shape materials with augmented complexity increases as a function of time despite its disciplinary approach. In materials science, this trajectory revolves around trial-and-error and intuition, where often rapid progress is made if the synergy between theorists—who can often generate and suggest a list of compounds for possible synthesis—and experimentalists is utilized (Lookman et al. 2019). How and what is its equivalence in architecture and construction? The process of material innovation in design can stem from two varying routes: a design-led approach or a science-led approach (Ashby 2019, 33). The first approach starts with the performance requirements in a design usually geared towards applications. While architecture and engineering stem from varying perspectives and overall aims, both fields share the commonality of application. However, testing protocols and development differ significantly (Gutierrez 2014). The materialsscience-driven process originates in a deep understanding and manipulation of material properties. Material invention involves two fundamental steps: the material itself and the process by which it is turned into a new entity with computational, conceptual, and numerical differences essential in each field’s corresponding operations.