Structures 2710

STRUCTURES II PORTFOLIO CLEMSON UNIVERSITY | SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE DR. CARLOS BARRIOS, PHD | SPRING 2014

ALEX LATHAM C41811982

introduction

When considering structure, the mind often jumps quickly to images of trusses and beams, when in reality, the idea of structural support goes much farther than these common elements of architectural construction.

The following projects from the Structures II class of Professor Carlos Barrios, PhD demonstrate the many other examples of structure that exemplify what the word “structure” truly means. Whether in sculpture, load testing, or tension and compression studies, this class has truly taught me the value of structural integrity and creativity.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY | SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE | STRUCTURES II DR. CARLOS BARRIOS, PHD | SPRING 2014 | ALEX LATHAM C41811982

i.

TA B L E O F CO N T E N T S ii.

st ru ctura l con n ect i on s

b r idg e ch ar ret te

1 str uct ura l equi l i b r i um

2 3

iii.

PROJECT 1 s t r u c t u r a l c o n n e c t i o n s

Project 1 involved the complete analysis of the sculpture located on the front lawn of the Lowry engineering buiding on Clemson University’s campus.

Beginning by measuring each detail down to the bolts, nuts, and metal widths, we then began to digitize the measurements into a 3-D model we could use for reference for our model-making.

Three different models were created at 1/4” scale, 1/16” scale, and 1/3 scale, each prospective scale using different materials based on the thickness of the metal at each scale.

Teaching us the importance of structural connections, attention to detail, and how to work together efficiently and carefully, Project 1 was a great way to begin to learn about structure.

clair dias marcus hebron alex latham neely leslie paul mcknight

2

3

NORTH

ELEVATION

EAST

ELEVATION

SOUTH

ELEVATION

WEST

ELEVATION

SCULPTURE

AXON

B

A

A

MIDPOINT

PLAN

UPPER

PLAN

B

4

1

PHASE

CARDSTOCK 1/4” = 1’

2

PHASE

BASSWOOD 1/16” = 1’

3

PHASE 5

PLYWOOD

1/3 actual size

With attention to detail, patience, and thoughtful planning, successful models were created at = all 1’ three scales.

1/4�

The cardstock model required planning both to make the laser cut files and to strategize a method of creating I-beams at such a miniscule scale.

The basswood model took perserverence in the effort of applying the vast amount of bolts necessary on the structure.

Lastly, the plywood model took diligence and determination when attaching the cumbersome arms to the main beam, as well as overcoming the challenge of maneuvering the model through Lee Hall.

6

7

PROJECT 1 8

PROJECT 2 b r i d g e c h a r r e t t e Project 2 required the construction of a horizontal bridge structure to be tested for strength and beauty.

The ultimate goal being resistance to breakage while behaving efficiently, the utmost attention to detail was placed in structural connection between the truss system and the main support layers, as well as attention to detailing in terms of aesthetic beauty.

All together, the bridge charrette was an interesting and exciting way to compare bridge strengths and aesthetics with our classmates while learning about the importance of support systems in a bridge structure.

clair dias alex latham neely leslie paul mcknight IMAGE SOURCE: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/calatrava-3.jpg

10

Our bridge is reminiscent of an inverted parker truss. It functions in much the same way, with the exception that the arch is functioning more in tension than compression. However, our version takes advantage of the vertical and edge surfaces of the “cliffs� or tables to help distribute the load.

In taking steps to improve upon this truss, the addition of cross bracing and outwardly-flaring trusses take better advantage of the structural members. This cross bracing was available once we located the trusses below the load bearing surface as, ideally, no traffic would be flowing through this space. This creates cross-sectional truss segments between the nodes of the actual trusses, further adding to our bridge’s stability. Without this addition, flaring the trusses would have been counterproductive, as the crosssectional truss segments provide extra lateral stability to prevent the bridge from twisting. The flaring of the trusses towards the bottom takes full advantage of the cross-sectional members, enhancing the compression and tension forces along them to more evenly distribute the load across all members and nodes of the structure.

In conclusion, we believe we have taken advantage of the materials in a very efficient and functional, but aesthetic, way and have produced a supremely durable and alluring bridge.

11

LOAD TEST RESULTS Two vertical loads were applied at the 1/3 and 2/3 points along the free span and were simultaneously and incrementally increased until failure.

Beauty ranking was determined by class vote.

LOAD

1

at 7”

LOAD

2

at 14”

21” free span 24” total span

weight

# load

69

13

load (g) 16250

ratio .00425

beauty

strength

1st place

3rd place

12

13

PROCESS

PROCESS

PROJECT 2 14

PROJECT 3 s t r u c t u r a l e q u i l i b r i u m

Project 3 involved the creation of a cube supported completely through tension and compression elements.

Using only three dowels, I accomplished the feat of supporting the one pound cube with the aid of fishing line in addition to the wooden base.

The main issue arose in the taughtness of the string as any slack in the line would lead to failure. Also, the angles of the compression system are a vital member of the structural support of the cube.

After much trial and error, a final model was created, exemplifying the true quality of an abstract structure supported only by a combination of tensile and compressive elements.

16

TRIAL PHASE

CONCEPT PHASE

17

FINAL TESTING

PROJECT 3 18

ALEXANDRA LATHAM

PHONE: 803.236.6024 EMAIL: AKLATHA@G.CLEMSON.EDU ADDRESS: 2795 WINDMILL DRIVE SUMTER, SOUTH CAROLINA 29150