Andrew nader - AUC - ARCH 473/3522

Student Portfolio

The American University in Cairo (AUC)

School of Sciences and Engineering - Department of Architecture

ARCH 473/3522 - Digital Design Studio and Workshop (Spring 2019)

Student portfolio documenting samples of work submitted along the course, including research, experimentation, 3D modeling, digital fabrication, parametric design and modeling, physical model realisation and analysis.

Student name: Andrew Nader Fayek Student ID: 900192770

© The American University in Cairo (AUC), May 2019

Andrew Nader Fayek Architecture Student

My name is Andrew Nader Fayek, I am 22 years. I am senior student of Architecture at The American University in Cairo.

My passion for Architecture started from a very young age, since I used to read about Architecture at my school. I used also to frequently visit historical architectural monuments and read more about them. Studying Architecture is a very rich field of study becuse of its multi-disciplinary nature, so it made me more aware of the different field of studies. what i also appreciate about Architecture is its consideration of the human aspect. Architecture is all about catering for the people’s needs.

I am currently an undergraduate teaching assistant in Urban Design course at AUC also. i am really enjoying the experience because I get to learn from each and every student I meet, because Architecture is all about learning from one another.

Learning from a natural material, such as gypsum the techniques of a form creation

Project 1.1: Material Exploration

Experiment 1.1

Gypsum to water ratio 5:4

- Using fabrics to create a wave-like surface and then pouring the gypsum mixture

- The mixture was very watery, so it took way more time then the other two experiments to fully harden and was very fragile at the beginning so I had to put an extra layer of gypsum mixture to give it more strength

- The effect of wave was not as expected at the end, it was very minimal

Strenght: Smoky effect

Weakness: Very planar

Experiment 1.2

Gypsum to water ratio 2:1

- Using cups of different sizes to create a perforated gypsum cuboid

- Using a less liquid mixture for this iteration, so it was firmer and took less time to dry

- I struggled to fix the locations of the cups because they moved as I poured the mixture

Strenght: Experimenting perforations

Wakness: Very planar and the srface is very smooth

Experiment 1.3

Gypsum to water ratio 2:1

- This was an experimentation of fabric formation

- I used pieces of dried gypsum to give the model a texture

Strenght: Was textured and not as planar as the previous two trials

Weakness: The control points were not easy to control so you cannot expext exactly the outcome

Experiment 2.1- Failed

Gypsum to cement ratio: 2:1

- Trying to use the same technique of using fabrics to give the soft silky feeling to the model, but this time I used solid elements to give more height and depth

- Using an inverted cup to form a hollow part

-The issue was that there were very thin parts so the model broke into pieces when it was removed from the form.

Experiment 2.2

Gypsum to cement ratio: 2:1

-Same horizontal and vertical arrangement of objects in previous trial, while making sure no parts can be fragile so it can break

- The second trial was more successful than the first trial

- The result was not as smooth as expected, because the used plastic cover was thick so it gave the model lots of groves, which contradicts the required fluid approach

-The hollow part formed by the cup is huge and is not integrated well with the more fluid part… the final result feels split between the fluid and hollow parts

Shifting from physical form creation to how softwares create forms

Project 1.2: Translation to grsshopper

1- Identifying the parameters

The Box: 29*24 cm

The cloth

The cup for the hole: Radius 3.5 cm

Cylinder 1: Radius 2.5 cm Height 13 cm 3*Cylinder 2 Radius 0.75cm Height 14 cm Cylinder 3 Radius 1.5 cm Height 6 cm 2- Traslating the parameters and connections to grasshopper

Attempting to literarly translate each sepeate physical parameter into anelement on grasshopper, without cheching how it will react in the model firsta

Parametrical logic:

1. Creating the boundaries of the mosule

2. Allocating the elements that will affect the surface

3. How will each point effect the surface

Certain movement around a point?

Cutting through the surface?

4. Getting a set of points

5. Turning the points into surface then into volume

Grasshopper comand

1. Creating a surface and using “Divide surface” to get a number of points

2. Specifying points where the surface is effected

- “Pinch n spread”

- “Solid difference”

3. Creating “Nurb curves”

4. “Loft”

5. “Offset surface”

Different parameters creating different variations:

-initial points

- Location of points used for pinch n spread

-Pinching or spreading

- Dimensions of cylinders

Number of cylinders cutting though the surface

Clusters attempsts

Cobination of several iterations

Using “Morphing box” command

Uplifting the learning outcomes of the previous phase into a real facade design

Project2.1: DSF research

DSF operating techniques

- DSF can be designed as a box, corridor (horizontally), shaft (vertical) or a multi story.

- The multi story and shafts are the most effective because the more the height of the gap between both skins the more effective the results are, because the stack effect depends mainly on air moving vertically.

Comparison between using normal single skin and DSF:

The DSF does not only circulate the air in the shaft but it also reduce the amount of sun rays entering the building because of the refraction scale of the outer facade

A comparison between the several types of glass that can be used and how the treatment of the double skin and the usage of reflective double skin can hugely reduce the heating or cooling loads of a building by up to 40% in some cases

Active double skin façade: Mechanically active double skin façade is also used to control the depth and height of the buffer between both skins and therefore controlling the amount of air flowing in the gap. This technique can be used in areas with extreme difference in temperature between seasons, because double skin facades have different designs between hot and cold climates as well as humid and dry environment.

The double skin façade can be naturally ventilated, so the air flows upwards because of the stack effect, this system cannot be used in areas with mild temperature because for it to function properly the difference between the indoor an outdoor temperatures has to be very high to make air flow faster and thus reduce more the heat transfer between the indoor and outdoor.

Interactive wall: A DSF with a forced ventilation that makes the façade more effective compared to the naturally ventilated DSF, therefore making the system more useful if the temperature difference is low.

Active Wall: In active walls the air exhausted out of the spaces to the buffer zone is reused in the HVAC system (the DSF acts as a duct to the HVAC system) therefore reducing the cooling or heating loads of a building and save the volume used by the ducts. This system works better in cool climates where heating systems are more used.

Case Study on Double Skin Façade in a building in Riyadh, KSA

Variables used in the experiment

Double skin façade installation types.

• Multistory type.

• Corridor type.

• Box-window type. Orientations.

• South

• North

• East

• West Cavity depth.

• 100cm

• 150cm Ventilation in the cavity.

• Natural

• Mechanical

O-14 offices tower, Dubai

• Perforated concrete exoskeleton

• Mainly used for shading

• Simplicity makes its maintenance easier

Conclusions:

Using different double skin façade typologies such as multi-story, corridor type and box window generated differences in reduction of the energy consumption compared to baseline cases. For instance, locating the cavity in the western façade, which was the most effective location of the double skin façade, reduced the energy consumption for multi-story type by 5.02% compared to the baseline case, and 4.05% compared to the baseline with shading. The corridor type façade reduced the energy consumption over the baseline by 7.71% and 4.43% compared to the baseline with shading. In the case of the box-window type, 8.05% and 4.78% of the energy savings were estimated compared to the baseline without and with shading, respectively

Uplifting the learning outcomes of the previous phase into a real facade design

Project2: Facade design

Enviromental analysis

• Wind rose

• Sun path

Different problems and solutions based on the season Summer

• Unwanted direct sun

• Lack of natural ventilation

Air exhaust Winter

• Direct sun is needed to worm up the spaces

• Unwanted strong winds Buffer zone Connected to HVAC

Trial 1

• Still make use of single unconnected facades to make the facade.

• Looks so seperated from one another

• Regarding the whole facade globally, with common paramters instead of individual module paramters to maintain the idea of perforation along with fluidity

• Using the same intial concept of smooth surface and perforations but in a more realistic and structured organization.

• The facade is mainly an arrangemet of different sizes of hexaxonal panels and glass.

• It is closed with glass in areas and open in other areas

Using the sun radiation analysis to control the thickness of the panels based on the amount of radiation they receive

Andrew Nader Fayek

Ladybug plugin for enviromental analysis

Biblography

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128159637000063

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128137345000123

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128224779000383

• https://www.archdaily.com/922897/how-do-double-skin-facades-work

• https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12273-020-0682-6.pdf

©All rights reserved, American University in Cairo (AUC) December 2022