Sarah Abdelhamid- AUC - ARCH 473/3522

The American University in Cairo (AUC)

School of Sciences and Engineering - Department of Architecture

ARCH 473/3522 - Digital Design Studio and Workshop (Fall 2022)

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: Sarah Abdelhamid Student ID: 900191615

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

Sara Abdelhamid Architecture Student

I am Sarah Abdelahmid, a senior student in Architectural Engineering at AUC. I Always had my doubts when it came to joining the architectural community, no one ever denies how hard and time consuming it is. However, as time passed, I will not lie and say that my doubts completely faded, but the learning material and process makes me grow fonder of the major that all the hard times becomes tolerable when I see how much I achieve and learn year by year.

I love how Architecture is different from every other engineering major: the part where can I express my creativity is almost unlimited, specially during the learning process. I also love how it is bounded with logic as it leaves a room for imagination that your work can actually take place on real grounds one day.

I must say that I had my doubts when I was introduced to computational design at the beggining of this semester. I am a very doubtful person who does not like to get out of their comfortzone sometimes. I thought that my incabability and minimal skills when it came to using new softwares will limit my design thinking process and cause a gap between what I want to do and what is actually done. However, it turned out to be the exact opposite. With just a kickstart and some new commands I was able to open a completely new aspect when it came to this course and other design projects. I will not deny that it gets very challenging sometimes, but I enjoyed what I did and I am proud of what I achieved so far.

This is the chosen model of the material exploration phase that I decided to continue with in the parametric design phase.

A Trial of gypsum model where I used the soaking technique

In the first chapter, Using our background knowledge based on research , we are asked to develop a physical model of the required volume using a selected technique (casting or fabric forming) and a selected material (for ease and practicality, we worked with gypsum and water.

We were asked to present a detailed record and documentation of the physical fabrication process in the form of sequences (preferably time-based) of images/screenshots (any videos should be provided within your presentations as links). Also show sketches and scribbles of preliminary thought process as scanned images.

WHAT IS FABRIC FORMING?

Fabric formwork is a type of construction that uses structural membranes as the primary surface for concrete moulds. The material is extremely flexible and may deflect under the strain of fresh concrete, unlike typical formwork. The resulting shapes have superb surface finishes and curvature that are typically not found in concrete constructions. Fabric formwork can be used with concrete to create structurally sound and aesthetically appealing components in all shapes and sizes, from footings, columns, and beams to walls, sinks, furniture, and a variety of accessories. It is environmentally friendly, clean, reasonably affordable, and incredibly useful.

History:

The Industrial Revolution led to the development of fabric formwork, but it’s intriguing to see some ads early as parallels in Roman engineering.

After that in mid 19th century a lot of pioneers started experimenting with fabric form work in parallel including: Gustav Lilienthal, Miguel Fisac and more, however, they were unable to share their work together and there only source of information was patents, until Mathew West formed the organization C.A.S.T: Centre of Architectural and Structural Technology, allowing for experiments to overlap and he line between the purely structural and the purely architectural functions of fabric formwork started to blur during experiments

Inspiration and precedents:

My experimenting with Materials and Fabric formwork was heavily inspired by an old embroidery technique called smocking The phrase is derived from “smock,” a farmer’s work shirt, and the method gained popularity in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries since it was easier to mold flat panels of fabric to the contour of the human body without labor-intensive pattern-cutting and sewing. The process of hand smocking normally entails drawing a regular grid on the fabric sheet to be tailored and connecting the pattern line ends where extra fabric has to be gathered. The illustration below illustrates the techniques for creating a straightforward “lozenge” smocking pattern.

MATERIAL EXPIREMENTATION AND EXPLORATION

Materials used:

For the model: For ease and practicality and not having access to other materials, Gypsum, White Cement and Water were used

Materials used:

For the cast and fabric:

Experiment 1:

The purpose of this experiment is to find the right consistency of gypsum and water, the reaction time, how much time will it take until it dries and the strength

1. Added gypsum to water with A ratio of 3:2 and start-

2. Stirred until there were no lumps and the consistency is

3. Poured in a plastic cup and Left to dry

4. Cut the plastic cup after Approx. 20 minutes

Conclusions:

Add some white cement for strength Leave it for extra 10-15 minutes before removing the cast Make sure for the mix to be less con-

Experiment 2:

This is the first trial using the cast as flexible fabric:

1. Created the fabric formwork using a plastic bag, wooden sticks, paper and a foam board:

Wooden sticks going through foam board and plastic bag for stability

Tied together using paper And rubber band to create folds

Foam board for he mould to rest on

3. Poured the gypsum mix in to the fabric formwork

Some new folds were created with the weight of the mix

The upper part was not very smooth

Result: After removing the plastic bag, some parts of the model were weary due to the very tight sticks making it difficult for the moudld to reach that part such as the last picture. Also, the texture was inconsistent so I decided to re do it using a different material

2. Added water, white cement and gypsum and stirred till they reached the right consistency:

Added white cement for strength More water than sypsum to be able to pour smoothly through

Experiment 3:

This is the second trial using the cast as flexible fabric.

1. Created the fabric formwork using a linen bag, and a thread inspired by the smocking technique

Creating knots so they would play with the form and create consistent folds

The passage and the knots intended for the mix to pass by

3. Poured the gypsum mix in to the fabric formwork

The water starts to leak from the fabric as the strength increass

Some new folds were created with the weight of the mix

Removing the fabric from the dried mold

2. Added water, white cement and gypsum and stirred till they reached the right consistency

Result:

Overall, this experiment was better, the linen gave a new consistent texture to the mold, the folds were more interesting with a more structurally stable model, and it was not weary as the previous model as the mix reached all the spaces successfully.

More water than sypsum to be able to pour smoothly through the mold

Added white cement for strength

Experiment 4:

variable being tested: Changing the openings size

Constants:

This time the fabric was closed using stables instead of a thread to avoid the leakage of the mixture 1- same size of cast (14x20 cm), same fabric and Same texture

Assumptions and lesson learned from using this technique:

2- same consistency of the mixture as last time

Coins to control the size of openings

Put into place using a thread and needle

According to the placement of coins you can control the flow of the mix and the thickness of the mold

The shape and variety of folds can be controlled using the weight of the coins and moulditself

Variables:

Changing the size of the openings to 1 cm, 1,5 cm and 2.5 and the number of openings from 3 to 6

The more coins you put the thinner the result due to the pressure

Results and comparison

The overall result was better and more astatically pleasing than experiment 3, openings were larger, folds were harmonious and it was adequately proportioned

Learning outcomes

Allowed me to study the effect of using the fabric as a cast regarding how much water it will shed for example which was about 1/3 of a cup before it gains its compressive strength

The largest thickness changed from 8 cm to 3.5 cm and the smallest from 3 cm to o.5 cm

Allowed me to study the unexpected effect of the weight of the mold and coins on the twists and folds of the model which would have been highly inaccurate digitally

The openings increased to a maximum of 2.5 cm diameter, allowing sunlight to penetrate through the panel and making it thinner Allowed me to study and feel the texture of the fabric on the model

Experiment 4:

variable being tested: Changing the thickness of the model using a different cast

Variables:

Changing the casting technique from poring in fabric to fabric soaking to achieve the thinnest thickness possible which is the thickness of the fabric 0.5 cm

Techniques used:

Soaking the fabric in the mixture instead of casting

Leaving the fabric to dry in a certain position to give it its shape

Variables:

Same size of openings as the last experiment

Cutting around a coin to make sure they are the same size

Assumptions and lesson learned from using this technique:

same consistency of the mixture as last time

The fabric has to be as thick as possible to catch as much mixture as it can

The fabric needs to pe put in position quickly before it dries, in a shape that is stable enough and astatically pleasing

Should take into consideration how the model get stuck due to the dripping of the mixture

Results and comparison

The overall result was good, this result achieved the maximum thinness and most openings due to the towel structure holding the model

The smallest thickness in the od model was about 0.5, this whole model thickness is o.5 cm

Allowed me to study how depending on the type, texture and thickness of fabric it absorbs water, dries of cracks

Allowed me to understand the right consistency, and how to stabilize the mold

The openings in the new model were more allowing more penetration of sunlight but subsequently the area had to be larger and it had to take this zig zag shape for more stability

Allowed me to study the implications that comes with fabric soaking such as sticking to the surface, the delicacy, the cracking while removing the object

This phase was an interesting part of the course, seeing how organic, swift and flowy a very rigid material such as gypsum or concrete can be shaped using fabrics. it was very enjoyable doing it physically on a small scale.

I really benefited from learning how the fabrics can have multiple parameters that we can alternate between to give wide range of alterations. I managed to do a successful experimented that i wanted to continue with in the digital phase. it had a lot of parameters that can be tweaked digitally and leave a wide room of exploration.

This is a photo of the variation of blocks I expreminted with in order to help in developing the cluster later on

DIGITAL TRANSLATION

IN MATERIAL EXPLORATION PHASE:

Number of holes and placement were randomized, Sizes of the holes were constants according to the size of coins

INPUTS:

1- SURFACE: - using rectangle tool

To construct the panel area

2- GRID – using divide domain and isotrim(if using grasshopper)

To divide the area so some parts can be removed as openings

3- RANDOM REDUCE AND ATTRACTION POINTS – using closest point and evaluate surface (if using grasshopper)

To be able to control which parts will be removed but still make it in a randomized way

OUTPUTS:

IN MATERIAL EXPLORATION PHASE:

The more the holes there is, the more the folds

The folds were created because of the tension of the fabric + loads

1- GRID WITH OPENINGS- created in the holes part (if using grasshopper)

To mark where the folds will emerge from

2- TENSION – Edge length, (if using grasshopper)

To create the effect of the fabric

3- LOADS – loads, force vector (if using grasshopper)

Tension + loads will give a better effect for the folds

INPUTS: OUTPUTS:

P.S a fifth parameter is the edges of the panel and how its curves will be manipulated, however it does not affect any other parameters so it can be easily made by drawing a curve, and manipulating the surface through the closest point command

IN MATERIAL EXPLORATION PHASE:

The loads applied were by the weight of the gypsum The more the loads applied, the more the inflation

INPUTS:

1- TENSION – Edge length, To create the effect of the fabric 2- ANCHOR POINTS- naked edges, anchor (if using grasshopper)

To know which points hold the panel so inflation can be applied successfully

3- LOADS – loads, force vector (if using grasshopper)

Tension + loads will give a better effect for the folds

4- Inflation – Kangaroo solver (if using grasshopper

OUTPUTS:

IN MATERIAL EXPLORATION PHASE:

The thickness varied according to the inflation size from loads and the number of holes as seen in the graphs

INPUTS:

The variation in thickness should come naturally after the application of holes and loads in the previous steps

OUTPUTS:

SINGLE PANEL MODULE GRASSHOPPER TRANSLATION:

What

I am after?

To construct a panel similar to the material exploration stage that can be flexible enough to let me change the openings, strength of inflation and shape based on a certain logic

Constructing a surface with changeable dimensions

Manipulating the flow of the surface

Developing a grid

Setting load values

Setting anchor points

Choosing to reduce the openings from the grid with the logic of attraction points

Setting tension for the surface

Applying inflation

Experimenting with parameters until a satisfying result

5TH PARAMETER: The surface and the variety in its edges

It is manipulated through attaching these points on the surface

1st parameter: those points acting like places that need shading, so the openings will be away

In preparation for the 2nd and 3rd parameter, naked edges are defined to hold the loads and make creases when inflated

MULTIPLE PATHS OF EXPLORATION AND CHANGING PARAMETERS:

Parameters changing according to the panel:

• Panel dimension

• Inflation

• Loads

• Thickness

• Tension

• Number of openings

Control variable

Variations:

Constant parameters:

• Panel dimension

• Inflation

• Loads

• Thickness

• tension

Changing variable:

• Number of openings

Uses:

• Maximization of holes can be used when sunlight is needed in the building and vice versa

MAXIMUM HOLES

Variations:

EXPERIMINTING WIH DIVISIONS

Constant parameters:

• Openings

• Inflation

• Loads

• Thickness

Changing variable:

• Panel dimensions

• Panel Division

Uses:

• Can be changed according to function if a window needs to be opened for example

Constant parameters:

• Openings

• Inflation

• Loads

• Thickness

• Panel dimensions

Constant parameters:

• Tension therefore creases

Uses:

• Can be used to hold the façade from it if the panel needs extra stability

Variations:

Variations:

MAXIMUM CREASES

Constant parameters:

• Openings

• Inflation

• Loads

• Thickness

Constant parameters:

• Loads and therefore inflation

Uses:

• To make the façade look more dynamic and flowy

MAXIMUM INFLATION

Variations:

MULTIPLE PATHS OF EXPLORATION AND CHANGING PARAMETERS:

Local parameters:

• Panel dimension

• Inflation

• Loads

• Thickness

• Tension

• Number of openings

Global parameters:

• Manipulating surface movement

• Joining of panels according to surface area

• Controlling openings using attractors

• Division of panels

LOGIC OF CLUSTER AND GLOBAL PARAMETERS

After making a Grid of 16 panels of the same size, areas were manipulated using 2 global parameters – deconstructing some panels using an attractor, and manipulating surface curvature using attractors, after having different sized panels, they were joined together, using ranges of sizes, to create the flowy cluster shown below

MULTIPLE PATHS OF EXPLORATION AND CHANGING PARAMETERS:

(Cluster)

Constant parameters:

• All Local parameters

• Placement of openings

• Curvature of surface

• Sizes of panels

Changeable parameter:

ITERATION 1

• Range of size in which panels are grouped together Result: Different grouping of panels, different looking flows

Usage: This parameter can be used to control the size of the flow according to the function, if for example, Smaller panels are wanted, Range can decrease

ATTEMPTS:

ITERATION 2

Constant parameters:

• All Local parameters

• Area range of grouping

• Curvature of surface

• Sizes of panels

Changeable parameter:

• Placement of openings Result: The openings increased on the sides and decreased in the middle

Usage: This parameter can be used to control where the do we need the openings, if the place needs more shade for example

CHOSEN CLUSTER:

REFLECTION:

This phase was the most challenging in the course, I found the grasshopper tool pretty difficult at the start that I was not able to demonstrate my material phase parameters clearly digitally.

However, after some lab sessions I started to get a grip of some commands that i was not only able to demonstrate the material phase parameters but also tweak them to achieve an advanced level of myphysical panel

I managed to design a successful cluster that had some promising parameters at the end of this phase, it had the potential to continue in project 2: the parametric face lift

This is the final look of the double skin facade designed in project 2

The Parametric Facelift

Isometric section to show the spatial experience behind the designed double skin facade

In this project, the objective is to explore and parametrically generate a prototype for a building façade skin that takes into consideration issues of environmental comfort, spatial relations and human aspects using a passive approach. You are required to develop a parametrically driven building skin for the building shown below (National Bank of Egypt Branch, South Teseen Rd, New Cairo). The main façade of the building is in a South/Southwest orientation, and so you are required to devise an appropriate envelope that provides adequate shading and sun protection.

Your building skin designs should originate from your explorations in Project 1. You should capitalize on ideas captured in the material exploration and the subsequent single/cluster iterations to develop conceptual approaches based on the derived parameters, rules and relationships in order to define design alternatives. Your approach should devise a parametric logic for the design of the façade skin based on environmental, spatial, functional, and/or aesthetic considerations. You are to assume functional and behavioral scenarios and settings during your investigation.

WHAT IS A DOUBLE SKIN FACADE?

The Double Skin Façade is founded on the idea that outside walls can feature a variety of integrated sun-shading, natural ventilation, and thermal insulation systems or methods in order to respond dynamically to changing ambient circumstances.

Classification 1:

Classification 2:

Sealed double skin facades: Sealed double-skin facades are not recommended for hot climates, as they trap heat gain by radiation.

1-Buffer System

Aerated double-skin facades: s eliminate the heat between the inside to outside by the stack-effect

They were developed to maintain daylight in buildings while enhancing the insulating and soundproofing capabilities of the wall system and predate insulating glass. They use two layers of single glazing, separated by 250 to 900 mm, sealed, and enabling fresh air into the structure by extra regulated mechanisms, such as a separate HVAC system or box-style windows that cut through the overall double skin. The cavity may feature shading equipment.

Precedent:

This system can be used in both hot and cold climate but it is mainly used for cold

Occidental Chemical/Hooker Building in Niagara Falls, New York.

2- Extract air system (when natural ventilation not possible)

These are made up of a second single layer of glazing that is applied to the interior of a double-glazed main façade (thermopane units). The air void between the two glazing layers is integrated into the HVAC system. These systems tend not to reduce energy requirements as fresh air changes must be supplied mechanically.

• Occupants are prevented from adjusting the temperature of their individual spaces

• Shading devices are often mounted in the cavity.

• This system is used where natural ventilation is not possible (for example in locations with high noise, wind or fumes)

3- Twin Façade system

This system consists of a conventional curtain wall or thermal mass wall system inside a single glazed building skin. This outer glazing may be safety or laminated glass or insulating glass. Shading devices may be included. These systems must have an interior space of at least 500 to 600 mm to permit cleaning. These systems may be distinguished from both Buffer and Extract Air systems by their inclusion of openings in the skin to allow for natural ventilation. The single-glazed outer skin is used primarily for protection of the air cavity contents (shading devices) from weather.

CCBR at University of Toronto

Precedent:

Classification 3:

In response to hot aired conditions such as the gulf and Egypt:

Two primary types of façade systems have been developed to respond to the climate: one that has exchanged the outer glazing layer for a ventilated mashrabiya-like screen element and one that maintains the glazed characteristics of the typology and concentrates on creating a buffer to slow heat loss. In the latter type the operable shading devices have been moved to the building interior to provide occupant control and remove them from potential degradation due to airborne dust and sand.

Precedents:

O-14, Dubai, UAE | RUR Architecture

Doha Tower, Qatar | Ateliers Jean Nouvel

Responsive facades:

Movable double skin facades that open and close according to sensors to respond to sunlight or wind. The different parameters of these modules include the width (w), height (h) and incremental rotation angle (Θ) and the room as a grid, the skin can rotate from angle zero to angle 180 with motors and back according to the time of the day:

Precedent:

The mashrabya like structures that were designed to move along an attraction line using motors and light sensors. According to Aedas each unit is comprised of a series of stretched PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) panels and is driven by a linear actuator that will progressively open and close once per day in response to a preprogrammed sequence that has been calculated to prevent direct sunlight from striking the façade and to limit direct solar gain to a maximum of 400 watts per linear meter.

Al Bahar Towers, Abu Dhabi | Aedas Architects with Arup

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

Wind Direction and speed analysis:

Prevailing wind fron NW Direction

Natural ventilation adds 29.8% more comfortable hours in the year (green) total comfortable hrs = 48.8% A large portion of the remaining hours are in winter (left of purple line)- require heating

Conclusion:

Wind direction is at the other side of the building so the facade will not be directly affected by the wind.

Sun and heat gain analysis:

June-sept warm at all times Sept-December warm but sun is needed before noon

Conclusion:

This part of the building is exposed to high levels of heat gain and sun so it needs extensive shading

March- may and oct-nov have their mean temp with comfort Jan-march below comfort June-sep above comfort

COCEPT AND DESIGN LOGIC REVIEW:

Brief:

• A Static double skin façade

• Portrusions will be made be made in the skin according to the slabs extension to make space for lounges

• Openings will be made according to the need of sunlight

• Opening size will be detected according to the privacy needed

Parameters related to function:

• Sunlight

• Privacy

• Terraces

• Function

Parameters according to experimentation and project:

1- Openings number vs sunlight

6

4

2

0

2 openings per panel Around 10 openings per Panel

The more the sunlight is needed, the more the openings per panel

Parameters related to design:

• Openings number

• Openings size

• Protrusions

• Anchors

Places that need most sunlight:

• Lounges

• Waiting area

• Café and co-working spaces

2- openings size vs privacy

6

4

2

0

Openings here are 4 times the size of the

The more privacy the smaller the openings will be

Places that need privacy;

• Meeting with clients

• offices

4- different functions vs anchor points

6

4

2

3- lounge terrace extension vs façade protrusion 0

The larger the terrace the more the protrusion with a maximum of 3 m

Doing anchors to define every function from behind the facade

Privacy Sunlight

there is no need for privacy in places such as the cafeteria

places such as meeting rooms with vip need minimal openings

Exposure:

public places are exposed by maximum number of small openings

private places are exposed by minimum number of relatively large openings

max openings in the waiting areas

Idea behind slab alteration:

Some plans showing how the expeirence differ at each floor and how the user is allowed to seee what is happening below:

While slabs are portruted for the outdoor experience, the slabs are decreasing by hierarchy at each floor to allow for user to see the experience below for more dynamism

GRASSHOPPER DEFINITION:

1- Following the panel development process in project 1, the panel was morphed on the wanted surface (step 14)

2- meshes were created and inflated using catmull clark from the morphed surface (step 15)

3- Outdoor terraces areas selected and extracted (step 16)

4- Naked edges of the facade were extracted to know later on where to put the structure (step 17)

5- unwanted surfaces where removed such as the entrances part and terraces part from the original facade (step 19)

6- thickness was given to the mesh for fabrication and structure (step 20)

Extracted naked edges to choose optimum locations for stell bars tied to the newly constructed slabs

Extracted it based on surface divison by attarctor points and surface area

Structure Terraces Openings

made sure that the minimum threshold of an opening is 50cmx60cm and it ranges from 2 to 8 per panel

3D Shot after finalizing the double skin facade

ENVIROMENTAL EVALUATION:

Sun Radiation: exposed directly to the roof

Problems: Solutions:

increase bars for shading

Due to portrusion of terraces no shading on entrances

After optimization:

Lowering the facades on the entrances to act as a shading device

Lower the facade

increase structural bars for shading

Analysis after optimization:

Shade and Shadow:

Problems:

Solutions: because of the terraces portrusion

When bars increase, more shading will happen

Shadow study

from VR:

VIRTUAL REALITY EVALUATION AND OPTIMIZATION:

Problems:

1- facade intersect with the side wall 2- no glass or wall on side- exposed to outdoors

Solutions:

passing through glass 4- structure not interlocking

5- Structure passing through the facade facade to outside by 30 cm 4- checkes all the structure 5- decreased length of the rebars

FABRICATION TRIALS:

Fabrication trial 1 (Scale 1:100):

Modifications:

• Change orientation for less supports

• Try using mesh mixer for optimizing support

Fabrication trial 2 (Scale 1:100): Using mesh mixer:

decreased by 2.5 hrs

• Orientation is changed, no supports generated unless more than 35 degrees

• Strenghthed loose parts by making the mesh all solid

Problems:

• Support is still generated even after using mesh mixer

• Still not under 30 hrs

Findings:

• the facade can be easily constructed however some parts that are not held properly need to be removed

Enviromental Evaluation:

Overall there were no major problems in the facade, the only pronlem was the extrusion of the facade for the terraces left a room for radiation and glare, this was solved by incresing the bars and the facade inflation to provide sun protection

VR:

This was the most enjoyable. it allowed me to find very small detail problems that were not visible when designing the facade, and to give the final tweaks for my project

Fabrication:

This was the most challenging as I could not find a solution to that snap maker could not read the supports of mesh mixer. the file was not succefully fabricated under 30 hours. however, it made me look more into the constructability of my facade.

SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR

FIFTH FLOOR SIXTH FLOOR

Terraces shots

PROJECT 2 REFLECTION:

Project 2 is where I felt the most capable in the course. I had already learned enough commands to be able to navigate and explore through my facade design comfortably. the challenge was to add a new layer of evaluation to it, to rethink my design process based on real life parameters such as functions, sun rays and radiation. However, the challenge was pretty much enjoyable.

COURSE REFLECTION:

I must say that I had my doubts when I was introduced to computational design at the beggining of this semester. I am a very doubtful person who does not like to get out of their comfortzone sometimes. I thought that my incabability and minimal skills when it came to using new softwares will limit my design thinking process and cause a gap between what I want to do and what is actually done. However, it turned out to be the exact opposite. With just a kickstart and some new commands I was able to open a completely new aspect when it came to this course and other design projects. I will not deny that it gets very challenging sometimes, but I enjoyed what I did and I am proud of what I achieved so far.

Biblography

• https://www.glassonweb.com/article/evaluation-adaptive-facades-case-study-al-bahrtowers-uae

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316331795_Evaluation_of_adaptive_ facades_The_case_study_of_Al_Bahr_Towers_in_the_UAE

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267708535_Shell_Elements_of_Textile_Reinforced_Concrete_Using_Fabric_Formwork_A_Case_Study

• https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2666165920300090?token=1C388DECEB97A7BB3C298A0C211BA85DF1B1F4F93AE7D957D65F6A0FB7AE343 2FCEC54FC806442BDB06E23EEA8FE3D6E&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20221217001644

• http://www.ribapublishing.com/publications/designGuidance/fabri cFormwork. asp

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320188329_Case_study_of_a_double_ skin_facade_focus_on_the_gap_between_predicted_and_measured

©All rights reserved, American University in Cairo (AUC) May 2019