SLIDE & SHADE

Slide and Shade

0

Master of Science Architecture, Urbanism and Building Sciences Building Technology track AR1B015-D1: Bucky Lab Design (2017-2018) Supervisor: Dr.-Ing. Marcel Bilow Student team: Alejandro Falcón | Agata Mintus | Ginevra Nazzarri | Momir Nikolić |

4749499 4745523 4744756 4740726

1

1 2 3 4 5 INTRODUCTION 4-5

ELEVATOR PITCH DESIGN

Group Design Development

6-11

12-27

Design component & Detail drawings

BUILDING WEEK

33-39

28-32

2

6 7 8 9 10

PROTOTYPES 40-46

Structural study 47-55

Production process & Materials 56-59

Conclusions 60-64

Self Reflection 65-67

3

1 INTRODUCTION

4

INTRODUCTION The Netherlands has a weather that does not allow for many weeks per year in which inhabitants can spend time outside. Therefore, it is highly important for people living here to enjoy as much time outdoors as possible during the good days of the year.

This semester we had the chance to pitch into the Dutch sunshade market. The objective was to design innovative concepts for the improvement of residential buildings, by providing shade and protection to increase the time spent outdoors.

To give an insight into the assignment, a portfolio of existing products was presented to us by CRH, the Dutch sunshade company. Moreover, a huge range of products that provide shade and comfort have already been created worldwide. Thus, our aim was to create new concepts that perform better and provide more comfort at home than the existing ones.

Upon these criteria, a new concept for sun shading was conceived. “Slide and Shade� is an adjustable shading device that provides numerous shade qualities for individual needs. The system’s main characteristic is the implementation of one single mechanism that allows achieving different shapes, sizes and amount of shade. Its customized scissor structure gives the possibility to fully compact and store the device when it is not in use. Also, flexible positioning is accomplished by using a railing system supported by the garden fences, leaving an open garden space for the user to enjoy.

This report provides an insight into the main concept, its development and results.

Furthermore, it presents studies on materials to use as well as structural calculations for the sunshade system. Feasibility, challenges and advantages are considered and represent the conclusion of the research, addressing implications for future developments.

Based on information about existing products, their advantages and their issues, we started to develop ideas based mainly on 3 requirements: 1. Identify an upgrade to an existing product and choose some feature that our system makes better than other ones.

2. Make products that could be opened and closed so that when they are not in use, they do not occupy much space or can even be stored.

3. Think about the mounting position since most of the users do not want structure occupying space in the gardens.

5

2

ELEVATOR PITCH DESIGN

CONTENTS 2.1 SHADE-APTABLE 2.2 3REE ADJUST 2.3 BLOW YOUR MIND 2.4 MOMIR SUN SHADING 1.0

6

ELEVATOR PITCH DESIGN During the first weeks of the semester, each student developed an individual concept. Some of them focusing on the improvement of a single aspect of current products, some others totally rebuilding the definition of sun shading.

This stage of the design was particularly interesting due to the different approaches that everyone had for similar mechanisms/ systems. The scissor hinge was indeed one of the most used mechanisms, being the deployment system in some of the concepts and the customizable aspect in others.

Among the differences between ideas, there were also similarities that we used to collaborate. This allowed us to exchange ideas and improve our systems, based on how other students differently approached a similar issue of current sunshade devices.

At the end of the elevator pitch, some ideas were selected to be further developed by groups of four students until the end of the semester.

The biggest challenge of this stage was to simplify the idea at its most. For some of us, it was complicated and time-consuming to discover the very essence of our concept and furthermore, explain it within one minute. Therefore, we had to look for the core of it and discard information that did not contribute to the explanation, which was complicated as well.

During these first weeks, we had a deeper insight to some of the course’s objectives: to learn how to be more effective and to realize that sometimes we complicate things and create unnecessary problems that can later be solved in a “creative� way.

The elevator pitch was the mid-term presentation we had after those first weeks. Each of us had to speak within one minute about our idea and its potential to be further developed.

Small models and materials samples were allowed to better illustrate the concept and convince the audience. After each presentation, a discussion round in front of the professors and members of CRH took place. This allowed us to further explain the main idea and to dispel doubts the audience might have about our concept.

7

2.1 SHADE-APTABLE

MAIN GOALS: 1. To achieve multiple positions, dimensions and amount of shade.

2.Simplicity: to achieve the primary goal using just one mechanism.

SHADE-APTABLE deploy•able customiz•able scal•able one mechanism:

1• storage

2 • solid shade

3 • gradient shade

multiple positions multiple dimensions

CHALLENGES: 1. The scissor structure tends to bend if used in horizontal.

2. The decrease of length in one direction if the structure stretches in the other direction.

adjustable shading self-built (no need for professional support)

click! powered

Alejandro Falcón 4749499

8

2.2 3REE ADJUST

MAIN GOALS: 1. blocking sunlight from different directions 2. easy control of shade quality and size 3. letting daylight in 4. strong wind resistance CHALLENGES: 1. simplify the structure and its size 2. achieving waterproof structure 3. choosing material for panels needs to fold and unfold without breaking

9

2.3 BLOW YOUR MIND

MAIN GOALS: 1. Lightweight 2. Easy to open and close 3. Open space underneath it 4. Waterproof structure 5. Customizable

...and your sunshading!

LIGHTWEIGHT

WATERPROOF

FOLDABLE

B

ENJOY

T WI LO

OPEN IT

CHALLENGES: 1. Wind resistance 2. MAINTAINANCE OF THE PRODUCT

IT SHADING ETFE CUSHION OPEN

CLOSE sunlight penetrates

sunlight is reflected

GINEVRA NAZZARRI, 4744756, BUCKY LAB.

10

2.4 MOMIR SUN SHADING 1.0

MAIN GOALS: 1. Blocks the sun while letting daylight in 2. Modular design to enable different sizing options 3. Unobstructed space underneath 4. Creates a small rain roof when retracted CHALLENGES: 1. Optimize panel shape for right sun to daylight ratio 2. Spanning 6m across the garden 3. Achieving waterproofness when retracted

11

3

GROUP DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

CONTENTS 3.1 structure 3.2 PANELS 3.3 JOINT 3.4 RAIL 3.5 OVERALL STRUCTURE | 1:10 LASER CUT

12

GROUP DESIGN DEVELOPMENT A concept was selected to be further developed into an architectural application. The improvement of it would require to experiment, calculate and generate drawings, renders and models.

To make a proper selection, we enlisted the characteristics of each concept, what we liked about them, their advantages and challenges.

“Blow your Mind” concept was discarded as an option due to the difficulty to find the materials that could best represent it. Also, the testing stage would be complicated since a minimum mistake in its fabrication, would result in a “disaster”. The feasibility of the concept was not very clear since we were dealing with a severe windy weather. Therefore, an inflatable structure could be greatly influenced by this, leading to failure. On the other hand, we liked the capacity of the structure to be stored when it was not in use.

Momirs was not as interesting as the two other proposals. However, one important aspect of this concept was its capacity to be retracted towards the façade of the house. By this, the components of the system would have smaller gaps between each of them, making the prototype suitable for rain protection.

An important contribution to the selection of the final concept was the similarity of aspects that the Shadeaptable and 3ree Adjust had. The scissor hinge indeed was present in both ideas. Moreover, a similar mounting position of the concepts was as well a starting point, as well as the capacity of both systems to adjust their shape due to triangular surfaces.

Therefore, it was decided to keep both scissor hinge designs and find a way in which strong points from both could be incorporated into a new design.

In general, we picked certain attributes of the four concepts, like the adaptability that all of them had. Likewise, their capacity to be stored when they are not in use was a conditioning for the new concept.

MAIN GOALS (in order of importance): 1. Shade adaptability 2. Deployability 3. Easy for the users: a. to open and close. b. to maintain.

4. Mass production As the main concept was chosen, we decided first to set a few rules for the development of it. We created a list of priorities that would guide our design and would put more weight on some ideas over others.

The development of the whole concept was broken into components to ease the process.

The aim was to solve small issues one by one to later combine all the solutions. Therefore, the evolution of the structure, panels and joints will be presented separately in this chapter to later show the result.

3.1 Development of the structure The main characteristic of the scissor structure is that all its motion is connected. Therefore, if one of its members gets moved, the structure reacts as a whole.

We wanted to preserve the same principle to minimize the number of mechanisms and make it easy for the user to use. However, as stated before, one of the challenges of this type of structure is its proneness to bend down if used in horizontal. Therefore, to solve this we decided to make a curved surface so that the arc withstands the deflection and the loads get transmitted towards the boundary rails.

13

3.1 first protoype

The first sketch model was made to validate this statement. Also, we got an insight into the appearance of the prototype given a determinate curvature. Although the model was not built with precise dimensions, it helped us to understand how an arched scissor structure behaves.

This model was not built in the standard way. That means that the elements pointing towards one direction would support the elements going in the opposite direction. This configuration allows the first elements to go completely under the second ones, achieving a fully closed structure. However, the arrangement presents differences in elevation between the 2 groups of elements. This would later cause troubles for the panels arrangement as they all would not be placed at the same height. Therefore, we decided to make wood notches to solve the issue.

This sketch model confirmed the performance of an arched structure upon deflection.

However, it presented several difficulties of which the most important are listed as follows: 1. The grade of the closure of the structure was determined by the length of the notch.

A small notch would not allow the elements to rotate. Therefore, the more closure we wanted, the largest the notches would have to be, taking us to the original problem of height differences.

2. After the notches were made, only half of the section of the beams remained useful to carry loads. The other half was just compensating the difference in height we had in the initial limitation.

3. The intersections of each element presented high torsion forces and friction. Therefore, a solution was needed to increase the lifespan of the prototype. Likewise, this friction would later cause problems for the panels. The friction would create a force that would rotate the panels located on top of the joints.

TESTING THE FRICTION OF THE PIVOT AND THE ANGLE OF APERTURE AND CLOSURE OF THE STRUCTURE

MAXIMUM CLOSURE OF THE STRUCTURE

14

3.1 STRUCTURE FIRST PROTOTYPE

15

3.2 development of the PANELS

In the initial concept, the panels that provide the actual shade were placed on the joints of the structure. This was intended for the panels to remain with their same geometry, disregarding the opening of the system. Therefore, the amount of shade would be varied by the aperture between each panel given by the distance between them.

This proposal presented several challenges: 1. Each joint had high torsion forces and friction. The friction was causing the panels to rotate each time the structure was opened and closed.

2. Each panel was supported on a thin rod that would link it to the joint. The area of support, located at the centre of the panel was very small compared to the size of this one.

Therefore, that connection would have to be extremely strong to withstand the weight of the panel and moreover, the force of the wind.

3. All the panels were located at the same height. Therefore, the maximum closure of the structure happened when the panels touched each other.

Placing the panels at different elevations would give us a major range of closure of the structure. The differences of elevation of the panels would prevent them to touch each other.

However, this time the closure of the structure would be determined by when the panels would get to touch the support rod of other panels.

These challenges persuaded us to find alternatives for their arrangement. However, an important condition was to keep a fixed solid geometry of the panels to avoid the use of fabrics that would later end hanging in the garden.

SKETCH OF THE OPENING OF THE TRIANGULAR PANELS

SKETCHES OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE PANELS

16

3.2 PANELS FIRST PROTOTYPE RECTANGULAR PANELS To avoid the unwanted rotation of the panels, we decided to switch them from the joints to the beams of the structure. This also allowed us to strength the connections of the panels to the structure since the area of support was increased as well.

Our first prototype was developed as rectangular panels placed diagonally on top of the beams.

Therefore, half of the panel was in one void and the other half was in the next void. That means that in order to completely cover each void, four panels were needed. Moreover, the amount of shade was given by the aperture between each panel.

RECTANGULAR PANELS IN THE CLOSED POSITION

This version, even though it was functional, it presented a major drawback: the maximum closure of the structure was determined by the size of the panels and by the moment at which the panels would touch the surrounding beams. This prevented the structure to completely be compacted and stored. Likewise, a major maintenance would be needed to each panel due to a continue hit to the structure.

This major difficulty persuaded us to look for an alternative. However, it gave us an insight of the geometry of the panel and of ways in which the structure could be fully closed.

RECTANGULAR PANELS IN THE OPEN POSITION

17

3.2 PANELS SECOND PROTOTYPE TRIANGULAR PANELS This version involved triangular panels instead of rectangular ones. Therefore, the triangles could be placed on the edge of the beams, allowing them to rotate upwards to fully close the structure. The juncture between the panel and the beam was a hinge joint that opened 90° when the panel rotated upwards and it was blocked at 0° when the panel rotated downwards. This blockage prevented the panel to keep rotating downwards. Therefore, the rotation of the panel was only within a range of 90°.

This version however, presented several challenges: 1. The rotation of all the panels was not the same as the structure closed. Therefore, a flexible juncture would be needed between them to link every panel rotation.

2.

A juncture between the panels meant that once they reached a horizontal position, the structure would not open more. Moreover, a detachment mechanism would be needed to achieve voids between each panel to achieve the third stage of our sunshade.

TRIANGULAR PANELS IN THE CLOSED POSITION

These 2 major drawbacks persuaded us from developing this version. However, we acknowledged that the rotation of each panel needed to be linked to the movement of the beams and not to the rotation of another panel.

TRIANGULAR PANELS IN THE OPEN POSITION

18

3.2 FINAL PANELS

The rotation of each panel had to be linked to the movement of the beam on which it was located. Therefore, a mechanism that linked those two movements had to be engineered.

To ease the rotation, the panel was switched from the edge of the beam to the centre of it.

Moreover, the juncture between the panel and the beam was given by fixed supports that linked the translation movement of both elements. An axis rod, at which the panel was attached, passed through the fixed supports and ended in a gear placed at the end of the beams, on the joints of the structure. This gear allowed the rod to spin as the beam moved in or out, rotating the panel as well.

The rotation of the panels got then linked to the movement of the beams. However, the main challenge of this version was the force that the gear needed to rotate the panels.

Therefore, a proper selection of a light material to produce the panel was demanded.

Among the challenges this version represented, we concluded that this option was the most feasible based on the major advantages it has. The achievement of the 3 stages we proposed for our sunshade, as well as the remain of the scissor structure that linked all the movements, were indeed the most important advantages.

MOTION SCHEME OF THE FINAL PANELS

19

3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE JOINT

The segmentation of beams to avoid notches in the structure was made. Therefore, the engineering of joints was necessary to unite the segments. This joint would allow all the beams to be at the same level.

However, an important requirement for these elements was the allowance of a linked rotation between all the beams. Therefore, our new structure would keep the essence of movement of a scissor structure.

SKETCH OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT

SKETCH OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT

20

3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE JOINT FIRST & SECOND PROPOSAL

FIRST PROPOSAL The first development consisted of a flat joint that joined two beams. This joint included a semi-circle notch that allowed the movement of the beam. A rotation axis was placed at the centre of the notch to provide a rotation to the beam. Moreover, the size of the notch would limit an excessive rotation. Therefore, a major control could be gained upon the behaviour of the whole structure.

However, this option presented a major difficulty. It only allowed the linkage of two beams and we would have to put a similar joint on top of it to link the other two beams.

This drawback persuaded us from developing this version. However, we noticed that the joint would have to be void to allow the linkage of four beams.

SKETCH OF THE FIRST PROPOSAL

3D MODEL OF THE SECOND PROPOSAL

SECOND PROPOSAL The main characteristic of this joint was the presence of an empty space to link the four beams. Two plates on top of the segmented elements would connect them. A continuous beam would then pass through the void, making a full connection in the joint.

However, this option presented a major difficulty. A linked rotation between the four beams was not allowed. The segmented beams were rotating independently and sometimes, the rotation did not happen in the desired direction. Likewise, their rotation was not linked to the movement of the continuous beam. This major drawback persuaded us from developing this version. The scissor behaviour of the structure was not present. However, we had a great insight into the geometry of the joint and moreover, to the behaviour of the beams rotation. We acknowledged that all the four beams conveying in the joint would have to be segmented and somehow connected movements must have happened.

21

3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE JOINT THIRD & FOURTH PROPOSAL

THIRD PROPOSAL This version involved two plates in which four rods were placed. These rods functioned as axes of rotation, one for each beam. Therefore, the connection of four beams was possible and a free rotation was allowed. However, the rotation of the beams was still not linked to each others.

This version gave us a perfect insight into how the joint should work indeed. Not only providing a juncture between the beams but also allowing a connection between the rotation of each of them. Therefore, this version was further developed towards a fourth prototype.

3D MODEL OF THE THIRD PROPOSAL

3D MODEL OF THE FOURTH PROPOSAL

FOURTH PROPOSAL The 3rd version of the joint helped us to understand the linkage in the rotation of the four beams. Therefore, the 4th version main characteristic was the placement of gears at the end of each beam. The gears allowed us then to have a connection in their rotation.

Moreover, a smooth movement of the beams was achieved. This was the first working prototype we had and a scissor structure behaviour was achieved.

However, as explained in the structure’s development section, a vertical gear was needed on the top plate of the joint to spin the axis of the panel. By placing an axis for each beam, the rotation of the gear would have to be around that axis, not around the centre of the plate. Therefore, the circular plate was not feasible since the rotation of the gear was indeed around the centre of the plate. This also involved that at some point the gear would detach from the plate and therefore, a rotation of the panel would not be possible.

This version gave us the rotation and the linked movement we wanted for the beams.

However, the geometry of the plate was still unknown due to the behaviour we wanted for the vertical gear.

22

3.3 FOURTH PROPOSAL FIRST JOINT PROTOTYPE

23

3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE JOINT FIFTH PROPOSAL & FINAL JOINT

FIFTH PROPOSAL The geometry of the plate was the major factor influencing the performance of the vertical gear. Therefore, after testing with different shapes we concluded that a rectangular plate would work well. In this proposal the final part of the plate is shaped in such a way that a vertical gear can slide on it, using the principle of the bevel gear. However the joint is not yet optimazed at its maximum potential because the rotation of the vertical gear is still attached to the plate of the joint and the number of of gear teeth on the plate it is still too high.

3D MODEL OF THE FIFTH PROPOSAL

3D MODEL OF THE FINAL JOINT CLOSE

3D MODEL OF THE FINAL JOINT OPEN

FINAL JOINT With this geometry, the rotation of the vertical gear gets detached from the centre of the plate and it is switched towards the centre of its beam. Gear teeth are placed at the corners of the plate. These teeth make contact with the vertical gear, making this last one to spin as the beam opens and closes. Therefore, the rotation of the panels is achieved and a fully compact structure is reached. By limiting the number of gear teeth on the plate, the range of rotation of the panels can be controlled. Moreover, the gear spins only when it is touching the plate. As the beam opens more, the gear stops touching the plate, blocking the rotation of the panel. Therefore, the rotation of the panels can be restricted within a range of ninety degrees.

We concluded that this version was the most feasible based on the major advantages it has. The allowance of rotation of the panels and a scissor structure behaviour were indeed the most important ones. However, this version must be structurally analysed to find the forces actuating in the plates due to the curvature of the structure, in the rotation axis due to the interrupted beams and in the vertical gears due to the weight of the panels to rotate.

After this, materials that withstand those forces can be chosen.

24

3.4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE RAIL

As stated before, one of the most important characteristics of the scissor mechanism is that the length of one of its directions decreases when the other one increases. Therefore, a length compensation system was necessary to avoid the detachment of the structure from the boundary rails. Also, the mechanism must have been able to slide along the rails as the structure moved. Therefore, this mechanism should be engineered as the linkage between the structure and the rail. Moreover, it must allow a glide in the rail to compensate the loss of length of the structure as this one opened.

SKETCH OF THE length compensation system

SKETCH OF THE FIRST PROPOSAL

SKETCH OF THE length compensation system WITH THE ANGLE OF THE STRUCTURE

25

3.4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE RAIL FIRST PROPOSAL FINAL JOINT VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL VERSION FIRST PROPOSAL The first approach was the development of a slide with two systems of rollers. The bottom rollers would allow the mechanism to slide on “x” axis as the structure moved. The top rollers would slide a bar out on “y” axis to compensate the loss of length as the structure opened.

We concluded that this mechanism should be simplified as it had too many wheels and slides. Moreover, a major chance of failure was developed as well. Therefore, we decided to engineer another mechanism. The ability to slide along the rail and to compensate the loss of length of the structure prevailed.

3D MODEL OF THE FIRST PROPOSAL

FINAL JOINT VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL VERSION A new version of the sliding mechanism was developed to avoid the excessive use of rails and rollers. This new mechanism was composed by a vertical axis with rollers both in its bottom and its top. These rollers allowed the mechanism to slide along the rail and provided the strength necessary for the mechanism to keep its vertical position. Moreover, the vertical axis acted as a pivot for a horizontal element incrusted at its half. The horizontal element would then rotate out when a compensation of length was required by the structure and it would rotate in as the structure closed. The engineering of this system allowed us to provide an ever-standing structure without risk of detachment from the rails.

We concluded that this version was the most feasible due to the solutions it provided and to the simplicity of itself. However, this version must be structurally analysed to find the forces actuating on both the sliding mechanism and the rails due to the weight of the whole structure. After this study, materials that withstand those forces could be chosen.

3D MODEL OF THE FINAL JOINT VERTICAL VERSION

3D MODEL OF THE FINAL JOINT HORIZONTAL VERSION

26

3.5 SECOND PROTOTYPE 1:10 LASER CUT PROTOTYPE A second version of the structure was developed based on the feedback from the first model. The main condition for this new variant was to have all the elements placed at the same height without the use of notches. For this, the continuous beams of the previous version were replaced by interrupted elements. Therefore, the creation of notches was avoided, leading to the achievement of a fully closed structure. This condition also allowed us to have fully working profiles, since the whole section of the beams was able to carry the loads. Therefore, a structural optimization was feasible.

On the other hand, this version presented some challenges: 1. Ingenious joints would have to be engineered to convey all the beams at the same level. To achieve that, the joint would have to provide each beam its own axis of rotation.

However, to keep the essence of the scissor mechanism, the rotation of each beam would have to be linked to the rotation of all the other beams. Therefore, the development of a gear mechanism might be necessary.

2. The forces actuating at each joint would be very high. An optimization of its mechanism as well as research on lightweight but strong materials would have to be necessary.

3. The curvature of the whole structure would condition the beams to be curved or segmented. Moreover, the joint would have to remain flat since a curvature in its geometry would imply a 3D rotation vector for the beams, making the movement of the structure very complicated to study.

Among all the limitations of this version, we also encountered advantages. The placement of all the elements at the same height was indeed one of those. Moreover, the challenge to engineer a joint that would link 4 movements was a motivation.

LASER CUT PROCESS Due to the curvaturre of the beam of 5° degrees and the small scale of the model, but most of all for the presence of the gears that in 1:10 scale are pretty difficul to reproduce by the human hand, we decided to laser cut our 1:10 model. Because of the curvature of the beam, we had to divide every beam in two pieces, one for the central part of beam and one for the gears at the end of it. Howevere after that we connected the parts and assembled the model, we discovered that the connection between the two elements were too weak, therefore they were detaching often and they lead us to use the 3D print process for the final 1:10 model.

GEARS LASER CUT

BEAMS LASER CUT

LASER CUT MODEL ASSEMBLY

27

4

CONTENTS 4.1 ASSEMBLED PROTOTYPE 4.2 JOINT ASSEMBLY 4.3 BEAM ASSEMBLY 4.4 PANEL ASSEMBLY

Design component & Detail drawings 28

4.1 assembled prototype

29

4.2 JOINT ASSEMBLY

18 10 13

17

12

10. TOP PLATE 11. BOTTOM PLATE 12. LEFT GEAR 13. RIGHT GEAR 14. BEAM LAYER 15. SCREW 16. TUBE 17. SPACER 18. NUT

14 16

15

12 13

11 17

18

-

30

4.3 BEAM ASSEMBLY

2.

3.

4.

5.

3 2

RIGHT / LEFT SIDE PART BOTTOM / TOP PART SMALL PLATE TOP PART BEAM- ROD CONNECTION PART

4 3 2

4 5 3 5

31

4.4 PANEL ASSEMBLY

1. PANEL 7. CONNECTION ROD-PANEL 8. ROD 9. GEAR

7

1

8

9

32

5

CONTENTS 5.1 BUILDING WEEK PROCESS 5.2 BEAM & PANEL 5.3 JOINT 5.4 WOOD PANEL / FOAM BOARD PANEL 5.5 1:10 3D PRINTED MODEL

BUILDING WEEK

33

BuILDING WEEK It was finally building time. The building weeks happened one month before our final presentation in a warehouse close to TU Delft campus. On the first day a proper instruction and practice with tools were provided to us. Professional trainers from Festool Netherlands taught us how to use the machines and the most efficient way to work with the materials.

Although our real structure is made of steel/ aluminuum, we decided to build our prototypes entirely with wood. This was because welding in the warehouse would be difficult and would not allow for mistakes. Also, a precise amount of steel would be ordered and once it was used, there would not be going back to fix mistakes.

This chapter is about the challenges we had during building our prototypes, things we had to change and how we solved issues we had. It also shows the fun we had during those two cold weeks.

34

35

5.2 BEAM & PANEL

Due to the final curvature of the structure, each beam had to present a slight break in its elevation. Therefore, we decided to cut 2 pieces of wood with the proper break and afterward, we would cap the bottom of the beam with two pieced of wood.

However, for the top cap of the beam we started with small segments that would keep void areas to attach the supports to the rotation axis of the panel. After the first test, those pieces presented certain weakness due to the small contact surface they had with the actual beam. We were concerned that that weakness in the pieces could later be translated to a weakness of the whole beam.

STEP 1 BUILDING THE BEAM

STEP 2 INSERTING THE ROD AND ATTACHING THE SUPPORTS FOR THE PANEL

Therefore, we decided to replace all the small wood pieces with a continuous piece that provided more strength to the geometry of the beam. Also, the supports of the rotation axis of the panel gained certain strength because the area of contact increased.

Likewise, the appearance of the beam improved since the continuous wood piece did not have gaps between it and the supports of the rotation axis of the panel.

STEP 3 CONNECTING THE PANEL TO THE SUPPORTS

36

5.3 JOINT

The composition of the joints was a little complicated due to the small tolerances we needed for it to work properly. Therefore, we were obliged to use laser-cut machines to get more precision. The result of this decision was very bad looking black-burned pieces of wood.

Moreover, we needed to sand-off the layer of burnt wood to get a better appearance of the joints, which was tiring and time-consuming.

Also, wood was not the best material to choose for the plates of the joints and the vertical gears. The teeth of the plates were getting smashed due to the high forces of rotation that the gear needed. Likewise, the wood is soft by nature, allowing both the teeth of the plates and the gears to get stuck, blocking the rotation of the axis. However, this was solved with a plastic reinforcement to both the plates and the gears. The plastic, being a harder material, absorbed the forces and therefore, achieved a smooth rotation for the gears.

STEP 4 BUILDING THE JOINT

STEP 5 CONNECTING THE JOINT TO THE BEAM

37

5.4 WOOD PANEL / FOAM BOARD PANEL

The construction of the panels was easier and more straight-forward than the other components of the prototype. These panels were initially built from wood and looked very smooth and clean. However, when placing them in the rotation axis, they were too heavy for the vertical gear and the plates of the joint. The rotation was not achieved since those two pieces were getting stuck due to bending moment forces.

WOOD PANEL

The solution was to replace those wood panels with a much lighter material. Therefore, a sheet of foamboard was bought during the last day of the construction week. These panels indeed improved the smoothness of the rotation and therefore, a functional prototype was achieved as well as a cleaner material composition.

FOAM PANEL

38

5.6

1:10 3D PRINTED MODEL

The construction of this model was particularly tricky due to the scale of it. Also, it did not allow for big tolerances since one of the main challenges of the gears is that they have to be perfect to achieve a smooth movement. Therefore, all the beams and gears had to be 3D printed and furthermore, the remains of the plastic product of the process had to be sanded. Moreover, the joints had to be very tight so they would not allow for bending of the whole structure once it was finished.

The assembly of this model was tiring and time-consuming. However, the result in terms of appearance is very good and clean. Also, interesting patterns of shades got achieved and even some fellow students were surprised with the result. On the other hand, the model is not functional as it is not moving as expected. Perhaps the scale is one of the factors affecting its performance since the gears are way too small to function. Likewise, the actual model presents too much friction between the rails and the sliding mechanism, making a smooth slide very hard to achieve. This is due to the size of the structure components and the materials chosen to represent the idea. Moreover, the joints are not as tight as needed, allowing the beams and gears to tumble. Therefore, the desired curvature of the structure is not achieved.

RAIL CONNECTION ELEMENT

RAIL LENGHT COMPENSATION SYSTEM

1:10 3D PRINTED MODEL | WORK IN PROGRESS

39

6 prototypes

CONTENTS 6.1 1:10 MODEL 6.2 1:1 PROTOTYPE 6.3 1:10 MODEL | 1:1 PROTOTYPE 6.4 GEVEL EXHIBITION 2018

40

6.1 1:10 MODEL

STAGE 1

STAGE 3

STAGE 2

41

6.1 1:10 MODEL

42

6.2 1:1 PROTOTYPE

STAGE 1

STAGE 3

STAGE 2

43

6.2 1:1 PROTOTYPE MECHANISM

44

6.3 1:10 MODEL | 1:1 PROTOTYPE

45

6.4 GEVEL EXHIBITION 2018 | Rotterdam AHOY | 23-25 January, 2018

The final 1:10 prototypes were exposed in Gevel 2018. Gevel 2018 is a tradeshow that informs architects, consultants and builders about the latest developments concerning building envelopes.

Therefore, it was an excellent opportunity to show our prototype and ideas about the concept of sun-shading. However, it was a pitty that we could not expose our 1:1 detail model since we believe it was more interesting and functional.

46

7

CONTENTS 7.1 INTRODUCTION & CHALLENGES 7.2 STRUCTURE 7.3 JOINT 7.4 GEAR 7.5 PANEL 7.6 DISCUSSION & CONLUSION 7.7 FINAL DESIGN | TECHNICAL DRAWINGS

STRUCTURAL STUDY

47

7.1 introduction & CHALLENGES

INTRODUCTION This chapter includes structural analysis of the project and design process of its structure.

These analysis allows to optimize the sizes of elements and simplification of the structure as well as to choose right materials. The safety aspect is determined within the study and examined.

The structural analysis starts with simplification of the structure for easier hand calculations and finite element software simulations. Basic theory of elasticity for beams and thin plates is applied. In the end, results of calculations are compared with stated requirements and an optimization or change in project is determined if needed.

The load due to self weight plays only the small part of the total loads to which this sunshade is exposed. Shown in the table below, are values of these loads and their combinations as well as relation between them.

CHALLENGES There are four essential challenges in the design chosen for structural analysis:

1. Determining the optimal size and material for the arch of the structure Sunshade should span for 6m, with each beam carrying twelve panels. To minimize the maximal bending moment and deflection in the beam, comprehensive calculation must be conducted. The goal is to decide on materials and cross sections of the elements.

2. Optimal design of the joint and its elements The task is to ensure that all the elements of the joint are strong enough to transfer the load from the structure. This is done by schematization of the joint and calculation of all of it’s parts separately.

3. Ensuring that the gear will hold Due to its small size, the teeth of the gear, that rotates the panels, are under large stress. To ensure that it will not brake or deform, calculation of load and the stress on the beam is conducted.

4. Panel deflection Due to specific way the panel is attached to the structure, it deflects in non uniform way. To determine magnitude of this deflection Diana FEA is used.

48

7.2 STRUCTURE

To summarize the whole process of determining the dimensions and material of the structure, the quick overview of the steps that were undertaken and reasons to do so is listed.

• Firs assumption was made using Rhino modeling software with Karamba plug-in, resulting in an aluminum structure with relatively slim beams and small joints.

• Further analysis of all the loads influencing the structure and their combinations reviled that deflections in the structure were too large, in other words, structure wasn’t strong enough.

• Next step was to strengthen the structure by changing the material to steel and increasing the functional height of the structure.

• Again the analysis via hand calculations was done and the results now satisfied the limit states.

• At the end Diana EFA software was used to recalculate the deflections. Matching results ensured that the structure fulfills demands set by limit states and therefore is safe and functional.

• Using Diana, the beam was analyzed with fixed supports. It has shown that bending moments and deflection are significantly smaller, thus it should be aimed for if possible due to specific design.

Final structure is therefore made out of steel and the cross section for the beams is 10x5x1cm. In everyday use, the structure will deflect unnoticeably (less than 1mm) and even in the extreme cases with snowfall and wind speeds up to 100km/h it won’t deflect more than 3mm. Therefore the structure fulfills all the criteria set by the limit states. This means it is proven that the structure is safe and usable under various and even critical condition.

STRUCTURE SCHEME

BEAM SCHEME

49

7.3 JOINT

To summarize the whole process of ensuring that all the elements of the joint are strong enough to transfer the load from the structure, the quick overview of the steps that were undertaken and reasons to do so is listed.

• According to the previous calculation, all the joint elements are assumed to be out of steel, and are sized in accordance with the beams that they are joining.

• Forces in the joint due to bending moments from the structure were calculated in the joint where the bending moments were maximal.

• Than, the stress due to those forces, in the vertical rod was determined. It was calculated that the rod is strong enough to withstand the stress, even though it saw relatively high, due to the fact it was made out of steel.

• Another critical area was the point where the rod was joined to the top and bottom plate.

geometry of the joint

The stress in the plate was determined and it was established that the plates are strong enough. The joints are therefore made out of steel and the. In everyday use, joints will not be under a lot of pressure because they are oversized so they can withstand even the extreme cases with snowfall and wind speeds up to 100km/h. Therefore they fulfill all the criteria set by the limit states. This means it is proven that the structure is safe and usable under various and even critical condition.

STRESS AT THE PLATE

50

7.4 GEAR

To summarize the whole process of ensuring that the gear that’s rotating the panels is strong enough to withstand the load from the panel, the quick overview of the steps that were undertaken and reasons to do so is listed.

• Due to design demands, the gear was sized quite small, therefore it needed to be ensured that it will be strong enough to rotate the panels under various circumstances.

• To do so, firs the centroids of the panel and supporting elements were stablished • Than, the load due to self weight, as well as wind and snow was determined.

• Moment in the rotation point of the gear was calculated and from that the force that the single tooth of the gear needed to withhold was determined.

• Than, the stress in the gear due to that force was calculated and it was determined that the gear will be strong enough due to the fact it was made out os steel.

Even tough the gear could made out of aluminum would be strong enough to deal with the stress that was calculated, it had to be made out of steel to avoid ware due to the differences in toughness of the material of the plate. Nevertheless, it is acceptable for the gear to be made out of steel because it won’t affect overall weight or the price of the sun shading due to its very small dimensions.

POSITION OF THE ANALYZED GEAR (THAT ROTATES THE PANEL)

FORCES APPLIED ON THE GEAR

51

7.5 PANEL

7.6 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

Due to specific way the panel is attached to the structure, it deflects in non uniform way. To determine magnitude of this deflection and the way it occurs, Diana FEA software is used.

DISCUSSION Structural analysis of the “Slide and Shade” shading device has proven that its design is feasible but it has also uncovered several drawbacks and opportunities for further design development. Even though the final steel construction is safe and usable it does not reflect the most optimum variant. Diana analysis of arched beam with fixed supports has shown that it would be very beneficial for the structure to restrict the horizontal movement of the supports. If that could be accomplished by smarter design of the rails it would mean that the whole shading system could be constructed with less material. It would provide the opportunity to explore other material options and possibly be much more user and environment friendly. Furthermore, less material means cheaper production which would increase economical value of this shading system. Limited time slot, appointed to this shading device design, restricts further design development of this sunshade. Nevertheless, the project and this analysis show that the concept has potential and that with some additional attention it can be developed into a successful commercial product.

The Analysis shows that the deformations in the panel are minimal. The highest deformation occurs at the “tip” of the panel, where deflection is 0.06mm in normal circumstances under which the shading is going to be mostly used. Under the extreme circumstances, whit snowfall and wind speeds up to 100km/h the panels will deflect 1.58mm which is still, in reference to the size of the panel and it’s use, very small deformation. This means that, in regard to panels, the shading device fits all the limit standards and therefore, is safe and usable.

Max Deflection

CONCLUSION Throughout four months of design process of this sun shade system lots of hidden problems and challenges were revealed. Some were overcome by thorough inspection and hard work, others were bypassed by smart design, but the initial design intent is fulfilled. This report unveiled several imperfections of the structural design, but it also showed the potential for progress with further design development. It has proven that the structure is stable, in other words, safe and usable which confirms the concept proposal and rates this as a success. Therefore, more time, or experience in designing this structure would result in a completely feasible project that has potential for commercial success.

52

7.6 FINAL DESIGN | TECHNICAL DRAWINGS

STAGE 1

STAGE 2

STAGE 3

53

7.6 FINAL DESIGN | TECHNICAL DRAWINGS PANEL SECTIONS

54

7.6 FINAL DESIGN | TECHNICAL DRAWINGS JOINT

JOINT PLAN

JOINT ELEVATION

55

8

CONTENTS 8.1 FIRST APPROACH 8.2 FINAL DESIGN

Production process & Materials 56

8.1 FIRST APPROACH PARAMETRIC OPTIMIZATION BEAM & RAIL In the initial approach to the material and the production process of the elements of our project we started to think at a suitable material for the main structure of our project, the beams. In fact, the structure is made of 72 beams with a length of 76 cm each. Therefore, it was necessary to find a lightweight material suitable for it, to do not make the structure of our sun shading too heavy. Reason why we initially decided to use Aluminium profile.

Moreover, from a first calculation, performed with Karamba, a parametric structural engineering tool, we find out that the maximum deflection, considering only the selfweight of the structure, was equal to 1.99e-01 cm. Therefore, we found out that an aluminium hollow profile with the dimension of (6x4x0.30) cm was stiff enough. Moreover, the calculation was performed considering the most critical angle of opening between two beams that is 45°, in fact the more the structure open, the more week will become. Anyway, in reality the structure will never reach such a big opening.

Moreover, the calculation was performed considering the most critical angle of opening between two beams that is 45°, in fact the more the structure open, the more week will become.

MaxIMUM Deflection DUE TO THE SELF-WEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE

Anyway, in reality the structure will never reach such a big opening. Furthermore was performed also a calculation regarding the dimensions of the two rails where the structure is sliding on. From this first calculation resulted that the optimum dimension for the rail is (6x10x1). Therefore, an aluminium profile with the above-mentioned dimensions is suitable for the two rails.

PANEL Regarding the panel instead, it was complicated to find a panel as lightweight as possible to do not put too much load on the main structure. In fact, each beam has to carry the load of two panels. Moreover, considering the elevated number of panels of the structure, 132 panels, it is important that they are as lightweight as possible. Consequently, we considered to use plastic panels, and to use a process that would allow making them hollow inside to reduce their weight. We focused mainly on two production process: INJECTION BLOW MOLDING AND EXTRUSION BLOW MOLDING, because both of them are suitable to create plastic hollow profile. Therefore some materials were selected because of their low density, such as ASA+PVC (unfilled), PP ( impact copolymer, UV stabilized) and PC+PBT (impact modified). The main problem with these materials was their durability rating to degradation by ultraviolet (UV) radiation from sunlight, in fact many plastic materials, such as standard polypropylene (PP) degrade rapidly in sunlight. Moreover, many plastic materials with a low density are highly flammable.

KARAMBA SCRIPT FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE MAXIMUM DEFLECTION

57

8.2 FINAL DESIGN BEAM & JOINT

BEAM In the final design, due to the structural calculation performed in the Diana FEA program we figured out that the maximum deflection for each beam is equal to 33 mm. Therefore the 72 beams of the structure are going to be made out of steel with a Young’s Modulus of 160 GPa (with 1.5 safety factor) and their cross section is (10x5x1) cm. In fact using a profile with the above-mentioned dimension, the beams fulfil the structural requirements.

Regarding the production process, standard profile can be used but there would be the necessity of a secondary shaping process because each beam has an angle of about 177 degrees.

BEAM

JOINT PLATE The joint is made of three different parts: two plates (top and bottom), four gears (described above) and four vertical rivets. All the elements of the joint are going to be made out of steel with similar mechanical properties because they all have to transfer the load from one beam to another. Regarding the production process for the top plate we are considering to use the CNC milling process because of its particular shape that includes teeth in the shorter boundaries of the plate.

JOINT (PLATE)

JOINT GEAR

JOINT GEAR The gear in the joint was not part of the structural calculation that we performed but we can still affirm that it has a bigger surface area compared to the one rotating the panel, but it carries also a bigger amount of load because every joint is responsible of the movement of the structure. Therefore we could assume to make it out of steel with similar mechanical properties to the ones of the beam. Regarding the production process, we are considering the process of press forming, CNC milling or hot metal extrusion.

58

8.2 FINAL DESIGN PANEL & PANEL GEAR

PANEL

PANEL Considering the essential requirements for a sun shading system of having a good behaviour against the UV radiation (sunlight) but most of all the importance of having a lightweight material for our panel, we selected the aluminium foam for our final design. Therefore, the panels are going to be made of an aluminium foam core with close or open cell and a top and bottom layer of aluminium to protect the foam. In fact, this material ensures stiffness, a good temperature resistance and is much stiffer than the plastic panel considered at the beginning of our design. Regarding the production process of each panel, the best option for this material is to use the molding process, also because the shape of the panel is not particularly complicated and is the same for all the 132 panels. Finally the thickness for the panel with this material has to be equal to at least 1cm.

Moreover, the connection between the panel and the road placed on top of beam, is ensured by a triangular element made of steel. The road in turn has a diameter of 1cm and a length of 40cm and is made out of steel.

PANEL GEAR The gear that is responsible of the movement of the panel could be made of aluminium and it would be strong enough to deal with the stress that was calculated in the structural report, but it has to be made of steel to avoid ware due to the differences in toughness of the material of the plate. Nevertheless, it is acceptable for the gear to be made out of steel because it will not affect overall weight or the price of the sun shading due to its very small dimensions. Most of all to avoid the galvanic corrosion between the elements, it is reasonable to make all the part of the structure except the panel, out of steel but with different mechanical properties. Regarding the production process, we are considering the process of press forming, CNC milling or hot metal extrusion as well as for the joint gear.

PANEL GEAR

59

9

CONTENTS 9.1 VISUALIZATION STAGE 1,2,3 9.2 CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

60

9.1 VISUALIZATION STAGE 1

61

9.1 VISUALIZATION STAGE 2

62

9.1 VISUALIZATION STAGE 3

63

9.2 CONCLUSION

The Slide and Shade might have started as a feasible solution to the sunshade market. It presented some challenges like the tendency to bend if used in horizontal and the decrease of length as the structure stretched in the other direction.

However, those were issues that could be overcome with some of the solutions provided above. Moreover, its functionality remained in the simplicity of its mechanism that was based on a standard scissor hinge. Likewise, the panels were static, easing their fabrication and interaction with the whole structure.

We are conscious that we over-complicated things in order to solve some of the issues.

To name a couple of them, for instance, we pursued to achieve a maximum closure of the structure when perhaps, that was not necessary. A partial closure of it would have been enough to be stored. However, to achieve this, we created a complex system of rotation of panels, gears and beams. Therefore, if one of all these pieces fail, the whole structure might become useless. Furthermore, by placing all the panels at the same height we aimed to achieve a waterproof sunshade. However, to get this we were obliged to have segmented beams and place them all at the same height. Therefore, we engineered a complex juncture system that even if it works, it still presents some major challenges like the big forces that convey in it due to the curvature of the structure. At the end, the roof is not waterproof due to the differences in height at the edges of the panels caused by the angles at which the beams are bent.

Moreover, we are conscious that our project is not the most feasible one due to its complexity and structural demand. However, these months we have learned how the mechanism works and how it can be upgraded. We learned its advantages, drawbacks and how these last ones can be corrected and improved. Therefore, the next stage to make our project more feasible would be to simplify all of its components. We also learned that simplicity brings efficiency. However, we had a lot of fun during the development of our ideas. We managed to learn more about rotation and friction and furthermore, we were able to test some prototypes that showed us the advantages and challenges of each version. In some occasions, to build a physical model was a must to identify issues that otherwise would be impossible to notice using just pencils and paper. Likewise, it is always exciting to build and test the ideas you had imagined. Furthermore, sometimes it is more fun to learn using the hands than using the books.

We learned that team-work is not always easy and sometimes it needs mediation agreements. Furthermore, team work sometimes requires not to be stocked with your own idea and that means that you have to accept somebody else’s as a better one.

During the construction week, we had to rebuild, reinforce or redesign some elements of the structure since the mechanisms were not working properly, needed too much force to work or were getting easily damaged. However, we were happy to overcome those issues, which were not simple ones. Also, we tried to optimize the material provided to us but we did not manage to do it since we had to rebuild some of the components and trash the useless ones. The advantage is that in Bucky-Lab, differently from NASA, errors are always allowed.

64

10

CONTENTS 10.1 SELF REFLECTION

SELF REFLECTION

65

10.1 SELF REFLECTION

The course itself was a challenge considering the education system. For some of us, being international students and coming from different backgrounds, it was harsh at the start of the semester. In some countries, the professor takes the students towards a common goal and the projects end up being more about the professor than about the students.

However, the approach of this course is for the students to take control of the project and moreover, to solve the issues by ourselves. Therefore, in some revisions we struggled finding out if we were on the right path or not since the comments of the professors were too general and sometimes too positive. This aspect was indeed one of the most challenging ones because it involves adaptation from the students to a new education approach.

Furthermore, most of us come from architecture backgrounds so we are used to work at a conceptual level. Bucky Lab however, has an approach of developing products instead of buildings, which is a shift of design for us as students and represents indeed another challenge. This course however, was a quite nice one since we had the opportunity to work on small-scale projects. We were able to build our ideas and test their feasibility. Likewise, we studied mechanisms and we were obliged to develop detail design. Therefore, we had to work on all stages of development, from concept to materials and even to assembly sequence of prototypes. Furthermore, having a real client represents a big responsibility. We learned to make decisions based on functionality and not in aesthetics, contrarily to our architectural background.

The combination of different courses within one was one of the most interesting parts of the semester. This merge of courses helped us to consider every aspect of or design, from feasibility to materials and structural analysis. However, we find Building Physics course separated from Bucky Lab, which makes it difficult to follow next to the Bucky Lab integrated courses. Perhaps this course could also be better integrated within the studio.

On the other hand, one of the drawbacks of the course is that we did not have much time for the development of our project.

Furthermore, it seemed like every week we had deadlines so we found ourselves working for those deadlines instead of in the development of our ideas.

The course overall has been a great start to the Building Technology master. It gave us the possibility to have an insight to what is expected from us and to get familiar with the master’s environment. Furthermore, it gave us the possibility to make friends with the other crazy students, which made our time in the studio much more enjoyable.

66

GET YOUR HANDS DIRTY! 67