Seaglass - creating a temporary pavilion for Oerol

Page 1

BUCKY LAB REPORT

AR1AE015/AR1B015 Bucky Lab Design Delft University of Technology January 2015 Christina Michael 4368665 Natalia Valdes 4417933 Hannah Wessels 4135261 Supervisor: Dr.-Ing. Marcel Bilow

1

Content

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4 6 8

1. BACKGROUND 2. INTRODUCTION 3. CONCEPTS

14 16

4. DESIGN CONCEPTS 5. RESEARCH 5.1 Problem Statements 5.2 Objectives

24

3.1 Individual Concepts 3.2 Choice of Concepts

5.3 Constraints 5.4 Hypothesis 5.5 Research Questions 5.6 Research Methodology

6. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

6.1 Experimentation 6.2 Design Development Summary

9.1 Description 9.2 Fabrication

50 56 58

7. BUILDING THE MOCKUP 8. STRUCTURAL DESIGN 9. SEAGLASS 1.0

64

10 SEAGLASS 2.0

74 76

10.1 Industrialized Product 10.2 Technical Drawings 10.3 Potential Prototyping Techniques

11. CONCLUSIONS 12. REFLECTIONS

12.1 About the Project 12.2 About Bucky Lab 12.3 Acknowledgements

82

13. APPENDIX

84

14. REFERENCES

13.1 Material Data Sheet

3

1. Background

4

Bucky Lab Autumn Semester 2014/2015 This is a report for the Bucky Lab, which is part of the Architectural Engineering studio of the Delft University of Technology. The Bucky Lab aims to bridge the gap between architecture and building technology by experimenting with new technologies, new materials and new ways of designing. The experimenting is done on 1:1 scale models to get the hands on the materials and acquire a more realistic view from design to implementation. The Seaglass team consists of three students coming from different parts of the world and with different backgrounds. Not only in cultural background, but also in the expectations of this course Seaglass is a mixed group: Hannah follows this course as an Architecture Engineering studio while Christina and Natalia follow it through the Building Technology program. The project will be approached from different viewpoints, which will give an interesting mix.

5

2. Introduction

6

Wild & Bold The theme of the autumn semester 2014 of Bucky Lab is Wild & Bold. For this exercise students have been asked to design a sustainable and innovative beach pavilion for the 2015 Oerol Festival, thinking outside of the box in terms of materialization and implementation. The exercise is done in collaboration with the Rijkswaterstaat of the Netherlands. The Bucky Lab shall function as a think-tank to encourage new ideas for the growing Dutch demand to live by the beach. The final outcome of the class will be a building proposal in the form of a pavilion for the Oerol festival, which takes place in Terschelling. The design exercise for the Beachpavilion deals with a couple of themes. The final outcome should give an answer to questions regarding temporality, sustainability and maintaining the beach environment. The sea, the beach and the dunes are constantly changing, so the pavilion is placed in a vulnerable dynamic location. To protect the natural dynamic environment, the group has to consider the materials used, the shape given to the pavilion and the duration the pavilion will be on the site. Having in mind the aforementioned criteria, the materials selected for the pavilion are of great importance. To meet the requirements for sustainable materials, the group can look for ways to recycle materials, for downgrading or upgrading processes or for ways to use organic renewable materials. The installation and transportation are important for this project as well. Due to the fact that the pavilion will be there on a temporary basis, the materials should be easy and light to transport. The construction should also be easy and time saving. After all, it is not worth it to build for weeks to months for a pavilion that will only stand there for a period varying from a couple of weeks up to three months.

7

3. Concepts

Fig.1 Poster Elevator Pitch Christina

3.1 Individual Concepts 3.1.1 Textile Pavilion Christina Michael The main idea is to create a structure that resembles a sea creature form and is inspired by an everyday object: the baby stroller hood, since it can be easily transfered, folded and unfolded. You can even unfold as many segments as you want! How do you do that? First you have to set a lightweight frame of arcs, possibly from PVC pipes or ideally from bamboo. Then you have to attach the surface, which consists of a double layer geotextile which is biodegradable. This “pillow� can be then filled with materials found on the shore like sand, seaweeds, pebbles, basically anything! This will provide steadier walls and some basic protection from weather conditions. The best part is that when the festival is over you can fold the pavilion and transfer it to another place or you can just leave it degrade into the beach scenery, in other words just let nature take its course!

Fig.2 Poster Elevator Pitch Christina

9

3.1.3 Tube-Tubing Pavilion Natalia Valdes The main idea of the tube-Tubing Pavillion was to generate a building construction system based on continuos coiling tubes of natural materials extuded and/or reinforced by textiles. The coils will be flexible and strong enough to rapidly assemble a temporary installtion structure with a natural material canvas covering. The generated shape of the pavilions will be of spherical geometry composition, I.e. Egg shape, Tunnel, Sphere. The fundamental concept of the system was to create continuous structural or frame components that had no connections and performed structurally in unity.

Fig.3 Render Tube-tubing project

Fig.4 Poster elevator pitch Natalia

2

IMAGE 2

POSSIBILITIES

IMAGE 4

IMAGE 8

10

IMAGE 5

1

PROCESS

PRINCIPLE

1. FIBER SLEEVE 2. BAMBOO TUBES 3. ROLLING UP 4. ADHERING 5. BAMBOO TUBES

IDEA

Natalia Valdes / 4417933

IMAGE 3

tt-bb tube tubing bldg. block

IMAGE 1

IMAGE 6

IMAGE 7

3

4

IMAGE 1 - Bambo HeroBike Project, MAGE 2 - Sunpath Studies / Studio Olafur Elliason, IMAGE 3 - Bug Dome / Arch. Marco Casagrande, IMAGE 4 - 8 Beach Pavillion 3D Impressions / N. Valdes

3.1.2 Seaweed Pavilion Hannah Wessels Imagine a pavilion with a facade completely made out of seaweed. Untill now seaweed is only used as a food ingredient in several asian dishes. It is also dried to use as an insulation material in buildings. But I think it is a pity to dry it, because the original shape and properties are so beautiful. It is translucent, stretchable and you can do all kinds of crazy stuff with it. There are some creations by artists who have stretched it like leather and lasercut it to make all kinds of patterns. So there are a lot of possibilities to explore, especially in the building industry. A biodegradable lightweight translucent pavilion that fits in it’s natural surroundings can become real. The concept of the design for the Oerol Pavilion is based on a seaweed membrane that is attached to a skeleton structure made out of timber arches or willows bonded together forming free-form arches. The form of the arches is completely open in this phase of the design process. Fig.5 Render Seaweed pavilion

Fig.6 Poster elevator pitch Hannah

11

Fig.7 Natural seaweed

12

Fig.8 Inspiration Julia Lohmann

3.2 CHOICE OF CONCEPT After examining and assessing all three concepts of the elevator pitch it was a mutual decision to develop further the Seaweed concept. It is the group’s belief that seaweed is a very promising material since its only use in the building industry up to now is in the form of insulation, where the material is used dried and crumbled. Therefore, a research on such an innovative material can possibly lead to exciting results and provide an entirely new way of building on the beach. Seaweed is by definition a natural material that belongs to the sea. By using it the foundations for biodegradability and sustainability of the project are set. Furthermore, seaweed creates a specific aesthetic impression, which most people find appealing. One of its most important properties is its translucency. Without being transparent, seaweed can transmit a certain amount of light, suggesting that it can possibly be used in building applications including façade systems, windows, sunshades etc. Also, the fact that color and pattern of each leaf vary from dark brown to light green, and from solid color to stripes or spots respectively, gives to each piece a unique character. After doing some research on the material an artist was found, named Julia Lohmann1, who is already working with the material. The Department of Seaweed in the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, where she launched her design residency, demonstrates some of her seaweed creations that include sculptures, lamps, hats and ties, and seaweed veneer. Having a look at her work, not only works as an inspiration but also gives motivation and confidence that seaweed can indeed be used in various applications, going beyond the limits of the food and the cosmetics industries. 3.2.1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES Due to the fact that seaweed has never been investigated as a building material, basic properties of it like the Young’s modulus, tensile and compressive strength etc., are not known. However, given the anisotropic nature of the material and the fact that its properties depend on several factors such as age and origin, these properties cannot be defined easily. As a matter of fact, each leaf is expected to behave differently. The most important factor that defines the material’s properties is moisture. In its two states (dry and wet) seaweed almost reacts like two different materials, going from very brittle paper to flexible leather respectively. According to the team’s Materials Science consultant, dr.-ir. Fred Veer, the properties of seaweed in its wet state can be compared with the properties of other known materials, such as leather.2 1 Julia Lohmann (born 1977, Germany) is a multidisciplinary designer living and working in London. www.julialohmann.co.uk 2 For more information about the Seaweed, see Appendix.

13

4. Design Concepts Fig.9 Cladding

Fig.10 Geodesic Dome

Fig.11 Facade Cladding

Fig.12 Snake Skin

Fig.13 Fighting Water with Water

14

Broad Ideas The team will focus on developing a façade application for an exterior smart wall system. Seaweed can be used in the form of a membrane and take the place of other conventional building materials such as tensed textile, leather or even glass. The initial application ideas included among others:

• Cladding • Shingles • Windows • Sunshades • Inflatables • Glass-bricks

Fig.14 Inflatables

Looking at the bigger picture a few general concepts came up: •Fighting water with water: Seaweed belongs in its original state to the water and the ocean. It is a water plant by definition suitable for wet conditions. Therefore it is assumed that the material can be best used in its natural wet state. The group intends to fight water with water and respond to the natural sponge behavior of the material. •Snake skin: In order to provide the required protection from climate conditions, a transformative building skin system could be developed. For example, a lightweight frame can provide a totally open pavilion. A primary skin of seaweed membrane can provide some basic protection while maintaining a certain level of translucency. Finally, a secondary skin of dried seaweed can serve as an insulation coating for better protection.

Fiig.15 Shingles

•Aerodynamic shape: The seaweed can be the wrapping material in creating an aerodynamic shape of a pavilion, thus helping in the preservation and creation of the dunes. •Glamp-tent: The seaweed can be tensed and stretched in order to create an innovative model of glamp-tents, as opposed to regular textile tents. As far as the frame of the wall system is concerned, a few materials were considered. Starting from a low-tech point of view the group considered using willow branches, bamboo or wood. The main concern about the frame was to be made out of natural low-cost materials that can be integrated into the Dutch seascape.

Fig.16. Sunshades

As can be observed all of the aforementioned concepts can be developed towards a low-tech or high-tech approach, in terms of shaping, joining and surface treatment processes. However, it is the team’s consensus that building a temporary low cost construction should not involve high-tech processes that oppose the overall concept of the project. Fig.17 Glass-bricks

15

5. Research

5.1 Problem Statement This project aims to come up with an innovative and sustainable way of building on the beach. It is the group’s belief that in order to reach this goal, having also in mind the temporary character of a beach pavilion, the use of natural biodegradable materials is essential. Seaweed is a material that seems to meet the aforementioned criteria of biodegradability and temporality. It also goes without saying that this is a material that belongs to the seascape and can be easily incorporated in the design of a structure on the beach. The limits of the use of seaweed as a building material are however unknown. This research will focus in defining - and possibly even optimizing - how far the material can go in the building industry in terms of production and treatment techniques, regarding properties such as its size, its brittleness and its water tightness. The answers to the above questions will be given through documented experimentation that took place in a timeframe of three months (October ’14 – January ’15).

17

5.2 Objectives The main objective of this research is to clarify whether seaweed is capable of introducing a new sustainable way of building on the beach. Because of the fact that seaweed is an innovative material in the building industry, many of its properties and attributes have to be defined. In this direction, the following subobjectives come up: • Defining the material’s thermal insulation, water tightness, air tightness and translucency. • Defining the material’s maximum dimensions as a building component. • Examining the different behavior between the two states of the material (wet and dry) and assessing how can they be applied in a building. After gaining an understanding of the way the material behaves the research by design will focus on proposing a suitable building component that could be part of a façade. The following sub-objectives will have to be met while testing possible building components made out of the material: • Optimizing the most suitable building component for a façade element. • Minimizing cost in terms of materialization, production and transportation.

18

5.3 Constraints This research project is trying to approach an unconventional material and examine how far it can go in terms of being used as a building component. Due to the fact that the material has never been used in that way until now, besides conventional insulation, some boundary conditions have to be set. Some constraints are already set by the material itself: • Seaweed has to be treated and assembled during the construction phase in a wet state. This implies that certain drying time is to be taken into account. • Shrinking of the material is to be expected while it tenses during drying out. The group has to allow for a certain shrinking percentage (to be defined). • The size of the material is given by nature. Laminaria japonica can grow up to 100cm in length and approximately up to 30cm in width. However, for the prototype made for the Bucky Lab the group will only have access to seaweed sold in retail stores that has average dimensions of 30x30cm. Constraints set by the research group: • Cost is always a considerable factor, especially in the case of a temporary beach structure. Therefore the cost of each building component should be limited. • The building components have to be easily transferred and installed. Therefore the overall mass of each component and its dimensions should limited as well. • In order to ensure sustainability, biodegradability of the materials is essential. Having that in mind, certain material categories (such as metals, non-biodegradable polymers etc.) are ruled out. • Seaweed will be used as a membrane. Although there are several other ways to use the material (i.e. dried and crumbled

in a pillow for insulation purpose, blended and molded in 3d-solids to be used as a brick, powdered and melted to be used in resins etc.) this research will concentrate on the way the material behaves in its natural state of a membrane surface. • The material’s translucency – being one of its most important properties – has to be maintained and incorporated in the final design product. • Given the temporary character of the pavilion it is not expected of the design product to be fully thermally insulated, watertight or airtight. What is expected from the component is to provide somewhat better climate conditions than the exterior. • The building component should be able to withstand basic loads such as its own weight and wind forces.

19

5.4 Hypothesis The main hypothesis of this research is that seaweed can be used as a building material in order to propose a sustainable way of building in the seafront of the Netherlands. Due to the fact that the material imposes some limitations itself, some assumptions were made prior to the experimental phase: • The size of the seaweed is limited. The seaweed grows in lengths up to 1 meter, but the maximum width of the material is 40 centimeters. Due to the fact that this Bucky Lab course is given in the autumn,3 the group can only have access to chopped seaweed pieces with a maximum size of 30 by 30 centimeters. In order to make the seaweed suitable for a building material, bigger spans need to be created. It is assumed that seaweed can be stitched or glued together to produce larger parts. • It is assumed that the seaweed needs to undergo some treatment to become stronger and more durable. Having in mind that Julia Lohmann has already treated the material in her work, it is the group’s mutual belief that this assumption is valid. 3 Harvesting of seaweed occurs in the spring, where bigger pieces are available in the market.

20

5.5 Research Questions The research for the Bucky Lab is mainly concerned about the use of seaweed as a building material. Therefore the main research question for this semester is: Is seaweed an appropriate material to use as a building material? Sub-questions following from this main question are: • How can a building component be designed to ensure thermal insulation, water tightness, air tightness and translucency? • How can the most advantage be taken out of the experimental material seaweed in terms of size? Can larger surfaces be formed by joining the seaweed pieces? • Which state of the material is the best in order to use it as a building material? Can it be used in its original wet state or must it be dried? • Is further treatment of the surface necessary? Can the material remain natural? • How can the different building components be joined without adding non-organic material? What is the best joining method which allows for a demountable structure?

21

Timeframe: 22.10 – 29.10.2014 30.10 – 4.12.2014 30.10 – 4.12.2014 8.12 – 19.12.2014 5.01 – 23.01.2015

Literature review Experiments Data analysis Building weeks Conclusions

Table.1 Timeframe Research Bucky Lab

5.6 Research Methodology To answer the research questions and to come up with a consistent new building component, the following methodology will be followed. The research will consist of five stages: literature review, Bucky Lab experiments, data analysis, building weeks and conclusions. Literature Review: Critically reviewing literature about seaweed properties and analyzing existing seaweed projects to get to know all its possibilities.4 Bucky Lab Experiments: Understanding the behavior of the material through experimentation regarding several variables. The following properties are to be tested: Composition: Testing components of different shape, size and type in order to determine an optimal building component. Size: Determining the maximum span of the material with several techniques. Translucency: Experimenting with the amount of layers and determine the maximum number of them in order to retain translucency of the component.

4 A list of proposed literature can be found at the end of this report.

22

Water tightness: Testing the factors that determine water tightness of the component, such as number of seaweed layers, additional coatings etc. Defining the behavior of the component when it gets wet. Strength: Defining the brittleness of the material. Experimenting with added coatings to ensure strength. Connections: Testing different types of connections between the seaweed and the frame of the building component. Also, test different types of connections between the building components. Data Analysis: Analyzing the results of the laboratory experiments. Drawing conclusions and assessing the results after every single experiment. Where necessary, conducting a new experiment based on the former conclusions to optimize the design. Building Weeks: Building a prototype on a scale 1:1 by using the selected materials in the optimized dimensions. Validating the results of the Bucky Lab experiments while testing on an assumed building part. This is in fact the ultimate Bucky Lab experiment. Conclusions: Assessing the results of the research. Drawing the final conclusions and making recommendations for further research. Providing new ideas that could have been implemented to improve the design.

6. Design Development

24

The Design Process In this chapter all the different Bucky Lab experiments will be elaborated. These exercises had the leading role in the design process and the development of the design itself. Unlike most conventional design processes where the selected materials and their properties are already known, the team had to test every design concept using prototypes and allowing for a testing time to see how the seaweed5 behaved. It should be noted than prior to all experimentation, on October 31st 2014 the group discussed the capabilities of the selected material with dr.–ir. Fred Veer, a Material Science consultant. This meeting addressed the main concerns of the team regarding using seaweed in a building component, mainly concerning the state it should be used in and the treatment it could undergo. Fred Veer’s advice was to keep the material as simple as possible. Trying to develop the raw material into a higher technological material (such as a resin, powder etc.) might adversely affect its sustainability characteristics. Too much processing would deviate from the main idea. Instead, trying to keep the material in its natural state would emphasize the eco-friendliness direction. Therefore the team favored for a low-tech approach instead of a high-tech. The outcome of this meeting was to try not to over-engineer the material. What the team should do instead, was to understand the material’s limitations and assets and remain consistent with the design statement of simplicity. Keeping it simple was a challenge the team was willing to take. As far as the “Fight water with water” concept and the general idea of retaining humidity in the material are concerned, Fred Veer was very clear. The presence of water for extended periods of time would eventually lead into rotting and decay. Therefore, the material should be used in its dry state. However, it was stated that the material could only undergo a certain number of dry/wet cycles, determining its life span. This fact indicates that the material should be somehow protected. Finally, in lack of other data, Fred Veer suggested as using leather properties as a comparable material and refer to CES (Cambridge Engineering System database) for further information.

5 For the series of the experiments dried seaweed (Laminaria Japonica) was used, produced in China and imported in the Netherlands by SIN WAH FOODS BV under the name Golden Lion.

25

6.1 EXPERIMENTATION 6.1.1 EXPERIMENT 1 BUILDING COMPONENTS November 5th, 2014 OBJECTIVE: The objective of this experiment was to define the most suitable building component through testing several different samples. The group examined the behavior of seaweed in each sample in terms of brittleness, shrinkage and adaptability to different shapes. METHODOLOGY: The experiment tested eight (8) different samples. Six (6) of them were placed on a larger equilateral triangular bamboo frame (Side length=1.12m). The frame was divided into nine (9) smaller triangles (Side length=0.37m). All of the connections were tied with rope. The purpose of using a large bamboo frame was: • to test the bamboo as a frame material • to serve as a showcase of different samples combined in one prototype in order to compare them and draw conclusions The remaining two samples, due to their physical properties, couldn’t be included in the bamboo frame. SAMPLES: One-side attached shingles: Rectangular pieces of wet seaweed, approximately 13x13cm, were hung on tensed rope and attached to it using metal clips. Two-sides attached shingles: Rectangular pieces of wet seaweed, approximately 13x13cm, were stretched on tensed ropes and attached to them using metal clips. Stitched membrane: A triangular piece of wet seaweed, side length approximately 13cm, was stitched by hand to the bamboo frame using sewing thread. Clamped membrane: A triangular piece of wet seaweed, side length approximately 13cm, was clamped to the bamboo frame using wooden clamps.

26

Glued membrane: A triangular piece of wet seaweed, side length approximately 13cm, was glued to the bamboo frame using wood glue. Border stitched membrane: A rectangular piece of wet seaweed, approximately 13x13cm, was stitched with a sewing machine on two sides using a stripe of plastic mesh, approximate width of 2cm. The sample was then attached to the bamboo frame with a custom made PVC clamp on one side, and by using the mesh as a sleeve for the bamboo frame on the other side. Meshed membranes: Small and irregular pieces of wet seaweed were laid between two rectangular pieces of plastic mesh, approximately 20x12cm, in order to form a continuous surface. The borders of the mesh were mechanically stitched. Framed membrane: A triangular piece of wet seaweed, side length approximately 13cm, was attached between two equilateral triangular wooden frames, made out of six (6) beams 210x25x15mm. The method of attachment was wood glue. Drying time: 24 hours FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: The following observations were made after the experiment was finished, while the material was still wet. In general: • The tubular shape of the bamboo sticks requires rope to be tied around two or three different levels. This problem can be solved by a) designing and producing tubular connection parts or b) cutting bamboo in specific angles and then connecting the parts in the same level. • Triangular is not the optimal shape for a bamboo structure, as it doesn’t take advantage of bamboo’s capabilities such as bending. This implies that either the shape of the structure or the frame material has to change. • Equilateral triangular shape is not the most economic for the seaweed, as it naturally comes in rectangular shape. This problem can be faced by saving waste material to use in other applications, such as dried seaweed insulation. • The current size of the seaweed doesn’t allow for big spans in any shape. This indicates that either smaller spans should be used, which would be impractical for the building industry, or that a process has to be designed that enables for larger spans. • Orientation of the fibers, due to the seaweed anisotropic nature of the material, effects its tension strength.

Sample Name Advantages • Simplicity 1 One-side attached shingles • Easy to replace • Low precision • Dynamic façade: possible movement and sound effect due to the wind

Disadvantages

Challenge

• Can be easily blown away be the wind

• Designing a clipping device that doesn’t hurt the material

• Not water tight • Not air tight • Bending of the rope due to the weight of wet seaweed • Shape limitation

• Simplicity 2 Two-sides attached shingles • Easy to replace

• Shape limitation

• Designing a clipping device that doesn’t hurt the material

• Aesthetic quality: contrast between dark seaweed and light thread

• High labor intensiveness

• Defining the right spacing of stitching

• No shape limitation

• Penetration of the material

• Low precision

3 Stitched membrane

4 Clamped membrane

• Low labor intensiveness

• Not easy to replace

-

• Easy to replace

• Designing a clamping device that allows for double clamping between adjacent triangles

• The material remains intact • No shape limitation

5 Glued membrane • Low labor intensiveness

• No shape limitation

6 Border stitched membrane*

• Medium labor intensiveness • No shape limitation

7 Meshed membranes

• Medium labor intensiveness • Use of irregular pieces, no waste

8 Framed membrane

• Stability • Low labor intensiveness

• Use of chemical • Applying glue to wet seaweed substances: biodegradability is questioned • Not easy to replace • The material doesn’t cover the whole surface -

• Defining the right spacing of stitching • Defining the optimal mesh • Defining the right spacing of stitching • Defining the optimal mesh

• Use of chemical • Applying glue to wet seaweed substances: biodegrad• Optimizing the ratio of wood to ability is questioned seaweed

• Aesthetic quality: contrast between dark seaweed and light wood Table.2 Results Experiment 1 during wet state of samples

* It should be noted that direct clamping of the sample, using a custom made PVC clamp, hurt the material. However, the side that was attached to the frame as a sleeve remained intact.

27

REFLECTIONS BEFORE ALLOWING FOR DRYING: After finishing the experiment it was the group’s mutual belief that stitching with a sewing machine (Samples 6 & 7) seemed to be very promising. These samples were the ones that seemed to have the most potential to develop an engineered product. Also, the framed membrane, put things under different perspective, as it could set the foundations for developing a modular system, where every building component could be pre-fabricated and assembled on site. CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions were drawn 24 hours after the experiment was finished, to ensure that the samples had dried. Out of eight (8) different samples, five (5) reported unsuccessful. As it is clear from Table 3, the samples that presented the most development potential were samples 4, 5 and 8. Samples 6 and 7 also presented some potential, but problematic drying due to the mesh was an obstacle. Therefore, the group decided not to concentrate on these cases. Samples 1, 2 and 3 were marked as unfeasible. • The most successful results came out of uniform load distribution in the attachment. It appeared that triangular frames contributed in lessening shrinkage deformation. Therefore, further experiments using this shape were recommended. • Experimentation with different frame materials (such as wood, plywood, MDF etc.) was recommended due to imposed attachment difficulties by bamboo. • Although most of the samples remained intact, presenting no tearing, dried seaweed is very fragile. The samples implied that some treatment with natural materials (such as starch, gelatin, oil etc) could speed up or improve the drying process and the rigidness of the final product. Despite the tutors’ recommendation to retain the material in its natural state, the group is orientating in implementing certain technical developments.

28

Fig.18 First seaweed experiment - wet state

Fig.19 First seaweed experiment - dry state Fig.20 First triangle - dry state

Sample Name 1 One-side attached shingles 2 Two-sides attached shingles 3 Stitched membrane 4 Clamped membrane 5 Glued membrane 6 Border stitched membrane 7 Meshed membranes 8 Framed membrane

Result During drying the material shrunk up to 50% in unpredictable directions. During drying the material experienced considerable shrinkage, especially in tension direction. The support material (rope) proved not to be rigid enough to keep the seaweed in place. The material experienced uniform shrinkage in all three sides. However, perforations became larger during drying (2mm +/-) imposing damage to the membrane. The material experienced uniform shrinkage in all three sides. No tearing was presented. The material experienced uniform shrinkage in all three sides. No tearing was presented. Tearing was observed (due to focal load) on the clamped side of the sample, prior to drying. The selected 1mm stitching spacing produced insignificant tearing, allowing for the material to retain its stability. Seaweed was unable to dry 100%. However, the pieces of the material remained attached to each other. No tearing was presented. The material gained rigidness during drying. The shrinkage that occurred did not present any tearing.

Table.3 Results experiment 1 during dry state of samples

FURTHER RESEARCH: Combining successful samples 4, 5 and 8, the following guides for further development were decided: • Doubling the layers of seaweed membrane (either with a gap in between or simply attaching one to another) in order to achieve better strength, air tightness, water tightness and insulation. • Minimizing the frame while maximizing the seaweed surface, in order to come up with an optimal ratio. • Designing ways to produce larger area membranes (such as stitching or overlapping).

CRITICAL DECISIONS #1 AND #2: • AFTER EXPERIMENT 1, THE TEAM DECIDED

CRITICAL DECISIONS #1 AND #2: • THE TEAM HAS DECIDED TO REJECT THE USE OF BAMBOO FOR A STRUCTURAL FRAME DUE TO IMPOSED DIFFICULTIES. THE TEAM WILL TRY TO DEVELOP A COMPONENT USING WOOD AS A FRAME MATERIAL. • THE TEAM WILL FURTHERLY DEVELOP A TRIANGULAR COMPONENT, AS IT CAN BE EASILY INCORPORATED IN ANY FLAT, SINGLE OR DOUBLE CURVED SURFACE.

29

Fig.21 Overlapping triangle - wet state

Fig.21 Overlapping triangle - dry state

30 Fig.22 Shrinkage and crack in the overlapping seaweed

6.1.2 EXPERIMENT 2 OVERLAPPING November 7th, 2014 OBJECTIVE: The objective of this experiment was to produce larger pieces of the material, in order to cover bigger spans and make the material more suitable for the building industry in terms of size. METHODOLOGY: The method used to create bigger spans was simple overlapping of seaweed pieces.6 Three (3) pieces of wet seaweed were placed between two equilateral wooden triangle frames (side = 20cm), overlapping each other. The frames were clamped to one another. Drying time: 24 hours FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: • The pieces of seaweed were well glued to each other, despite the absence of external adhesives. • The lower part of seaweed shrunk significantly, creating an opening of 9x2cm. • Some holes were visible on the surface of the membrane. These holes might had been there from the beginning of the experiment but they enlarged during drying time. • Cracks occurred after applying light pressure to the biggest part of seaweed. CONCLUSIONS: A sufficient overlapping area has to be determined, dependent on the overall span to be covered. An approximate overlapping of 3cm was enough for the smaller pieces of seaweed, but an uneven overlapping varying from 1 to 3cm was not enough for the bigger pieces. FURTHER RESEARCH: The group proposes to develop this method by ensuring that overlapping is more than 20% of the overall area of the membrane. 6 Seaweed pieces have the tendency to stick to one other when wet, without requiring external adhesives.

31

Fig.23 Three layered seaweed in square triangle

Fig.24 Two layered seaweed in triangle

32 Fig.25 One layered seaweed in triangle

6.1.3 EXPERIMENT 3 LAYERING OBJECTIVE: The objective of this experiment was to increase the water tightness of the building component while maintaining its translucency.

FOLLOW UP EXPERIMENT: TRIPLE LAYER November 14th, 2014

PHASE 1: DOUBLE LAYER November 7th, 2014

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the follow up experiment was to increase the strength, insulation and water tightness of the building component, while maintaining its translucency.

METHODOLOGY: A double seaweed layer component was created. The component consisted of two (2) layers of wet seaweed lying between three (3) equilateral wooden triangle frames (side length = 30cm). A cavity of 10mm was left between the two layers of seaweed. The seaweed was connected to the frame using wood glue. Wood glue was also used to connect the frames to each other. Drying time: 24 hours FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: • The seaweed was well glued to the frame. • Wood glue was a satisfactory method of connecting the frames, despite some stains left on the frame. • The component maintained some translucency (50%). PHASE 2: SPRAYING EXPERIMENT November 8th, 2014 METHODOLOGY: The sample of Phase 1 was used in Phase 2, after drying. The component was tested for water tightness by directly spraying water on the membrane surface. 260ml of water were sprayed continuously on the seaweed membrane from a 30cm distance at a 90° angle, for a duration of 6′ 13″. FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: • The first layer of seaweed got wet early in the process. • The second layer of seaweed remained dry for the whole duration of the experiment. CONCLUSIONS: It is safe to say that a second layer of seaweed adds a certain level of water tightness to the building component, while maintaining some of its translucency. The air cavity between the layers can also serve as insulation. However, it should be noted that given the fact that the two layers are sealed, the moisture levels in the cavity remain unknown. Further research: A follow up experiment should be conducted where a triple layer seaweed component can be tested for translucency and water tightness.

METHODOLOGY: A triple layer seaweed component was constructed in order to optimize the aforementioned properties. The component consisted of three layers of wet seaweed laid between four (4) square wooden frames (side=20cm, thickness=1cm). The seaweed was connected to the frame using wood glue. Wood glue was also used to connect the frames to each other. Drying time: 24 hours FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: • The component was very rigid and strong. • The component’s translucency was dramatically reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Given the fact that the component’s translucency was compromised, the team reached to the consensus that this experiment should not be furtherly developed, despite the improvement of other properties.

33

Method Name 1 Surface Mounted Shoe Lace

Advantages

Disadvantages

Challenge

• Low labor intensiveness in small scale

• 2 additional materials

• Optimizing the tying way in order to avoid loosening of the rope

• Aesthetically appealing

2 Frame Imbedded Rope 3 Surface Mounted Dowel

• Flexibility

• High labor intensiveness in large scale

• Surface attachment, does not require depth

• Rope loosens with movement

• Reuse of materials

• Crack along the line of nails*

• Medium labor • 1 additional material intensiveness in small scale • High labor intensiveness in • Reuse of materials larger scale • No additional materials • Low production time • Allows for rotation

4 Centered Frame Dowel

• Not biodegradable

• Reducing number of holes • Tensing the rope

• Accumulation of water in the • Developing and dowel channel detailing the visible connection • Difficulty of dowel installation during real-time construction

• No additional materials

• Not easy to demount

• Tightness

• Difficulty of dowel installation during real-time construction

• Aesthetically appealing

• Defining the suitable nail size to avoid loosening of the rope and cracks

• Making the installation process easier

• Mass production • Allows for rotation Table.4 Results experiment 4

* It should be noted that the crack was observed on January 8th 2015, 45 days after the completion of the experiment.

Fig.26 Surface mounted shoe lace

34

Fig.27 Different connection methods

6.1.4 EXPERIMENT 4 MODULE CONNECTION November 18th, 2014 OBJECTIVE: The objective of the experiment was to define a mechanical attachment for the triangle modules to produce the most efficient system. The following sub-objectives were derived from that: • Low labor intensiveness • Demountability

beams were drilled together to ensure the accuracy of the drilling point. A round wooden dowel of 10mm diameter was inserted in the channel to secure the attachment of the beams.

CONSTRAINT: Following the overall constraints set for the project, it was the team’s consensus that any material used for the mechanical attachment should be environmentally friendly and biodegradable.

• Centered Frame Dowel: No additional materials are introduced. A 10mm hole was drilled through the center of the wide side of each beam. Adjacent beams were drilled together to ensure the accuracy of the drilling point. A round wooden dowel of 10mm diameter was inserted in the holes to secure the attachment of the beams.

METHODOLOGY: The samples used for testing the attachment methods were pairs of MDF beams 250x 38x16 mm. In order to define the most efficient mechanical attachment four (4) different attachment methods were tested: • Surface Mounted Shoe Lace: Adjacent beams were tied together on the surface using two (2) additional materials – metal nails and natural fiber rope. Ten (10) metal nails of 15mm length and 1mm diameter were hammered in a straight line along the side of each beam, with an interval of 20mm between them. Adjacent beams had a displacement of 10mm regarding the starting point of the nails. 1.5mm thickness rope was used to tie the nails to one another. The result resembles tied shoe laces. • Frame Imbedded Rope: Adjacent beams were tied together using one (1) additional material – natural fiber rope. Ten (10) holes of 4mm diameter were drilled along the wide side of each beam with an interval of 20mm between them. Adjacent beams were drilled together to ensure the accuracy of the drilling point. The beams were tied together with 1.5mm thickness rope passing through the holes. • Surface Mounted Dowel: No additional materials are introduced. A channel of 10mm width and 18mm depth was drilled on the side of each beam. Adjacent

CONCLUSIONS: Methods 1 and 2 allow for more flexible and temporary connections, while methods 3 and 4 allow for more secure and tight connections. It is clear from the experiment that method 4 gives the most safe and reliable result, despite some difficulty in inserting the dowel in the holes. FURTHER RESEARCH: Method 4 is decided to be furtherly developed. The team is considering assembling the triangular modules in hexagon super-modules that could possibly also act as the load bearing structure of a building.

CRITICAL DECISION #3: AFTER EXPERIMENT 4, THE TEAM WILL PURSUE THE REST OF THE EXPERIMENTS USING WOODEN DOWELS AS A JOINING METHOD BETWEEN BUILDING COMPONENTS.

35

Fig.28 Hardener applied to triangle seaweed

Fig.29 Dried hardener on seaweed piece

Fig.30 Dried hardener on triangle seaweed

36

6.1.5 EXPERIMENT 5 HARDENING November 21st, 2014 OBJECTIVE: The objective of this experiment is to minimize the brittleness of the dried seaweed. METHODOLOGY: The method used to reach the objectives of this experiment is applying a hardener to the material. The hardener applied is Paverpol7. One layer of hardener was applied by hand with bare fingers on three (3) different pre-existing samples. Drying time: 24 – 48 hours SAMPLES: • Pre-tensed dry triangular seaweed membrane • Pre-tensed (in one direction) wet quadrilateral seaweed membrane • Pre-tensed dry overlapping seaweed membranes FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: Sample 1: During drying time: The hardener dries after 15 minutes. The seaweed’s consistency turns “leathery” and develops flexibility. Contrary to the pre-hardener brittle state, this “leathery” consistency allows the material to be bent and shaped to some degree. The material gets shiner. After drying and hardening: The membrane is obviously stronger and less brittle. It is also glossy. The translucency of the material remains the same.

CONCLUSIONS: Applying a hardener gives strength and rigidness to the material, partially solving the problem of brittleness. It also secures the overlapping of membranes, thus providing the possibility to create larger surfaces. All in all, applying a hardener sets new limits for the material and expands its capabilities. The final outcome depends on whether the hardener is applied on dry or wet seaweed. It is assumed that applying it on a dry surface is safer, as there is no risk of trapped moisture leading to mold. FURTHER RESEARCH: Additional testing is to be done regarding the hardener’s water tightness. The possibility of creating larger surfaces with the assistance of the hardener needs to be explored. Further experimentation needs to be done with applying hardener on both sides of the membrane.

Sample 2: During drying time: The hardener dries after 120 minutes. The seaweed’s appearance is mat, presumably due to some absorption of the hardener. After drying and hardening: The membrane is obviously stronger and less brittle. It is darker than samples 1 and 2. The translucency of the material is less than samples 1 and 2. Sample 3: During drying time: The hardener dries after 15 minutes. After drying and hardening: The connection between the seaweed overlapping parts appear to be stronger. The membrane is obviously stronger and less brittle. It is also glossy. The translucency of the material remains the same. 7 Paverpol is a Dutch product, usually used by artists to make large objects from materials such as textiles, paper, leather and other natural materials. It is harmless to people, animals and plants. It is waterproof and adhesive and becomes hard when dry. It dries completely transparent. http://www.paverpol.com/prestashop/en/

37

Fig.31 Varnished and hardened seaweed

Fig.33 Hardened seaweed close-up

Fig.32 Hardened seaweed

Fig.34 Hardened seaweed triang;es

CRITICAL DECISION #4: AFTER EXPERIMENTS 5, 6 AND 7 THE TEAM IS CONFIDENT THAT THE MATERIAL SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A HARDENER AND A VARNISH AFTER DRYING. APPLYING THESE SUBSTANCES TO THE COMPONENT DRAMATICALLY IMPROVES ITS STRENGTH AND WATER TIGHTNESS, THEREFORE MINIMIZING TWO OF THE BIGGER PROBLEMS THE TEAM HAD TO FACE UP TO THIS POINT. HOWEVER, IN ORDER NOT TO COMPROMISE THE COMPONENT’S BIODEGRADABILITY AN APPROPRIATE HARDENER AND VARNISH SHOULD BE SELECTED. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE VARNISH USED IN THE EXPERIMENTS IS NOT BIODEGRADABLE, SUITABLE VARNISHES CAN BE FOUND ON THE MARKET.

38

6.1.6 EXPERIMENT 6 WATER ON HARDENER November 24th, 2014

6.1.7 EXPERIMENT 7 VARNISHING November 25th, 2014

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this experiment is to determine the water tightness of prehardened samples.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this experiment is to ensure the water tightness of the building component.

METHODOLOGY: The methodology used to define the water tightness of pre-hardened samples was directly pouring water on one side of the membrane for 5 minutes on samples 2 and 3 of Experiment 5. FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: Sample 2: While getting wet the membrane turned white. After drying, the material’s flexibility increased, presumably due to some absorption of water. Water did not pass through the other side of the membrane. Sample 3: While getting wet the membrane turned white. After drying, the material did not lose its rigidness and the overlapping attachment remained intact. Water did not pass through the other side of the membrane. CONCLUSION: The hardener appears to have a satisfactory level of water tightness, if applied on a dry sample. FURTHER RESEARCH: To secure the water tightness an additional layer of varnish should be applied to the samples.

METHODOLOGY: The method used to ensure the water tightness of the components was applying a layer of varnish with a brush to one side of two (2) different samples. The varnish used is RUWA.8 Drying time: 3 hours (Dust dry) 24 hours (Fully dry) SAMPLES: • Pre-tensed dry seaweed membrane clamped in triangular wooden frame9 • Pre-tensed and pre-hardened dry overlapping seaweed membranes10 FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: Varnish dries glossy, providing a lustrous finish and enhancing the aesthetic appearance of the samples. It also dries clear while maintaining the material’s translucency. The material’s strength increased, while its brittleness was reduced. The overlapping attachment of sample 2 remained intact. Sample 2 is stronger than sample 1, due to the existence of hardener. CONCLUSIONS: In combination with a hardener, a final coat of varnish increases the strength of the membrane, reaching a satisfactory level of brittleness. The final outcome appears to be suitable for a component of the building industry. FURTHER RESEARCH: To gain more information about the water tightness of the varnish, a sample should be placed and monitored in external environment for a period of time. Real-life moisture conditions should indicate the water tightness of the material. 8 RUWA Jachtlak 9 Sample of Experiment 3. 10 Sample 3 of Experiment 5.

39

Fig.34 Overlapping and hardened triangle seaweed

Fig.35 Overlapping and hardened triangle seaweed

Fig.36 Overlapping and hardened seaweed - close-up

40

6.1.8 EXPERIMENT 8 GROWING BIGGER November 25th, 2014 OBJECTIVE: The objective of this experiment was to produce larger triangular components.11 These components could be easier to use in the building industry. METHODOLOGY: The method used to reach the objective of the experiment was overlapping pieces of wet seaweed in a set of triangular wooden frames. The seaweed pieces were attached to the wooden frames with wood glue. After drying, the membrane was hardened and varnished to secure the overlapping attachment. This method was applied in two different samples: • 35cm side length equilateral triangle The wooden frame consisted of six (6) 300x12x8mm beams. A quadrilateral piece of wet seaweed was set on the base of the triangle and a triangular piece was set on top of it. The overlapping between them was 5 cm. • 50cm side length equilateral triangle12 The wooden frame consisted of six (6) 500x22x18mm beams. Four pieces of wet seaweed were set within the frame. The overlapping between them was 5 cm. Drying time (incl. hardening and varnishing): 72 hours

CONCLUSIONS: The objective of creating a triangular component with side length > 30cm was met. It is clear that the use of hardener enables the production of larger surfaces. However, in order to do that the pieces that the surface consists of should be constrained in all of their corner points. In other words, large triangular surfaces can be constructed out of overlapping stripes of seaweed. FURTHER RESEARCH: At the time of the experiment the team only had access to pieces of seaweed with approximate maximum length of 40cm. However, Laminaria Japonica can grow in lengths of 100cm. Theoretically that means that components with maximum dimensions of 100cm can be produced.

FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: Sample 1: After the seaweed dried, the overlapping attachment remained intact. Hardener and varnish were applied to it within time intervals of 24 hours. After the complete treatment, the attachment stayed intact. The overall component appeared to be strong and relatively stiff. Sample 2: After the seaweed dried, the overlapping attachments failed. It is the team’s assumption that the failure occurred due to the fact that the pieces were not constrained in all of their corner points. 11 Up to this point the team had only managed to produce equilateral triangles with side length < 30cm, using single pieces of seaweed. 12 Sample 2 failed after the initial drying of the seaweed. Therefore no hardening or varnishing was applied to it.

41

Fig.37 Layering seaweed on top of surface

Fig.39 Wrapping the seaweed around the frame

42

Fig.38 Process of triangles - plane/hardened/varnisched/attached

Fig.40 Overlapped wrapped seaweed

6.1.9 EXPERIMENT 9 ATTACHMENT (Seaweed to frame) November 28th, 2014 OBJECTIVE: The objective of this experiment was to explore different attachment methods of the seaweed to the frame and define the optimal one.13 METHODOLOGY: This experiment tested two (2) different methods of attaching the seaweed to the frame: • Laying the seaweed on top of the frame: A triangular piece of wet seaweed was laid on top of an MDF frame consisting of three (3) beams 250x16x16mm. The seaweed was attached to the frame using wood glue. Clamping was necessary during the glue drying time. After drying, the membrane was hardened and varnished. • Wrapping the seaweed around the frame: • A triangular piece of wet seaweed was wrapped around a beveled MDF frame consisting of three (3) beams 260x16x30mm. The seaweed was attached to the frame using wood glue. Clamping was necessary during the glue drying time. After drying, the membrane was hardened and varnished. • Two (2) pieces of wet seaweed were wrapped around an MDF frame consisting of three (3) beams 265x16x30mm. The overlapping between them had a width of approximately 60mm. The seaweed was attached to the frame using wood glue. Clamping was necessary during the glue drying time. After drying, the membrane was hardened and varnished. Drying time (incl. hardening and varnishing): 72 hours FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: Method 1 was successful, while creating an interesting result regarding the aesthetic appearance of the sample. Method 2 was successful for sample (a), but the result was not equally satisfying for sample (b). CONCLUSIONS: Method 1 is a functional method of attaching the seaweed to the frame. Whether or not is going to be used depends on the aesthetic criteria set by the team. Method 2 is not functional when it comes to overlapping pieces, meaning that it can only be applied to a limited size of frame. Therefore, the team discards this method of attachment. FURTHER RESEARCH: Due to lack of time the team doesn’t have the chance to further explore Method 1. If one wants to pursue exploration of this method, aesthetic criteria should set the foundations for this process. 13 So far the seaweed had been constrained between a set of frames using wood glue.

43

Fig.41 Veneered piece of seaweed on wood

Fig.42 Seaweed staying outside

44 Fig.43 Seaweed staying outside - couple of weeks later

6.1.10 EXPERIMENT 10 VENEER November 28th, 2014

6.1.11 EXPERIMENT 11 STAYING OUTSIDE December 2nd, 2014

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this experiment was to design a new building component, suitable for solid surfaces.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this experiment is to determine the durability of the building component in a real-life external environment.

METHODOLOGY: The method used to design a solid component was veneering. A quadrilateral wet membrane of seaweed was wrapped around a rectangular piece of plywood 165x150mm. The attachment was done by applying wood glue on the plywood surface. After drying, hardener and varnish were applied to the component. Drying time (incl. hardening and varnishing): 72 hours FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: The final outcome satisfied the team to a certain degree. The seaweed was well attached to the plywood and the hardener and varnish added glossiness to the component, making it more aesthetically appealing. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that the result was satisfactory, the team feels that this experiment has not yet reached its maximum capabilities. However, there is definitely potential in developing this component and optimizing it. FURTHER RESEARCH: In order to improve the veneer a suitable piece of wood should be selected, preferably one with visible growth rings. The team suggests to redo the experiment at a later time using an appropriate piece of wood.

METHODOLOGY: In order to test the durability of the component a fully treated sample14 was placed outside and monitored throughout the duration of the experiment. Duration: 50 days FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: Throughout the duration of the experiment the sample experienced several weather phenomena, including exposure to sunlight, humidity, wind and rain. The sample remained intact at the end of the experiment. CONCLUSION: It is safe to conclude that the building component can outstand weather conditions for a short period of time. FURTHER RESEARCH: In order to test the actual life span of the building component, samples should be tested for a longer period of time. The failure point of the material will determine its lifetime. 14 The sample from Method 1 of Experiment 9 was used.

45

Fig.44 Hardened and varnished seaweed samples

Sample 1 2* 3** 4 5 6*** 7 8 9 10**

Fig.45 Testing the seaweed

Width [mm]

Length [mm]

60 50 30 45 50 47 55 55 65 45

190 185 183 180 178 180 180 184 185 190

Deflection [mm] h1 88 87 89 100 95 92 94 95 95 90

h2 78 75 79 80 84 80 86 80 80

w 10 12 12 20 11 14 9 15 10

Moment of Inertia [mm4]

Young’s Modulus [N/ mm2]

235.6 -

605 -

Table.5 Results experiment 11 Young’s Modulus

* Sample 2 was partially broken near the attachment ** Samples 3 and 10 were curved at a certain degree during the drying process *** Sample 6 had a hole on its surface and experienced failure while applying the force on it. Therefore no Young’s Modulus could be derived from it.

46

6.1.12 EXPERIMENT 12 YOUNG’S MODULUS January 6th, 2015 OBJECTIVE: The objective of this experiment was to determine the Young’s modulus of dried pre-tensed, pre-hardened and varnished Laminaria Japonica. Given the fact that the material has never been used for structural purpose, the only way to obtain this property was through experimentation. METHODOLOGY: The method used for obtaining the material’s Young’s modulus required consecutive measurements on ten (10) samples. Wet quadrilateral membranes of seaweed of average dimensions 100x200mm were attached on two sides on a frame made out of bamboo. The method of attachment used was applying wood glue. After samples 1 – 10 had dried, hardener and varnish were applied to them. Drying time (incl. hardening and varnishing): 72 hours The samples’ width [b] and length [l] were re-measured after having fully dried. A thickness [h] of 1mm was assumed.15 Given the fact that the dried samples were closer to U-beams, the team calculated the moment of inertia [I] of each sample using formula (1). where

3 3 2đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘?đ?‘?

3 3 â„Žđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą

2đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘?đ?‘? + + â„Žđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą 2 2 đ??źđ??ź = (đ?‘?đ?‘?(đ?‘?đ?‘? −− đ??´đ??´ đ??´đ??´ −− đ?‘Śđ?‘Ś)đ?‘Śđ?‘Ś) đ??źđ??ź = 3 3

2 2 2 đ?‘ đ?‘ + â„Žđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą 2đ?‘?đ?‘?2đ?‘?đ?‘? đ?‘ đ?‘ + â„Žđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą 2 đ?‘Śđ?‘Ś = đ?‘?đ?‘? − 3 3 đ?‘Śđ?‘Ś = đ?‘?đ?‘? − 2đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘?đ?‘? 2đ?‘?đ?‘?đ?‘?đ?‘? + â„Žđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą − 2â„Ž(đ?‘?đ?‘? − − (đ?‘?đ?‘? đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą)đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą) − đ??´đ??´ − đ?‘Śđ?‘Ś)2 đ??źđ??ź = 2đ?‘?đ?‘?đ?‘?đ?‘? − 2â„Ž(đ?‘?đ?‘? 3 A concentratedđ??šđ??šforce was applied the of each sample using đ??šđ??š đ?‘šđ?‘šđ?‘šđ?‘š 1,017Ă— on Ă— 9,81 = 9,98đ?‘ đ?‘ == đ?‘šđ?‘šđ?‘šđ?‘š == 1,017 9,81 =center 9,98đ?‘ đ?‘ 2đ?‘?đ?‘?32 đ?‘ đ?‘ +force â„Žđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą 2 [F] can be calculated steel weights of 1.017kg. The overall 3 đ?‘Śđ?‘Ś = đ?‘?đ?‘? − đ??šđ??šđ?‘™đ?‘™đ??šđ??šđ?‘™đ?‘™ − 2â„Ž(đ?‘?đ?‘? − đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą) using formula (2). đ?‘¤đ?‘¤ đ?‘¤đ?‘¤ = =2đ?‘?đ?‘?đ?‘?đ?‘? 48 đ??¸đ??¸đ??¸đ??¸ 3 3 48 đ??¸đ??¸đ??¸đ??¸ 2đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘?đ?‘? + â„Žđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą đ??šđ??š = đ?‘šđ?‘šđ?‘šđ?‘š = 1,017 (đ?‘?đ?‘? − đ??´đ??´ − đ?‘Śđ?‘Ś)Ă—2 9,81 = 9,98đ?‘ đ?‘ đ??źđ??ź = 3 đ??šđ??šđ?‘™đ?‘™ 3calculated by subtracting the The deflection [w] of each beam was 2đ?‘?đ?‘? 2 đ?‘ đ?‘ + â„Žđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą đ?‘¤đ?‘¤ 2= final heightđ?‘Śđ?‘Ś[h2] from the initial height [h1] of = đ?‘?đ?‘? of − the center point 48 đ??¸đ??¸đ??¸đ??¸ 2đ?‘?đ?‘?đ?‘?đ?‘? − 2â„Ž(đ?‘?đ?‘? − đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą)

CONCLUSIONS: As expected, the material has a low Young’s modulus, meaning that it is highly flexible. Initial instructions that urged the team to simulate the material with leather were actually wrong, as seaweed has double the Young’s modulus of leather. However, the team is fully aware that this not an accurate result as a lot of assumptions were made, errors occurred and the precision of the measuring instruments was not as high as it should have been. Also, if the team had enough time, calculations would have been done for all of the samples, in order to derive an average Young’s modulus. FURTHER RESEARCH: It is proposed to redo the experiment ensuring that all of the samples would dry flat, resembling rectangular beams. Measurements will be easier to take and calculations will be much simpler. Also, sufficient time should be provided in order to derive an average Young’s modulus out of ten or more samples.

it. After inputting all of the date in formula (3), Young’s modulus [E] đ??šđ??š derived = đ?‘šđ?‘šđ?‘šđ?‘š =for 1,017 9,81 = 9,98đ?‘ đ?‘ could be eachĂ—sample. đ?‘¤đ?‘¤ =

đ??šđ??šđ?‘™đ?‘™ 3 48 đ??¸đ??¸đ??¸đ??¸

Due to lack of time and irregularity of the samples, Young’s modulus [E] was only calculated for sample 116, giving a result of 605N/mm2. FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: After applying the force on the samples, it was noticed that the samples regained their initial shape. The ones that were particularly curved (samples 3 and 10) did not fully recovered their curvature. 15 Presumably the thickness of seaweed has a fluctuation of 0.1mm, but measuring that was not possible with the instruments the team had access to. 16 b=8mm, d=60mm, h=58mm, t=1mm, s=1mm, A=74mm2

47

48

6.2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY The team started working on the project in early November, with high expectations and enthusiasm. All of the members of the team embraced Hannah’s idea as it is not often that one has the opportunity to experiment with things that have never been tested before. The originality of the concept was the driving force behind the design process. However, it has to be admitted that throughout the design process there were points where the team’s eagerness diminished. As it naturally happens in research by design, not all of the experiments were successful. The constraints set by the material were too tight, mainly because of the size limitations and the overall fragile character of dried seaweed. At a certain point the team even wondered if the project could have any meaning besides its obvious aesthetic value. The breakthrough came rather late, with the use of hardener and varnish. These coatings expanded the capabilities of the product in terms of strength and size, giving answers to the team’s main problems. The introduction of hardener and varnish in the design was what the team needed to regain its zeal and look at the project with a fresh mind.

49

7. Building the Mockup

50

Fig.46 Mockup visualization

BUILDING WEEKS

December 8th – 19th, 2014 OBJECTIVE: The objective of the Building Weeks was to create a prototype in scale 1:1 of an application of seaweed on façade suitable for a beach house or a beach pavilion according to the description of the final product, as discussed later in chapter 9. METHODOLOGY: Following the guide for the prototype with overall dimensions 1200x600x300mm, 20 triangular components were fabricated in total (10 of Case A, 2 of Case B, 4 of Case C and 2 of Case D). The assembly of the prototype went through the following steps: DAY 1: 1. Sawing the plywood beams in widths of 30, 20 and 10mm and angles of 15, 30 and 45° according to the component they belong to. 2. Manually sanding the beams to eliminate splinters made out of sawing. 3. Inserting beams in a temporary frame in order to check for errors and labeling them according to their place. DAY 2: 4. Drilling 8 mm diameter holes in the center of the beams in pairs, in order to maximize the accuracy of the drilling point and therefore the effectiveness of the dowel. 5. Sanding pre-fabricated dowels17 at 24mm length. 6. Creating the triangular frames by gluing the corners of them. 17 GAMMA 8x40mm wooden dowels

51

DAY 3: 7. Wetting the seaweed and let it in water for at least 30mins. 8.Cutting seaweed membranes in approximately the size of the frame. Allowing for 1 -2cm of shrinkage. 9. Gluing the seaweed between Frames A and B (Cases A, B, C and D) 10. Gluing the seaweed on Frame C. (Cases B and D) 11. Applying pressure using clamps. Allowing for drying overnight.18

FINDINGS / OBSERVATIONS: During the Building Weeks several problems occurred that were not anticipated. More specifically the issues fall under three main categories:

DAY 5: 14. Wetting the seaweed and let it in water for at least 30mins. 15. Gluing the seaweed between Frames (A+B) and C, for the double layer Cases B and D. Applying pressure using clamps. Allowing for drying overnight.

Plywood frame: • Despite the planning made ahead, there were inconsistencies in width, with margin of error 2mm +/-. These can be explained mainly due to the inexperience of the team members in using power tools. The inaccuracy can also be explained partially by the fact that the profiles were cut off from a 1x2.5m board which was too large to handle, consequently affecting the control over the material. • Quality control of angles (15, 30, 45°) was deficient, mostly because of inexperience. The smaller the angle the more difficult it was to cut the profile, resulting in noticeable imprecisions. • The use of the table saw combined with the density of the plywood resulted in splintering during sawing. • The orientation of the wood fibers affected the quality of the cut end result. • Errors also occurred during the gluing process of the frames. The amount of glue and the pressure applied during drying time could not be controlled resulting in imperfections in the final frames.

DAY 6: 16. Sanding the exterior surface of the triangular components to remove excess seaweed and minimize gaps between the frames. 17. Creating the final frame for the project according to the guide.

Seaweed membrane: • As mentioned before, the required drying time for the membrane (once attached to the frames) was significantly more than anticipated, as it is highly influenced by the indoor climate conditions. The high levels of humidity in the warehouse resulted in doubling the average drying time of the seaweed.

DAY 7: 18. Placing the components in the frame. 19. Inserting the dowels. If it is not possible to insert dowels due to inaccuracies, secure the attachment using natural fiber rope. 20. Drilling the side components to the frame.

Connections: • The biggest problem the team had to face during the building weeks was the selected connection method itself. Dowels in general do not allow for frame imperfections and inaccuracies. A high percentage of connections could be attached using dowels, but for the rest of them the inaccuracies were too high. Immediate action had to be taken, forcing the team to come up with solutions to the problem. Natural fiber rope was selected as an attachment method, as it had been previously tested on Experiment 4. • As it came to the group’s notice, the weakest point of the connections are the points where the triangle corners meet. The selected method of joining does not take into consideration these points, resulting in small but noticeable movement of the frames.

DAY 4: 12. Taping the inner size of the frames to protect the plywood from stains. 13. Applying hardener on both sides of the membrane. Allowing for drying overnight.

DAY 8: 21. Varnishing the front side of the membranes. Allowing for drying overtime. 18 Due to the fact that the humidity levels in the warehouse were higher and the temperature was lower than in previous experiments, the drying time was significantly more than what was initially calculated. Instead of 12 hours which is sufficient time in a dry environment, 24 hours were necessary.

52

CONCLUSIONS: Reflecting on the whole process of the Bucky Lab, the team realized that during previous experiments models should have been created with connections between more than two triangles, in order to test the frame in a larger application. Having to do these for the first time during the Building Weeks forced the team to confront and resolve various problems within a limited amount of time that could have been fixed in a different way.

Fig.47 Cutting the wooden frames

The team also realized that during the experimentation phase more attention was given to the seaweed, as it was a newly introduced material, resulting in less concentration in developing the frame and its connections. Assumptions regarding the structural performance of the frame were made based on a limited number of triangular components and connections. Also, quality control during the construction process should have been taken more into account in order to eliminate the inaccuracies, possibly using a control unit. Due to lack of time and inexperience this was omitted.

Fig.48 Sanding the wooden frames

Fig.49 Laying the frames together

FURTHER RESEARCH: For a future prototype the team advises in reconsidering the dowel as a method of connection as it demands high levels of accuracy. The team suggests further development of other connection methods tested in Experiment 4, using natural fiber rope that also enables the demountability of the structure. To produce the Mockup in larger amounts, one should think about manufacturing the modules with rapid prototyping techniques to make them more precise.

53

1. Sawing the wood

4. Laying the triangles together

54

8. Drying the seaweed

2. Sawing wooden beams

5. Drilling the dowel holes

9. Applying hardener and varnish

3. Sawing connection angles

3. Sanding the wooden beams

6. Laying the drilled triangles together

10. Connecting the triangles

7. Clamping the seaweed

11. Finished!

55

8. Structural Design

56

DIANA Analysis The structural analysis of the project was performed in Diana.19 The team chose to analyze one building component (frame and membrane) undergoing dead and live loads – the structure’s own weight and wind force respectively. During the analysis the team tested several models in order to optimize the existing design. The parameters altered in the models were the frames dimensions and the number and location of connections between the frames. As far as the original design is concerned, the displacements of the frame due to its own weight were minimal (0,3x10-3mm). The displacement of the seaweed membrane due to the wind force was 25,4mm, which was expected having in mind the flexibility of the membrane. Other examined cases included modeling a frame of 6mm thickness which resulted in bigger but still minimal displacements. This indicates that the frame could have been significantly smaller while maintaining structural efficiency. For example, a light aluminum profile could have been used instead of a bold wooden profile. However, the dimensions of the frame in the original design were not selected based only on structural criteria but on several other design choices. The current depth of the profile is not only necessary for the selected method of joining (dowel) but also for aesthetical purposes as well, as it creates an interesting shading effect. More importantly, the material of the frame has to meet the biodegradability requirements set by the team, automatically ruling out metal. The second parameter changed in Diana was the number and location of connections between the frames. Opposing the current situation with one connection in the middle of every beam, two more cases were tested with two supports at the end points of each beam or along the beam respectively. In the first case the displacements were bigger than the selected case, but still very close to zero. Contrary to what the team had expected, the displacements in the second case were not improved. All in all, the team came to the conclusion that the selected joining method of one dowel in the middle of each beam is indeed the most efficient one as it results in minimal displacement with lower labor intensiveness and material use.

Max. Frame Displacement (mm)

Fig.50 Displacement beams two constraints

Fig.51 Displacement beams one dowel

Fig.52 Displacement beams two dowels

Original Design (1 dowel in each beam)

Half weight (1 dowel in each beam)

Original weight (2 supports at each beam’s end points)

Original weight (2 dowels along each beam)

0.2x10-3

0.2x10-1

0.6x10-2

0.4x10-3

Table.6 Displacements of the wooden frame

CONCLUSION: The team safely draws the conclusion that the original design can withstand the applied loads. Despite the fact that the frame is structurally over-dimensioned, the team stands by the original design due to other aforementioned criteria. 19 Diana 9.5 © TNO DIANA BV

57

9. Seaglass 1.0

58

9.1 Description The final product of the Bucky Lab workshop is a triangular building component that can be used as a modular unit for the assembly of an internal or an external wall. This product is aimed to be used for temporary structures on the beach front, therefore factors such as short lifetime, low cost and eco-friendliness were taken into account. The module of Seaglass can be virtually applied in any façade application. The triangular shape allows not only for flat surfaces but for single or double curved surfaces as well. The most fascinating feature of Seaglass is that it can be completely incorporated in a beach structure as it is practically made out of beach elements. The seaweed along with the wood can fit perfectly in the seascape while causing no harm at all to it. All of the used materials, including the hardener and varnish, are made of natural resources and are biodegradable. Seaglass can be extremely appealing to users not only because of its translucency and natural green color, but above all because of the uniqueness of each component. In an entire façade one cannot find two identical units of color or texture. This is a tremendous aesthetic feature that no artificial glass or other substance can achieve.

9.2 Fabrication The main component (Case A – single layer) consists of a triangular seaweed membrane, clamped between a set of wooden equilateral triangular frames. Frame A consists of three beams 282x30x12mm20, while Frame B consists of three beams 282x20x12mm. The membrane is attached to the frames by wood glue. The seaweed is hardened and varnished in order to be able to resist weather conditions. These units can be pre-fabricated and easily transported to the building site. The triangular components are attached to each other on site using wooden dowels of 8 mm diameter. In order to provide different levels of translucency another component can also be manufactured (Case B - double layer). This component consists of two triangular seaweed membranes, clamped between three wooden equilateral triangular frames. Frame A, similarly to Case A, consists of three beams 282x30x12mm. Frames B and C consist of three beams 282x10x12mm each. A set of corner elements is also necessary, leading to the production of two right triangular components (Case C – single layer and Case D – double layer). Element

Material

Membrane

Seaweed (Laminaria Japonica)

Frame

Plywood

Membrane-to-Frame Connection

Wood glue

Frame-to-Frame Connection

Wooden dowel

Hardener

Paverpol ©

Water proofing

Varnish

Table.7 Material sheet of used elements in mockup

20 The 282mm length dimension was derived from the requirements of the prototype set by the Bucky Lab manual. Ideally this dimension could be between 300-400mm.

59

60

BEACH PAVILION Conceptual visualisation of an application for a Beach Pavilion shaped as a geodesic dome made by Seaglass Triangles.

61

62

BEACH HOUSE Conceptual visualisation of an industrialized application for the Seaglass module in a Beach House at the Dutch Seafront.

63

10. Seaglass 2.0

64

10.1 Industrialized Product The product of Seaglass has been developed up to a certain level throughout the Bucky Lab course, focusing mainly on the aspects of temporality and biodegradability. However, the team feels that different paths can be explored regarding the design of an industrialized mass production component that would be suitable not only for the seascape but for any environment – urban or natural. This component could be part of an external wall serving as a sun shader or even an internal partition wall. Following this reasoning, the group developed the concept of Seaglass to a product compatible with almost any façade. Seaglass 2.0 is basically a laminated version of Seaglass, as the expanded parameter of a building’s lifetime urges to protect the seaweed. In a production line large sheets of seaweed membranes can be produced (maximum dimension 1m) and dried in flat surfaces. These surfaces can remain solid or be laser cut in any desirable pattern.21 The laser perforated meshes can form surfaces of different transparency percentage. These panels can be placed on a façade according to the designer’s wish regarding lighting and privacy. The concept drawings of Seaglass 2.0 retain some of the initial design properties, such as triangular shape and the use of wood for a structural frame. However, lamination guarantees compatibility with any design involving glass. As seaweed is now laminated between two glass panes, it stands without question that it can be a part of either fixed or operable windows. One could ask “Why use seaweed when you can use simple glass or even tinted glass?” The answer to that question is simple: because no matter how well manufactured glass can be, it can never be capable of providing the unique character of seaweed. That is something only nature can do. 21 It is known that Julia Lohmann has already laser cut seaweed in her projects, therefore it is assumed that laser cutting the seaweed is possible.

65

Fig.53 Elevation seaglass 2.0 1:50

66

10.2 Technical Drawings The assembly chosen to be represented twodimensionally is the exterior facade of an imaginary building were the seaweed laminated glass is part of the exterior envelope of the building. Laminated Seaglass as a waterproofing component of a an exterior facade is one of the many industrialized applications the product can be used as. The system we selected to represent the industrialized facade consist of a single layer facade. Two main components are represented in the details. The wood superstructure self supported system attached to the building structural system via anchors embedded in the concrete and/or metal floor slabs. The leading shape of the superstructure is the hexagon. And the seaweed laminated glass as the secondary system, or window within the facade superstructure frame. The seaweed glass and its frame take the shape of triangles modulated to the hexagonal super frame. The waterproofing, light filtering and weather resistant components are functions assumed by both components. The accuracy of the dimensions and the exact location of thee layers of these components is clearly depicted in the 2-dimensional details, however its integration and relationship only is visible in the 3-dimensional drawings.

67

Fig.54 Section Industrialised Product 1:20

68

Fig.55 Detail Industrialised Product 1:5

69

Fig.56 Detail connection Seaglass 2.0

10.3 Potential Prototyping Techniques During the development of the mockup for the Building Weeks, we didn’t use any rapid prototyping techniques to manufacture the Seaglass modules. Our aim for this mockup was to develop a low-tech, sustainable and easy building component. Therefore the team mainly focused on temporality and biodegradability. Rapid prototyping, considered to be a high-tech manufacturing technique, didn’t play a role in this mockup design. We propose though that rapid prototyping could be a useful tool to manufacture the industrialized version of the Seaglass. The first aspect that could be used to manufacture the industrialized Seaglass is a laser printer. This laser printer could be used to cut the seaweed in any desirable pattern. The laser can perform meshes of different transparency percentage. The technique of laser printing the seaweed is already proved possible by the seaweed artist, Julia Lohmann (Dezeen Magazine, 2012; Lohmann, 2015). She uses this technique to make designer’s lamps. Therefore the team is quite confident that this technique could be further developed to use in the building industry. By laser cutting the seaweed, the membrane could get several transparency levels with which the architects can design facades and sunshades. A different level of transparency can be given to public or private spaces of a building. Another rapid prototyping technique that could be used for the industrialized Seaglass facades, is the CNC-miller to manufacture the wooden beams easily. The bigger the façade elements will become, the stronger the wooden beams have to be. By using the newest CNC-milling techniques to produce cross-laminated timber beams, high quality can be guaranteed. During the Building Weeks the team concluded that the triangulated design and the chosen connection method of the dowel demand a very high precision. Any inaccuracy effects the whole structure and the possibility of connecting the triangles with dowels. Therefore a rapid prototyping technique of the wooden beams would have been desirable. For the mockup probably laser printing would have been chosen to produce the wooden beams. The inaccuracy of the final mockup is a strong reason to use rapid prototyping the next time, although the first design choice was to build a low-tech product.

71

72

INDUSTRIALIZED SEAGLASS Interior view of an industrialised seaglass product in a highrise building showing the exterior facade.

73

11. Conclusions

74

Answering the Research Questions Having completed the project, it can be concluded that the hypothesis of the research is valid and the objectives are met. Seaweed can indeed be used as a building material within a sustainable way of building in the Netherlands seafront. As far as the research questions are concerned the following conclusions can be derived: • Thermal insulation can be achieved using seaweed in a conventional way, where it is used in a dry and crumbled form. However, given the fact that this is already a common practice in the building industry, this concept was not furtherly developed. An improvement of thermal insulation can be partially achieved by using a double layer seaweed component, where the air within the cavity is the insulator. Water tightness and air tightness are not 100% met within the timeframe of this course. However, a definite improvement in water tightness of the material can be achieved by applying a hardener and a varnish to it, the same way it would be applied to any natural material, e.g. wood. Also, adding a second layer of seaweed increases both the water tightness and the air tightness of the component. •The translucency of the material is a default property. It should be noted though that additional layers decrease the value of this property in the component. Therefore, some compromise has to be made in order to achieve the desired levels of translucency in combination with water tightness, air tightness and insulation. •The size of the material was restricted during the design process. Larger pieces are available although, if one wants to pursue industrialization of the product. The material has the unique ability to stick to itself when wet, that can be enhanced and secured with the use of a hardener and varnish. It can be safely assumed that surfaces with maximum dimension 1m can be designed. • Despite the team’s original interest in developing a concept where wet seaweed could be used in a structure, “Fighting water with water”, this idea was rejected. Maintaining the material wet for long periods of time will lead into rotting and decay, since the material is not alive. Therefore, the safest way to use seaweed in a building component would be in its dry state. • After multiple experiments the team realized that trying to maintain the material simple and untreated was not efficient, mainly due to

its fragility in its dry state. Treating the material with a hardener and a varnish increases the material’s strength while also improving other aforementioned properties. • As far as connections of the building components are concerned, the team is aware that this part of the research was not thoroughly examined, mainly because understanding the behavior of the seaweed was very time consuming. The selected method of dowel may work perfectly for an industrialized high accuracy product, but it is not ideal for a low-tech handmade construction. However, connections using organic materials such as wood or natural fiber rope can definitely be achieved. Therefore, the team proposes that this research question is furtherly developed within a bigger timeframe. All in all, the team succeeded in designing a building component that uses an unconventional material (seaweed) in a conventional way (window). Keeping it simple was not an easy task but the overall result meets the requirements set by the team. Despite the fact the fact that seaweed remains an innovative and unpredictable material, the team is confident that with further research the material can be developed and fully integrated in an architectural design. This research is the first step towards that direction.

75

12. Reflections

76

12.1 About the project Despite several hinders we had to overcome, the final outcome of our project definitely puts a smile on our face. Undeniably it was not a straight forward path up to this point, there were several high and low points. But even at the lowest point, the team remained driven and committed to the project. One of the very first dilemmas we had to face as a team was the decision of going low-tech or high-tech. Despite the very interesting ideas we had regarding a high tech approach to the project (including laser cutting, 3d printing, laminating etc.) the team favored the low-tech approach after all, because it was more appropriate for a temporary, eco-friendly, low-cost beach application. We do not regret this choice, but we feel that a high-tech approach could have been educating in other ways. The greatest misassumption we did was overestimating the capabilities of the material. Following our Material Science instructor’s, Dr.-Ir. Fred Veer, advice to keep the material simple and not over-engineer it, we tried to assign to seaweed too many properties. A single natural material can simply not be strong enough, water proof, air tight, insulating, translucent and aesthetically appealing all in one. Some compromises have to be made. After all, in real buildings different layers of construction are responsible for different properties of the outer shell. That is why the use of hardener and varnish to amplify the strength and water tightness of the material was a major breakthrough in our design process. Our only regret is not implementing this feature earlier in the process so as to have time to furtherly develop other aspects of the product, instead of focusing for so long on the aforementioned problems. As designers, the greatest ethical issue we had to face throughout the process was the matter of aesthetics. We were aware from the

very beginning that our project had a certain aesthetical appeal, not only to us but to anyone that had a chance to see it and touch it. The question that kept rising was “Is that all it can do? And if yes, is that enough?” After many long discussions, not only within the group but with our mentor Dr.-Ir. Marcel Bilow as well, we finally got to the point of embracing our project and stop second guessing it. After all, aesthetics is one of the greatest values in design and should not be neglected or underestimated. Sometimes a project sets its own course which might be somewhat a detour from the original path. However, you have to make the best out of it, even if it means you are changing the objectives. Nowadays we are proud of our product and aware of its assets that can be strong enough to support a design, besides the aesthetical point of view: biodegradability, translucency and uniqueness of each component. After all, who could have thought that a bag of dried salted seaweed could turn into a beautiful façade?

77

12.2 About Bucky Lab This semester’s Bucky Lab theme was admittedly not what we expected. Nevertheless it had everything the Bucky Lab is supposed to have: innovation, creativity and enthusiasm. One of the answers that we constantly had to clarify, mostly during the first weeks of the project, was whether we were designing for a beach pavilion or a beach house application. This binary character of the class created some confusion and made it very hard to keep every requirement at a satisfactory level while not compromising others. Another thing that was in some way unclear for us was whether or not we had to design for the beach temporary installations exclusively or for a more industrialized situation regarding other concepts as well. And if the latter is the case, how far should we go into designing and detailing, given the fact that a handmade prototype with a certain level of simplifications was also a priority? These questions made the design process a bit perplexing, but did not lessen our interest in the class or the project itself.

78

The building weeks, as it was expected, were the most fascinating part of the class. Having the chance to actually build our prototype in a 1:1 scale and see our project at its full potential was very satisfying. It was also very enlightening, as it made us face the real problems of fabrication, come up with solutions within limited time and reconsider some design decisions. The most valuable lesson we ‘ve learned is that it is impossible to get it right from the very first time, practice makes better and you have to be open to new ideas. One remark that we have about the course in general, is that it could have been better incorporated with other supporting courses, specifically Structural Mechanics and Material Science. Although we find the overall idea of dealing with the same project in all of this semester’s courses very interesting and instructive, we feel that the time planning defies the purpose. Having to perform a structural analysis or a material analysis at the end of the semester might be very useful for feature reference, but the findings of the research cannot be fully integrated within the current design. All in all, we evaluate the whole Bucky Lab experience as a highly educative and inspiring process form a designer’s point of view. We are confident that within this course we have grown as designers and learned valuable lessons.

12.3 Acknowledgements We would like to thank our Dr. Bucky Lab, Dr.-Ing. Marcel Bilow for helping us through this challenging project and teaching us that sometimes the answer may not be the one you are looking for but you shouldn’t give up. We would also like to thank our Material Science consultant, dr.-ir. Fred Veer who taught us how to stand by our ideas as designers and let the material speak for itself. Keeping it simple was his advice, but the way to do that is not simple at all. Many thanks go to Paul de Ruiter, our CAD instructor, who was willing to offer his advice not only for CAD related matters but for the overall design as well, inspiring us in many different ways. Finally, we would like to thank our Structural Mechanics consultant, Peter Eigenraam for helping us grasp the structural behavior of our project and understand the mechanics behind it.

79

80

81

13. Appendix

82

13.1 Material Data Sheet SCIENTIFIC NAME: Laminaria Japonica POPULAR NAME: Kelp GENERAL INFORMATION: Blade long-belt shaped, up to one meter long, 10-40 cm broad, with margin undulate and overlapping, thick at the middle and thin at the margin. COLOR LEAVES: Thick dark green; blade surface brown, occasionally glaucescent. TYPICAL USES: Food industry / Herbalist and cosmetics production PRICE SEAWEED: €12,50/kg (North Seaweed – dried and cut) €9,00/kg (Don Nang Hang, Delft – dried, cut and salted) PRODUCTION COUNTRIES: China, Japan, and Korea are the main producer countries. The kelp is also cultivated in other countries with cold water temperature, including the Netherlands. GLOBAL ANNUAL PRODUCTION: 5.7 million tonnes

83

14. References

84

14. 1 BOOKS LEE, M. (2014). Remarkable Natural Material Surfaces and Their Engineering Potential. Switzerland: Springer PAWLYN, M. (2011). Biomimicry in architecture. London: RIBA.

14.2 JOURNALS CALLOW, J. A. (1990). Advances in botanical research, Vol. 17. London: Academic Press Limited (pg. 271-273) HARDER, D. L., HURD, C. L. and SPECK, T. (2006). Comparison of mechanical properties of four large, wave-exposed seaweeds, American Journal of Botany 93 (10). pg. 1426-1432 WEGST, U. G. K. and ASHBY, M. F. (2004). The mechanical efficiency of natural materials, Philosophical Magazine, 84 (21), pg. 2167-2181

14.3 DIGITAL SOURCES RAPACKI, K. (2014). Julia Lohmann’s Department of Seaweed, Disegno.Daily [Online] 3rd April. Available from: www.disegnodaily.com [Accessed: 13th January 2015] LOHMANN, J. (2013). The power of seaweed, TEDxAlbertopolis [Online] Available from: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=DgGUgwQIHo8 [Accessed: 13th January 2015] LOHMANN, J. (2015). Work of Julia Lohmann. [Online] Available from: http://www.julialohmann.co.uk/ [Accessed: 13th January 2015] WIKIPEDIA. (2015). Saccharina Japonica. [Online] Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharina_japonica [Accessed: 13th January 2015] CES EduPack 2014 © Granta Design Limited

14.4 IMAGES p.4 GLAS, R. (2013). Strandhuisjes. [Online] Available from www.pinterest.com/pin/163677767679263899/ [Accessed: 19th January 2015] p.6 OEROL. (2015). Rooftoptiggerrr. [Online] Available from: www.oerol.nl [Accessed: 19th January 2015] p.8 OEROL. (2015). Dansers aan zee. [Online] Available from: www.oerol.nl [Accessed: 19th January 2015]p.12

LOHMANN, J. (2015). Work of Julia Lohmann. [Online] Available from: http://www.julialohmann.co.uk/ [Accessed: 13th January 2015] p.12 HILDERING, J. (n.d.). Kelp. [Online] Available

from jackiehildering.smugmug.com/Underwater/Sea- weed-kelp/ [Accessed: 19th January 2015] p.62 Used image for render SMISEK, P. (2014). House NB. [Online] Available from: www.frameweb.com /news/house-nb-by-nbj- architectes [Accessed: 23th December 2014]

85

86

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.