Folded Paper Pavilion
For Moscow Farmer’s Market
Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
General Requirements of Given Site................................................................................1 Explorations of Previous Studies and Materials..............................................................4 Realization of Successful Component and Materiality......................................................8 Evolutions of Assembly Aggregations...............................................................................9 Examination of Assembly on Site...................................................................................17 1:1 Fabrication Process..................................................................................................22 Future Considerations.....................................................................................................26
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
Project Site
E 3rd St Parking Parking
The market is located in Mosow, Idaho on Main Steet, with offshoots into 4th Street and 5th Street. There is a large parking lot a block away off of Jackson and some street parking along 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th.
Proposed Site Proposed Site
W 4th St
E 5th St
S Washington St
S Main St
S Jackson St
Moscow, ID
Farmers Market Area Farmers Market Area
N Main Street in Moscow, ID
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
E 6th St
1
Site Analysis The market stalls are firstcome-first-serve, but we have chosen a specific stall spot that would be ideal for our pavillion. It is in direct or indirect sunlight most of the day with the exception of shade from nearby trees. This combination of sunlight conditions offers the option of shade as well as the opportunity to cast interesting shadows.
Solar Radiation of Farmers Market
Shadow Study: 8am-1pm May 3rd 2014
Shadow study: 8am-1pm May 3rd 2014
Solar Radiation of Site
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
2
Programmatic Plan Our proposed site was chosen because of the sun and foot traffic.
721’-1 3/4” 118’-8 11/16”
It is located near parking and Friendship Square, where there will be a lot of people entering the market.
Proposed Site
15’-0”
B
C
F
Shadow Analysis
F F
F
Market Area
22’-0”
F
B
C
The pavilion is placed in such a way that it has a medium amount of solar radiation, so it will not be too sunny nor too shaded.
F
Access Points
Parking Lot 957’-11 1/16” Market Tents
B
F
B
F
F N
C Solar Radiation
86’-9”
F
F
C
F
Primary Movement Secondary Movement
Foot Traffic
730’-1 13/16”
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
3
Field Testing Our first components lacked a lot of structural dignity, so we moved on to a folded paper design that would curve inward when a force was applied and hold itself together.
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Downward Force on Unfolded Paper
Reaction on Unfolded Paper is Collapse
Downward Force on Folded Paper
Reaction on Folded Paper Distributed Load
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
First Component Design No Rigidity
Second Component Design Folded Flat
Third Component Design A lot of Wasted Material
Fourth Component Design A lot of Wasted Material
4
Component Design 1”
1/2”
3/4”
Final Componet Design
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
We have two different types of our single component: One with a tip, and one with two bases. This allows them to aggregate infinitely. 3/4”
3/4”
Downward Force Reaction On Point to Base Component
1”
1”
7/8”
Downward Force Reaction On Base to Base Component
The final component was a bow-tie shape with a triangular base and top that was cut out of a single sheet and folded up into its form.
2”
1/2”
2”
3/4”
Cut Fold
5
Component Testing Various structural testing techniques were employed to aid us in understanding the component’s strengths and weaknesses. It was found that any horizontal scoring damaged the structural integrity of the component, but vertical scores did not. Cutting any amount of material out of the sides of the components damaged its ability to hold weight because it took area away from the interior tabs that give it its strength.
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
Interior Horizontal
Interior Vertical
Interior Cross
Interior Diagonal
External Horizontal
External Vertical
External Cross
External Diagonal
Partial Truss Bracing
Diagonal Bracing
Edge Bracing
Full Truss Bracing
6
Component Testing Waffling and stacking methods were also explored fabrication methods. Waffling was very strong, but also time consuming and very wasteful.
Parallel Waffling
Perpendicular Waffling
Diagonal Waffling
Parallel Contouring
Perpendicular Contouring
Diagonal Contouring
Stacking lacked strength. The number of pieces involved caused it to lose its structural dignity when force was applied.
Cut Fold WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
7
Material Testing We quickly attempted to move forward from paper. Wood was obviously a poor choice due to its inability to fold. Metal could not be bent effectively to achieve our sharp angles, casting failed do to such a small mold, and bristol paper caused gapping in the full assembly because of a lack of flexibility. We settled on milk carton paper from the Lewiston paper mill. This material is very cheap if not free, local, reclaimed, strong, flexible, and waterproof.
34-Mile Route B
Inability to bend metal effectively
Moscow, ID
Casting Failure
A
Lewiston, ID
Gapping
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
8
Case Study We used the Shellstar Pavilion as an influence in much of our design. It posses arches with leg and celing conditions that create a structure that can hold itself up. We also drew upon the use of tabs and zip ties to connect our components.
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Shellstar Pavilion Arching Design
Pavillion Design with Arching Design
Shellstar Pavilion Connection Design
Pavilion Connection Design
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
9
Tab Connection We introduced tab connections to increase the flexibilty of our assembly. Rather than having a face-to-face connection, our components could now be spaced away from eachother more, which solved our gapping problem. The tabs were included into our template, and folding out using a ruler and creasing technique so we didn’t break the waterproof seal on the paper. They were then hole punched and eyeletted, and then could be connect to one other using zip ties. Glue connection
Tab and String Connection
Zip Tie Connection
Tab
1/8”
Eyelet
1/2”
Fully Assembled Component at Full Scale
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
10
Plan
East Elevation
Attributes -Small entrance for patrons
1st Gen
-Difficult for mutiple people to inhabit at one given time
-Large entrance for patrons
2nd Gen
-Easily habitable for multiple people at one given time -Extremely Symmetrical (Not designed site-specific)
Assembly Logics Our assembly started out with two legs and a small canopy. This design left little space of inhabitants and didn’t stand or hold weight well. The next evolution of our pavilion had four legs and a larger, highly symmetrical ceiling condition. This was great for holding more people but the amount of spanning needed and the large whole in the ceiling would have caused it to collapse. The final generation of our pavilion is in the form of a tripod shape with three lightweight ceiling panels. This allows people to flow in and out of the pavilion and holds itself up well.
-Ceiling is very massive
-Large entrance for patrons
3rd Gen
-Easily habitable for multiple people at one given time -Asymmetrical to accomodate for the flow of patrons with Downward Force Applied onPavilllion site -Ceiling is ‘lightened’ and become more massive at the landscape
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
11
Assembly Programs Our assembly consists of three different types of aggregations: landscape, wall, and ceiling.
Ceilin
g
Each aggregation is made of pentagon-units that consist of five components.
Wall
Landscape
Ceiling
6’
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
4’
6’
8’
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Landscape
Wall
4’
4’
Horizontal Panel
Vertical Panel
Dodecahedron
Light-weight panels
Provides support for
Support at legs, options
12
Canvasing and Ceiling
Ceilin
g
There are three ceiling pieces in the assembly. They are articulated by horizontal panels that are light-weight and can span large distances. Because the farmer’s market is in the summer and most of the market is in direct sunlight, provisions needed to be made for shade.
Wall
Landscape
After several different experimentations, we devloped a system whereby a piece of spandex could be stretched across a pentagon-unit on the ceiling panel and zip-tied closed to create shade. These canvases can be unhooked and moved around throughout the day to improve their effectiveness as the sun moves.
With gaps
Full coverage
Partial coverage
Final canvasing
Zip Tie Connection
Shading Ability
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
13
Footing and Wall
Ceilin
g
Landscape pieces are made from a full dodecahedion and have sand in the base that acts as a footing for the pavilion. It is strctural enough to support the legs and ceiling pieces.
Wall
The canvases can also be left loose and attached to a landscape element to create a basket for food or goods. Wall pieces are a partial dodecahedron that allow for arching. They have enough dimension to span between the landscape and ceiling pieces.
Landscape
Sand-filled Components
Sand sealed in a bag, then inserted into component
Ceilin
g
Wall
Multidimensional Wall Assembly Landscape
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
14
Forming Assembly The assembly can be built from the ground up, with some temporary supports needed until the structure is complete.
1st Step
2nd Step
3rd Step
4th Step
5th Step
6th Step
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
The pavilion starts out with landscape pieces as footings, then moves up into wall aggregations as it begins to arch. Finally, there are three large ceiling sections at the top.
15
Assembly Cuts Section cuts showing how the pavilion changes as the viewr moves through it.
H
H
G
G
F
F
E
E
D
D
C
C
B
B
A
A
Section Lines WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
16
On the Site The pavilion is located on a corner near other market stalls and coffee shops. There are no trees impairing a viewer’s ability to see it from a distance.
West of Paris Restaurant
Market Stalls
Bloom Coee
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
17
On the Site The pavilion is easily viewd from across the street and is large enough for several people to inhabit.
42’-3 1/8”
12’-0”
Bloom Coffee
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
Market Stalls
West of Paris Restaurant Main Street
18
On the Site The pavilion lines up with te other stall along the street.
Market Tents
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
West of Paris Restaurant Friendship Square Park
19
On the Site The pavilion is tall enough to comfortably inhabit, and it mostly open on the interior to allow for the flow of people.
Market Stalls
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
West of Paris Restaurant Main Street
20
On The Site The pavilion is located in an area that is not distrupted by too many buildings, bollards, or trees.
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
21
3’-0”
1:1 Assembly The fabrication started by copying our template on to a piece of MDF board, then sandwiching paper between two of those boards. It was then bolted together, cut out, and assembled.
1’-1”
6”
Carton Paper
CREASE CUT
MDF Board
3’-
0” WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
22
1:1 Assembly Within a weekend we mass produced about 70 components.
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Paper is stacked between boards
Layers are bolted together
Template is cut out
Holes drilled for eyelets
End Result
Tabs folded with a ruler
End flaps folded with a ruler
Eyelets inserted
Zip-tie connections between components
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
23
1:1 Assembly The components are connected using zip ties in the eyelet holes located on the tabs. When actually assembled on site, each program assembly is connected using white zip ties, and then those panels are connected with black. When being disassembled, the black zip-ties can be cut while leaving the white ones. Then when it comes time to reassembly the pavilion, only a few large sections need to be connected.
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
24
2.5 Hrs
Template Tracing
1 Hr
Production The first phase of our fabrication was done with a 2-man crew, because we only have one saw and too many people complicated the process. We moved up to a 3-man crew for folding and assembly, because we had more steps that needed to be completed. All of the fabrication can be done in a weekend, but the actual assembly can be finished in a matter of minutes.
MDF/Paper Stacking
1.5 Hrs
Template Cutting
1 Hr
Drill Guidelines
3 Hrs
Component Folding
5.5 Hrs
Eyelet Clamping
0.5 Hrs
Sand Insertion
1.5 Hrs
2-Man Crew
Assembly
3-Man Crew
The costs of our production were very low due to the use of reclaimed materials. After the up-front costs associated with our pavilion, the percomponent cost is under two dollars. If a component in the assembly fails, it can be replaced cheaply and easily.
Cost of Production Up-Front Costs
Per-Component Costs
MDF
50
Milk Carton Paper
0.71
Document Fastener
42
1/8� Brass Eyelets
0.62
7
Zip Ties (18)
0.36
Spandex Fabric (per yd.)
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
25
Critique’s Notes
Future Plans and Explorations
Rob’s Notes:
Reactions for Rob:
-How much tension can this module take? -Why did you go towards asymmetrical arrangement? -Need to keep it in compression and vault it more -Consider as a space frame- have a space frame as the ceiling and develop full 3D pieces
-Solve for the max tension that can be applied to the full assembly -Explore more iterations of the final assembly -Apply a more domed shaped structure to the assembly to apply more compression to the structure -Explore the full dodecahedron as the blocks of the assembly rather than The pentagon formation
David’s Notes:
Reactions for David:
Darrin’s Notes:
Reactions for Darrin:
-Bilateral symmetry about the radius, can complete 4 + 3 off the center
-The corners are the weak areas of the component; the joint at the corner is weak -Develop how you can modify the component and the gaps through a single edge, with new proximity to the edge for the connection -How does the eyelet and the tab become structure and integral to the expression of the structure -Thinking of curved bending with a stronger strength -Gaps are opportunity; potentially corkscrew the tabs at the corners -Ask yourself if the shape makes sense with the overall ball
WSU_SDC_Arch_301
Group 3 Jay Henson, Emily Moneymaker, Stephanie Chimonas, Berta Zubiate
-Develope the assembly with a symmetric axis
-Add tabs along the entire side of the component to supply support in the connections along sides. -Explore new ways of folding and allowing for less gapping and a Smoother assembled component -Figure out how to use eyelet as a clearer connection tool with the tabs and to other components in the assembly -Rather than folding from the bottom up fold at the sides to allow for a seamless edge rather than a cut edge -Rather that leaving gaps open experiment with closing them with an interesting connection different then the tab -If the dodecahedron is where the design moves to edit the component to adapt to the dodecahedron’s shape.
26