RESEARCH BOOKLET
DESIGNER / MAKER 2016 wk michelle chang
2
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
4
Thank you Adam and Chris for the opportunity to participate in a studio like this, for your encouragement, advice, time and knowledge, and for really looking out for us all semester long. To my groupmates Tom, Fady and Myron for kicking goals every week and making us such a strong team. To the rest of the Designer / Makers for all your weirdness and laughter (you know who you are). To our crits, the FabLab and workshop staff for teaching us tool knowledge and kept us from hurting ourselves. To the construction lecturers who helped us find solutions to our stability issues and Amanda my co-worker for your support throughout the semester. To Ross for your guidance in solving all our workshop woes and for not kicking us out of the workshop with our coffees... And last but not least to Ward from Waste / Smart for providing us with so much material and allowing a project of this scale possible to achieve.
This semester has gone by so fast - thank you all for making it enjoyable and memorable!
5
CONTENTS
6
1.0 Research p8
2.0 Concept Design p26
3.0 Design Development p38
4.0 Construction p68
7
1.0 RESEARCH PHASE
8
RESEARCH
We started with research into interventions, designer/makers, awkward spaces and our site - gathering pieces of information from both example and experience to inform our design.
“Let us assume a wall: what takes place behind it?� -Jean Tardieu
9
1.1 INTERVENTION
The semester began with the question “what is in intervention?”. I chose Janet Echelman’s work because of the story and process of how she came up with the idea to create these monumental yet delicate sculptures.
Originally a painter, Echelman began making sculptures when her paintings failed to arrive for an exhibition in India in 1997. Inspired by the fishermen and their nets that she saw there, she collaborated with them to make a sculpture for the exhibition instead and has since refined this traditional art-form into installations for cities around the world.
This particular piece in Boston is about the history of its location - the three void spaces in the sculpture referencing the ‘Tri-Mountain’ which was flattened in the 18th-century to build on; and each band of colour representing one of the six traffic lanes that once dominated the neighbourhood. Interventions therefore need not be something that changes the landscape into something new to be different - the same effect can be achieved by looking back.
It is also interesting that the lightness of the structures allows for it to be permanent as it doesn’t force its existence against any natural forces - it utilises gravity and blows in the wind rather than opposing it - a physical manifestation of resiliency through softness.
10
RESEARCH
‘A s if it w er e alr ead y h ere’, Boston 2 0 1 5 11
1.2 AWKWARD SPACE
MSD Eastern Stair I chose to analyse the stair because I had always felt quite uncomfortable using this entrance to the MSD - the steps feel dangerous with only narrow landings to walk onto the seating areas and the seating areas are too narrow to sit with your feet up but too tall to sit with legs dangling.
Discomfort: 1. Like having to scale a mountain 2. Confronting 3. Seating parts a bit too high - dangly legs 4. Rise to run ratio makes you feel like you’re going to fall off the edge of a cliff 5. Not quite wide enough to sit with legs up inside the step comfortably 6. Too exposed? Feels like a big stage towards Castro’s, maybe this was intentional
A quick google search led me to find that just a few centimeters difference is all it takes to make something comfortable or uncomfortable. With so many heights to accommodate making something suitable for all users is no easy task.
(from the Architect’s Pocket Book)
12
Average seat height:
440mm
MSD height:
500mm
Seat depth:
480mm
MSD depth:
840mm
RESEARCH
S ec t io n ( s h o wing the steep ratio of stair rise and goi ngs)
S ec t io n ( s h o wing the steep ratio of stair rise and goi ngs)
S ec t io n ( s h o wing the steep ratio of stair rise and goi ngs)
13
1.3 TOOLBOX / CADDY
We put to use our first workshop lesson on drill bits and screws by building our first assignment, a toolbox caddy.
Lessons learnt: 1. Square -off material before doing any measuring/ cutting 2. Pieces with the same dimensions can be cut one after another to save time on measuring out 3. Drill holes before countersinking 4. Don’t drill screw too close to edges of pieces or timber will split! And if the hole is marked out too close, angle the screw inwards. 5. To patch up gaps, use PVA and sawdust - then sand away the evidence 6. It’s hard to get things to align perfectly unlike in CAD drawings; so it tends to be good to have 1-2mm allowances when drawing?
Even though all the teams were following the same set of instructions, plan and example it was interesting to see how different our caddy’s ended up - some with rounded corners, others more angular. Because we had to sand the toolbox to patch up gaps we ended up with a really smooth toolbox overall as we sanded the rest of the faces since we were already using the tools.
14
RESEARCH
T op : A l i c e ’ s p hot o, B e l ow: O wn p hot o 15
1.4 ARKIM
Week three we were asked to research a designer maker. The practice I researched is a Melbourne based firm that used to be in the same co-sharing office I worked at during my year out. They are a design and construct practice that focuses on hospitality projects. While on our side there was always a disconnect between imagined and realised, Arkim built whatever they designed exactly as they designed it.
Arkim were also constantly building things and testing what they were going to implement like these lights - what would’ve costed hundreds of dollars cost them $50 to build out of an IKEA stool and some LEDs.
Simplicity as key to their design and gave their work a stripped back rawness. It also gave them the opportunity to try alternate solutions to problems like the outdoor bar table which is able to close down at night. Their process enriched their material palettes and more effort is able to be put into the design phase - whereas with the usual process most of the time gets eaten up by the documentation.
There’s also a lot more natural coherence brought into the design - materials for the wall are reused in the joinery and is reflected even in the food they serve. Not only did they design and construct Seoul Soul but also owned the restaurant so the food carries the same playfulness and is served in a sauna bucket.
Another designer maker that I considered researching was Alvar Aalto for the rattan wrapped columns and the handrails wrapped in leather in the Villa Mairea and Finlandia Hall. Aalto’s work shows a great appreciation for tactility and addresses the connection between materials and people. This was a key quality which we as a group saw as important quite early on in our site analysis and something we hope to also achieve with our installation.
16
RESEARCH
I m age s f r om ht t p : / / ar k i m . c om . au/ 17
1.5 SITE ANALYSIS
The site is a multi-purpose support space for the lecture hall which it sits next to. For normal lectures it is a place for students and for larger events it works as a ‘backstage’ where guest speakers can prepare away from the primary entrance. Because there is a wide open space in the middle of the site we found that people felt uneasy being there and tended to gravitate towards the walls and corners to achieve some sense of prospect and refuge.
Fady’s research also found that people tended to be quite hushed in the space and people we’re comfortable talking while waiting for lectures - perhaps because of how echoes reflect off the walls and how stern the site is. Along with its double height ceilings, massive walls and intense light source, this makes the site feel monumental and in some ways spiritual; adding to the feeling that we should be quiet in the space.
Entrance
F a d y ’s d i a g r a m s o f P r o s p ec t & Refuge 18
Leftover corner
L i ght
Back s t o t he wal l , l ook i ng out t o e nt r anc e
RESEARCH
S i t e c o n t ext : s u r r o u n ding gathering / waiting areas and locat i on of l e c t ur e hal l s
Our analysis of users of the site also found that students that tended to come into the space were the ones that preferred to sit at the front of the lecture hall perhaps to ask questions and participate in the lectures; however when waiting they were very much non-active participants of the space and there was no interaction between students.
... ...
...
A d is t c o n n ec t ed wa it ing space with students in their own per sonal sp ac e 19
In our site-measure up we found out from the fire-escape plans that the corner space just below B1 wasn’t in the original plan. The lift was pushed out creating the left-over space which we eventually used as our site.
The site lets very little natural light in with only a sliver of light coming down from either side of the stair and lights coming in from the lecture hall and B1 level. Within the site itself there is an intense ring of warm lights besides the eastern wall that creates really strong shadows on the site. This makes the rest of the site quite dark, particularly behind the columns and above the lights.
F i r e e s c ap e p lan
L i g h t, s h a d o w a n d c o lo u r with site plan overlayed on top 20
Actu al si t e
RESEARCH
L i ght S our c e s: • l e d s und e r hand r ai l • 8-b ul b p e nd ant l i ght • nat ur al l i ght • f r om b 1 ar e a • f r om l e c t ur e hal l
Dar k A r e as • c e i l i ng / gr ound • c or ne r s • und e r st ai r • b e hi nd c ol um ns
L i ght A r e as: • c e nt r al / m i d d l e • op e n sp ac e • b and s of nat ur al l i ght • f r om b 1 ar e a • st ai r
Ax o n o met r ic s h o win g light & shadows 21
The site has a simple material and colour palette - concrete, aluminium and plasterboard all in different greys. Mostly matte with the exception of the columns, the site feels quite flat in its first impression. The materials make the site feel cold and hard and this is also reflected in the way sounds bounce off the walls creating an echoey space as mentioned earlier.
Even though the surfaces on the site are large planes of a single material we noticed that site still had a lot of textural interest and unevenness; giving ‘life’ to the concrete as we can see the marks of someone’s arm movement as they have gone to smooth out the precast panel.
Words which we would use to describe the site include: monumental, stern, stoic, unchanging, hard and unaccommodating.
Lib r a r y
T u t o r ia l
M y r on ’s s o u n d an alys is
M a te r i a l s & Co lo u r 22
Atrium
Site
L e c t ur e
S i t e af t e r l e c t ur e
RESEARCH
T om ’ s s h ad o w a n alys is
The eagle is a feature of the basement donated to the university by sculptor Andor Meszaros in 1971. It draws the eye upward towards the void-space above as well as to the 8-bulb pendant lamp which casts multiple shadows and blurs your outline which we could even interpret as a blurring of a sense of self.
T om ’ s t ext u r al a n alys is 23
1.6 EARLY IDEAS
Early ideas included a concrete seat for people to look upwards - Fady was very interested in the idea that people are not interacting with each other in the space, that there was a sense of solitude and because of this the space was filled up really quickly as there are only a few surfaces to sit against. His research on prospect and refuge showed how people prefer to have views of the site which quickly ruled out placing seating in the middle of the space as that location would be too exposed. At this point we were still unsure of where we would place our intervention - whether it would be an extension of the wall or not. If we were to design out of concrete it would make sense to have the structure against the wall as if it were growing out of the building. Our intention to work with concrete was to design something soft, crafted to the human body to firstly contrast with the hard surfaces in the space as well as to describe to users the softer side of the material - that it is able to moulded and formed into curves and volumes other than slabs.
How can we engage students outside of the discipline into the experience of architecture?
We discussed that because the site is used primarily by people who don’t study architecture it gives us the opportunity to engage users into the experience of materials and the building through the intervention which we propose. A clear relationship between the building and the intervention must therefore be established - and we think that this can be best done through the use of concrete as the building flows (hopefully) seamlessly into the design or vice versa.
24
RESEARCH
25
2.0 CONCEPT DESIGN
26
CONCEPT
The concept design phase was a process of synthesizing and distilling all the information we had gathered about the site. Often we found ourselves in conflict as the site lent itself to multiple opposing interpretations.
“The cause (of the frustration), I believe, is the complicated and intense pressure of the fact that architectural design operates with innumerable elements that internally stand in opposition to each other‌ â€?
-Alvar Aalto
27
2.1 INITIAL CONCEPTS
To get the ball rolling we quickly brainstormed the key ideas for what we wanted to achieve with our site. Things that we established were:
1. We don’t want the space to attract more people than the users that already inhabit the space. 2. It has multiple functions (for example during events vs its normal use as a waiting space before lectures or meeting place). 3. Verticality is a key aspect of the site. 4. Tactility is important and therefore how the insertion wears over time will be an interesting aspect. 5. Concrete as our main material of choice at it would continue the language of the existing site.
When thinking about ceilings, height and verticality one of our first precedents was the ceiling panels of neon tiger on Malvern road by SIBLING:
N e o n T i g er Cafe, Ma lver n b y SIBLING h tt p : / / s i b lin g n a t io n .n et /p r oject/neon- tiger- caf e/
Myron’s concept model of floating disks based on the Neon Tiger precedent and using circulation as attractor points in grasshopper to create a parametric form. This concept looked at changing the height of the space in different areas of the site, the concept of the bottleneck leading into the lecture hall was based off this idea. This concept tries to tie in all the ideas we had about expansion and release, height and particle to whole. The criticism that we received on this concept however was that the scale of the idea may be too big making it unachievable. We would also struggle with having to hang objects in the middle of the space.
28
CONCEPT
M y ro n ’ s c o n c ep t g r a s s hopper script & model
I n i t ia l s ket c h id eas ( c lockwise from left: materiality, compres si on and r e l e ase , d i f f e r e nt l e v e l s of use (an i d e a f r om t h e B1 g r o u p ) , b o t t leneck, particle to whole, height and verti c al i t y , m od ul ar i t y , sof t v s har d ) 29
2.2 CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
Our initial ideas were driven by: 1. Materials (concrete + timber) 2. Height (how to emphasise this through contrasts? Expansion and compression) 3. Modularity (particle to whole) 4. Social connectivity (or lack thereof)
At this point the group was still thinking of the design as a furniture piece, influenced by previous ideas we had and primary function of the space which is to sit in. Tom had a quite strong notion that the object should be used by only one person which I wasn’t sure about. Based on the feedback in class it would however not be enough as a concept to create a seat and I was worried that the scope of the project would be too small for a group of 4 if we were to create just a chair for one person; particularly if they were made to the dimensions of an individual which doesn’t address the social interaction aspect of the design.
There was some disagreement within the group at this stage as to which direction we should take the project as Tom was worried that the interaction and fun aspect of the idea would take away from the quietness and quality of solitude in the space.
We then considered taking the interaction and applying it to the seating like a ‘skin’. Other ideas that we came up with in class included: 1. Wearing away a material like Core10 using patterning and by people tracing patterns of the maze with their fingers 2. Hand cranks and flipping / moving 3. Idea of velvet and how if you brush your hand one way it leaves a pattern
Feedback from Adam and Chris was to distil our ideas down to their core essence in order to find common ground to synthesise our ideas. We had also been primarily working on paper and digitally which was probably limiting the amount of play which we had in generating our ideas.
30
CONCEPT
Pa rt ic le t o w h o le
T r e e c ol um ns t o b r i ng p e op l e away f r om e d ge s
An in t er a c t ive w ait in g game
L e av e y our m e ssage
31
2.3 FOR THE INDIVIDUAL OR FOR MANY?
What I liked about the interactive concept was its ability to address our site from multiple angles. It is personalised to the individual in the way that people can leave their own mark on the wall. At the same time, it is also satisfying the need for social connectivity but done so in a passive manner such that the interaction is indirect. What we hope to bring across with this idea is that interaction can happen even when two people aren’t in the same place at the same time - that there is something that connects on a much deeper level if a message has to be ‘understood’ by the other party as it is something that is out of our control.
The spinning blocks idea however is something that is too recognisable as it exists in playgrounds and wouldn’t be site specific enough. It also allows almost too much freedom to the user to write rude things on the wall and doesn’t ensure that what people create will be good for the site. We had to come up with something more unique to the site and with a limited degree of ‘play’ which was later informed by our choice of material.
32
CONCEPT
spin... spin... spin leave your message...
dark
light
C on c ep t d iag r a m s 33
2.4 PRECEDENTS
Precedents that we started to look at too were split flap displays and mechanical dot signage. Though it would be unlikely that we could create something as complex as this what I liked about it was the clicking sound of things when they are moving - at first I had ideas about how the blocks could have beans or small objects inside creating a rain-like sound as you turned the blocks.
Myron also found various examples of interactive installations and art projects that are created through user-interaction. Some are visually informative, others like the everbright encourage social interaction through play. What we don’t want however is a ‘play-thing’ as you would imagine in a playground as our site is not your typical public space, hospital or office - it would be addressing the severity of the site with too much conflict and we want to be able to add or maintain the existing monumental qualities to the site.
34
Id e ntity Tapestry, Mary March, 2 0 1 3
W hat Mad e M e , G r ab k owsk a and Kol e c 2012
Everbright, Hero Design 2 0 1 5
Pom Pom M i r r or , Dani e l Roz i n 2015
CONCEPT
Ar d u in o c o n t r o lled flip- dot display
S ta n fo r d Fa llb lat t a n ze iger 35
2.5 SKETCH MODELS
The sketch models helped us to explore interactivity that isn’t as straightforward as leaving a message on a wall. These options explore modes of play that still allow us to create and leave a mark but don’t for example require us to draw pictures or write words. I felt working with physical materials was a great way to explore tactility and as a means to generate ideas.
We found out from Adam and Chris that there was free material available from the waste recycling company Waste / Smart in Dandenong South - this led us to decide quickly on our material of choice. Tom made a sketch model using skewers and straws which we discussed could be PVC pipe and the dowel.
Adam and Chris also suggested simply building a frame with plywood and holes cut into it for the dowels to sit in - then finding some way of stopping the dowels so they don’t fall out.
F i x e d s p ac in g , s c r een -like
36
Form growing 1 (mass) - usi ng a fixed type of joint to al l ow students to create a mass
F or m gr owi ng 2 (t r e e ) - si m i l ar t o 1 b ut wi t h a d i f f e r e nt j oi n. T he j oi nt ge ne r at e s t he f or m .
CONCEPT
C omb in in g c o n c ep t s : particle to whole / movable & interactiv e / t ac t i l i t y
T om ’ s d o w el wa ll wh ic h was the starting point of our f inal desi gn 37
3.0 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
38
DEVELOPMENT
We learnt by doing and in the design development phase. Every step pushed the project forward regardless of whether it was a success or failure.
“Imperfection is in some way essential to all we know of life... And in all things, that live there are certain irregularities and deficiencies, which are not only signs of life but sources of beauty�
-John Ruskin
39
3.1 ON SITE AT 1:1
We found that the best way to work out the dimensions of the spaces which we wanted to create was to be on site at 1:1. Often we don’t have the luxury to design on site in architecture however I feel that it is so much better to know exactly how a certain dimension will feel in physical space rather than just having it align perfectly to a round number in CAD.
Board size: 1200mm x 2200mm
The L shape following the existing shape of the corner was the most effective for our site. When reversing the corner, it seemed to intrude into the wider site too much and created a much more personal space rather than a communal one.
The L shape also created corridors that were just enough to fit one person which is an element we decided to keep. Another element we liked and wanted to include in the design was the height as it gives a sense of separation if people can’t simply tiptoe to look over the wall.
600m m t o fit o n e p er s o n 40
Interaction..?
F r am i ng
DEVELOPMENT
L -s h ap e o u t s id e
L- shape inside
S hor t wal l
C r ea t in g s p a c es ( all p hotos by Tom) 41
3.2 PLAN & DOWEL SPACINGS
Key dimensions: 600mm
for single person entry
1200mm
for wheelchair access
1500mm
allowance for turning circle
We started to work out dimensions for the design - 25mm thick plywood, 90mm x 45mm studs between sheets making a 3 sheet wall 255mm thick. The dowels would extend on one side 300mm on the long end and 50mm on the short end.
The plan is based off clearances for human and wheelchair access / turning circles. The east entrance would be wider at 1200mm to fit one wheelchair and the South 700mm for one person to enter.
The shorter south wall would be fixed to accommodate a seat which we felt wouldn’t take away from the language of the movable wall. This plan later changed however as we moved away from the need for a seat as there was structure and detailing to resolve before we could begin to design the seat.
42
DEVELOPMENT
1200m m e nt r y W he e l c hai r ac c e ssi b l e
6 0 0 mm entry Accessible by one p e r son at a t i m e
80
15m m hol e s f or l i ght
25m m hol e s f or d owe l
43
3.3 DOWEL SUPPLY
Fady and I made the trip up to meet with Ward, the managing director of Waste / Smart and to see what kind of dowels we could get. He told us that the dowels were factory seconds and so couldn’t be sold and if not used would be turned into wood chips. We later found out that the dowels would have costed us $10 each if we had bought them from Bunnings.
Material availability became a key factor in our design and was the reason for changing from blocks as our ‘unit’ element to dowels.
Dowels ranged between 15mm and 30mm though there seemed to be most of 22mm and 25mm which we began to design and prototype to.
Waste Converters / SMART Recycling 185 Dandenong Hastings Road Dandenong South 3175 44
DEVELOPMENT
Waste / Smart
T h e d o w els mixed in with recycled timber (Fady’s photo) 45
3.4 PROTOTYPING PART 1
The first thing we did after the mid-semester presentations was to make our first prototype.
M a k i n g a jig t o h elp d r ill t h e holes straight
S c r e w e d 3 s h eet s o f p ly t o g ether, we used a block to align the jig and nai l e d i t i nt o p l ac e 46
DEVELOPMENT
I t w as s t ill q u it e d iffic ult to drill all the holes straight down i nt o t he t hr e e she e t s - som e t i m e s t he d r i l l got st uc k i n t he w o o d c h ip s .
4. Alt er n a t in g d o wel & hole
5. A l l d owe l s 47
3.4 PROTOTYPING PART 2
Assembly through trial and error, using bits of timber stud to connect the panels, learning how to use power drills and screw positioning.
O n t h e f ir s t g o we h a d t h e screws on the outside, then removed it t o p l ac e sc r e ws on t he i nsi d e
F a d y m a d e a s ec o n d p r o t o t y pe with only 2 faces and dowels at 4 0 m m c e nt e r s whi c h wor k e d j ust as we l l 48
DEVELOPMENT
O n s it e lig h t in g
T h e s h ad o ws w er e t h e most exciting discovery 49
3.4 PROTOTYPING PART 3
I like that you can’t capture the movement in photos - that the full experience is only achievable when you’re in the space pushing the dowels. It’s not then an intervention that is about looks but one that is about touch which carries through the tactile quality which we wanted to express.
Lessons Learnt: 1. Should leave quite a few mm for slop (as they were hand-drilled & inaccurate) 2. Dowels may expand or split when applying finish and drilling in nails 3. Sound of the nails hitting the timber quite interesting 4. When using a spade bit the back rips out easily unless there’s a piece of wood at the back 5. As per Ross’ suggestion, after drilling we swapped the sheets around to hide the rough sides, we also may consider cutting the last sheets back to front if the CNC machine also rips parts out 6.Denser dowels feels better on the hands 7. We may not need 3 sheets of ply 8. The modules is a good idea in that we can assemble the wall in parts, making it easier to align the dowels between the faces and also allowing us to re-arrange the wall easily if the design changes
Reflection: We preferred the density of the dowels to be at 40mm centres (right, top) but the alternating dowels creates more shadows and different light qualities - note for next prototype on cnc. We were really happy with the way the wall is angled on site as the shadows cast by the dowels are a lot more interesting than if they were directly facing the light. We tested this further in the CNC prototypes later on.
50
DEVELOPMENT
40m m c en t r es a b o ve, alternating dowels below
A p lea s an t s u r p r is e... we couldn’t have planned this better e v e n i f we t r i e d 51
3.5 TESTING AT 1:2
Once we had prototyped the modules at 1:1 we progressed to prototyping the overall structure. Adam was worried about the stability of our wall and asked us to prototype at 1:5 using card. Instead we decided to do a much larger prototype which gave us the chance to use the table-saw, band-saw and start thinking about the corner connections.
We found that our structure was slightly unstable with the angle that the elbow was at however the width of the wall was narrower than it actually is as we used thin plywood and lightweight timber studs. To steady the wall more, we decided to add another column of modules to the end to give the plan a ‘z’ shape and bracing the structure from tipping on the other side.
This was however not a perfect solution and we revisit the structure again later on in section 3.12 (p66).
52
DEVELOPMENT
C or n er s c o n n ec t ed b y triangle spacers
P u sh in g t h e w all a t it s corners - slightly unstable but the wal l sl i d e s i nst e ad of t i p p i ng 53
3.6 CNC PROTOTYPE
Things we had to test: 1. Correct dowel hole size (amount of slop) 2. How much CNC would cost us 3. What the file submission process is 4. Variations of hole patterning
(Test sheet 2400 x 930 x 18 thick - large sheets of spare material secured by Fady) We found out from the consultation at Fablab that they preferred not to cut the sheets at 600x600 because it leaves too little gap and relies on the edge of the sheet which they told us would be inaccurate. We then cut down the modules to 550mm which would make our wall slightly shorter and less wide.
Lessons Learnt: 1. Each layer is a different cutting line type 2. Can’t cut sharp corners because the tooling bit is rounded 3. Hole pocketing is using points to cut a certain hole size - could be useful if we decide to change the diameter of the hole sizes 4. Cutting time is expensive ($0.50 per minute) 5. Fablab job queues - we were told that it would take between 3 and 4 days but only too one day to cut the prototype! 6. CNC can be either inside the line or outside the line 7. Two modules took around 2 hours 20 mins to cut, 15 minutes tool pathing time which comes up to $85 8. Meaning CNC time is going to be one of our biggest costs 9. To save on toolpathing time, we were advised to set up more fab-lab consultations. 10. We decided against the extra holes for light as the depth of the wall probably wouldn’t let much light or visibility through and would be extra cutting time.
54
DEVELOPMENT
D o wel h o les at 16/ 17/1 8 , 2 1 /2 2 /2 3 , 2 3 /2 4 /2 5 , 2 6 /2 7 /2 8
M y ro n ’ s p a t t er n in g w hich we really liked but may not be feas i b l e wi t h our b ud ge t 55
3.7 PROGRAM
The program above splits up the workload with one important item per week adding as we go. Deadlines or key dates for when we will order in and transport things are marked in yellow. The Final deadline is in red.
Our program initially included time to design and build a seat but we later found that there were too many things to resolve with the modules and its construction to include it.
This however was helpful in determining critical paths for when we need to sort and transport the dowels, order in plywood and other material as well as planning for when to submit the CNC file to give ourselves enough time to build the wall.
56
DEVELOPMENT
57
3.8 OPC / BUDGET
Budget:
$200-250 each + $500 from uni
Total:
$1,300 - $1,500
The biggest costs for us were plywood and CNC routing which we had expected. Because we had made changes to our design weekly it was difficult for the calculations of material and budget to keep up. This made us under-estimate the amount of ply that we needed to order causing us to have to source more from elsewhere and pay for extra delivery. Luckily the B1 group had extra material and I was able to find some 12mm ply for the top-plate and timber studs at home to use.
Another unexpected cost was for fixings - I had mis-calculated the number of dowels that we needed in the first instance and secondly hadn’t accounted for the two fixings per dowel since we changed the length of the dowels and width of the wall.
Surprisingly CNC routing came in under budget - thanks to Adam who spoke with the Fab-Lab for us and we were able to charge this directly to the Uni.
58
DEVELOPMENT
Planned Cost Material
Source
Dowels
Waste / Smart
Plywood Sheets (C/D Grade)
Bunnings
190 x 45 Timber Stud
Bunnings
CNC Routing
Source
Unit
Price per unit 6 19.2
Unit
Total ($) 0
0
65
390
10.4 Price per unit
Final
0.5
Prototype
0.5
Fixings
Source
Unit
199.68 Total ($)
Price per unit
500 85 Total ($)
Fixings (Faces)
Fab-lab
192
0.184
35.328
Fixings (Dowels)
Elraco
1176
0.0184
21.6384
Delivery
Source
Total ($)
Dowels
150 Grand Total
1381.6464
Actual Cost Material
Source
Dowels
Waste / Smart
Plywood Sheets (Hardwood)
Plyco
Unit
Price per unit
Total ($) 0
0
8
82.5
660
Plywood Sheets (Structural C/D)
Bunnings
3
65
195
Plywood Sheets (C/D)
B1 Group (Plyco)
1
0
0
Plywood Sheets (Top-plate)
From home
0
0
35 x 70 TImber Studs
From home
0
0
MDF (for elbows)
From Chris
0
0
CNC Routing
Source
Final
Fab-lab
0.5
Prototype
Fab-lab
0.5
Fixings
Source
Dowels
Elraco / Bunnings
2500
Dowels
Workshop
1548
0
Faces
Workshop
336
0
Delivery
Source
Unit
Price per unit
Unit
Price per unit
337 85 Total ($) 80.72 0 0 Total ($)
Plyco
44
Bunnings Dowels
Total ($)
35 Air-Tasker
150 Grand Total
1586.72
59
3.9 STAINS & FINISHES
Using the ebonizing technique suggested by Adam, Tom tested out the finish on one of our earlier prototypes staining both the panel and the dowels themselves.
Reasons for raw: • Most of the site is raw and exposed materials • Less work • More pronounced shadows • Good contrast with the greys and blues on site • Lights are warm and gives the concrete a warm grey tone
Reasons for stained: • Will stop the final structure from looking unfinished or lacking in quality • Fits in with the colour palette of the site • Easier to hide amateur joining and craftsmanship • Could mean quicker work if we don’t have to get things absolutely perfect
We decided against black because it would save us time and we didn’t want to lose the shadows.
H a l f e b o n is ed h a lf n a t u r a l 60
Film- faced ply
DEVELOPMENT
S teel wo o l in vin eg ar f or a week
Two coats
End s soak up t he st ai n t he m ost
T h e s t ain c a m e o ff wh en oiling so isn’t as dark as when it wa s f i r st e b oni se d 61
3.10 RENDERS & 3D MODEL
M y r on ’s r en d er s o f T o m ’ s 3D model
These renders really gave us a clear idea of how the dowel wall would end up looking on site. We liked the black panel faces and how the natural dowels stand out on the dark background. As mentioned before however, we ended up going with natural ply as the film-faced ply would take away the shadows which is one of the things we liked about our first prototype.
62
DEVELOPMENT
63
3.11 RESOLVING DETAILS
Things we had to resolve: 1. Connection between modules 2. What happens in the corner where the dowels collide 3. How the base plate is connected 4. How the corners are joined 5. How far the dowels will be able to move
After a long tutorial discussion with Adam and Chris we decided to try the I-beam connection solution as the module faces themselves would provide horizontal structure to the wall, saving us on timber studs. The I-beam also tested to be very strong structurally and allows us to thicken the wall which we had to do later.
Tom worked out where the dowels would have to be shortened in the corners using his 3D model which is covered later in section 4.2 and 4.3 (p72).
For the connection to the base plate Chris advised us to domino the I-beams to align the two elements before fixing. We were still working out the corner joint at this point which is also covered later in section 4.4 (p76). What we had decided on though is the 300mm / 50mm extensions on either side of the wall to fit the body and tapering the length of the dowels towards the top for stability.
M y r on ’s in it ia l id ea s fo r c o nnecting using: 1 .Dowels 2 . Short Studs 3. L -shap e d st ud s 64
DEVELOPMENT
T u t o r ia l d is c u s s io n o n how the panels would join, shadowlin e s, shi p -l ap p i ng and st r uc t ur e
18m m p l y f or b ot h we b & f l ange
T o ed g e o f fi rst d o wel h ole
5mm
35mm
9mm
P r o t o t yp e o f I-b ea m c onnection which we used in the final d e si gn (F ad y & T om ’ s p hot o) 65
3.12 STRUCTURE / STABILITY
As our 1:2 model wasn’t quite as stable as we hoped Adam suggested that we explore other options to achieve greater stability. The models that we have been making however aren’t a good representation of the weight of the wall. We later decided to have the heavier 25mm dowels at the bottom and lighter 22mm dowels at the top as well as taper the dowels to achieve greater stability.
One idea was to have a wide base extending to the back wall. The base however posed too many problems to keep as an idea - we would have to figure out how to step the base to stop it from being a trip hazard and it would take away from the monolithic feel of the design.
Fady went to speak with the construction lecturers/ tutors and they suggested that rather than change the design we widen the base of the structure to 300mm and add a foot to the bottom of the wall. We decided to extend this foot 150mm out either side of the wall. We decided against adding a shadowline as we were keeping everything flush elsewhere and it may have made the connection between the baseplate and bottom row of modules weak.
T o m ’s m od el o f lt er n a t ive s hapes 66
DEVELOPMENT
O u r 1:2 p r o t o t yp e w all fell over in the wind... (Fady’s photo)
Luckily we won’t have to be dealing with wind loads in our site though we can expect people to be leaning and pushing on the wall. A worst-case scenario alternative would be simply to weight the wall down with sandbags or extra weight at its base.
L a y er s t o m o d el t h e t apering of the d ow els an d weig h t t h ese are a slightly w i der s t a n c e t h an o u r 3 D model a r ou n d 230m m wid e
2 - 3 - 1 module arrange m e nt , shor t e ni ng the middle wall
S hor t e ni ng t he wal l
67
4.0 CONSTRUCTION PHASE
68
CONSTRUCTION
We were able to start construction when the design was about 80% resolved - as we went along we could still make changes and improve as well as fix problems that we hadn’t expected to encounter.
“A design isn’t finished until someone is using it.” -Brenda Laurel
69
4.1 TRANSPORTING DOWELS
We made two separate trips to sort and to transport the dowels. A member of staff at waste / smart helped us build a palette for which we could load the dowels we wanted onto.
Initially we thought that we would need more than one palette of dowels as it was quite difficult to estimate the amount of dowels we had as they were all different lengths. At Waste / Smart we mainly sorted through what we wouldn’t want - ones that were too broken or odd sizes.
Tom organized the truck through Air-Tasker which was much cheaper than the quote which Ward was able to provide to us. Ward was however extremely nice to us and even arranged for a member of staff to supervise us while sorting and to help load the dowels into the truck. The dowels luckily just fit!
It was a struggle getting the dowels out of the truck at MSD as the forklift just hit the wheel of the truck - we had to force the palette out causing it to break but we still made it into the workshop. Then began the sorting - we tried as much as possible to bundle similar length dowels in groups of 10 according to their diameter.
While moving the dowel around the workshop we did a quick count and worked out that we’d have more than enough material for the wall and prototypes:
(Estimates, rounded down)
70
20mm dowel
1300m
25mm dowel
900m
CONSTRUCTION
The truck
All the dowels
Tidy!
F a dy a n d I s o r t in g d o wels at Waste / Smart 71
4.2 REFINING SPACINGS
Before submitting to the fab-lab for CNC we had one last refinement of the dowel spacings with the proper dowel diameters. We had two sizes of holes: 26.5mm and 23.5mm which gives us a 0.75mm space around the dowel. Though 0.5mm should have been sufficient this is to give us a bit more room in case the dowels had expanded from being outside or were not exactly 25mm and 22mm.
With the lighter 22mm dowel at the top and heavier 25mm dowel at the bottom, we tried to find a way to blend the dowels in the middle portion of the wall. There are four individual types of modules:
A - only 22mm dowel B - mixed 22mm / 25mm C - mixed 25mm / 22mm D - only 25mm dowel
The screws were also marked out - 9mm offset from the perimeter of each panel such that it would screw into the middle of the end caps that are 18mm thick. Screw holes were pocketed at 5mm depth. We were also told that the CNC may take longer than our prototype because we were using a non-FabLab material and hardwood meaning the drilling speed would have to be lower. A single middle screw is positioned for the timber studs going horizontally through the structure.
When laying out the file however I forgot to flip the opposite side of the panel as we have alternating sized dowels and an even number of dowels across in rows B and C. This however just meant that we had to flip the faces during assembly and drill a hole all the way through for positioning the screws.
72
CONSTRUCTION
12m m a llowance f or t o p -p lat e corner dowels
c or ne r d owe l s
A
B
C
D
D i st r ib u t io n o f 22m m and 2 5 mm dowels
min 45
EQ
sc r e w of f se t 9m m f r om e d ge
23. 5m m hol e s f or 22m m d owe l 26. 5m m hol e s f or 25m m d owe l
8x8
D o wel h o le s p a c in g & location of screws 73
4.3 DOWEL LENGTHS
When calculating dimensions, we had to balance between unmanageable decimal places and accuracy - the gradient for the dowels from the top to bottom isn’t perfectly 8mm all the way but that is to meet the 400mm at the top which had already been cut. Luckily being able to make changes as we go meant that my miscalculations (which were many) were quick to resolve.
Typical Taper Maximum dowel:
650mm (300mm / 50mm extension)
Minimum dowel:
400mm (100mm / 50mm extension)
Difference:
8mm
Corner Dowels Inner corner:
372mm (all rows)
Middle corner:
493mm (20 rows from bottom)
Outer corner:
601mm (7 rows from bottom)
We tried to keep things as organised as possible with lots of labelling and consistent naming.
F a d y ’s d i a g r a m o f m o d u les 74
CONSTRUCTION
Row
Length (mm)
25mm
22mm
a
Top Row
400
0
56
a
1
410
0
56
a
2
418
0
56
a
3
426
0
56
a
4
434
0
56
a
5
442
0
56
a
6
450
0
56
a
7
458
0
56
b
8
466
28
28
b
9
474
0
56
b
10
482
28
28
b
11
490
0
56
b
12
498
28
28
b
13
506
28
28
b
14
514
28
28
b
15
522
28
28
c
16
530
28
28
c
17
538
28
28
c
18
546
28
28
c
19
554
28
28
c
20
562
56
0
c
21
570
28
28
c
22
578
56
0
c
23
586
28
28
d
24
594
56
0
d
25
602
56
0
d
26
610
56
0
d
27
618
56
0
d
28
626
56
0
d
29
634
56
0
d
30
642
56
0
d
Bottom Row
650
56 TOTAL
300
Corner Dowels
300 50
0 1792
601
28
0
493
60
20
372
64 TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
64 236
2028
S e c t io n an d t ab le s h o wing dowel length, diameter and amount s 75
4.4 CORNER ELBOW
Even though we had started production of the modules we were still fine-tuning the design. While the triangle corner pieces may have worked well for the 1:2 model it was only being fixed to studs without any dowels in the way. Fady also mentioned that the construction lecturer suggested it would be good to have a column in the corner as well for rigidity.
The new corner elbow makes the corner modules themselves act like a column holding up the rest of the structure and can be assembled much more easily as we wouldn’t have to attach a face to cap off the module and then fix onto that.
The elbows are connected to the faces of the panels at the corners and extends to the center of each panel using the same technique we used to make the I-beams, making use of the leftover routed flanges after cutting the I-beams to size.
I felt that this was definitely a designer-maker moment in our process as we hadn’t been able to resolve the corner until we started to see the structure take shape. Having the off-cuts from the I-beams on hand allowed us to design it into the elbow which we probably wouldn’t have done without it.
76
CONSTRUCTION
P r evio u s s o lu t io n t o c orner joint
I-b eam flan g es r o u t ed w it h a 9 mm d eep g r o o ve
C or ne r d owe l s
Left over pie c e s from flanges
Fi xe d t o c e nt e r of m od ul e
E x plo d ed is o m et r ic o f corner modules 77
4.5 CNC PANELS & PREPARATION
Most of our time was spent in preparation work - cutting the dowels to length, measuring and drilling the 350mm from each end of the dowel for the screws.
1. C N C r o u t in g ma c h in e c u tting a total of 7 sheets
2. T e a r ou t wa s n ’ t t o o b ad b ut we sanded the panels using the rota r y sand e r t o gi v e i t a sm oot h f i ni sh 78
CONSTRUCTION
3. W e a ls o m a d e o u r own sanding tools by simply wrapping s and p ap e r ar ound a sm al l e r d owe l
4. Cu t t in g d o w els t o length, bundled according to dowel diam e t e r and i n gr oup s of 10 (Phot o b y F ad y ) 79
4.6 CUTTING & ASSEMBLY
While the preparation and assembly of the modules was going on we were building the structure at the same time.
5. C u t a nd r o u t ed t h e I-b eams using a f ew passes to have a 9 mm di t c h (T om ’ s p hot o)
6. C u t t i ng t h e b as e p lat e in 5 sections then dominoed to join (Myron’ s p hot o) 80
CONSTRUCTION
7. Co r n er ‘ elb o w s ’ were printed at 1 :1 then traced and cut wi t h a j i gsaw (M y r ons’ p hot o)
8. Mar kin g t h e b as e p l ate for dominoing 81
4.7 ON-SITE ASSEMBLY
The modules meant that we could begin assembly before everything was complete. We made sure to work from the bottom up to follow the build order.
9. R ow s D a n d C wa it in g t o be assembled
10. B a s e p lat e a n d I-b eam s waiting to be assembled 82
CONSTRUCTION
11. D o m in o es u s ed t o align the I- beams to the base plate, th e n f i x e d wi t h 3 sc r e ws i n e ac h
12. S t an d in g b u t n eed s to be braced! 83
4.8 ROW D
Once we put the I-beams in we had to quickly get the first row in place to brace the vertical structure.
13. P o s i tio n in g an d s c r ew in g down the base corner elbow
14. M y r on a n d I o n c o r n er s whileFady and Tom were marking out the p osi t i on of t he wal l on si t e (F ad y ’ s’ s p hot o) 84
CONSTRUCTION
15. Co r n er mo d u les are in place, these could be assembled as whol e m od ul e s (F ad y ’ s p hot o)
16. Fir s t r o w d o n e! Fo r the rest of the modules we had to tak e one of t he f ac e s of f t he n r e -asse m b l e agai nst t he I -b e am 85
4.9 ROW C & LEVELING
We found out that the gaps between the modules in the corners were caused by the floor not being perfectly level. It was then just a case of packing the modules out before screwing them in.
17. T om s t a n d in g o n o n e o f the modules to align it with the adjace nt f ac e
18. C h e ckin g levels 86
CONSTRUCTION
19. T h e g a p in t h e c o r ner
20. Ch ec kin g levels o n the other side 87
4.10 ROW B
After we had leveled out Row C, the next row up went up very quickly with only minor adjustments.
21. G o i n g u p !
22. W e f ixed m is c a lc u la t io ns in the elbows by adding extra blocks f or t he f ac e s t o f i x t o 88
CONSTRUCTION
23. V iew fr o m B1 b a lc ony
24. S t ar t in g t o p lay with patterning! 89
4.11 ROW A
We ran into issues with the top row as the positioning of the screws were wider that 300mm (wall width) and had to re-screw the dowels for the last 7 modules.
25. S te p la d d er fr o m MS D facilities
26. P r e d r illin g , c o u n t er s in king and screwing. We slid the modules d own f r om t he t op f or t he l ast r ow 90
CONSTRUCTION
27. Fixin g t h e en d -c aps which will be sanded af ter
28. Mo d u les all d o n e! 91
4.12 CAPPING & FINISHING
I wasn’t able to be in on Friday however my groupmates finished off the corner caps and top-plate. Tom also made a stop-motion of the whole construction process.
29. W e w er e r ea lly h ap p y with the height of the wall and glad that we we r e ab l e t o k e e p i t b y wi d e ni ng t he b ase
30. I t w o r ks ! 92
CONSTRUCTION
31. S c r een c ap t u r es fr om Tom’s animation
32. S u c c es s ! 93
4.13 REFLECTION
This is the first time that I’ve built something of this scale and it has been a truly satisfying and enjoyable process. Not only have our design decisions had real consequences the fact that everything has to be resolved has made it a really honest design excercise.
The most important learning experience which I will take away from this studio is how much we can learn just by doing. The thinking that happens when going through the process of making something is invaluable to the design process as there are too many unforseen factors for a person removed from the making process to even begin to realise. Experiencing the feedback loop between designing and making has changed my perspective of architecture in drawings - that a line is not just a line on paper but something that is built in physical space. Though it is unlikely that we will have the luxury of building a 1:1 prototype of a full-scale building it has taught me to appreciate the necessity of changes in the process of problemsolving rather than having to have a perfected design from the start.
What was most interesting about the process was never actually having a set of finished or up-to-date drawings of the design as it was constantly being updated. It made budgeting challenging though it meant that the design was continually being refined. Given that we wouldn’t have to update an entire set of drawings each time we make a decision the designer/maker process makes improving the design a much more straighforward process as it really should be.
94
CONSTRUCTION
95
P h ot o b y T o m 96
CONSTRUCTION
S ou r c e Nam e
S ou r c e Nam e 97
4.4 MAKING PROCESS
We put to use our first workshop lesson on drill bits and screws by building our first assignment, a toolbox caddy.
S ou r c e Nam e
S ou P h otr o c ebNam y Tom e 98
CONSTRUCTION
S ou r c e Nam e
S ou r c e Nam e 99
Thank You!