PING DOAN Arch 202 Final Journal
SITE ANALYSIS Reiman Gardens - Our Site Location: Ames, Iowa
Force Diagrams
Collages Jan 8 9
To begin our semester long design build project, we analyzed our site. We put a particular focus on the forces that we observed on the site. After observing, and taking notes of the forces on our site, we then abstracted those forces into 3 10”x10” drawings. My drawings had a focus on force of the sun affecting our site. This manifested as visualizations of the seasons.
Winter
Spring
Summer
Site & Section Jan 10 11 12
To accompany our 10”x10” force drawings, we did abstracted drawings of the site, and a section of the site. Sticking to my theme of seasons, I depicted the site and section changing seasons from fall to winter. This transition is shown through the color palette transition. Reiman Gardens
Site
Section
SITE ANALYSIS Final Force Drawing Jan 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
To end our site analysis phase, we were tasked to make 24�x36� drawing of the forces we wanted to represent in our site. I choose to continue my theme of seasons, and made an axon drawing displaying how the changing seasons can affect the shadows and colors on our site.
Ideation Sketch
Ideation Sketch
Final Force Drawing
ITERATION 1
Ebb & Flow
Group 1 Jan 22 23 24
Group Members: Cyle King, Allison Morgan Following up on site research and force drawings, we were split into groups and started studying precedents to try to generate ideas for an initial proposal. Our most developed idea was for a pavilion made from modular cube frames that resembled a butterfly in its form. I modeled our proposal in rhino
Perspective
Section
Group 2 Jan 25 26
Group Members: Tike Akintan, Kelsey Buenz After work in our first group, we were assigned new partners for another group. The goal was also to create another proposal that brings together the strongest elements of each other’s groups‘’ previous proposals. We continued with the idea of cube frame module. Our new form resembles an “X” in plan, and could be climbed on top of and had leisure space below. We ensure that the form and seating allowed for unobstructed sight lines towards Reiman and Iowa State’s iconic Structures, such as the butterfly wing, and the stadium.
Section - Tike Akintan
Perspective - Kelsey Buenz Site Lines
Group 3 Jan 27 28 29
Group Members: Jay Borgman, Jaya Tolefree, Jacob Gasper, Cyle King To further our iterative process, we choose our group members. Our group wanted to create a colorful pavilion based off of triangular frames. We wanted a playful experience with our pavilion that required physical interaction, so we closed some frames and left some open to create that desired spatial experience. To interact with our pavilion, users would have to climb on top, and crawl under it.
Concept Sketch
Perspective of Proposal - Jaya Tolefree
Parti Diagram - Jay Borgman
ITERATION 1 Entire Studio Jan 30 31 Feb 1 2 3 4 5
Group Members: Leslie Forehand’s Studio (14 other Students) After being in 3 different groups, the glass gathered together as a 15 person group to create one proposal to present to Reiman Gardens. This design kept the playful colors of my last group’s proposal, and made it the main theme of the design. Our design uses metal tubes as its structural frame. Iridescent panels are installed in the open spaces in the frame to create colorful interactions with light and shadow. The panels can be moved by the wind or by human interaction. I created the form in rhino based off of information obtained from our site research about which forces we should embrace, and which ones we should avoid.
Perspective - Jaya Tolefree
Forces to Embrace: Sunlight - Matt Townsley
Forces to Avoid Site Map: Drainage - Matt Townsley
Site Map & Sections - Matt Townsley
Pod 1 - Ahmed Alwalid
Inside Pod 1 - Jaya Tolefree, Matt Townsley, Me
Inside Pod 3 - Jaya Tolefree, Matt Townsley, Me
Pod 2 - Ahmed Alwalid
Pod 3 - Ahmed Alwalid
Inside Pod 1 - Jaya Tolefree, Matt Townsley, Me
From Outside of Reiman - Jaya Tolefree, Matt Townsley, Me
TYPOLOGY
Modularity
Modularity Group Group Members: Group of 15
Feb 7 8 9
After our first meeting with Reiman and hearing their feedback for what they liked and didn’t like about our design, we choose 5 different typologies to focus on to further our design process. The 5 typologies were framing, hammock, infill, modularity, and site. I choose to be in the modularity team so that I could have a chance to improve my grasshopper skills. Our group focused on ways that we could create rules and guidelines for our design to follow. The design would have to react and change depending on site conditions, such as tree placement and topography changes. Our group addressed how the design would change and in what ways, based on a set of rules we established.
Modularity Team
Modularity Team
Modularity Team
ITERATION 2
Ebb & Flow 2.0
Ebb & Flow 2.0 Feb 10 11 12 13 14
Group Members: Jay Borgman, Jaya Tolefree, Jacob Gasper, Cyle King After the 5 typologies met and presented their findings, we were given new groups to create another proposal based off of the new information obtained from the typology groups. My group’s main focus in our designing process was to create a form that was based off of a module, because modular designs give us benefits in terms of ease of construction and fabrication costs. Our new proposal used vertical pipes that are connected by colorful hammocks.. The hammocks create a curved and undulating form despite our modular frame being made of straight metal pipes. The modules used to create Ebb & Flow 2.0 was chosen, along with another design, as the modular basis of the entire design build.
Site Plan
Basic Module
Long Section - Cyle King
Interior Perspective - Jaya Tolefree
Perspective Rendering - Jaya Tolefree
Short Section
Hammock Usage - Jaya Tolefree
FORM Form Finding Group Feb 14 15 16 17 18
Group Members: Mary Le, Donovan Bunn After the review of Ebb & Flow 2.0 and many other proposals, Ebb & Flow 2.0 and another design called Opal were picked as the base module for the entire design moving forward. I was put into a group to try to design a form based off of the modules. My group wanted a monolithic form that spanned as much of the site as possible. I created the model in rhino. The Parts of the frame that are filled in are meant to be hammocks, since Reiman responded very well to it in our previous presentation to them.
Site Map
Rhino Model of Form
1/4" = 1' Scale Model - Mary Le, Donovan Bunn
1/4" = 1' Scale Model - Mary Le, Donovan Bunn
Proposing our form
STRUCTURE & FORM
Tangled
Structure & Form Group Feb 19 20 21 22
Group of 12 After presenting a possible overall form for the project and receiving critiques, I was put into another group to iterate a new version of the structure and form. This form, and one other structure would be presented to Reiman. Our group decided that an equilateral module would be better than an isosceles module. We then arranged the modules into a form. We used information gathered from the site group about desirable circulations for our visitors and used this to inform how we designed our structure and form.
Circulation diagram that informed our design - Mary Le
Diagram of structure & where hammocks fit into the design
Diagram of proposed wooden joint connections - Andrew Evans
Proposal to Reiman - Tangled Feb 23 24 25
Group of 10 One of two final presentations to Reiman. The design retains the monolithic form that was present in my previous iterations. Hammocks are infilled into each module.
Perspective Render - Multiple Group Members
Perspective Render - Multiple Group Members
South Section
Perspective Render - Multiple Group Members
West Section - Matt Koepke
TYPOLOGIES
Weaving
Weaving Group Feb 26 27 28
Group of 15 Following our presentation of Tangled and another proposal (Warped) to Reiman, the studio decided the elements we wanted to move forward with in the final design and split up work accordingly. Weaving hammocks was one of the elements that Reiman really liked and wanted to keep. Our group was tasked with finding materials and weaving patterns for the hammocks. Hannah Hogan and I made a small model of a hammock to try to test if there were any permanent sag issues in a material. We were also tasked with using grasshopper scripts to try to model two different weaving patterns in Rhino. Work from this time was presented to Reiman for the final presentation for them.
Study model to test permanent sag. Also to test an over under weave.
Climbing Knot Detail - Heather Schulte
Climbing Knot Elevations
Sitting Knot Elevations Sitting Knot Detail - Heather Schulte
FABRICATION
Keeper of Geometry
*Note: Keeper of Geometry/Fabrication work overlaps heavily with construction work
Keepers of Geometry March 1 - April 6
Overview of Role Once Reiman gave their approval for our design, the studio broke up into groups to specialize in certain roles so that we could begin fabrication and construction. I was chosen as a Keeper of Geometry along with Gautam Pradeep, Javier Rodriguez, and Tobi Fagbule. Our role as Keepers was to create a naming system for every part of the design, and then to categorize and label everything based off our naming system. We were also in charge of creating an accurate and up to date master rhino model of the entire design because all of the studio's drawings and construction documents were going to be extracted from our master rhino model.
Naming System March 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
We created a naming system and named every part of the design that we could to make fabrication and construction as simple as possible. We used a spreadsheet that all the Keepers constantly updated as soon as there was any change or addition to the design. We choose letters and numbers for the names that seemed logical and easy to understand. Our main goal was to make the naming system as easy to communicate as possible.
Module Sheet
Post Type Sheet
Labeled model to help us begin naming - Javier Rodriguez, Tobi Fagbule Joints Sheet
Rhino Model & Modeling Joint Connections March 4 - 23
While we were labeling the design, we were also starting to make the rhino model at the same time. Tobi created a wireframe based off the final form that Reiman agreed to, and made it more accurate and modular. The entire rhino model will be centered around the wireframe. Gautam then created a grasshopper script to generate all of the timber members around the wireframe. We then coordinated with the person in charge of structures and the joints in the design to model all of them in Rhino. This was an ongoing process, as joints were constantly changing based on professor feedback and a structural engineer's consultation.
Wireframe base - Tobi Fagbule
Gautam's Grasshopper script generated wooden members around Tobi's wireframe
Joint Connection
Joint Connection
Joint Connection
FABRICATION Rhino Model - Major Changes March 7 - 24
During the fabrication/construction process, many changes were made to the other the overall structure, form, and placement of the design. All of our wooden joint connections were changed to metal hub connections due to structural concerns. The entire structure had to be scaled down from a base 12' wooden member to a 10' one. The structure was then relocated to a spot about 30 feet north due to the current placement being to steep to build. The other Keepers and I modeled these changes as soon as possible once the decisions to change them were made.
March 12 - 19
Hub Changes
Example Hub A
Example Hub C
Joint to Hub Change Diagram - Gautam Pradeep
Example Hub Q
March 12 - 19
Scaling and Location Change
Scaled down model & placement change
FABRICATION Final Rhino Model March 24
Through many alterations and iterations, we created a final rhino model that was accurate to what we built. This model was used to create many diagrams and drawings.
Concrete Foundations
Structure: Timber Frame & Hubs Connections
Diagram of different components of the design - Gautam Pradeep Cables Added
Hammocks Added
Iridescent Infill Added
Final Rhino Model
Final Site Map - Javier Rodriguez
South Elevation
Long Section - Tobi Fagbule
West Elevation
CONSTRUCTION Weaving & Drilling March 19 - 26
Two of the first things to do when construction began was to start weaving together the hammocks and marking and drilling wood. We drilled holes into the wood so we could put our hammocks and cables on or through them.
Drilling into timber members
Weaving Hammocks.
Pouring Concrete Foundations March 30 31
I volunteered to go on site and start working on our concrete foundations. I got the chance to dig holes using an augur and pour concrete into sonotubes.
Waiting for concrete to be poured into the wheelbarrow
Using an augur to drill holes for concrete foundations
Finished pouring concrete (sonotubes visible in background)
Site Mulching & Infill Work April 2 3 4 5 6
Due to the amount of water accumulating on our site, we had to mulch the area to prevent flooding. During this time, I also worked on sorting infill panels and putting a coating around the edges of the ones that were damaged from the cutting process.
Dry Run & On-Site Construction April 7 8 9 10 11
After we got our timber in cut and drilled, and our hubs done, we started to try to piece everything together in studio before we got on site. This gave us insight into unresolved issues with our joints, wood, and construction methods, before we actually start building on site. On-site construction went very smoothly because we resolved many issues during our dry runs. On site, I helped put joints together, run cables, and install infill panels.
First Dry Run
Second Dry Run
Connecting hubs and wooden members on site
Running cables through the wooden members
Installing Infill
Final Build Day
FULLY BUILT
Photo Credits: Nick Nystrom, Joseph Kastner, Reinaldo Correa, and Gautam Pradeep