Bucky LAB - Light UP

TRACK | Building Technology COURSE| Bucky Lab Design - Design INSTRUCTOR | Dr.-Ing Marcel Bilow Ir. Sietze Kalkwijk DATE | January 28th STUDENTS | Aviva Opsomer 4288106 Fredy Fortich 4821858 Mercilia Lombe 4719859 Prateek Wahi 4934695 Yarai Zenteno 4922204

TABLE OF CONTENT

P AR T 01

P A RT 02

PART 04

PAR T 06

GROUP DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

EVALUATION & CONCLUSION

PART 03

2.1 Problem statement 2.2 Design Criteria BUILDING WEEKS CONCEPT 2.3 Research 2.4 Research conclusion DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Planning 2.5 Design Process 3.2 Prototype 1:2

1.1 Introduction 3.3 Model 1:10 1.2 Elevator Pitches 3.4 Building Process 1.3 Choosing a concept

P AR T 05

4.1 Materials Selection 4.2 Structural Analysis FINAL DESIGN 4.3 Belt Drive System 4.4 Assembly 5.1 General Drawings

5.2 Technical Details 5.3 Context Renders

PAR T 07

6.1 Prototype Testing 6.2 Prototype VS Final BIBLIOGRAPHY Product 6.3 Additional Product Applications 6.4 Recommendations 6.5 Personal Review

PART 01

CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Elevator Pitches 1.3 Choosing a concept

1.1 INTRODUCTION This year the AMC - Academic Medical Center Amsterdam asked TU Delft students to help them improve their building. The building was founded in 1983, making it one of the biggest hospitals in the Netherlands. This classical building not only serves as a hospital, but also as a university and a research facility. The Building Technology group was asked to propose a new innovative facade concept that would take into consideration one of the following aspects: - Energy - creating or saving energy (hot water, electricity ) - Solar shading - passive or active protection.

- Circularity – can we reuse the façade later?

- Low maintenance – easy to clean, replace or upgrade

This report describes the process that was followed to achieve a façade product for the AMC that can also be applied to other buildings.

It is a result of days of group discussions to come up with different alternatives that could best represent the goal, followed by tests with models and calculations; all based on extensive research on different fields.

The following report is divided in 7 parts, namely: 1. Concept development 2. Group design development 3. Building weeks 4. Technical Evaluation 5. Final Design 6. Evaluation and Conclusions 7. Bibliography and References

- Adaptability - Can the façade adapt to the seasons / climate change?

5

1.2 ELEVATOR PITCHES The firsts weeks were marked by the development of individual concepts to improve the faรงade of the AMC, concluding with the Elevator Pitch, where the concepts were presented in 1 minute on one slide.

The concepts of the members of this group can be found below:

RETHINKING SOLAR

MODULARITY

CIRCULARITY

NATURAL LIGHT

6

PART 01 | 1.2 ELEVATOR PITCHES

VENTURI + VANE

PASSIVE COOLING

ENERGY REDUCTION

WIND DIRECTION

SCALE UP

MODULARITY

SIMPLICITY

ADAPTABILITY

7

PART 01 | 1.2 ELEVATOR PITCHES

SCALE PANEL

FLEXIBILITY

ENERGY

MODULARITY

LIGHT OP

BRIGHTNIG

MODULARITY

NATURAL LIGHT

8

1.3 CHOOSING A CONCEPT Evaluating the 5 concepts we divided them into the different topics: modularity and shading, natural ventilation, energy storage, and light redirection. The concept “Venturi + Vane” was discarded since the team wanted to focus more on the energy and daylight problem of the AMC. The concept “Light OP”, “Rethinking solar” and “Scale Up” were all looking to solve the same problem, which was to provide the interior of the AMC building with more natural light and reduce the use of artificial light as much as possible.

Another aspect taken into consideration was that we wanted to give the patients a better experience during their stay at the hospital. With this in mind, the concept chosen was “Rethinking Solar”, which meant we could work with natural daylight, reduce the overall energy used to produce artificial light by the AMC and improve the user’s well-being, which we considered as a highly important aspect for a hospital.

9

P A RT 02 GROUP DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Problem statement 2.2 Design Criteria 2.3 Research

2.3.1 Winter and Simmer Angles

2.3.2 Heliostat Method

2.3.3 Curved Surfaces

2.3.4 Reflective Materials

2.3.5 Connections

2.3.6 Rotation Mechanism 2.4 Research conclusion 2.5 Design Process

2.5.1 Design Iterations

2.5.2 Parametric Modelling

2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT Of the total energy consumption of the AMC, 50% is attributed to lighting only.(reference, AMC

2% 1%

booklet) The fact that a huge part of the building’s floor area relies on artificial lighting is bad both

3%

from an energy and indoor comfort point of

8%

view. The aim of this product development lighting heating fans cooling humidification hot tap water summer confort

is thus to improve the daylight inflow into the

12%

50%

rooms of the AMC; thereby reducing the use of artificial light during the day and improving the patient recovery and general well-being and performance of any of its occupants. This also

25%

includes the hospital employees, researchers and students, which are expected to benefit from the increased daylight exposure in the form of better sleep quality (Boebekri, Cheung, Reid, Wang, & Zee, 2014) and a faster learning progress (World

CHART 1: Proportion of total primary energy consumption of the AMC

Green Building Council, 2017) respectively according to recent research.

11

PART 02 | 2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT In order to illustrate the problem, a daylight simulation has been performed for one of the crucial rooms (worst case - current scenario). It concerns the deep office rooms on level 0 of section K (K0-116, K0-117,...), as shown on the right.

K0-101 K0-104-1

K0-104 K0-105

K0-106

K0-107

K0-108

K0-109

K0-110

K0-111

K0-112

K0-114

K0-113 K0-102-1

K0-115

K0-116

K0-117

K0-118

K0-119

K0-120

K0-135 K0-131 K0-137

K0-122

K0-123K0-123-1

K0-103-2

K0-165

K0-139

K0-121

K0-103-1 K0-103

K0-102 K0-102-2

K0-163

K0-168

K0-169

K0-170

K0-167

K0-127

K0-173

K0-176

K0-125

K0-129

K0-133

K0-126 K0-162

K0-159

K0-158

K0-156

K0-154

K0-161

K0-152

K0-150

K0-148

K0-146

K0-144

K0-142

K0-140

K0-138

K0-136

K0-134

K0-132

337.0

300.0

318.5

281.5

K0-116

K0-117

K0-130

6.6 10.6

K0-166

K0-192

K0-101

K0-105

K0-106

K0-107

K0-108

K0-109

K0-110

K0-111

K0-112

K0-114

K0-113 K0-102-1

K0-115

K0-116

K0-117

K0-118

K0-119

K0-120

K0-121

K0-122

K0-191

K0-190

K0-123K0-123-1

K0-103-1

693

K0-206-2

K0-220

K0-103

K0-102

K0-298 K0-214

K0-102-2

K0-207

K0-103-2

K0-214-1

K0-215

K0-217

K0-165

K0-163

K0-206-1 K0-208-1 K0-219

K0-218 K0-206

K0-168

K0-208

K0-169

K0-202

K0-203-2 K0-202-1 K0-202-2 K0-203-1

K0-135

K0-170

K0-139

K0-131 K0-137

K0-167

K0-176

K0-125

K0-220-1

K0-211

K0-212

K0-213

K0-216

K0-173

K0-127

K0-126

K0-299

K0-161

GSEducationalVersion

K0-154

K0-205

K0-213-1

K0-210 K0-201

K0-159

K0-156

K0-204

K0-218-1 K0-209

K0-129

K0-133

K0-162

K0-158

K0-203

K0-152

K0-150

K0-148

K0-146

K0-144

K0-142

K0-140

K0-138

K0-136

K0-134

K0-132

337.0

300.0

318.5

281.5

K0-116

K0-117

K0-130

6.6 10.6

K0-166

K0-190

693.8

K0-206-2 K0-214 K0-207

K0-214-1

K0-215

K0-217 K0-206-1 K0-208-1 K0-219

K0-218 K0-206

K0-208

K0-202

K0-203

K0-203-2 K0-202-1 K0-202-2 K0-203-1 K0-209

IMAGE 1: AMC Office Building, level 0, section K K0-211

K0-212

K0-213

K0-204

K0-205 K0-216 K0-218-1

K0-213-1

K0-210

K0-299

K0-201

12

PART 02 | 2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT The problem is very clear in the daylight impression of the room shown on the left, where about ⅔ of the room appears to be rather dark.

The unequal spread of the daylight in the deep room can also be quantified in terms of illuminance results. While the values near the window are very high, and thus likely causing glare, the other ⅔ of the room has too low values. This does not only cause visual discomfort but also increases the artificial lighting demand.

A summary of the most important results is given below: IMAGE 2: Daylight Impression [DIALux evo 8.0]

DAYLIGHT FACTOR RESULTS DF_avg. = 1.843 % => very low: BREEAM requires avg.DF of at least 2% for HEA 01 Visual Comfort

DF_min. = 0.421 % DF_max. = 5.875 % => ∆DF = 5.455 % => deep space leads to unequal spread of daylight factor in horizontal plane, thus causing visual discomfort

uniformity ratio = 0.22 => low uniformity: BREEAM requires uniformity ratio of at least 0.4 [Simulation performed in DIALux evo 8.0. Daylight factor results for CIE Overcast Sky, 21 sept., 12:00]

PERPENDICULAR WORKPLANE ILLUMINANCE RESULTS IMAGE 3: Illuminance Result [DIALux evo 8.0]

avg. perpendicular illuminance on workplane = 453 lx => target (recommended) avg. illuminance of 500 lx for office function

low:

13

PART 02 | 2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

One of the most important factors to consider is the daylight factor, which can be used to determine the level of illuminance through daylight.

The DF does not include direct sunlight, but only diffused light which is emitted by the sky-dome. Although the diffuse sky component cannot be altered and as it was decided to prevent changes to the interior as much as possible in order not to disrupt the hospital and research centre’s daily routine, the solution to the problem lies in maximizing the inflow of direct sunlight. This has led to the following vision statement:

The daylight factor comprises three elements:

The aim of the design is to ‘capture’ the daylight (which would otherwise not be used) that falls on the opaque surface of the technical floors and spandrel zones and to redirect this natural light towards the back of the deep room of the level below. As each floor is alternated by a technical floor for installations, the design proposal can be applied on any set of two floor levels. Moreover, the façade product will be designed in such a way that it can be applied to any type of room (e.g. office, patient room, lecture room etc.).

“ WE AIM TO CAPTURE UNUSED DAYLIGHT FROM THE OPAQUE PARTS OF THE FACADE TO BRIGHTEN UP THE ZONES WITH INSUFFICIENT DAYLIGHT “

14

Recognizable product Low Maintenance (prevent box pigeon house)

Minimal Indoor Interventions

(prevent disruption of building’s daily routine)

Easy to Install Optimization (Situation Oriented)

Cost effective

(compared to new facade or installation of new window)

H a rd C r i t e r i a

S of t c r i t e r i a

2.2 DESIGN CRITERIA

Lightweight UV-resistant Minimal Self-shading (of one panel on lower panels)

Short assembly time

(prevent

disruptions of building’s daily routine)

Not Flammable

15

2.3 RESEARCH

A significant part of the project’s time was dedicated to research on various aspects. This section gives a summary of some of the most important research topics that were studied during the design development.

IMAGE 4: Project consultancy

16

PART 02 | 2.3 RESEARCH 2.3.1 W I N T E R A N D SUMMER ANGLES TIME 10:00

March 21 33.66

September 21 34.64

June 21 55.38

December 21 11.62

12:00

38.38

37.84

61.24

14.48

14:00

31.52

29.65

51.23

8.58

16:00

16.66

14.14

33.91

-4.38

TABLE 1: Solar degrees, in diferent seasons on Amsterdam

In order to maximize the light reflection on the design, a sun path study was performed. The sun angles were checked for each season, specifically for the location of the AMC building, Amsterdam, as represented in the table below.

June and December possess the maximum and minimum angle in which the sun rotates, respectively, which for the purpose of the project, the maximum and minimal degrees were taken in consideration in order to determine the range in which the indoor light could be improved through the proposed design.

IMAGE 5: Solar path on summer and winter

17

PART 02 | 2.3 RESEARCH 2.3.2 HELIOSTAT METHOD The optimal panel orientation had to be determined to maximize the light reflection from the system towards the dark end of the deep rooms. This was done based on the concept of a heliostat. This is essentially a mirror device which tracks the sun as it moves throughout the day to reflect the sunlight towards a predetermined target. The following steps were worked out to determine the optimal orientation of each separate panel: Step 1) Determine the angle between the sun rays, reflective surface 1 and the target reflective surface 2 Step 2) Determine the bisector of this sun-mirrortarget angle Step 3) This bisector is the normal of reflective surface 1 Step 4) From this normal one can determine at which angle reflective surface 1 should be placed for a specific sun position

IMAGE 6: Heliostat mirror system

The final target point is the reflective surface of the lowest panel, from where the light is directed into the room.

18

PART 02 | 2.3 RESEARCH 2.3.3 CURVED SURFACES

CONCAVE

CONVEX

Studies regarding curved mirrors were performed in order to explore shape optimization. Curved mirrors whose reflecting surfaces curve inwards are called concave mirrors, while those whose reflecting surfaces bulge outwards are called convex mirrors.

The purpose of performing this study, was to understand how the rays would perform in a non flat surface. It was noted that the concave mirror had the ability to converge rays, and the convex to diverge. This is an important aspect to take in account when defining the desired effect of the sun rays inside the room. During the optimization process, many different panel shapes and locations were analysed, as will be described in section 2.5.

IMAGE 7: Concave and Convex mirrors

19

PART 02 | 2.3 RESEARCH 2.3.4 REFLECTIVE MATERIALS

1

Material Acrylic Mirror

% Reflectance 99

UV-resistance excellent

2

Polished aluminium

95

excellent

3

White High Gloss Paint

75

good

4

Prism

NA

good

5

Mylar (polyester film)

98

fair

6

Aluminium Foil

88

excellent

7

Glass Mirror

99

excellent

8

Dielectric Mirror

99

excellent

The light not reaching the inside of the AMC is light wasted. Thus choosing an efficient reflective surface optimized for using available light and decreasing the need for artificial lighting was vital for the success of the project.

Although from Table 2 it can be seen that mirrors have the most favorable percentage of reflectance, the price and weight of this material would compromise the design criteria established for the project. Mainly, that it has to be lightweight (attached at the façade) and costeffective. The polyester film, which is available 1mm and 2 mm thickness, reflects 98% of light when undamaged. Nonetheless, this film is notably fragile making it susceptible to creases if not handled carefully. (Chalmers & Knox, 1971) Since the product’s vision is to get the natural daylight outside the building this meant the

TABLE 2: Reflectance and UV resistance of materials

polyester foil was not the answer since it has to be exposed throughout the whole year.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 20

PART 02 | 2.3 RESEARCH Despite aluminum foil being more resistant than the polyester foil, it had less reflectant percentage (around 88%) than the other options and it was extremely flammable. Looking into paint, various options were found such as titanium white paint and white glossy paint. titanium paint is very expensive, so the best option between the two was a white high gloss paint, which had even less reflectance than the foils (with a 75%) but it was easy to apply to any smooth surface. The problem with this coating was that the paint would require special additives such as a fungi repellent to make it ambient resistant. ( Paolini R., Borroni, D., Pedeferri M., & Diamanti, 2018) All this additions would then compromise the reflective surface and make it more expensive and maintenance dependant.

CHART1: Reflectance of Polished Aluminium

IMAGE 8: Polished Aluminium

Finally, polished aluminum proved to be the best option since the reflectance percentage even unpolished ranged from 90% - 99%, depending on the angle of incidence like its shown on CHART XX. Aluminum is also watertight, does not require constant maintenance and is excellent resisting the UVradiation.(CES Edupack software) Another important asset of this material is that it can be recycled or could be disassembled for future use since it has a long life span.

The last research challenge regarding the reflective materials was about a way to bring the natural light inside the room without causing glare to the user. Two options found were using a diffusive material or to hang baffles from the ceiling. Since the aim of the design was to disturb the inside activities the least therefore the baffles were discarded. A way to diffuse the light better could be to make the surface rougher so that the reflection is not total and the light that bounces is not as invasive as if it were a mirror.

21

PART 02 | 2.3 RESEARCH 2.3.5 CONNECTIONS AND DESIGN FOR DISASSEMBLY Façade elements are usually classified by their fabrication and installation strategy. During our research, we came across two essentially different methods to choose from: unitized vs stick system. Each system has its pros and cons that had to be analyzed to decide the most applicable system for our design.

UNITIZED When pre-assembled into rectangular panels, they are known as “unitized construction.”

Typical System features •Story height factory assembled units.

•Seals between units site applied or prepared in the factory •Higher cost due to maximized factory fabrication and use of bespoke extruded structural and onstructural components

Key benefits

Better quality fabrication and surface finishes can be achieved due to controlled factory environment

to minimize site storage and handling. Labor requirements and costs are minimized due to simpler installation

Access Requirements

Temporary Panel hoisting equipment. This is typically done by temporary lifting cranes/ winches on floors above or a monorail installed along the perimeter. (Allen, E. & Iano, J. , 2013) STICK When assembled on site, they are known as “stick construction;”

IMAGE 9: Unitized System. Center for window and Cladding Technology

Typical System features •Individual pre-cut and machined sections.

•Can be installed by several teams starting at difference locations.

•Opaque and transparent infill glazed in.

•Popular and economical.

•Performance is labor dependent.

•Slow rate of assembly

IMAGE 10: Stick System. Center for window and Cladding Technology

22

PART 02 | 2.3 RESEARCH Key benefits

Relatively more cost effective since the system uses simpler (and often off-the-shelf ) components.

The system design can accommodate geometry articulations without significant increase in cost.

structural profiles would have to be added behind the L-Shaped brackets. This is something that cannot be done within the time constraints and would need further research.

Access Requirements

Mastclimber /Gondola /Scaffolding–External Access is required for entire installation of the system which includes face fixed brackets, subframes and infill panels. (Allen, E. & Iano, J. , 2013)

Finally, the L-Brackets would have slotted holes with bolts running through them to allow for the module to be horizontally aligned when being fixed to the facade.

SUPPORT FOR EXISTING FACADE Since this system is meant to be attached to an existing façade, we chose multiple L-Bracket supports that could distribute the loads of each module more evenly. This would increase the amount of perforations but reducing their overall size of each bracket and hole. Some of these brackets would be vertically aligned and attached directly to the structural slab, although in other cases only the existing facade would be its main support. Naturally, the load bearing capabilities of the AMC facade would have to be analyzed in order to determine if additional 23

PART 02 | 2.3 RESEARCH 2.3.6 ROTATION MECHANISMS GEARS MECHANISM The initial idea was to work with a gear system that would allow the three panels to rotate simultaneously with a single movement. This is because the initial idea was to make the mechanism work manually and we could not assume the building user to know exactly how the system should rotate with the sun movement. Later on, this was changed to a motor operating the system, yet still with a single motor that could make all the panels move simultaneously. The main concept to understand in order to develop this system is ‘gear ratio’.

IMAGE 11: Gear system (https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/0/09/Determine-Gear-RatioStep-1-Version-9.jpg/aid1400346-v4-728px-Determine-Gear-Ratio-Step-1-Version-9.jpg)

Example: gear ratio 2:1 => gear A size = 2 * gear B size => gear A has 2 * as many teeth as gear B => gear A rotates at ½ * speed of gear B => gear B needs to make 2 * as many revolutions as gear A Also, if both gears need to rotate in the same direction, one needs to add an additional gear in between (called the ‘gear train’).

24

PART 02 | 2.3 RESEARCH CHAIN DRIVE MECHANISM As the rotation points of the panels are distanced quite far from one another, we moved from the gear mechanism to a chain drive mechanism.

This would also solve the problem of the rotation direction, as a chain drive mechanism makes the gears spin in the same direction.

Research was done in order to calculate the necessary chain length.

Firstly, the radius of the gears needs to be determined, based on what size is practical for the design and on the required force (gear ratio). An important aspect of gear sizing is the “gear modulus�, which is the ratio between the reference diameter and the number of teeth (MIT Fab Lab, 2009). Various different modulus ratios exist; the most common ones being 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0. With a known gear reference diameter, one can thus choose a standard gear modulus, which gives the number of teeth for that gear size.

Once the number of sprocket teeth (given by N in the image and formulas) and the distance between the two rotation centres Cp (expressed in number of links) are known, one can then calculate the chain length Lp with the following formula:

Reversely, if the number of sprocket teeth (N1 and N2) and the chain length Lp are known, it is possible to calculate the distance between the two rotation centres Cp (note that this value is here expressed in number of

A chain is composed of links which are attached to one another. Different chain types exist with different link dimensions.

IMAGE 12: Chain drive system scheme (https://us.misumi-ec.com/pdf/tech/mech/US2010_fa_ p3503_3510.pdf)

IMAGE 13: Chain link dimensions (http://gearseds.com/documentation/deb%20holmes/2.5_Chain_ drive_systems.pdf)

25

PART 02 | 2.3 RESEARCH As the chain length is calculated in terms of the number of links, this still needs to be expressed in metric length for practical purposes. Therefore, a certain chain type needs to be chosen. For example, two standard ANSI chain dimensions are given below (Gears Educational Systems LLC, 2002): #25 chain: pitch P = ¼” (6.35mm) #35 chain: pitch P = ⅜” (9.53 mm) In this way, the calculated number of links can be converted into the required chain length, expressed in mm.

During the design process, all these calculations were done several times due to changes to the design (for example, changes of position of the rotation points; changes of gear size etc.).

Important considerations in the design of a chain drive system: Horizontal arrangement: in case of a small gear (driver) and bigger gear as shown in the figure below, the driver should rotate anticlockwise because if it rotates clockwise, the chain will hang loose.

Vertical arrangement: in case of a vertical arrangement, a maximum angle of 60° is required and the smaller gear needs to be placed above the larger one. However, if the gears need to be aligned vertically, an idler is needed to prevent the chain from hanging loose.

IMAGE 14: Horizontal & Vertical arrangement considerations (https://us.misumi-ec.com/pdf/tech/ mech/US2010_fa_p3503_3510.pdf)

26

PART 02 | 2.3 RESEARCH BELT DRIVE MECHANISM From a practical point of view, working with a chain drive system was not optimal as that meant we would need to find chains with the exact correct length and the gears would need the correct corresponding teeth size and teeth number. In that regard, a belt drive system was a good alternative.

This system is composed of a belt (a looped strip of flexible material) and rotating shafts. The pros and cons of a belt drive system are presented below.

Pros

It was noted that the latter disadvantage of the belt drive system also applies to a chain drive system. Moreover, the first disadvantage (risk of slipping and stretching) could be largely solved by using a toothed belt.

Similar to a gear system, this type of belt consists of teeth that fit into a pulley with matching teeth size. If the belt is thus tensioned properly, no slippage will occur and the mechanism can spin at constant velocity. A timing belt, in particular, is one of the most efficient belts. The motor can be attached directly to one of the pulleys to make the entire system run.

Cons

Noise and vibrations are damped out, Angular velocity is not necessarily this results in longer system life span constant or equal to pulley diameter ratio due to slipping and stretching.

Lubrication-free Less maintenance

Wearing and stretching of belt drive might require an idler or adjustment of rotation point distance

TABLE 3: Table of PROS & CONS of belt drive mechanism

IMAGE 15: Problem solving using K’NEX to design belt drive system

27

PART 02 | 2.3 RESEARCH Flat belt The min. and max. angles between which each panel needs to rotate were calculated using the heliostat method (see section 2.2.2) based on the sun angles. By aligning the rotation points (the horizontal and vertical location of the rods relative to the façade, while ensuring minimal self-shading of the panels on those below) and given the fact that the panels all need to rotate within a range of 25 degrees, the panels can all rotate at the same speed (of course with different starting and end position) and have equal diameter. The optimization thus entails both minimizing self-shading to yield the highest light reflection in the back of the room and making the mechanism as convenient as possible.

For pulleys with equal diameter (r1=r2=r): In this case, the belt has contact with exactly one half of the circumference of each pulley.

with c = distance between two pulley centres For pulleys with unequal diameter (r1≠r2):

Although the flat belt was considered in the research, it was later replaced by a toothed belt, which is the best option to minimize the risk of slippage.

Toothed belt The calculation of the belt length for a toothed belt is similar to the calculation of a chain drive system and flat belt, but depends on the belt tooth profile.

The belt length is equal to twice the center distance plus the pitch circumference of one entire toothed pulley (in case of two pulleys of equal diameter; otherwise half of each pulley). This toothed pulley circumference is defined as the number of grooves of the pulley Npulley times the timing belt pitch, which is the distance between two adjacent tooth enters along the belt’s pitch line.

IMAGE 16: Timing belt pulley pitch (Pfeifer Industries LLC, 2019 - http://www.pfeiferindustries.com/ glossary.html)

with c = distance between two pulley centres.

28

2.4 RESEARCH CONCLUSION

CHOOSING SUN ANGLES

HELIOSTAT METHOD

REFLECTIVE MATERIALS

After the study, the maximum and minimal degrees, from summer and winter respectively, were taken in consideration as they represent the extremes of the seasons.

The optimal orientation for all the panels was determined based on the concept of a heliostat, taking into account the sun angles and target reflection points.

The material chosen was, polished aluminium because it proved to be the best option, since: - reflectance percentage: 90% - 99%, - Watertight - Low maintenance - UV- radiation resistance - recyclable or could be disassemble - long life span .

CONNECTIONS & DESIGN FOR DISASSEMBLY For connections and assembly, multiple L-Bracket supports that could distribute the loads of each module more evenly where chosen. A unitized system for the main modules was chosen with an additional assembly component only for the delicate reflective panels.

ROTATION MECHANISMS Different rotation mechanisms were investigated, including a gear, chain drive and belt drive system. A toothed belt drive system was eventually chosen as it requires no lubrication and leads to less maintenance, noise and slippage.

29

2.5 DESIGN PROCESS 2.5.1 DESIGN ITERATIONS

30

PART 02 | 2.5 DESIGN PROCESS After trying out the heliostat method with the different panel forms researched, the one that worked the best was the form with straight panels, since this made it possible to optimize regardless of how the light

rays were arriving on the panels. A concave panel was focusing the light in a single point making it easier for glare to be caused. The other forms were self shading each other so they were discarded.

31

PART 02 | 2.5 DESIGN PROCESS Panel

Summer

Winter

1

14

39

2

9

34

3

0

25

LE

NG

RA

ME

UM

S-S AY

NR SU

SUN R

AYS-W IN

14º

P1

TER AN

GLE

39º

P1 1º

34º

P2

P2 0º

25º

P3

P3 35º

35º P4

IMAGE 17: SUMMER

FIXED ANGLE

LIGHT

P4

REFLEC

TED IN

SIDE

FIXED ANGLE

LIGHT

REFLEC

TED IN

SIDE

IMAGE 18: WINTER

32

PART 02 | 2.5 DESIGN PROCESS 2.5.2 PARAMETRIC MODELLING Taking in reference from the analytical calculations and various iterations over 2d-sections, it was important to analyse the panels in a 3d configuration. For this, a typical office space in building K level 0 was modelled on rhino IMAGE 19.

The model then was used a base for a grasshopper definition for the analysis of the panels. For analysis, the definition was developed in response to following three questions: 1. Are the panels positioned to avoid self-shading?

2. Can panels reflect the sunlight into the office room?

3. To find the range of rotation for the panels through the critical summer and winter angles.

IMAGE 19: Rhino 3D model

33

PART 02 | 2.5 DESIGN PROCESS To answer the above stated the definition was developed as follows: 1.

Setting up the geo-location of the model.

The 3d model made on rhino needed to behave like the typical room in AMC. For this ladybug and honeybee plugins were used within the grasshopper to make a sun path around the model. The sun path diagram would allow us to track the sun’s position at a specific month, day and time of a year. (fig 20).

The sun path component requires an epw weather file of Amsterdam. The file generally contains all the weather data recorded throughout the year.

IMAGE 20: Setting up Amsterdam geo-location

IMAGE 21: Grasshoper geo-location programing

34

PART 02 | 2.5 DESIGN PROCESS 2.

Setting up the panels

The panels were modelled in rhino and definition was made to parametrise the vertical and horizontal position of all the four panels. The definition allowed us to change the position of the panels depending upon weather the position in between them to avoid self-shading (fig22).The definition could also allow to check for the rotation of the panels, which will be used further to see if the reflect sunlight.

The positions were analysed through shadow rendering to conclude a set of horizontal and vertical position from the existing faรงade and bottom of the balcony respectively.

IMAGE 22: Setting up panels: position and orientation

IMAGE 23: Grasshoper panels: position and orientation programing

35

PART 02 | 2.5 DESIGN PROCESS 3.

Drawing sun vectors and checking reflection

After the position of the panels were fixed, it became imperative to check for the angle of rotation for the critical summer and winter angles. A definition was therefore developed to draw vectors from the sun positions.

In order, to check if the sun vectors are intersecting the panels. The surface of the panels was divided into a set of grids which could be increased or decreased depending upon the evaluation criteria. (fig. 24).

IMAGE 24: Simulating suns trajectory in different seasons

IMAGE 25: Grasshopper suns trajectory simulation in different seasons programing

36

PART 02 | 2.5 DESIGN PROCESS

After the evaluation of the surface of the panels, sun vectors were drawn between sun point and these grids. Further, the definition was developed to reflect these light rays according to the principle of heliostat (fig27).

IMAGE 26: Grasshopper program of the Heliostat method

IMAGE 26: Applying the Heliostat Method

37

PART 02 | 2.5 DESIGN PROCESS 4. Reflection on the fixed panel and inside the room.

After the panels were reflecting the rays of light falling on it, the reflection of these light rays onto the fixed panel became the next step. This was followed by reflecting these rays again into the room. (fig 28).

Through the final part of definition, it becomes evident that the panel’s position does reflect sunlight inside the room. However, the concern remains about the efficiency of the component during various summer and winter angles. The grasshopper definition gives a flexibility to perform various iterations for different time of the year.

IMAGE 27: Reflection inside the room

IMAGE 28: Grasshopper reflection inside the room programming

38

P A RT 03

BUILDING WEEKS 3.1 Planning 3.2 Prototype 1:2

3.2.1 Table of Quantity

3.2.2 Drawings

3.2.3 Motor System

3.2.4 Final Result 3.3 Model 1:10

3.3.1 Table of Quantity

3.3.4 Final Result 3.4 Building Process

3.1 PL ANNING In order to facilitate a smooth building process,

which steps needed to be performed first before

several aspects had to be thought about prior to

we could proceed with the next step, as well as

the building weeks:

determine which tasks could be performed at the

- How many people are needed to work on each

same time. Certain tasks (such as for the reflective

specific task?

foil) were postponed to the end of the process to

- Which tasks does the building process consist of?

prevent any possible damage to the more sensitive

- How can we ensure an efficient and fast “flow” of

parts. In any case, those parts were covered as well.

the building process?

- How is the work on the 1:2 prototype and the small 1:10 scale model divided?

Based on the prototype drawings, the different steps in the building process could be identified. After listing the steps and defining the required number of people to complete each task, a Gantt chart was made to define the most efficient working process.

By using the ‘critical path method’, we could define

40

PART 03 | 3.1 PLANNING ELEMENT

TASK

FRAME A&B (3 P)

1.

Cut 2 sideframe shapes (A)

2.

Cut out 3 triangular holes (negatives

3.

Cut out circular holes for rods and cable

4.

Round corner of arms with sandpaper

FRAME C (2P)

TARGET DATE OF TASK COMPLETION

1. Cut 4 horizontal bars 2. Connect horizontal bars to the two side-frames using screws

PANEL D (2P)

1. Cut 4 panels D 2. Cut 4 rods (1 per panel) 3. Cut 2 clippers per rod from frame leftovers (8 in total) 4. Attach clippers to rods 5. Put rods through circular holes of the frame

BASE (2P)

1. Cut- base 2. Screw and paste base to frame

GEAR SYSTEM (3P)

M

1. Cut 6 pulleys 2. Wrap belt around pulleys & test if belt can rotate properly around pulleys 3. Cut out 2*6 disks for both sides of each pulley to prevent slipoff 4. Glue inner disk to pulleys 5. Cut centre hole through pulley (with inner disk) 6. Put pulleys with inner disk around rod and glue it 7. Wrap belt around pulleys 8. Glue outer disk to pulley

PANEL F (2P)

M

1. Cut the reflective and white foils to the right dimensions 2. Take 3 cutted panels (D) & paste the reflective foil 3. Take the left-over panel D & paste the white foil 4. Screw panels to clippers and rod

FINISHING TOUCH (available no. of P)

M

1. Cut cover part for covered side of frame 2. Paint cover part 3. Paste cover part to frame 4. Paint pulleys (mechanism) in bright colour 5. (Additional finishing touch to be determined on-site)

M

41

A104

Model Axonometric

mm _385

3.2 PROTOTYPE 1:2 3.2.1 TABLE OF QUANTITY

_78 6m m

C A

B

_986mm

D

_229mm

IMAGE 29: Prototype 3D

Qnt.

A

Measurement [mm] 750 X 400

4

Thickness [mm] 6

B

1390 X 385

2

18

C

786 x 50

3

18

D

100

16

9 42

A106

CL

2

3.2.2 DRAWINGS 0 25.

1

930 mm

A106

Model Section

1

Model Front view

A105

PART 03 | 3.2 PROTOTYPE 1:2

°

385 mm

786 mm

36 mm 50 mm

200 mm

Chain or Belt

350 mm

350 mm

Pivoting Panel 25°

50 mm

730 mm

986 mm

350 mm

Pivoting Panel 25°

1100 mm

Wooden Frame

10 mm

45 mm

350 mm

Chain or Belt

Reflective Panel

Pivoting Panel 25°

10 mm

50 mm

400 mm

400 mm

10 mm

229 mm

58 .9

°

Fixed panel

375 mm

EQ

EQ

Detachable base

90 mm

750 mm 375 mm

348 mm

18 mm

25 mm 100 mm

100 mm

125 mm

325 mm

43

PART 03 | 3.1 PROTOTYPE 1:2 3.2.3 MOTOR SYSTEM The initial plan was to make the movement of the panels manual, since the team did not know if the two weeks would be enough to build the two models plus some tryouts on how a motor would work. This changed after the first week of prototype building since we were ahead of schedule.

So with some extra time in our hands, the first changes in the model were made to adapt to a motor system.

1 2 3

4

5

6

Elements needed: 1. 3D printer brain (board) 2. Safety Temperature Sensor 3. Cables connected to power supply 4. Y-Motor connector 5. SD memory card 6. Power Supply 7. One small belt connected to motor 8. 3D printed extra gear 9. A 3D printer motor 10. LCD cables (only for initial tests) Since the panels only move in one direction, only one motor was needed.

The direction used was Y-direction motor, as it proved to be the strongest when the first tests were done.

IMAGE 30: Motor System

The cables from the power connector are connected to the 3D printer board with care so that the red and black cable never touch each other. (black to negative, red to positive).

44

PART 03 | 3.2 PROTOTYPE 1:2

Once everything was attached the first tests were done through the 3D printer display. The stopper motor tries to find the balance with the magnet motion, so when there is not enough power it misses some steps. The first few tests showed that the motor was not strong enough to work against the friction in the gears, so more voltage had to be applied so the motor could do this.

8

Once the desired ratio of movement was found, a code was developed to allow the motor to move by itself with no need of manual control. The speed at which it moves was also stated and a pause of 3 seconds between one angle and the initial position was established. This shows the range of movement of the panels according to the angles found in the design process.

7

9 10

IMAGE 31: Motor belt drive system

45

PART 03 | 3.2 PROTOTYPE 1:2 3.2.4 FINAL RESULT

46

3.3 MODEL 1:10 F 0.057 0.006

0.180

D 0.006

G

0.051

0.010

B

D

H

0.015

3.3.1 TABLE OF QUANTITY

0.038

E

0.030

0.115

0.010

0.130

H

0.300

0.038

C

F 0.057 0.006

0.640

A

G 0.650

0.030

C

0.010

B

0.010

B 0.650

H

0.010

A

0.053 0.010

A

0.650

GSEducationalVersion

0.227 0.230 0.250

0.010

0.320

C

QNT

A

660 X 650

2

B

300 X 650

2

C

282 X 642

3

300X 30

AMC

[1 FLOOR + TEC. ROOM]

4A

B

Measurement [mm]

Qnt.

Thickness [mm]

600 x 650

2

9

300 X 115

2

300 x 650

2

9

F

300 X 6

2

6 mm

282 x 642

3

9

G

74 X 6

4

6 mm

H

130 X 38

4

2x 18mm

300 x 30

4

9

300 X 115

2

9

1200 X 900

300 X 6

2

6

QNT G

74 x 6

4

6

130 x 38

4

18

C

D

FLOOR + TEC. ROOME

0.160 0.139

B

0.130

MESURMENT [mm]

D E

0.640

0.010 0.020

0.300

H

9 mm AMC

0.650

C

0.038

0.115

FLOOR + TEC. ROOM

C

0.320

0.015

0.038

0.640

A

0.051

E

0.300

0.227

C

D 0.006

D

0.010

0.053

9 mm AMC 0.180

MESURMENT [mm]

F

4

A

660 X 650

2H

B

300 X 650

2

C

282 X 642

3

47

PART 03 | 3.3 MODEL 1:10 64

6

6

6

53

10.0

65 10.0

288 20.0

B

6

205

6 40

33

5.0

6 mm FRAME + PANEL

37.5

10.0

64

3

4.3 1.7 3.0

6

C

20.0

20.0

10.0

A

205

20.0 40.0

13

41

A

18

26

B

68

QNT

205 X 64

2

288 X 6

4

Measurement4 300 X 40 [mm]

C

5

MESURMENT [mm]

FRAME + PANEL

300

A B C

200 x 64 300 X 300

288 x 6

3.0

300 x 40

1

1.5

3 mm

Qnt.

Thickness [mm]

2

6

4

6

4

3

GSEducationalVersion

48

ROD

1.5

G

GEARS

1.5

PART 03 | 3.3 MODEL 1:10 3.0

400.0

3.0

GEARS

20.0

GEARS

1.5

10.0

3.0 3.0

1.7

10.0

0.9

1.8

0.9

3.0

40.0 40.0

20.0

10.0

10.0

40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

0.9

10.0 0.9

10.0

20.0

20.0

10.0 20.0

20.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

1.8

GEARS

10.0

20.0 10.0

GSEducationalVersion

20.0

10.0

20.0

20.0

20.0 20.0

1.8

37.5

37.5

0.9

LS

NE PA 5.0

5.0

112.5

5.0

37.5

112.5

0.9

20.0

112.5

1.8

0.9

1.7 300.0 300.0

300.0

10.0

0.9 112.5

112.5

37.5

37.5

37.5

112.5

37.5

10.0 10.0

PANELS PANEL PANELS

1.7

0.9

1.8

1.7

0.9

4.3 1.7 3.0

4.3 1.7 3.0

4.3 1.7 3.0

.5

112

0.0

30

.5

112 .0

.0

40

400.0

.0

20

37.5

1.5

1.5

GEARS + FRAME

1.5 0.0

40

0.0 0

3.0 3.0

3.0 0

10.

4.3

1.7

S AR

Measurement [mm]

0

10.

10.

400.0

5.0

0 10.

2

ROD

ROD

400.0

.0

20

20

ROD

D RO

GSEducationalVersion

A

E x 64 G205

B

288 x 6

C

Qnt. 2 .0

20

300 x 40

4

Thickness [mm]

GEARS GEARS 6 6

4

3

GEAR

0

10.

20.0

3.0

10.0

1.7

20.0

10.0

4910.0

PART 03 | 3.3 MODEL 1:10 3.3.2 FINAL RESULT

50

3.4 BUILDING PROCESS

51

PART 04

TECHNICAL EVALUATION 4.1 Materials Selection 4.2 Structural Analysis 4.3 Belt Drive System 4.4 Assembly

4.1 MATERIALS SELECTION REFLECTIVE PANELS + FRAMES

ROD

Aluminium, Commercial Purity, 1050 A, H19, Aluminium, Commercial Purity, 1050 A, H19 (Polished)

Cast Iron, gray, flake graphite, EN GJL 300

Young’s Modulus Poisson’s Ratio Mass Density Yield Strength

68 GPa 0.3 2700 kg/m3 172 MPa

Young’s Modulus Poisson’s Ratio Mass Density Yield Strength

140 GPa 0.25 7250 kg/m3 228 MPa

53

4.2 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS As the Light Up design can be installed on any of the technical floors of the building, but also on any other building, a structural analysis was done to compare the difference in wind impact on a panel that is installed on the upper technical floor of the AMC to one on the lowest technical floor. It was found that the upper panel had a 36% larger deflection than the lower panel.

IMAGE 32: Comparison of Diana results for deflection of lower and upper panel

IMAGE 33: Comparison of wind impact on lower and upper panel

54

PART 04 | 4.2 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS An aerodynamic shape optimization showed that it is possible to reduce the wind load on a panel that is installed on a high level to achieve a similar value as one which is installed on a low level by giving the panel corners a gentle rounding (corner radius of curvature of 0.064m). This was found by equating the reduction factor for corner rounding and the extreme wind pressure (which depends on the height of panel installation) for a lower and upper panel and then determining the required corner curvature radius.

This shape optimization can, of course, be applied to any installation height.

IMAGE 34: Corner rounding reduction factor for corresponding r/b-ratio. Source: NEN-EN 1991-1-4

IMAGE 35: Cross Section

Eurocode for wind loads)

Also, a support analysis was done to determine the type, number and location of supports of the panels. It was shown that the panel could be modelled as a simply supported beam with an overhang at both ends and a uniformly distributed load. Two supports at 0.5 m from both ends turned out to be optimal to hold the panel.

55

PART 04 | 4.2 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Next to that, the cross-sections of the panel and rod were redesigned. The deflection limit came from the function of the façade product: the panels need to be as straight as possible in order for the angle of incidence of light to achieve a maximum reflection towards the back of the deep rooms in the AMC.

IMAGE 36: Panel Deflection

The initial solid rectangular cross-section of the panel was optimized to achieve a higher second moment of area while saving on material. The new cross-section resulted in lower deflections and stresses that met the stated limits.

The rod was optimized both in terms of material as well as cross-section. By calculating the required Young’s modulus, a new material could be chosen. The aluminum was replaced by cast iron. The cross-section of the rods was improved by increasing the diameter and thickness.

IMAGE 36 :Rod Deflection

56

4.3 BELT DRIVE SYSTEM Using the calculation method for a toothed belt drive system as described in section 2.2.5, the specifications of the final design are listed here.

- Number of pulleys: 8 - Number of belts: 4 - Belt tooth profile:

- Number of pulley grooves: Npulley= 63 (corresponds to standard T10 (.394�) standard pulley pitch diameter of 200.70 mm and outside diameter of 198.70 mm - Handbook of Timing Belts, Pulleys, Chains and Sprockets, SDP/SI, n.d.)

- Pitch = 10 mm (T10) - Belt width (T10 belt): 25 mm - Belt length:

- Belt material: neoprene (see characteristics below)

T10 Belt Material Characteristics: Neoprene High Resilience

IMAGE 38: T10 tooth profile

- Pulley diameter (all pulleys rotate at same speed): 200 mm - Center distance of pulleys (aligned and equal spacing):

Flame Resistant Aging Weather : Good Tear Resistance : good to excellent Oil and Solvent Resistant : Fair

TABLE 4: T10 belt material characteristics

57

4.4 ASSEMBLY Even though our proposal shows the light bouncing perpendicular to the section, this is usually not the case, therefore our system works best with long panels that reflect the light in an oblique bounce towards the inside of the room; for this reason, longer uninterrupted panels of 3 m were chosen. The total measurements of each module are 3000 m long x 2200 m high x 700 mm deep, allowing for a unitized system to be applicable.

To have the most effective solution, we propose a system that we believe uses the best of both unitized (pre assembled modules) and stick solutions (some on site assembly) .

Due to the complexity and precision of the rotating gears and bars, the main module assembly should be done in a controlled factory environment, ensuring that the modules would come as an almost complete unit with its precise working mechanism.

On the other hand, the light bouncing panels could come individually and attached with the simple clamp system to the rotating bar. These panels would require extra care because any scratches and bends could significantly reduce the reflective capabilities thus reducing the effectiveness of the reflected light. By transporting them individually, the panels would be in a much more controlled and manageable position to keep safe from the potential undesired bumps and scratches. This could also reduce significantly the insurance cost of transporting more delicate items. Finally, the on site installation of the panels to the modules would be the only “stick� component of the system.

58

P A RT 05 FINAL DESIGN 5.1 General Drawings 5.2 Technical Details 5.3 Context Renders

1 A103

2

3

Level 5

3000 mm 1500 mm

1

200 mm

Level 4 9460 mm

700 mm

A107

800 mm

1500 mm

700 mm

1255 mm

11960 mm

2105 mm

1

1100 mm

101

General Axonometric

5.1 GENERAL DRAWINGS

Level 3 6200 mm

60

PART 05 | 5.1 GENERAL DRAWINGS

200 mm

200 mm

200 mm

250 mm

Pivoting Panel 25째

700 mm

Level 5 11960 mm

1255 mm

Level 5

1960 mm

200 mm

250 mm

3 A107

7째 37.8

700 mm

A103

A107

Level 4 Existing AMC Facade

9460 mm

51 mm

9460 mm

800 mm

9460 mm

Level 4

700 mm

Level 4

Automated Motor

Pivoting Panel 25째

1 700 mm

1

51 mm

50 mm

800 mm

Pivoting Panel 25째

2105 mm

2

1100 mm

A107

Fixed panel

Level 3

Level 3

6200 mm

6200 mm

200 mm

200 mm

250 mm

61

PART 05 | 5.1 GENERAL DRAWINGS

B

A C

D

E

F

A - Motor B - Panels C - Support Brackets D - Pulley E - Belts F - Frame

62

5.2 TECHNICAL DETAILS

3 1

4

10

5a

50 mm

3a

2

8

1

1. Belt 1. Chain Pulley Mechanism 2.2.Gear mechanism 3a.Pivoting PivotingPanel Panel25° 25”- -Polished Polished 3a.

3b.

3b.Fixed FixedPanel Panel -- Matte Matte 4. Panel - Bar Clamp 4. Panel - Bar Clamp 5a.

Rotating Steel Bar 5a.Fixed Rotating 5b.

SteelSteel Bar Bar 6.5b.

Slotted Fixed Hole Steel Bolted Connection Slotted Hole BoltedBracket Connection 7.6.L-Shaped Support L-Shaped Suppot Bracket 8.7.Lightweight Aluminum Frame 9.8.Existing AMC Aluminun Facade Frame Lightweight 10. Roller bearing 9. Existing AMC Facade

3a

6/7

30

63

mm ø 75

50 mm

5a

7° 37.8 m 30

4

3a

mm

ket Frame

VAR

0 40

olished

PART 05 | 5.2 TECHNICAL DETAILS

m

50 mm

6

7 8 9

1. Belt 2. Pulley Mechanism 3a. Pivoting Panel 25” - Polished 3b. Fixed Panel - Matte 4. Panel - Bar Clamp 5a. Rotating Steel Bar 5b. Fixed Steel 6. Slotted Hole Bolted Connection 7. L-Shaped Suppot Bracket 8. Lightweight Aluminun Frame 9. Existing AMC Facade

64

3a

2

8

1

5a

mm

50 mm

4

3a

0 40

PART 05 | 5.2 TECHNICAL5aDETAILS

1. Chain 2. Gear mechanism 3a. Pivoting Panel 25° - Polished 3b. Fixed Panel - Matte 4. Panel - Bar Clamp 5a. Rotating Steel Bar 5b. Fixed Steel Bar 6. Slotted Hole Bolted Connection 7. L-Shaped Support Bracket 8. Lightweight Aluminum Frame 9. Existing AMC Facade 10. Roller bearing

ø 75

mm

6/7

50 m m

3°

4

9 148.

5b

8

mm

mm

3b

0 40

ø 75

mm

50 mm 9

9° .8 39

50

mm

228 mm

30

9

1. Belt mm 00 2 ø 2. Pulley Mechanism 3a. Pivoting Panel 25” - Polished 3b. Fixed Panel - Matte 4. Panel - Bar Clamp 5a. Rotating Steel Bar 5b. Fixed Steel 6. Slotted Hole Bolted Connection 7. L-Shaped Suppot Bracket 8. Lightweight Aluminun Frame 9. Existing AMC Facade

2

1

65

acket Frame

7 8

PART 05 | 5.2 TECHNICAL DETAILS

9

m 0m 0 ø2

2

6 1

7 8 9

1. Belt 2. Pulley Mechanism 3a. Pivoting Panel 25” - Polished 3b. Fixed Panel - Matte 4. Panel - Bar Clamp 5a. Rotating Steel Bar 5b. Fixed Steel 6. Slotted Hole Bolted Connection 7. L-Shaped Suppot Bracket 8. Lightweight Aluminun Frame 9. Existing AMC Facade

66

5.3 CONTEXT RENDERS

67

PART 05 | 5.3 CONTEXT RENDER

EXITING AMC VS PROPOSED

68

P A RT 06 EVALUATION & CONCLUSION

6.1 Prototype Testing 6.2 Prototype VS Final Product 6.3 Additional Product Applications 6.4 Recommendations 6.5 Personal Review

6.1 PROTOTYPE TESTING

IMAGE 37: Position of the Luxmeter

2200

2500

3100

3450

300 350

3100

3350

250

3200

3900

700

3300

3600

300

3350

3800

450

3500

4800

1300

3900

4300

400

4300

4700

400

4300

4850

550

6400

13500

7100

6500

11000

4500

6500

16000

9500

6550

18600

12050

6800

13600

6800

7000

13000

6000

7050

14000

6950

7100

13000

5900

7300

16000

8700

7500

18500

11000

8000

18000

10000

8200

18500

10300

8200

18600

10400

9020

18900

9880

9100

18600

9500

9350

20600

11250

500

8739

With Clouds

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Difference Average

Direct Sunlight

Natural Light With Panels

After the building weeks, the 1:2 scale Prototype was tested in multiple natural light scenarios to identify its real world effectiveness. The test were done during winter months between the dates 01/15/2019 and 01/18/2019 between hours of 10:00 am and 4:00 pm For testing purposes, the luxmeter was placed at an equivalent location where the light would enter the room in the final product.

The following table shows the natural light, the increment due to the prototype panels and the difference of each. The natural light is organized from the lowest luxes (tests 1-10) to the highest (tests 11-26) when light was shining directly on the panels

TABLE 5W: Light increment of prototype test

70

PART 06 | 6.1 PROTOTYPE TESTING

As can be seen on the graph, the first 10 tests with clouds show a slight increase in lux values; an average of 500 luxes. On the other hand, when the light hits directly on the panels, the light increase was much more noticable, with an average of 8740 luxes. This means that our proposal works both with clouds due to the general light component and even more efficiently when the sun is out.

We also see a tendency of the prototype to work better as the light increases, this means that during summer months the lux increments could potentially be even higher.

CHART 2: Light increment of prototype test

71

PART 05 | 5.3 CONTEXT RENDER

72

6.2 PROTOTYPE VS FINAL PRODUCT The built prototype had some differences between the final product, nonetheless the initial concept and its essential light reflectance functions were maintained on both versions.

The first, most significant change for the prototype was its size: due to its original large proportions, we decided to reduce its overall size with two different methods: 1.

One way was by scaling it down to half of its original size (1:2). The most important consideration when doing this was that the precision of the mechanism would be maintained, thus assuring its exact light bouncing capabilities. This guaranteed that the prototype would serve the main purpose of testing the light increments with a luxmeter.

2.

Since the prototype needed to be constrained within an imaginary box of approximately 700x700x700 mm, the prototype was also cut to half of its intended full size. The originally 3000 mm long panels were reduced to 1500 mm at 1:2 scale, thus resulting in a total length of 750 mm.

73

385 mm 36 mm

50 mm

PART 06 | 6.2 PROTOTYPE VS FINAL PRODUCT 200 mm Pivoting Panel 25°

movement was greatly increased for presentation

Movement system Another

important

difference

was

the

gear

mechanism. Our prototype used 4 V-car toothed

350 mm

Chain or Belt

50 mm

belts (BOSCH-V belt 1 987 947 642) that were This length was the exact length required with the

stepper motor and gear mechanism but with 2

calculated 200 mm diameter gears. Although the

important differences:

prototype has a toothed belt and toothless disk-

1. The movement speed of the panels would be

shaped pulleys which worked perfectly, the real

greatly reduced, barely noticeable to the human eye.

product has been designed with a toothed belt and

This is because the panels would be coordinated

pulleys with corresponding tooth size for optimal

with our sunpath script accommodated precisely to

grip and speed control.

the time and location of the AMC.

1100 mm

350 mm

The final product, on the other hand, uses a toothed be specifically designed for this purpose. The large 200 mm diameter pulleys that were chosen for the prototype were calculated to reduce the total strength required to rotate the panels, because originally it would have been hand driven. For the final iteration of

50 mm

400 mm

the prototype we were able to introduce a strong 3d

Fixed panel

was clearly shown.

The final product would therefore use a similar

belt system as described in section 4.3 that would

Pivoting Panel 25°

the concept of automatically programmed panels

specifically chosen for its total length of 1100 mm.

986 mm

Pivoting Panel 25°

purposes, but the angle limits were maintained, and

printer stepper motor that automatically controlled the whole mechanism. Subsequently, the specific movement of the panels was loaded into the control panel of the motor. This allowed for it to function without direct connection to a computer. The panel

2. The belt drive system of the prototype is a bit over dimensioned as it was designed to be operated manually. During the building week itself, it was decided to operate it with a motor instead. The first motor was not strong enough to properly rotate the belt, but with the second (stronger) motor it worked.

With this motor, a less robust system (e.g. single sided belt system) could have probably sufficed for the prototype. However, it should be noted that the panels in the real design are much longer and also heavier, so in that sense the prototype does give a good representation of the system that would make the real design run smoothly.

74

6.3 ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS In the coming years, a big focus will be put on the renovation of existing buildings. This means that there is a need for effective solutions to improve existing buildings instead of tearing down entire buildings. Light Up is a good example of such solutions. A great advantage of our proposal is that it can significantly improve the daylight levels in a building without dismounting its existing facade. Although some perforations and possible additional internal supports would be necessary to clamp and stabilize each module, the main facade elements would be largely untouched.

This means that our product could be easily adapted to many existing buildings.

Although our proposal is geo-referenced to reflect light with Amsterdam’s specific sun, a more general application could be entirely possible. By having grasshopper model linked to the sunpath, we would be able to quickly change the location with the ladybug plugin and analyze a new location. With this information we can change the script that governs the movement of the panels and thus adapt it to any location in the world. LightUp is therefore a local solution but with much more global applications.

75

6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS Our final model takes into account the sunpath based on the grasshopper model so there would be little room for future improvement of the functionality of the final product. Further development would be to sit with the client and develop different design options based on their wishes regarding the aesthetic expression of the façade.

Why this solution instead of light tubes?

With this solution the natural light travels over a shorter path compared to light tubes which are generally installed on the roof. This façade product can be installed on every set of two floors. This shorter distance reduces the loss of light intensity.(Möller, 1978) Likewise, LightUp seeks to reduce the amount of times the light must bounce in order to enter the room, thus allowing for the highest light intensity.

Why this solution instead of light shelves?

Light shelves would be placed in front of the window. They help to distribute the daylight levels better, but it also means that the daylight levels near the window get reduced. With this proposal the product is placed on the opaque façade part of the technical floors.

Thus, using the daylight that falls on those areas, which would otherwise not be used, to increase daylight levels at back of rooms, while maintaining daylight levels near the windows.

With this system, unobstructed views are also maintained, while light shelves ‘disturb’ the otherwise unobstructed view from the window.

76

6.5 PERSONAL REVIEW Student: Prateek Wahi Student number: 4934695 I knew about Bucky Lab design course even before applying to TU Delft.

The course has some recognition in my country. Therefore, it becomes all the more interesting and exciting for me to actually participate in the course. To me, Bucky Lab course was really helpful, as being from architecture background I was always concerned towards the design aspect. Nevertheless, it got me an attention towards the materialisation, detailing and workability of the design through prototyping. The course is tightly knit between the intangible thought , concepts , design and tangible aspects like structures, material science to make it happen. By the end it is always exhilarating to see the “line� you have drawn on paper to come to reality , see , touch and feel it.

Though I really enjoyed these last 6 months, I would like to share my experiences towards the overall structure of the course. Starting from concept phase, I feel 4 weeks were more than what was required . Maybe it could be shortened to 2-3 weeks so that we give more time to design development. The structure consults helped a lot in understanding the structural and components aspect of the design. However, it would be really great if similar consults could be arranged for material science.

In the end, I would like to thank Marcel and Seitze, for making my Bucky Lab experience the most memorable design experience I ever had.

77

PART 06 | 6.5 PERSONAL REVIEW Student: Fredy Fortich Student number: 4821858 In the beginning I started with the architect mentality to come up with and idea of facade strategy to cover the building, later I realized that a much more prefered approach for the Bucky lab was to think of it as a useful technical product rather than an architectural embellishment.

I particularly enjoyed the elevator pitch session where everyone presented their original ideas, allowing us to think completely outside the box. I also found it great that we could choose our future team based on concepts that were similar and interesting to us, this allowed us to work much more efficiently on a subject that we prefered genuinely.

The integration with other courses was also a crucial part to conceive a more realistic product approach. Both material science and structural mechanics had valuable lessons to improve the design even further.

Student: Mercilia Lombe Student number: 4719859 In the beginning of the semester, I was excited to start the project, since I have never worked on a project focussing only in one aspect - the facade. As an international student it was quite challenging to come up with innovative ideas that could be applied to the Netherlands contex, considering the fact that my knowledge regarding to it was narrow. This also made it hard in the beginning of the group work, since at this point, different people from different backgrounds and personalities were given the task to come together, exchange ideas and find a common ground in order to make this project happen.

Personally I enjoyed the journey, because I had the opportunity not only to work on a specific task alone, but also with each group member, where I got to learn a lot, whether if it in terms of organization, thinking process, critical thinking or graphical skills.

A possible improvement could be a better schedule coordination with the end of the semester. The reports and the final assignments are completely feasible within the allotted time, nonetheless the exam for building physics was also planned for the same week. I believe that changing this overlap would allow for even better results for both the exam and for the final reports.

I really enjoyed the building weeks because, this was the time I could see the project that we have been conceiving coming to form.

Regarding to our prototype, I think that in order for this product be able to be applied in any building, studies, regarding to the specific location need to be done, which makes it be the less practical approach to a product that intends to be commercialised. The heavy look can also be a drawback for existing buildings since it will make a notable change, but it can be a great product to be integrated in new buildings in their design process.

Overall the Bucky Lab experience was a very positive one.

Overall I liked the Bucky Lab Design - Design curse, although I which the deadline, did not coincide with others from other curses.

78

PART 06 | 6.5 PERSONAL REVIEW Student: Yarai Zenteno Student number: 4922204 At the beginning I struggled with the concept development since I come from an architectural background were the most important in the first phase is the client and the “emotions” your design will portray. With this new approach I was able to think of how the technical and design are both important to solve in a parallel line to really solve a specific problem. It was really rewarding to see our final design come to life and actually work after all the research and design process put into it.

Another aspect I enjoyed was to work with different people from different countries. It was incredible to taste a bit of how everyone learns and how everyone has a different design approach. Some were more practical whereas some were more perfectionists, but overall it made the project more fulfilling. I feel like I learned a lot from each member of my group.

Regarding the building weeks, it was exhilarating to get our hands on the job and create our prototypes from zero. Getting a feel of what a design process should entitle, since sometimes we keep it as a sketch or a 3D model and do not take the time to prove the design with a physical model.

As for the other courses, the structural consultations were very useful for the further design of our project. Although I think they should start even before the building weeks or work in parallel with material consultations, if possible. After the building weeks we did not have enough time to test new materials or change the things found out in the building weeks, and things had to be rushed.

All in all, I really enjoyed the Bucky Lab experience.

Student: Aviva Opsomer Student number: 4288106 What I liked most about this course was the hands-on approach and the way of thinking of it as a façade product development instead of a normal façade design, which made us think of a lot of things which we would otherwise not have considered. It stimulated students to think of a very broad range of aspects, including economic aspects, transportation, maintenance, construction feasibility, project planning, material choice etc. The course was very practical and allowed us to go through almost all steps of the designto-construction process (e.g. concept development, research, optimization, construction). It included a lot of research (on topics we were sometimes not very familiar with), which I liked a lot, and by constantly trying to further optimize a certain aspect, it also led to a lot of design changes. Working on the optimization (e.g. optimization of panel orientations and reflection aspects to maximize the daylight inflow in the room; material optimization; structural optimization etc.) is what I enjoyed most during the whole process, as well as the actual construction in the building weeks of course. In conclusion I thus really liked the Bucky Lab Design project a lot.

On a short note however; as a student with an engineering background, I was required to do a full-year bridging programme in architecture, while people with an architectural background were not required to do any basic technical preparation for the programme. In the Bucky Lab project, design and technical aspects come together, but as some students thus still had a very architectural mindset, this made the work to me personally a bit frustrating sometimes and not always very efficient. Since the master is aimed at both designers and engineers, I think there is some improvement possible for the BT programme in this regard.

79

P A RT 07 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS:

LINKS

- Allen, E. & Iano, J. (2013) Fundamentals of building Construction, 5th edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New york

- https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-WindLoad Date accessed: 2019/01/18 - http://www.cwct.co.uk/design/options.htm Date accessed: 2019/01/23 - Paolini R., Borroni, D., Pedeferri M., & Diamanti, M.V., Politecnico di Milano & The University of New Wales) (2018) Self-cleaning building materials: the multifaceted effects of titanium dioxide. (Construction and Building Materials, 182, 126-133) - BUCKY LAB INFORMATION Anatomy of the AMC.pdf Bucky Manual 2 2018 AMC.pdf

- Mรถller, K.D. (1978) Optics. Academic Press, Inc.: Mill Valley, California.

- POLYESTER FILM Chalmers, D.J. & Knox, K.L. (1971) Wear of polyester film . E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc., Cicleville, OhiaU.S.A. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0043164871901591 - CES EDUPACK

81

82