Rumoer 65: Experimentation| BouT | TU Delft by RuMoer

periodical for the Building Technologist

PRAKTIJKVERENIGING

BOUT

student association for building technology

65. Experimentation

www.octatube.nl

Experimentation

RuMoer #65

RUMOER #65

Experimentation

2nd Quarter 2017 23rd year of publication

copies and digital copies made available to members through online distribution.

Praktijkvereniging BouT Room 02.West.090 Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft Julianalaan 134 2628 BL Delft The Netherlands

Membership Amounts per academic year (subject to change): € 10,- Students € 30,- PhD Students and alumni € 30,- Academic Staff

tel: +31 (0)15 278 1292 fax: +31 (0)15 278 4178 www.praktijkverenigingBouT.nl rumoer@PraktijkverenigingBouT.nl Printing www.drukbedrijf.nl ISSN number 1567-7699 Credits Edited by: Pim Buskermolen Article editing: Pim Buskermolen Allard Huitema Antigoni Lampadiari-Matsa Layla van Ellen Quirine Henry Popi Papangelopoulou Cover design: Pim Buskermolen Cover image: Beyond Bending at Architecture Biennale Venice © Nick Krouwel / ETH Zurich RUMOER is a periodical of Praktijkvereniging BouT, student and practice association for Building Technology (AE+T), at the Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft (Delft University of Technology). This magazine is spread among members and relations. Circulation: The RUMOER appears 3 times a year, with more than 150 printed

Single copies:

Available at Bouw Shop (BK) for 5€.

Sponsors Praktijkvereniging BouT is looking for (main) sponsors. Sponsors make activities possible such as study trips, symposia, case studies, advertisements on Rumoer, lectures and much more. For more info contact BouT: info@praktijkverenigingBouT.nl If you are interested in BouT’s sponsor packages, send an e-mail to: finances@praktijkverenigingBouT.nl Copy Files for publication can be delivered to BouT in .docx or .indd, pictures are preferred in .png or .jpg format. Disclaimer The editors do not take any responsibility for the photos and texts that are displayed in the magazine. Images may not be used in other media without permission of the original owner. The editors reserve the right to shorten or refuse publication without prior notification.

Interested to join? The Rumoer Committee is open to all students. Are you a creative student that wants to learn first about the latest achievements of TU Delft and Building Technology industry? Come join us on our weekly meeting or email us @ rumoer@praktijkverenigingbout.nl

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

CONTENT >Interview about the Armadillo Vault <

General 4

BouT board presents itself!

Events overview

Engineering Articles 6

>> PD-Lab at the Faculty of Architecture of TU Delft <<

(ETH Zurich) Armadillo Vault

-an interview with Philippe Block

12 (TU Delft) Glass laboratory for BT - Tom Scholten 16

(Peoplehouse) Intrapreneurship in the

technology industry

20 (TU Delft) Glass truss bridge in the Green Village - Rob Nijsse

Graduation Projects 28 Roof for Qatar Stadium - Andreja Andrejevic 36 PD-Lab -Jeroen van Veen

Praktijkvereniging BouT

Experimentation

RuMoer #65

EDITORIAL With the instalment of the new BouT board, I take over the role as editor-in-chief of Rumoer from Popi Papangelopoulou. For the coming year I will be aiming to reach higher exposure with the magazine, to create an even bigger platform for Building Technology.

Enjoy reading! Pim Buskermolen Editor-in-chief Rumoer 2017-2018

Before you lies the 65th edition of Rumoer: EXPERIMENTATION. This issue shines light on several projects that are innovative in their own way, such as building method or their use of material. The magazine is a collection of articles from different fields and contains student articles, interviews, academic articles, and graduation projects. Rumoer committee

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

BouT Board 2017-2018

Praktijkvereniging BouT

Experimentation

RuMoer #65

THE NEW BOUT BOARD PRESENTS ITSELF! Dear BouT members and relations, Time flies! It has been a few months already since we started as the new BouT board and we are still full of ideas and enthusiasm! After some time to figure out our tasks, we identified opportunities to improve the organisation. Our predecessors did a great job and achieved a lot in the past year, but there still is great potential for us to grow. We set our long term and short term goals during our policy weekend and soon we will pick a moment to look back at what we have done so far. With great enthusiasm we are working on new projects, organising diverse trips and activities and we are definitely learning a lot from each other. We are a group of five BT students with an interesting mix of nationalities and study backgrounds. This leads to different contacts, very diverse interests and many great ideas.

Charley Meyer – Chair  Pim Buskermolen – Secretary & Media  Thomas Liebrand – Finances & Acquisition  Michael Cobb – Education  Yufe Wong – Events For the new Master students; we advise you to subscribe for a membership via the website of BouT. Via the newsletter you will be updated on the latest news and developments within Building Technology. And most importantly: you can join many trips and activities for free! If you know of projects that could be interesting for us or if you are interested in joining one of our committees, please do not hesitate to contact us! On behalf of the BouT-board, Charley Meyer Chair 2017-2018

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

Figure 1: The Armadillo Vault at the Venice Biennale. ÂŠ Iwan Baan

THE ARMADILLO VAULT An interview with Prof. Dr. Philippe Block of ETH Zurich

By Popi Papangelopoulou & Allard Huitema

On the 28th of February we had the chance to interview

1. Your first thesis at MIT was about masonry structures. Your company Ochsendorf DeJong & Block and the Block Research Group at ETH Zurich also focus on shell structures like cathedral of the middle ages. What construction aspects fascinated you about these types of structures?

Philippe Block of ETH Zurich about the Armadillo Vault at the 2016 Venice Architecture Biennale. Not only the development of the Vault, but also Prof. Blockâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s passion for historic structures will be unravelled in this interview.

In the beginning I studied Architectural Engineering at the VUB in Brussels, Belgium. After that, I went to MIT

Interview

Experimentation expecting to do high-tech engineering, but instead I met John Ochsendorf. He became my advisor for my master’s degree and also ended up being my PhD supervisor. His speciality is in historic preservation and structural design with a particular passion for old masonry. I learned that there is really a lack of understanding of the stability of unreinforced masonry structures. Even though these constructions have been standing for many centuries, people barely understand why,how and to what extent they are safe. That intrigued me. Unfortunately, there is often ignorance among engineers, who in a very detrimental way basically destroy historic structures because they don’t know how they work. When John Ochsendorf showed me the beautiful fan vaults of the Kings College chapel at the University of Cambridge, I realised that this structure was standing there in compression without any reinforcement, proportionally as thin as an egg shell. Ochsendorf was teaching what is needed to be able to explain these sensational cathedrals, which are so thin and nonetheless work with very humble and traditional materials. This incited my curiosity and excitement. Coming to ETH and starting the Block Research Group, my main focus was the question: what can we learn from the analysis of historic structures? The ability to explain why something is stable helped us to achieve more controlled and powerful design methods. 2. Could you explain briefly how the Armadillo Vault integrated such aspects? There are multiple things. Let me first explain why we did the Armadillo Vault. The main theme at the Biennale was ‘Reporting from the Front’. Architects and other professionals related to the architectural field were invited to tell their stories about what they face in real life and what battles they fight in order to push architecture to the next level. What we wanted to achieve with our exhibition was to demonstrate that we have the feeling that most of us are at the pinnacle of engineering, that we know everything, but in fact that may not be true. We should more carefully go back and not forget what these master

RuMoer #65

builders could do. In current education, if you learn about the arch, learn about the shell, then this is very little and you don’t really know how to safely design these things anymore. Methods like graphic statics are discarded as naïve methods by many professional engineers because they believe they are irrelevant. This is a bit weird because all the big structural designers of the 19th century like Brunel, Maillart and Eiffel knew graphic statics insideout. These engineers didn’t seem to think that these were naïve methods; they actually allowed them to discover good structural form. And so the main message we wanted to share in our exhibition is what can you achieve when you follow where the forces want to go in compression. We showed this in the floor systems, in the form and force diagrams and in our graphical tools. The Armadillo Vault brought all of this together. How much more extreme can you go than an unreinforced, cut stone vault, with nothing keeping it together other than geometry to convince others that these methods are still relevant? But, to return to your question on how do these historical aspects come in: first, you need to have a good structural form. It should have good double curvature to take all the live load cases; the cutting of the stone needs to be such that you don’t have obvious sliding at the open edges so that the stones are being kept in compression. For the Biennale project, we only had one month to fabricate all of this, so we used new architectural geometry and fabrication optimisation to make a general geometry such that the stones could be cut in a limited amount of time. What we tried to do with the Armadillo is something that the master builders had to do. They had constraints of material and they had constraints of labour. Some architects start with a grand

I strongly believe that elegance comes by starting from constraints. 9

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

Figure 2: Constructing the vault. © Nick Krouwel / ETH Zurich

sketch that then somehow gets materialised. We wanted to start the other way around - to start from the extremely hard constraints of budget, time and historic context. I think that this is very much in the spirit of what people used to be able to do. I strongly believe that elegance comes by starting from the constraints. What our research group also tries to demonstrate is that you can work with humble and weak materials and that you know where a material wants to be placed. For example, for a project in New York we used just compressed Tetra Pak. For the Seoul Biennale, we are planning a structure made entirely of cultivated materials (mushrooms). If you control where the forces go, you can actually start to use alternative things. So you don’t have to resort to steel and concrete, the materials that basically are endangering our planet. I believe that at a certain point people will no longer be able to ignore that we are just wasting resources. 3. In what way(s) do you think the Armadillo Vault has triggered further discussion on compression-only structures? For me the Armadillo Vault stood for much more than just a stone vault: it represented new opportunities in design. So, in a way it’s a very extreme, large-scale, convincing structural model of doing things differently. It shows that one can start to combine flowing, exciting curves

and expression together with efficiency; that was very important to us. In the exhibition, we also demonstrated an unreinforced concrete floor of only two centimetres’ thickness for a project that we are building near Zurich. It replaces a typical floor plate, saving more than 70 percent of material. Imagine putting this in a high-rise! The additional material/weight savings on the primary structure and the foundations would be sensational. Why do we build 70 percent too heavy? One wonders, right? I mean in New York you have beautiful tile vaults in Grand Central Terminal. These tile vaults are unreinforced, and they carry millions of passengers coming in and out. No one seems to be nervous or wondering about the safety of these vaults because they are historical. But now, when you propose an unreinforced concrete floor system with tensions ties, then people are getting a little bit nervous and think that it’s not safe. What about the historic structures? Why are you suddenly worried? I hope that this makes people curious to look back and investigate why these historic structures are still standing. 4. Are there some principles/techniques from old compression structures that are still today a mystery on how they were made? I think we start to understand how they were constructed, what the constraints were and so on. But still, finding ways to safely assess their behaviour is very challenging. 5. Your structures at the Biennale were exhibited indoors. How well will these resist outdoor weather conditions or earthquakes? We already built the Armadillo once before in Austin, Texas. This was to train the masons and to check all the tolerances. The Armadillo Vault was taken apart after the Biennale and will move to a public location outdoors. We had to design this structure for other loading cases than only being in an exhibition. So, it is actually designed for outdoor use, and it is designed for hooligan loads, meaning that people might want climb the structure. It is designed for moderate earthquakes and of course you

Interview

Experimentation

RuMoer #65

design for a certain context, in this case for areas with a seismic risk similar to Venice’s. So, you don’t want to move the Armadillo and reassemble it in Turkey or in San Francisco. There, it would collapse.

be – in compression – and that you then can use humble, recycled, cultivated, weak, and/or local materials, but also that you’re really facing the hard constraints of integration that architecture needs to embrace.

6. You mainly design pavilion structures. Do you think your principles could work for a permanent building? What changes should then be applied?

7. Modern architectural theory discusses the need for architecture to be able to change state and place. Do you think the Armadillo Vault could be referred to as a prototype for temporary architecture, and if so, how?

People have asked me: “Okay, and now what? What is the next step?” A project in Switzerland that we are designing now is called NEST HiLo. It has unreinforced concrete floors as one of its features and a flexibly-formed, gigantic, extremely thin concrete shell as a roof structure. An alumnus of TU Delft, Diederik Veenendaal, was a key designer of this roof. One of the main challenges for a permanent building is how to interface between elements, that is the detailing for building physics, for example; how we can start to include the integration of functions, media, heating, cooling, building physics, and interfaces between glass and roofs while avoiding thermal bridges. I think that is when the real challenge will happen and what we are pushing ourselves to do in this project. We don’t just focus on the provocative demonstration of what you can achieve when you place a material where it wants to

Figure 3: The unreinforced concrete floor. © Nick Krouwel / ETH Zurich

What you describe is convertible: you can take something, adapt it and relocate it or make it relevant to a new context. Another way is actually to design something that is very temporary, something that can be recycled or thrown away without much impact. Maybe the Armadillo itself is not relevant in this context, but using the masonry model to be able to assemble, to have something that is stable and that has simple connections that can be taken apart and its different parts reused. I’m not going to say that all of this was the point of the Armadillo. However, many of these thoughts are in there, and in fact we are actively pursuing this research. Perhaps, what’s more relevant than the Armadillo is the project in New York I mentioned earlier. It was an extremely light-weight series of arches made out of Tetra Pak, which allowed us to just

Figure 4: The underside of the concrete floor. © Anna Maragkoudaki / ETH Zurich

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

stack it without needing any glue, any screws – nothing mechanical. That meant that after the three days of this temporary pavilion, we could take it apart. It was nicely held together in compression during its (short) lifetime. We could just take it apart and re-shred it and put it back into the recycling loop. This model doesn’t need any form materials. One of the challenging things about concrete is how to separate the steel from the concrete and how to regrind it. People have started to do that, but it’s expensive and it takes a lot of energy. The pureness, the simplicity and the cleanness of a masonry project is that you can keep it stable without needing all these other things that make it hard afterwards to separate the elements and the materials. 8. The structure is already very impressive. Is there something that needs to be improved further? I can fairly and objectively say from a stone engineering standpoint that I don’t think we can go much further than this. We used methods and techniques that came fresh out of research and that are new ways of designing, new ways of assessing, new ways of demonstrating stability. The Armadillo had spans of sixteen metres with only five centimetres in most areas of the shell, going to only eight centimetres at the supports. I think we hit the limits there. Of course you can go thinner. People asked: “What about Isler, what about Candela? They did things thinner.” And I said: “Yes, but that is in reinforced concrete.” Of course you can go thinner if you have another way to add stiffness, to resist the live load cases. For me, the Armadillo is very much a place-holder for the opportunity to start to merge efficiency, expression and constraints. Basically, it’s kind of Gothic master builder meets Zaha Hadid Architects.

concrete floor is relevant for a Swiss context, but if you propose this in an African context, there it no longer makes sense because they don’t have cement, and they don’t have the financial resources to make double-sided moulds. However, they have a lot of labour and locally available soil, so in Africa these principles are relevant. What I’m excited about is that when I started my PhD in the assessment of historic structures, I never would have imagined ending up working together with Norman Foster, Patrik Schumacher and Zaha Hadid. Thomas Heatherwick maybe wants to find a way to use our principles. But, at the same time we can make a meaningful contribution by actually applying our principles to an African context with the projects that we have done in Ethiopia, Tanzania, South Africa and now with the Droneport project (see figure 5) in Rwanda that hopefully continues with Norman Foster and his foundation. This application of our principles is also something that I teach my students. Perhaps there is an unproportional emphasis on funicular form, meaning on compression-only or tension-only form, in my teaching, but the reason for me is actually to demonstrate that you can make unique contributions with these shapes and geometries. 10. Finally, do you have any advice for architecture students that now start their career? There are several alumni that came from your school to Zurich, who ended up being my PhD students. I would say it has helped me and everyone in my group to expose

9. Would you like to mention other projects that you are most proud of and why? I talked about these floor systems a lot and I think that is where we go beyond masonry, beyond literal translation of the material in a modern context. We applied structural principles to materials that make sense in our context and we apply these also in very different contexts. The

Interview

Figure 5: The Droneport. © Nigel Young / Norman Foster Foundation

Experimentation yourself to other aspects of design. Try to not just do architecture for the sake of design, but also enrich your design skills. You don’t necessarily need to be an expert, but you need to have sufficient knowledge. I myself always bounced back and forth between structural engineering and architecture. That allowed me to create unique constructions and to feel I had made a difference. Another example could be to also embrace more building physics and simulation skills. Maybe that is a very obvious thing to say, but I think, certainly as a student, take the opportunity and freedom you still have to challenge yourself and to try to learn about as many things as possible, because once you go into practice then you will be doing what you need to do for the job. Expose yourself to these other things. Many students want to or have the ambition to become the next starchitect. I mean, good for you that you’re ambitious and have the drive, but there is only a handful of starchitects, so maybe you need

Take any opportunity to challenge yourself, and try to learn about as many different things as possible.

RuMoer #65

another plan, at least a good plan B! I’m thankful for my background at the VUB in Brussels that it was this mix between architecture and engineering, because that gave me some sort of an openness, both from a basic skill set and from a certain attitude. It allowed me to be able to learn things about and specialise in different directions. If you don’t do that at the start of your studies and you don’t arm yourself with sufficient base skills to be ready to explore different things later on, then you’re kind of lost, I think. You want to do this when you’re still a student, so challenge yourself. Take all these classes that enrich you.

Figure 6: The Armadillo Vault. © Iwan Baan)

Philippe Block is Associate Professor at the Institute of Technology in Architecture at ETH Zurich, where he co-directs the Block Research Group (BRG) together with Dr. Tom Van Mele; deputy director of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) in Digital Fabrication; and founding partner of Ochsendorf DeJong & Block (ODB Engineering). Block studied architecture and structural engineering at the VUB, Belgium, and at MIT, USA, where he earned his PhD in 2009. Research at the BRG focuses on equilibrium analysis, computational form finding, optimisation and construction of curved surface structures, specialising in unreinforced masonry vaults and concrete shells. As part of the NCCR, the BRG develops innovative structurally informed bespoke prefabrication strategies and novel construction paradigms employing digital and robotic fabrication. With the BRG and ODB Engineering, Block applies his research into practice on the structural assessment of historic monuments and the design and engineering of novel compression structures.

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

Glass laboratory for BT

Technoledge Design Informatics & Structural Design workshop by Tom Scholten

Figure 1: Design of the new Building Technology laboratory (ÂŠ Tom Scholten)

echnoledge is a series of six elective courses that are mandatory in the Building Technology master track. Out of these six courses you must pick two that excite you the most. This year, however, was a little different than usual since me and my fellow students were only twelve, just enough to fill two of the six elective courses. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s why a special course setup was introduced: a collaboration between Design Informatics and Structural design. For this occasion we were assigned to make a design proposal for a new laboratory for the building technology department, made entirely from glass. The approach was to design and build an innovative

glass structure with 3D printed connections and sun shading in full scale. This proved to be challenging, given that we had only 8 weeks to accomplish this. The project started with a short individual phase, designs were proposed to each other and the most promising one was picked. After we selected a winner we divided ourselves into teams: design, construction and detailing. The teams design and construction may be obvious, but we found that a team specializing in connections was necessary since there was an emphasis on 3D printing these connections. This happened all fairly quick in the first week of the project. Given the short time

Academic article

Experimentation

frame we had to get up to speed as soon as possible. The exciting part was the part of actually building a piece of the design in full scale, hoping to impress the dean in such a way that he had no other choice than to give the green light to have it built. Building a prototype from actual glass is not cheap, so we where given a strict limit in how much material we could use. Also glass comes in standard sizes of 3.2x6m and this is something that you have to take into account when building with glass. Therefore the detailing team wrote a grasshopper script that automatically created a grid that fits components no larger that the maximum sheet size. In addition to this, the construction team advised the use of a cross beam grid to disperse the loads as equally as possible since glass does not like peak tensions. This was also added to the script, which integrated nicely with the existing grid of the panels.

RuMoer #65

Meanwhile the construction team was making calculations to get an idea of how glass behaves when put under loads. First by hand, but later in Diana using FEM (Finite Element Method) because the geometry got complexer as the design team was generating new proposals. One of these proposals was derived from a design from the concept phase: a tree like column that had branches

Figure 3: FEM model of one of the columns (ÂŠ Tom Scholten)

Figure 2: Three dimensional image of the tree like structure (ÂŠ Tom Scholten)

where it was exposed to loads. This concept was interesting to develop because the glass that we would use for the model was cut with a water jet, therefore we had a lot of design freedom and organic shapes are one of the many possibilities. The idea behind using these tree-like columns is that material can be used only where necessary, or better said: material can be saved. One column has four fins, each parallel to a direction of the grid. Depending on the span of the beam or other loads the gap in the fin or branch is larger or smaller, this makes every branch in the building unique.

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

Unfortunately, because we had little time, we could only make few alternatives by hand and test them using FEM. The ideal situation would be to let the computer build the ideal shape. When the work behind the computer reached its end, it was time to start building. We pulled quite a crowd when unboxing the delivered watercut glass pieces. The design team thought of a way to assemble the prototype as quick and precise as possible given the resources we had available. Each column was made out of five layers, the beams out of three. Connecting sheets of glass in such a way that loads can be transferred is to laminate them with PVB sheets, this process requires heat and pressure. Two things we had no access to, so we improvised and used special 3M double sided clear tape.

A template was printed and placed as an underlay under the glass sheets, to show where the straps of tape needed to go. Prior to the building week, the design team sorted

the different pieces in groups, this took some time but was easy to do since every piece is unique. Now it was like putting a big puzzle together. Besides glass there are other components that play an important role in the structure. The majority is 3D printed, this was essential because we needed this design freedom for the connections between different components. In some locations the loads are just too high for PLA. This was were steel came into play. The connections disperse the peak loads away from the glass, the connections were bolted so the pieces needed to be laminated between the layers. We made the steel connections ourselves at the DreamHall from 6mm flatbar steel. These were laminated in the columns and beams and secured with two-component epoxy glue. Last but not least the connection from column to floor was also made from steel, steel square tube to be exact. The supports were also laminated into the column, the steel tube was 20mm in width which was equal to three

Figure 3: Lamination (ÂŠ Tom Scholten)

Figure 4: Connection of the glass sheets (ÂŠ Tom Scholten)

Academic article

Experimentation

Figure 5: End result (ÂŠ Tom Scholten)

layers of glass including tape. The square tube was then bolted with L-brackets to the floor. This worked fine for the prototype, but the real situation would be an elegant clamped connection in the floor. This is only a very short summary of which steps were taken to go from individual concept to collaborative design.

RuMoer #65

Figure 6: Structure up close (ÂŠ Tom Scholten)

Besides this we all are now very comfortable in designing glass strutures. Glass has unique characteristics, which may seem scary at first glance but are not once you know how to take benefit from them. We made considerable progress in just eight weeks, which got all the supervisors smiling, including the dean.

Tom Scholten is currently graduating within the Building Technology track, now focusing on acoustics and additive manufacturing. He continues working on a component scale level where he feels most comfortable, but traded glass for acoustics because he wants to learn more about it before he graduates. After he graduates he wants to work for a company that develops products for the built environment, following his passion for testing and prototyping new technologies with a hands-on approach. Which one he does not know yet, there are so many to choose from...

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

WANTED: INNOVATIVE SPECIALISTS WITH ENTREPRENEURIAL QUALITIES ‘How the profile of the technical employee changes’ by Peoplehouse Who refuses to innovate, is left behind. Big companies are dying for employees that not only possess specialist knowledge, but are also innovative and creative. But do those companies also offer the challenges that entrepreneurial talent is after?

ow many times have you heard the word ‘innovation’ today? At least once, I suppose (unless you read this in the morning, but then it will probably come). It is the word of the day, often used in combination with terms like ‘creativity’, ‘refreshment’ and ‘change’. In the meantime its use is so widespread, that you would almost forget how important it really is for the technology industry. Progress stands or falls with innovation. Or like Ir. Paul Oortwijn (former CEO of NLingenieurs) once said: ‘In this industry, change is the standard’. A company that fails to innovate, will sooner or later lose its right to exist, particularly as a technology business. Trend research tells us that organisations no longer ignore digitisation and other technological developments, instead they give these developments a significant role within the organisation. At many a company, ambitious phrases and enthusiastic plans frequently find their way into the meeting room. In fact, however, that has been happening for many years. In 2011, Deltek and NLingeneurs

conducted research on the trends and needs of the engineering industry. 112 engineering companies were questioned about the way they try to distinguish themselves from other companies. With a little over 70 per cent ‘quality’ turned out first, closely followed by ‘creativity and innovation’ (65 per cent). So the willingness is certainly there. But the execution often turns out more complex. In ‘Werkverkenners’ (a Dutch cross-media programme about developments on the job market), big companies were compared with oil tankers, which also steam slowly. After all, the bigger the organisation, the less agile it is. And that is the essence here. Companies know they will miss the boat if they do not act in the area of innovation and technological development. To reinforce their place in the market, they must embrace new opportunities and reinvent themselves over and over again. But how to achieve that? In ‘Werkverkenners’, an independent advisor suggested the following initiative: “Position five teams of five people at the borders of your organisation. Give each of them a budget of five thousand euros. The teams are fully heterogenous, intern, extern, young, old, from all departments of the company. Let those teams go ahead with new ideas, and let them do so freely. By disconnecting a bunch of people from your organisation, you bypass internal barriers and encourage creativity”. If one aims to enhance innovation and creativity, one will have to let go of old structures and give employees freedom in self-control. For that, however, another kind

Industry’s Article

Experimentation

of employee is needed. Technical Jack-of-all-trades that not only possess specialist knowledge, but with this knowledge can also make a difference. In that fashion, Erik Oostwegel, CEO of HaskoningDHV, recently told ‘Financieel Dagblad’ that ‘he needed less draftsmen and calculators’. Instead, he is looking for more conceptual thinkers. People who can come up with innovative ideas and execute them; entrepreneurs. With that in mind, it does not come as a surprise that companies are especially investing in human capital. In the coming years, the generation of baby boomers will disappear from industry. The success of companies hinges on the recruitment of a new generation of employees. And that is not easy. The new generation of employees is usually less loyal to one employer. Besides,

RuMoer #65

this group has different interests, and therefore demands an entirely different approach. A manager of a large engineering company formulated it as follows: “You don’t just manage those young professionals, but you offer facilities and the freedom to fill in projects themselves.” For years, companies mainly focused on efficiency and productivity. The workspace offered little space for fulfilment and self-development. But the new generation wants nothing to do with ‘to measure is to know’. They are in search of challenges in a place where they can work on personal development too. Modern business management aims less at productivity, hierarchy and numbers, but is adjusted to the belief that employees are intrinsically motivated. And with that: more freedom and responsibility to fill in their own working days and

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

activities. And that is essential. Big organisations almost always have to deal with hierarchical structures and internal regulations that form an obstacle for this new way of working. Besides, which experienced employee that has been doing ‘A’ for years, is waiting for a recently graduated newbie who suggests that ‘B’ could work too? It is no surprise that many young talents rather work independently after graduation. While companies are eager for their entrepreneurial mindset and creativity, the graduates struggle with the question if they would not rather be self-employed. After all, as an entrepreneur you have complete freedom to fill in your work process the way you like. No managers, teambuilding-days or colleagues telling you to do something differently ‘because that’s the way things go here’. But, as romantic as it may sound to be self-employed, starting a company is challenging. The numbers are as plain as day. Out of 127.000 entrepreneurs that start their own businesses yearly, half quit within five years. About two hundred of those enterprises can truly be considered start-ups. And of those two hundred, only 1 out of 10 turns out to be successful.

Leonie Ebbes, founder of accelerator ‘Peoplehouse’, is not surprised by these numbers. “Many young talents start an enterprise directly after finishing college.” However, they often lack the basic knowledge of starting and operating an enterprise. They think to have found an interesting solution, but forget to validate if there is even a problem to start with. Often, a potential client has not even been identified. Many mistakes are made in the starting phase, which – with the right knowledge – could easily have been avoided. It is for that reason that Ebbes connects young entrepeneurs to established companies who are in search for exactly such people. As intrapreneur (entrepreneur that works within a company) they can start up within existing organisations. “In doing

Industry’s Article

Experimentation

so, the established order gets the creative and innovative input they need to survive in a fast-changing market. And the youngsters thus learn the ins and outs of the industry. After two years, someone with sufficient accumulated know-how can decide whether he or she wants to embark on a project independently, or do so inside an existing company.â&#x20AC;? By connecting the young and the old that way, forces are joined. A bridge is created between the established order and the new generation of entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs. To realise that bridge, big companies must focus on opportunities rather than threats. And with that: giving entrepreneurial employees the freedom and responsibility to fill in their work each in their own way. Young entrepreneurs, in turn, will have to realise that having an enthusiastic idea alone does not make for a successful company. And that a career as intrapreneur can be just as satisfying. If the established order and the young talents learn from and with each other without constraints, then the Netherlands will become a breeding ground of innovation experiments. And that is of benefit to everyone.

RuMoer #65

Learn more? On June 7th Peoplehouse in cooperation with the engineering firm DPA Cauberg-Huygen will also be present on the Debut Event in the Orange Hall at the Faculty of Architecture of the TU Delft. www.people-house.nl

Leonie Ebbes and Anne Cowan (ÂŠ Peoplehouse)

Are you the founder of your own start-up? Or do you prefer the role of intrapreneur within an existing company? In two years, Peoplehouse will give you the entrepreneurial experience that equals a decade. We believe in the enthusiasm, the innovative view and the creativity of entrepreneurial talents. Peoplehouse provides the fundament for (practical) entrepreneurial knowledge, a validated business plan and a good network. In a well composed Entrepreneurial Program by Peoplehouse, the young entrepreneur gets the opportunity to get important work experience at well reputed companies. Besides this, every two weeks on Friday, the young entrepreneur will work on their personal development and their entrepreneurial skills guided by experienced coaches and professors.

RuMoer #65

Experimentation Figure 1. render image of the bridge

Glass Truss Bridge by Prof. Ir. Rob Nijsse It is a well-known fact that structures are always considered to form a continuous collaboration between the structure itself and the foundation. Especially in the Netherlands, where these pedestrians/cyclists bridges are to be constructed, the soil is so weak and unsuitable that the integration of soil and structure is necessary to control the required safety- and- deformation level of this integrated design. Chosen in a limited design competition, the bridge constitutes a shallow arch made from glass blocks. This experimental bridge has to be seen, regarding its structural behaviour, as an integrated design of a glass arch and the foundation: concrete and soil. After completion, a set of test loads and regular control of deformations will take place to insure the required safety level of these public bridges. To construct a glass arch bridge, a temporarily supporting structure is required. For this purpose, a steel-glass lenticular truss was designed. To safely construct a glass arch bridge, a

lot of testing in the Stevin II laboratory in Delft is required. Also, something very important is a good price for the circa 2200 special shaped cast glass stones for the arch, which is difficult to negotiate with the few companies able to make them in a good way. Therefore, we chose to make the temporary bridge a semi-permanent bridge in order to solve all the questions regarding safety and finance.

Design of the bridge to the Green Village: The shallow glass Arch â&#x20AC;&#x153;Prototype 2â&#x20AC;? The Green Village is a terrain on the campus of the Delft University of Technology (DUT), where all kinds of technical, sustainability-related, features will find a home. Between the Green village and the campus, there is a 14-meter-wide Dutch canal over which a new bridge, 2.2 meters wide, has to be constructed. Of course a bridge

Academic article

Experimentation

RuMoer #65

Figure 2. the Green village, location of the bridge

Figure 3. render image of the bridge

to the Green Village has to be Green as well. Therefore, the Green Village worked out a strategy to build, a new bridge every five years, as sustainable as possible in the time frame of each moment. The old bridge is of course to be recycled (figure 1). For the first bridge, a limited design competition was conducted for the employees of the DUT. Since the department of Structural Design of the Faculty of Architecture of the DUT had a good working experience with an experimental faรงade, made from cast glass blocks, for the Chanel shop in Amsterdam, it was decided that the same building material, massive cast glass blocks, were to be used for this Green Village bridge as well. Glass is a good choice for a Green bridge, for glass is a very sustainable material; it is made from sand (lots of it in the World), it is inert (no corrosion/rot) and it is 100% recyclable without any loss of quality. And glass is transparent, a beautiful property that makes it shine and sparkle and adds an interesting esthetical value to the bridge. The glass blocks in the Chanel faรงade were, however, glued together for structural integrity. Adhesive is not a preferred sustainable connection method and since the bridge has to be dismantled after five years, gluing (adhesive) was not an option in this location.

shallow as possible arch to prevent people from sliding and slipping when crossing this bridge. Shallowness in arches has a big structural price: large horizontal forces on the supports of the arch and in combination with the Dutch soil, peat up to 20 meters deep, led to the decision that long concrete piles were needed too. This is an unfortunate and possibly dangerous combination; large horizontal support forces and long concrete piles. The Structural Design group of the DUT was however convinced that with a clear awareness of this dangerous combination and the appropriate structural measurements this challenge could be tackled. We are happy to report that our design won the first prize and was selected to be the first sustainable bridge of the Green Village.

Therefore, a choice was made for an arch, to be working under compression at all circumstances. It had to be a

Design of the concrete foundation of the glass arch bridge Between dream and reality stand practical objections; to start with the (adequate) foundation of this shallow arch composed of, loose, special shaped, cast glass blocks. Telesilla Bristogianni, who is doing a PhD research on the structural, cast glass elements, was responsible for that, along with the engineering firm Royal Haskoning DHV (RHDHV) that was selected to be the structural advisor for

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

these two foundation blocks. In close collaboration with the Structural Design group of the Faculty of Architecture and the Building Engineering group of the Faculty of Civil Engineering of the DUT the following concept was worked out (figure 4). Two big, cast on site, reinforced concrete blocks on concrete piles was the most suitable choice when weighing cost and efficiency with practical possible foundation techniques. The concrete piles had to be 23,75-meter-long to find a good firm standing in the bearing sand layers under the first 20 meters of non-load bearing peat. The piles measured 400 X 400 mm and were driven in the soil. Each concrete foundation block rests on 8 piles. Two piles, close to the supports of the glass arch, are placed vertically; the other six are placed under an inclination of 1:5, an angle of about 11 degrees. This has been done to have as much capacity as possible for taking up the huge horizontal forces from the glass arch.

Calculation of the concrete foundation blocks The loading on the foundation blocks was provided by the DUT, which had made FEM calculations of the shallow glass block arch composed of loose glass blocks

400 mm deep. These calculations and of course the validation of these FEM calculations by tests in the Stevin lII laboratory, are the PhD work of Ate Snijder. Dictating loads were the dead load of 1000 kg/m2 (= 10 kN/m2) (!) due to the glass arch and a live load of 500 kg/m2 (= 5 kN/m2), that could be placed eccentrically. As a special load case a maintenance vehicle had to be taken into account. Taking just the characteristic dead load of 300 kN of glass blocks leads to a horizontal force of 480 kN on each abutment of the arch bridge. This is a static load, always there, pushing the concrete blocks! If we add to this the characteristic load resulting from live load, like pedestrians and cyclists, a maximum vertical load of 443 kN and a maximum horizontal one of 718 kN result. This last load that occurs only for a limited time, therefore, leads to different pile deformation behaviour! An important remark has to be made to the Standard producing authorities: real life tests on (driven and undriven) piles have to be executed to provide reliable structural properties for calculations. This counts for static, dynamic and long-term loadings on piles. If the engineers donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t validate the data, their calculations are not more than an educated best guess: an unacceptable,

Figure 4. Sketch of the bridge with the piles reaching the sand level

Academic article

Experimentation unsafe situation! The uncertainty regarding the spring stiffness of piles, especially horizontally, led to the following precautions. Directly from the delivery by the contractor the situation was carefully measured and during the building process and, further on, during the life cycle of this glass block arch bridge these actual measurements will be guarded. If the displacements of the bridge are measured to be larger than the maximum of 10 mm that the DUT arbitrarily established, stiff steel cables can be attached horizontally between the concrete foundation blocks. DUT will make the final FEM calculations of the glass blocks arch bridge with this movement of the abutments taken into account.

The steel lenticular bridge with glass diagonals: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Prototype 1â&#x20AC;? To form a firm support to construct the experimental glass arch bridge upon it, a stiff and efficient structure is required. For a 14-meter span, heavily loaded by people/ cyclists and/or massive glass stones of a thickness of 400 mm, the most efficient structural shape is a steel truss in a lenticular form: depth (lever) in the middle, shear force resistance at the supports. As an indication for the depth; 1 to 10-15 ratio of the span was used and 1.20 meter was chosen. As an upper chord, a steel profile HEA 120 was selected, resistance against secondary bending between the nodes of the truss and resistance against the out of plane buckling were also essential. For the lower chord, a steel strip was chosen, since a large tensional force can be withstood by this element. To reduce as much as possible the deformation (elongation) of this chord, a massive steel strip, of a width of 200 mm by a thickness of 30 mm, was designed. The required circular shape for these two special elements was created, by rolling the profiles between heavy presses, realised by a specialised firm; Kersten Amsterdam. To emphasize the fact that each part of the Green Village

RuMoer #65

has to be both sustainable and innovative we decided to make the diagonals from glass. Faidra Oikonomopoulou of the DUT is making a PhD study on how to create a safe structural solution for this diagonal glass column. Two choices were made to guarantee this structural safety, the first choice is making not one glass massive bar but a bundle of small massive glass bars; failure of one or more does not immediately lead to collapse, the second choice is to put in the centre of the bundle a steel bar; a steel bar is hard to break with a sledgehammer. The last choice also provides the possibility to transfer tensional force through a bundle of glass bars, a very useful property since an eccentrically placed live load will result in a change of diagonal forces from compression to tension or vice versa. So, we were able to make structural safe glass diagonals for all the diagonals of our lenticular truss. The glass bars are glued together with UV hardening adhesive. To integrate the steel bar in our glass bundle a special shaped central glass element was used in the shape of a hollow glass star. In the opening of the glass star a steel bar was placed. To make a firm connection between this one steel bar and the six glass bars surrounding it, it was decided to prestress the steel bar and thus put a permanent compression load on the glass bars. The pre-stress force was chosen to be identical to the maximum possible tensile force in a diagonal. So, in reality, the glass will never be loaded in tension; a stress situation unfavourable for the material. The bearing capacity at the supports of the slender ends of the truss presented an issue for the designers, but the capacity near the support was improved by welding a vertical steel plate between the upper and the lower chord. However, an important requirement for publically used Structures mentioned in the Eurocode bothered us: the demand that one element of the main structure may fail to function without leading to a progressive collapse. For our situation this meant that each diagonal may fail to whatever cause; a mad student with a sledgehammer for instance. With our FEM computer programmes we could

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

prove that indeed (almost) each diagonal could fail and not result in fatal collapse (with the safety factor on loads reduced to one). “Almost” was mentioned because failure of the diagonal close to the supports proved critical; very large deformations occurred due to shear force action in this part of the truss. To place at this position a glass diagonal, even though with an inner steel bar, was considered too much of a risk. So, we decided to put an all steel hollow section as diagonal close to the supports. One crucial esthetical fact has to be mentioned; when looking at the realised bridge the steel bar inside the glass bundle diagonals will not be visible. This is the result of the fact that, after long pondering on this esthetical problem: a very visible black steel bar inside a transparent, and beautiful, glass bar bundle, we decided to chromise the steel bar so that it becomes reflective and “invisible”! One last issue regarding these glass diagonals is that there is no Code or Standard for these innovative and experimental elements. So how can we prove to the client, and the people that use the bridge, that it is a safe structure? Hence, we decided to test each element in the Stevin II lab in Delft with doubling the highest possible load for duration of half hour. If a diagonal can survive this ordeal, it is, therefore, considered to be suitable for structural use in this experimental bridge, which we call now “Prototype 1”. “Prototype 1” as predecessor to “Prototype 2: the all glass Arch”.

Figure 5. the glass and steel diagonals meeting the upper and lower chord of the lenticular truss

Figure 6. detail of the meeting point of the glass diagonal with the lower chord of the lenticular truss

Connection of the glass diagonals to the upper and lower chord of the lenticular truss The most interesting, and difficult (!), detail of this bridge is the meeting point of the two glass diagonals and the upper- or the lower chord of the lenticular truss. First starting point was that all forces in a connecting detail to meet at one point; no eccentricities. Second staring point was that the diagonals can be either compressed or under tension, depending on the load case on the bridge. Third starting point was that the detail should be as transparent (=glass) as possible. The first idea we tried out was a

Figure 7. detail drawing of the meeting point of the glass diagonal with the upper chord of the lenticular truss

Academic article

Experimentation cast glass node, a very appealing design that would have looked very exciting. We managed to cast a prototype, but practical problems and lack of time to test this out properly, forced us to follow another direction. We still had a number of cast glass blocks left over after the tests for the Chanel project. Why not re-use them in the new bridge? So we came up with the detail that is realised. A semi-circular steel strip was welded to both steel profiles, the upper and lower chord of the truss. The space inside the semi-circle was filled in with waterjet cut glass blocks. In this way compression forces in the diagonals simply press against the semi-circular steel strip and the glass blocks inside the semi-circle, while tension forces in the diagonals are transported by the inner steel bar inside the glass bundle diagonal that is connected with a steel bolt to the structure of the truss (figure 5-7).

Building and installing on location of the lenticular steel bridge with glass diagonals It was decided to build this bridge, prototype 1, entirely inside the Stevin II lab in Delft. Under inside conditions the bridge had to be assembled as a kit of parts from all the elements that it is made, mostly steel and glass. The lower and upper chords of the truss were prefabricated in the correct circle shape. The diagonals were glued together in a bundle of 7 massive glass bars (diameter: D=20 mm). In the middle, a hollow star shaped central bar exists, through which a steel bar of a diameter of 12 mm was placed. On both outer sides of the glass bundle, a soft aluminium circular plate (thickness: t= 2 mm) was placed and the inner steel bar was preloaded with a force of 16 kN, depending on the position of the diagonal. The semi-circular steel strips were bolted to the steel profiles of the truss and with a double-sided, transparent tape the waterjet-cut-to-fit glass stones were connected inside the steel strip. A silicone joint closed off all possible gaps in this detail. In the waterjet-cut glass stones holes with a diameter of 12 mm were made. Through this hole the lengthened steel bar was positioned. A bolt secured the steel bar at the steel profiles. On top of the two completed trusses a corrugated steel plate was mounted that forms

RuMoer #65

the basis of the walking platform of the bridge (figure 5). On the two concrete foundation blocks, steel shoes were placed to form a support for the prototype 1 bridge. These steel shoes were made from steel plates (thickness: D= 12 mm), which were interlocked with waterjet-gutted nudges that transported all the shear forces and left the required welding to a minimum. The four times two shoes for each support of the two trusses were connected to the cast in anchors in the foundation blocks and an extra check was done of all the essential sizes like span, horizontal position etc. to be sure that the bridge would fit into the situation. The completed bridge was lifted by a crane inside the Stevin II lab and positioned on a truck to be transported to the close-by building site of the Green Village. The transportation was conducted by a professional firm, Zwatra from Rotterdam. The whole operation from inside the Stevin II lab to its final, secured, destination in the

Figure 8. transportation and position in place

Figure 9. glass bridge in place

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

Figure 10. dancing test (© Karlijn Spoor)

Green Village lasted around three hours. It was carried out without any problems or complaints, thanks to a good scenario, good communication with all the parties involved and the craftsmanship of Zwatra (figures 8&9). After this procedure, glass panels, 600 X 300 mm were installed at both edges of the bridge, connected by steel angles at two levels with the corrugated steel plate on top of the trusses. On top of the corrugated steel plate a layer of 300-400 mm earth is placed. The glass panels at the edges of the bridge hold this mass of earth in place. Grass and stepping-stones are installed so that it is really a Green Bridge for the Green Village.

Figure 11. marching test (© Karlijn Spoor)

On the 15th of May 2017, a group of 50 students volunteered to be the testing load on the “Prototype 1”. To take good and accurate measurements a large number

Academic article

Experimentation of strain gauges and acceleration measuring devices are placed. Also, a set of reflective dots is glued to the lower and the upper steel chord of the bridge. By taking pictures during different loading types we can make a computeradded image of the bridge during resulting deformations. The loading by students began with a static load; bridge full (=uniform loaded) and half full (=eccentric loaded). Then, they marched over the bridge; we were interested in the dynamic behaviour of the bridge during this test load of marching people, which is always a hot issue for bridges. Last but certainly not least, there was a dance party on the bridge and once again the dynamic behaviour of the bridge was measured. After all the tests we used the required data to validate our FEM computer programmes (figures 10-12).

How to continue with the Glass Arch bridge, what is the ultimate goal of this operation? In the near future, after all the necessary tests will have been carried out in the Stevin II lab, the cast glass stones of the Glass Arch bridge, prototype 2, will be placed directly on top of the corrugated steel plate (on a layer of wooden panels). After the last stone is put in position, the Arch will be completed, and the supports connected to the concrete foundation blocks of prototype 1 will be lowered and recycled/ reused at another position. Then we will see the image that the computer-made rendering showed us; a shining, shimmering Glass Arch spanning mysteriously the 14-meter canal.

RuMoer #65

Figure 12. walking test (ÂŠ Karlijn Spoor)

Special thanks to the team: General Design and supervision: Rob Nijsse Technical Drawings, Structural Validation, Experimental validation: Ate Snijder Construction: Kees Baardolf, Ate Snijder, Wan-Yun Alice Huang, Rafail Gkaidatzis, Lawrence Brooks, Eli Padmos, students minor Bend and Break

Prof.Ir. Rob Nijsse is a Senior Consulting Engineer. In 1979, he started working as a structural engineer at ABT. At the time, he already worked as a project manager of small projects. In 1985, he became manager of larger projects and was also responsible for the structural design. In 1991, he was appointed consulting engineer (now senior consultant). In 1997, he became managing director Structural Engineering at ABT, but in the first place he remained a structural designer. Since 2007, he works part-time as a professor in the Technical University Delft in order to be able to pass on his knowledge and experience to the new generations.

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

‘‘ The design of a maximized transparent roof structure,

to create the most optimal micro climate for the Khalifa International StadIum in Qatar

‘‘

The graduation topic discusses the design analysis process of designing a maximum transparent roof for a stadium in order to create the most optimal semi indoor stadium climate. To conduct such research, the following main question had to be asked: How can a maximized transparent roof for the Khalifa International Stadium (KIS) in Qatar, with efficient use of energy, create an optimal semi indoor climate in extreme summer weather conditions? The research on creating a comfortable micro-climate in stadia started in the early eighties, where at the time knowledge in this field was very little. During the nineties, more information came available on creating microclimates in large semi-indoor spaces. Thus academic experimenting began on the quality of air, lighting and acoustics in stadia. This resulted in new stadiums built with new techniques from these academic analyses. In the zeros one discovered a lot of inconveniences in the findings of the nineties and started to improve the academic research on stadia. With the rise of computers, it was a lot easier to conduct more complex and feasible analyses. Which brings us till today, where climate adaptation with complex forms can be tested and actually be made with the use of new kinds of materials. Because of the help of computers, designs are becoming much easier to predict, which makes us challenge ourselves to design in the most extreme situations where efficient and sustainable engineering can be achieved. Designing a roof for a stadium or a whole stadium gives new insights in different use of materials, smart climate/ structural design and the quality of sustainable building.

By Andreja Andrejevic

(KIS) gives a clear insight in the complexity of the structural demands of a stadium and the relevance of climate adaptive building. From a climate till a structural perspective the design has to balance between both disciplines, without exceeding one another’s preconditions. For such roof, a wide range of design and engineering analyses is required. By conducting wind, heat and lighting analyses certain design requirements are imposed. Resulting in an interesting primary structural roof design based on the wind and an interesting secondary structural roof design based on heat and lighting. A roof where climate design meets structural design and vice versa.

Designing a roof for the Khalifa International Stadium Figure 1. Khalifa International Stadium

Graduation Project

Experimentation

RuMoer #65

Climate Design Research

The research on Semi-Indoor Environmental Quality in stadia discusses three types of qualities, namely Aerothermal Quality, Lighting Quality and Acoustical Quality. Where the research on Aerothermal Quality elaborates on the comfort of the users (players and spectators) and the importance of roof geometry on climate design [2]; the research on Lighting Quality elaborates on the amount of light needed for natural turf growth [3] and lastly the research on Acoustical Quality digs into the importance of backward and forward reflection in stadium semi-indoor spaces [4]. As a conclusion, climate design restrictions were set out of the researched literature. By looking at what challenges on stadium climate were encountered, I can get a better insight on designing a suitable climate adaptive roof.

Figure 2. Geometry in relation to aerothermal quality

Figure 3. Acoustical quality

Figure 4. Lighting quality

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

Structural Design Research

The structural design research discusses the possibilities of large span structures applied to stadium roofs. Starting with the possibilities of applying steel as a primary structure followed by a comprehensive explanation on the use of glass roofs in the architectural practice [5]. The third part of this chapter discusses different types of glass, glass production and glass treatments. At the end, the last chapter discusses two different types of

smart hybrid glass structures that can be applied on the primary steel structure for the stadium. The purpose of this is chapter is researching the maximum possible span with glass as a secondary structure within the primary steel structure [6]. This way the primary structure can be executed with a minimum amount of steel, while the secondary structure will supply maximum transparency/ translucency and seek for its maximum span possible.

Figure 4. Original design for the office building at the Casuariestraat made with Soda Lime glass, http://www.fokkemapartners.nl

Figure 5. Structural possibilities of applying different geometries in glass

Graduation Project

Experimentation

RuMoer #65 Upper structural layer

Lower structural layer

Roof Design Analysis

After determining the climate and structural restrictions out of the research, the total analysis can be conducted. Most of the design and analysis process will take place in Rhinoceros+Grasshopper, with the help of several plug-ins. However, to get realistic wind simulations, wind tunnel model tests were conducted to compare them to the computer analyses. Starting with the climate analysis, 3 form findings from Rhino and Grasshopper will be put through a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis in Autodesk Flowdesign and a real time wind tunnel model test. These analyses will run in Grasshopper with the help of the earlier named program, that act as a Grasshopper plugin. The outcome of this plug-in analysis is linked to Autodesk Flowdesign, which will generate data into useful values. To test the veracity of the CFD analysis, wind tunnel model tests are conducted to compare the methods. Finally, these values can be measured to the set climate design restrictions [7]. With a proper wind analysis, the best variant can be determined and used as input for the design of the primary steel structure. With designing a load bearing structure, the form and the structural behavior needs to be understood [8]. With the help of Kangaroo and Karamba, which are both plug-ins for Grasshopper, a parametric optimization can be made for the design of the primary structure [9]. After these analyses, the first actual form can be determined, where the next step is a heat and lighting analysis. These analyses will also run in Grasshopper with the help of the GECO. The outcome of GECO is linked to

Hot air gets mist-cooled between two structural layers which will result in cold air

roof cooling it is more efficienttesting to cool the whole stadium Figure 6. CFD Through Analysis and windtunnel

Figure 7. Structural behaviour primary structure

Figure 8. Structural analysis primary structure

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

Autodesk Ecotect, which will generate data into useful values. The generated heat and lighting data can give an indication where the roof should be opened or closed, based on a certain heat and lighting input. The result of these inputs will be translated into a so called â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;adaptive roofâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; [10]. The adaptive roof gives a clear base to design the glass structure. Same as with the primary structure, the heat and lighting analysis gives input for the design of the glass structure, that is going to span between the primary structure [11]. This structure will also be tested on materialization (CES Edupack), form behavior (Kangaroo) and FEM (Finite Element Method) (Karamba) analysis [12]. With the FEM analysis it is possible to calculate through the whole structure, giving a clear insight of the total structural behavior of the roof. After a positive FEM analysis outcome, the final structural properties can be determined and translated into a design.

Figure 9. Heat and lighting analysis 2

Dead load = 0.5 kN/m

Side load = 0.5 kN/m

In the end, the final concept has to be the perfect balance between climate and structure and the right output to elaborate on the technical design.

Figure 10. Structural behaviour secondary structure

Figure 11. Buckling behaviour analysis

Side load = 0.5 kN/m

Graduation Project

Experimentation

Climate Design

RuMoer #65

Direct sun light

Direct sunlight gets diffused by two layers of PTFE fabric, while natural diffuse light gets slightly filtered by one layer of PTFE fabric. This way the right amount of PAR can be reached [13]. The get air into the stadium, the west side of the roof has air inlets to catch wind and accelerate the air through its aerodynamic form to subsequently blow it as cold air into the stadium. To get a certain velocity of air circulation, the air is mechanically extracted at the east side of the stadium [14].

Diffuse light

The mist cooling system humids the air (with 5 ˚C water) in the cavity and will lower the temperature of the hot wind up to 25 ˚C

Direct sun light gets filtered and diffuse light is allowed to go through

Air that gets via the wind can have a temperature of around 40˚C in summer, to cool this air down to around 20˚C, water vapor of 5˚C gets used. This principle is called ultrasonic mist cooling [15].

Wind can get in roof cavity due to inlets at the west side of the stadium

Figure 13. Hybrid air circulation principle

The cooled wind fals down into the stadium through small openings between the arch structures Figure 12. Roof light and cool principle

To make air circulation possible the air has to get mechanically extracted at the east side of the stadium

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

Structural design

The hybrid glass arches span between the primary structure beams, which helps the primary structure stabilizing, next to the bracing, even more and makes the roof a complete structure. With a wind force coming from the, a possible divided load can occur in the middle of the roof. Resulting in the glass arches absorbing mostly compression forces, which causes upper compression and lower tension in the beams, which remit the forces to the stability and the stadium. The wind pressure also makes the suspension and the outer arch cables pull, where to stabilize the structure, half of the cables absorb tension and half of the cables become zero-forces [16].

Design

In the earlier mentioned process of the climate and structural design, Rhinoceros+Grasshopper played the key role in making the outcome of the analysis and the design parametric. The reason why these early stage analyses can influence the design very easily is because of the input and output flexibility parametric design can cope with. All analysis and design aspects influence one another and can easily adapt and integrate in modern technology, due to algorithmic based parametric design. This new feature of designing, engineering and analyzing will make the design process in practice more efficient, faster and less error driven. As a building technologist standing in the middle of design and engineering, this tool is the language between designers and engineers of the future.

On the right: Figure 15 to 17. Total design with complete structural behaviour

Graduation Project

Experimentation

RuMoer #65

Andreja Andrejevic graduated Cum Laude in MSc Building Technology in January 2017. He is currently working as a trainee Young Entrepeneur Building Sciences at Peoplehouse from where he operates as a Junior Consultant at DPA Cauberg-Huygen. As a trainee to become an entrepreneur, Andreja tries to seek for innovation and possibilities in the established building industry. He hopes to run his own start-up within two years, where he will be trying to give an answer to future problems in the built environment.

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

PD LAB ‘What is that white thing on the parking lot of BK city?’ By Jeroen van Veen

That is what is being asked constantly. Time to explain. There is a lot more behind it than you may have thought. As many may have seen, a small white building on a scaffolding has suddenly appeared at BK city: the PD-lab. It has been built in a short time with the help of a CNC milling machine, many industrial partners and students of the faculty. It may not seem to be innovative for its architecture but it certainly is from a technical point of view. Before you start wondering. Product Development Laboratory, that is what PD-lab stands for. Why do we need a laboratory for product development? Most buildings nowadays actually consist of many standardized products screwed and glued together. Buildings are turning more and more into products. The building industry is often referred to as conservative. However, it does what is possible. The PD-lab aims to broaden the possibilities. Where Industrial Design once originated from the faculty of Architecture, now the building industry can learn a lot from product development. The PD-lab is both an experiment where various products and techniques come together as well as a platform for building products to be tested in and on. Building the lab by ourselves was the ultimate learning-

by-doing experiment. One of the goals of the lab is to encourage new ways of thinking on how to build. It is going to be used for house experiments concerning innovative façade, sun shading and building services. Because the building is based on a modular system, it is relatively easy to adapt to adjustments and updates for the testing of specific products. The pavilion is completely built out of CNCmilled building components including the facade and roof. The front and back facade of the building are built in a traditional way to explore the possibilities of the application within the current building methods. All the components are prefabricated in the workplace of The New Makers in Delft, where the plates of wood were milled with high precision and detail to make prefab assembly a

Graduation Project

Experimentation

RuMoer #65

piece of cake. All elements fit into each other in only one way, so no mistakes can be made during the assembly process.

‘Building looking for façade’ campaign and enthused ODS and PolyNed to provide us one of their building products to complete the building with two facades.

Building looking for facade The realization of the PD-lab is made possible by the 4TU.BOUW federation of the four technical universities in The Netherlands. Every year the 4TU.BOUW organizes a competition to let universities present new innovative ideas within the building sector. At the end of each year all the selected projects show their ‘proof of concept’. The PD-lab was one of those. When the proof of concept was exhibited at the Gevelbeurs in Januari 2016, the team was convinced to be able to realize the building system in the shape of a small pavilion placed next to the faculty. However, to be able to do this some help of the industry was welcome to overcome the “budgetary challenges” and to be able to test the idea by combining it with existing building products. Therefore, we introduced our small

Production pioneers Throughout the project there was always one key question: how far can we go? We had the ambition to approximate car-like precision and finishing for the building as an experiment of how far we could go minimizing tolerances and building a building like a manufactured product. As a commonly used cladding material, Arconic (formerly Alcoa) provided us with a supply of a Reynobond panel. These aluminum composite panels bring another dimension to the CNC fabrication process. By milling away the 0.5mm interior layer of aluminum and the 3mm PE core with a v-shaped tool, the panels can be folded by hand. In this way, an origami-like façade can be created with a precision of 0.5mm. We decided not to go crazy folding the panels in all different shapes, but took another

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

direction. By extending the modular set-up of the building into the façade system, technical innovations try to seek for the boundaries of precision and tolerances. By taking a modular approach it pays off to invest in complex, wellthought-through technical solutions to accommodate all the needed design features. By integrating a gutter system in the panels the façade is not only the building’s make-up but at the same time a fashionable raincoat, which can be placed without any screws and approaches the precision of a car. Endless modular possibilities By using CNC techniques, it doesn’t matter if ten wall components are produced today and a staircase is created tomorrow. Complexity is not an issue for the machine. Components are cleverly engineered with certain variables like width or height. By putting a lot of effort in the design and engineering of the components to make them smart, integrated and easy to build a modular approach pays off. With only a few standardized components which can

be used and placed at various locations within a building configuration, there are almost endless possibilities of combinations. At the same time this approach minimizes the risk of failures on the building site, which is a large expense within the building industry at the moment. Mass customization To take this idea to the next level an online building configurator has been developed at TNM to let people puzzle their own home together. Like digital Lego you could stack wall, floor and roof components on top of each other to form a building. Wall with a window, floor with a staircase or a roof with a chimney. The simplified components you see on your screen are, behind the scenes, linked to complex CNC drawings, so the components can be produced by the push of a button. Next to that the user is given useful information of his or her creation real-time. Production time, costs, environmental impact, weight; all can be compared in different configurations. This really illustrates and

Graduation Project

Experimentation invigorates the potential of such a building system. New techniques, new challenges When building with tolerances of sometimes only 0.5 mm or smaller, you can run into problems that you never knew existed. When we ordered the OSB plates of 5,0x1,2m, we discovered during prototype assembly that the thicknesses of the plates were sometimes off by 1.0mm, meaning some parts did not fit or were too loose. The manufacturer was a little bit surprised when he was confronted with the message that his material was 1 mm too thin. That was something that would have never been a concern when building, until now.

The future The most effective sustainability is efficiency When buildings are designed, it is unlikely that there is thought about what will happen when the building does not satisfy its users anymore, when something is broken or when the building or part of it just gets too old. When you would tell this to an industrial designer he/she would probably look a little bit askance at this way of designing. While buildings are demolished producing tons of waste, the car industry thought carefully of how to reuse as much of the components and materials as possible to increase efficiency. That raised the question: Why can’t buildings be designed within this philosophy? We need buildings to adapt to people’s needs when necessary and allow for changes throughout its lifetime without demolishing valuable elements. Buildings become more like products. Which, lets make this clear, does not mean all buildings should become standardized products which one could buy off the shelf, but the industry can certainly learn from facets of product manufacturing. One of the key aspects in this is how to deal with dis- and re-assembly within the design and building process of buildings. The promising future is you I was really amazed by the number of enthusiastic students of the faculty who were willing to help us with

RuMoer #65

assembling the prefab components as well as building the lab on-site. In my opinion this is illustrative for the growing interest among students in building and making. By building and manufacturing your own design you receive highly valuable feedback to improve both the design as well as the process. At that moment, it becomes clear what the designer imagined on the drawing board is actually functioning on the building site. Sometimes a smart solution is not as smart as you would think on the first hand. Within this philosophy we, at TheNewMakers, develop all our products and designs. When there is a new idea, this can be produced immediately to receive feedback of the manufacturability, the fit or the look of the design. By working so closely together in the workplace, designing and making are merged into a natural process. In my opinion that is where good design starts. While we were building the lab, version 3.0 is already being developed and prototyped. It is a continuous, neverending learning cycle. Is there a lack of building and making within the education at the faculty? Let’s be honest, the manufacturing process is not just a yummy sauce you can put on your design at the end, but is key to understand and integrate within, and from the very beginning of, the complete design process.

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

Special thanks to the team:

Marcel Bilow, Tillmann Klein, Pieter Stoutjesdijk, Nick van der Knaap and TheNewMakers and of course all the partners for making it possible: Aldowa, FabFac, Festool, FMVG, Guardian Glass, Heco, IsoVlas, Lerobel Glass, Luning, Maasstad hout&plaat, ODS, PolyNed, Reynobond, Rojo steigerbouw, Rollecate, Triton, Verwij logistiek

Construction process (ÂŠ Marcel Bilow)

Graduation Project

Experimentation

RuMoer #65

Jeroen van Veen completed his Master of Science at Building Technology one year ago, in 2016. For his graduation project he worked on a file-to-factory modular faรงade system for the PD-lab. Jeroen is currently working at TheNewMakers in Delft, developing innovative products from the scale of a chair to a town. He has a passion for making and is always searching for a dialogue between technics and architecture/design.

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

UPCOMING EVENTS June

07.06.2017

DEBUT.event

The Building Technology company case day. More info on debut-event.nl

22.06.2017

COMMITTEE EVENT PRAKTIJKVERENIGING

BOUT

student association for building technology

For all their work and effort, we are thanking the members of each committee with a boat tour and drinks after at the Koperen Kat in Delft! More info to follow soon...

July 01.07.2017

BT BEACH VOLLEYBALL PRAKTIJKVERENIGING

BOUT

student association for building technology

Come play against the RuMoer comittee in the afternoon and have drinks and snacks in the evening. Want to join? Send an email to: layla.vanellen@hotmail.com

04.07.2017

MASTERCLASS EVENT: Peoplehouse

A case day with accelerator Peoplehouse, including lunch lectures from inspiring speakers and a start-up market. More info to follow, or contact media@praktijkverenigingbout.nl

Praktijkvereniging BouT

Experimentation

RuMoer #65

09.07.2017 - 30.07.2017

SUMMER SCHOOL of ARCHITECTURE, WROCLAW

Work and chill More info on: http://ssa.pwr.edu.pl // Registrations: ec@praktijkverenigingbout.nl

August (summer holidays) September

BB T U O

06.09.2017

BouT BBQ

Come meet and chill with your fellow BT students!

October November 13.11.2017 - 19.11.2017

STUDY TRIP: BILBAO

The Building Technology annual study trip. More info to follow, or contact studytrip@praktijkverenigingbout.nl

RuMoer #65

Experimentation

PAST EVENTS 15.01.2017

Alumni event 15.05.2017

Opening & Testing Glass Truss Bridge

12.05.2017

PD-Lab Opening

24.05.2017

Excursion: Bolsward Broerekerk

Praktijkvereniging BouT

WAT IS PEOPLEHOUSE

VOOR WIE IS PEOPLEHOUSE

GUARANTEES

Peoplehouse stoomt jong talent klaar voor het ondernemerschap. Met het Entrepreneurial Program brengen wij in twee jaar tijd de ondernemerslessen bij waar normaal gesproken tien jaar werkervaring voor nodig is. Wij koppelen daarnaast onze young entrepreneurs building sciences aan een gerenomeerd ingenieursbureau om zo ook de nodige werkervaring op te doen. Peoplehouse werkt als een accelerator voor jou.

Jij levert de creatieve en innovatieve input die de gevestigde orde nodig heeft om overeind te blijven in een snel veranderende markt. Jij signaleert de noodzaak tot verdere innovatie. Ergens in je achterhoofd speel je met de gedachte om deze input, nu of ooit, om te zetten in een eigen businessplan. Het ondernemerschap spreekt je aan. Maar is nu het juiste moment? En beschik je nu al over de juiste kennis en competenties om sky-high te kunnen gaan als ondernemer? Peoplehouse biedt voor jou het fundament om antwoord te geven op deze vragen.

• In twee jaar tijd word jij klaargestoomd voor het ondernemerschap. • Na het doorlopen van het Peoplehouse Entrepreneurial Program heb jij een killer business plan en gegarandeerde funding voor jouw eigen onderneming. • Blijkt uiteindelijk dat ondernemen binnen een bedrijf beter bij jou past? Dan beloven wij jou een baan bij een Nederlands topbedrijf dat innovatie en techniek als speerpunten heeft.

sin e Ca ss M nv od as el

STAP 3 STAP 1

rk too eting ls

cka

ton

Personal Roadmap Entrepreneurship

START

Ze ex ro t pe o o rie n nc e e

INTRAPRENEUR? ENTREPRENEUR? W E A C C E L E R A T E Y O U ! Start your own business Know your product Know your customer

STAP 2 Customer journey

SIGN ME UP! WWW.PEOPLE-HOUSE.NL

ld ho

l ga ies Le dar un bo

FINISH Pitch/ DragonsDen

BOUT CONNECTS!

Cabinet 02.West.090 Faculty of Architecture Julianalaan 134 2628BL Delft The Netherlands PRAKTIJKVERENIGING

BOUT

student association for building technology

+31 (0)15 278 1292 www.praktijkverenigingbout.nl rumoer@praktijkverenigingbout.nl