Aaron Stillitano_Pack-Away, Cr(e)ate by SwinArchitecture

PACK - AWAY, CR(e)ATE THE DESIGN OF SEMI-PERMANENT ARCHITECTURE USING PACKING CRATES

Studio D - Thesis Booklet Student : Aaron Stillitano . Studio Leaders: Canhui Chen, Petar Petrov 2022-HS2-ARC80003-Design Research Studio D : Waste not, want not - Designing for Circularity

CONTENTS CONTENTS - PAGE 2 STUDIO OVERVIEW - PAGE 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COUNTRY - PAGE 5 ABSTRACT - PAGE 6 CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION - PAGE 8 CHAPTER TWO - CONTEXTUAL AND PRECEDENT RESEARCH - PAGE 16 CHAPTER THREE - MATERIAL STUDY : PLASTIC - PAGE 42 CHAPTER FOUR - SITE ANALYSIS - PAGE 58 CHAPTER FIVE - FORM FINDING - PAGE 70 CHAPTER SIX - CONCEPTS, PLANS AND DETAILS - PAGE 88 CHAPTER SEVEN - PROTOTYPING - PAGE 112 CHAPTER EIGHT -

RESULTS - PAGE 140

CHAPTER NINE - CONCLUSION - PAGE 172 REFERENCES - PAGE 178

STUDIO OVERVIEW: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT - DESIGNING FOR CIRCULARITY This unit enables students to demonstrate mastery of creative design processes in architecture and/or urban design by identifying a contemporary design challenge; setting out an ambitious design research question; articulating a design research method; performing independent research, integrating their research directly into their design, and; putting forward a tested and rigorous design proposition. Students will model, simulate, test and communicate their proposals with relevant and suitable media and methods clearly and concisely. They will demonstrate an understanding of the environmental, spatial, material, structural, construction, theoretical, social, cultural and design practice contexts, at a range of scales relevant to their proposal.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COUNTRY We respect and honor aboriginal and Torres strait islander elders past, present and emerging. We acknowledge the stories, traditions and living cultures of aboriginal and Torres strait islander peoples on this land and commit to building a brighter future together.

ABSTRACT This Thesis aims to identify and discuss fresh viewpoints on the near emerging circular economic market as a solution to the increasing issue of industrial waste and pollution. Using plastic collapsible containers, I aim to demonstrate the importance of up-cycling materials found throughout all corporate industries and how they can be used to make semi-permanent designs that can increase the longevity of buildings without the need for renovation or increasing this issue of waste and pollution.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY WHAT IS THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY? A circular economy is a way of producing and consuming goods that prioritises sharing, reusing, repairing, and recycling already manufactured goods for as long as possible. It is in opposition to the idea of a linear economy that of which we have been utilising for hundreds of years and is more centered around one time use products where almost everything consumed eventually ends up in landfill [6] (Figure 0.1). It is an economic standard that many large corporations as well as everyday people have been straying away from in the passed decade especially. The circular economy focuses on maximizing the circularity of materials within an industrial society by creating goods and structures that can be disassembled, refurbished, and reused while reducing waste production. Although it is at the top of the conventional hierarchy, several people have criticised this reuse idea for being “too complex.” According to the circular economy, there are several ways to increase a product’s lifespan or reuse it, including through repair, upgrading, remanufacturing, or re-marketing. Duncan BakerBrown, Author of the insightful ‘The Re-Use Atlas’ believes “the more the design is focused on this, the more valuable a product is and hence the faster this happens.”[6] According to a 2015 ‘Club of Rome’ study of seven EU nations, a move to a circular economy would result in the ultimate low-carbon economy by cutting greenhouse gas

emissions by up to 70% while increasing employment by roughly 4%. [7] The most labour and environmentally-intensive solutions are typically those with the highest rate of monetary value preservation. These activities are economically viable, despite requiring a larger labour input they use far fewer material resources than in the industrial linear economy.

RESOURCES

PRODUCTION

1. RETHINK & REDUCE 2. REDESIGN

As a result, the building sector now faces three challenges: - Creating construction techniques that are efficient and waste-free, allowing for eventual component and material reuse - Developing structures to utilise the fewest resources possible during construction, operation, and maintenance, but also being flexible and adaptable to changes in use - Establishing techniques that permit the dismantling of structures and infrastructure while maintaining the highest quality.

USE / CONSUMPTION

USE / CONSUMPTION 3. REUSE 4. REPAIR / RE MANUFACTURE

This thesis aims to elaborate on and explore these three challenges, identifying real world adaptations as research and uses as well as incorporating them into my design solution.

5. RECOVER

5. RECYCLE

WASTE WASTE Circular Economy diagram adapted from PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. themasites.pbl.nl/circular-economy/

FIGURE 1.1 - LINEAR ECONOMY & CIRCULAR ECONOMY MODELS 10

PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE WHAT IS ‘PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE’ Planned obsolescence is a business strategy in which the obsolescence of a product is planned and built into it from its conception [1]. We live in a technology and forward-thinking society. But what may seem like basic and logical progression for the world we live in now, the reality is quite the opposite or at least the linear economy we live for holds us back and halts us from evolving passed human greed. Have you ever wondered why with all the technological advancements of today why products always seem to have a shorter lifespan than products designed and built over twenty to thirty years ago? This is due planned obsolescence.

every year. Not to mention the accompanying cords, power bricks, warranty guides and various other paper rubbish throw aside and set to landfill the second the box is opened. This is before considering the internal and technical issues that follow after general use, for instance an official software update to the phone suspiciously causes the phones battery to falter, drain faster and charge slower, coincidently during the same time period of the release of the new phone. But due to people wanting ease over everything buying the new phone is the option many would prefer.

Planned obsolescence first appeared in the United States, 1924. Alfred P. Sloan Jr., the head of General Motors, proposed a yearly model-year design that persuaded automobile owners that they required a replacement vehicle each year. His approach was criticised as being deliberate obsolescence. Many other businesses went out of business because they were unable to finance a yearly redesign. However, there were still reports of their vehicles having defective parts in need of pricey repair or replacement [4].

The rise in laziness and bad habits has lead to shocking developments that are driving our world into devastating and irreversible repair. The UN environment programme reported 20 to 50 million metric tonnes of ‘e-waste’ are disposed of worldwide every year with only 12.5% of the total sum being recycled so far [2]. According to a report from the Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE) and the UN E-Waste Coalition, released at Davos, Switzerland in January 2019 if something isn’t done to stop this surge, we will reach 120 million tonnes of e-waste every year by 2050 [3]. Although this issue my seem like it revolves around the industry of technology and product design it is seen in almost every industry and market, including construction. It is entirely applicable to modern newly resurrected buildings, homes and mid-rise apartment blocks. Every internal and external fitting that goes into that new structure will at some point wear away over time. Expensive, very specific replacements will be required, renovations of entire rooms will be needed which ultimately cycles in newly fabricated materials and drives out more waste to landfill. The phrase “product-life extension” was introduced in the early 1980s by Walter Stahel, in part as a response to the problems with planned obsolescence. In his research, he analysed various replacement methods and proposed that increasing the usable life of products was a crucial step in the shift to a sustainable economy. In many ways, this may be seen as the origin of the circular economy.

A prime example of this is the smartphone market. A new phone released every year per company, sometimes even multiple phones

One of the many aims of this thesis is to identify a potential prevention of planned obsolescence in the field of architecture and construction. Examining many of Stahel’s ideologies of the circular economy and methods of ‘Reuse, Repair, Reconditioning and Recycling’[5], in combination with much of my own personal sourcing of materials, product iterations and testing to design structures that can continually be restored. Papge images sourced from - McFadden, C 2022, ‘Here’s why planned obsolescence is bad for the environment’, interestingengineering.com, viewed 25 August 2022, <https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/planned-obsolescence-environment>.

E-WASTE SURGE

[5]

Papge images sourced from -‘The problem of electronic waste caused by planned obsolescence - Blog La Triveneta Cavi’ n.d., blog.latrivenetacavi.com, viewed <http://blog.latrivenetacavi.com/en/the-problem-of-electronic-waste-caused-by-planned-obsolescence/>.

PURPOSE, METHOD AND STORY THE WHY?

THE HOW?

The current world is in a state of material decline. The architecture and construction industries have been affected by the recent high volatility. Leading and carrying out projects across the built environment has presented both obstacles and opportunities due to supply chain issues, such as shipping issues, a lack of competent labour, and rapidly changing costs. Even while it can be difficult to forecast, there are lessons learned that we can use to help build openness in the procurement process and set expectations. The current and forever increasing issue of pollution and waste is another reason. Most waste we produce and throw to landfill has serious harmful impacts on the world we live. If we do not change our ways soon the future generation will be living with this permanent damage caused to our world and dealing with the consequences.

The unfolding process I will use to prove this hypothesis will be through the detailed research of both international a local research, uncovering alarming statistics within both regions for comparison. A research precedent on a real world examples will formulate evidence that this goal has be similarly achieved before. This precedent and research stage will then inform the chosen materiality, which shall be thoroughly analysed in local environments and industries, acknowledging key details and assessments that will affect further process on the experimentation phase. This will influence the choice of materiality and product. The product will form the backbone and the validity of this thesis, it’s story and it’s life cycle and how the site of choice fits into that life cycle will determine the response to our questions.

By using the ideology of the circular economy, by understanding the evident dangers planned obsolescence can have of designing for the future and by being aware of material specifications we can hope to discover and develop solutions for these issues with general materiality. This thesis poses the questions, can planned obsolescence be stopped in architecture?, Can we use ideas from the circular economy to extend the longevity of a building or system? And can the design of semi-permanent architecture using packing crates be the solution. I believe we can, and the proof lies within the conception of upcycling, the innovation of taking a material or product from one former application that it no longer fits into or has usefulness for, and adapting it to another use. Essentially extending the life of that product and avoiding additional waste sent to landfill at all costs.

THE NARRATIVE In my personal life I work in an industry that claims to support ‘zero waste’, giving and circularity. But after seven years of work and seeing what is behind the curtain in that industry I know that the many claims they make on face value are false and is in fact the quite the opposite. A conglomerate that panders to consumerism that ultimately does nothing but consume and create waste is at the heart and soul of planned obsolescence and the linear economy ideology. Finding alternatives to sending our waste to landfill and utilising it elsewhere can help solve the supply chain issues mentioned above as well as environmental issues with our polluted oceans, land and skies. It can even help solve small scale local wastage issues involving companies like the one I work for.

Papge images sourced from -Consumerism n.d., viewed <https://mind.help/topic/consumerism/>.

CHAPTER TWO: CONTEXTUAL AND PRECEDENT RESEARCH

GLOBAL IMPLEMENTATION ADIDAS X PARLEY The idea of the circular economy has spread all throughout the overseas market. Many major and small companies have taken to finding new and alternative ways to sell their products by using recycled waste as a primary source material and produce as little waste in the process. The Adidas X Parley collaboration is a great example of on of these large companies. ‘Parley for the Oceans’, is a nonprofit environmental protection group with an emphasis on preserving the oceans[8]. In June 2015 Adidas X Parley unveiled their project at the ‘Oceans. Climate. Life’ launch event at the United Nations in New York. A new Adidas Ultra Boost shoe made from nylon [6]. ‘The Sea Shepherd’, another partner organisation of Parley, pursued a deep sea fishing trawler off the coast of West Africa, where they retrieved 75km of illegal gill nets. Adidas was able to use these nets along with collected ocean waste found in the Maldives to fabricate over 500,000 Ultra-boost sneakers [6]. In 2019 Adidas X Parley took their collaboration one step further with the release of the ‘Futurecraft LOOP’, the new branding of their circular economy push where performance footwear could now be completely recycled and returned to Adidas to be stripped and recycled into brand-new performance running shoes [9]. Adidas’ was tasked with developing a new design process in order to fulfill the

‘closed loop’ proposal. Sports shoes frequently feature intricate material blends and component adhesives, resulting in footwear that can only be down-cycled. ‘Futurecraft LOOP’ is a ten year revolutionary solution that uses only one material type and no glue. Thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), is used to make every component and is entirely recyclable. Once the shoes have served their initial purpose and have been returned to Adidas, it is moulded, knitted, spun into yarn, then clean-fused to the sneakers midsole. With no waste and nothing thrown away, the shoes will be washed, broken down into pellets, and melted into material for components for a new pair of shoes [9]. The fabrication of these shoes opens up many possibilities for adaptation elsewhere and outside the product design market and into the construction market. Duncan Baker-Brown, Author of the Re-Use Atlas states in relation to Adidas X Parley, “By marketing popular products made from materials that have interesting narratives, companies will encourage consumers to learn about the problems associated with the materials used and feel part of a positive response.”([6] Baker-Brown., 2017) This statement from Baker-Brown shows that there is a potential encouraged consumer audience in line with the circular economy and that its possible that the future of many other design companies can be swayed into using a more circular economic stance with their products too.

Page images sourced from - ‘ADIDAS X PARLEY’ 2020, PARLEY, viewed <https://www.parley.tv/updates/adidasxparley>.

KNOWASTE NAPPIE RECYCLING ‘Knowaste’ is another company with a focus on advancing the circular economy. They are a revolutionary waste management company that specialises in recycling absorbent hygiene products (AHP), such as diapers, incontinence products, and feminine hygiene products. The Knowaste recycling process not only prevents AHP from going to a landfill or incineration, but it also recovers plastics and fibers for later reuse in their products[10]. The UK based company claims to be the ‘worlds first provider of a recycling solution for nappies’ [11] and first provider of a roofing tile that can be infinitely recycled. The recycling process seperates the primary five materials consisting of; Pulp, Plastic, SAP, Waste and Water. (Figure 2.1) The process is simple. Assorted AHP is collected and transported to a Knowaste recycling plan, the waste is sanitised then shredded and materials separated. Human wastes is conveyed through a jet cooker process, sterilised and treated through the local sewage system, Fibers are then reclaimed and then bagged for collection, plastics are sent through a granulation and washing process, the plastics are pelletised and shipped to partnered companies for fabrication into roofing tiles, waste collection bin and many other plastic based products[10]. (Figure 2.1)

The procedure sanitises the diaper fabric and employs a mechanical and water system to separate the various component so that the plastic and wood pulp can be recycled efficiently, leaving only 2% of the overall diaper that cannot be recycled. For every tonne of AHP processed at the Knowaste plant, 626kg of carbon dioxide equivalent is saved compared to other methods of disposal.

Human waste is sterilised and treated through local sewage

Managing Director, Paul Briggs claims one of the best advantages of this process is the consistency, Hygine products are made with very high quality fiber of a consistent quality and length, maintaining that quality through every process and every cycle. International risk assurance and consulting company, Deloitte were hired to perform a complete lifecycle assessment on the process and product. Results indicated that the Knowaste process is on average 70% better than landfill or incineration.

AHP collected and delivered to plant

While Knowaste is primarily base in the UK and Canada at this point in time there is much opportunity for expansion of this idea in Australia. There are 300,000 babies born every year in Australia and it is estimated that 800 million disposable diapers are disposed of in landfills nationwide each year [12]. This product has a seemingly endless supply chain as endless as new born babies. This product with all of its environmental benefits and alternatives can provide such wide adaption in the emerging circular economic construction sector for Australia. Roofing tiles only scratch the surface, there is possibility for new innovative recycled building facades where each large and small component is made entirely of this product or even entire internal fixtures that can simply be swapped out and infinitely recycled.

Waste is sanitised

Materials are shredded and separated Plastics are pelletised and bagged 25%

Pulp Plastic SAP

50%

Waste 12%

Water

Fibres and plastics are ready to be recycled and used for products

6% 7%

FIGURE 2.1 - NAPPIE RECYCLING PROCESS AND NAPPIE RECYCLING COMPONENTS All images sourced from - Knowaste Technologies. 2022. The Knowaste Recycling Process. [online] Available at: <https://www.knowaste.com/the-knowasterecycling-process.html>

LOCAL WASTE CONTEXT LOCAL WASTE ISSUES

EMBODIED ENERGY - MASONRY

In 2020 a waste account was released under the ‘Common national approach to environmental economic accounting in Australia’. It was developed in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) [14]. The report states many shocking key statistics surrounding Australia’s waste generation and management, including:

Embodied energy is the overall sum of energy that is used to produce a material or product. This can include the energy calculation of mining, manufacturing and even transporting the material. [16] All buildings also have their own embodied energies, it is determined by adding up all the:

• •

Australia generated 76 million tonnes of waste, 10% increase since 2016-17. Half of that generated waste was sent for recycling (38.5 million tonnes).

•

27% of that waste was sent direct to landfill (20.5 million tonnes).

• •

•

Energy used in the manufacturing of all the components utilised in the initial construction. (Initial embodied energy) Manufacturing of all the components utilised during building maintenance or repairs. (Recurrent embodied energy)

•

Transportation of materials to site.

Construction industry contributed 12.7 million tonnes (16.8%) an increase of 22% since 2016-17.

•

All energy consumed on-site during construction. (Figure 2.3)

$17 billion spent on waste services, 18% increase since 2016-17.

When selecting these materials, we must consider the embodied energy of the materials and how the materials affect the design and operational energy of the building.

•

Construction industry spent the most on waste services ($2 billion), 35% increase since 2016-17.

•

Exports remain steady since 2016-17 at 6% of total waste [15].

According to the data from this report the largest amount of waste generated by a single material was masonry materials with over 22.5 million tonnes being wasted from 2018-19 [15]. Masonry material have remained consistent as being the foremost material generated in Australia each year with the second most generated being organic waste at 15.3 million tonnes in 2018-19 [14]. (Figure 2.2)

Generally we should always aim reduce the use of materials with high embodied energy unless they are essential to cutting operational energy; for example, you can choose high embodied energy materials that are locally sourced to cut transportation energy. That being said, while materials on the lower spectrum of embodied energy do typically produce less emissions and reduce a buildings overall carbon footprint it is important to remember materials with low embodied energy can result in higher operational energy use, Similarly to a building made of a material with a higher embodied energy may use less energy to operate. The ‘sweet spot’, in the middle is the aim when designing a building and selecting its materials. When considering the local issue in Australia and the substantial waste of masonry materials, it is important to break down the specifics. Masonry materials generally consist of concrete, bricks, roof tiles as well as ceramic tiles. According to the Australian Governments ‘Your Home’ page on embodied energy, each of these masonry materials have a low embodied energy.[16] • • • •

Concrete - 1.1Mj/kg Clay brick - 3.5Mj/kg Roof Tiles - 4.3Mj/kg Ceramic Tile - 18.9Mj/kg

Although low in energy consumption, the issue lies with the increased mass production of each of these materials which also leads to an increase in material waste for each material. Hence the incorporation of recycling masonry materials is extremely important.

10.6% Masonry materials

30.1%

Glass Ash from coal-fired power stations

20.3%

Textiles, Leather & Rubber Metals Paper & Cardboard

1.6%

3.3%

Plastics Organic Waste Hazardous Waste

7.8%

16.6% 8.7%

1.1%

FIGURE 2.2 - AUSTRALIA’S WASTE MATERIALS

Initial Embodied energy

Re-current Embodied energy Operational energy use

Recycling of materials

FIGURE 2.3 - EMBODIED ENERGY OF A BUILDING 22

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION SIX DEGREE ARCHITECTS It has always been cheaper to demolish old buildings and erect new ones in its place, while sending all waste to landfill in the process. As previously mentioned (Page 22), building materials must be transported or even supplied from other nations around the world, with their raw components being extracted from the Earth, and then manufactured for construction, adding onto the overall sum of embodied energy. Utilizing recycled materials results in significant embodied energy savings. However, there are other justifications for doing so, such as the historical allusions or the artistic appeal of a collage. Strategic thinking is essential to preservation, thus in addition to employing recycled materials, we also need to consider the possibility of material reuse.

All images sourced from - ArchitectureAU. 2022. Six Degrees Architects’ Meyers Place to close. [online] Available at: <https://architectureau.com/articles/six-degrees-architects-meyersplace-to-close/

The Australian Six Degree Architects, gained reputation in the industry by adapting material reuse into their designs. Their early days were held into economic recession, meaning they were constantly tasked with finding creative and resourceful substitutes, converting vacant office buildings in the CBD and warehouses into homes utilising frequently free or inexpensive materials. The strategy became their trademark, and they used it to the creation of Meyers Place Bar, widely recognised as Melbourne’s first lane way bar.[17] The bar was created in 1994 and has won several honours, including the inaugural Melbourne Prize for “a Significant Improvement of Melbourne” at the 1997 Victorian Architecture Awards. The six founders were drawn to Gomi, a Japanese art movement that turns trash into works of beauty. The architects chose to use recycled, scavenged, and found materials not only due to a limited budget of $30,000, but also because they wanted to give the bar the kind of ready-made character, history, and memory that used materials can impart upon a new space.[19]

Situated near Parliament House, in a mostly empty lane way off Bourke Street, the architects leased a disused hair salon for the location of the bar. Their innovative construction process involved sourcing parts from all over Melbourne. Parts of the ceiling and walls were covered with shag pile carpet taken from a house they were renovating, and a complete cool room and beer tap system was salvaged from a closed pub and put back together at the site. The walls were panelled with timber from the stage at the Melbourne Town Hall that was traded for a slab of beer with the builders who were demolishing it and old cabinet doors were used from the Department of Education and train armrests were used to create tables. Meyers Place’s strength stems from more than just the resourceful utilisation of recycled materials. The architects’ favourite hangout, the nearby 1950s espresso bar ‘Pellegrini’s’, provided the dimensions for the concrete bar, which they replicated in their own establishment to provide yet another layer of local history. Respective to street bars in Asia that the designers admired, the bar pierces the recessed glass wall at the front of Meyers Place to create an outdoor drinking space that blends into the ‘lanescape’. The glazed front wall can completely fold open in the summer, but in the winter, it closes to protect customers from Melbourne’s cold and rain.[19] This is just one example of Six Degree architects’ innovative methodology behind their designs. Their up upcycling of local materials not only proves that its possible to accomplish beautiful designs with very scarce materials but also do so without costing more money and more embodied energy to the design.

MATERIAL PRECEDENT STUDY - UPCYCLED PLASTIC NAJU ART MUSEUM BY HYUNJE JOO This facade was designed for the Naju Art museum in South Korea. Architect Hyunje Joo, utilises or re utilises 1500 translucent, flexible and lightweight shopping baskets to address the separation of interior and exterior spaces. The reusable facade material diffuses the incoming natural light when looking from the exterior of the building while still allowing almost perfect views when observing out. Due to the material, light diffusion and reflections, the surface of the wall undergoes changes throughout the course of the day creating interesting lighting effects said to evoke a stimulation of the senses according the to designer. [13]

(2)

(3) (1)

(7)

The ‘material flow’ of these baskets include the following. Firstly the plastic is chemically fabricated to create the base polymers. The plastic sheet is then stretched and moulded into the baskets shape. It is used as intended as a shopping basket. When the baskets become obsolete or replaced they are adapted into the building facade by Hyunje Joo. This particular museum was scheduled for demolition two years after the facade was installed. Once the building is demolished the baskets are carefully removed for reuse on another building facade. This final process is repeated when another building is found or another use for the baskets is identified. [13] (Figure 2.4)

(6) (4)

(5) (1) - Natural materials sourced (2) - Chemical fabrication (3) - Use Manufacture (4) - Initial Application (5) - Recycling / Reuse

All images sourced from - ArchDaily. 2022. 1,500 Semi-Transparent Plastic Baskets Form a Lightweight Facade. [online] Available at: <https://www.archdaily.com/881513/1500-semitransparent-baskets-to-build-a-lightweight-facade>

[13]

FIGURE 2.4 - HYUNJE JOO BASKET FACADE MATERIAL FLOW

(6) - Reapplication (building facade) (7) - Disassembly and Upcycle

DIGITAL RECREATION AND ANALYSIS

(1) - Final facade (2) - Translucent baskets (3) - Zip ties (4) - Screws

(6)

(5) - Metal rail

(5)

(6) - Building wall (Brick)

(4) (3)

(2)

(1)

To attain a better grasp of understanding this design, This precedent was recreated digitally. (Figure 2.5) The facade system is quite simple. The baskets are zip tied together in rows of three. They are then additionally zip tied to a long steel railing that stretches horizontally along the building, approximately spaced 1.5 meters apart. Lastly the metal railing is then fastened to the buildings exterior wall via screws (Figure 2.6). Due the facades extremely lightweight design the railing needs no additional means of fastening, gluing or interlocking to the building. Hyunje Joo mentions this facade being able to exhibit sensory stimulations through light diffusion. To further examine this effect the facade was replicated onto a basic building with windows, a photo-realistic rendering software was used to achieve the result. The building includes two rooms and two windows. One ground floor window with poor lighting and one with no roof and maximum lighting. This was to show how the diffusion effect can work both ways, inside and out. To accurately examine this effect the same interior window was rendered at multiple times of the day. While difficult to replicate digitally, this sensory effect Joo explains is prominent throughout the day. The facade imbues a familiar warmth and sense of privacy to the environment, not unlike that which a sheer curtain gives on a sunny day.

FIGURE 2.5 - DIGITAL BASKET AND FACADE 28

FIGURE 2.6 - BASKET FACADE ASSEMBLY 29

RESIDENT ADVISOR STAGE

DIGITAL RECREATION AND COMPARISON

Joo’s idea of light diffusion through recycled materials pay close resemblance to the recent and local Pitch music and arts festival held at the Grampians camp grounds in March 2022. The temporary stage design installation uses similar elements of light and silhouette diffusion through the use of plastic purple pallets. Supported by a timber frame building around the stage the pallets are interlocked together using their initial designed function and then zip tied similarly to the basket facade and then securely attached to the frame. In many ways the stage design was able to achieve a greater result of light diffusion over the basket facade, this is mainly due to the interior rotating stage lights shining through the pallets as well as the addition of smoke machines and a night setting. Also similar to the Art museum the stage was a mere temporary installation. Once the festival was over the pallets were sent off and reused as traditional grocery store pallets.

Similar to the baskets, these purple pallets were created digitally and installed on the same building where the baskets once were to examine for similar lighting effects and other design similarities (Figure 2.7). While the purple pallets were able to achieve greater lighting effects they fail in comparison as a building facade. This is due to the lack of transparency in the pallets and the sturdy and rigid nature of the plastic and too much natural sunlight is blocked to make the building a habitable space. In addition the simple frame of the basket facade would need to be altered to adapt for the pallets extra weight. Each basket weighed approximately 250 grams, being extremely lightweight, while the pallets weight approximately 4 kilograms. If replicated over the same wall space as the baskets it would mean 375-400 pallets would need to be used and an additional 1.5 tonnes of weight added to the buildings facade supported by nothing other than zip ties and screwed to a steel beam. This outcome raises a few questions on the use of recycled items as facades or as building materials in general. Firstly, the idea of fastening unwanted additional weight to the exterior of a building that is only meant for a temporary amount of time not only posses structural issues with the exterior of the structure but also safety issues. The basket or pallet was never designed to be secured to a building, hence it is very literally out of its element. Issues with weathering and erosion of the material are a serious safety matter and not and may not be worth it considering the temporary lifespan of the facade. If these materials are not carefully tested to survive in harsh environments while attached the outside of a building then the material should be reconsidered as a choice of material. The second issue that this precedent has brought to surface is the livability aspect.

While Hyunje Joo was careful when choosing his transparent material to allow for visibility, the pallets when interchanged had a quite opposed effect blocking out visibility. This presents the issue of how effective recycled plastic materials work as facades if the materials are not transparent in design?

EMBODIED ENERGY - PLASTICS As both Joo’s basket facade and the RA stage primarily consist of an upcycled plastic material, it is important to uncover the basic requirements needed to fabricate this material and just how much of this material is sent to landfill over time. Between 2018 and 2019 plastic waste such as these pallets amounted to 2.5 million tonnes in Australia, approximately 3.3% of Australia’s total wasted materials. [24][25] The usual embodied energy of plastic is 22 kWh per kg (approximately 80Mj/kg) , which is roughly 4 times that of steel or half that of aluminum with 33% recycled content. It’s vital to remember that in addition to the process energy needed to create plastic, the embodied energy of polymers often also includes the energy contained within the feedstock itself. Steel and aluminum are two examples of materials that are not created from an initial feedstock that contains energy in the same way.[20] [26] Based on these statistics we can see the fabrication process including feedstock give plastics a generally high base embodied energy. Plastics also contain a high resilience rate with most plastics on average taking over 400 years to breakdown in landfill or in the ocean. Unlike many other material wastes, plastics don’t completely decompose over time, instead they are broken up into debris called ‘Microplastics’. Miniscule pieces of polyethylene plastic no larger than 5mm in length. If exposed to human cells it has been shown to cause damage through allergic reactions and cell death. [23]

All images sourced from - ‘Pitch Music & Arts’ n.d., www.facebook.com, viewed 23 August 2022, <https://www.facebook.com/pitchmusicfestival/>.

FIGURE 2.7 - DIGITAL PALLET REDESIGN 34

ALTERNATE DIGITAL EXPERIMENT

(1) - Final facade (2) - Railing bolts and screws

This final digital experimentation involved using the purple pallets as a main material and finding an alternative design and potential solution to the presented issues. This improved design for the pallet facade takes inspiration from the original basket facade with the implementation of a horizontal railing system for structural support. Although with this design, to compensate for additional weight, the structure is altered. The new railing system works so the pallets can be slid horizontally into place from either the left or right of the facade. First the railing is bolted to the masonry brick facade of the building. Then the pallets are slid in place, the end are then locked with vertical locking pins made from the pallets themselves (Figure 2.8). These pins stop the possibility of the pallets sliding around due to weather or resident tampering (Figure 2.9). To solve the issue of visibility without the use of a translucent alternative, horizontal sections were cut from selected pallets. These extracted sections were then reused used to create the sliding systems locking pin mechanism, as opposed to wasting this material entirely. This final alternate design incorporates many elements of Hyunji Joo’s baskets. The idea of upcycling plastic materials, a railing system and simplistic design all still remain in this new iteration while also altering it to achieve a greater or more practical result. Although, the aspect of light and sensory diffusion is lost with this design. The material removal from the window opposed pallets diminishes the multiplied keyhole effect to compensate for more visibility.

(3) - Steel Railing

(5)

(4) - Sliding Pallets (5) - Slide pin (6) - Building wall (Brick) Material removal / retrieval

(3)

(2)

(1) Window pallet with increased visibility

Extracted material cut

(4)

Material glued together to form pin

FIGURE 2.8 - LOCKING PIN 36

(6)

FIGURE 2.9 - SYSTEM ASSEMBLY 37

CHAPTER FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter provides the foundation of research for this thesis booklet. Examining and analysing multiple case studies from both a global and local context and both from outside and within the construction industry. Well established international companies, Adidas and Knowaste, provide great examples of real integrated recycling. The Adidas X Parley for the oceans collaboration continues the manufacturing and release of the limited edition Ultra Boost shoe, as well as the revolutionary and first of its kind ‘nappie tiles’ processed by Knowaste providing a new materiality and method of waste product recycling that is 70% less harmful than landfill. Although international cases, these companies can provide precedent to impacting local methods. These companies, although producing very different products, both use methods of plastic harvesting, extracting, mulching and then re-fabrication. A strong and potential methodology to establish a basis for this thesis. As for local context, it was important to first establish an understanding of Australia’s waste issues, reoccurring and emerging. For example, 76 million tonnes of waste was generate in 2019, half of that sent direct to landfill (20.5 million tonnes) and 12.7 million tonnes (16.8%) was contributed by the construction industry. The construction industry also spent the most in terms of waste services with $2 billion paid all in the same year with over 30% of material waste coming from masonry materials like brick and tile. These statistics while alarming can be used to help pinpoint areas and industries that are in dire need of change. Based on these findings the construction industry contributes the most waste and will continue (and increase) to do so until an ulterior direction of design that follows the circular economy is establish.

Another helpful guide to selecting a specific materiality are the found statistics surrounding embodied energies, not just for individual materials but also for entire structures. While we know the construction industry in Australia produces the most waste, mainly stemming from masonry materials, it was important to quantify how much embodied energy goes into these materials and how much of that energy is being thrown away. Masonry materials in general contained very low embodied energy to manufacture with the following statistics: • Concrete - 1.1Mj/kg • Clay brick - 3.5Mj/kg • Roof Tiles - 4.3Mj/kg • Ceramic Tile - 18.9Mj/kg But while very low it is important to remember each of these materials are ordered in the thousands for a small residential home and in the hundreds of thousands for larger commercial projects. 30% of all Australian waste is masonry waste amounting to 22.5 million tonnes only in one year, if we calculate the energy per material against the amount of that material wasted in that year, the approximated sum of wasted energy is over 150 million megajoules per kilogram. Although alarming, the wasted energy for masonry materials is only minuscule when compared to that of wasted plastics. In the same year plastic waste amounted to 2.5 million tonnes, approximately 3.3% of Australia’s total wasted materials. A statistic significantly lower than masonry materials, and yet still more wasteful. This is due to plastics generally high energy fabrication process, with the average embodied energy being around 75-90Mj/kg [20]. Another reason is due to the resilience rate of plastics. While ceramic tiles and bricks can be easily broken down back into dust, most plastics can take over 400 years to breakdown in landfill.

The precedent exploration and experimentation advanced the knowledge of potential use of upcycled plastic materials when moving forward. Hyunji Joo’s lightweight plastic basket facade proved to be a better option over the experimental incorporation of the RA stages’ purple pallets and begs the question if an upcycled plastic facade is practical if not translucent in nature? These issues were attempted to be solved in a follow up experiment by altering the structure of the facades structural components while staying true to Joo’s original intented design and following the basic guidelines of the circular economy to recycle and reuse. While I believe the exercise to be a success it does leave me with many queries about upcycled plastic use when moving forward, such as; Can they be more than a facade design? Can we incorporate it into structural elements? and how much reoccurring embodied energy will this material need to work as an upcycled material? Moving forward, I believe choosing plastic as a prime material for the basis of this thesis shows much potential. It is widely available and found in many products as a component. Although, this revelation does pose great issue with the environmental impacts plastic has on our ecosystems and lives for our future selves. Because of its greater and more harmful impact on the environment and on ourselves over a long period of time and because of its very high embodied energy rate, plastic as a materiality is the recommended choice.

CHAPTER THREE: MATERIAL STUDY - PLASTIC

INTRODUCING PLASTICS POLYMER A polymer is any of a class of natural or synthetic substances composed of very large molecules, called macromolecules, which are multiples of simpler chemical units called monomers.

MONOMER A monomer is a single unit or molecule in a polymer. The molecule can react together with other monomer molecules to form a larger polymer chain or threedimensional network in a process called polymerization.

POLYMERISATION

WHAT IS PLASTIC?

HOW IS IT MADE?

According to Nigel Mills, Mike Jenkins and Stephen Kukureka, writers of the dissertation, ‘Plastics, Microstructure and Engineering Applications’, Plastics are defined as a class of materials that may be moulded when soft and then hardened to maintain the desired shape. They are found naturally and are also made synthetically. The name plastic and polymer are interchangeable. It is derived from the Greek words poly, which means many, and meros, which means parts or units.[24] To envision a polymer, consider a polymer is a chain where each link is a “mer,” or monomer. At least 1,000 links are joined together to create the chain. This process is called ‘polymerisation’. [25]

There are two processes that can be used to chemically link monomers together: ‘addition polymerisation’ and ‘condensation polymerisation’. Initiation, propagation, and termination are the three fundamental stages of addition polymerisation. Similar to constructing a chain, the monomers in this type of polymerisation unite by being added to the end of the previous “mer” in the chain. Plastics produced through addition polymerisation include polythene, polystyrene, and acrylic. These polymers are frequently thermoplastic in nature, meaning that they may be heated to become soft and then chilled to become hard. They can be easily recycled or reprocessed. [24] [25]

Condensation polymerisation, involves the removal of a tiny molecule as monomers join together. Examples of condensation polymers include urethanes, certain polyesters, and nylons. These polymers come in thermosetting and thermoplastic varieties. All plastics undergo liquid phase during processing and solid phase upon completion. While most plastics can be remelted down into its liquid state a thermoset polymer cannot be melted and reformed once it has been solidified.

BENEFITS OF PLASTICS

EXAMPLES OF PLASTICS

• • •

As previously mentioned polymers or plastics are both found to occur naturally and made synthetically. Tar, shellac, tortoiseshell, animal horn, cellulose, amber, and latex from tree sap are a few examples of naturally occurring polymers. Some common examples of synthetically fabricated polymers include Polyethylene, used in plastic bags, polystyrene, used in Styrofoam cups, polypropylene, bottles, polyvinyl chloride, used in drain pipes and polytetrafluoroethylene, also known as Teflon (used for nonstick surfaces). (Figure 3.1) Although most polymers are made up of hydrogen and carbon (hydrocarbons), other forms of polymers can contain other elements such as oxygen, chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen, silicon, phosphorus, and sulfur.

Polymers appear to have an infinite variety of properties, including those that enable them to be dyed in an infinite number of colours. Additives can improve their characteristics. Plastics are a special material as they can be designed or engineered for particular applications. Although every polymer has distinctive qualities, most polymers share the following common traits and benefits:

• • •

They can withstand chemical exposure. They act as heat and electricity insulators. They have varied degrees of strength and a low bulk. They can be transformed into fibres, sheets, foams, or complicated moulded pieces using a variety of processing techniques. Generally cost effective. High percentage of recyclability [24]

POLYMERS

NATURAL

SYNTHETIC

Polymerization is the process to create polymers.

FIGURE 3.1 - NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC POLYMERS 44

PLASTIC WASTE AND RECYCLING AUSTRALIA’S PLASTIC WASTE ISSUE According to the ‘National Plastic Plan 2021’, submitted by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) under the Australian Government, Australians now generate 2.5 million tonnes of plastic waste annually, which is equivalent to up to 100 kg per person. Only 13% of all plastic is retrieved and recycled, 84% of it ends up in landfills. Even more concerning, each year approximately 130,000 tonnes of the plastic leaks into the environment. It is predicted that by 2025 99% of all seabirds on the planet re expected to have consumed plastic at some point in their lives. [25] These facts become far more alarming when we consider that the fabrication of plastic has only been around since 1907. [41] Plastics greatest benefit also poses the biggest issue and threat on the environment. Besides the alarming environmental issues plastics cause and will cause (Figure 3.2), the longevity of plastics and how long they take to break down when sent to land fill is the most concerning issue. This is dependent on the type of plastic and the form that plastic take, for example a plastic bag or coffee cup can take up to 30 years to break down in the ocean, whereas a 6 pack of plastic rings, plastic water bottles and disposable diapers can take 400 500 years to breakdown. [36] (Figure 3.3) Unlike other forms of waste, plastics are incapable of completely biodegrading on land or in the ocean, instead they are turned into ‘ Microplastics’. [37] As the name suggests, microplastics are minuscule pieces of plastic that can be seen on beaches as tiny pieces of coloured plastic in the sand. They are officially described as plastics with a diameter of less than five millimeters, small enough to cause significant damage to all environments and all living beings.

3.4

MILLION TONNES

Australians used 3.4 million tonnes of plastics in 2018-2019. Coffee pods

500 years One million tonnes of Australia’s annual plastic consumption is single-use plastic Plastic bags

84%

84% of plastic is sent to landfill and only 13% is recycled.

Every year in Australia approximately 130,000 tonnes of plastic leaks into the marine environment.

Australia uses around 70 billion pieces of soft “scrunchable” plastics including food wrappers each year.

Our use of plastic is increasing and across the world will double by 2040.

20 years Australian life expectancy

Plastic Straws

Six pack plastic rings

82.90 years

200 years

400 years

30 years

450 years

500 years

Coffee cups

Plastic water bottle

Plastic toothbrush

By 2050, it is estimated that plastic in the oceans will outweigh fish. [34] About the Plan n.d., viewed <https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/national-plastics-plan-summay-fs.pdf>.

[36] ‘The lifecycle of plastics’ n.d., www.wwf.org.au, viewed 14 September 2022, <https://www.wwf.org.au/news/blogs/the-lifecycle-of-plastics#gs.brdmbf>.

FIGURE 3.2 - AUSTRALIAN PLASTIC FACTS

FIGURE 3.3 - PLASTIC BIODEGREDATION OVER TIME 47

RECYCLING IN AUSTRALIA, WHY IS IT COMPLICATED? Plastics are generally one of the most efficient materials to recycle, but are also one of the most difficult and expensive. This is due to the fact that not all forms of plastic can be recycled. Plastics are actually split into seven different types, each with their own traits, purposes and recycling codes, which can always be found on the underside of each plastic product. These forms consist of the following: •

(1) Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET or PETE)

•

(2) High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE)

•

(3) Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)

•

(4) Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE)

•

(5) Polypropylene (PP)

•

(6) Polystyrene (PS or Styrofoam)

•

(7) Other (Mixture of types) [25]

(Figure 3.4) While plastics such as (1) PET, (2) HDPE and (5) PP are easy to recycle and can be placed in your typical homes yellow or blue recycling bins, most forms are complicated. (3) PVC for instance contains harmful chemicals and cant be recycled traditionally and (6) PS is mostly used for Styrofoam, a bulky yet very light material that needs to be taken to specific drop off points to be recycled, in fact most councils actually recommend that it be put directly in the rubbish bins as attempting to recycle these materials can actually compromise the recycling process and endanger process workers with the materials chemical toxins. [38] The last form is (4) LDPE, a soft, flexible plastic that include bread bags, fruit bags, garbage bags, and other types of packaging. To recycle this form it must be taken to a REDcycle drop off point found at your neighbourhood supermarket. 48

In 2018 China announced tighter policies on foreign inflows of waste products. This meant Australia had to find a new way to recycle its plastic and had no choice but to begin the funding of its own recycling plants. The recycling process itself is complicated as it requires hands on manual sorting in plants all over Australia. There are currently 193 material recovery facilities in Australia, nine are semi automated, nine are fully automated and the rest require hand sorting. [39] These hands on processors must work fast and immediately be able to identify the material of each item and sort it to its desired location and hence adding additional stress and complications to the recycling process. Although the process is difficult and taxing it is vital to moving away from a linear economy. Attaining the knowledge of these various plastic forms could prove to be beneficial for the economy as Australia loses an estimated $419 million in economic value annually because not all PET and HDPE is recovered and properly processed. [34] [35]

NATIONAL PLASTICS PLAN 2021

PETE

One of the most often used plastics. Commonly translucent, lightweight, robust, and utilised in both fabrics and food containers.

HDPE

Makes up the majority of plastics used globally. Due to its strength and resistance to moisture and chemicals, high-density polythene is perfect for use in pipelines, cartons, and other building materials.

PVC

This tough, stiff plastic is preferred for use in building and construction because it is resistant to chemicals and the elements.

LDPE

A HDPE variant that is softer, clearer, and more malleable. It is frequently utilised in corrosion-resistant work surfaces, other items, and beverage carton liners.

One of the strongest plastic varieties. Since it can withstand heat better than others, it is perfect for food packing and storage containers that are intended to house or generate heat.

4 5

Its clear that Australia has a big plastics problem and therefore action had to be taken. In March 2020 Australia’s hosted the first-ever National Plastics Summit. Over 200 leaders and experts from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors gathered at the summit with the first stage in their mission to develop and present novel concepts and solutions. [34] [35]

Better known as Styrofoam, this rigid plastic is low-cost and insulates very well, which has made it a staple in the food, packaging and construction industries.

The plan submitted under government sectors DCCEEW and DAWE aims to:

OTHER

A mixture of other forms of plastic, example Nylon, typically not recyclable.

•

Reduce plastic waste and increase recycling rates

•

Find alternatives to the plastics we don’t need

•

Reduce the amount of plastics impacting our environment. [34]

- Can recycle - Can’t recycle - Additional steps to recycle

FIGURE 3.4 - PLASTIC RECYCLING CODES 49

EMBODIED FOOTPRINT AND POTENTIAL EMBODIED PLASTIC DATA EMBODIED ENERGY (Mj)

EMBODIED WATER (L)

EMBODIED GHGE (KgCO2e)

PETE

6.4

HDPE

147

172

6.4

3 4

PVC LDPE

190 136

122

11.2 6.4

159

186

7.4

155

6.5

FIGURE 3.5 - EMBODIED FOOTPRINT OF PLASTICS 50

758

As previously mentioned, the embodied energy of plastics is on average quite high in comparison to masonry materials like clay brick, ceramic tiles and roof tiles. The more energy a material takes to produce the more harm is done to our planet. This is why plastic is the ideal choice of use for an upcycled construction material. Now it is imperative to analyse just how much energy each of the six plastics (not including 7) costs to produce to select the appropriate material for the site of choice. According the to Epic Data 2019 produced by The University of Melbourne [26], each of the six forms of plastic vary slightly in terms of their embodied footprint. In their basic ‘film-like’ form each type averages approximately an embodied energy of 100160 Mj/km. The completed embodied footprint data for plastic can be found in (figure 3.5). This shows the exact amount of energy, water and green house gas emissions are required to produce a kilogram of each plastic. [26] From observing this data it is clear that the plastic with the highest embodied footprint is Polyvinyl Chloride, or PVC. To produce one kilogram of basic PVC film it requires 190 megajoules of energy, 758 litres of water and 11.2 kilograms of CO2 emissions. This is opposed to the plastic with the lowest embodied footprint, Polyethylene Terephthalate, or PETE. To produce one kilogram of basic PETE film it requires 80 megajoules of energy, 55 litres of water and 6.4 kilograms of CO2 emissions. A grand contrast to that of PVC. Although all these various forms can potentially be used, for the use in construction as both structural or aesthetic use, the most practical option is plastic (5) Polypropylene or PP. This is due to its high overall embodied footprint, similar to PVC, meaning it takes more energy, water and emissions to produce, also due to its easy recycling ability which is ideal for a temporary facade.

PVC, while not the best option, can be viewed as a potentially appropriate choice due to it’s study materiality and lifespan. It’s toxic nature as well as the fact it is non-recycleable can also be seen as more of a reason to choose this plastic and put it to better use as opposed to wasting it. Although, while these reasons make it a good material candidate, they also make it an illogical choice for a temporary facade designs. While it is better to reuse PVC than waste it, we must ask, what happens to the material after the use in the building design? and is the toxic health risks of broken PVC in a highly populated site the a wise choice? Because of this PP is the choice to move forward with.

LOCAL EXAMPLES OF POLYPROPYLENE •

Furniture (Plastic chairs)

•

Chemical containers (Bleach bottles)

•

Syringes

•

Microwave safe containers

•

PP mesh weave (Heavy duty bags)

•

Bottle caps

MATERIAL SELECTION An example of Polypropylene (PP) products are the Chep made ‘Returnable Plastic Containers’, also known as RPCs. As stated by the Coles Supply standards 2021, [40] the supermarket regularly evaluates the quantity of packaging and waste produced throughout their supply chain and are committed to lowering the cardboard usage and ‘making a positive impact on the environment’.[40] In 2009 when the RPC system was launched, $2 billion was spent to implement 4 million crates over 450 stores. [44] To support this, Coles outsourced their RPC business to CHEP to expand the use of these reusable containers. This expansion has branched out beyond the supermarket chain and Chep now offer the use of these plastic containers to anyone via order. Today, Coles has over 5 million crates in circulation and produce more each year to accommodate for lost or broken containers. While the reuse aspect of these containers are in line with the circular economy, It is unfortunate that these containers do eventually get sent to landfill instead of being recycled or fixed once broken. A workplace study conducted by myself over the span of 4 weeks shows that on average 1-3 of these RPCs are broken at the store or returned broken upon arrival every day, 2 out of 3 are sent to the work dumpster and then eventually to landfill. With 807 Coles supermarkets Australia wide and more emerging each year [40], the amount of broken RPCs sent to landfill each day would be over 2000. The designed purpose of this container product is to be reused. It is filled with store produce in the distribution centre, sent to the desired Coles store for commercial use, then flat packed and sent back to the distribution centre. (Figure 3.7) This is done till the crates break from constant use. Once broken they are sent off for repairs, but due to expensive cost to repair these crates they are often ignored and still remain in circulation, this eventually causes a safety hazard for workers who can cut their 52

hands from slapping closed a broken crate. Evidently, this is the reason these crates find themselves sent to landfill instead of being repaired like they are supposed to. Fortunately, this opens up an opportunity to incorporate these crates into both long lasting and also temporary facade designs. A far greater option than landfill that also keeps the circular reuse purpose of these crates alive.

38 5

(2)

(3)

(1)

(6)

210.5 H

(4)

(9) 5 78

(5)

(8)

(1) - Natural materials sourced (2) - Chemical fabrication

(7)

(3) - Use Manufacture by Chep (4) - Distribution by Coles (5) - Use and reuse (6) - Repair (7) - Discarded when broken (8) - Landfill (9) - Reuse in construction

FIGURE 3.6 - CHEP’S “RETURNABLE PLASTIC CONTAINER”

FIGURE 3.7 - CHEP X COLES RPC MATERIAL FLOW WITH CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVE 53

RPC EMBODIED FOOTPRINT TESTING Identifying the specific embodied data involving these crates was important to the overall outcome of the project. Knowing the exact footprint of these crates give us an indication on the size of additional embodies energy we are adding to the site, as previously mentioned (Page 23) this is called ‘Recurrent embodied energy’.[16] Using the Epic data base and relative digital programs, it was possible to test the RPCs for it embodied footprint. A test was done on the complete crate including all five ‘snap-lock’ pieces and then a separate test was done on the individual pieces themselves. The purpose of this is due to the inconsistencies with securing these crates, how they are recycled and the state they are in when collected or thrown out. While the full crate is ideal for construction and offers the most in terms of poseability and form design. There may be situations where only one, two or three of the five core pieces are extracted. Therefor it is wise to gain specifics on each variation of piece. The results are indicated in (Figure 3.8) and shows relativity low numbers overall. The largest and most durable individual piece is the bottom and therefore makes the most sense as why is holds the highest footprint. The other side pieces are very low too, but two of each is require to make up the whole box. Each crate with all five pieces is approximately 1.1m2 worth of Polypropylene. But due to the crates design and assembly the max space each crate could possibly take up with all or limited pieces is 385 x 578, a total area of 0.22m2. For example, to cover a building facade space of approximately five meters squared, (realistically would cover 5.09m x 5.39m) it would take 117 of these crates. Assuming each of these crates are intact, this would give this section of the building a re-current embodied energy of 230,724mj, re-current embodied water of 269,217L and re-current embodied green house gas emissions of 10,647KgCO2e.

Although these figures may seem high, in comparison to other materials on the Epic database over the same area of wall it is actually relatively small. For example a 5m2 wall made entirely of 6mm thick aluminium cladding with incorporated core has an embodied energy of 310,214mj, embodied water of 359,749L and embodied green house gas emissions of 12,745KgCO2e. Slightly higher than the used RPCs. Another example is Glue Laminated Timber or ‘Glulam’. Over the same area of space. Gluelam has an embodied energy of 706,975mj, embodied water of 781,150L and embodied green house gas emissions of 40,125KgCO2e. Significantly higher than the used RPCs.

RPC POLYPROPYLENE (5) EMBODIED ENERGY (Mj)

EMBODIED WATER (L)

EMBODIED GHGE (KgCO2e)

1972

2301

786

921

380

443

213

248

DISTRIBUTION AND SUPPLY The potential sourcing of these crates must come from Coles themselves. A partnership to set these broken and unwanted crates aside for collection and use in projects like this as apposed to sending them direct to landfill. The new material flow is indicated in (Figure 3.7) depicts a new alternate path (9) that diverts from the usual landfill path. This new path leads to upcycling the broken or damaged crates for use in temporary construction. Coles currently has over 800 stores in Australia [40]. If a partnership program such as this were to be implemented immediately to all stores in the nation, and the acquisition of broken crates that pass through circulation is on average 1-3 crates a day we could potentially be supplied with 16,800 over the span of a single week. We now know that 117 crates cover an approximate area of 5m2, with 16,800 of these crates, that amounts to and area of 3589m2 of material to be reused. For comparison, according to freight shipping company ‘Freightos’ [42] it would take a minimum 30-40 days to receive a shipment of hardwood lumber from China for only 28m2 worth of lumber per shipping container. This doesn’t include additional supply issues.

FIGURE 3.8 - EMBODIED FOOTPRINT OF AN RPC AND ITS PIECES 55

CHAPTER FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the researched information on plastics it is clear that the pursuit and involvement of the material was the correct choice for this study. While Plastics can be found naturally in certain natural resins and animal shells, it is the synthetically made plastics that pose an issue. The fabrication of plastics has only been in production since the early 1900s. But the irreparable damage this material can do has only recently become an issue. This may be due to the ever increasing human population and the increased demand that follows. This could be due to the lack of information of the harm of plastics that is provided to the general public. The combination of both these has lead to alarming statistics such as Australians using 3.4 million tonnes of plastic between 2018 and 2019 or the fact that 84% of all wasted plastic is sent to landfill and only 13% is sent to recycling depots. The revelation on Australia’s recycling system was also an eyeopening discovery and also highlights the publics misconceptions on recycling plastics. There are multiple variations of plastic, each with its own properties and fabrication methods. Only certain types of these plastic variations can be recycled. Some types can only be recycled at certain drop off points, this is due to an alternate required method of recycling these plastics and also because the recycling process itself is complicated and requires hands on manual sorting in plants all over Australia. To make work easier for these processors plastics like PETE(1) need to recycled separately. On the other hand toxic plastics like PVC(3) and PS (6) otherwise known as Styrofoam cannot be recycled at all and pose serious health risks if they are in a traditional matter. The forms of plastic that can always be recycled in a traditional matter are HDPE(2), LDPE(4) and PP(5). Hence moving forward the best options for material use lie within one of these three options.

The physical and wasteful toll plastic has on our environment is not the sole reason for its choice. The embodied footprint these materials emit is just as crucial. The tests shown in (Figure 3.5) uses the Epic database provided by University of Melbourne. By using this conclusive data and comparing each of the six main plastic forms it was clear that the plastic with the highest embodied footprint is Polyvinyl Chloride, or PVC. To produce one kilogram of basic PVC film it requires 190 megajoules of energy, 758 litres of water and 11.2 kilograms of CO2 emissions. This is opposed to the plastic with the lowest embodied footprint, Polyethylene Terephthalate, or PETE. To produce one kilogram of basic PETE film it requires 80 megajoules of energy, 55 litres of water and 6.4 kilograms of CO2 emissions. From comparing all the options it was evident that the most practical option is plastic (5) Polypropylene or PP. This is due to its high overall embodied footprint, similar to PVC, although due to the toxic nature of PVC it is non-recycleable , making it an illogical choice. Reusing materials with the embodied footprints on the higher spectrum is the most logical option. The higher the footprint the more energy, heat and water spent and the more green house gas emissions released into our already bloated atmosphere. Therefor, as these materials cost the most to produce it also means they are the most wasteful and there life-cycle should be extended indefinitely.

The ‘Returnable Plastic Containers’, (RPCs) present a strong option for materiality. These collapsible black containers are produced in five varieties, ranging in size, depth and volume. The main issue with these crates lie with the failed circularity of reuse. Their intended purpose is to be constantly reused to store produce for Coles, and then when broken they are to be logged, and sent back for repairs. Unfortunately, from personal experience and knowledge from the workplace at Coles, This cycle contains faults and holes. The repairs on these crates are never fulfilled leaving thousands of these broken crates to remain in circulation until they are eventually thrown in the bin by team members at Coles. 2 out of 3 broken crates are thrown away every day, with there being 807 Coles supermarkets Australia wide and more emerging each year, the amount of broken RPCs sent to landfill each day is only increasing. There is great potential here. With the knowledge on how Polypropylene is a prime choice for materiality, it would be extremely wasteful to send these broken crates to landfill. Instead, the reincorporation of them into reuse circularity by the using them in the construction of the site is highly advised. This can be accomplished via a permanent or temporary building, similar to the Resident Advisor stage precedent. (Page 32), a volumetric skin made entirely from these RPCs could be produced around the sites structure. Finally, based on test using the Epic database on the RPCs, it is clear that using these crates over both costly and wasteful materials like aluminium and Glulam timber is the better option for minimising a buildings embodied footprint.

In addition to the specific plastic choice of Polypropylene, the object of use has also been narrowed down to reusable supermarket containers using the South Korean art museum as precedent. (Page 26)

CHAPTER FOUR: SITE ANALYSIS

REASON AND SIGNIFICANCE WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS SITE?

HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE

This local site has been selected for the new Swinburne University Circular economy research hub. Where the testing of various aspects of recycling, upcycling and wastage of materials may take place. Ultimately this will prove the importance of the circular economy and the issues of planned obsolescence in the construction industry.

The Swinburne site holds a rich historical background. The lands traditional owners are the Wurundjeri People of the Kulin Nation [29].

SITE CONTEXT The site of choice is located on campus at Swinburne University of Technology. Specifically the SR Building. It is located to the center east of the hawthorn campus’ site, adjacent to the George Swinburne building (GS) and opposite the Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship building (AGSE). This small building contains over thirty rooms and facilities for specific courses including Nursing and Occupational Therapy, as well as a dance studio. The buildings Gross Floor Area (GFA) covers approximately 1050m2 of usable interior space over two floors (Figure 4.1). The site currently includes bottom floor access via the main entrance on the Northern facade as well as first floor access via stairs located on the Eastern wing of the building. The North area of the building is also surrounded by a spacious public open use zone (Figure 4.3 (4)). The SR building is primarily made up of four materials. (Figure 4.2) Ground and first floor concrete slabs, Clay brick facade, Glazing windows and an aluminium corrugated roof.

38 native groups made up the traditional owners and original guardians of the country before Victoria became what it is today. The Wurundjeri tribe was the most notable of these groups. Due to the close proximity of the ‘Birrarung’ (Yarra River), where tribes spent the summer along the banks capturing fish and hunting other animals, Glenferrie Hawthorn and the surrounding Hawthorn area were a suitable place to live. This region was inhabited by the traditional owners until 1837, when the first Europeans arrived in Boroondara. The Wurundjeri people are now the “recognised Traditional Owners of this large geographically diverse region that includes both urban and rural lands as well as waterways”. [30]

N 011341445ÿ41748

Swinburne boundary

99 ÿÿ ÿ 0m

100m

200m

300m

Site - SR Building

&+.

&'2

&'-

&+'

&.'

&'./ &'.

&), &)-

011341445ÿ41748

Currently in Boroondara there are 10 Aboriginal archaeological sites and 2 historic places that are registered with the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council [31]. These site host various scarred trees of cultural importance, many of which are located in park around the Yarra River. Along with these historic sites there are also 5 places of cultural significance throughout Boroondara, these include; Canoe tree monument, Wurundjeri Trail and Garden, Wominjeka Garden and Aunty Dot Peters AM Flowering Grasslands. [31]

&.,

&'*0

&')

&',

&'( &)&

&*'

&'*

&'+

&'&

&*) &)'

&+)

&'*/

&.&

&'*1

99 ÿÿ ÿ

&)'/

Site - SR Building - Ground floor

1%4098

&)' &,'

&), 7 &).011 34144

&)-

&,)

)* 4 5ÿ5 6ÿ975ÿ8 # ÿ15ÿ9 14141 3&

&'(

&')

&,.

&)&

&)+

&)(

Site - SR Building - First floor

1%40/8 %7%11 0121324144

N Images on this page sourced from - [29] ‘Acknowledgement of Country’ n.d., www. swinburne.edu.au, viewed <https://www.swinburne.edu.au/about/strategy-

Photographs sourced from Jason Trajkovski

0 1 5ÿ2 3ÿ945ÿ5 # ÿ145ÿ%/2%124141 0m

10m

15m

Floor plans sourced from - [27] ‘Space Central | Swinburne University | Melbourne’ n.d., spacecentral. swin.edu.au, viewed 30 August 2022, <https://spacecentral.swin.edu.au/SISfm/Space/default.

(1)

STRUCTURE AND MATERIALS

(2)

AG SE

W m

N (3)

AD (4)

(1) - SR Building

m 44W

(2) - Foundation Slab - Aluminum

(4) - First floor Slab and flooring

- Glazing

(5) - First floor walls

- Clay Brick

(6) - Roof

- Concrete

FIGURE 4.1 - SR BUILDING STRUCTURE

FIGURE 4.2 - SR BUILDING MATERIALITY

SE AG

(3) - Ground floor walls

FIGURE 4.3 - EXTERIOR VIEWS

Photographs sourced from Jason Trajkovski

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER SWINBURNE CAMPUS Typically a neighbourhood character and context analysis assists with identifying the common styles, heritage, typologies and uses of a specific neighboring area. In this case, as the site is located on a university campus with its own set of history and commonality that slightly differs from the outer Hawthorn and larger Glen Eris area, the analysis with be conducted to this limited campus area Shown in (figure 4.4).

Many of these styles and typologies should be considered when designing the form of the building.

ATC DC AM R LIB

UN ARY

SPW GS

SPS 21W

m 44W

E AGS

32P

19W

TD TC

Firstly the campus has a vast variety of contemporary building styles mainly shown off in the facade design. Although the same as in contemporary, no two buildings are similar in their designs, almost as if each building was done by a new firm. There is no concise blend or flow between structures. This could give an open opportunity to redesign the SR building with any style without consideration for its surrounding architecture. While there may be mostly modern buildings on campus there are a few restored older ones too, for example the AD (administration) building is an old heritage listed building and while the style of the new SR space does not have limitations, any interference with the AD building could compromise the design and its legibility. The typical typologies seen are mostly podium and tower, for example AMDC, ACT and SPW, while others like the EN building adopt a slab block typology similar to a public housing block.

Site - SR Building

FIGURE 4.4 - NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER ANALYSIS 64

SUN AND SHADOW

N 9 AM - SEP / 21 / 2022

PERMEABILITY

12 PM - SEP / 21 / 2022

DAILY COVERAGE

ACCESS AND CONNECTION

This analysis shows the daily coverage of sun and shade the SR building would experience on a typical day in September. It is recorded specifically on the 21st of September as that day marks the beginning of the summer solstice in Australia. The building was analysed over four hours in the day, 9am, 12pm, 3pm and 6pm. A three hour spread in between to show the difference and change over the course of the day.

In architecture, this sense of the word, ‘Permeability’ refers to the flow and ease of movements through or around buildings or structures. This analysis will provide insight into the pedestrian flow through the campus.

From (Figure 4.5) its clear that the SR building is well lit and receives a good amount of sun between sunrise at 6am till midday at 12pm. Then around 2 or 3pm the building is engulfed in shadows, then at 6pm when the sun begins to set, the entire building and surrounding area is almost lightless. This is mainly due to the very close proximity of the GS building directly adjacent to the site. Because this building is almost three times taller than the SR building there is a big issue on overshadowing. Solutions to this could involve increasing the height of the new proposed building or even offsetting the new building to provide separation from GS.

From this map we can see the movement of patrons within the site is fluent in most open areas, notably from Glenferrie Road Glenferrie station moving inward and Burwood Road moving North, The exception is in the center of the site where the train line runs. This area contains the raised mound that runs along the railway corridor that the tracks also sit on. Due to this the pedestrian flow is divided into north and south on campus with the only campus access to each area is through the John Street underpass. Otherwise, an alternate path to Glenferrie Station or William Street to the East of the campus is required.

ATC

D AM

UN RAR LIB

Y BA

AD m 44W E AGS

In direct correlation to the chosen site, there is an issue of movement from the North and South of the SR building. This is due to there being no access onto the building from the South and no alternate pathways around other than the John Street access that runs down the center of the university.

SPW GS

SPS 21W

32P

19W

TD TC

N N

Site - SR Building 3 PM - SEP / 21 / 2022

FIGURE 4.5 - SUN AND SHADOW ANALYSIS 66

6 PM - SEP / 21 / 2022

Movement

FIGURE 4.6 - PERMEABILITY AND CONNECTION ANALYSIS 67

EMBODIED ANALYSIS SR BUILDING - EMBODIED FOOTPRINT In order to assess the wastefulness of the current building an embodied footprint analysis was performed on it and the materials that make up its structure. The test was conducted on a digital model of the building using Rhino and Grasshopper. The purpose was to gain information on the buildings total embodied energy, water and greenhouse gases that went into the construction of the building while also providing the total amount wasted for each. The base materials that make up the chosen site include: • Concrete • Glazing • Aluminium • Clay brick Therefore the analysis was also conducted using these same materials for the most accurate results. The digital model with its broken up materials can be seen in (figure 4.4) along with the raw data collected from the footprint analysis. This raw data has been detailed in a bar graph (Figure 4.5).

SR BUILDING

Total Embodied Energy - 1102372.1 Mj | Wastage - 68189.3 Mj Total Embodied Water - 1661571.7 L | Wastage - 110852.6 L Total Embodied GHGE - 131329.9 KgCO2e | Wastage - 9537.3 KgCO2e

• Concrete - Total volume: 264.1m3 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 750037.8 | Initial embodied Water (L): 1219356.3 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 17783.2 • Glazing - Total area: 176m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 235232.2 | Initial embodied Water (L): 274320.2 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 21436.4 • Aluminium Cladding - Total area: 1198.9m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 117016 | Initial embodied Water (L): 167850.8 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 8632.3 • Clay Brick - Total area: 682.5m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 2045.5 | Initial embodied Water (L): 1290 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 229.3

Finally, of the 131,329 KgCo2e needed to produce the building materials, 9537 KgCo2e are wasted. Approximately 7.2% of wasted Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The analysis also provided details on the specific materials, for example Aluminium cladding requires 117,016 Megajoules of energy, 167,850 Litres of water and 8632.3 Kilograms of CO2 emissions. These material statistics are what is needed to construct the total area of 1198.9m2, this would be to cover the roof and other areas of cladding featured in the site.

• • •

- Aluminum - Glazing - Clay Brick

FIGURE 4.4 - SR BUILDING MATERIAL MODEL AND RAW EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA

Some interesting data to take away from this analysis is the extreme footprint that comes from the production of concrete as a material, for water in particular, 1.2 million litres is needed to construct the ground slab foundation and the first floor slab. Hence a strategy to secure the concrete foundation and structure is advised.

- Concrete

SR BUILDING EMBODIED FOOTPRINT

The results show that of the 1,102,372 Mj of embodied energy needed to produce the building materials, 68,189.3 Mj is wasted in the process. That is approximately 6.1% of wasted energy. Of the 1,661,571 L needed to produce the building materials, 110,852 L is wasted in the process. Approximately 6.5% wasted.

- Energy [MJ] - Water [L] - GHGE [KGCO2E]

CONCRETE

GLAZING

ALUMINIUM CLADDING

CLAY BRICK

FIGURE 4.5 - SR BUILDING EMBODIED FOOTPRINT 68

CHAPTER FIVE: FORM FINDING

AMENITIES

PROGRAM TO FORM

5% CIRCULATION

Before any form can be built the program first be realised and organised. A data sheet and brief that enforced minimum requirements for the program was written up from the unit conveyors (Figure 5.1). This would help guide us with specifications on our program design and included five areas or ‘space types’ to introduce into the proposed site. These included: • • • • • •

Amenities Circulation Co-Working spaces and Presentation Spaces Meeting Rooms and Office Spaces Community Engagement and Learning Spaces Miscellaneous Spaces

Along with these spaces the brief also included the floor areas and ceiling height for each individual program as well as a sizing guide to form digital ‘building blocks’ using Rhino and Grasshopper to layout the program within the structure. Using this strategy of block manipulation I could construct an infinite amount of program iterations varying in shape and size (Figure 5.2). This needs to be done while keeping the SR building footprint of approximately 30x20 meters and any vital information provided by the brief in mind. Some important factors to consider were the multileveled server and communication rooms and the double height of the proposed Agora and Lecture theatre. (Figure 5.3) My findings from the block manipulation iterations were that the process, although effective in creating multiple varying iterations was difficult to maintain within the site boundary and therefore many earlier iteration have fewer levels and a larger area of spread. The later iterations, notably; five, seven, nine and ten were built over 5 to 6 stories using less than the current SR buildings footprints and allowing potential for outdoor public spaces.

As previously mentioned the brief detailed many specifications that needed to be adhered to, such as the multi-floored presentation spaces, circulation and server rooms. Many of these requirements are detailed through all iterations. Iteration five for example, these programs are clearly shown in its vertical form along the South-Western face of the building detailed in yellow (circulation) and purple (miscellaneous). While the brief details minimum requirements of inclusions to the site, they are only minimum requirements and more program can be added within reason. Hence many iterations were left with areas of potential future programs. Designs one, two, five, six and eight include flat surface roofing and could include public open spaces, study spaces, meeting area or even hospitality in the form of a rooftop bar. Iterations two and six even introduces inherent features of a central hollowed atrium space with the program forming around it similar to that of a European perimeter block.

- Accessible WC - 3 x 3.5 x 3 - WCs - 3 x 6 x 3 - Kitchenette - 4 x 2 x 3

CO-WORKING SPACES AND PRESENTATION SPACES 29%

CIRCULATION 9% MEETING ROOMS AND OFFICE SPACES

- Fire Stairs - 7.5 x 5 x * - Lifts - 7 x 4 x * - Circulation Stairs - 5 x 4 x * - Entry / Airlock - 6 x 5 x *

29% COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING SPACES

CO-WORKING SPACES AND PRESENTATION SPACES 29% - Agora - 10 x 7 x 6 - Lecture Theatre (small) - 20 x 7 x 6 - Co-working spaces - 8 x 4 x 3.2 - Gallery Space - 20 x 7 x 3.2+

MISCELLANEOUS

19%

MEETING ROOMS AND OFFICE SPACES 29% - Meeting Room Large - 7.5 x 6.5 x 3.2 - Meeting Room Small - 5 x 4 x 3.2 - Break Out Space - 7.5 x 6.5 x 3.2 - Open Office Space - 20 x 7 x 3.2 - Project Specific Space - 10 x 7 x 3.2 - Small Presentation Spaces - 6 x 4 x 3.2 - Office Medium - 6 x 4 x 3.2

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING SPACES 19% - Community Engagement Function Space 10 x 12 x 3.2 - Pre Function Spaces - 5 x 6 x * - Flexbile “discovery” spaces - 10 x 10 x 3.2 MISCELLANEOUS 9% - Server Rooms - 7 x 4 x 3 - Communications - 5 x 4 x 3 - Bicycle Parking - 8 x 4 x 3 - Refuse - 6 x 5 x 3

FIGURE 5.1 - DATA SHEET BRIEF 72

AMENITIES 5%

FIGURE 5.2 - PROGRAM MINIMUM MASS REQUIREMENT 73

MASS FORM DRAFTING

5 43

6.75

595

644

CU B

ETE

CU B

0.2 5

IC M

CU B

IC M

7 91 3. 2 5C UB

IC M

7 91 3. 2 5C UB

ETE

762 2. ETE

757 4 IC M

CU B

ETE

FIGURE 5.3 - PROGRAM ITERATIONS 74

0.2 5

.25

CU B

ETE

IC M

ETE

IC M

25 CU B

TOP

SIDE

After a variety of unique iterations had been constructed, a selection of the most promising designs were taken and used to begin the process of mass modelling.

RS 644

8.75

731 7.75 CU B

IC M

56 6 3. 2 5C UB

ISO

Iterations two, four, five, seven, nine and ten were chosen for their variations in shape, size, typology, hybrid system layout and design logic. Then based off design principles of permeability, sunlight, and student interaction, a draft line sketch was drawn over to outline the potential form. (Figure 5.4) To design the mass form over the constructed programming, a draft line form was traced over each iteration to give an initial and rough outline of the building envelope and facades. The purpose of this was to examine the potential facade wrapping and skin of the building while allocating and fitting all minimum requirements. Some examples like Iteration two are simple and are derivative of the current SR building with minimal levels, a flat roof and box like structure with additional space for alternate program to be added. While other examples such as Iteration nine, tightly wrap the building allowing for no additional internal program but leave potential for exterior with terraces and roof program.

ETE

FIGURE 5.4 - MASS FORM DRAFT 75

MASS FORM REFINING Once the mass drafting process was complete the chosen iterations were further refined and modeled using digital design programs. The refining process took each draft form and solidified the former exterior line work to obtain a greater grasp on the conceptual design. Each of the six iterations were then continually refined based on the design principles until a detailed mass model remained. (Figure 5.5) These detailed models included points of access and egress, windows, upper leveled programming such as balcony and rooftop spaces and in the case of iterations two and nine a central light well was added to activate the shared space programs. This experiment removed any excess and unwanted mass that would ultimately increase the buildings overall footprint and embodied energy and also require more sourced upcycled materials for the buildings completion. The outcome of this process left each iteration with a solid and detailed mass model that can be broken up into its material layers and further tested on.

FIGURE 5.5 - REFINING PROCESS

TESTING FOOTPRINTS

FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS - ITERATIONS TWO, FOUR & FIVE

ITERATION TWO EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA

- Energy [MJ]

ITERATION TWO:

• • •

Total Embodied Energy - 2767889.4 Mj | Wastage - 211670 Mj Total Embodied Water - 4329544.8 L | Wastage - 343591.5 L Total Embodied GHGE - 358438.5 KgCO2e | Wastage - 29582.9 KgCO2e

• Concrete - Total volume: 818.2m3 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 2323164.7 | Initial embodied Water (L): 3776830.4 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 324937 • Glazing - Total area: 212.2m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 283555.6 | Initial embodied Water (L): 330673.4 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 21436.4 • Aluminium Cladding - Total area: 1549.5m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 151231.2 | Initial embodied Water (L): 216930.1 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 11156.4 • Clay Brick - Total area: 2704.1m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 9937.7 | Initial embodied Water (L): 5110.8 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 908.5

- Water [L] - GHGE [KGCO2E]

CONCRETE

GLAZING

ALUMINIUM CLADDING

CLAY BRICK

ITERATION FOUR EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA

ITERATION FOUR:

• • •

Total Embodied Energy - 3073742 Mj | Wastage - 236861.3 Mj Total Embodied Water - 4798662.4 L | Wastage - 384101.9 L Total Embodied GHGE - 399270.9 KgCO2e | Wastage - 33087.1 KgCO2e

• Concrete - Total volume: 914.3m3 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 2595876.1 | Initial embodied Water (L): 4220184.5 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 33007.3 • Glazing - Total area: 251.4m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 335960.8 | Initial embodied Water (L): 391786.6 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 25398.2 • Aluminium Cladding - Total area: 1266.1m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 123580.4 | Initial embodied Water (L): 177267 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 9116.5 • Clay Brick - Total area: 4986.2m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 18324.6 | Initial embodied Water (L): 9424 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 1675.3

CONCRETE

ITERATION FIVE:

- Aluminum - Glazing

• • •

Total Embodied Energy - 4132408.4 Mj | Wastage - 273984.6 Mj Total Embodied Water - 6304220.2 L | Wastage - 444538.5 L Total Embodied GHGE - 505019.9 KgCO2e | Wastage - 38283.1 KgCO2e

GLAZING

ALUMINIUM CLADDING

CLAY BRICK

ITERATION FIVE EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA

• Concrete - Total volume: 1058.4m3 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 3005066.1 | Initial embodied Water (L): 4885415.6 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 420313.4 • Glazing - Total area: 510.2m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 681756 | Initial embodied Water (L): 795041.9 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 51539.9 • Aluminium Cladding - Total area: 4393.9m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 428852 | Initial embodied Water (L): 615156.6 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 31636.6 • Clay Brick - Total area: 4553.5m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 16734.1 | Initial embodied Water (L): 8606.1 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 1529.9

An embodied footprint plays a major role not only in the creation of buildings and the materials that make up that building but also for its life and longevity. Hence testing the embodied energy, water and green house gas emissions (GHGE) of the designed form models is crucial to establishing a sufficient and stable circular economy research hub for Swinburne University. Using digital programs such as Rhino and Grasshopper in collaboration with the given embodied research information provided by the EPIC database from Melbourne University [26], Iterations Two, Four and Five are tested in terms of Total embodied energy, water and GHGE as well as total wastage for each embodied element. Each Iterations materials of Concrete, Glazing, Aluminium Steel and Clay Brick are also tested here. These materials were chosen for use as they are the basic materials used in the original SR building and therefor upon deconstructed may be used again to form the new building. The raw data from this analysis can be seen in (Figure 5.6.1 and 5.6.2). The analysis shows, iteration two has the smallest footprint in each aspect and also provides the least amount of wastage amongst these iteration too. Although in terms of materials, Iteration two is shown to has a larger footprint of aluminium cladding over iteration four. This may be due to the larger surface area of roof space made up almost entirely of aluminium. While iterations two and four are similar in footprint data and therefor show potential iteration five is extremely high and not recommended for use.

- Clay Brick - Concrete

FIGURE 5.6.1 - ITERATIONS EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA 78

CONCRETE

GLAZING

ALUMINIUM CLADDING

CLAY BRICK

FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS - ITERATIONS SEVEN, NINE & TEN

ITERATION SEVEN EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA

- Energy [MJ]

ITERATION SEVEN:

• • •

Total Embodied Energy - 1546066.8 Mj | Wastage - 107957.3 Mj Total Embodied Water - 2382101.1 L | Wastage - 175079.5 L Total Embodied GHGE - 192781 KgCO2e | Wastage - 15081 KgCO2e

• Concrete - Total volume: 416.7m3 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 1183279.8 | Initial embodied Water (L): 1923689.3 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 15045.7 • Glazing - Total area: 152.1m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 203210.4 | Initial embodied Water (L): 236977.4 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 15362.4 • Aluminium Cladding - Total area: 1551.8m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 151462.1 | Initial embodied Water (L): 217261.2 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 11173.4 • Clay Brick - Total area: 2208m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 8114.4 | Initial embodied Water (L): 4173.1 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 741.8

- Water [L] - GHGE [KGCO2E]

CONCRETE

GLAZING

ALUMINIUM CLADDING

CLAY BRICK

ITERATION NINE EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA

ITERATION NINE:

• • •

Total Embodied Energy - 2398578.5 Mj | Wastage - 147538.1 Mj Total Embodied Water - 3576945 L | Wastage - 239307.5 L Total Embodied GHGE - 285154.1 KgCO2e | Wastage - 20611.9 KgCO2e

• Concrete - Total volume: 569.7m3 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 1617484.9 | Initial embodied Water (L): 710839.9 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 226234.8 • Glazing - Total area: 456.2m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 609552 | Initial embodied Water (L): 697237.4 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 46081.4 • Aluminium Cladding - Total area: 1651.2m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 161166.3 | Initial embodied Water (L): 231181.2 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 11889.3 • Clay Brick - Total area: 2823.1m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 10375.2 | Initial embodied Water (L): 5335.8 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 948.5

CONCRETE

ITERATION TEN:

- Aluminum - Glazing

• • •

Total Embodied Energy - 2291308.3 Mj | Wastage - 165940.1 Mj Total Embodied Water - 3540929.9 L | Wastage - 269343.1 L Total Embodied GHGE - 290134.8 KgCO2e | Wastage - 23191 KgCO2e

GLAZING

ALUMINIUM CLADDING

CLAY BRICK

Models Seven, Nine and Ten all show promising characteristics in the analysis. Iterations Nine and Ten are almost identical in their embodied footprint data with only being a few megajoules, liters or KgCO2e off from each other. This could be due to similarities in their design or similar levels of height and size. One dissimilarity is the amount of glass iteration nine requires in its design, needing over 450m2 of total area Iteration Nine contains the most glazing needed of all iterations, amounting up to almost 610,000Mj of embodied energy for creation, installation and use. This high level of glass is due to the inclusion of the light-well that forms a glass inverted cone in the center of the structure. While Iterations Nine and Ten similarly attain a high footprint, Iteration Seven produces very little for each element and material, concrete in particular. This is due to the models lack of surface area and incorporated use of surrounding public realm which requires no additional use of materials that could raise this iterations embodied footprint. After testing, assessing and then comparing this data from the massing models it is clear that the two most promising forms are iteration Two and iteration Seven for their reasonably low footprint, lack of wastage and upcycling potential of the old SR building.

ITERATION TEN EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA

• Concrete - Total volume: 641.4m3 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 1821084.8 | Initial embodied Water (L): 2960585.8 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 254711.9 • Glazing - Total area: 241.8m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 323121.6 | Initial embodied Water (L): 376813.9 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 24427.6 • Aluminium Cladding - Total area: 1423.9m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 138976.2 | Initial embodied Water (L): 199351.2 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 10252.3 • Clay Brick - Total area: 2211m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 8125.5 | Initial embodied Water (L): 4178.8 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 742.9

- Clay Brick - Concrete

FIGURE 5.6.2 - ITERATIONS EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA 80

CONCRETE

GLAZING

ALUMINIUM CLADDING

CLAY BRICK

PLASTIC INCORPORATION - ITERATION TWO • Plastic PP (5) - Total area: 388.5m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 73041.1 | Initial embodied Water (L): 70321.5 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 3030.4

• Clay Brick - Total area: 2315.6m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 8509.9 | Initial embodied Water (L): 4376.5 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 778

• Aluminium Cladding - Total area: 1580.5m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 154298.9 | Initial embodied Water (L): 221330.5 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 11382.7

• Glazing - Total area: 212.2m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 283555.6 | Initial embodied Water (L): 330673.4 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 21436.4

FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS - ITERATION TWO - PLASTIC INCORPORATION

ITERATION TWO EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA

The incorporation of the upcycled heavy duty plastic Polypropylene to replace this iterations materials is the first step toward a building designed around the circular economy. (Figures 5.7.1 and 5.7.2) For this process, elements of both aluminium cladding and clay brick were transfered into an upcycled plastic based facade or skin. This proved to reduce the overall embodied footprint. Where the embodied energy was once 2,767,889 Mj to produce the base materials, now with the incorporation of plastic it costs 1,381,244 Mj to produce. A 50% reduction in total embodied energy. Where the embodied water usage for the building once consumed 4,329,544 Litres of water, it now consumes 2,027,816 Litres. A 53% reduction in total embodied water.

- Energy [MJ] - Water [L] - GHGE [KGCO2E]

CONCRETE

GLAZING

ALUMINIUM CLADDING

•

Total Embodied Energy - 2767889.4 Mj | Wastage - 211670 Mj

•

Total Embodied Water - 4329544.8 L | Wastage - 343591.5 L

•

Total Embodied GHGE - 358438.5 KgCO2e | Wastage - 29582.9 KgCO2e

Finally, Where the embodied emissions for the building were once 358,438 of KgCO2e, with the incorporation of plastic it is now 157,171 KgCO2e. A 56% reduction to overall embodied emissions.

CLAY BRICK

ITERATION TWO EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA - WITH PLASTIC

• Concrete - Total volume: 818.2m3 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 2323164.7 | Initial embodied Water (L): 3776830.4 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 324937

CONCRETE

- Aluminum - Glazing - Clay Brick - Concrete

•

Total Embodied Energy - 1381244.7 Mj | Wastage - 78754.2 Mj

•

Total Embodied Water - 2027816.4 L | Wastage - 127582.4 L

•

Total Embodied GHGE - 157171.5 KgCO2e | Wastage - 10995.5 KgCO2e

GLAZING

ALUMINIUM CLADDING

•

Total Embodied Energy - 1381244.7 Mj | Wastage - 78754.2 Mj

•

Total Embodied Water - 2027816.4 L | Wastage - 127582.4 L

•

Total Embodied GHGE - 157171.5 KgCO2e | Wastage - 10995.5 KgCO2e

CLAY BRICK

PLASTIC (HDPE)

- Plastic (PP 5)

FIGURE 5.7.1 - PLASTIC INCLUSION EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA

PLASTIC INCORPORATION - ITERATION SEVEN • Plastic PP (5) - Total area: 759m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 142707.1 | Initial embodied Water (L): 137393.5 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 5920.8

• Clay Brick - Total area: 2054.8m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ):7551.7 | Initial embodied Water (L): 3883.7 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 690.4

• Aluminium Cladding - Total area: 945.9m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 92320.5 | Initial embodied Water (L): 132426.9 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 6810.5

• Glazing - Total area: 152.1m2 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 203210.4 | Initial embodied Water (L): 236977.4 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 15362.4

• Concrete - Total volume: 416.7m3 - Initial embodied Energy (MJ): 1183279.8 | Initial embodied Water (L): 1923689.3 | Initial embodied GHGE (kgCO2e): 15045.7

FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS - ITERATION SEVEN - PLASTIC INCORPORATION

ITERATION SEVEN EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA

For iteration Seven, the same process was used, elements of both aluminium cladding and clay brick were transfered into an upcycled plastic based facade. The results were as follows. Where the embodied energy was once 1,546,066 Mj to produce the base materials, now with the incorporation of plastic it costs 909,439 Mj to produce. A 42% reduction in total embodied energy. Where the embodied water usage for the building once consumed 2,382,101 Litres of water, it now consumes 1,264,448 Litres. A 47% reduction in total embodied water. Finally, Where the embodied emissions for the building were once 192,781 of KgCO2e, with the incorporation of plastic it is now 93,634 KgCO2e. A 52% reduction to overall embodied emissions.

- Energy [MJ] - Water [L] - GHGE [KGCO2E]

CONCRETE

GLAZING

ALUMINIUM CLADDING

•

Total Embodied Energy - 1546066.8 Mj | Wastage - 107957.3 Mj

•

Total Embodied Water - 2382101.1 L | Wastage - 175079.5 L

•

Total Embodied GHGE - 192781 KgCO2e | Wastage - 15081 KgCO2e

Evidently the logical choice to proceed with, is iteration seven. While iteration two provided relatively greater numbers of reduction to its embodied footprint, iteration sevens overall footprint requirements are still much lower overall, meaning the new building can be made primarily of the old buildings reused materials and minimising the need to outsource other materials which not only can provide issues with supply but may also increase the building embodied footprint once again. For these reasons Iteration seven is the most logical choice to proceed with.

CLAY BRICK

ITERATION SEVEN EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA - WITH PLASTIC

CONCRETE

GLAZING

ALUMINIUM CLADDING

CLAY BRICK

PLASTIC (HDPE)

- Aluminum - Glazing - Clay Brick - Concrete

•

Total Embodied Energy - 909439.2 Mj | Wastage - 42509.5 Mj

•

Total Embodied Water - 1264448.9 L | Wastage - 68709.2 L

•

Total Embodied GHGE - 93634.1 KgCO2e | Wastage - 5928.3 KgCO2e

•

Total Embodied Energy - 909439.2 Mj | Wastage - 42509.5 Mj

•

Total Embodied Water - 1264448.9 L | Wastage - 68709.2 L

•

Total Embodied GHGE - 93634.1 KgCO2e | Wastage - 5928.3 KgCO2e

- Plastic (PP 5)

FIGURE 5.7.2 - PLASTIC INCLUSION EMBODIED FOOTPRINT DATA

CHAPTER FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION This chapter focused heavily on the practicality of the site and the design moving forward with the project.

To reiterate the results displayed on (page 84 and 85).

It was important to run tests on the current SR building to gain understanding on various elements of the building. For example after analysing the buildings materials the extreme footprint that comes from the production of concrete was evident, for water in particular, 1.2 million litres is needed to construct the ground slab foundation and the first floor slab. Therefore it is advised that there should be a strategy to secure the concrete foundation and structure in the redesign.

Where the embodied energy was once 1,546,066 Mj to produce the base materials, now with the incorporation of plastic it costs 909,439 Mj to produce. A 42% reduction in total embodied energy.

Using the volumetric approach of allocating program to iterations was successful in experimenting with all sorts of forms and potential outcomes. Ultimately, and after various testing and analysing, the best iterations were iteration two and iteration seven for their reasonably low footprint, lack of wastage and upcycling potential of the old SR building. The next tests involved the incorporation of the chosen material of upcycled plastic Polypropylene, while this does not guarantee the final allocation of where the material will be placed within the building it was an experiment to observe material swapping. For example elements of both aluminium cladding and clay brick were transfered into the upcycled plastic, mainly present in the iterations facade designs.

Where the embodied water usage for the building once consumed 2,382,101 Litres of water, it now consumes 1,264,448 Litres. A 47% reduction in total embodied water. Finally, Where the embodied emissions for the building were once 192,781 of KgCO2e, with the incorporation of plastic it is now 93,634 KgCO2e. A 52% reduction to overall embodied emissions. Iteration sevens overall footprint requirements are lower, meaning the new building can be made primarily of the old buildings reused materials and minimising the need to outsource other materials which not only can provide issues with supply but may also increase the building embodied footprint once again. For these reasons Iteration seven is the most logical choice to proceed with.

While both iteration tests showed positive results in the reduction of the buildings overall footprint it was iteration seven that proved to be the logical choice.

CHAPTER SIX: CONCEPTS, PLANS AND DETAILS

TRANSITORY DESIGN CONCEPT THE WING The previous chapter on ‘form finding’ focused on conceptualising allocated spaces for the minimum requirements of programs and also moulding the best option for the buildings form based on embodied footprint analysis. This chapter focuses on taking that final analysed form and detailing it to develop architectural plans for construction. These plans are important not just for the physical construction of the ‘Circular economy hub’ but they will also guide the digital and physical modelling of the chosen RPC facade and skin development.

AR GS

The aim of the design moving forward is to establish both permanent and temporary structures that make up the building. Reasoning for this is to do with the theme of the circular economy. The proposal is to design a section or ‘wing’ of the proposed structure that can be constructed when needed, built with the re-purposed plastic crates and then deconstructed when not needed, sending the crates to Chep to be repaired and then back into circulation to be used as produce containers.

m 44W E S G A

TA TB

TD TC

(Figure 6.1) shows the connection between temporary and permanent structures within the proposed building with the needed structural base grid for the temporary material to sit upon. While the initial wing will be constructed in this shown form (right) the possibilities for further extensions of this temporary wing are endless. Using the sub-terrain slab beneath the area mostly made from the old SR building’s concrete slabs the scaffolding structural posts displayed in grid form can be inserted and removed based on the desired temporary seasonal layout or use. This provides a sense dynamic structure to the overall project. Similar to the RPC crates themselves being able to hold different objects and items and then packed away for reuse later, this dynamic temporary wing has many purposes as well and can also be packed away for future reuse .

FIGURE 6.1 - TEMPORARY WING STRUCTURE 91

THE FACE Much like the temporary wing of the proposed design the entire north face of the ‘circular economy research hub’ aims to also be a temporary structure.

Similar to the wing, this face can be constructed when needed or extended out ward to provide more space for the dynamic internal program. It will also be built using the re-purposed plastic crates as a main material.

(Figure 6.2) shows the relationship between temporary and permanent elements of the main building. While the base grid for the wing stretched out to the East of the building this grid set is laid out to the north. This shown face (right) will be initially constructed, the possibilities for further extensions of this changing face are limitless. The scaffolding structural posts can be inserted and removed based on the required use for that season or semester. For example, The outside area to the north of this building would be underutilised in semester two mainly due to inclement weather. With this design the opportunity to extend the building outward to establish more internal space and cover could be implemented.

m W 4 4 E AGS

TA TB

TD TC

FIGURE 6.2 - TEMPORARY FACE STRUCTURE 92

UPCYCLING THE SR BRICK The SR buildings primary material is brick making up approximately 63% of the total buildings structure. It makes up the buildings facade on all sides and interior walls. Based on tests done in the site analysis stage it has a total volume of approximately 302 cubic meters.

EXTERIOR BRICK

After a conducted embodied analysis test (Page 86), we discovered that the embodied footprint of brick is almost nothing when compared to that of other materials in the building. While this is good, it is also necessary to make sure these materials do not end up in landfill, especially considering the rising and prominent masonry material waste that Australia deposits each year. (Page 33) As discovered, 302 cubic meters of brick material is available to be reused. This does not guarantee 302 cubic meters will successfully be retrieved from the building but in an absolute perfect (and unrealistic) scenario this is the maximum material for use. I would say it is to be expected that roughly half of the 302 cubic meters will realistically be salvageable, and should aim to incorporate 151 cubic meters of brick material into a prominent area of the building. The perfect area of choice should be the Western wall between the new building and the current GS building and the Southern wall which faces the train tracks. These areas can be seen in (Figure 6.3)

INTERIOR BRICK

E S G A m W 44

OTHER MATERIALS

FIGURE 6.3 - UPCYCLED BRICK INCORPORATION 94

(3)

(6)

(9)

(1)

(4)

(7)

(10)

(2)

(5)

(8)

CONCRETE SLAB After a site and embodied analysis conducted on the current SR building on campus, it was evident that while all materials can and should be reused to some capacity, the concrete slab is the most important material to be up-cycled as its embodied footprint is too high and would be a waste to send to landfill (Page 68) The following depicts the necessary steps toward reusing the two concrete slabs in the new design. (1) - Identify the concrete slabs and foundation materials (2) - Carefully remove all other material and isolate the concrete. (3) - Layout the slabs over the site area, additional concrete slabs may be required (4) - The slab foundation that will be situated on the exterior of the new building should be cut and divided. This will allow the slabs to be re- arranged to suit the site area appropriately. (5) The slab pieces are re arranged and placed below the level ground. (6) Inserts are installed into the newly arranged slabs. (7) The surrounding permanent structure is erected over the old SR ground slab, grid elements on the north facade overlap to allow for temporary innovation, creating possibility for open and closed areas. (8) Vertical scaffolding poles are inserted into the needed grid inserts. (9) Further scaffolding is applied horizontally to create the structural frame for the temporary wing. (10) The chosen plastic material is applied to the structure creating a semi-open space for relevant program. 96

(4)

SLAB TO SCAFFOLD RELATIONSHIP

(1)

The slab and scaffold connection and relationship is such an important aspect of this design, specifically the temporary elements of the design. As previously stated, the SR slab will be divided and will be spread out over the site area where scaffolding inserts will be placed. These inserts will be spaced in a grid exactly 385mm apart in both X and Y directions and assigned number co-ordinates to promote ease of construction, deconstruction and reconstruction for the future (1). The purpose of this is to facilitate for the plastic crates as they are exactly 385mm wide, therefore the handle holes that will become the main connection to the vertical scaffold poles will also be spaced exactly 385mm apart.(2) The insert holes will run 200mm deep into the slab and must have a diameter of 40mm (2), this is to accommodate for the scaffolding poles of the same diameter as well as the crate handle spacing also of the same distance. A locking mechanism for the horizontal poles will be introduced to maintain structural integrity throughout the structure. The simple mechanism is engaged by sliding in the poles and twisting counter clockwise.(3) Once the desired layout is chosen and vertical poles are inserted (4), the horizontal scaffolding is next to be completed. Once this is has been done flooring can then be inserted and held in place by the base of the structure (5). The roofing system will be designed entirely from these crates as well. However, as the crates are very permeable and contain many holes for ventilation this poses the issue of waterproofing the structure in circumstance wet weather were to occur. Therefore a layered waterproof membrane should be secured between the top scaffold layer and the top plastic layer (6).

Slab foundation 1-1

1-2

1-3

1-4

1-5

2-1

2-2

2-3

2-4

2-5

3-1

3-2

3-3

3-4

3-5

4-1

4-2

4-3

4-4

4-5

Scaffold inserts

PERMANENT BUILDING AREA

(5) 5-1

5-2

5-3

5-4

5-5

(3)

(2)

200mm

385mm

(6)

40mm

FIGURE 6.4 - SCAFFOLD TO SLAB GRID AND LOCK MECHANISM 98

SCAFFOLD TO BUILDING RELATIONSHIP Another important aspect to consider in this design was how the scaffold system would interact and connect to the permanent areas of the building. Although the scaffold system will be temporary, it still needs to be safe for student, teachers and regular pedestrians that access these areas and safety precautions need to be put in place to assure these areas wont collapse or shift from the permanent structure when faced with large amounts or pressure and weight. To secure each level of scaffold to the structural slab elements of the building, a ‘cast in and drilled anchorage’ tie will be required. By installing a threaded anchor sleeve into the building itself or casting one in during the slab pouring phase. Either a ring bolt or threaded rod is used to secure the scaffold to the anchor sleeve. In this case 100mm threaded rods are used. Tests are required to determine the anchorage’s capacity into the structure, with pull tests required for 50% of the anchoring. [43]

Lightweight Paneled floor Waterproofing membrane

Floor slab 100mm threaded rod and bolt

In all cases this connection will be hidden by a layer of water proofing membrane and lightweight panel flooring inserted on top

Scaffold pole with flat end

FIGURE 6.5 - SECTION OF SCAFFOLD TO BUILDING ANCHOR 100

101

FLEXIBLE TEMPORARY SPACE 28%

GROUND FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR

AMENITIES 4%

CIRCULATION 15%

CO-WORKING SPACES AND PRESENTATION SPACES 20%

MEETING ROOMS AND OFFICE SPACES 18%

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING SPACES 6%

MISCELLANEOUS 9%

FIGURE 6.10 - IN DEPTH PERMANENT PROGRAMMING 107

GROUND FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR

AMENITIES

CIRCULATION

CO-WORKING SPACES AND PRESENTATION SPACES

MEETING ROOMS AND OFFICE SPACES

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING SPACES

MISCELLANEOUS

FIGURE 6.11 - POTENTIAL OF TEMPORARY PROGRAMMING 108

109

5500mm ROOF 16000mm

ROOF 16000mm

GS THIRD FLOOR 11000mm

THIRD FLOOR 11000mm

SECOND FLOOR 7500mm

FIRST FLOOR 4000mm

GROUND FLOOR 0mm

NORTHERN ELEVATION

EASTERN ELEVATION

FIGURE 6.12 - PERMANENT STRUCTURE ELEVATION AND FLOOR HEIGHTS 110

111

CHAPTER SEVEN: PROTOTYPING

112

113

CRATE DISSECTION

DIGITAL MANUFACTURING

Each crate is made from five solid pieces, one base, two large sides and two small sides with handles.

IMPORTANCE OF DIGITAL FABRICATION

As previously mentioned (Page 52) there are inconsistencies with securing these crates when broken and issues with how they are recycled. While the full crate is ideal for construction and offers the most in terms of pose-ability and form design, it is possible there may be situations where only a few of the five core pieces are extracted. Hence it is essential that all design possibilities for, the entire crate with five pieces, some of the crate with two or three pieces and a completely separated crate with only individual pieces are explored in this next phase of the project. (Figure 7.2) All potential options are to be considered purely for ideation and rough concepts, then will be evolved into a more practical model with real possibilities of development.

Before prototyping and structure finding of any kind can begin an accurate and detailed digital model is needed and essential. The exact sizing of the crate is the first thing to consider. This was provided by the Coles Supply standards 2020. [40] once the exterior dimensions are formed into a box or shell, caving out specific details is the next step. In the case of this crate some details included the depth of the box, the location and size of the handles, specific locking mechanisms and finally ventilation holes which are found in the base of the crate and in various locations on the walls of the crate.

FIGURE 7.1 - DIGITAL RPC RECREATION 114

D CL O SE

PE N

Being specific and precise while detailing is very important. If not done properly, It can affect the results of the embodied footprint test, it can hinder the design potential if elements do not line up with the real life model and it can create confusion to the observers and readers of this thesis with diagrams that are not clear. This is also why the inclusion of moving or ‘pivoting’ parts shown in (Figure 7.1) was an important inclusion. Accuracy with this project will determine whether this project fails or succeeds.

FIGURE 7.2 - RPC FORMS AND PIECES 115

FIVE PIECE CONCEPTS THE FLAT-PACK This design takes the completely flattened crates and stacks them together vertically using zip ties and possibly held together with a scaffolding skeleton hidden behind. Although this design is displayed with all five pieces, it can also be achieved with any (excluding the base) of the pieces missing, The minimum requirement for this design is the base piece. Due to the overlapping of crates this design will require a large amount the crates per wall coverage and may be seen as illogical.

116

THE STACK This form is similar to the previous, but has been inverted. While before the iteration offered an experience that allowed pedestrians to interact with the structure and the amount of light that passes through the structure, this design removes that option and simply applies stagnant design for more access to more sunlight at all times.

THE OPEN STACK

THE BLEND

This form involves opening each box and stacking them with slight offsets. This design can also be achieved without the offsets and may even be more structurally sound. The open boxes face outward toward pedestrians, giving them the option to slap shut any amount of crates at their own will. The experience can also offer internal changes to light diffusion and shading, where less light can enter when more crates are closed.

This iteration combines the flat-pack design and the box stack design into one. Doing so creates a temporary volumetric fort that can be built around the desired structure. Similar to the flat-pack iteration this may require more crates than needed to create an efficient facade with a low footprint.

117

118

PARTIAL PIECE CONCEPTS

SINGLE PIECE CONCEPTS

THE ZIG-ZAG

THE WIRE LOUVER

This design is based upon receiving only two parts of the five that make up the crate. The base and a single short side with handle. This design links the crates diagonally with the short side extended outward. This offers an interactive experience to pedestrians, allowing them to shut the short side inward, closing the crate. This could offer decreased sunlight and more shading for summer months.

This design incorporates single pieces that can not be connected in any way. Notably, this is due to the lack of a base piece. The suspended facade design threads each piece via the ventilation holes located around the border of each side. The weight of the opposite non-threaded end of each piece not only hold each piece in place but also creates a louvered effect for sun shading. This concept would work best as shading for a glass facade.

THE CHECKERED BOX

THE FLAT BASE

This design adopts three of the five pieces, a base and two of the long sides. This design weaves the boxes together by inverting every other crate. This creates a checkered pattern. This facade offers both light and shading. The external boxes (well lit) provide the most sunlight while the inverted and internal boxes (shaded) provide sun protection.

This iteration is quite similar to the first design which included all five pieces, but this only includes one piece made up of the base. Using the crates interlocking ‘teeth’, each vertical pillar is joined together. As this design is built from just the base piece with no additional to add to its thickness, it allows the max amount of sunlight to pass through.

119

STRUCTURAL DESIGN PRACTICAL APPLICATION While the ideation phase is important for brainstorming potential possibilities of ways of joining these crates to form a skin over the building. The practical design is even more vital to the next stages. Each of the following variations I have chosen are the detailed practical forms of the idea iterations. The next few figures (Figure 7.3-7.6) will show the specifics needed to construct each variant for real life application. This is incredibly important as without the practical application it would be impossible to install onto the building. Although built for installation on the iteration seven building, these facade designs can be replicated and applied to any future structures using the same RPC crates. The four I’ve chosen include two wall attachment variations and two window attachment variations. Each of which will be incorporated into my building design. An example can be seen in (Figure 3.7)

SKIN VARIATION ONE This first variation incorporates a mixture of the ‘Stack’ concept with the ‘flat base’ concept. This design is aimed to be used on areas of brick wall. The design begins by using zipties to join the exterior layers of the base of the crates together. An increasing stack pattern of 1 then 2 then 4 is used for this example but may be altered to form alternate patterns and designs. Next, a bar of scaffolding is inserted vertically into the open three piece crates (long sides removed). These beams are inserted into the crates handles to secures them to the structure. The prepared stack of base crates are then zip-tied to the secured 3 piece set. Horizontal beams are fastened to the wall area where the facade will be located. Lastly the design will be secured to the horizontal bars using scaffolding joints. 120

FIGURE 7.3 - PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION - VARIATION ONE 121

SKIN VARIATION TWO This skin was based on the ‘zig zag’ concept and much like the previous is designed for flat wall application. This design has a similar method to variation one where the crate is connected to the structure via vertical scaffold beam fed through the handle hole, although, unlike the first variant this only utilises two pieces of the crates, the base and a single shirt side with the handle. This beam with the attached crate is then fastened to horizontal support beams. This process is repeated for a second time. This is to create the offset effect of the zig zag. Due to this variations open structure it will be purely decorative in use, as it and not offer protection against heat, wind or rain.

FIGURE 7.4 - PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION - VARIATION TWO 122

123

SKIN VARIATION THREE This design incorporates a louvered design similar to the ‘wire louver’ concept, Although it incorporates more structural components for a sturdier design. This is to be used over window glazing for a shading effect. The sturdier structure allows for use on upper levels of the building. The louvers are produced from the long sides of the crates that are left over from the first two variations that omit that piece. It is structured by using the side piece’s swivel rod located on its end. This feature will snap lock onto a supporting piece fastened to horizontal scaffolding beams. Alternatively, the piece can be secured using zip ties and then tightened to the angle of choice. An Additional framing structure is also applied for the surrounding box crate frame. Unlike other iterations, this is the only variant that can double as a temporary structure for the wing or face of the building or a permanent facade cladding system as this system may be fastened to directly to the exterior of the building It is recommended that this design be used on higher levels and should also be used on North and East facing facades to shield from harsh sunlight.

FIGURE 7.5 - PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION - VARIATION THREE 124

125

SKIN VARIATION FOUR This last variant is another direct design based on the ‘wire louvered’ concept. This should be used over window glazing on the building but used on lower levels and away from big open areas to avoid risk of wire movement and damage. Exactly like the previous variation the louvers are produced from the long sides of the crates that are left over from the fist two variations that omit that piece. The structure of this variation begins by feeding tensile steel wires vertically through the ventilation holes in the crate pieces. The ends of these wires are fastened to the framing scaffolding structure. The louver pattern can be altered to suit any design pattern or arrangement vertically or horizontally.

FIGURE 7.6 - PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION - VARIATION FOUR 126

127

PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING

1:1 VARIATION TWO MODEL To test if this facade skin design is in fact viable for real and practical use a physical 1:1 model was constructed by following the steps and using the instructed forms from (Figure 7.4). For this first prototype, I wanted the focus to solely rely on upcycled materials as opposed to a scaffolding system like my plans suggest, The purpose of this is to observe if the design style works when adapted to a frame. I used a combination of timber offcuts found from hard rubbish and old removed fence palings from our home to construct the framing of the design (1,2). While this is definitely a feasible option for this test model, the sourcing of a large supply of timber offcuts and rubbish may be difficult for larger scale repetitions of this detail. The base of the frame was designed first using the found timber offcuts and upcycled fencing (3,4) As this design offers little to no light passage, this skin designs purpose must be purely decorative. The only source of visibility is through the small ventilation hole on the base piece of the crate (5,6). Alternatively, Lights could be installed inside the crates for a lighting feature. An issue that was only discovered upon physical modelling was the flimsy mobility of the front crate. (7, 8) While this could potentially create an interactive experience with students and other pedestrians where they can physically form the exterior facade patterns via contact, it interferes with the structural integrity of the design. To solve this, the flimsy slanted crates were carefully screwed to the back beams (9). As an important aspect of this project is reusing the crates even after they form part of this building, the crates needed to remain undamaged, Although these crates are screwed on, only the provided ventilation holes where used and no additional puncturing of the material was made.

128

129

130

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

131

132

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

133

ZIP TIE LAYERING PROTOTYPE

ZIP TIE LOUVRES

The overall goal with this system is to encourage lightweight and simplistic design. A system that can be held together with zipties while maintaining structural integrity achieves this goal.

Continuing with the theme of lightweight simplistic design, this prototype on the buildings louvres system adopts this theme.

This prototype aims to test the durability of these lightweight panels, how they hold up in rough conditions and what level of light diffusion they can provide. These panels where ziptied together using the ventilation holes found on the underside of the black plastic crates. The results found were positive. The zipties were able to hold each base crate panel together tightly. A durability test was done by physically throwing and roughly handling the panel. No breakage or damage of any kind was indicated. No dislocation of the panels connection was seen. Making this test a success. Finally, a light diffusion test was done by holding the crate up to a window with a great amount of light shinning through. The results show that there is a great effect of light diffusion that shines through the hole on the underside of the crate. While effective, it should be noted that this effect is diminished with the more layers added to the structure.

134

The louvres will be made up of three main components and only three. The horizontal scaffold bar that is anchored to the Eastern facade of the main building. The individual crate side pieces that will be remaining from the other temporary structure crates and the last component are the zipties. The zipties with use the ventilation holes on the top side of the piece to connect to the scaffold. I found that two zipties minimum was most efficient. One ziptie was initially used and was found to be too flimsy and could cause safety issues. Overall, I think this design works well, it is extremely lightweight and easy to install which was the aim. The sole issue that was discovered with this system was to do with the uncontrollable angle of the louvre itself. While it can be maneuvered to suit any angle it unfortunately does not hold this angle and will eventually slope down.

135

1:10 SCALE SYSTEM PROTOTYPE This model takes a closer, more detailed look at the temporary facade system and the specific parts that make it up. Overall, the aim of building this model at this specific scale is to clearly communicate to observers how this system works and exactly how lightweight the system is. It also advertises the simplicity of the design. This model was made from basic cardboard, paper and foam board pieces to make up the upcycled SR building slab, paneled flooring and black Coles crates. Two 2.4 meter long timber poles at a diameter of 6mm where cut to size and used to demonstrate the scaffolding frame of the design. While this model does not reach the roof of the system, it does focus on the flooring layers and how materials, specifically the timber panels fit into the design.

136

137

PLASTIC APPLICATION EXAMPLES OUTCOME AND SYSTEM RESULT After much conceptual experimentation, digital development and physical prototyping the system can finally be trailed onto a digital replica model of the permanent building. I found from much of the physical prototyping some of the initial concepts for the skin design did not work out as practically as I had hoped and therefore adjustments needed to be made to solve these issues. This digital model represents the concluded site and one possible variation and combination for the temporary system of the building.

FIGURE 7.7 - PLASTIC APPLICATION TO TEMPORARY DESIGN 138

139

CHAPTER EIGHT: RESULTS

140

141

DESIGN RESULT THE SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY CIRCULAR ECONOMY RESEARCH HUB Swinburne’s Circular economy research hub, is the first structure to capture the real meaning of the circular economy. It is the first building in Australia to achieve constant longevity through the incorporation of temporary design. Theoretically, this buildings constant changes through its temporary design along with its constant circulation of plastic skin materials via a partnership with Coles, will replenish this buildings life cycle endlessly. While retrofitting is the most commonly seen and modern example of upcycling older materials in the industry, this structure aims to take a different path. It aims to end the life of the former SR building on Swinburne’s campus and start a new while also redeveloping the building with its former materials. The brick now forms the pivotal structural walls of the new hub. The aluminium roof can be re used for the new roof with slight modifications and the concrete slabs of the old structure are reused and divided up across the new urban area to form a rigid yet malleable construction surface. (Figure 8.1)

FIGURE 8.1 - UPCYCLED MATERIAL SUMMARY 142

143

SITE CONTEXT AND RESPONSE TO SITE ISSUES There were a selection of identified site issues outlined in the site analysis (Pages 66 & 67). These issues consisted of the overshadowing of the GS building to the direct West of the site and the lack of permeability through the area surrounding the site. Due to the design of the Swinburne Circular economy research hub these issues have been rectified or lessened. In Response to the issue of overshadowing. While the old SR building was a two storey structure situated to the southern edge of the site and had a direct wall connection the GS building, This new structure is four storeys tall and has not only moved North of the current SR building but also East to separate completely from the George building. The George building in an eight storey building and almost doubles the used site area, hence it is impossible to completely solve this issue of overshadowing. Although, due to this slight relocation and extension upward and outward the day light exposure has been increased significantly. Additionally, with the implementation of the ‘scaffold building’ concept the new structure can be extended to any needed extent giving more options to increase daylight hours more so. In response to the issue of permeability. The old SR building sealed off vital areas that created hindrance to walking paths and lines of sight. Due to the relocation of the permanent building in particular a spacious and well lit alley experience has been added between the new building and the GS. This alley gives additional access and shortcuts to daily commuters and give an new connection that not only leads to the GS building but also gives alternate access to paths on the way to the TAFE area of Swinburne University. Again, due to the flexible scaffolding transitory design of the new structure, many new pathways and experiences can be installed to the surrounding site context, or be completely removed to open up the space for more lines of site. 144

145

LAYERS AND LAYOUTS POTENTIAL DESIGNS Following the design concept detailed on (Page 99), these diagrams present a more refined and final materiality of that concept with the use of the ‘RPCs’ taken from Coles. Each of these shown iterations are some of the infinite possibilities for temporary design. Variation one is identical to the original massing form (page 11) which was proven to be a logical choice due to its low embodied footprint. Its forms an extension to the Northern face of the permanent building as well as a wing that branches off the Eastern entrance. All extended levels of the face and wing are fitted with a waterproof membrane and timber paneled flooring. The incorporated plastic skin is constructed from the RPC crates courtesy of Coles. Formations and specific layouts of these crates on the scaffold frame can be found on (Page 11). This variation incorporates all different styles of this material, suited to each position in response to its purpose in the building and depending on the degree of sun shading required. More crates means less sun. Variation two literally pushes the boundaries in terms of its the northern facade extension and takes the scaffold frame all the way to the furthest possible insert. Doing so allowed for additional circulation stairs on the north side. Additionally to the east a small disconnected open roofed module is constructed with potential use for a study space, events, retail use or even recreational use. Variation three visualises what the form would look like if no northern extension was formed and only a basic scaffold balustrade was installed for safety. This variant could be possible during holiday seasons. In the North Eastern area a detached stage is designed. This could be used for Orientation day events, guest speakers, award ceremonies or possibly even given to Coles to set up a small ‘Coles Local’ shop for pedestrians. 146

TW O

NT E AN URE M PERRUCT ST

LD O FF E A C S AM FR

NT E AN URE M PERRUCT ST

LD O F F SCAAME FR

NT E AN URE M PERRUCT ST

LD O FF E A SC AM FR

LEDNG E PANOORI FL

OF O R E P R TE BRAN A W EM M

KI S IC L T S A PLAATERI M

LEDNG E PANOORI FL

OF O PR NE R E A T WAEMBR M

KI S IC L T S A PLAATERI M

LEDNG E PANOORI FL

OF O R E P R TE BRAN A W EM M

KI S TIC AL S A PL ATERI M

147

ASSEMBLY AND DISASSEMBLY LIGHTWEIGHT AND EASY CONSTRUCTION An key aspect of this design was the importance of easy construction. If these waste issues stem from the ease that comes with wastage over reuse, then the solution needed to be embedded with ease as well. A set of easy to follow instructions on how to build each transitory section were developed. They pay close resemblance to Lego instruction to evoke easy, simplistic and fun design when constructing these semi-permanent structures. This set of instruction in particular is focused on the construction of one of the many possible transitory wings. It give a step by step guide on how to build these areas. Henceforth, with clear instruction these semi-permanent sections can be built in a day with only a few helpers.

FIGURE 8.2 - WING STRUCTURE SIMPLE ASSEMBLY 148

149

PLASTIC MATERIAL FINISHES CR(e)ATE The next few pages and (Figures 8.3.1-3) depict the final architectural detailed sections that focus on the RPC material, their placement in each structure, the specific crate iteration and the final detailed finishes of each iteration. Figure 8.3.1 shows the ‘zigzag’ iteration as a feature wall on the southern point of the transitory structure. Magnifying these sections we can see the relationship each crate has with both the horizontal and vertical scaffolding poles. Figure 8.3.2 depicts another wall on the same transitory structure. This is the Eastern wall and shows a the connection of how multiple crates can stack together to create volume in the structure. These crates are held together with only zipties. This ziptie connection can be better viewed on (Page 134) as a prototype. Figure 8.3.3 depicts the facade treatment on the permanent structure. This shows the detailed connection between the scaffold framing and the louvred sun shading pieces. These pieces are depicted being held together directly on the scaffold poles with nothing more than zipties. Another prototype test for this can be found on (Page 135).

FIGURE 8.3.1 - PLASTIC APPLICATION TO TEMPORARY DESIGN AND FINISHES 150

151

FIGURE 8.3.2 - PLASTIC APPLICATION TO TEMPORARY DESIGN AND FINISHES 152

153

FIGURE 8.3.3 - PLASTIC APPLICATION TO TEMPORARY DESIGN AND FINISHES 154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

CHAPTER NINE: CONCLUSION

172

173

CONCLUSION THE ANSWER This thesis asked the questions, can planned obsolescence be stopped in architecture?, Can we use ideas from the circular economy to extend the longevity of a building or system? I believe these questions have all been answered and have come to the conclusion with the detailed evidence of this very thesis that each is in fact possible. The issue of planned obsolescence in architecture is today a big issue, almost all internal and external fixtures run into the issue of needing repair or replacement as time goes on, and evidently finding it’s way to landfill. Although, with the incorporation of the easy transitory structures that I propose and the constant upcycling of materials, this need to waste is the idea that will become obsolete. This very idea follows the core principles of what the circular economy is. Constant flow of reused, recycled or repaired materiality. The former SR building and site of choice was once considered one of Swinburnes most ‘missable’ buildings on campus, It is now the forefront of innovative design and stands out at the heart of the campus. Built using the old SR materials, this new building truly is the first structure to capture the real meaning of the circular economy and the first building in Australia to achieve constant longevity through the incorporation of temporary design.

174

I believe this design accomplishes many of the objectives I aimed to achieve including the security of the valuable plastic material of the Coles plastic crates. While these plastic collapsible boxes would once be thrown to waste they now form the skin and partial structural design of the new temporary areas of the building. Once the building is dismantled the crates will be properly put back into circulation, washed and used to hold fruit and veg in Coles supermarkets. These crates help extend the life of this architectural building and this new process of circularity helps extend the life and purpose of these crates. A symbiotic relationship that is the solution to Australia’s plastic waste issues. In terms of my own personal experiences with my work at Coles, one of the many goals I set early on was to find a solution to the big waste issues that come from that industry. While I think ending waste completely may seem impossible for such a large company, this project definitely poses possible small scale solutions, ‘baby steps’ if you will toward slowing the process of the ever increasing issue of Australia’s plastic waste and waste issues in general.

175

176

177

REFERENCES [1] Hermund, A., Klint, L. and Kauschen, J., n.d. A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON ARCHITECTURAL SUSTAINABILITY The impact of planned obsolescence on the overall sustainability of houses. [2] UN Environment. 2022. UN report: Time to seize opportunity, tackle challenge of e-waste. [online] Available at: <https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/un-report-time-seize-opportunity-tacklechallenge-e-waste>

[24] Mills, NJ, Jenkins, M & Kukureka, S 4AD, Plastics : microstructure and engineering applications, Butterworth-Heinemann, Kidlington, Oxford.

[3] 2022. A New Circular Vision for Electronics Time for a Global Reboot. [online] Available at: <https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_New_Circular_Vision_for_Electronics.pdf>

[25] Science History Institute 2016, ‘Science of Plastics’, Science History Institute, viewed <https://www.sciencehistory.org/science-of-plastics>.

[4] Meyers, G., Taylor, A., Taylor, A., Markham, D., Markham, D., Markham, D. and Milton, C., 2022. The Greatest Invention: Planned Obsolescence. [online] The Inspired Economist. Available at: <https://inspiredeconomist. com/2012/09/20/the-greatest-invention-planned-obsolescence/>

[26] Crawford, Robert; Stephan, André; Prideaux, Fabian (2019): EPiC Database. University of Melbourne. Book. https://doi.org/10.26188/5dc228ef98c5a

[5] Stahel, W., 1882. Product -Life Factor. [6] Baker-Brown., 2017. The re-use atlas. London: Riba publishing. [7] Skånberg, K. and Wijkman, A., 2015. [online] Clubofrome.org. Available at: <https://clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/The-Circular-Economy-and-Benefits-for-Society.pdf> [8] PARLEY. 2022. PARLEY. [online] Available at: <https://www.parley.tv/#fortheoceans>

[27] ‘Space Central | Swinburne University | Melbourne’ n.d., spacecentral.swin.edu.au, viewed 30 August 2022, <https://spacecentral.swin.edu.au/SISfm/Space/default.aspx?advanced=1>. [28] Admin 2018, ‘Glenferrie’s Indigenous History’, The Glenferrie Times, viewed 5 September 2022, <https://www.theglenferrietimes.com/single-post/2017/09/12/naidoc-week>. [29] ‘Acknowledgement of Country’ n.d., www.swinburne.edu.au, viewed <https://www.swinburne.edu.au/about/strategy-initiatives/moondani-toombadool-centre/acknowledgement/>. [30] Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation, viewed <https://www.wurundjeri.com.au/>.

[9] PARLEY. 2022. FUTURECRAFT LOOP: The Next Step — PARLEY. [online] Available at: <https://www.parley.tv/updates/2019/4/17/the-next-step>

[31] Boroondara, C of 2017, ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’, City of Boroondara, viewed 5 September 2022, <https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/community-support/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islanderpeoples>.

[10] Knowaste Technologies. 2022. The Knowaste Recycling Process. [online] Available at: <https://www.knowaste.com/the-knowaste-recycling-process.html>

[32] Katz,DavidA. “Polymers.” AvailableathNp://www.chymist.com.

[11] Vijayaraghavan, A., 2022. UK Company Turns Used Diapers Into Roofing Material. [online] Triplepundit.com. Available at: <https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2011/uk-company-turns-used-diapers-roofingmaterial/73711>

[33] ‘Recycling plastics – what the numbers mean | Yarra City Council’ n.d., www.yarracity.vic.gov.au, viewed <https://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/news/2019/10/29/recycling-plastics>.

[12] Cityservices.act.gov.au. 2022. Nappies and sustainability - Recyclopaedia. [online] Available at: <https://www.cityservices.act.gov.au/recyclopaedia/factsheets/nappies-factsheet#:~:text=With%20around%20 300%2C000%20babies%20born,landfills%20nationally%20every%20year%201.>

[34] About the Plan n.d., viewed <https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/national-plastics-plan-summay-fs.pdf>. [35] DAWE 2021, National Plastics Plan2021, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra,

[13] ArchDaily. 2022. 1,500 Semi-Transparent Plastic Baskets Form a Lightweight Facade. [online] Available at: <https://www.archdaily.com/881513/1500-semi-transparent-baskets-to-build-a-lightweight-facade>

[36] ‘The lifecycle of plastics’ n.d., www.wwf.org.au, viewed 14 September 2022, <https://www.wwf.org.au/news/blogs/the-lifecycle-of-plastics#gs.brdmbf>.

[14] Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2022. Waste Account, Australia, Experimental Estimates, 2018-19 financial year. [online] Available at: <https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/environment/environmental-management/ waste-account-australia-experimental-estimates/latest-release#e-waste>

[37] Stanley, M 2022, ‘Microplastics | National Geographic Society’, education.nationalgeographic.org, National Geographic Society, viewed <https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/microplastics>.

[15] 2022. National Waste Report 2020. [online] Available at: <https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/national-waste-reports/2020> [16] Hall, M. and Crawford, R., 2022. Embodied Energy. [online] Your Home. Available at: <https://www.yourhome.gov.au/materials/embodied-energy> [17] Sixdegrees.com.au. 2022. Six Degrees Architects. [online] Available at: <https://www.sixdegrees.com.au/> [18] ArchitectureAU. 2022. Six Degrees Architects’ Meyers Place to close. [online] Available at: <https://architectureau.com/articles/six-degrees-architects-meyers-place-to-close/> [19] Eat-drink-design.com. 2022. Meyers Place by Six Degrees | Eat Drink Design Awards. [online] Available at: <https://eat-drink-design.com/gallery/2014/hall-of-fame/YLR4H4WR680> [20] ‘Learn | OpenEnergyMonitor’ n.d., learn.openenergymonitor.org, viewed <https://learn.openenergymonitor.org/sustainable-energy/energy/industry-plastic>. [21] ‘Pitch Music & Arts’ n.d., www.facebook.com, viewed 23 August 2022, <https://www.facebook.com/pitchmusicfestival/>. [22] snapolitano 2020, ‘Circular Economy Toolkit for Small Businesses’, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, viewed <https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/blog/post/circular-economy-toolkit-small-businesses>.

178

[23] Parker, L 2022, ‘Microplastics are in our bodies. How much do they harm us?’, Environment, viewed <https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/microplastics-are-in-our-bodies-how-much-do-theyharm-us>.

[38] ‘Planet Ark Recycling Near You - Recycling Polystyrene in the City of Melbourne area’ n.d., Recycling Near You, viewed 14 September 2022, <https://recyclingnearyou.com.au/polystyrene MelbourneVIC#:~:text=Polystyrene%20foam%20should%20never%20be>. [39] Seadon, J 2019, ‘How recycling is actually sorted, and why Australia is quite bad at it’, The Conversation, viewed <https://theconversation.com/how-recycling-is-actually-sorted-and-why-australia-is-quite-bad-atit-121120>. [40] Coles, Supply Standards 2021, https://www.supplierportal.coles.com.au/csp/supplychain/Coles%20Supply%20Standards_Updated%2017%20June%202021.pdf [41] Science History Institute 2016b, ‘The History and Future of Plastics’, Science History Institute, viewed <https://www.sciencehistory.org/the-history-and-future-of-plastics>. [42] ‘Shipping from China to Australia [Updated June 2022]’ n.d., Freightos, viewed <https://www.freightos.com/shipping-routes/shipping-from-china-to-australia/#:~:text=At%20a%20minimum%20of%2030>. [43] ‘Types of scaffold ties - HSE Skyward’ 2019, www.hseskyward.com, viewed <https://www.hseskyward.com/types-of-scaffold-ties/>. [44] Lingle, R 2009, ‘Coles turns to RPCs’, Packaging World, viewed 18 October 2022, <https://www.packworld.com/home/news/13345142/coles-turns-to-rpcs>.

179

This Thesis aims to identify and discuss fresh viewpoints on the near emerging circular economic market as a solution to the increasing issue of industrial waste and pollution.

180

D CL O SE

PE N

Using plastic collapsible containers, I aim to demonstrate the importance of up-cycling materials found throughout all corporate industries and how they can be used to make semi-permanent designs that can increase the longevity of buildings without the need for renovation or increasing this issue of waste and pollution.