54
SWAT SUSTAINABLE WORKSHOP ARCHITECTURE & TECHNOLOGY MAURITS STOFFER
SWATSUSTAINABLE WORKSHOP ARCHITECTURE & TECHNOLOGY
M A U R I T S S T O F F E R
2 3
Focus & Direction 22 - 23
Precedents Structure 24 - 25
Values & Goals 26 - 29
Workflow 30-33
Material Selection #1 72 - 75
Structural Analysis 76 - 89
MaterialSelection#2 90-93
Results Comparison 94 - 95
Model 96 - 99
Impression 100-101
3. RECIPROCAL FRAME - DESIGN
Vision 6 - 7
Location 8
Solution 9
Challenges 10-15
Potentials 16 - 17
Intervention 18 - 19
Formfindings 36-39
Shape 40-41
Tessellations 42 - 51
Mapping 52 - 53
Precedents - Façade 54 - 55
Final Tessellation 56 - 57
Structure + Façade Integration 58 - 63
TechnicalDrawings 64-69
CONTENT
1. BRIEFING & INTERVENTION
2 . ELABORATION 4. RECIPROCAL FRAME - ANALYSIS
BRIEFING & INTERVENTION1.
6 7
ENER
GY
SPATIAL
SOCIAL
VISION VISION
From the beginning the focus was on multiple aspects. In the first few weeks the plot was analysed and challenges and potentials were
found on three themes - spatial, social and energy. In order to realise a sustainable neighbourhood, the spatial environment, the social
aspects and the energetic possibilities should be integrated.
INTEGRATION INTEGRATION
8 9
GROUP A3 // MARIA ALEXIOU | OLGA TOURLOMOUSI | JELMER AMORY | MUSTAFA NAZARI | NOUD GORTER | SANDER VAN BAALEN | MAURITS STOFFER
LOCATION SOLUTION
BRIDGING ‘S IERPLEIN’ COMMUNIT YSLOTERVA ART - S IERPLEIN
10 11
The spatial challenges of our plot are mainly to do with barriers and boundaries.
The area is boxed in by geographical barriers, there is a parc line on the east, a canal on the south and there are various busy roads that
results in a limiting accessibility, especially for pedestrians. Sierplein has its open side of the U-shape towards the street, which results in a
square that lacks intimacy.
Besides the geographical boundaries, there are also functional boundaries. The public facilities are located around the edges of the plot
and are facing outwards. When being there and interviewing residences, there seems to be no connection between the living area and the
facilities area. All of these aspects results in a low accessability - which makes Sierplein and its surroundings not attractive for outsiders.
CHALLENGES CHALLENGES
SPATIAL SPATIAL
URBAN BARRIERS FUNCTION BOUNDARIES
NO INT IMACY LOW ACCESSABIL IT Y
12 13
CHALLENGES CHALLENGES
SOCIAL SOCIAL
Social housing
Private ownership
Feeling unsafe Not participating Unemployment of youth Average Cito-test scoreFeeling unhealthy
25%36%
30%42%
13%27%
24%31%
535528
+23%
+21%
+31%
+27%
1.300
3.000
600
600
LOW DIVERSIT Y
POPUL ATION STATIST ICS
First of all: there is a lack of diversity in population and housing stock. The inhabitants are predominantly disadvantaged. We compared the
social statistics to the city perspective of Amsterdam itself. The following were the derived results: lower rating of public health, lower rating
of public safety, lower social participation rate, lower level of employment and a lower level of education.
The future prospects are a growth in housing and population, of which mostly seniors and children. A more diverse population is needed
to prevent problems in the neighbourhood. An important note is that the challenges just mentioned need to be improved to avoid bigger
challenges in the future.
14 15
22%78%
G
no info
FEDCBA
9%
11%
10%36%20%14%
0%0%
25,0 GWh / year
26,5 GWh / year
G
F
E
D
C
G
no info
FEDCBA
9%
11%
10%36%20%14%
0%0%
G
F
E
D
C
G
no info
FEDCBA
9%
11%
10%36%20%14%
0%0%
25,0 GWh / year
26,5 GWh / year
22%78%
20%75%
95%
€990,- €423,- €567,-
Cur
rent
situ
atio
n
Ener
gyla
bel A
hou
se
Savi
ng
G
no info
FEDCBA
9%
11%
10%36%20%14%0%0%
25,0 GWh / year
26,5 GWh / year
22%78%
20%75%
95%
€990,- €423,- €567,-
Cur
rent
situ
atio
n
Ener
gyla
bel A
hou
se
Savi
ng
G
no info
FEDCBA
9%
11%
10%36%20%14%
0%0%
25,0 GWh / year
26,5 GWh / year
22%78%
20%75%
95%
€990,- €423,- €567,-
Cur
rent
situ
atio
n
Ener
gyla
bel A
hou
se
Savi
ng
ENERGY STATIST ICS
ENERGY DEMAND
CHALLENGES CHALLENGES
ENERGY ENERGY
Heating residences Water vs. airTotal energy demand
FINANCIAL COMPARISON
The building stock is old-fashioned and outdated, low insulation and the energy demand is therefore high. The majority of the energy con-
sumption is natural gas - which is a unrenewable source. The gas demand is almost exclusively used for heating up the residences, due to
the bad insulation.. Most of this heating is used for the air in the buildings, a smaller part for water heating.
All the buildings have a energy label of C or lower and mostly even under E. On the next page you can find a financial comparison with
A-label buildings. The potential cost reduction is half the cost that is paid for the current energy supply.
In summary, the new focus should be on two things:
1. Upgrading the current residences when it comes to energy demand
2. Replacing this demand by renewable sources.
16 17
POTENTIALS POTENTIALS
INTEGRATION INTEGRATION
22%78%
G
no info
FEDCBA
9%
11%
10%36%20%14%0%0%
25,0 GWh / year
26,5 GWh / year
22%78%
G
no info
FEDCBA
9%
11%
10%36%20%14%0%0%
25,0 GWh / year
26,5 GWh / year
22%78%
G
no info
FEDCBA
9%
11%
10%36%20%14%
0%0%
25,0 GWh / year
26,5 GWh / year
22%78%
G
no info
FEDCBA
9%
11%
10%36%20%14%
0%0%
25,0 GWh / year
26,5 GWh / year
Energy demand
Geothermal powerplant potential
CONNECTIV IT Y
S IERPLEIN AS CATALYST
ENERGY POTENTIAL
To overcome the barriers of our plot, the focus needs to be on connectivity inside the neighbourhood but also of the surrounding area.
The Sierplein has potential to be the attraction - the catalyst - of the entire neighbourhood, but the accessibility, mobility and the appearan-
ce of the square needs to be improved. In addition, new functions could attract a more diverse population, to improve the social cohesion.
The area has a high potential for geothermal energy gain, this even exceeds the current energy demand. This energy source could be used
for the heating demand to replace the natural gas use.
ELABORATION2.
22 23
My focus for the elaboration will be on the north bridge connected to the living deck. This bridge crosses a big crossing near Sierplein and
this crossing is one of the main obstacles for a good accessability towards the square and the neighbourhood itself.
My main theme for this bridge is that it needs to be a catalyst for the living deck. This will be done by a canopy that attracts and invites
people from other neighboorhoods. It will function as a shelter and meeting point to overcome the physical- and morphological barriers of
the surroundings as well as the social barriers between the communities. The canopy will be made out of wood and the principle for the
structure is a reciprocal frame. The advantage for this is that it is low tech and appealing to the eye because of the geometrical pattern. A
few examples of how this reciprocal frame will look like are shown on the next pages.
FOCUS & DIRECTION FOCUS & DIRECTION
DESIGN EXERCISE DESIGN EXERCISE
IMPRESSION
ACCESSABILITY
24 25
PRECEDENTS
STRUCTURE - RECIPROCAL FRAME CANOPY
PRECEDENTS
STRUCTURE - RECIPROCAL FRAME CANOPY
26 27
VALUES & GOALS
GENERAL
There are four main values that forms the rational arguments for making the bridge with the reciprocal frame canopy. These values are de-
rived from the briefing- and intervention phase and are connected to various potentials. Besides the contribution on the spatial accessability
and the social cohesion, the canopy need to have iconic value in order to function as a catalyst for the neighbourhood.
VALUES & GOALS
ICONIC VALUE
ACCESSABILITY SEPERATE TRANSPORT
DIVERSITY & INTERACTION
GENERAL
28 29
STRUCTURE & FAÇADE
VALUES & GOALS
The two disciplines where this design is focused on are ‘structure’ and ‘façade’. For each of these disciplines a few goals are set up, each to
be further investigated during the different design phases.
STRUCTURE & FAÇADE
TESSELLATION FORCE DISTRIBUTION JOINERY
ACOUSTIC COMFORT WEATHER PROTECTION DAYLIGHT
VALUES & GOALS
30 31
WORKFLOW
DESIGN PHASES
Left you can find a general workflow. Different design phases are made concrete into various tasks. In practice, there won’t be a strict line
between these phases, yet it gives direction. At first and inventorisation on the topic will be done and an aim will be thought out. After this,
the research can start and a first shape can be designed, followed by an investigation on the different tessellations. Ones this is done, the
mapping of the tessellation can start, which will be the input for the further structural analysis.
WEEK 1.5 WEEK 1.6 WEEK 1.7 WEEK 1.8 WEEK 1.9
- Analyse access routes to square
- Create mesh
- Start formfinding
- Research on ETFE foils
- Get insight in RF possibilities
- Scan articles
- Formulate research question
- Decide design scope
- Start mapping the FF result
- Analyse force distribution
- Design definitive joints
- Start sketching the façade details
- Analyse different tessellations
- Start looking into wood joinery
- Decide tessellation
- Integrate the façade
- Design definitive tessellation scale
- Start structural optimization
- Detailing façade
- Visualize the results
WORKFLOW
INVENTORISATION & A IM RESEARCH & REF. SURFACE TESSELL ATIONS & FAÇADE MAPPING & CONNECTIONS OPTIMIZ ATION & DETAILLING
DESIGN PHASES
32 33
WORKFLOW
COMPUTATIONAL WORKFLOW
Parametric Design
Formfinding
Structural Optimization
Design documentation
WORKFLOW
COMPUTATIONAL WORKFLOW
On this spreadpage you can find a computational workflow. Everything will be parametrically written in Grasshopper with the documentation
of this visualised in Rhinoceros. Kangaroo will be used in the first phases of the design. It will be used to perform formfindings in order to
have a structurally feasable overall shape. Ones this is done, further analysis on the structure will be made using Karamba.
RECIPROCAL FRAME - DESIGN3.
36 37
FORMFINDINGS
GRASSHOPPER CODES
GRID SET UP
Since the shape of the canopy will be double curved and the support won’t be in a straight line, I wanted to be able to set up my grid for
Kangaroo manually. Also to be able to perform multiple trials which can be found on the next pages. Below you can find the script how this
grid was manually set up. The outputs on the next page formed the input for the Kangaroo Simulation. After the grid was form finded, the
surface could be made.
FORMFINDINGS
OUTPUTS
LINES LENGTH 2D
FORCE POINTS
LINES WIDTH 2D
SUPPORT POINTS
38 39
TRIALS
FORMFINDINGS
Various grids, with each different supports, are formfinded. At first the bridge had a width of 42 meters, which was a relative large span for
the reciprocal frame structure. I tried to manipulate the deflection on the sides by introducing a graph mapper which was able to influence
the unary force. Side note is that physically this won’t be accurate anymore. I changed the width of the bridge to 24 meters and I got rid of
the innercircle, resulting in fewer supports and a more fluent shape.
K ANGAROO S IMUL ATION LOF TING
1 2
3C FINAL SHAPE
3A
42m
3B
TRIALS
24m
FORMFINDINGS
40 41
F INAL SHAPE LOF TING
SHAPE
On this page you can find the way the final shape is derived. There are several types of loft that needed to be made in order to be able to
map the tessellations in the right way - which will be discussed later. A straight loft and a smooth extended loft was needed for the design
phases ahead.SURFACE TOPVIEW
LINES LENGTH 3D LINES WIDTH 3D STRAIGHT LOF T SMOOTH E X TENDED LOF T
SURROUNDINGS PERSPECTIVE
F INAL SHAPE LOF TING
SHAPE
42 4 3
TESSELL ATIONS
Below you can find a generic grasshopper script. This formed the basis for making infinite variations of the configuration. The outlined com-
ponent could be replaced with the grasshopper components on next page the to get different starting grids.
On the coming pages a few tessellations are made visible.
GENERIC TESSELL ATION CODE
GENERIC SCRIPTING
TESSELL ATIONS
SQUAREDTRIANGUL AR
HE X AGONAL CIRCUL AR
RECIPROCAL FRAME UNITS
4 4 4 5
RECTANGULAR
0.00 0.33 0.50 0.67 1.00
TESSELL ATIONS
IMPRESSION
TESSELL ATIONS
46 47
TRIANGULAR
0.00 0.33 0.50 0.67 1.00
0.00 0.33 0.50 0.67 1.00
TESSELL ATIONS
IMPRESSION
TESSELL ATIONS
4 8 49
HEX AGONAL
0.00 0.33 0.50 0.67 1.00
TESSELL ATIONS
IMPRESSION
TESSELL ATIONS
50 51
CIRCULAR
0.00 0.33 0.50 0.67 1.00
TESSELL ATIONS
IMPRESSION
TESSELL ATIONS
52 53
CONFIGURATION SET UP & MAPPING
Since the formfined shape and the 2D tessellations are writen, the next phase - the mapping - can begin. For mapping the tessellation to
the surface, the extended loft is used in order to avoid curve trims at unwanted coordinates. The mapped curves are then sweeped with a
rectangular section to visualise the wooden beams.
MAPPING
CONFIGURATION SET UP & MAPPING
2D TESSELL ATION + LOF T MAPPED CURVES
RECTANGUL AR SECTIONS RENDERED WOODEN BEAMS
MAPPING
54 55
PRECEDENTS PRECEDENTS
FAÇADE - TRANSPARANT ETFE FOIL FAÇADE - TRANSPARANT ETFE FOIL
KENGO KUMA - WIND EAVES PAVIL ION - TAIWAN MOUNTING HEAD CL AMPING STRIP
56 57
S IMPLIFIED SHELL
FINAL TESSELL ATION
ONE HE X AGONAL SEGMENT GRID OF HE X AGONALS
FINAL TESSELL ATION FAÇADE TOPVIEW
S IMPLIFIED SHELL
FINAL TESSELL ATION
25m
6,5m
40m
DIMENSIONS S IMPLIF IED SHELL
58 59
STRUCTURE & FAÇADE INTEGRATION
SCALE & ROTATE
After having diverged into all the possible tessellations and after mapping several tessellations, it is time to convert and to
make a choice on which tessellation would be designed further and on which the structural analysis would be applied. For
structural reasons I chose a tessellation with a triangular grid. The tessellation was picked, but two things were still yet to be
determined. The scale and the rotation of the tessellation. I needed more designboundaries for these two factors.
The façadedesign was the input that gave these boundaries. As I want to apply transparant ETFE as a cladding, like the
one Kengo Kuma uses in his Wind Eaves Pavilion in Taiwan. He basically uses lanes of transparant ETFE foil which he
clads unto the wooden structure via aluminum mounting heads. At the sides of the structure he uses a strip that clamps the
foil.
For the structural analysis as well as the detailing I used a simplified shell. The green boxed fragment is further developed
on the next pages.
STRUCTURE & FAÇADE INTEGRATION
SCALE & ROTATE
6 0 61
STRUCTURE & FAÇADE INTEGRATION
FRAGMENT
LEGEND
Suppor ts Clamp ing s t r ip Mount ing head Mount ing gr id
STRUCTURE & FAÇADE INTEGRATION
FRAGMENT
BEAMS TOPVIEW
INTERSECTION POINTS TOPVIEW
62 63
STRUCTURE & FAÇADE INTEGRATION
MOUNTING CONFIGURATION
An important aspect of the integration of structure and façade is the configuration of the aluminum mounting heads. This
can be done in various ways, where the distances and the grid of the connection differ. On the images on the next page you
can find several possibilities. In fact there are many more options, but this will give an insight.
STRUCTURE & FAÇADE INTEGRATION
MOUNTING CONFIGURATION
FULL CONFIGURATION RECTANGUL AR CONFIGURATION
TRIANGUL AR CONFIGURATION #1 TRIANGUL AR CONFIGURATION # 2
64 65
TECHNICAL DRAWINGSTECHNICAL DRAWINGS
1
1
2
2
3
3
DETAILINGDETAILING
For the technical drawings and façade technology, three details will be worked out. The first one is the support, secondly
one of the mounting heads to clamp the transparant ETFE foil to the reciprocal frame, and thirdly a detail of the edges of
this foil - which will be a strip connection instead of a point connection. Detail 2 and 3 will therefore be similar.
66 67
ESTCODE
ESTCODE
ESTCODE
ESTCODE
TECHNICAL DRAWINGS TECHNICAL DRAWINGS
DETAILING DETAILING
DETAIL 1 - 1:5 DETAIL 2 - VERTICAL 1:5 DETAIL 3 - VERTICAL 1:5
70
120
300
35
90
90
70
68
65
Wooden beam (spruce)
Aluminum pin - 130.0 x 9.0 mm
Steel mounting heads
Steel mounting plate - 6 mm
Concrete floor
6 8 69
TECHNICAL DRAWINGS TECHNICAL DRAWINGS
DETAILING DETAILING
DETAIL 2 - VERTICAL 1:2
DETAIL 2 - TOPVIEW 1:5 DETAIL 2 - HORIZONTAL 1:5
120 120
120 35
423642
12
Aluminum bolt - 30.0 x 9.0 mm
Aluminum screw - 60.0 x 6.0 mm
Aluminum profile - 2 mm
Transparant ETFE foil - 3 mm
Silicon compressions layer
Wooden beam (spruce)
2.562.5
12
60
50 35
Wooden beam (spruce)
Aluminum bolt - 30.0 x 9.0 mm
Aluminum profile - 2 mm
Aluminum screw - 60.0 x 6.0 mm
Transparant ETFE foil - 3 mm
RECIPROCAL FRAME - ANALYSIS4.
72 73
MATERIAL SELECTION
OAK (QUERCUS FALCATA VAR. PAGODIFOLIA)
To make the structural analysis in Karamba a material needed to be selected. I chose for longitudinal wood which left me
with 28 materials. I wanted to have a high young’s modulus so I set a filter to this with a minimum of 14 GPa. Only 11 ma-
terials were still complying. I plot four different types of graphs, all with this Young’s Modulus at the Y-axis. I looked into the
density, the price, the yield strength and the fracture toughness.
TREE F ILTER COMPLYING MATERIALS
YOUNG’S MODULUS - DENSIT Y YOUNG’S MODULUS - PRICE
YOUNG’S MODULUS - FRACTURE TOUGHNESSYOUNG’S MODULUS - Y IELD STRENGTH
MATERIAL SELECTION
GRAPHS
74 75
MATERIAL SELECTION
OAK (QUERCUS FALCATA VAR. PAGODIFOLIA)
The results of the plots led to Oak. A type of wood with a relatively low price for its Young’s Modulus and Yield Strength.
However the density is relatively high which will result in a higher bending moment. Also oak is a hardwood which is harder
to edit and work the material. This is a disadvantage because of the connection processes with its halved joints.
At first I will perform basic analysis on this material which can later still be changed. I will begin with one hexagonal seg-
ment to get a grip of how the connections can be design computationally. Afterwards multiple segments can be analysed,
followed by a simplified shell.
MATERIAL SELECTION
PROPERTIES
76 7 7
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
ONE HEX AGONAL SEGMENT
GRASSHOPPER CODE
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
RESULTS
LINE SEGMENTS
A XIAL STRESS DISPL ACEMENT
SUPPORTS
78 79
GRASSHOPPER CODE
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
MULTIPLE SEGMENTS
LINE SEGMENTS DISPL ACEMENTSUPPORTS
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
RESULTS
80 81
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
SIMPLIFIED SHELL
GRASSHOPPER CODE
82 83
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
SIMPLIFIED SHELL
SUPPORTS
REACTIONS
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
SIMPLIFIED SHELL
UTIL IZ ATION
84 85
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
LOADCASES
To perform the structural analysis, I made a simplified reciprocal frame which is symmetrical and therefore has equally
spaced supports. This is beneficial and easier for interpreting the derived results. I analysed different loadcases; gravity, a
side windload and a front windload. On the next pages you can find the loadcases visualised in vectors, displacements and
stresses results.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
DISPL ACEMENT [ X 10]
STRESSES
LOADCASE VECTORS
LOADCASE 0 - GRAVIT Y
86 87
LOADCASE VECTORS
DISPL ACEMENT X 10
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
LOADCASES 1 - S IDE WINDLOAD
STRESSES
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
LOADCASES 3 - FRONT WINDLOAD
DISPL ACEMENT [ X 25]
STRESSES
LOADCASE VECTORS
8 8 89
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
LOADCASES 0 + 1 - GRAVIT Y + S IDE WINDLOAD
The Yield Strength of the selected type of Oak is 6.12 kN/cm2, which is 61.2 MPa. The maximum stresses of the seperate
loadcases didn’t exceed this Yield Strength, however this combination of gravity and a side winload is -7.86 kN/cm2 at its
highest, and therefore it does not comply. This also has to do with the relatively high specific weight of 6.89 kN/m3.
DISPL ACEMENT [ X 10]
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
LOADCASES 0 + 1 - GRAVIT Y + S IDE WINDLOAD
STRESSES
9 0 91
LIMIT RESULTS COMPLYING MATERIALS
MATERIAL SELECTION
SPRUCE (PICEA ABIES)
A new material needed to be selected. The results were limited by not only the Young’s Modulus, but also the Density - with
a maximum of 500 kg/m3. There were seven complying materials. The same graphs as in the previous material selection
were plotted. YOUNG’S MODULUS - DENSIT Y YOUNG’S MODULUS - PRICE
YOUNG’S MODULUS - FRACTURE TOUGHNESSYOUNG’S MODULUS - Y IELD STRENGTH
MATERIAL SELECTION
GRAPHS
92 93
MATERIAL SELECTION
SPRUCE (PICEA ABIES)
As you can see in the graphs, Spruce (picea abies) is a beneficial type of wood because of its low price, fast growth, rela-
tively high young’s modulus and relatively high yield strength compared to the other complying sorts of wood. Besides, the
base material is a softwood and is therefore easy to edit for the connections and finishing.
MATERIAL SELECTION
PROPERTIES
94 95
RESULTS COMPARISON RESULTS COMPARISON
CALCULATIONS CALCULATIONS
Now that a new material was selected, the last step was to compare the results with basic handcalculations. The outputs of
Karamba is the total maximum combined stress, but also the maximum of the seperate stresses. The normal force, shear
force and the bending moments, each giving maximums. Thing is, the node where the maximum bending moment occurs, is
not the same node where for example the maximum normal force is occuring.
On the next page a grasshopper code is shown where the corresponding values are found and with these combination the
stresses are calculated. By looking at the color schemes in Karamba the handcalculations seem right, however, the results
of this handcalculations were still not the maximum stresses derived from Karamba.
It is challenging to rightly interpret the Karamba outputs. If there was more time, I could perform more handcalculations and
thereby could bridge this gap in results.
GRASSHOPPER CODE
DIMENSIONS CROSS -SECTION
9 6 97
MODEL MODEL
RECIPROCAL FRAME RECIPROCAL FRAME
PL AN MODEL 1:10
On the next page a plan of the model at 1:10 that is made is shown. By building a 1:150 model of a fragment of the reci-
procal frame, new insights to the connections were given. In the model the joints have tollerances in order to be sure that it
will fit. The joints still have free space and there is some room for wiggling. In practise, more research on the angle and the
depth of the joints should be done to realise a 1:1 model with rigid connections.
9 8 9 9
MODEL MODEL
RECIPROCAL FRAME RECIPROCAL FRAME
10 0 101
VISUAL VISUAL
102 103
