Page 1

PORTFOLIO Gautam Pradeep

Architecture Semester 2 2018


PRISMA


Timeline Site Analysis Pediment Proposals

Integrated Proposals Final Formal Proposal Pre-Construction Construction

Post Construction

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

3


SITE

Nick Nystrom Drone Photo


Reiman Gardens Forces

Module 1 This module asked us to research the site and find out features about Reiman Gardens that make it unique. I decided to look at features that interested me and they all fell under the unique theme of “Movement�. I decided to look at motion in multiple scales such as wind blowing across the site, drainage paths on the site, Visitors path across the site, etc. This was compiled in a set of abstracted drawings that document these findings.

Researching different factors like wind , solar orientation and shadows (Diva), star maps, and sectional qualities (section from point cloud) of the site. 1 http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/windrose.phtml?network=WI_ASOS&station=CWA, 2 http://www.skymaponline.net Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

5


Motion happens in many scales. The stars move across the sky blazing paths in their wake. Wind moves through the site exerting nature’s pressure on any obstructions. Water flows through the varied topography during rainy conditions while people flow during sunny conditions. Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

6


Site Forces Studies

Motion and Scale

In plan we are able to see the winds favoured annual paths across the site as well as the means of arrival at the site by traffic Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

7


Initial Iterative studies to represent forces like wind, water, and light


Abstract Site Analysis Change Studies

Studies in change found in both natural realms (wind) and in a more abstract sense, the movement of time (represented by previous historic locations of Reiman gardens). Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

9


PEDIMENT


Precedent Study Iterative Approaches

The Primitive Hut Marc-Antoine Laugier proposed the essential components in architecture with his ideals of the Primitive Hut. The origins of architecture are explored with the relationship between man and the environment being explored. The primitive hut divides architecture into 5 ideals that make up the essential soul of architecture: the column, entablature, pediment, storeys, and furniture. Our studio was assigned to focus on pediments. This involved researching the hut, looking at precedents and coming up with designs that emphasized this typology.

Precedents from Archdaily, Google Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

11


Pediment Proposal Proposal 1

Pediment proposal 1 This project was where I tried to apply some grasshoppers functions so that we could control different parameters of the design and adjust them based on our preference. I learnt how to use panelling tools and create trusses using data manipulation

Group: Abbi Harding, Mary Le Responsibility: 3D modelling/Render

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

12


Pediment Proposal Proposal 2

Pediment proposal 2 This project was where I got to apply what I learnt earlier into different designs and how to utilize tools to make models faster and with more flexibility.

Group: Abbi Harding, Mary Kelly, Jhonriel Ramirez, Haiyang Qian Responsibility: 3D modelling Render by Haiyang Qian Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

13


Pediment Proposal Proposal 3

Pavilion proposal 2 This proposal was a quick 2 hour proposal made to investigate ideas of tying in George Sherwood’s sculptural styles into a pediment proposal. This Project gave me a short deadline and allowed me to practice modelling ideas into a 3D representative model and producing quick diagrams.

Charette made before 3D modelling by Ariana Irrizary

Group members: Ariana Irrizary Responsibility: 3D modelling+rendering Time: 2 hours

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

14


Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

15


INTEGRATION


Integrated Proposals Iterative Approaches

Build proposals Taking our previous idea of pediments forward, we had to design proposals that combined ideas from our earlier iterations into full proposals that took inspiration from the works of other studios in their approaches to the other components of the primitive hut.

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

17


Personal Notes In this project we started to look at tensile structures and thus it was a challenge to figure out how to depict them realistically and account for real life effects like gravity. This is where I used grasshopper’s physics components to model these hammocks


Mesh

Studio Designed Proposals MESH Hammocks were a favoured component in the pavilion, and we decided to try to come up with forms that can best use the hammock and express its nature of play and flexibility.

Initial Iteration was made organic and wove through the site.

MESH 2.0 With the first iteration, we had a lot of exaggerated curves that we minimised and also added multiple hammock extensions that catered to individuals and made multiple private spaces to lounge.

Second iteration built upon the first but focused on creating private spaces as well.

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

Pavilion proposal 1 Group: Studio section Responsibility: 3D modelling

19


Build Proposal Investigative build proposal

Vascan

VASCAN An enclosed shell

peering out through the trees, our design intrigues the viewer to trail around the pavalion and into the entrance of the shaded space. Slivers of light hit these cascading pieces of canvas that drape throughout the inside, creating a dream-like maze. Breeze travels in and out as kids explore the unders and overs of this world, and others relax in the loose environment. A sculpture on the outside, this design integrates interaction and play within the design.

This proposal was a separate proposal made during the different iterations that focused more on simplifying typologies and constricting material choices to only white canvas sheets and wood. This proposal focused on creating a shaded space filled with the same canvas sheets used to create hammocks while maintaining a simple palette.

MATERIALITY

CANVAS + WOOD (CEDAR, PINE, OR TE AK)

I d e a t i o n

Pavilion proposal 2 Group: Donovan,Abbigail, Mary, Haiyang Responsibility: 3D modelling Board made by group. Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

20


Build Proposal Integrated build proposal

Integration This proposal tried to combine our studios focus on hammocks and tension structures with a single radii structural poles to integrate another typology that had excited the clients, the iridescent infill panels, that was bought back into the conversation.

Pavilion proposal 3 Group: Studio section Responsibility: 3D modelling

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

21


FINAL FORM


Minimal Surface Structures Integrated final proposal

Minimum Parabolic Surfaces One of the features that students had revisited over many proposals and that the client had responded well too was this shape. With the final few iterations, this form was repeated with some of the other features that the client responded equally well with like hammocks and iridescent acrylic panels. We had multiple iterations but I was a part of the final design team and we came up with the charrette model of the final iteration.

Stick model by Jennifer Tan

Stick model by Jennifer Tan Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

Group: Ariana Irrizary, Dylan Anderson, Jaya Tolefree, Sam Rushenburg, Oluwatobiloba Fagbule, Hannah Larsen Responsibility: Design Development, 3D modelling 23


Charrette

Integrated final proposal Module infill types To incorporate the different components like the iridescent panels and hammocks together, two types of modules were finalized on. Modules with a hammock infill, and one with the iridescent panels.

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

24


Charrette

Integrated final proposal Module form types We used a combination of the paraboloid structures and triangular modules to create spaces to rest as well as paths to follow through. The forms tumbled across the site making this unique form that became the basis for the rest of the build

Charrette model made by whole group Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

25


PRE-CONSTRUCTION V

W 12-13 13C

12D 12B

11-12 4B 3-4

J

6B

5-6

4D

O H

L

1D

B

1C

1A

2D

1-2

C

2A

8B 6-7

D

9-10 P

7-9

10-11

7D 7A

N

Gamma 11D

U

14-15 15D

13D

14-16 Beta

14C

16A

11C 10C S

9C

K 6D

2-3

E

8-9

8C

5C

I

3D

10B

M

Q

4C 3-5

A

T

Alpha 15B Y

15-17

17D

R

G

F

13-14

X

16C Theta 16-17

17A Z


Keepers of Geometry Coordinators of final design

Complexity Now that the form was decided on, we split into groups that focused on each component of the build (Joints/ Hammocks/Infill/Connections/Footings) along with a construction document group, Site group and lastly the “Keepers of Geometry� which I was selected to be a head of along with Thien Doan. Our job specification was that of maintaining the integrity of the 3D model of the final build. But this proved to be a bigger task than we anticipated as we had to work with all the other groups and be involved in all the additional changes that were made once we went deeper into construction. Our initial call of duty was to come up with a label system to make coordinating with other groups clear and we came up with naming systems for all parts of the build from separate sections, each wood member to different fins of the hubs.

Group: Thien Doan (Co-head), Oluwatobi Fagbule, Javier Rodriguez Responsibility: Head

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

27


Joints

Wood connections vs Metal hubs Joints team Going in to actual construction considerations, one major issue was the complexity of the wooden joints. There were 30 complex joints with 3 joints that had 5 wooden members coming in at very complex angles. Even though we modelled all 30 joints and tried to simplify it, we saw that some joints would need something else to connect them. This was when we proposed metal hubs as an alternative with a metal pipe attached to metal fins that embedded into the wood as an alternative. After a structural consultation, we were informed that using the metal hubs on all joints would greatly help the structural integrity and this also helped simplify the connections

Original photo by Io Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

28


Metal hubs Simplifying connections

Metal hubs modelling Once the joints were changed, I worked with Chase and made all 30 hubs on the model taking into account centring the fins and simplifying the joints for easier construction.

I then worked with the Joint coordinators, and construction document coordinators and helped students come up with a process for making construction documents. This was done with the use of C-Planes and Make-2D commands to obtain correct drawings as this structure is complex and we have a very low margin of error when we make construction documents.

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

29


Site considerations Scaling down of models

Site Team’s Concerns The site team that was created now went to the site (during Spring Break) along with the footing team to look at site conditions. In the process of marking footings on the site however, we found out that the model was too big to fit as there were certain site conditions that were missed in earlier considerations. Since I was in town, I rushed to the site with my laptop to figure out the situation. With the help of the site team we came up with two strategies on site. One was scaling the members down or displacing and rotating the model. Then discussing with my team, we decided to scale then 12’ members all to 10’. This scaling down of the model by 80% had a lot of repercussions as we had to remodel all the hubs. But due to the time crunch, I got together a group of volunteers including my keepers team as well as Hannah hogan and remodelled the full model during the break.

12’ Members

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

10’ Members

30


Footing Consideration Relocation of Model

Footing teams concerns After the form change, the site team and the footing team went to the site again to map out footings, but what they found out was that the footings were high as 20� above the ground. This concern was due to the intense slope of the site. Even though we resized certain members to be longer to accommodate the site we were not able to alleviate construction concerns on the sloping site. This meant that we had to move the model to another location which was north of the proposed site and was more flatter. This was also the time when looking into the actual construction process, we figured that a level datum was the best way to simplify construction. This meant that we had to remodel the full model again and change hubs to accommodate the now level datum that had changed earlier in an effort to comply with the site topography in earlier discussions.

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

31


CONSTRUCTION


Fabrication Pre-Site Installation

Studio Shifts As we finished revisions on the final form we got assigned to studio shifts that involved us in activities like weaving hammocks/ Measuring and drilling holes in the lumber, making infill panels etc. This was a fun phase as we got hands on experience with weaving rope as well as using drill presses to be involved in the making of the installation

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

33


Frame Testing Pre-Installation

Dry Fit Due to the complexity of the Joints we wanted to test out the joints in a dry fit test before the on site installation. This allowed us to check all the hubs and the frame members and this helped us make a a few corrections before the installation. We did a dry fit twice over a weekend to iron out small kinks in the build in preparation for the installation.

Group: Ariana Irrizary, Jaya Tolefree, Sam Rushenburg, Oluwatobiloba Fagbule Responsibility: 3D modelling

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

34


Site Installation Final build

Reiman Installation Once the dry-fit corrections were made, we moved on to the actual site where we had already poured concrete footings based off the location provided in the model. The footings were wide to accomodate a reasonable tolerance and we ended up not having issues during construction because of all the corrections that were spotted earlier on and went smoothly. Everyone was involved in the final phase as we took turns moving members, screwing bolts in, weaving cable through the different holes and hanging up the acrylic panels.

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

35


Finished Installation

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

36


Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

37


POST CONSTRUCTION


Post - Occupation Analysis Evaluation of Decay Usage stress

Detail unravel

Going to Prisma at the same time on two separate days, I saw that the middle modules were highly used and also used for longer with due to it being lifted off the ground that allowed the hammock to offer a comfortable seating space. The triangle hammocks also provided some. The diagram shows the amount of spent by the average user. Age wasn’t considered of parties as participants from all age groups tried to sit on all parts of the build during observation which was surprising*. But with the most usage came the most stress on hammocks with the hammocks from section 2 and 3 now touching the ground rendering them not optimal to use. So we can see how architecture ages and needs to be able to withstand its intended use.

With the infill panels, a lot of panels were made to revolve, but due to construction changes, the panels ended up having no space to revolve in a lot of spaces. The swivels that connect to the panels and the zip ties used to connect the panels ended up breaking off in a few spaces over the few days it was out. The panels themselves had fared ta snowstorm as well as a fierce storm that had hit the location and managed to not affect the film.

Structural stress Prisma has a lot of complex joints and wood members supporting the build at irregular angles. A few of the structural loads can be seen causing stress on members. Here the member 5-C is experiencing stress which is causing it to bend which may be due to strain of the cables pulling the member or due to lack of paths for stress vectors to follow.

*Sample size of occupants were small so this data only reflects from this pool. People observed included 5 children, 6 college students, 2 elders. This data does not reflect people who just sat near the installation. Time of observation: 12pm-1pm. Observed days: Friday/Sunday Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

39


Construction Drawings Documentation Booklet drawings Construction Set Documents With the finishing of the build we had to record the build in a construction drawings booklet. For this booklet the Keepers were tasked with finishing the isometric drawings of the full build as well as other reference documents. I was personally involved in making axonometric drawings that called out all the hubs and the wood members along with a few diagrams. I also had to check my teams drawings and make corrections if needed.

Arch 202 Portfolio - Gautam Pradeep

41


PRISMA

Architecture Semester 2 Portfolio  

This is my arch 202 portfolio that I made at the completion of my sophomore year of a built project called PRISMA installed in Reiman Garden...

Architecture Semester 2 Portfolio  

This is my arch 202 portfolio that I made at the completion of my sophomore year of a built project called PRISMA installed in Reiman Garden...

Advertisement