Page 1

Halima A. Essary Select Works


Halima A. Essary arevalo.halima@gmail.com 214-727-8157 issuu.com/halima_arevalo


CONTENTS

PRACTICE SAMPLES TWELVE COWBOYS WAY 3003 OLYMPUS HQ II REVELSTOKE

RESEARCH UHP–FRC FACADES MULTI-NODAL BRANCHING COLUMN

DESIGN SAMPLES TRAVEL


TWELVE COWBOYS WAY CLIENT: COLUMBUS REALTY BLUE STAR LANDCOWBOYS LOCATION: FRISCO, TX PROJECT TYPE: LUXURY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SCOPE: 430,000 SF 17 FLOORS, 158 UNITS COMPLETION: 2020


RENDERING: ARQUI300


PENTHOUSE FLOOR

A residential luxury tower of 158 units, 307 parking spaces, and 17 storage spaces. Duration: DD to CA.

TOWER APARTMENTS AMENITY FLOOR APARTMENTS

As a part of this team I collaborated with interior designers, landscape and lighting designers, as well as MEP and Structural Engineers. Participated in many contractor- clientmeetings through the construction documentation phase. Communicated with interior consultants to ensure coordination between design intent and budget were being met. Assisted architecture team in exterior demands, interior coordination, MEP and structural coordination. In addition, assisted in the documentation phase of garage screen.

POOL DECK / PARTY ROOM

GARAGE LOBBY

LOBBY


SECTION

GROUND FLOOR


As a vital team member to the project I coordinated with interior consultants in lobby design, finish and lighting options. Ensure codes were being met and participated in the documentation through the design development and construction documents stage.


Y B B O L

RENDERING: ARQUI300


RENDERING: ARQUI300

POOL DECK


For the amenity deck, coordination had to be handled with all participating consultants to ensure project intent and construction would meet client demands and needs. Constant collaboration with contractor and consultants ensured for a smoother construction administration process as the project progressed through construction stage.

AMENITIES

RENDERING: ARQUI300


As a project coordinator I assisted the team in layout configurations of apartments and penthouses. I worked along side interior consultants regarding FF&E and proper documentation and coordination of these items. Penthouses ranged from 2067SF to 3230SF with apartments ranging from 775SF to 2140SF.

17th FLOOR

P E N T H O U S E

RENDERING: ARQUI300


RENDERING: ARQUI300

P E N T H O U S E

The project consisted of two main color schemes, light & dark. The photograph shows the largest penthouse consisting of 3230SF, with a dark scheme. Many penthouses included features such as powder rooms, secondary living/flex space, studies, and larger laundry. Many units include waterfall islands, stone countertops, over island hoods, and separate shower and tubs.


RENDERING: ARQUI300

3003 Olympus CLIENT: BILLINGSLEY COMPANY

PROJECT SCOPE: 323,000 SF 10 FLOORS

Many responsibililties for this project consisted in putting together interior packages with design options for client approvals. Design options could include lobby designs, elevator lobby designs, as well as coordinating DD to CD level of interiors package. Setting up material allowances and drawings for pricing.

COMPLETION: IN PROGRESS

Duration: DD to 60% CD

LOCATION: DALLAS, TX PROJECT TYPE: OFFICE


RENDERING: ARQUI300

HQ II CLIENT: HEADY INVESTMENTS LOCATION: PLANO, TX PROJECT TYPE: OFFICE PROJECT SCOPE: 367,000 SF 13 FLOORS COMPLETION: 2020

For this project I assisted the team in many stages and through many diverse roles, from SD to CD. Some responsibilities included clientconsultants coordination meetings, interiors and architecture packages, pricing sets, design options of amenities, elevator cabs, lobbies and finishes. Duration: SD to CA


Revelstoke CLIENT: PRESIDIUM GROUP LOCATION: FORT WORTH, TX PROJECT TYPE: MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT SCOPE: 496,000 SF 408 UNITS COMPLETION: IN PROGRESS

Assisted team in site design and apartment layouts. Collaborated with consultants, clients, and designers coordinating intent and drawings. Worked with team members in design stages coordinating finishes and design concepts. Duration: DD to 60%CD


“THERE ARE 360 DEGREES, SO WHY STICK TO ONE?” - ZAHA HADID


RESEARCH

Digital technologies have the potential to impact the way we design, construct, and approach innovation in the building sector, and have a positve lasting impact on society and the built environment.


UHP–FRC Facades

Applied Research Ultra High Performance – Fiber Reinforced Concrete (UHP-FRC) in a Facade Application is a grant funded investigation into the use of digital simulation, parametric modeling, and digital fabrication of advanced material casting methods for an advanced concrete sandwich panel. The introduction of UHP–FRC affords potential of an optimized facade typologydecreasing its total thickness from 8”-14” to 4”, and increasing its strength 6x commercial grade concrete.

Rendering of Self-Shading Surface Design


Research Question: What are the performative strengths of UHP–FRC over traditional precast concrete cladding systems and how can we begin to add secondary performative value that utilizes these strengths?

Hypothesis: UHP-FRC in precast sandwich panels for facade applications can produce a thinner, lighter, more durable, structurally and thermally optimized panel, and be fabricated sustainability for time and materials.

Material: UHP-FRC, Concrete, EPS Foam

Sponsors:

Computation: Rhino/Grasshopper, Ladybug, THERM, Octopus

Fabrication: CNC, 3D-Printer, Casting Team: Halima Arevalo, Jonathan Essary, Lana Shihabeddin, Samantha Richards.

Presented:

More Info: http://darc.uta.edu/#/uhp-frc-facades-1/

PHASE I

PHASE II STRUCTURAL TESTING

Standard Concrete PROTOTYPE 1

UHP-FRC DATA

PROTOTYPE 2

UHP-FRC DATA

PROTOTYPE 3

DATA

UHP-FRC DATA

PROTOTYPE 4

STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION THERMAL: INSULATION

Physical Element Input/Output Data Design Exercise

LOCAL CLIMATE DATA

THERMAL: SELF-SHADING

Diagram of research approach


Context Material Properties Ultra-High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete (UHP-FRC) is an innovative cement-based material recently developed through the research of the Engineering Department of the University of Texas at Arlington. Unlike traditional concrete, UHPFRC does not require reinforcement as a result of steel fibers which provide tensile capacity across cracks and also high shear capacity in bending members. Furthermore, UHP-FRC does not use aggregate allowing the flowability of the material to further push the boundaries of achieving a thinner cast. Compared with high performance concrete, UHP-FRC is stronger, more durable, stable, and a compressive strength in excess of 22 ksi.

UHP-FRC Example Images

UHP-FRC Attributes

Function

Panel Advantage

Dense Particle Packing

Greater Strength per Volume

Stronger & Lighter per PSI

Specific Particle Ratio

Greater Flowability

Cast Thinner & Detail Geometry

Steel Fiber Reinforcement

Greater Ductility

More Durable

Phased Sprints The research investigated the potential of UHP-FRC through a series of physical prototypes and experiments. Work occurred in two main phases, 1) establish an industry baseline and initial optimization methods for UHP-FRC panel design, and 2) investigate further development of optimization of thermal performance. Four prototypes were cast each with an iterative progression from typical to optimized. Digital fabrication techniques were used to maximize the potential of generative forms and efficient mold making for casting. Biological systems informed thermal concepts of self-shading based on the effect of cacti needles protecting from the sun and retaining water through dry seasons. Self-shading was applied through digital generative modeling and simulations to find surface patterns to reduce the amount of heat gain reducing heat transfer.

Existing Disadvantages Existing Advantages • Insulation Included

• Inherent Weather Barrier

• Thick & Heavy • Material Amount for structurally rigidity • Travel Restrictions

• High Impact Resistance

=

• “Simple” Install • “Fast” Fabrication • Higher Quality Control

Optimized Facade System

Research

+

• UHPFRC Application • Self-Shading Surface • Component Assembly • Re-usable Formwork Diagram of Research Method

Section of Typical Sandwich

3D Diagram Thermomass MS-T

Typical Precast Casting Method


CROSS-SECTION TO MANIPULATE

COMPUTATIONAL WORK FLOW

(prescribed values)

INITIAL GEOMETRY

RESULTING SELF-SHADING ARTICULATED SURFACE 1

GEOGRAPHIC DATA

2 3

TOTAL RADIATION ANALYSIS

4 5

GENERATIVE OPTIMIZATION OF GEOMETRY

VARIABLES FROM GEOMETRY

6

RADIANT HEAT MAP

GENERATIVE SURFACE RESULTS

RADIANT HEAT MAP OF OPTIMIZED

Diagram Algorithm for Thermal Optimization of Prototype 3

ITERATIONS 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 +

GENERATIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 +

Sample of Panel Geometry Outcomes from Optimization Process

Digital Workflow Initial parametric modeling of a self-shading surface set up a simple form-finding algorithm. The panel surface was subdivided into four rows with a cross-section with a movable point located at both ends and the middle on each row. The process used radiance analysis from .epw data to evaluate the total radiance onto the panel surface and adjust the movable point in each of the twelve cross-sectional curves defining the surface. Optimization was run using Octopus in Grasshopper to find the form with the least amount of total radiance.


Prototypes

G

Geometry v. Shaded Surface Studies

DESIGN EVOLUTION OF P DESIGN EVOLUTION OF PRECAST SANDWICH PANEL UHP–FRC Precast Sandwich Panel

Standard Precast Sandwich Panel Prototype I is industry standard for a pre-cast sandwich panel. In collaboration with Gate Pre-cast and Thermomass, a typical noncomposite assembly is chosen to cast a 3’x3’ panel. The assembly consists of a 3” facing wythe, 2” EPS rigid insulation, and a 3” structural backing wythe. Each wythe is structurally reinforced with 6”x6” wire mesh for cracking resistance attached to #4 (1/2”) re-bar around the parameter and through the ferrule loop inserts for tensile reinforcement.

Phase I Phase II Phase III Prototype II establishes a UHP–

Phase I

FRC sandwich panel baseline comparable to the industry standard panel. Given the enhanced compressive strength of UHP–FRC a comparable noncomposite assembly is made. The cast is a 3’x3’ panel consisting of a 1-1/2” facing wythe, 2” EPS rigid insulation, and a 1-1/2” structural backing wythe. The Thermomass CC–130 ties between the wythes extend 1-1/2” from the insulation were cut down on each end to avoid protrusion through the face.

Standard Precast Sandwich Panel

UHP-FRC Precast Sandwich

Standard UHP-FRCPrecast Sandwich Panel Optimized Precast Sandwich Panel

Panel 1

Panel 2

Details

Details

Width:

36” Concrete Str:

Height:

36” R–Value:

Thickness: Weight:

5,000 PSI

Width:

36” Concrete Str:

10

Height:

36” R–Value:

Thickness:

8” 650 lb Heat Transfer:

15.26 Btu/hr

Weight:

Phase Phase II I:

Phase

Investigate the current industry precast sandwich panel and ca typical dimensions, assembly d Establish data points of the we bending strength, panel thickne radient properties of the panel Phase II:

Investigate the material advant sandwich panel and cast a 3’x3 compressive properties using a UHP-FRC and the same techn Establish data points of weight, strength, panel thickness, and properties to compare against Phase III:

Investigate the UHP-FRC pane non-composite sandwich pane monolithic pour to create a holl design a structurally optimized within the backing wythe while Investigate the conductive and UHP-F UHP-FRC hybrid assembly. Cast a 3’x3’ p Precast Sandwich compare against Optimized baseline.

Sandwich

25,000 PSI 10

5” 325 lb Heat Transfer:

20.47 Btu/hr


Geometry v. Shaded Surface Studies

DESIGN EVOLUTION OF PRECAST SANDWICH UHP-FRC Precast Sandwich Panel: UHP-FRCPANEL Precast Sandwich Panel: Phase I Phasefor II Prototype III tests optimizing

Phase I: IV studies further the Prototype development an optimization Investigate theof current industry standard of constructing a precastof sandwich panel and cast a 3’x3’ panel according to process self–shading surface typical dimensions, assembly details, and fabrication techniques. articulation at points the macro and compressive strength, Establish data of the weight, bending strength, panel thickness, and thermal conductive and micro level. Radiance simulation radient properties of the panel as a baseline comparison. from site climate data influences Phase II: an algorithm generating a sinuous macro surface. High of UHP-FRC as a precast Investigate the material advantages panel andspots cast a 3’x3’ andsandwich low radiance aresandwich panel with similar compressive properties using appropriate dimensions for thenUHP-FRC manipulated with a micro and the same technique minus steel reinforcement. Establish data points of weight, compressive strength, bending articulation testing intentional strength, panel thickness, and thermal conductive and radient thermal irradiance a heat sink. properties to comparelike against baseline. Further CFD and THERM studies Phase III: test the effect of the surface design Investigate the UHP-FRC as hybrid composite/ on heat irradiance andpanel heatassembly transfer.

Phase III

overall thinness and applying thermal performance using UHP– FRC. It combines standard casting methods with digital fabrication practices. Thinness is achieved through a hexagonal waffling of the structural backing wythe to maintain rigidity, minimize tie count, and provide a solid 1/2” concrete exterior surface. Thermal performance is studied through an optimized surface articulation of applied self-shading theory and an increase in the overall rigid insulation.

Standard Precast Sandwich Panel

UHP-FRC Precast Sandwich

non-composite sandwich panel. Invesigate the options for a monolithic pour to create a hollow core strucutral wythe. Digitally design a structurally optimized connection grid and geometry within the backing wythe while minimizing thermal bridging. Investigate the conductive and radient thermal properties of the hybrid assembly. Cast a 3’x3’ panel, establish data points, and compare against baseline.

UHP-FRC Optimized Precast Sandwich Panel

Panel 3

Panel 4

Details

Details

Width:

36” Concrete Str:

25,000 PSI

Width:

36” Concrete Str:

Height:

36” R–Value 1:

13

Height:

36” R–Value:

4” R–Value 2:

10

Thickness:

Thickness: Weight:

250 lb Heat Transfer:

14.33 Btu/hr

Weight:

25,000 PSI 10

8” 450 lb Heat Transfer:


Structural Performance

CNC’d Rigid Insulation (Mold for backing wythe)

Waffled Backing Wythe

Rendering of Digital Model for Cutting Back of Rigid Insulation

Optimization Thinning the backing wythe is investigated by fusing the insulation into the backing wythe, which allows for higher thermal performance and further lightens the weight of the panels. A geometric affordance supporting the material thinness of the backing wythe is a hex grid that minimized the number of nodal connections, maintained an acceptable max. length distance between nodal connections, and minimized material. The EPS foam is CNC’d to obtain a waffle design for the backing wythe when cast.

=

Panel 3 Section Concept Diagram of Design Approach


Panel 1

Panel 2

Panel 3

Cracking at Loads

Main Failure Crack

Shear in Panel

Testing

25

0

Midspan Deflection (mm) 12.7 25.4 38.1

Load (kips)

20

110 88

15

66

10

44

5

22

0

Panel 1, 2, & 3 After Testing

50.8

RC panel UHPC panel 1 UHPC panel 2 (waffled)

0

0.5

1 1.5 Midspan Deflection (in.)

2

Load (kN)

A 3-point flexure test was conducted on each panel to determine their respective strength in bending. A pin and roller set up were used with calibrated sensors to record the load deflection. The results show the industry standard panel initially cracked at a low weight compared to both panels 2 and 3 despite both of the panels being much thinner. Both the standard panel and the first UHP panel were able to resist more load than the final Ultra-High-Performance panel.

0

Deflection graph of panels 1, 2, & 3


Thermal Performance 1

2

R1 = 13

R2 = 10

Section 1

Section 2

Panel 3 Rendering and Sections with R-values

Panel 1

Panel 2

Traditional Concrete Panel Surface Conduction Study

100

UHP-FRC Advanced Panel Surface Conduction Study

90

67.5

50

25

Temperature (F)

60

Temperature (F)

Temperature (F)

75

0

Panel 3

UHP-FRC Panel Surface Conduction Study

80

40

22.5

20

0

30

60

90

120

Front Surface

150

180

0

0

30

60

90

120

150

Back Surface

Front Surface

180

0

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

Time (mintues)

Time (mintues)

Time (mintues)

45

Back Surface

Front Surface

Back Surface

Surface Temperature values from Thermal Conduction Testing

Panel Conduction Self-shading surfaces are an attempt to reduce solar heat gain and therefore reduce heat transfer through the building envelope. Studies examined its impact on an insulated UHP–FRC concrete panel through digital and physical testing. Compared to a typical flat panel, self-shading may provide thermal performance able to assist sustainable building strategies further. The simulation data below provides the parameters of the study that remain consistent throughout the studies.

Diagram of Hot Box for physical testing


Panel Section Analyzed

Backing Wythe w/Hex Pattern Polyisocanurate Insulation

Surface Area Analyzed

Facing Wythe w/Self Shading

New Surface Temperature (Co)

Max. Radiant Heat Min. Radiant Heat

THERM Analysis Models

Panel 4 Radiance Analysis with Surface Temperature at Section

Self-Shading Effect on Conductance THERM was used to conduct thermal heat transfer simulations of the panel after thermal optimization of the surface geometry. A computational method was developed to calculate the effective heat absorption at distributed points across the surface based on radiance analysis simulations. A cross-section of the panel was identified then divided into a range of subsections based on subsets of the range of calculated heat absorption values, processed through THERM and stitched back together. The analysis provided an insight into how a self-shaded surface effects the solar heat gain of the panel assembly based on the material of the section and radiance calculated over a given period.

Flat Exposure

Self-Shading Exposure


Results

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

1. Identify Surface Points

X

X

X

X

X

X X

2. Identify Variable Points

X X 3. Fine Tune Perlin Graph Diagram of Generative Process For a Sinuous Surface Geometry

Parametric Surface Modeling The surface articulation geometry evolved to develop an algorithm to generate a more sinuous surface. The panel surface was made of lofted curves generated from a grid of surface points fed through a calculation and graph pattern. Three variable points are identified and given a force strength about surface points which alter the resulting surface articulation. A graph was used to vary the input values to manipulate all points allowing the testing of multiple graph types. To fine-tune the surface and in addition to providing the self-shading performance, it was determined that the method for generating the final result must fulfill three primary functions:

The design method must be repeatable.

The final surface must have an anticipated result, not a random result.

The generating script must provide a level of variability to create different results.


17

16.00

15

18.00

14

20.00

12

22.00

11

24.00

10

26.00

10

28.00

Two-axis charts allow you to compare series of data that share x-axis values but have different values on their y-axis. Two-axis charts combine two different charts into one.

30.00

8

32.00

8

and temperature, stock closing price and volume Q (BTU/H) R-VALUE change over time, revenue and year-over-year growth, 135 2.00 and blood pressure and weight over time. 68 45

Common examples of two-axis charts compare rainfall and temperature, stock closing price and volume change over time, revenue and year-over-year growth, and blood pressure and weight over time.

6.00 8.00

27

10.00

23

12.00

19

14.00

17

16.00

15

18.00

14

20.00

12

22.00

11

24.00

10

26.00

10

28.00

9

30.00

8

32.00

8

34.00

8

36.00

7

G

70

1138

2.89

1150

2.67

15

18.00

14

20.00

12

22.00

6.00

4.00

27

10.00

23

12.00

19

14.00

17

16.00

15

18.00

14

0

2.00

4.00

6.00

4.00

26.00

10

28.00

9

30.00

2.00

8

34.00

8

36.00

3.00

7

5.00

32.00

8

6.00

38.00

7

40.00

Diminishing Returns Graph

24.00

40.00

4.00

40.00

R-Value Graph

8

30.00 Two-axis charts allow you to compare series of data 30.00that share x-axis values 5.00 but have different values on 20.00 32.00their y-axis. Two-axis charts combine two different 34.00charts into one.

8

36.00

R-value

Diminishing Returns Graph

H

Surface 30.00 Option 20.00

2.00

4.00

Radiance (x10^6)

Max Hot Spot

Max Thickness

Volume

A

1138

2.89

2.93

2003

B

1150

2.67

3.03

1854

20.00

C

1172

2.90

2.98

1752

D

1182

2.89

3.25

20.00

R-value

10.00

0.00

0.00

Max Hot Spot

38.00 40.00

2.99

2.54

1585

1138

2.89

2.93 2.475

1150

2.67

3.03

1854

1172

2.90

2.98

1.65 1752

C

1172

2.90

2.98

1752

D

1182

2.89

3.25

D

1182

2.89

3.25

1701

E

1191

2.85

2.80

1702

F

1206

2.78

H

1302

2.99

2.54

1585

1302

2.99

2.54

Max 3.25 3.03 Volume 2.98 2.93 2.8 Thickness 2.475

1.65

2.93

2.73

2.63

2.54

A

C

1172

2.90

2.98

D

1182

2.89

3.25

1701 1854

1854

1752

B

C

1575

2.4753000

1050

1191

2.85

2.80

F

1206

2.78

2.63

1678

1575

1585

E

F

G

H

1752

2.9

2.89

1702

2.75

2.92

1325

1250

2.78

1175

1172

1182

1191

1206

1217

1302

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

H

1302

2.99

2.54

1575

Max Hot Spot

1575

1752

1701

1702

1678

1575

1585

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

1585

Max Thickness

1000

0

2.73

2.63 2.89

1702

1701

1138

1150

1172

B

1182

C

D

1000

0

1585

E

A

F

1575 G 1585 H

B

G

Volume

Volume

C

H

D

0 E

Max Hot Spot

F

7

7

1400

2.92

1100

2.875

1302

G

H

0

1138 A

3.5

2.6250

2.5

Radiance (x10^6)

2.9

2.89

2.89

2.85

2.75 1.75

1250

2.78

A

2.67 B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1138

1150

1172

1182

1191

1206

1217

1302

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1585

Max Hot Spot

Max Hot Spot

Max Thickness

Max Hot Spot

Max Thickness

1138

2.89

2.93

B

1150

2.67

3.03

1701 C

1172

1678 2.90

1575

D

1182

2.89

3.25

1701

E 1182 A

1191 1191

2.85 1206 C

2.80 1217 D

1702 1302 E

2.73

1575

1.75

1175

1217

Radiance (x10^6)

1752

1854

2003

1100 1150

1172

B

0

C

FD

1702

B

E 1206

7

1175

1100

2003 1854 1752

G 2.63

Max Hot Spot

2.92 Volume 2.99

Volume

1585

2.98

F 2.78

1217

G Radiance (x10^6) H

F

H 1678

G

H

Max Thickness

Thickness v. Volume 1302

2.54

1585

Thickness to Volume

Radiance Coefficien

3.3

2.99 1325

Volume

A

Max Thickness + Max Hot Spot 1400

2.92

B

Option

3.5

1250

Radiance (x10^6)

Radiance Coefficient v. Max Hot Spot

5.25

2100

4000

1575

3000

3.5

1.65

1.75

1050

2000

0.825

525

1000

0

A

B

C

0

0

3.03

2.93

2.475

0 D

2003 A

E

3.25

2.98

1854 B

Max Hot Spot

Radiance (x10^6)

2.8

1752

1701

C

D

F

G

1702 H E

Max Thickness Max Thickness

2.73

2.63

2.54

1678

1575

1585

F

G

H

2.98

2.63

2.73

2.54

1575

1.65

1050

Radiance Coefficient v. Max Hot Spot 3

1400

1325

2.89

1172

1182

119

C

D

E

Max Thickness + Max H

2.92

2.5

2.67 1150

A

B

3.5

1250

2.78

1138

5.25

1325

2.85

1.75

1175

1172

1182

1191

C

D

E

Max Hot Spot

1206

1217

1302

F

G

H

0

1100

A

B

C

D

E

Max Hot Spot

Radiance (x10^6)

2000

7

2.99 2.92

2.9

2.89

2.75

3000

A Determination of the optimal surface articulation required the analysis of thousands of 2003 options provided by the fine-tuned design method. Octopus was used to process a multi0.825 525 1000 objective optimization algorithm to solve for the least amount of radiance on the surface, the total2003 volume created surface and minimizing the thickest moment 1854 1752by the 1701 1702articulation, 1678 1575 1585 1138 0 0 in the articulation. Analyzing the resulting data from the preferred option surface0 F was A B C D E F G H A chosen. The preferred options include the best performer of each category and others close to them. Cross-referencing Max Thickness thickness, volume, Volume and radiance values surface F is not the best at any one category, but rather best overall.

2.9

B

170

7

1400

2.625

Optimize Perlin Options and Analyze Top Performers

2.875

2.875

4000

3.25 2.8

1150

A

1701

2.99

2100

3.03

1138

1752

Radiance Coefficient + Volume Surfaces Analysis Results of Top Performing Self-Shading

3.3

2.93

1854

Radiance (x10^6)

Radiance Coefficient v. Max Hot Spot

2.475

2003

Volume

3

Thickness to Volume

0.00

6.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 18.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 11728.00 1182 119114.00 1206 121720.00 1302 Q (BTU/h) C D E FR-value G H

Self-Shading Surface: Macro Articulations

5.25Surface

1325

Total Rad. v. Highest Rad.

5.25

A

10.00

1585

1575

1678

Radiance (x10^6)

1000

1206

4.00 11382.00 1150

1702

1701

Radiance Coefficient + Volume Max Thickness + Max Hot Spot

2000

1191

1752

1854

Max. Thickness v. Highest Rad.

2.78

525

119111381206 1150 1217 1172 1302 1182

1678 F

3000

20.00

Top Performing Self-Shading Surfaces

2003

0

2.85

1050

2.67

2.5 E 2003 A 1854 B 1752 C 1701 D 1702

A

525

30.00

70

0

4000

1575

2.92.54 2.89

1575

1678

2.625

0.825

2000

2.99

2.8 2.875

1752

1854

3000

1050

Volume

2100

2.75

2003

1575

Radiance Coefficient v. Max Hot Spot

3

3.25

2000

2.54

1854

3

2.85

1150

2.73

2.98

2.73

2.63

Max Thickness + Max Hot Spot

1400

2.99

A

2.92

0

Radiance (x10^6)

1138

1217

3.03

1.65

0

2.8

1702

Max Thickness

1678

2.67

2.93

Volume

1701

2.625

G

0

Radiance Coefficient v. Max Hot Spot

2.89

E

D

1702

Max Thickness

3

2.5

3.34000

525

0

2.875

2100

105

35

2003 1678

40.00

Radiance Coefficient + Volume

4000

3.25

2.98

1701

Thickness to Volume Radiance Coefficient + Volume

2003

3.032003

3.03

Total Rad. v. Volume

H

Thickness to Volume

3.3

140 2100

C

2.73

Diminishing Returns Graph

Thickness to Volume

B

2.92

34.00

1302

H

A

1217

8

36.00

1854

G

32.00

7

2003

1575

30.00

8

7

3.03

1678

9

8

2.93

2.73

28.00

1575

2.67

2.63

26.00

10

1678

2.89

2.92

24.00

10

2.73

1150

2.63

22.00

11

2.63

1138

2.80

20.00

12

2.80

B

2.78

18.00

14

2.92

A

2.85

16.00

15

2.78

20032.93

1206

14.00

17

2.85

3.3 Max Volume Thickness

1191

19

1217

Volume

F

12.00

1206

Max Thickness

E

23

1191

Max Hot Spot

0.825

10.00

F

Q (BTU/h) Radiance (x10^6)

8.00

27

E

G

1702

6.00

34

0.00

1701

Q (BTU/h)

4.00

45

10.00

10.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00

6.00

Radiance (x10^6)

1217

2.00

68

10.00

Common examples of two-axis charts compare rainfall 38.00and temperature, stock closing price and volume 0.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 40.00 change over32.00 time, revenue and year-over-year growth, Q (BTU/h) and blood pressure and weight over time.

Self-Shading Surface: Macro Articulations

Surface Option

G

R-VALUE

135

30.00

Q (BTU/h)

Surface Option

Q (BTU/H)

30.00

6.00

40.00

8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 R-value

6.00

3.00

24.00

1.00

10

26.00

2.00

22.00

11

28.00

5.00 1.00

20.00

12

10

8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 7

6.00

8.00

38.00

10

7 2.00

6.00

8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00

0.825

B

16.00

35

4.00

40.00

8

0

70

0

Self-Shading Surface: Macro Articulations Self-Shading Surface Articulation

A

17

5.00

35

Self-Shading Surface: Macro Articulations

Max Hot Spot

14.00

9

Self-Shading Surface: Macro Articulations

Radiance (x10^6)

12.00

19

4.0070

2.00

34

40.00

R-value

Surface Option

10.00

23

11

R-VALUE

45

Q (BTU/h)

6.00

27

105

40.00

35

4.00

8.00

140

R- value

105

2.00

34

3.00

R-Value Graph

68

105

140

Q (BTU/h)

0

6.00

2.00

38.00

140

7

Diminishing Returns Graph Q (BTU/h)

Q (BTU/h)

34

70 35

4.00

45

Q (BTU/h)

F

105

2.00

68

1.00

Diminishing Returns Graph

E

135

7

D

135

36.00

R-VALUE

4.00

4.00

34.00

Q (BTU/H)

7 Common examples ofGraph two-axis charts compare rainfall R-Value

Two-axis charts allow you to compare series of data that share x-axis values but have different values on their y-axis. Two-axis charts combine two different charts into one.

140

R-Value Graph

8

3.00

Q (BTU/H)

9

Common examples of two-axis charts compare rainfall and temperature, stock closing price and volume change over time, revenue and year-over-year growth, and blood pressure and weight over time.

Two-axis charts allow you to compare series of data that share x-axis values but have different values on their y-axis. Two-axis charts combine two different charts into one.

2.00

R- value

C

14.00

R- value

B

12.00

19

R- value

A

23

R- value

and blood pressure and weight over time.

5.25

1854

1752

1701

1702

1678

1575

1585

1150

1172

1182

1191

1206

1217

1302

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Radiance (x10^6)

Volume

Max Thickness + Max Hot Spot Optimized Self-Shading Surface


MULTI-NODAL COLUMNAR BRANCHING Applied Research

Phase I of multi-nodal columnar branching structural formwork attempted to solve issues related to non-Euclidian branching forms, structural columnar configurations, and simplification of the formwork assembly process by introducing fabric as the primary non-rigid material used in constructing the mold. Much of the determining factor in this research is determined by a syntheses of economic factors relative to formal complexity.


Research Question: Can a multi-nodal precast structural column be fabricated with optimized material usage and increaesd section modulus-to-height ratio?

Hypothesis: By generating forwork though “bulge wall casting”, combined with multi-nodal 3D-Printed reinforced structural framework, a pre-cast concrete structural branching system can be fabricated that will centralize load points and minimize material to acheive large spans.

Material: Concrete, 3D-Printed Nodes, Steel Reinforcement, Nylon, Plywood

Computation: Rhino/Grasshopper, Scan&Solve, Kangaroo

Fabrication: CNC, 3D-Printer, Casting Team: Halima Arevalo, David Garcia, AnnRuth Warwinu, Joshua Hallett

Sponsors:

More Info: http://darc.uta.edu/#/multi-nodal-columnarbranching/

PHASE I Single Plane PROTOTYPE 1 FABRICATION/ MATERIAL TESTING Physical Element Input/Output Data Design Exercise

Multi-Plane DATA

PROTOTYPE 2

Final Geometry DATA

PROTOTYPE 3

STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION

GEOMETRY

3D-PRINTED NODES

INTERNAL REINFORCEMENT

Diagram of research approach


Context Bulge-Wall Casting The Bulge Wall presents a flexible system within the constraints of a standard construction process. This system allows for fabric sheets to be placed inbetween standard wall or floor systems. The typical boundary forms have cut outs imbedded in them that allow for the concrete to flow out, while still being controlled by the fabric. Within the wall, form can also be controled by placing filler objects(impactos) or connecting points between planes. The result is a mix between two seemingly opposing systems. One being the traditional restrictive planar system, the other being the free-form fabric system that at times can be difficult to control.

Work done by Mark West - Bulge Wall 2003

Mark West “Bulge Wall” Process

Column Stability

Columnar branch experiencing lateral forces

Columnar branch falling due to single point of contact with the ground

New prototype experiencing lateral forces

Prototype handles forces due to three points of contact with the ground

Moment of failure

Prototype is left standing

In order to improve stability to the geometry the center of gravity was lowered by transforming the dendriform. Additional two legs were introduced as a solution. The first prototype with reinforcement was casted providing two key elements that needed to be addressed. • Bunching of the fabric at it’s weakest point of geometry. • Precision of cross section throughout geometry


Method 3D Printable Re-Inforcement After the initial prototypes testing the multi-planar approach the next stage was introducing rebar with 3D printed node connections to allow for the use of ‘straight-runs’ steel reinforcement. The 3D Printed nodes part of previous research allowed for the introduction of non-euclidian geometry to be explored. Each node was tailored the connection point of the geometry decreasing the cost for custom rebar.

Fabric Form Casting The single plane trajectory explored through the work of Mark West using fabric as a formwork by the “bulge wall cast” method has been successful and has provided the ability of scaling each prototype using the same plane. However with the introduction of a secondary plane, it introduces new challenges utilizing fabric in multiple planes and effectively casting. An alternative design approach towards the formwork had to be developed but maintaining a fabric sandwich method similar to the existing approach. photographic documentation

23

Digital Optimization Digital analysis tools were used to identify structural feasibility and simulate fabric tensile behavior properties. The final geometry was optimized using kangaroo, running through a mesh relaxation process to find the most natural distribution of laods for the geometry. The cross- section had improved dramatically by tapering each leg for a smoother load distribution.This process was a key factor in the production of the final cast to decrease the possibilities of structural failures.


Prototypes Standard single plane column

Multi-Plane Branching Column

Prototype I establishes a single trajectory “Y” column using techniques established by Mark West. Multiple prototypes were established testing different fabrics for formwork. This phase sought out to test fabric’s reusability and casting performance. It was crucial to determine the materials breatheability as well as it’s ability to maintain form.

Prototype II establishes a multitrajectory branching column. This phase sought out to refine bulge wall casting to provide multi-trajectory outcomes. Two fabrics were tested from the last prototype to identify the behavior of fabric with method and geometry. Prototypes were done using Hydrocal to simulate concrete’s behavior.

Column 1

Column 2

Hydrocal Bulge wall Casting Method

Results

Results

Material

Geometry

Permeability Reuseable Finish

Material

Geometry

Permeability

Burlap

No flexibiity, consistent radius

Yes, material seeps out.

No

Rough

Polyester 100%

little flexibiity, consistent radius

Yes

Polyester 100%

little flexibiity, consistent radius

Yes

No

Subtle Texture

Nylon 100%

Yes

Nylon 100%

No flexibiity, consistent radius, creases

No flexibiity, consistent radius, creases

Yes

Yes

Smooth

Nylon 85% Spandex 15%

Flexibile, inconsistent radius

No

Fine Texture

Yes

These prototypes started to introduce a second plan fabric casting process expanding on the existing bul performance was considered to take into account th The prototypes showed creases which would comp moment of fracture.


Multi-Plane Branching Column Prototype II establishes a multitrajectory branching column. This phase sought out to refine bulge wall casting to provide multitrajectory outcomes. Two fabrics were tested from the last prototype to identify the behavior of fabric with method and geometry.

Column 3

Hydrocal Multi-Plane Prototypes

Results Reuseable Finish No

Subtle Texture

Yes

Smooth

ne to identify a multitrajectory lge wall method. The fabrics he finish and behavior of the cast. promise the column causing a

Material

Geometry

Permeability Reuseable Finish

Polyester 100%

little flexibiity, consistent radius

Yes

No

Subtle Texture

Final Prototype explored a change in geometry informed from previous data to establish greater stability within the column. Digital testing informed an optimized geometry minimizing material while maximizing columns structural performance. Utilizing Polyester minimized the number of creases for the final cast to deminish weak points.


Form Finding / Structural Optimization

This computational workflow sought out to create a geometry which could later be tested for structural feasibility as well as informed methods for fabrication.

BASE PROFILE

RELAXED PROFILE

The initial set up for the column was to identify the greatest amount of controls to explored different growth patterns throughout the structure. This allowed for a greater control of the branch and its ability to modify points as needed to help inform the structural nodes for internal reinforcement. In order to understand its structural performance, loads had to be established using Kangaroo, a physics simulator for Grasshopper. Load forces such as gravity, material weight, and a mesh relaxation technique used to simulate fabric and tensile behavior. The definition uses a mesh smoothing technique to provide the best results for an optimized geometry once all the forces were applied. In addition to its structural testing the digital simulation was also used to inform fabrication requirements allowing the formwork to be generated to ensure greater accuracy. The mesh allowed the simulation of the fabric’s behavior informing the quantity and geometry it needed to follow. Structural tests were generated using Rhino and Scan & Solve. This was a simulation utilizing a set of given loads including gravity, live, and dead loads to understand the structural performance of the column. Both Pre-Optmized geometry, prior to mesh relaxation, as well as optimized geometry were ran through the simulation.


Digital Workflow

Scan & Solve Simulation

Scan&Solve(tm) Results

file:///E:/GH Geometries/00/SnS_Report.html

Scan&Solve™ Simulaon Summary Thu Dec 04, 2014 20:42:33

Geometry

&Solve(tm) Results

file:///E:/GH Geometries/00/SnS_Report.html

Scan&Solve™ Simulaon Summary Thu Dec 04, 2014 20:42:33

Geometry

Scan&Solve(tm) Results

file:///E:/GH Geometries/00/SnS_Report.html Geometry Summary Quanty

Scan&Solve™ Simulaon Summary

1915.24 in2 0.34033 slinch Bounding Box {-12.033, -30.6925, -0.348451} {12.0286, -9.39356, 48.6397}

Mass min. corner max. corner

Geometry

Unit 1509.16 in3

Volume Surface Area

Thu Dec 04, 2014 20:42:33

Material Properes Property Descripon Density Elasc Modulus Poisson Rao Default Failure Criterion Ulmate Tensile Srength Ulmate Compressive Srength

Value Concrete, Medium Strength 0.00022551 slinch/in3 3.04579e+06 psi 0.2 Coulomb Mohr 15.229 psi 3045.79 psi

Loads & Restraints

Geometry Summary Quanty

Unit 1509.16 in3

Volume

1915.24 in2 0.34033 slinch Bounding Box {-12.033, -30.6925, -0.348451} {12.0286, -9.39356, 48.6397}

Surface Area Mass min. corner max. corner

Material Properes Property Descripon

Geometry Summary Value Concrete, Medium Strength

Quanty

Unit

Load Summary

1509.16 in3

Volume

Descripon

Density Elasc Modulus Poisson Rao Default Failure Criterion Ulmate Tensile Srength Ulmate Compressive Srength

0.00022551 slinch/in3 3.04579e+06 psi 0.2 Coulomb Mohr 15.229 psi 3045.79 psi

1915.24 in2 0.34033 slinch Bounding Box {-12.033, -30.6925, -0.348451} {12.0286, -9.39356, 48.6397}

Surface Area Mass min. corner max. corner

Type

Load 4 Load 5 Load 6

Vector Force Pressure Pressure

Body Load

Rotaon

Definion {0,0,-20} lb 15 psi 14.696 psi Velocity: 0 rad/s Acceleraon: 2 rad/s2 Axis Origin: {-14, -28.0215, -12.4161} Axis Direcon: {0.279857, 0.32675, 0.902726}

Restraint Summary

Loads & Restraints

Material Properes Property Descripon Density Elasc Modulus Poisson Rao Default Failure Criterion Ulmate Tensile Srength Ulmate Compressive Srength

Value 1 of 3 Concrete, Medium Strength

12/5/2014 6:07 AM

0.00022551 slinch/in3 3.04579e+06 psi 0.2 Coulomb Mohr 15.229 psi 3045.79 psi

Loads & Restraints

Load Summary Descripon

Type

Load 4 Load 5 Load 6

Vector Force Pressure Pressure

Body Load

Rotaon

Definion {0,0,-20} lb 15 psi 14.696 psi Velocity: 0 rad/s Acceleraon: 2 rad/s2 Axis Origin: {-14, -28.0215, -12.4161} Axis Direcon: {0.279857, 0.32675, 0.902726}

Restraint Summary

Load Summary Descripon Load 4

Type 12/5/2014 5:38 AM Vector Force

Definion {0,0,-20} lb


Result

There were many challenges encountered with the final casted component. There was an inability to precisely control the location of the rebar during the cast creating other weaknesses in the column not accounted for in the digital simulation. This caused an inconsistency of the cross section with the chosen fabric. Other issues were encountered with the introduction of “tops� to cap off each limb. The failures of some of the processes and methods used in this phase provided major insights on the exploration of the next phase of columnar branching.


2 2

East 1" = 40'-0"

­10°

East 1" = 40'-0"

­20°

N

10° 20°

10° 20°

­30°

30°

30°

40°

­40°

Design Samples

40°

50°

­50° 50°

3 3

North 1" = 40'-0"

­60°

60°

60°

North 1" = 40'-0" ­70°

70°

70°

­80°

80°

80°

W 18

4 4

08

­100°

South 1" = 40'-0"

16

14

110°

10 13

11

12

120°

­120°

130°

­130°

5

West 1" = 40'-0"

140°

­140°

West 1" = 40'-0"

100°

09 15

­110°

5

E

07 17

South 1" = 40'-0"

150°

­150° 160°

­160° ­170°

S

170°

Lat: 32.58770956°, Lng: ­96.96308894° (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.588255,-96.95961&z=16&t=k&hl=en-US&gl=US&mapclient=apiv3)

7 7

Report a map error (https: Ima

(B) South Elevation 1" = 40'-0"

(B) South Elevation 1" = 40'-0"

6

(A) South Elevation 1" = 40'-0"

6

(A) South Elevation 1" = 40'-0"

9

(C) South Elevation 1" = 40'-0"

9

FORGE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INDOOR CAFETERIA ADMINISTRATION

(C) South Elevation 1" = 40'-0"

GARDEN NETWORK / COMMUNAL AREA SECONDARY DROP OFF CAFETERIA 8 8

(B) North Elevation 1" = 40'-0"

PRE-K KINDERGARDEN ELEMENTARY ADMINISTRATION

(B) North Elevation 1" = 40'-0"

DROP -OFF HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM

SITE PLAN 10 10

(B) West Elevation 1" = 40'-0"

(B) West Elevation 1" = 40'-0"

N.T.S.


Travel Sketches

Travel Italy |Summer 2013 Undergraduate Study Abroad Program in Italy. The program included a study on urban design and history through some of the major cities in Italy, Florence, Rome, Venice, Milan, Sienna, Pisa, Verona, Tuscan Hill towns, and Swiss Alps. California | Los Angeles | San Diego | San Francisco |January 2016 Program based on urban theories through a critical view of each city.

Personal Travel also includes

New York | Chicago || France - Paris, Poisy, Versailles || Spain - Bilbao, Barcelona || Morocco - Marrakesh || French Polyneasia


Education Master of Architecture   • University of Texas at Arlington | Arlington , TX | May 2017 Bachelor of Science in Architecture   • University of Texas at Arlington | Arlington , TX | December 2014


Skills Rhino Scan & Solve Grasshopper Honeybee Ladybug Kangaroo Lunchbox Karamba & Octopus

Adobe Suite InDesign Photoshop Illustrator Premiere Autodesk Revit AutoCad

3D Printing CNC Milling Casting Wood Working

Professional Experience Adjunct Assistant Professor University of Texas at Arlington , Arlington TX, January 2019- Present Facilitated student comprehension and application of fundamental to intermediate architectural ordering devices, design theory, & graphics. Specialized design briefs and charrettes for creative solutions to issues of space, ecology, occupancy, structure, & experiences. Participated in upper level critiques and advised on advance computational workflows. Project Coordinator O’Brien Architects, Dallas, TX, July 2017 - September 2019 Involved in projects such as Cowboys residential tower, ranging from medium to large scale muti-family, and commercial projects. Working with team members to build relationships with clients, consultants, and vendors to ensure project delivery and meeting budgets. .Providing design schemes for interior amenities, material selections, and design charrettes.

Publications Peer Review Paper “High Performance Concrete Facades: UHP-FRC in Precast Sandwich Panel Design”, Facade Tectonics, June 2016

Conferences Poster Presentation “UHP-FRC Precast Concrete Facades” Precast Concrete Show PCI Convention / National Precast Concrete Association; Nashville, Tennessee, March 3rd - 5th 2016

Honors and Awards Dean’s Scholarship May 2016 International Education Fee Scholarship (IEFS) May 2013

Professional Associations NCARB AIAS

March 2015- Present Jan 2012- 2014

Languages • English : Fluent • Spanish: Fluent (native)

Profile for Halima Arevalo

Halima Essary Select Works  

A collection of select professional and academic work, highlighting recent architectural design in practice and applied research.

Halima Essary Select Works  

A collection of select professional and academic work, highlighting recent architectural design in practice and applied research.

Advertisement