SARO KARADANIAN IRENE
ENCLOSUREEXPOSURE
contents saro karadanian 310213592 irene 310171636
4 12 14 20 22 30 32 34
precedent studies weaving density explorations preliminary design iterations interim design proposal structure and form modeling grasshopper scripting final proposal final proposal on site
3
PRECEDENTSTUDY
LAYERS OF STRUCTURE AND CLADDING
Analysing the layering of tensile materials, we were particularly interested in the sense of lightness that is created by the Japanese Pavilion despite its dense layering of structure and materials. Furthermore, Shigeru Ban’s Japanese Pavilion was designed as a recyclable, temporal enclosure where the structure and cladding can be dismantled and reused elsewhere.
= + + + Enclosure: Japanese Pavilion Architect: Shigeru Ban Material Layering: Paper Cladding, PVC Fabric, Paper Structural Tubing, Timber Arch Structure
Fig 1. Four layers of structure and tensile material to create a temporal lightaweight structure
5
PRECEDENTSTUDY The Cutty Sark Pavilion uses a dense layering of various materials while retainign a sense of temporality and lightness within the structure. The Cutty Sark Pavilion is temporary and easy to dismantle. The white PVQC Fabric is stretched to create deliberate conical forms which symbolically resemble the mast of the Cutty Sark Ship.
+ + + Enclosure: Cutty Sark Pavilion Architect: Youmeheshe Architects Material Layering: PVC Fabric, Steel tension cabling, Timber Grid-shell structure, Timber Paneling
Fig 2. Four layers of structure and tensile material to create a temperial lightweight structure
7
precedentstudy The Spanish Pavilion uses modules of weaves with contrasting densities to create a dynamic porosity and light filtration inside. In contrast to the Japanese Pavilion, the Spanish Pavilion creates a sense of solidity-weight structural layering of woven wicker and a steel structure.
willow branches
woven branches
woven to form wicker
woven wicker connected to others using the same weaving technique
Enclosure: Spanish Pavilion Architect: Benedetta Tagllabue Miralles Tagliabue EMBT Material Layering: Woven Wicker, Steel Structure
different shape of facade created Fig 3. Overlaying of contrasting weaving styles of different densities to create dynamic light filtration
9
PRECEDENTSTUDY The Windshape Pavilion’s combination of a lightweight structure with a light woven thread cladding creates a smooth transition between the interior and exterior spaces. In contrast to the Japanese Pavilion, The Windshape enclosure is merely composed of two elements, creating a lightweight structure on a masonry medieval site.
+
metal collar
metal collar + pipe
+ adding more metal collar + pipe
+ woven string through the pipe
= pinching the screen to create opening
Enclosure: Windshape Pavilion Architect: Narchitects Material Layering: Steel tripod structures
Fig 4. lightweight structure of steel tripod modules and woven tensile string
11
ITERATIONONE:exploring weaving density
The diagram models explore the contrasting light effects created by different weaving methods in three different densities. The use of woolen string on balsa asserts the almost primitive nature of the weaving technique that is being pursued.
Fig 5. Adopting the diagonal weaving style employed in the Windshape Pavilion in the three different densities
Fig 6. Employing the crosshatching method for a denser screen
13
ITERATIONTHREE
extrapolating vertical elements_saro karadanian and irene
Sited in Cambell’s Cove in The Rocks, we opted to design a lightweight form that reflected the distinct vertical, compartmentalised form of the heavy masonry Cambell’s Cove Warehouse.
Fig 7. Extrapolating vertical elements
15
ITERATIONTWO:abstracting surrounding form extrapolating triangular elements of roof_saro karadanian and irene
Aiming to abstract the form of the Cambell’s Cove Warehouse, we resolved to extrapolate the triangular roof elements of the warehouse instead.
Fig 8. Extrapolating triangular elements of roof
17
ABSTRACTION PROCESS 2
90°
10°
10°
10°
10°
10°
10°
10° +
10°
10°
+
10°
+
10°
+
+
10°
+
10°
10°
+
Fig 9. Further abstracting the formal geometry of the Cambell’s Cove Warehouse
Fig 10. Adopting a symmetrical form that enhances the dichotomy of ‘enclosure and exposure’
19
INTERIM PROPOSAL
dense weaving
structural frame
light weaving
structural frame
base
Fig 11. Exploded Axonometric of the preliminary proposal for strucutral layering and cladding
21
TESTING STRUCTURE AND FORM: model 1
23
testing structure:bracket joint 50 x 100mm steel bolts x2
50 x 100mm steel bolts x2
5mm steel joint
5mm steel joint
5mm sisal braid weaving
5mm sisal braid weaving
60mm plywood panel
60mm plywood panel
60mm plywood panel
60mm plywood panel
60mm plywood panel To retain the strong cantilevered form, we 5mm steel joint decided to use a metal joint system. Our first 50mm steel joint was the Metalnuts x4 hexagonal Bracket Joint, where the metal joint is revealed.
60mm plywood panel 5mm steel joint 50mm steel hexagonal nuts x4
Fig 12. bracket joint exploded axonometric
25
testing structure:sandwich joint 50 x 100mm steel bolts x4
50 x 100mm steel bolts x4
5mm sisal braid weaving
5mm sisal braid weaving
60mm plywood panel
60mm plywood panel
60mm plywood panel
60mm plywood panel
5mm steel joint
5mm steel joint
60mm plywood panel
60mm plywood panel
We opted to employ a metal sandwich joint to support our cantilevered walls, as 50mmconcealed steel the joint was behexagonal nuts x4 tween two layers of timber panels. By hiding the metal joints, we create a stronger aesthetic focus on the timber panels and frame and the weaving.
50mm steel hexagonal nuts x4
joint detail
exploded Fig 13. Sandwich joint axonometric exploded axonometric saro karadanian irene
27
sandwich joint detail steel bolts
steel joints
layer 1 - plywood panels
layer 2 - plywood panels
layer 3 - plywood panels
steel nuts
During construction, the metal sandwich joints had to be customised for each module in order to fit into the base structural system of three overlapping layers Fig 14. Base structure system corresponding with metal joints
29
GRASSHOPPERSCRIPTING: weaves
31
FINALPROPOSAL
2800mm
750mm 3100mm 14 000mm
1074mm Fig 15. 1:1 DIMENSIONS IN REPRESENTATIONAL PLAN VIEW
33
35
37
39