How Can Temporary Relief Structures Be Improved For World Crises?

Candidate: MEng. Structural Engineering and Architecture Supervisor: Danielle Densley Tingley

DECLARATION STATEMENT I, James Paul, state that all material included within this body’s work is my own, except where it is clearly referenced to others.

Signed: ………………………………

Date: …………………………………

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Danielle for her help whilst writing this report, as well as my mum and dad for their continued support over my four years here.

I

ABSTRACT With any humanitarian or environmental crisis, there is often a need for the widespread deployment of emergency shelter to be able to house and accommodate affected communities.

However, the primary choice of shelter - the tent - has remained relatively unchanged for decades, primarily due to its flexibility, cost, and speed of deployment. With these crises occurring for long periods of time, the short lifespan of a tent (roughly six months) makes it an option that is wholly inadequate for the nature of these events.

This report considers a multitude of shelter options, both currently available and conceptual, and assesses them against a created marking criteria to be able to quantitatively compare them in order to determine which is best suited to being a refugee shelter. With the IKEA Foundation’s Better Shelter being chosen as the most suitable to accommodate refugees, this structure was then improved upon and modified using a brief derived from current literature, with the subsequent proposal found to be marginally better structurally when both were tested against the original marking criteria.

LIST OF FIGURES Figures that are unreferenced are the author’s own.

Figure 1.1 – Red Cross transitional shelter approach

2

Figure 1.2 – Map showing displacement of refugees from Syria

3

Figure 1.3 – Zaatari refugee camp, Jordan

4

Figure 2.1 - Dominant construction cycle, and alternative ‘closed-loop’ cycle, for the built environment

5

Figure 2.2 - Crowther’s Design for Disassembly principles

6

Figure 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 – Yoshimura, diagonal and herringbone folding patterns

9

Figure 2.6 - Pinero theatre design

12

Figure 2.7 - Deployability constraint

13

Figure 2.8 – Concrete Canvas shelter

14

Figure 2.9 - Aeromorph concept

15

Figure 4.1 – Geodesic Tent

19

Figure 4.2 - IKEA Better Shelter

19

Figure 4.3 - Life Shelter

19

Figure 4.4 - Cardboard Shelter

19

Figure 4.5 - Origami Shelter

19

Figure 4.6 - Foldable bar structure

19

Figure 4.7 - Transitional wood shelter

19

Figure 4.8 - Quilt design

19 II

Figure 4.9 - Prototype accordion shelter

19

Figure 4.10 - Concrete Canvas

19

Figure 5.1 – Tent

24

Figure 5.2 – IKEA Better Shelter

25

Figure 5.3 – Life Shelter

26

Figure 5.4 – Cardboard Shelter

27

Figure 5.5 – Origami shelter

28

Figure 5.6 – Foldable bar structure

29

Figure 5.7 – Transitional wood shelter

30

Figure 5.8 – Quilt concept

31

Figure 5.9 – Accordion shelter

32

Figure 5.10 – Concrete Canvas

33

Figure 5.11 – Connection Comparison

34

Figure 5.12 – Components Comparison

34

Figure 5.13 – Materiality Comparison

35

Figure 5.14 – Handling Comparison

36

Figure 5.15 – Practicality Comparison

36

Figure 5.16 – Fulfilment of Criteria

37

Figure 5.17 – Grouped Connections Comparison

38

Figure 5.18 – Grouped Components Comparison

38

Figure 5.19 – Grouped Materiality Comparison

39

Figure 5.20 – Grouped Handling Comparison

39

Figure 5.21 – Grouped Practicality Comparison

39

Figure 5.22 – Grouped Fulfilment of Criteria Comparison

40

Figure 5.23 – An example of BREEAM’s weighting system

41

Figure 5.24 – Fulfilment of Criteria

42

Figure 5.25 – Fulfilment of Criteria (Weighted)

42

Figure 5.26 – Grouped Fulfilment of Criteria Comparison

43

Figure 5.27 – Grouped Fulfilment of Criteria Comparison (Weighted)

43

Figure 6.1 - Visual Brief

44

Figure 6.2 – Typical temperatures in Damascus

45

Figure 6.3 – CHEP 1200mm x 1000mm pallet

46

Figure 6.4 – New shelter module

47

Figure 6.5 – Base shelter, showing potential additional configurations

48

Figure 6.6 – Current panel fastening system

49

Figure 6.7 - Insulation and panel layout

49

Figure 6.8 – Floor ‘tile’ layout

50

Figure 6.9 – Diagram of roof erection

50 III

Figure 6.10 – Potential roof joint for central support bar

51

Figure 6.11 – NASA STAC-BEAM joint types

51

Figure 6.12 – Roof to wall connections via either clamps, or end-plates which can be screwed through

52

Figure 6.13 - Picture showing rudimentary fix to joint

52

Figure 6.14 – Proposed corner joint, which the support bars slide onto

53

Figure 6.15 – Door panel design

54

Figure 6.16 – IKEA Better Shelter

56

Figure 6.17 – New structure proposal

56

Figure 6.18 – Fulfilment of Criteria Comparison

56

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 - Connections assessment criteria

20

Table 4.2 - Component assessment criteria

21

Table 4.3 - Materiality assessment criteria

22

Table 4.4 - Handling assessment criteria

22

Table 4.5 - Practicality assessment criteria

23

Table 5.1 - Tent results

24

Table 5.2 - IKEA Better Shelter results

25

Table 5.3 - Life Shelter results

26

Table 5.4 - Cardboard shelter results

27

Table 5.5 - Origami shelter results

28

Table 5.6 - Foldable bar structure results

29

Table 5.7 - Transitional wood shelter results

30

Table 5.8 - Quilted design results

31

Table 5.9 - Accordion shelter results

32

Table 5.10 - Concrete Canvas results

33

Table 5.11 - Weighting calculation

41

Table 6.1 - IKEA Better Shelter results

55

Table 6.2 - New shelter proposal results

55

IV

CONTENTS ABSTRACT

II

LIST OF FIGURES

II

LIST OF TABLES

IV

1.

2.

INTRODUCTION

1

1.1 - Background

1

1.2 - ‘Transitional’

1

1.3 - ‘Deployable’

2

1.4 - Rationale: The Syrian Civil War & Refugee Crisis

3

1.5 – Other benefits

4

LITERATURE REVIEW

5

2.1 - Initial Findings and Deconstruction

5

2.2 - Design for Disassembly

5

2.3 - Transitional Structures

8

2.4 - Life Cycle Assessment

8

2.5 - Origami/Folding Plate Structures

9

2.6 - Folding Bar

11

2.7 - Additional Types

13

2.8 - Conceptual

14

2.9 - Current gaps

15

3.

METHODOLOGY/METHODS

16

4.

ANALYSIS

18

4.1 - Table Criteria

18

4.2 - Analysed Structures

18

4.3 - Headings and Criteria

20

4.3.1 – Connections

20

4.3.2 – Components

20

4.3.3 – Materiality

21

4.3.4 – Handling

22

4.3.5 – Practicality

23

V

5.

RESULTS 5.1 - Structure Analysis

6.

8.

24

5.1.1 - Tent

24

5.1.2 - IKEA Better Shelter

25

5.1.3 - Life Shelter

26

5.1.4 - Cardboard shelter

27

5.1.5 - Origami shelter

28

5.1.6 - Foldable bar structure

29

5.1.7 - Transitional wood shelter in the Philippines

30

5.1.8 - Quilted design

31

5.1.9 - Prototype Accordion shelter

32

5.1.10 - Concrete Canvas

33

5.2 - Direct Comparisons

34

5.3 – Categories & Comparison

38

5.4 – Weighting

40

PROPOSAL

44

6.1 - Brief

44

6.2 – Issues & Improvements

47

6.2.1 – Modular Improvements

47

6.2.2 – Fabric And Envelope Improvements

48

6.2.2 – Joint Improvements

52

6.2.3 – Accessibility Improvements

53

6.3 – Proposal Assessment

7.

24

54

6.3.1 – Assessment Against Brief

54

6.3.2 - IKEA Better Shelter results

55

6.3.3 – New Shelter Proposal results

55

CONCLUSION

58

7.1 - Discussion

58

7.2 – Further Research

59

BIBLIOGRAPHY

60

VI

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 - Background With any humanitarian & environmental crisis around the world - such as the large scale migration of refugees from Syria and Iraq, or the displacement of local residents affected by natural disasters – there is a need for a widespread deployment of temporary relief structures immediately after, or during the crisis to house and care for these people. Currently the primary choice of shelter to cater for these displaced communities is the tent, or kits with rudimentary shelter materials/tools (for instance plastic sheeting/hammers). These choices have remained relatively unchanged for decades, primarily due to their flexibility, relative cost and speed to deploy. However they are inadequate if the shelter needs to be used for a prolonged period of time (+1 year), with a lack of permanent shelter over the reconstruction period being found to be detrimental to both health and livelihood (Shelter Centre, 2012).

With the advent of Ikea’s refugee shelter design (IKEA Foundation), and ongoing research into improvements in relief structures, there is a drive towards a ‘transitional’ shelter approach (Shelter Centre, 2012) (Red Cross, 2011) where the shelter accommodates the user during the initial emergency response, then is used as part of future reconstruction developments thus providing a more sustainable solution to disaster response.

Through the course of this report, the current research and methods that use this approach will be critically assessed, and from this assessment an improved or novel deployable structure that is an effective transitional shelter will be proposed.

1.2 - ‘Transitional’ The transitional shelter approach was outlined by Shelter (2012) as a response to the fact that post-disaster shelters are created by those affected, and not the first responders who provide the initial emergency shelters. From this observation, a type of structure was proposed that can be disassembled and reused partially or completely as part of the rehabilitation process of a community. This shelter can then be moved if residents have been displaced, and can provide an accommodation ‘basis’ which has materials that can be upgraded and/or expanded to create more permanent structures as the recovery phase continues.

1

Fig. 1.1 - Red Cross transitional shelter approach (Shelter Centre, 2012)

Instead of using the transitional shelter approach as part of a multi-shelter programme (emergency Figure 1.2 - Red Cross transitional shelter approach (Centre, Shelter, 2012) shelter – transitional shelter – permanent structure) any structure proposed by the author must be one that can be used across multiple structural phases in its lifetime. Used as a whole or utilising its component parts for secondary means, this approach will minimise resource use, and increase efficiency, providing a shelter that will be used from the initial emergency phase through to the recovery and rehabilitation stages after a crisis/disaster.

1.3 - ‘Deployable’ A deployable structure is defined as: ‘A structure that can change shape to significantly change its size’ (Pellegrino, 2001), or structures that can ‘expand or contract due to their geometrical, material or mechanical properties’ (Adrover, 2015). These structures can range from a tent being set up from a folded configuration, to space satellite masts which can expand longitudinally to lengths multiple times greater than their original packaged size, and have been used for millennia, with one example being the Velarium – a retractable awning above the Colosseum in Rome. Throughout the course of this report, ‘deployable’ will refer both to structures that can be grouped under this meaning, and the accompanying delivery system of these structures to affected areas.

2

1.4 - Rationale: The Syrian Civil War & Refugee Crisis ‘Syria is the biggest humanitarian and refugee crisis of our time, a continuing cause of suffering for millions which should be garnering a groundswell of support around the world’ - Filippo Grandi, UNHCR High Commissioner (UNHCR).

The primary rationale, and case study basis, for this report is the ongoing civil war in Syria and the resultant refugee crisis. The civil war started on the 15 Mar 11, when anti-government marches, spurred on by the ‘Arab Spring’ and other events occurring in the region, turned violent, with clashes between the government and protestors resulting in civilian casualties. These tensions led to an armed insurgency against the current president and the ensuing civil war which, at the time of writing, is ongoing.

With the civil war destroying numerous towns and cities across the country, there has been a colossal number of people fleeing the region, with 5,022,731 Syrian refugees registered in neighbouring countries as of 5 Apr 17 (UNHCR). Of this number, roughly 10% (486,690) are living in refugee camps set up in neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq. The majority of these refugee camps are comprised of tents and shelter systems which are still part of the ‘emergency’ response process, with a usual inhabitation lifespan of 6 months, and are not a long-term living solution for residents that have been displaced for the duration of the conflict.

Fig. 1.2 - Map showing displacement of refugees from Syria (UNHCR)

3 Fig. 1.2 - Map showing displacement of refugees from Syria (UNHCR)

Fig. 1.4 - Zaatari Refugee Camp, Jordan

1.5 – Other benefits Whilst the Syrian refugee crisis is an ongoing humanitarian event, a predicted five-fold increase in the prevalence of natural and man-made disasters in the next 50 years (Thomas & Kopczak, 2005), means that improvements in emergency shelter options for all relief efforts would be similarly beneficial. As stated in the introduction, more temporary accommodation types can have a detrimental effect on a person’s wellbeing, and fabric shelters would not be suitable for use once displaced communities can return to more permanent sites. Having a transitional shelter that can be used during all stages of recovery after a disaster would create a sense of permanence for its occupants, and give them a structural basis on which to rebuild.

As well as the humanitarian benefits of having a long-term shelter, the thermal improvements this form of shelter would have over a traditional canvas structure would benefit the military sector.

A shelter that was thermally insulated would increase energy efficiency and save on fuel required to power heaters and air-conditioning systems. As of 2011, 1000 US soldiers had been killed operating fuel transportation missions during the Iraq and Afghanistan occupation, with roughly $66 million USD spent per day on air conditioning temporary military structures not suited to the local climate (Anderson, 2011). A shelter that fills the void between fabric shelters that are only lightly insulated, and rigid shelled structures that have limited portability would be able to reduce costs and save lives in future combat scenarios, as lower fuel use would result in fewer transport missions.

4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 - Initial Findings and Deconstruction Initial research and reading was into deconstruction and reuse, highlighting housing such as that used after the Turkey earthquake in 1999 (Cosgun & Arslan, 2011). Due to the materiality of the structures being mainly constructed from panelled wood or aluminium, various parts could be reused for infrastructure rebuilding once the temporary shelters were no longer necessary. This article also highlighted the idea of deconstruction – ‘construction in reverse’ - whereby a building is dismantled in order to salvage materials for recycle or reuse.

Predominantly looking at ‘permanent’ structures (those with a lifespan greater than 10 years and which would traditionally be demolished) the United States Environmental Protection Agency (2008) found that roughly 60% of all raw materials in the US, bar food and fuel, were consumed by the construction industry. On top of this, annual construction/renovation/demolition wastes contributed to one-third of non-hazardous waste generation. The EPA also highlighted how deconstruction can bring down overall resource use, something that would be an important issue with rebuilding after a crisis or disaster, where resources would be scarce.

In Finland, Huuhka et al (2015) looked at how 1970s mass housing could be deconstructed to salvage the concrete panels they were built from, and then if these could be used within the country’s detached house construction process. As with Huuhka et al (2015), Chau et al (2016) examined how deconstruction could be used during the End of Life phase of a structure to save energy and reduce landfill, looking specifically at high rise office blocks in Hong Kong. Whilst Diyamandoglu and Fortuna (2015) looked at a more traditional wood built house in the United States, all the case-studies highlighted the idea of reusing and recycling elements, predominantly to save on landfill waste and carbon emissions.

Building on these ideas for temporary structures shows how components can be reused for other purposes once the buildings lifespan is complete. A similar idea is seen in a case study of a building in Canada (Burak, 2010). After a boating club in Montreal was destroyed by fire, the replacement structure was built using precast concrete panels salvaged from dismantled tyre stores. However, the reuse potential of this component wouldn’t have been thought about during the demolition of the tyre stores - something highlighted by ARUP (2013), where one of the barriers preventing the re-use of elements was that the components needed to have a future use specified beforehand, otherwise they would be wasted.

2.2 - Design for Disassembly Within the broader scope of deconstruction, Design for Disassembly (DfD) is a key part of the design stage, as highlighted by Philip Crowther (2005). This prior planning, and joint consideration of both the disassembly and construction processes during the design stage, result in 5

deconstruction being less laborious, and a building environment which is closer to a ‘closed-loop’ system – whereby no raw materials are added.

Fig. 2.1 - Dominant construction cycle, and alternative ‘closed-loop’ cycle, for the built environment (Crowther, 2005)

The designFig. guide Guy and Ciarimboli (2007) was particularly due tocycle, it highlighting key 2.1by- Dominant construction cycle, and alternativerelevant, ‘closed-loop’ for stages of deconstruction and disassembly.

With several parallels between this and Crowther’s the built environment (Crowther, 2005) (2005), both documents give a comprehensive insight into ‘cradle-to-grave’ design – how a building can be designed to achieve specific criteria throughout its entire lifespan, from its inception to its demolition, and the potential for components to be used in further applications. Whilst focusing more on permanent structures, the key principles listed can be used for temporary buildings, partially due to a focus on DfD being a driving force behind both permanent and temporary structures. Some of these principles include: paper documentation of materials and methods for deconstruction; design accessible connections & jointing methods; minimise use of composite materials; design simple structure and forms that allow standardisation of components, and design that reflects labour practices, productivity and safety. These mirror principles given by Rios et al (2015) and Crowther (2005), with only minor changes differentiating between them. The EPA (2008) also further documented how these principles could help the deconstruction process tie into

6

a greater salvaged material market, in order to defer the higher costs of deconstruction compared to standard demolition methods.

Fig. 2.1 - Crowther’s Design for Disassembly principles (Crowther, 2005)

This design ideal is crucial for structures being used for humanitarian/relief work, as it is inevitable that circumstances will change within the structure’s lifespan - whether it’s a transition in recovery phase or the relocation of a displaced community, the shelter will need to be moved/modified through either partial or full disassembly. However, as discussed by Trott (2015), structural flexibility will need to be balanced against how well it works as a complete system, mainly against heating losses, air insulation and tightness, materiality etc.

One of the key points highlighted across both permanent and temporary building ideas is cited by Huuhka et al (2015) - structural connections. If not properly designed, these joints can make the deconstruction and disassembly process considerably more difficult. This issue arose numerous times in my research - for example in current builds in Iran (Saghafi & Teshnizi, 2011), the use of cement mortar across both structural and non-structural joints makes the recycling of tiles and finishes impossible. This is also covered in several design guides for deconstruction ( (US EPA, 2008) (Crowther, 2005), (Rios, et al., 2015) and (Pulaski, 2004) ).

7

2.3 - Transitional Structures As part of the research into existing shelters that are deployed for crises, the use of ‘transitional shelters’ is one of the more common approaches to disaster relief (Red Cross, 2011) and (Shelter Centre, 2012). This process replaces the more traditional multi-phased approach of using several different shelters to accommodate reconstruction with a single shelter that is improved and reused throughout the rehabilitation process. Structures outlined in both papers are usually permanent free-standing structures, with those from the Red Cross (2011) unable to be easily repositioned or restructured if needs or wants of the displaced community changes. As well as those structures, Cortes and Kang (2016) tests shelters being used after Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. This review shows that modification of the structure due to its context gives it a much higher resistance to wind loading; it also highlights that any proposed structure needs to be adaptable for local conditions.

An example of a shelter being used in multiple applications across its lifetime is the ‘Life Shelter’ (Real Relief) tested as a refugee housing solution in Erbil (IFRC Shelter Research Unit, 2015).

This shelter is constructed from a series of lightweight Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) panels coated with mortar. Once it has been used for emergency refugee shelter, the panels can be reused as roofing on permanent dwellings for residents. Whilst the shelter could be considered a ‘rigid’ solution due to its use of mortar as a structural material, the use of XPS creates a sandwich panel, which is lightweight, and means the shelter can easily be built by 3-4 people.

One point stated by Burford and Gengnagel (2006) which, although obvious, is useful here, is that due to the assessed structures needing to be used in relief situations they need to be erected quickly so they can immediately start benefiting affected communities.

2.4 - Life Cycle Assessment In conjunction with DfD, suitable methods to assess a structure’s sustainability through its life-cycle are also critical. This is an issue highlighted by Kibert (2016), as a building that has been rated as ‘Outstanding’ or ‘Platinum’ by BREEAM or LEED respectively at the start of its life time could eventually perform poorly without stringent and continual checks. One example given is the introduction of a replacement cooler into a building with a lower efficiency than the original system, so why should it maintain its original rating? With this, accreditation systems such as BREEAM in the UK, or LEED in the US have rating tools in place for existing buildings ( (Summerson, et al.), (USGBC, 2009) ) to allow for continual assessment. Also, LEED v4 has construction/demolition waste management planning as a prerequisite before formal accreditation can start. However, Din and Brotas (2016) also outlines the current flaws with life cycle assessment, as it is often done as an auditing process, and is considered differently depending on the case. In addition, both of these systems are entirely optional and, currently, a building will retain its initial rating, regardless of circumstance.

8

One other problem with this form of accreditation is that it’s designed to accommodate permanent structures, and the vastly changing circumstances experienced by a relief structure would likely make such a rating system either erratic in its marking, or entirely useless. A better type of assessment for temporary structures would likely be something described by Densley Tingley and Davison (2011), and Din and Brotas (2016), who look at assessing a building’s performance through embodied energy release, with embodied energy being defined as ‘the carbon dioxide emissions that are generated from the formation of buildings, their refurbishment and subsequent maintenance’ (Sturgis & Roberts, 2010). From this Densley Tingley and Davison (2011) highlight the use of cradle-to-grave analysis for a structure, where the energy input and emissions are checked from initial extraction of natural resources, to eventual disposal at end-of-life. As any proposed structure will be used in a variety of scenarios, this kind of analysis may be hard to do, but if the shelter is designed correctly, there should be little to no maintenance required on the structure’s components.

An improvement on this analysis for shelters used for humanitarian relief would be to use the ‘cradle-to-cradle’ approach by Braungart and William (2008); a modification of the cradle-to-grave approach where all the parts of a product can either be recycled/reused or composted/consumed, depending on whether or not they can be considered as technical or biological nutrients. Due to the inherent nature of a transitional structure, where its components parts are reused in the rehabilitation phase after a crisis, this would be a more suitable way of assessing any proposal.

2.5 - Origami/Folding Plate Structures Deriving their name from the ancient Japanese word – which translates as ‘paper folding’ – these structures are often created of rigid panels, which can ‘fold’ out from a compact configuration to achieve their desired shape. The folds and shapes created within each structure are highlighted in Buri and Weinand (2008), with the three main folding techniques shown: Yoshimura, which creates a diamond pattern; diagonal folding; and Miura Ora, which creates a herringbone pattern (and is the method used to fold satellite solar sails before deployment). For these three techniques, the angle of the fold in each plate determines the fold pattern.

Fig. 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 – Yoshimura, diagonal and herringbone folding patterns (Buri & Weinand, 2008)

Fig. 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 – Yoshimura, diagonal and herringbone folding patterns (Buri & Weinand, 2008)

9

Considerable research on deployable and reusable structures had previously been carried out by the US military in the late 20th Century (Army Natick Laboratories, 1972), and focused on origami, or ‘Accordion’, Shelters, with field testing of these structures being carried out to see if they could replace the standard issue tents (Marine Corps Landing Force Development Center, 1967). These shelters consisted of a folding aluminium frame, with a fabric tent component permanently attached in a double-corrugated configuration. Whilst this field report showed these shelters had a relatively quick erection time (4 people could erect one in 15 minutes) and that it would be a suitable replacement to the tent, they also noted that the fabrics tested weren’t suitable for the Marine’s activities, but the issue highlighted wouldn’t be a problem for a humanitarian shelter (the nylon fabric couldn’t be blacked-out). They also cited problems with parts of the aluminium frame suffering fatigue damage at connection vertices, something which would have been rectified in later iterations, or could be improved on now with modern construction techniques and technological advancements in materials. Further analysis of similar accordion structures was carried out at the time to assess their potential over rigid alternatives ( (US Army, 1972), (US Army, 1978) ).

A wider review of multiple Accordion Shelters prototypes was later carried out (Thrall & Quaglia, 2014). This review highlighted the use of ‘folded plate’ architecture as a potential basis for a lightweight structure that could be deployed, with most of the prototypes experiencing similar issues as those found through the field test of the smaller structure. Further research by (Lee & Gattas, 2016) showed that optimisation of these structures through geometric parameterization allowed for two new variants that improved on the previous shelters, but couldn’t be sufficiently packed to allow them to be deployed in the previously mentioned circumstances, and would instead be used for high-performance applications. However the potential materiality of these structures – a corrugated polypropylene sheet known as Corflute – could be used in other proposals due to being lightweight and well-suited to folding geometries.

Building on their own review, a look into how origami could be used to create deployable structures was carried out (Quaglia, et al., 2014). These designed modules use a counter-weight system so they don’t require heavy equipment to be erected, something deemed essential if designing relief shelters for areas with damaged or destroyed infrastructure. Lateral stability for these structures is provided by the outer walls that swing out once the lever arm has touched the ground. The modules can then be combined to create larger structures. One of the primary findings behind this was the relative portability of the module, with 12 soldiers carrying it, and 10 – 3 men or 23 – 6 women required to erect it (the reduction in personnel necessary to erect the structure is due to the required counterweight force dropping as the walls become vertical).

Another novel approach is the use of quilted patterns as inspiration for structural systems (Tumbeva, et al., 2016). This structure is derived from traditional English and American quilt making – where two pieces of fabric were stitched together, separated by a layer of padding – and 10

are created from pre-chosen shapes. Compared with the previous design, a quilted system allows minimal waste material, as only one sheet of material is used. Whilst useful for showing another potential method for a deployable structure, this research was considerably more conceptual, and whilst the idea was tested using Finite Element (FE) modelling, it wasn’t modelled further, whereas Quaglia et al modelled their structure at 1:12, and optimised in further analysis (Quaglia, et al., 2014). This modelling created an optimised structure that balanced structural performance with energy efficiency.

In both approaches, sandwich panels of fibre-reinforced polymer with a foam core were used to provide an intermediary between canvas structures (lightweight, inexpensive and easily packable but have limited thermal insulation), and rigid structures (high thermal insulation, but are heavy, difficult to transport and often not structurally efficient shapes).

Buri and Weinand (2008) describe how origami and cross laminated timber could be used more successfully in place of traditional metal folded-plate architecture. The main advantage that timber would have is its relative ease to machine and, if used in conjunction with computer modelling, would be able to rapidly create a series of increasingly complex shapes and folds. As well as this, there are the obvious advantages of using a more sustainably sourced material - such as wood over steel, and would likely create lower amounts of waste once disposed of.

2.6 - Folding Bar Another potential deployable structure system is the folding bar mechanism, which uses folded, scissor-like elements which extend to form a rigid structure. Some of the early examples of this structural form can be seen in the theatre design by Emilio PĂŠrez PiĂąero from the 1960s, which was transported on the back of the truck, and would fold out for use. This is also a structural system used in designs by both Mira et al (2014) and You and Pellegrino (1997), with the latter being a focus on elements that have angled rods to create a general solution shape for any folding into a larger structure. As highlighted in a piece by De Temmerman (2007), these structures need to be able to balance deployability with mechanical complexity, and the cost of the structure against its potential; a reason why transitional structures would be best for disaster relief, as the reuse potential makes the structure better value.

11

Fig. 2.6 – Piñero and a scale model of his theatre design (Fernandez-Serrano)

Fig.a2.6 – Piñero and overview a scale model of hisbar theatre designand describe the two Gantes et al (1989) give comprehensive of folding structures, (Fernandez-Serrano) primary types of folding bar structure: structures that are stress-free when stowed, deployed and in their final configuration; and structures that are stress-free when stowed, but develop stresses during deployment, and maintain residual stresses once fully deployed. Whilst the stress-free structures act as a mechanism, and therefore need to be stabilised, the structures that maintain stress don’t, but are more susceptible to buckling and have a lower load bearing capacity. The lack of practical examples of either folding bar category makes it harder to evaluate which one would be most suited to the needed role of humanitarian shelter.

However, the issue with the systems shown by You and Pellegrino (1997) was that the base structure didn’t follow the deployability constraint, whereby to be fully deployable the sum of the semi-length a and b has to equal the sum of the semi-length c and d of the adjoining unit (De Temmerman, 2007). As they didn’t follow this, the structures given were only partially deployable, so were significantly larger than a feasibly transportable object, and would have been more suited to high-tech applications, such as the roofs of stadia. In addition, the initial members and the resultant shapes themselves were incredibly complex when compared with previous examples, due to the use of angulated units to decrease member and connection amounts, so would not have been suitable for relief shelters.

12

Fig. 2.7 – Deployability Constraint (De Temmerman, 2007)

The design from Mira et al however was more simplistic, using offset jointed scissor Fig. 2.7(2014) – Deployability Constraint (De Temmerman, 2007) elements to create an arch which would be covered by a membrane when fully deployed. This structure could be easily deployed for displaced communities and modified depending on the disaster (such as adding components or stiffening elements). Further analysis of this structure via both FE modelling and a real world mock-up were carried out to determine whether it could sustain load combinations imposed by Eurocodes. As described in the paper, whilst this initial study outlines the concept behind the structure, further research would have to be carried out to see how it could be reassembled after the emergency phase. Also the materiality of the structure (aluminium beams) means it could be hard to replace broken parts, so further assessment of the lifespan of the component parts would have to be carried out, or a feasibility study on the structure conducted if locally sourced materials were to be used as a substitute.

2.7 - Additional Types A book by Mclean and Silver (2015) looks at a wide breadth of air filled, and air supported structures. Due to most variants of air structures needing a constant supply of air to maintain their structural form, they would not be suitable for use in areas lacking the supporting infrastructure – such as high volume delivery compressors.

However, one design the book highlights is a concrete canvas structure (Concrete Canvas). Using a combination of a concrete composite fabric bonded to a plastic inner, this structure is firstly inflated by air to form a Nissen Hut shape. Once inflated fully, water (can be non-potable and salt water, which makes it useful in disaster hit areas) is added to the outside to harden the concrete, and create the final structural form. Whilst having structural and thermal benefits over fabric shelters, and having a much higher packing density than rigid-shell structures, the main problem with this structure is its high weight once erected, and an inability to move it elsewhere if required.

13

Fig. 2.8 – Concrete Canvas (Concrete Canvas)

Another form of shelter proposed van Kinderen and(Concrete Klos (2015) is using a cardboard structure Fig. 2.8 by – Concrete Canvas Canvas) with a tarpaulin, or similar outer roof covering. Whilst unlikely to be suitable for the arid climates found in the Middle East (the report states the structure is most suited towards a tropical savannah environment, which is hot and humid) this report shows how the use of a material that is so readily available would greatly improve the sustainability factor of any shelter, and make any necessary repairs easier. It also highlighted the novel use of duct tape as a component connector, another material that is relatively easy to source, and makes the cost of creating the shelter much lower.

2.8 - Conceptual Looking at more conceptual designs, students at MIT have created a potential structural system that combines the origami design, and an air filled mechanism to create foldable structures (Ou, et al., 2016). Called ‘AeroMorph’, this design uses a flat net created from thermoplastic polyurethane coated paper/fabric/plastic, with seams heat-pressed into them to control the shape of the net when the surface is inflated. Whilst this current research only looks at small scale wearables and pneumatic actuators, it could potentially be used in conjunction with other folded-plate designs, such as the quilt concept (Tumbeva, et al., 2016).

14

Fig. 2.9 - Aeromorph concept (Ou, et al., 2016)

Much like Mclean and Silver’s Fig. book 2.9 - Aeromorph (2015), Adrover concept (2015) (Ou,gives et al.,a 2016) broad overview of a plethora of deployable structures. However, a majority of them were designed around art installations, and were more pavilion-like in their nature, so wouldn’t be suitable. Whilst mostly conceptual, the processes and ideas it gives are a useful start to further research into temporary structure design.

2.9 - Current gaps From this review, I found that the majority of research covered only the conceptual side of their design, with only Quaglia et al (2014), doing further testing of their proposed structure, whilst others such as the quilted design (2016) were purely conceptual. Also, apart from the structures that are specifically designed as such (Cortes & Kang, 2016), the current research doesn’t highlight whether a deployable temporary structure can be feasibly used as a transitional shelter throughout the span of a crisis - from emergency phase through to rehabilitation.

To build upon this current research, this report sets out to quantitatively analyse the advantages and shortcomings of various deployable structures against set criteria, to ensure they would function adequately in the required scenarios. Further to this, an improved or novel structure proposal would be analysed to assess its suitability for intended use.

15

3. METHODOLOGY/METHODS •

Literature Review

The critical review and analysis of current methods allows the author to have suitable knowledge of the current state of play in order to make informed decisions on later steps of the project. It also highlights current research gaps that this project can ameliorate.

•

Table Design and Analysis

Using the literature review as a basis, design principles from Crowther (2005) were reviewed and edited to create a series of marking criteria to critically assess current relief shelters and temporary structures. This allows the author to see which one is most suited to the starting brief of creating an improved humanitarian shelter using quantifiable figures. When necessary, these table and criteria have been assessed and modified through testing to create the most suitable parameters for any proposed shelter later referred to in the report.

•

Structure Review and Comparison

A collection of structures chosen from the research are critically assessed against the aforementioned table. This gives each shelter a percentage score showing how well it fulfils the chosen criteria, and allows them to be compared quantitatively against one another and within grouped categories. From the results of this review, a structure can be found that can be improved upon to satisfy the main aim of the report.

•

Structure Proposal/Design

As mentioned previously, the structural review results in a novel/improved structure to be proposed. This proposal is then designed around a brief created from the key factors and problems that have been found from the literature review, and additional research around the chosen case study of the Syrian refugee crisis. Once improvements against the current shelter have been analysed and discussed, this design can then also be assessed against both the initial brief, and the same marking criteria as the other structures to see if it’s a viable improvement, or if there are still issues surrounding its design.

•

Design For Disassembly

This section factors in both the beginning and the end of the life cycle of the proposed structure, and needs to be considered at the beginning of part 2, as the reuse potential has to be designed in at the outset, otherwise the structure will not be suitable for disassembly. This critical assessment of the component parts also allows the author to determine what can be reused or recycled, and in what scenarios.

16

•

Final Conclusions/Discussions

With a critical review of any proposed structure complete, final conclusions about the shortcomings and successes of this shelter can be discussed, and from this discussion the direction of further subject research can be ascertained. It also facilitates a general overview of the issues contained within the report, and how such work can be taken forward.

17

4. ANALYSIS 4.1 - Table Criteria To create the table to quantitatively assess any review structures, the points highlighted by Crowther (2005) for DfD were used as guidelines in constructing the main assessment criteria, and were modified to better suit deployable structures and ensure that the structures ranked could also be suitably used as humanitarian shelters. From these criteria, five primary table headings were proposed: Connections; Materiality; Handling; Identification, and Practicality.

To allow for a numerical basis against which the structures can be compared, a points system similar to that found in BREEAM design guides was chosen (BREEAM), whereby the structure is awarded points, depending on how well it achieves a specific criterion on a sliding scale between 0 and 5 – ‘0’ meaning the structure is unsuitable, and ‘5’ meaning the criterion has been fully satisfied. For criteria that were quantitative, a scale of 0 – 3 – 5 was chosen, with a detailed description of how the requirement of those points was met.

During the initial analysis of the chosen structures, parts of the original table were modified until the final assessment criteria were reached. The Identification heading was removed, as there was little to no information on this for every shelter, and it was decided that some of the asked criteria were fairly obviously solved through base knowledge of structures (for instance, materials are always identifiable due to their respective physical properties). The Practicality heading was also more precisely defined, as there were enough related sub-headings in this category that a new heading – ‘Components’ – was created, so there was now referral to both the connections of the structure, and the major component pieces. Other changes included scrutinising what the criterion was trying to ask, and redefining the question to be able to better convey this.

4.2 - Analysed Structures As well as the current shelter provided by the Red Cross, nine other structures were chosen, covering all outlined structure types from the literature review, and some more conceptual ideas.

•

Current option (Geodesic tent supplied by the Red Cross) (IFRC)

•

Ikea Better Shelter (IKEA Foundation)

•

Life Shelter (Real Relief)

•

Cardboard Structure (van Kinderen & Klos, 2015)

•

Origami shelter (Quaglia, et al., 2014)

•

Foldable bar structure (De Temmerman, 2007)

•

Transitional wood shelter in Haiti (Cortes & Kang, 2016)

•

Quilted design (Tumbeva, et al., 2016)

•

Prototype accordion shelter (Marine Corps Landing Force Development Center, 1967)

•

Concrete Canvas (Concrete Canvas)

18

Figure 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10– Analysed structures (IFRC) (IKEA Foundation) (Real Relief) (van Kinderen & Klos, 2015) (Quaglia, et al., 2014) (De Temmerman, 2007) (Cortes & Kang, 2016) (Tumbeva, et al., 2016) (Marine Corps Landing Force Development Center, 1967) 19

4.3 - Headings and Criteria 4.3.1 – Connections Accreditation

Description

1a) Use of mechanical connections over chemical (chemical connections are defined as the joints using aggregate based compounds or adhesives) 5

> 90% are mechanical

4

90 ≥ x > 75

3

75 ≥ x > 50

2

50 ≥ x > 25

1

25 ≥ x > 0

0

0%

1b) Number of connection types 5

x=1

4

1>x≥3

3

3>x≥5

2

5>x≥7

1

7>x≥9

0

x>9

1c) Are the joints designed to be reused?

5

Yes, the joints can be reused in other scenarios or if the structure needs moving

3

Yes, but the joints can only be reused by the structure, instead of in other areas

0

No, the joints are non-reusable Table 4.1 - Connections assessment criteria

4.3.2 – Components Accreditation

Description

2a) Number of component types 5

x=1

4

1<x≤3

3

3<x≤5

2

5<x≤7

1

7<x≤9

0

x>9

2b) Are the components interchangeable within the structure?

20

5

All components can be used interchangeably throughout structure (with no set place)

3

50% of the components are interchangeable

0

All parts have specific roles, and can’t be used elsewhere

2c) Is there continual access to structural components?

5

All components can be accessed after erection of shelter

3

50% of the components can be accessed

0

No access once shelter has been erected

2d) Are components suitably sized?

5

> 90% of the components can be carried and arranged by a person

4

90 ≥ x > 75

3

75 ≥ x > 50

2

50 ≥ x > 25

1

25 ≥ x > 0

0

x = 0% Table 4.2 - Component assessment criteria

4.3.3 – Materiality Accreditation 3a) Use of local materials 5

Description

4

> 90% of structure is created from materials that can be sourced within 50 miles of the affected area 90 ≥ x > 75

3

75 ≥ x > 50

2

50 ≥ x > 25

1

25 ≥ x > 0

0

x = 0%

3b) Number of material types 5

x=1

4

1<x≤3

3

3<x≤5

2

5<x≤7

1

7<x≤9

21

0

x>9

3c) How much of the structure is formed from composite materials? (Sandwich panels or aggregate-based compounds) 5 0% 4

0 < x ≤ 25

3

25 < x ≤ 50

2

50 <x ≤ 75

1

75 < x ≤ 90

0

x > 90% Table 4.3 - Materiality assessment criteria

4.3.4 – Handling Accreditation

Description

4a) Is the design modular/expandable?

5 3 0

The entire structure is modular, so can be expanded on indefinitely 50% of the structure is modular, with certain parts able to be expanded None of the structure is modular, and can’t be expanded

4b) Construction Method 5

Structure can be built using hand tools, without heavy machinery 3 Structure requires specialists to erect, but uses accessible tools 0 Structure needs additional machinery to construct, and requires specialists to erect 4c) Does the structure have realistic tolerances?

5 0

Structure designed so tolerances are not an issue Structure has finite tolerances that could prove problematic during construction

4d) Parallel Disassembly 5 4

> 90% of structure can be disassembled in parallel 90 ≥ x > 75

3

75 ≥ x > 50

2

50 ≥ x > 25

1

25 ≥ x > 0

0

Structure has to be disassembled sequentially Table 4.4 - Handling assessment criteria

22

4.3.5 – Practicality Accreditation

Description

5a) Does the shelter use a structural grid 5

Yes, structure is grid-like in nature

0

No

5b) How much of the structure is built from pre-fabricated assemblies?

5 4

> 90% of structure is created using prefabricated units 90 ≥ x > 75

3

75 ≥ x > 50

2

50 ≥ x > 25

1

25 ≥ x > 0

0

0

5c) Provision of on-site storage for spare parts 5 4

Structure arrives by pallet container, so has storage for 100% of spare parts 90 ≥ x > 75

3

75 ≥ x > 50

2

50 ≥ x > 25

1

25 ≥ x > 0

0

0 Table 4.5 - Practicality assessment criteria

23

5. RESULTS 5.1 - Structure Analysis 5.1.1 - Tent Connections 1a 5 1b 2 1c 3

Score Score (%)

Components 2a 2 2b 0 2c 3 2d 5

10 66.6

Materiality 3a 0 3b 3 3c 5

10 50

Handling 4a 0 4b 5 4c 5 4d 0

8 53.3

10 50

Practicality 5a 0 5b 3 5c 5

8 53.3

Table 5.1 - Tent results

Fig. 5.1 - Tent 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Connections

Components

Materiality

Handling

Practicality

Due to its use as a solution to multiple and widely varying scenarios, the tent was consistently average across all the main headings. Where it performed best was in the use of Velcro and buckled connections; the caveat being that there were five different connections throughout the shelter, lowering its score somewhat in this area.

The use of PE fabric and aluminium to create the components parts of the tent meant it couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be repaired using local materials. Whilst this meant it was using five different materials overall, none of these were composite.

An additional note is this shelterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current lack of a solution for winter temperatures, with field tests of winterisation kits recently being carried out (Ledesma, 2015). Any proposed shelter would have to cope with temperature changes daily and annually, due to the expected structural lifespan.

24

5.1.2 - IKEA Better Shelter Connections 1a 5 1b 3 1c 5

Score Score (%)

Components 2a 1 2b 3 2c 5 2d 5

13 86.6

14 70

Materiality 3a 0 3b 3 3c 4

Handling 4a 5 4b 5 4c 5 4d 5

7 46.6

20 100

Practicality 5a 5 5b 1 5c 5

11 73.3

Table 5.2 - IKEA Better Shelter results

Fig. 5.2 - IKEA Better Shelter 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Connections

Components

Materiality

Handling

Practicality

Created primarily to be a solution to the ongoing refugee crisis, the Better Shelter scores highly across almost all the headings. As itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s designed to be an emergency and transitional shelter, the structure is intended to be dismantled and reassembled and expanded by the users, which is why it scores so highly in the handling category.

The main areas for improvement would be using more pre-fabrication in the design, as currently the whole design comes as a multitude of separate pieces. That, and the use of high end plastics and steel mean it canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be repaired if damaged. However, the materiality and practicality of the structure would have to be balanced against the very high flexibility such a shelter provides for the communities using it.

25

5.1.3 - Life Shelter Connections 1a 5 1b 3 1c 3

Score Score (%)

Components 2a 1 2b 0 2c 3 2d 5

11 73.3

9 45

Materiality 3a 0 3b 2 3c 0

Handling 4a 3 4b 3 4c 5 4d 2

2 13.3

Practicality 5a 5 5b 4 5c 5

13 65

14 93.3

Table 5.3 - Life Shelter results

Fig. 5.3 - Life Shelter 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Connections

Components

Materiality

Handling

Practicality

Also being designed as a transitional structure, the Life Shelterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use of composite panels of extruded polystyrene and mortar means it scores low in the materiality section. However, unlike the Better Shelter, this structure manages to combine flexibility and practicality due to its use of pre-fabricated arches, which make up the majority of the structure, and only need to be connected together on site to create the end product.

Another issue with this structure found during research was that it required specialists to build the arch, and that it needed to be secured with specialist equipment. The method of constructing the arch meant that parts of it couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be easily replaced if damaged, and the whole structure would have to be dismantled sequentially. An improvement to this would be creating the arch connection on the interior of the panels, so it could be readily accessed, instead of hidden within.

26

5.1.4 - Cardboard shelter Connections 1a 5 1b 3 1c 3

Score Score (%)

Components 2a 0 2b 0 2c 0 2d 5

11 73.3

5 25

Materiality 3a 3 3b 3 3c 5

Handling 4a 0 4b 5 4c 5 4d 0

11 73.3

Practicality 5a 0 5b 0 5c 5

10 50

5 33.3

Table 5.4 - Cardboard shelter results

Fig. 5.4 - Cardboard Shelter 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Connections

Components

Materiality

Handling

Practicality

For this shelter, the duct tape used to connect the various cardboard components together was considered a mechanical connection, as it didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t chemically bond the materials together, and could be removed. However, it couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be reused, whilst the slotted joints found in the structure could only be used in conjunction within the context of the shelter, and not in other scenarios.

The use of a readily available resource (cardboard) meant this structure scored highly in the materiality category, but the complexity of the shelter design resulted in there being a high number of specific components (22), with the buckling nature of cardboard meaning these components were used purely to create sturdy enough wall and roof panels. This complexity would make relocating and rebuilding the structure hard without specialists being present to supervise, or an adequate identification system showing how the parts should connect to one another.

27

5.1.5 - Origami shelter Connections 1a 5 1b 3 1c 5

Score Score (%)

Components 2a 4 2b 0 2c 5 2d 2

10 73.3

Materiality 3a 0 3b 4 3c 1

11 55

Handling 4a 3 4b 5 4c 5 4d 3

5 33.3

16 80

Practicality 5a 5 5b 4 5c 5

14 93.3

Table 5.5 - Origami shelter results

Fig. 5.5 - Origami Shelter 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Connections

Components

Materiality

Handling

Practicality

Due to using a folding plate technique to create an erected structure, this shelter only had 4 different connection types throughout, but as these couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be reused in other applications apart from those within the structure, this lowered its score here. Whilst the structure scored highly in the handling and practicality sections, there were some caveats. As noted by Quaglia et al in their review of the structure (2014), to lift the side panels into place requires 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 10 men, or 6 - 23 women. However, as no heavy machinery is necessary to do this, it scored highly for this criterion.

The sandwich panels used to create the walls were classed as composite materials, as they were created from multiple materials that couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be separated from one another. Whilst potentially difficult to implement, some way of separating this structure and being able to modify the interior of the sandwich panels would improve this score.

28

5.1.6 - Foldable bar structure Connections 1a 5 1b 3 1c 3

Score Score (%)

Components 2a 3 2b 0 2c 5 2d 2

11 73.3

10 50

Materiality 3a 0 3b 4 3c 5

Handling 4a 0 4b 0 4c 5 4d 0

Practicality 5a 0 5b 4 5c 5

5 25

9 60

9 60

Table 5.6 - Foldable bar structure results

Fig. 5.6 - Folding Bar Structure 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Connections

Components

Materiality

Handling

Practicality

Using a folding bar shell constructed around a membrane, the size of this structure to accommodate a sufficient interior area causes problems with handling and practicality. As the shelter is formed from one single mass of connected bars, and creates a structure higher than a person, lifting equipment has to be used to erect it, meaning a structure of this size would be unsuitable for use in the emergency response stage of a disaster, where infrastructure is either damaged or non-existent, and is why it scores so low in the handling category. Due to the chosen structure being the ‘closed’ state option in order to be suitable as a living shelter, it can’t be expanded on, but the ‘open’ state option could be expanded in the longitudinal direction.

Due to the support structure coming as a single complete unit, none of the components are interchangeable, so it scores low for this criterion. However, in the context of this structure that score isn’t necessarily an issue, as the need for interchangeable parts is non-existent if the support structure comes as one complete unit that can’t be modified.

29

5.1.7 - Transitional wood shelter in the Philippines Connections 1a 5 1b 3 1c 0

Score Score (%)

Components 2a 1 2b 3 2c 5 2d 5

8 53.3

14 70

Materiality 3a 3 3b 3 3c 3

Handling 4a 5 4b 5 4c 5 4d 3

Practicality 5a 5 5b 0 5c 4

18 90

9 60

9 60

Table 5.7 - Transitional wood shelter results

Fig. 5.7 - Transitional Shelter 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Connections

Components

Materiality

Handling

Practicality

Described as a ‘transitional’ structure by Cortes and Kang (2016), this structure was set up for displaced residents after Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, and the support system was modified to combat any extreme wind loads that may occur in the region.

Whilst making use of mechanical connections, due to the timber beams being nailed together, reusing these joints, or re-creating the structure, wouldn’t be an option when it has been dismantled. However these materials could be used in other applications and if local timbers are used instead of plywood, they could be easily replaced as needed. The use of a structural grid for this shelter also meant it scored highly in the handling category, being able to be expanded on as the needs of the occupants change.

To improve this structure, the number of components used to create the structure could be reduced, and the use of concrete within the support system minimised. However, this was most likely an adaption to local constraints, as the concrete foundation was necessary to improve its resistance to wind loading.

30

5.1.8 - Quilted design Connections 1a 5 1b 5 1c 5

Score Score (%)

Components 2a 4 2b 0 2c 5 2d 2

15 100

Materiality 3a 0 3b 4 3c 0

11 55

Handling 4a 0 4b 5 4c 5 4d 0

4 26.6

10 50

Practicality 5a 0 5b 5 5c 5

10 66.6

Table 5.8 - Quilted design results

Fig. 5.8 - Quilt Concept 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Connections

Components

Materiality

Handling

Practicality

From the concept quilted designs proposed by Tumbeva et al (2016), the ‘Sawtooth Star’ design was chosen. This was because it most closely resembled a shape that could be used as a shelter, and wasn’t as disproportionately large as some of the other choices, such as the card trick design, which is built from multiple modules.

As there are only 1 set of connections (connecting the quilt to the ground), and as it’s created from one piece of folded material, it scores highly in the connections category. Like the folding bar structure, this shelter scores low in the components category due to having parts that aren’t interchangeable within the structure, as the whole structure is only comprised of a ‘quilt’ and ground anchors. This lack of parts, with the quilt being made from a composite sandwich panel is also why it scores low in the materiality category.

It is unknown as to whether or not the current concept could be used as part of a modular design, so scored zero. However a later concept and improvement would likely build on this to see if it could be designed in such a way as to allow expansion of the original module.

31

5.1.9 - Prototype Accordion shelter Connections 1a 3 1b 3 1c 3

Score Score (%)

Components 2a 4 2b 0 2c 5 2d 2

9 60

11 55

Materiality 3a 0 3b 3 3c 5

Handling 4a 3 4b 5 4c 5 4d 0

8 53.3

13 65

Practicality 5a 5 5b 5 5c 1

11 73.3

Table 5.9 - Accordion shelter results

Fig. 5.9 - Accordion Shelter 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Connections

Components

Materiality

Handling

Practicality

The accordion shelter seems to be a marginal improvement on the current tent option, but this might simply be because of the time elapsed since the research was initially carried out (Marine Corps Landing Force Development Center, 1967), and so improvements in both technology and material development may help this structure. Also, the majority of problems with the concept were noted at the time (such as metal fatigue on hinge joints) and likely improved on in subsequent versions of the shelter.

The use of the word â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;adheredâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; when referring to the connection between the aluminium frame and the tent structure suggested a chemical connection, so this assumption was taken into account when scoring this criterion. Another issue highlighted in the report was the handling of the structure to return it to its packaged state for moving, as the joints and hinges were quite fragile and would break, but could be otherwise transported by 4 men, or on the back of a trailer as needed â&#x20AC;&#x201C; so these shelters could likely be transported via pallet.

32

5.1.10 - Concrete Canvas Connections 1a 5 1b 4 1c 0

Score Score (%)

Components 2a 4 2b 0 2c 3 2d 1

9 60

8 40

Materiality 3a 0 3b 4 3c 0

Handling 4a 3 4b 0 4c 5 4d 0

Practicality 5a 5 5b 4 5c 0

8 40

9 60

4 26.6

Table 5.10 - Concrete Canvas results

Fig. 5.10 - Concrete Canvas 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Connections

Components

Materiality

Handling

Practicality

In general, the Concrete Canvas shelter is unlikely to be suited to humanitarian relief efforts due to its bulk, and the difficulty to move it once erected. The use of a composite material such as concrete also increases its complexity. On top of this, the concrete is unique, and canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be replaced due to being sealed into the canvas. However, its minimal use of connectors due to being formed from a single air filled mass was a novel idea that could be further developed.

33

5.2 - Direct Comparisons

Fig. 5.11 - Connection Comparison 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Tent

IKEA

Life Shelter

Cardboard

Origami

Folding Bar

Transitional

Quilt

Accordion Shelter

Concrete Canvas

Due to being created from a single sheet of material, the quilt design scored the highest in this category, with the IKEA one also scoring high due to its high use of reusable mechanical connections, with a caveat being the number of types of connection used. Other shelter options were fairly consistent with their scoring, due to their use of mechanical connections; a factor certain to be included in any proposed structure. The main reason the transitional shelter scored the lowest was due to the use of non-reusable nails in the support structure, so a potential modification to using bolts/screws or brackets would improve this value.

Fig. 5.12 - Components Comparison 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Tent

IKEA

Life Shelter

Cardboard

Origami

Folding Bar

Transitional

Quilt

Accordion Shelter

Concrete Canvas

34

For the majority of structures in this category, the high number of components used were why most of them scored lower in this category than those previous. The cardboard shelter was a prime example of this, using just over 20 unique components, with some clad in more cardboard, removing access once the structure was erected.

The transitional and IKEA shelters did better than the other structures due to having nondescript components that could be used interchangeably throughout the structure, and that were always accessible.

Fig. 5.13 - Materiality Comparison 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Tent

IKEA

Life Shelter

Cardboard

Origami

Folding Bar

Transitional

Quilt

Accordion

Concrete Canvas

A lack of local materials was a key issue for the majority of structures in this category, with the notable exception being the cardboard and transitional shelters. However, this lack of local materials may be due to the inherent nature of these structures; as to be able to be moved around, be deployable from a packaged configuration, and be disassembled and reassembled multiple times, a high specification material such as a composite or alloy is likely to be necessary.

The structures that scored the lowest (the Life Shelter/quilt design/Concrete Canvas) are all composed of one primary composite material, whether it be some form of concrete (Life Shelter/Concrete Canvas) or sandwich panel (quilt). With the original point made about a high specification material being necessary, these low scores might be less of an issue. However, the problems associated with concrete, mainly its bulk and lack of ease of repair to a suitable standard if damaged, may make it a less viable option for a humanitarian shelter that can be used in the emergency phase as well as the rehabilitation process.

35

Fig. 5.14 - Handling Comparison 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Tent

IKEA

Life Shelter

Cardboard

Origami

Folding Bar

Transitional

Quilt

Accordion

Concrete Canvas

This category is where there is the most disparity between shelters, due to it covering several differing criteria, whereas the other headings were quite centred. The folding bar structure scores low due to the overall size of the example chosen (this was mostly to achieve a suitable habitable area inside). The transitional and IKEA shelters again score highly, and this is mostly due to the fact they can be disassembled sequentially, something that very few of the other structures can do to the same standard.

Out of the two concrete shelters, the Life Shelter manages to score better than the Concrete Canvas due to having easily separable panels, whilst the concrete canvas is a single mass. This also means that the Life Shelter is considerably easier to move and may be manually handled by only a few people.

Fig. 5.15 - Practicality Comparison 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Tent

IKEA

Life Shelter

Cardboard

Origami

Folding Bar

Transitional

Quilt

Accordion

Concrete Canvas

36

Due to the temporary and deployable nature of all the chosen shelters, and therefore an inherent design towards practicality, most scored highly when compared to other categories. Cardboard scored low in this category due to its non-modular shape and lack of prefabricated parts, with each cardboard component coming separately. Supply of the major components (roof/walls) prebuilt to some extent may afford a better solution but this would have to be balanced against the ease of transport for a flat-pack solution. The Life Shelter and origami shelters both scored high due to their use of a structural grid, which would be the best method to create a structure that is expandable across all major axis.

Each shelter has potential for on-site storage, due to often being transported to affected areas via storage pallet. Those that were constructed from a single main component, such as the quilted design, scored fully in this criterion due to provision for spares being unnecessary - as it would just be another shelter. However there would likely have to be storage for repair materials and tools in order to adequately maintain these options.

Fig. 5.16 - Fulfilment of Criteria 100 90

% of Criteria Achieved

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Tent

IKEA

Life Shelter

Cardboard

Origami

Folding Bar

Transitional

Quilt

Accordion

Concrete Canvas

From the unweighted results, there isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t a clear â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;winnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; as to the best shelter to carry further into the proposal/modification stage, with the IKEA, origami and transitional shelters being the three that stand out, with the IKEA shelter the best of those. However, it can be clearly seen that the tent is a poor option, being a generic choice that can be utilised in multiple scenarios.

37

5.3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Categories & Comparison After the direct comparison of each structure against itself and one another, the options were assessed together in two main categories: rigid panel and origami/folding, with additional shelters that fit into neither category (tent/transitional/concrete canvas) being in a miscellaneous category.

The results from each structure were then averaged across each structure grouping to see if there was a type that was an improvement over the others.

Fig. 5.17 - Grouped Connections Comparison 100 90

Avg. Results (%)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Panel

Origami/Folding

Misc

Fig. 5.18 - Grouped Components Comparison 100 90

Avg. Results (%)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Panel

Origami/Folding

Misc

38

Fig. 5.19 - Grouped Materiality Comparison 100 90

Avg. Results (%)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Panel

Origami/Folding

Misc

Fig. 5.20 - Grouped Handling Comparison 100 90

Avg. Results (%)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Panel

Origami/Folding

Misc

Fig. 5.21 - Grouped Practicality Comparison 100 90

Avg. Results (%)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Panel

Origami/Folding

Misc.

39

Fig. 5.22 - Grouped Fulfilment of Criteria Comparison 100 90

Avg. Results (%)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Panel

Origami/Folding

Misc

With the three previously stated structures (IKEA/origami/transitional) each being from a separate category grouping, the results show that some form of weighting is likely needed to be able to definitively say which option is the best structure for humanitarian crises. Further to this, comparing each shelter in specific categories suggests that the panelled options would be most suitable but these rank considerably lower on practicality than the origami/folding options, something which would be very important for any proposal, further highlighting a need for weighting.

The varying performance of the shelters throughout category shows that there is no overall ‘best’ type of shelter for humanitarian work. However, due to the low number of shelters analysed, one result that is significantly lower than the rest would have a large effect on the score for that shelter type in that category, with the obvious way of resolving this being to include more structures for analysis.

5.4 – Weighting To be able to weight the shelters to see if a major outlier occurs, current precedents and methods of weighting were looked at. However, the only sustainable design brief that does weight its categories is BREEAM (BREEAM). Each category is calculated as a percentage out of 100 depending on its relative importance, then each sub-category within that is weighted, with the credits being assigned as a sub-division of the category’s overall percentage.

However, as is the often cited issue with BREEAM’s weighting, it’s hard to ascertain how the weighting of the categories were actually assigned, and the initial percentages assigned can seem to be quite arbitrary. Because of this, other methods of weighting were examined.

40

Fig 5.23 – An example of BREEAM’s weighting system

Figresearched 5.23 – An example of BREEAM’s weighting By using articles already in the initial literature review, andsystem other design guides such as Australia’s Green Globes ( (Crowther, 2005), (Kibert, 2016), (Pulaski, 2004), (Saghafi & Teshnizi, 2011), (Thrall & Quaglia, 2014) ), the author was able to find how many times a design principle or issue relating to the main headings in the created table were mentioned. This permitted a weight to be applied to each category. Out of the 74 mentions highlighted, 15 were related to connections (20.27%), 11 to components (14.86%), 14 to materiality (18.92%) 13 to handling (17.57%), and 21 to practicality (28.38%). These mentions were then used to calculate the weighting of each category, as seen below.

Category

Mentions (%)

Weighting

Connections

20.27

1.0135

Components

14.86

0.743

Materiality

18.92

0.946

Handling

17.57

0.8785

Practicality

28.38

1.419

Table 5.11 - Weighting calculation

41

The effect that this weighting had on the results was marginal, with the percentage fulfilment results, both individually and per category, being closer than if they were unweighted. Another method of weighting that could be considered would be via self-weighting each category personally. This would obviously lend itself though to a considerable amount of bias, and would once again result in a seemingly arbitrary weighting, with whichever result came out best being open to considerable criticism as to why.

Fig. 5.24 - Fulfillment of Criteria % of Criteria Achieved

100 80 60 40 20 0 Tent

IKEA

Life Shelter

Cardboard

Origami

Folding Bar

Transitional

Quilt

Accordion

Concrete Canvas

Fig. 5.25 - Fulfillment of Criteria (Weighted) 100

Criteria Met (%)

80 60 40 20 0 Tent

IKEA

Life Shelter

Cardboard

Origami

Folding Bar

Transitional

Quilt

Accordion

Concrete Canvas

42

Fig. 5.26 - Grouped Fulfillment of Criteria Comparison 100 90

Avg. Results (%)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rigid/panel

Origami/Folding

Misc

Fig. 5.27 - Grouped Fufillment Of Criteria Comparison (Weighted) 100 90

Avg. Results (%)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rigid/Panel

Origami/folding

Misc

However, with and without weighting, the IKEA shelter scores the highest both times, and with the Rigid/Panel group of shelters being the highest scoring category both unweighted and weighted as well, the Better Shelter was chosen to be taken forward to be modified to better accommodate the created brief.

43

6. PROPOSAL 6.1 - Brief As mentioned previously, the IKEA Foundation’s Better Shelter (IFBS) was chosen to be more closely analysed in the following section. To be able to improve on the current model a written brief to work against needs to be created. Using data previously researched and analysed in both the literature review and the structure comparisons, this brief ensures that a proposed shelter is most effective for humanitarian crises.

Fig. 6.1 – Structure proposal brief

1. Size/Accommodation

Fig. 6.1 – Structure proposal brief

Recent humanitarian reports from sampled refugees in Jordan state that the mean family size for a Syrian household within several host communities is 6.30 persons (AMEU, 2013). Because of this, any proposed shelter should be able to suitably accommodate between 6 and 7 people.

Guidelines from The Sphere Project (2011) give a minimum useable floor area of 3.5 m2 per person, and a floor to ceiling height in excess of 2m, resulting in any proposal requiring a minimum floor space of 24.5 m2.

44

2. Climate Adaptability

Temperature (Damascus) 40

Temperature (°C)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Min

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Max

Fig. 6.2 - Typical temperatures in Damascus (Weather Online, n.d.)

Fig.surrounding 6.2 - Typical temperatures Damascus (WeatherasOnline, With Syria and the countries being in described climatically ‘mostlyn.d.) desert’ (CIA, 2017) the average temperature fluctuates considerably both daily and annually. Any shelter needs to be able to mitigate and dampen these fluctuations to provide occupants with a desired ambient temperature of between 15 and 19oC (Wisner & Adams, 2002), creating a comfortable and stable living environment. As noted previously, current lightweight options such as tents need additional kits to combat winter conditions (Ledesma, 2015), so this means a solely fabric shelter is likely to be unsuitable for the aforementioned temperatures. With the issues with rigid shelters being spoken about earlier, mainly their lack of portability, the best option in terms of materiality would likely be sandwich panels, or something similar. However, this would result in a proposal scoring low due to likely lack of local materials and an increase in composites, so this issue would have to be carefully balanced.

3. Structural Lifespan With the Syrian civil war and ensuing refugee crisis in their 6th year, and some affected communities being displaced for a majority of this time, any shelter proposal needs to have a long lifespan. An initial shelter in its primary configuration needs to have a minimum lifespan of 5-7 years, and any secondary components which can be used in the rehabilitation phase need to have a useable lifespan of 15+ years. Ideally, the majority of the structure should be able to last this entire time but, if needed, repairs to the building fabric should be simple, and able to be carried out without specialist help.

45

4. Building Method This drive to be user orientated also ties into the 4th principle outlined in the brief; that the shelter should be simple to build and expand on, so that the task can be performed by the end users.

Once the initial disaster response is completed, most specialists will have left, so having a complicated and intricate structure will be useless as it canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be suitably maintained by the communities using it. Specific and unique tools used to erect the structure should be kept to a minimum, as if lost they would be difficult to replace. Another way to simplify the erection and maintenance processes would be identifying components, and having any fitting/installation instructions permanently inscribed or denoted on key parts.

5. Portability With infrastructure severely damaged or destroyed entirely after a crisis has occurred (e.g. after flooding due to Typhoon Morakot in Taiwan in 2009 over 200 bridges were damaged, with over 100 being washed away, isolating communities who might need disaster aid (Yeh, et al., 2015)).

Because of this, proposed structures should be made to fit on a storage pallet, in this case a standard pallet size of 1200 x 1000 x 162mm (CHEP), which is used by most of Europe (including the UK), Latin America, India, and New Zealand. This allows for a universal transport method, and also means it can be easily scaled to be airlifted if necessary.

Fig. 6.3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; CHEP 1200 x 1000mm pallet (CHEP)

Fig. 6.3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; CHEP 1200 x 1000mm pallet (CHEP) 6. 100% Mechanical Connections The final principle for any proposed structure would be that any connections are 100% mechanical, without the use of any adhesives or other chemical connections. This relates back to the 4th principle about the shelter being easy to use, and the use of mechanical connections means they can be reused as necessary in the rebuilding after a crisis. It also removes the need for any specialist knowledge of joining processes if the connections are either bolted/hinged/screwed.

46

6.2 – Issues & Improvements Recently, reported issues with the IFBS have been highlighted, with Better Shelter themselves releasing a report highlighting some of its design flaws, and subsequent improvements they’re planning to make to the shelter (Fairs, 2017). For example, one of the recent issues highlighted with the structure is its potential vulnerability to fire, with the UNHCR recently stating that two-thirds of the shelters procured in 2015 (10,000 of a possible 15,000 shelters) have been mothballed due to this issue (Fairs, 2017). From the problems highlighted in this report, and others that Better Shelter haven’t addressed or fixed, 4 main issues and potential improvements will be discussed below: improvements to the building fabric; the structural joints; the roof; and the modular capabilities.

6.2.1 – Modular Improvements To serve as a basis to create improvements to the IFBS, a key issue was chosen: its modularity.

Whilst scoring highly in this category in the previous tables, and the supposed ability to be expanded indefinitely, there are in fact still issues with it not being able to fully achieve this. This is partly due to its lack of factored dimensions (3.32m * 5.68m), so to improve modularity of the structure, and catalyse further improvement, the shelter can be split into smaller entities which are 3m * 3m. This then creates a simplified square module which can be joined together to create a starting shelter which is 3m * 9m, resulting in a useable floor space of 27m2, exceeding the minimum of 24.5m2 outlined in the brief (Of course if there are fewer people living in the shelter, then a smaller version with less attached modules could be erected instead).

Fig. 6.4 – New Shelter Proposal (NSP) (Not to scale)

Fig. 6.4 – New shelter module (Not to scale) 47

Fig. 6.5 – Base shelter, showing potential additional configurations (Not to scale)

6.2.2 – Fabric And Envelope Improvements As discussed in previous areas, of the mainshowing issues found withadditional the (IFBS) was the use of high Fig. 6.5 –one Base shelter, potential configurations to scale) end materials, and composite alloy elements.

The(Not caveat of this being that the structure needs to be able to accommodate families from the emergency phase of a disaster to the rehabilitation phase, which could be longer than 5 years (as is the case with the civil war in Syria). With the given lifespan of the shelter being stated as 3 years on the company website (IKEA Foundation), these materials are likely most suitable. However, one problem relating to these materials is the weight of each shelter, as it currently arrives in two 80kg boxes. This is one of the issues that Better Shelter have stated that the new model will improve on, with ‘panels ‘which will be lighter and stronger, but also cheaper to produce’ (Fairs, 2017).

The issue with these improved panels is the likelihood that they will be composite sandwich panels, which can’t be broken down into their constituent parts, so are harder to reuse in later scenarios.

One change that could be implemented would be having the ability to fasten panels to both the inside and the outside of the shelter, instead of just the outside, which would form a cavity suitable for insulation to be added if necessary. This would allow for the panels to be shipped to the disaster area pre-fabricated for easier erection, then dismantled for easier transport once the displaced communities move or return home. The insulated panels also help combat the ventilation issues being experienced by the refugees, as it has been stated that the wind can currently pass through the IFBS.

48

Fig. 6.6 – Current panel fastening system (IKEA Foundation)

Fig. 6.6 – Current panel fastening system (IKEA Foundation)

Fig. 6.7 – Insulation and panel layout, with either fasteners or tie bars acting as the connectors

Fig. 6.7 Insulation and paneltemperature layout, withfluctuation either Due to lifespan of the shelter, and–the aforementioned throughout the year, fasteners or tie bars acting as the connectors such a system would allow for removal of insulation during the Summer months, then for it to be replaced back into the structure during Winter, as necessary. In addition to completing brief point 2, this also creates a shelter envelope that can suit multiple climates, with the potential for different insulation types to be distributed depending on the disaster location.

Whilst supplied with a Tarpaulin groundsheet, the flooring of the IFBS is often unsuitable, with shelters in Iraq being mounted on concrete slabs to improve insulation/and protection from the elements (Fairs, 2017). Whilst this is one solution, pouring concrete is a more permanent intervention on the landscape, and would not be able to be moved once the rehabilitation process starts, creating unnecessary waste which could be avoided if the floor was included as part of the whole structure’s envelope.

49

Fig. 6.8 – Floor ‘tile’ layout (Not to scale)

Fig.fit6.8 Floor ‘tile’ within layoutthe (Not to scale)alleviates the need for a Creating smaller floor ‘tiles’ that on –the ground structure concrete slab underneath the shelter, and can also be thermally insulated much like the new panel design, reducing heat loss through the ground surface, and providing a more comfortable ground plane than either a groundsheet or slab. The downside of this being that it adds further components to the proposal, and it needs to be assessed how the tiles could be used once the shelter is no longer needed.

Another area Better Shelter have looked at to improve the IFBS is the roof envelope. The likely improvement for this will be using the new panels used on the walls but it could also be modified to be a folding bar structure. Whilst increasing the complexity of the structure, it would result in a reduced erection time, less than the current 4 hrs, and streamline the initial deployment process.

Cross bracing could then be applied to the roof once fully deployed to increase stability. An additional hinged bracing system could have been implemented to have the cross bracing already applied to the roof structure, however the increased complexity of this form would outweigh the ease of erection. Provision would have to be made to be able to repair the structure if necessary, so a suitable form of connector is vital.

Fig. 6.9 – Diagram of roof erection

Fig. 6.9 – Diagram of roof erection

50

To be able to join the roof system, use of either the joint proposed below, or something similar to NASA’s STAC-BEAM design, could achieve the degrees of freedom necessary to facilitate easy deployment. However, the problem with using these types of joints is that they significantly increase the complexity of the shelter connections, so the benefits of using this system need to outweigh the issues. Also transferring a joint that is currently used for satellite masts, as is the case with the NASA design, to a humanitarian application in refugee shelters may not be viable.

Fig. 6.10 – Potential roof joint for central support bar

Fig. 6.10 – Potential roof joint for central support bar

Fig. 6.11 – NASA STAC-BEAM joint types (Adams & Roos, 1985) 51 Fig. 6.11 – NASA STAC-BEAM joint types (Adams & Roos, 1985)

The other problem with creating a roof form that is a single entity is that there still needs to be a connection at some point between roof and wall. This could be achieved either by using soft clamps to connect to the top wall rod, some form of bolted/threaded end-plate, or a combination of the two.

Fig. 6.12 – Roof to wall connections via either clamps, or end-plates which can be bolted through

Fig. 6.12 – Roof to wall connections via either clamps, or 6.2.2 – Joint Improvements end-plates which can be screwed through An issue not highlighted by the report, but released by an NGO field engineer, is the stability issues with some of the joints on the structure, as a lack of lateral stability means that the occupants have had to apply additional rudimentary bracing. The implementation of better cross bracing, the use of a braced joint at these areas, or simply adding a more robust joint would be required.

Alternatively, the new roof structure may start to fix the issues with lateral stability due to the additional cross-bracing it provides. As each module comes as one complete part, clamping them together to form the final structure should also help with lateral stability, and the joints at the corner will only be supporting bars in 3 different directions, compared to the four the joint below is doing.

Fig. 6.13 – Picture showing rudimentary fix to joint (Fairs, 2017) 52 Fig. 6.13 – Picture showing rudimentary fix to joint (Fairs, 2017)

Fig. 6.14 – Proposed corner joint, which the support bars slide onto

6.2.3 – Accessibility Improvements Fig. 6.14 – Proposed corner joint, which the support barsnot slide Something else highlighted by the report, but theonto table research, was the lack of accessibility for wheelchair users, as the doors on the current model are too narrow, and a low sill to get through the door further hinders access for handicapped individuals. Better Shelter have stated that they will be improving accessibility in the subsequent model, but didn’t specify how. On the proposed model, this could be done by lowering the door opening in a specific panel type, then using a low bar or something similar to maintain structural rigidity on that edge. Along the outer edges of the door panel, additional cross-bracing can maintain structural rigidity. A creation of a specific interchangeable door panel also allows for removal/moving of doors so they don’t necessarily have to be at the ends of the shelter.

53

Fig. 6.15 – Door panel design (Not to scale)

6.3 – Proposal Assessment Fig. 6.15 – Door panel design (Not to scale) 6.3.1 – Assessment Against Brief Before assessing the proposed structure against the current shelter, it needs to be checked to see if it manages to achieve all the points outlined in the brief.

1. Size/Accommodation With the creation of a structure that is based around a module system which can be expanded on, it’s able to accommodate any family size necessary.

2. Climate Adaptability The creation of an envelope that can accommodate insulation as necessary, and be dismantled and modified results in a shelter that can change to suit the climatic conditions of the given area.

3. Structural Lifespan Whilst it’s unknown if the components of the proposal will be able to achieve the lifespan stated in the initial brief, it can be assumed that the parts used will be similar to those in the original shelter, which can survive over the given time period.

54

4. Building Method Much like the IFBS, all the joints and processes are made to be simple, and the use of bolted connections mean the structure can be built with just a hammer.

5. Portability With the roof now coming as a single folding component, it may be more difficult to fit the structure onto a single pallet. As the longest element is one of the roof supports at 1.56m, it wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t fit perfectly onto a pallet, but would likely be securely wrapped onto the pallet - this is something to be considered during subsequent design improvement. Also to note, this proposal would fit with the pallet dimensions that Better Shelter use currently, which are 1990 * 1120 * 170mm (Better Shelter), and these units can currently be airlifted to the affected area.

6. 100% Mechanical Connections Much like the assessment of principle 4, the changes between the IFBS and the NSP in terms of joints are minimal, but all joints that have been modified can either be bolted or fastened together, so there are no chemical connections found within either structure.

To be able to check if this structure is a viable improvement to the IFBS, it can be checked against the same table system as the previously analysed structures. Due to additional issues with the IFBS from the report now being made known to the author, such as the modularity of the structure not being as high as initially stated, the results for the original shelter have been updated to reflect this change in knowledge.

6.3.2 - IKEA Better Shelter results Connections Components 1a 5 2a 1 1b 3 2b 3 1c 5 2c 5 2d 5 Score Score (%)

13 86.6

14 70

Materiality 3a 0 3b 3 3c 4

Handling 4a 3 4b 5 4c 5 4d 5

7 46.6

18 90

Practicality 5a 5 5b 1 5c 5

11 73.3

Table 6.1 - IKEA Better Shelter results 6.3.3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; New Shelter Proposal results Connections Components 1a 5 2a 2 1b 3 2b 3 1c 5 2c 5 2d 4 Score Score (%)

13 86.6

14 70

Materiality 3a 0 3b 3 3c 5

Handling 4a 5 4b 5 4c 5 4d 5

8 53.3

20 100

Practicality 5a 5 5b 3 5c 5

13 86.6

Table 6.2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; New Shelter Proposal results 55

Fig. 6.16 - IKEA Better Shelter 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Connections

Components

Materiality

Handling

Practicality

Fig. 6.17 - New Shelter Proposal 100 90 80

Results (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Connections

Components

Materiality

Handling

Practicality

Fig. 6.18 - Fulfilment of Criteria Comparison 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 IFBS

Proposal

56

Using only the tables to ascertain whether or not the proposed structure is an improvement compared to IFBS shows that there are marginal improvements in some categories - most notably for practicality due to the creation of the roof as a single folding-bar structure increasing the amount of the shelter which is pre-fabricated. Whilst the changes may result in small increases in score in the table, some of the changes highlighted in the previous section were more focused on qualitative issues. This is potentially one of the shortcomings of the initial tables, as the focus is almost entirely on the structure itself, and not the occupants.

57

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 - Discussion The original issue outlined by this report was that there was a lack of shelter alternatives to the tent, which through the course of writing has been found to not be the case. Whilst this is partially down to the author’s original lack of knowledge on the subject, the increase in alternatives is also likely due to a changing world landscape. With recent world crises such as the Syrian Civil War spurring on shelter development and improvement, most of the new concepts and shelters reviewed in this report have arisen in the past 3-5 years. With refugee camps being described as ‘the cities of tomorrow’ (Radford, 2015), adequate resources and thinking need to be focused on refugee shelter design.

Another point raised by the literature review is that most of the deployable shelter options were unsuitable for humanitarian relief due to their intricate nature, such as the folding bar structures, and that they were instead created for high-end applications, such as exhibitions or space systems. Even though this cross-over between deployable shelters and humanitarian relief is currently small, further development in this overlapping area could expedite the relief process with faster to erect and dismantle deployable structures, and allow for better designed relief shelters as has been the case with the IFBS, and the potential improvements given in the previous section.

The use of Design for Disassembly principles to create the marking tables allowed for a more quantitative method of comparing existing shelters, and could form the framework for the creation of shelters most suited to future humanitarian scenarios using the criteria outlined within the table as a supporting basis. However, improvements to these tables would likely come from some form of post-occupancy checks or quality of life assessment, as the human element to these shelters was something not considered in the initial analysis - an example of this being that the IFBS has a raised sill and narrow doorway limiting disabled access, highlighted due to the fact that handicapped people were being given priority on these shelters due to them being an improvement on the current tent option. Considering this report focused on a humanitarian crisis stemming from a civil war, it’s likely that there would be a higher than normal percentage of injured and handicapped refugees trying to escape the violence occurring in their home country, meaning that a shelter needs to be able to accommodate these people effectively.

Being able to more closely scrutinise each structure would help give a more accurate score to each option, as not being able to see the shelters, and having very little additional information on them sometimes meant that the points awarded in that category were based on assumptions. For instance there wasn’t comprehensive information on the folding bar structure, so pieces from the text and general assumptions from renderings of it had to be used to give it a full score. To alleviate this issue in the report, the structures with the most amount of supporting information were chosen, but for wider application, there could be a system that uses a N/A score, which was

58

subsequently added to modify the score either directly, or as a multiplier added to the end results, depending on the quantity.

Whilst the marking tables need improving to cover more than just the structural aspect of a shelter, their use allowed for the IFBS to be chosen as the most suitable deployable structure for humanitarian relief, and to be analysed further in the report. With the creation of a brief, the subsequent modifications that were outlined in the previous section were most suited to improving the occupantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s quality of life whilst using them and created a modular proposal that could be used across a wider range of scenarios. The recent report on the IFBS (Fairs, 2017) allowed for much closer scrutiny of the shelter as a whole, and highlighted issues, such as the disabled access, that otherwise wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have been known to the author due to not having that data available in either text or through the use of the tables.

7.2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Further Research To be able to build on what has been discussed on this report, the most important task would be further improvements to the IFBS and the new shelter proposal, then subsequent design and feasibility tests of the improved proposal. With an improved model of the IFBS being discussed by Better Shelter as being available before the end of 2017 (Fairs, 2017), the combination of improvements from both that structure and the NSP would be able to create a fully viable and complete humanitarian shelter. Field testing of this improved shelter would then be able to justify if the design was suitable.

Something not discussed in this report is long term research into the quality of life of the occupants of these shelters, as a report by the UNHCR now estimates that the average duration of a major refugee situation is 17 years (UNHCR, 2004). As the IFBS has only been available since 2015, this research is incomplete so a further quality of life assessment catered to refugee shelters, and the refugees themselves, would be a suitable way to gauge how their psychological needs could be met through improved shelter design.

As discussed in the previous section the cross-over between deployable structure and humanitarian shelter is currently quite small. Research into how these structures could be modified and improved to allow them to be viable for use in these scenarios would be a suitable area to focus on, and then whether ideas or components from this research could be carried over into other applications, such as home or commercial use.

59

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, L. R. & Roos, A. v., 1985. STACBEAM II - Final Report, Phase VI, Real Carpinteria: NASA. Adrover, E. R., 2015. Deployable Structures. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd. AMEU, 2013. Food Security Situation And Livelihood Intervention Opportunities For Syrian Refugees And Host Communities In North Jordan, s.l.: Acted.

Anderson, S. M., 2011. Save Energy, Save Our Troops, s.l.: New York Times.

Army Natick Laboratories, 1972. Reference Manual On Shelters. Natick: s.n.

ARUP, 2013. Designing For The Deconstruction Process - Final Report, s.l.: Chartered Institute Of Building.

Better Shelter, n.d. A Home Away From Home. [Online] Available at: http://www.bettershelter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/About_Better-Shelter.pdf [Accessed 12 May 2017].

Braungart, M. & William, M., 2008. Cradle To Cradle â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Remaking The Way We Make Things.

London: Vintage Books.

BREEAM, n.d. BREEAM. [Online] Available at: http://www.breeam.com/ [Accessed 22 February 2017].

Burak, R., 2010. Designing For Adaptability, Disassembly, And Deconstruction. PCI Journal, 55(3), pp. 40-43.

Burford, N. & Gengnagel, C., 2006. Transformable Structures For Mobile Shelters. Eindhoven, Adaptability in Design and Construction.

Buri, H. & Weinand, Y., 2008. ORIGAMI - Folded Plate Structures, Architecture. Miyazaki, World Conference On Timber Engineering.

Chau, C. K., Xu, J. M., Leung, T. M. & Ng, W. Y., 2016. Evaluation Of The Impacts Of End-Of-Life Management Strategies For Deconstruction Of A High-Rise Concrete Framed Office Building.

Applied Energy.

CHEP, n.d. Wooden Pallet - 1200 x 1000mm. [Online] Available at: http://www.chep.com/pallets/wooden-pallet-1200-x-1000-mm/ [Accessed 27 April 2017].

60

CIA, 2017. CIA World Factbook: Syria. [Online] Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html [Accessed 27 April 2017].

Concrete Canvas, n.d. Concrete Canvas Shelters. [Online] Available at: http://www.concretecanvas.com/concrete-canvas-shelters/what-is-it/ [Accessed 22 February 2017].

Cortes, G. & Kang, E., 2016. Full-Scale Test Of Transistional Wood Shelter Used By Victims Of Typhoon Haiyan. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 157, pp. 1522.

Cosgun, N. & Arslan, H., 2011. Analysis Of Recycling And Re-use Possibilites Of Temporary Earthquake Houses Construction Materials In The Context Of Waste Management. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 12(1), pp. 188-198.

Crowther, P., 2005. Design For Disassembly - Themes And Principles, s.l.: BDP Environment Design.

De Temmerman, N., 2007. Design And Analysis Of Deployable Bar Structures For Mobile Architectural Applications, Brussels: Vrije Universiteit.

Densley Tingley, D. & Davison, B., 2011. Design For Deconstruction And Material Reuse.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Energy, 164(4), pp. 195-204.

Din, A. & Brotas, L., 2016. Exploration Of Life Cycle Data Calculation: Lessons From A Passivhaus Case Study. Energy and Buildings, Volume 118, pp. 82-92.

Diyamandoglu, V. & Fortuna, L. M., 2015. Deconstruction Of Wood-Framed Houses: Material Recovery And Environmental Impact. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 100, pp.

21-30.

EPAL, n.d. EPAL - The European Pallet Association. [Online] Available at: https://www.epal-pallets.org/eu-en/the-success-system/about-epal/ [Accessed 27 April 2017].

Fairs, M., 2017. IKEA Refugee Shelter To Be Redesigned Following Safety Fears And Design Flaws. [Online] Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2017/04/27/ikea-unhcr-refugee-better-shelter-redesignsafety-fears-flaws/ [Accessed 03 May 2017].

Fairs, M., 2017. Ten Thousand IKEA Refugee Shelters Left Unused Over Fire Fears, United Nations Admits. [Online] Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2017/04/29/united-nations-admits-10000-ikea-better-shelter61

refugees-mothballed-fire-fears/ [Accessed 3 May 2007].

Fernandez-Serrano, M. P., n.d. The Movable Theatre From Emilio PĂŠrez PiĂąero. A Space-Time Journey. [Online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu/25017685/The_movable_Theatre_from_Emilio_P%C3%A9rez_Pi%C3 %B1ero._A_space-time_journey [Accessed 21 April 2017].

Gantes, C. J., Connor, J. J., Logcher, R. D. & Yechiel, R., 1989. Structural Design And Analysis Of Deployable Structures. Computers And Structures, 32(3/4), pp. 661-669.

Guy, B. & Ciarimboli, N., 2007. Design For Disassembly In The Built Environment: A Guide To Closed Loop Design And Building. s.l.:Pennsylvania State University.

Huuhka, S., Kaasalainen, T., Hakanen, J. H. & Lahdensivu, J., 2015. Reusing Concrete Panels From Buildings To Building: Potential In Finnish 1970s Mass Housing. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 101, pp. 105-121.

IFRC Shelter Research Unit, 2015. Lifeshelter Evaluation Study. Luxembourg, IFRC. IFRC, n.d. Family Tent, Geodesic. [Online] Available at: http://itemscatalogue.redcross.int/detail.aspx?volume=1&groupcode=111&familycode=111001&cat egorycode=TENT&productcode=HSHETENT11 [Accessed 22 February 2017].

IKEA Foundation, n.d. Better Shelter. [Online] Available at: http://www.bettershelter.org/ [Accessed 17 November 2016].

Kibert, C. J., 2016. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design And Delivery. 4th ed.

Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Ledesma, D., 2015. Emergency Shelter For Winter Conditions. Luxembourg, IFRC. Lee, T.-U. & Gattas, J. M., 2016. Geometric Design And Construction Of Structurally Stabilized Accordion Shelters. J. Mechanisms Robotics, 8(3).

Marine Corps Landing Force Development Center, 1967. Project Report 42-61-01A: Shelter, Portable, Frame Type, Small, Quantico: Marine Corps Landing Force Development Activities, Marine Corps Schools.

Mclean, W. & Silver, P., 2015. Air Structures. s.l.:Laurence King.

62

Mira, L. A., Thrall, A. P. & Temmerman, N. D., 2014. Deployable Scissor Arch For Transistional Shelters. Automation in Construction, Volume 43, pp. 123-131.

Ou, J. et al., 2016. aeroMorph - Heat-sealing Inflatable Shape-change Materials, Cambridge, USA: MIT Media Lab. Pellegrino, S., 2001. Deployable Structures. 1 ed. s.l.:Springer-Verlag Wien.

Pulaski, M., 2004. Design For Deconstruction. Modern Steel Construction, 44(6), pp. 33-37.

Quaglia, C. P., Dascanio, A. J. & Thrall, A. P., 2014. Bascule Shelters: A Novel Erection Strategy For Origami-Inspired Deployable Structures. Engineering Structures, Volume 75, pp. 276-287.

Quaglia, C. P., Yu, N., Thrall, A. P. & Paolucci, S., 2014. Balancing Energy Efficiency And Structural Performance Through Multi-Objective Shape Optimization: Case Study Of A Rapidly Deployable Origami-Inspired Shelter. Energy and Buildings, Volume 82, pp. 733-745.

Radford, T., 2015. Refugee Camps Are The "Cities Of Tomorrow", Says Humanitarian-Aid Expert.

[Online] Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2015/11/23/refugee-camps-cities-of-tomorrow-killiankleinschmidt-interview-humanitarian-aid-expert/ [Accessed 12 May 2017].

Real Relief, n.d. Lifeshelter. [Online] Available at: http://www.realreliefway.com/en-us/life-savingproducts/habitat/lifeshelter%C2%AE/shelters [Accessed 22 February 2017].

Red Cross, 2011. Transitional Shelters - Eight Designs. s.l.:International Federation of Red Cross, Red Crescent Societies.

Rios, F. C., Chong, W. K. & Grau, D., 2015. Design For Disassembly And Deconstruction Challenges And Opportunities. Procedia Engineering, Volume 118, pp. 1296-1304.

Saghafi, M. D. & Teshnizi, Z. A. H., 2011. Building Deconstruction And Material Recovery In Iran: An Analysis Of Major Determinants. Procedia Engineering , Volume 21, pp. 853-863.

Shelter Centre, 2012. Transistional Shelter Guidelines, s.l.: Shelter Centre.

Sturgis, S. & Roberts, G., 2010. Redefining Zero: Carbon Profiling As A Solution To Whole Life Carbon Emission Measurement In Buildings, London: RCIS. Summerson, S., Atkins, J. & Harries, A., n.d. BREEAM In-Use: Driving Sustainability Through Existing Buildings, Watford: BRE Global.

63

The Sphere Project, 2011. Humanitarian Charter And Minimum Standards In Humanitarian Response, Rugby: Practical Action.

Thomas, A. S. & Kopczak, L. R., 2005. From Logistics To Supply Chain Management: The Path Forward In The Humanitarian Sector, s.l.: Frtiz Institute.

Thrall, A. P. & Quaglia, C. P., 2014. Accordion Shelters: A Historical Review Of Origami-Like Deployable Shelters Developed By The US Military. Engineering Structures, Volume 59, pp. 686692.

Trott, C., 2015. Engineering Performance For Sustainable Buildings. Luxembourg, IFRC. Tumbeva, M. D. et al., 2016. Quilt Pattern Inspired Engineering: Efficient Manufacturing Of Shelter Typologies. Automation in Construction, Volume 63, pp. 57-65.

UNHCR, 2004. Protracted Refugee Situations. [Online] Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/40c982172.pdf [Accessed 13 May 2017].

UNHCR, n.d. Syria Emergency. [Online] Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/uk/syria-emergency.html [Accessed 8 April 2017].

UNHCR, n.d. Syria Regional Refugee Response. [Online] Available at: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php [Accessed 7 April 2017].

United Nations, 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development, s.l.: United Nations.

US Army, 1972. Technical Report Natick/TR-78/011: Accordion Shelter Hardware Analysis, Natick: Natick Research And Development Command.

US Army, 1978. Technical Report AMMRC TR 78-51: Experimental Testing Of An Accordion Shell For An Expandable Shelter, Watertown: Army Materials And Mechanics Research Center.

US EPA, 2008. Lifecycle Construction Resource Guide, s.l.: s.n.

USGBC, 2009. LEED 2009 For Existing Buildings Operation And Maintenance, s.l.: USGBC. van Kinderen, D. & Klos, F., 2015. New Sustainable Shelter Solutions For Disaster Relief, Luxembourg: s.n.

Weather Online, n.d. Weather Online: Damascus. [Online] Available at: http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?LANG=en&PLZ=_____&PLZN=_____&WMO= 64

40080&PAG=0&CONT=asie&LEVEL=160&REGION=0023&LAND=SY&INFO=0&R=0&NOREGIO N=1 [Accessed 27 April 2017].

Wikipedia, n.d. EUR - Pallet. [Online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUR-pallet [Accessed 27 April 2017].

Wisner, B. & Adams, J., 2002. Environmental Health In Emergencies And Disasters: A Practical Guide. Geneva: World Health Organisation.

Yeh, F.-Y.et al., 2015. A Novel Composite Bridge For Emergency Disaster Relief: Concept And Verification. Composite Structures, Volume 127, pp. 199-210.

You, Z. & Pellegrino, S., 1997. Foldable Bar Structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 34(15), pp. 1825-1847.

65