Page 1

Maria Mourtzouchou - 4621484 Shirin Masoudi - 4621700 Dora Vancso - 4417461 TU Delft | Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment MSc Architecture, Urbanism & Building Sciences - Track Building Technology AR1B015 - D1 - Bucky Lab Design (2016/2017) Course teachers: Marcel Bilow & Casper van der Meer

Table of contents Introduction



1. Pitch



2. Kick off



3. Shapes 4. Materials

page page

24 28

5. Connections



6. Calculations 7. Building weeks 8. Production 9. Detailing 10. Transport & storage 11. Impressions Conclusion Reflections Sources

page page page page page page page page page

42 44 48 52 58 60 66 68 71

1.1 Maria Mourtzouchou 1.2 Shirin Masoudi 1.3 Dora Vancso 1.4 Choosing a design

2.1 Benchmark research 2.2 Three designs 2.3 Choosing a direction

4.1 Researching possibilities 4.2 Elasticity 5.1 Frame to frame 5.2 Net to frame 5.3 Rotation

page page page page page page page

page page page page page

10 12 14 16 18 20 22

29 32

37 39 40

Introduction Mojo, one of the most experienced festival organising companies in the Netherlands, has asked the Bucky Lab students to develop innovative festival concepts for one of their festivals. What Mojo is looking for can be divided in two categories: an add-on to existing structures to change the appearance of it every season, or an entirely new system that allows to erect structures for festivals in changing shape and form. Important requirements which must be taken into account are: safety, flexibility, waste reduction, easy to assemble and store, and sustainability. This challenge was taken up. Based on these criteria a new concept for festival fencing developed. The Fancy Fence has a double function: not only does it serve as a barrier to keep unwanted company out of the festival terrain, it also functions as a sitting element for one or two people. This report gives an insight into the process of developing this product. This process cumulated in building a prototype, testing it, and developing a final idea of how this product could be taken to the next level of development. 7

1 Pitch The first three weeks of the process were focused on individually developing ideas for Mojo. It became clear that next to the functional criteria Mojo had, they were looking for something new, unique and ‘‘funky’’. Something with which they could really set themselves apart on the festival market. It was quite a challenge to find an idea which was funky, but functional at the same time. Many different ideas were proposed, of which some sketches can be found to the right. Each student was asked to choose one idea to present, after which groups were formed to further develop a chosen idea.

This chapter explaines the pitch idea from every group member, and elaborates on how and why an idea was chosen to further develop as a group.


Different levels

Closed -Rain -2 effects

Opened -Air -Permeability -Transparancy

One level

hot tents - birds cool by opening feathers

figure 1.2: shelter

figure 1.1: cooling tents sliding components different heights/positions add to make seat/table design compartments under festival dance floors which have a suction compartment and can blow cool air - generate air flow while dancing

screen/mirror other material/colour

figure 1.3: ventilated dance floor 1. closed - coloured/material

3. open-transparant figure 1.4: screens

circular structure 2. closed - mirror/screen

other shapes

figure 1.5: seat in fence


1.1 Maria Mourtzouchou Today’s festival’s have a lack of chairs, tables and hangers. The goal of the design is to provide these. The new structure is modular and can be assembled on the existing fences that are commonly used in festivals or in any other structure that has a horizontal tube where the component can be hooked. Just by a simple rotation of the component the seat turns into a table and vice versa. The extruded shape of the hook is also comfortable while seating because it follows pretty much the curve of the human body. The component can have different outcomes and combination of uses according to how it is assembled with one another. Two components can for example be mirrored on the z-axis, so that by closing the top one a box is created for storing things.

Commentary from teachers and Mojo: It was a nice idea but not good enough integrated in the existing fencing system. The mesh should be taken out so that the rotation is possible. Moreover, another tube had to be added on top in the case that it functions both as a chair and a table, so maybe there are a lot of alterations to be made. In addition, the curved element may be more comfortable but probably it would be more expensive to produce.


figure 1.6: Maria Mourtzouchou


1.2 Shirin Masoudi The project consists in the realisation of more facilities using a panel as modular component. This panel is composed by a screen that, changing colour or image, easily allows to transform the aspect of the entire structure. The single panel has a modular shape that can be assembled vertically or horizontally with other elements to form different facilities such as the backstage, information points, interactive screens, shelters, roof and decoration elements. The structure is placed on a rail that allows it to move in different positions. On this way, it is possible to create different shapes and to have many functions in the same place.

Commentary from teachers and Mojo: the idea of easily assemble the same components creating different shapes and functions was appreciated, but similar screen elements already exist in Mojo’s festivals.


figure 1.7: Shirin Masoudi


1.3 Dora Vancso The idea arose because of own experiences at a festival: people would be leaning against the grey fences, sitting in the mud. There had to be a better solution for this: integrating a sitting element in the existing fence-structures, which could be used as a comfortable sitting space. It’s a modular system, using the very simple techniques and dimensions which are used on the standard fencing systems as well. An old fence can be taken out and replaced by two sitting elements, formed by five smaller elements: a central pouch with depth and four connecting pieces. Different sitting set ups are possible using this system.

Commentary from teachers and Mojo: the element with depth makes transport and storage difficult - is there a way to not only give the fence a second function, but make it look ‘funky’ as well? - is the material (steel) comfortable for sitting?


e c n e F h c u o P

Dora Vancso 4417461 Buckylab Pitch



figure 1.8: Dora Vancso


1.4 Choosing a design Evaluating the three different concepts, the “Screen Lego” was excluded as an option for further design analysis because it already existed, so the other two concepts were taken as starting point for creating a new design because the design idea was the same: providing festivals with seating elements which will give comfort to the people for a small rest. The ‘‘PouchFence’’ and the ‘‘Rotating Hook’’ are both based on solving the same problem: festivals have unattractive fencing everywhere, but not enough sitting places. However, both designs had some problems and strong points. The ‘‘PouchFence’’ is difficult to store because of the elements with depth, while the ‘‘Rotating Hook’’ is less interesting and works less well because it is an addition to the existing fence instead of a new optimized design. Therefore, it was decided to keep both designs and try to find a way in which strong points from both could be incorporated in a new design.


2 Kick off The process of further developing the chosen concept was kicked off with a brainstorm session. We realized that because we had chosen a combination of two pitch ideas, which were based on the same problem (unattractive fences, and not enough sitting spaces on festivals), the way this combination between the two pitches would look was still uncertain. Therefore, on the one hand focus was put on developing multiple ideas for solving this problem (with the two pitch ideas in mind). On the other hand, the group members had to become fence-experts since the project was totally based on the existing design. Therefore the following weeks were devoted on theory and design.

This chapter contains a benchmark research about fences, and different design directions proposed. It also contains a criteria-driven decision making process about which of the proposed designs would be chosen.


2.1 Benchmark research

figure 2.1: budget line

figure 2.2: covered with fabric

figure 2.3: anti climb

figure 2.4: covered

figure 2.7: pin feet

figure 2.8: plate feet

Types of fence For every occasion there is a type of fence: from anti climb (with smaller mesh sizes) to fences with a covered part for privacy.

figure 2.5: concrete feet

figure 2.6: recycled plastic feet

Types of feet There are many different types of feet to use with fences: from the cheaper concrete blocks, to blocks with recycled plastic, or small metal feet when it’s important that the feet take in as little space as possible or there is tripping danger for bypassers. 18

During this research phase one important thing was noticed: the fence design had to be compatible with the standard connection pieces, the feet, and storage elements. This meant certain dimensions of the new fence were fixed from the beginning. This phase also imposed future directions for materials (galvanized steel) and some aspects not realized before: for example, horizontal storage of fences means deformation and a shorter lifespan. figure 2.9: high security connection

figure 2.10: standard connection

Connections Two main connecting options: the standard unit, which works with a screw, and a high-security unit, which works with a key.

figure 2.11: standard horizontal storage

figure 2.12: vertical storage

figure 2.13: storage element

figure 2.14: storage element, with feet

Storage There are different storage options: from standard horizontal storage, to feet in which fences can be stored vertically (in which case no vertical forces act on the fences, and therefore the fences don’t deform in the middle) or storage units where feet and connections can also be stored. 19

2.2 Three designs

figure 2.15: first proposal with rectangular elements

The first design proposed consisted of designing a new type of frame with multiple horizontal tubes where rectangular table/seat elements could be attached. For flat storage they could be closed by rotation.


figure 2.16: first proposal with rectangular elements - branding

figure 2.17: second proposal - net

figure 2.18: third proposal - clamped elements

The second design proposed consisted of a net or textile like element, which would be rotated to assume a seating position, and could be rotated back for flat storage.

The third design proposed was a completely new idea and consisted of moving elements that slide with eachother to create a seating element. When closed the element is flat so flat storage becomes possible.


2.3 Choosing a direction Three different ideas were developed based on the problem which was addressed by the ‘‘PouchFence’’ and ‘‘Rotating Hook’’ pitch. Both ideas had strong points and weaker points, and the three directions developed afterwards tried to find an ideal combination between the strong points of both pitches. In order to choose which direction to proceed with, an evaluation of the different ideas with different criteria was created and rated from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most satisfying one. Based on this and also bearing in mind what Mojo would like most according to the requirements we chose the net-design.


Fence, rectangular Comfort 3 Robust 5 Funky 3 Easy to install 4 Weight 3 Flexibility (change colours/shape) 5 Cleaning&maintenance 5 Lifetime duration 5 Easy to store 5 Complexity of making 4 Price 4 Total 46

Fence, net 5 2 4 5 4 5 3 4 5 5 4 46

Fence, clamped 3 2 5 3 2 4 3 3 5 2 2 34

The evaluation was based on the criteria which can be found in the left column. Each design was rated on a scale of 1 (bad) to 5 (good). This is not a watertight method, because the grades are based on an indication and not a certainty, but it did show the right path. As can be seen in the table, the fence with rectangular elements and the fence with the net score the same grade. The decision made was to continue working on the net-fence because it scored higher on funkiness and comfort, two criteria which were considered very important. Except for that, it was stated that also Mojo was looking for a unique, funky design, and it was agreed that the design with the net was more unique than the design with squares.


3 Shapes After having chosen to work out the design based on a rotating sitting-element, the design phase went on with researching on different shapes and forms, to get a more dynamic landscape of fences, and to find a possibly more ‘funky’ form. Next to designing the shape of the seperate element, research was also done on how different elements combined could be formed into a ‘social landscape’, where one sitting-element is combined with multiple sitting elements, to form small nooks and semi-public spaces where people could interact and escape from the business of the festival.

This chapter shows different drawings of shapes experimented with before coming to the final form of fence which would be built in the building weeks.


figure 3.1: shapes of fence

figure 3.2: plan view social spaces


n1 n 1 d a way in which

dents a way in whichform a combined ents combined form a nd more nesthetic 1 moresystem. nd a way insystem. which esthetic d by experimenting ents combined form a d by experimenting ndard frame different nd more ndard frame different sthetic system. d by experimenting dard frame different

n2 non2was that it

was that itand son too chaotic sntoo chaotic and non/assembly, n2 because on it because on/assembly, s towas be that a standardized chaotic and stoo to be a standardized onnecting etc. Next nonnecting etc. Next sign with one because sign with one don/assembly, element, different to be a standardized dsabrics. element, different onnecting abrics. etc. Next sign with one element, different abrics.

n3 nsign3 was also with

was also dsign element andwith d colours/fabrics, element and but nfferent 3 shape inside colours/fabrics, but wasshape also with fferent inside eign (triangular). and eelement (triangular). colours/fabrics, but fferent shape inside e (triangular).


figure 3.3: social spaces

figure 3.4: social spaces with simpler shape of new fence


4 Materials After choosing the net design, the project was facing two major design problems from the beginning. The first problem was that the seating element had to be made from an elastic material to ensure maximum comfort. However, the fence is still serving as a barrier, and therefore the design had to make it difficult for possible intruders to cut through the net. The problem was that most elastic materials are easily cuttable. The second problem was the elastic itself (besides the cutting problem). Elastic materials do not lend themselves for extended use outdoors, as they degrade very easily under influence of UV light. Therefore, at the beginning possibilities were researched and compared with each other so that an educated choice could be made on which material would be best.

This chapter explains the research and decision making process in order to decide on a material. It also describes what problems were faced and how they were solved. 28

4.1 Researching possibilities color movement lifeguard outposts

figure 4.1: elasticity

personalisation multicoloured net

figure 4.2: lifeguard outpost

figure 4.3: recycled fire hoses

use of recycled material - fire hoses

comfort wave-like motion responding material

nylon 6 superior over 20 years lifetime twisted rope from vinylon figure 4.6: numen more durable than natural fibers does not rot

crochet net interaction vibrancy funky figure 4.7: crochet net

29 figure 4.4 : elasticity

figure 4.5: elasticity

figure 4.8: woven elastic band

figure 4.9: steel & polyester

figure 4.10: metallics

Woven elastic band Spandex/cotton Eco-friendly, elastic, high tenacity Not UV-resistant

Stainless steel & polyester fabric Metallic yarn Brass / copper / metal / polymer / polyester / Polyester/nylon with 100% stainless steel fibre steel / polyurethan / stainless steel UV-resistant, bacteria resistant, high tenacity Strong

figure 4.11: woven elastic band

Model Experimenting in a model with a weave of elastic bands

Metallised fabrics Nano later of aluminium on the outside of the fabric Weave and textile properties intact Off-white look from outside, inside any color

30 figure 4.12: model with elastic band

figure 4.13: metallics

figure 4.14: metallised fabric

Comfort Difficult to cut Weight Cleanability Funkiness Total Comments

Metallics 1 3 3 3 1 11 Colouring is very difficult, but the combination of a rigid metal material as comfortable seat is interesting.

Elastics 3 1 1 1 3 9

Ropes or textiles 2 2 2 2 3 11

Recycled fire hoses 1 2 2 3 2 8

Recycled aspect makes it difficult to make more products of the same material. There are not many fire hoses available.

To choose which materials to develop further, the different options (from 1-bad to 3-good) were rated and researched based on criteria considered important. As can be seen metallics and ropes/textiles have the same total rating. There have been already a preference for ropes, because funkiness was considered a very important criterium. However, there has been a hesitation to choose for using ropes/textiles before consulting with Mojo, because they are more easily cuttable than metallics. After a meeting with Mojo, it was clear that cuttability is not a very important criterium for them for this design. The design would be used in the less high-security places. For them, it would be used as an interactive art installation, with the second function as a barrier. Therefore, in the next phase of the design process focus was put on developing the project with ropes or textiles.


4.2 Elasticity The choice was made for a rigid textile/rope material, but how could the seat be designed so that it would have sufficient elasticity to comfortably shape to a human body? After consulting with Fred Veer, TU Delft Associate professor of Materials Science, two different conclusions were reached. First, a rigid textile material could be chosen which would gain its elasticity for sitting from the attachment to the frame (springs or elastic material). Second, a rigid rope material could be chosen which would gain its elasticity from weaving it with a special pattern which would make sure it behaves elastically. Both options were tested with models.


figure 4.19: catamaran net

Elasticity by elastic attachment A rigid material like a tightely knotted catamaran net, or a banner can have some elasticity by elastic connectoins like springs, or elastic rope.

figure 4.15: Nook chair

figure 4.20: banner

figure 4.16: Nook Chair, elasticity by weaving pattern

figure 4.18: weaving patterns

Weaving patterns By leaving knots loosely untied, the weave becomes elastic.

figure 4.17: Nook chair

figure 4.21: banner

To the left a picture can be seen of the test for a rigid material, connected by springs. As this was tested on a larger scale, a good indication could be achieved of whether or not this would work in real life. In principle it worked, but it also had a few problems: the springs would pull on the user’s hair and skin, were not very strong, and Mojo didn’t like the idea of using a textile. The textile was proposed in the first place for branding purposes (so logo’s could be printed on it) but this was declined by Mojo as a possible option. Therefore, it was decided that the design should be further developed with the idea of a flexible net in mind.


figure 4.22: testing the model

To the right a picture can be seen of the test of an elastic weave. The principle works, however, making a weave such as this was very complicated to figure out and would be very time-consuming in reality. Secondly, the fact that it works on this scale does not mean it will work on the large scale (even though there are some examples, like the Nook chair). Designing further with such a complicated weave was considered too big of a risk, and it was decided that the design should be kept more simple.

figure 4.23: testing the model

The building weeks were approaching fast. At this point it was known that the material for the seat would be a net: it was the best option from the researched possibilities, and the client liked this option best. It was discovered that the option of making a net very flexible was possible by a special manner of weaving. It was realized quickly enough though that this was not a good option due to the complex nature of building such a net. During the research phase there were also found examples of rigid nets used in public spaces, which did not have a special weave, but still shaped to the bodies of the users. However, these nets were on a much larger scale, which meant the stretch was also bigger. There has been a concern that on a smaller scale, the stretch would not be enough if a simpler, ready made and rigid net was used. However, a decision had to be made, so a ready made net was ordered for the building weeks.


5 Connections While simultaneously working on the material for the seat, there have been also researched and designed connections and details. The following were considered: how to connect the net-material to the frame and how to connect the outer to the inner frame. Halfway through the process some problems were faced, like the ‘‘scissor effect’’. This entails that if the frame is in a open, sitting position, and it can be closed by the guests of the festival, there is a risk someone’s hand or other bodypart would get stuck between the frames. A solution had to be found for this problem. This chapter contains images, drawings and photos of models made during the process of designing connections and details.


5.1 Frame to frame

figure 5.1: closable element

figure 5.2: closable element

figure 5.3: detail option 1

figure 5.4: model option 1

A system was first developed in which there is a closable element attached to the inner and outer frame. This way the seat would be very movable in opening/ closing. After it was realized that this also meant there was a ‘‘scissor effect’’ (i.e., body parts could get stuck between the frames if it closed suddenly) it was decided to simply use option 2: a rigid hook. This way the frame only closes if someone deliberately takes out the hook, and the chance of accidents happening is much smaller.


figure 5.5: the hook

with an open void

closed with a net material

figure 38 5.6: different options for closing the void

closed with a textile

It was realized that the spaces between the outer and inner frame should also be closed with some material: not only does this make the chance smaller that someone can get in when the fence is in sittingposition, it also offers some privacy between different sitting-elements and the cozy feeling of a “nook� for users of the seat. Two options were proposed: filling the space with the same-net material, or using a textile for more privacy. It was decided to use the same net material because of easier production and assembly. The options can be found in the images to the left.

In addition, different options to attach the net to the frame were discussed: during the building weeks it was decided to use standard hooks because of easy availability. However, these hooks have the problem that the net can easily be taken out by someone. The option of using catamaranattachments was also dismissed because of the same reason. Therefore, further research was done and different partially closed hooks were considered. It was decided to use option 6 (spiral hook) because with this one it was least likely someone would get hair or skin stuck. Images can be found to the right.

5.2 Net to frame

figure 5.7: standard hook

figure 5.8: like a catamaran

figure 5.9: plastic hook

figure 5.11: sliding hook

figure 5.12: spiral hook

figure 5.13: final solution with net

figure 5.10: metal hook


5.3 Rotation Finally, there had to be found a solution for the inner frame to rotate. The first proposal was to rotate the frame around the tube (option 1): the tube on which a user sat should then remain rigid in place. However, there was a concern that this would mean the construction would be weaker. Therefore, a tube-in-a-tube construction was proposed, in which the entire frame (together with the sitting tube) rotates around a smaller tube which goes through the inner and outer frame. figure 5.14: rotating the frame around the tube

figure 5.15: rotating the tube 40

figure 5.16: assembly


6 Calculations After aspects like shape, material and connections were decided, it was almost time for the building weeks. The building weeks would be the time to test the structural integrity of the fence in real life, but next to that multiple hand and computer calculations were also made. These can be found in the structural mechanics report. However, there was one question which would also matter for the building weeks, and this chapter is devoted to answer that question. • Will the structure overturn if people sit into it, and so yes, with how much weight?

This chapter contains the calculation for the overturning moment.


A structural diagram with the relevant loads (figure 3) explains the situation. This is the starting diagram for the further hand calculations.

The overturning moment was calculated in the point M considering the weight of the structure (FFI; FFO), the wind load (FW), the person load (FP) and the feet load (FF). To have a stable structure, the result should be equal to zero.

figure 6.1: diagram of the structure

figure 6.2: diagram of the overturning moment


The following formula has been used:

• • • • • •

Distributed load of the person sit on the chair = qp = 1,99 N/mm Distributed load of the wind = qw = 0,5 kN/m2 Wind force = Fw = 0,22 kN (appendix 2) Load of the outer frame = FFo = 0,134 kN Load of the inner frame = FFi = 0,138 kN Load of the feet= FFF = 0,216 kN

MM = FP x dP + FFI x dFI + FFO x dFO – FW x dW + FF x dF Requirement: MM = 0 Result: MM = 0,27 kN/m The result is acceptable and the stability of the structure was confirmed 43

7 Building weeks It was finally time for the building weeks. This chapter describes the process of building the prototype, and what was discovered during these weeks which would later be changed or implemented in the model. Before the building weeks two options were discussed: building the prototype from wood, or opting for steel. The latter one was considered really tempting, but eventually it was decided against using steel. This is because actually welding in the workshop would be difficult, and there would be no room for mistakes: a precise amount of steel would be ordered, and once it was sawed/drilled there was no going back or fixing mistakes. For this reason, wood would work for testing the prototype.

About the building weeks.


figure 7.1: step 1

figure 7.2: step 2

figure 7.3: step 3

1. Sawing the wood, and attaching the different pieces by using domino’s so rotation was made impossible, and screws for keeping the pieces together.

2. Milling to achieve an imitation of the circular tube. The outer and inner frame were joined together by using a very big screw which went all the way through to the horizontal sitting tube. That way the inner frame could rotate.

3. Screwing partly sawed (so the net could be put in) hooks into the frame.

figure 7.4: step 4

figure 7.5: step 5

4. The frame milled, attached, screwed 5. Measuring the ready made net with hooks and sanded to perfection. and cutting it so it fitted nicely with the frame. This meant the thicker white rope which was on the outside could only be used on a few sides.

figure 7.6: step 6 6. Mimicking the thicker rope which was on the outside of the net by stringing and glueing the cut parts together with a second rope.

figure 7.7: step 6 The most important conclusion from the building weeks was that the readymade, rigid net worked. It had enough flexibility to comfortably shape to one, or two user’s bodies. Next to that, the frame was put to the ultimate test by loading it with two large men. It did not make a sound, and passed the structural test with flying colors.

figure 7.8: Prototype - steps of fixing it to the sitting position 46


8 Production The prototype built during the building weeks is made from wood. This is fundamentally different from building the fence in steel. Therefore, after the building weeks we researched how the fence would be built if it would be a real product.

This chapter describes how to produce the fence as a market ready product.


Figure 8.1: Melting of steel

Figure 8.2: Casting of billets

Figure 8.3: Billets cool & stored

Figure 8.4:Reheating billets furnace

Figure 8.5: Rotary hearth furnace

Figure 8.6: Moving billets to mill

Figure 8.7:Cross rolling piercing

Figure 8.8:Mandrel piercing

Figure 8.9:Mandrel piercing, 2nd go

Figure 8.10:Mandrel piercing, final

Figure 8.11: Moving to mill

Figure 8.12:Stretch reducing mill

Figure 8.13: Spray quench

Figure 8.14:Cooling

Figure 8.15:Hot dip galvanizing

In large steps the model is built this way. On the next page a schematization of the process can be found. After the final step the net is attached. Figure 8.16:Welding frame

Figure 8.17:Drilling holes

Figure 8.18: Weld connections

Figure 8.19:Handmade custom net


Continuous casting billets

Billets cooled and stored

Melting of steel

Elongating pierced tube


Reducing stretch in mill

Billets reheated in circular furnace

Piercing billets by cross rolling

Tubes are done and galvanized

Figure 8.20: production process

Making the frame

Butt welding parts

Drilling hole in outer frame

Putting thinner tube through

Welding connection pieces

Attaching custom made net


9 Detailing The building weeks gave a really good insight of what worked for the design, and what did not. Of course the detailing of the prototype in the building weeks is completely different from the details of the final product, because it is made from a different material. One of the big differences between prototype and final product is that the prototype was made from massive wood, and the final product from hollow tubes. This calls for different details.

This chapter shows the detail drawings.


Figure 9.1: Existing fence, scale 1:500



Figure 9.2: New fence, proportion to the existing one, scale 1:500

Figure 9.3: New fence, scale 1:500


Figure 9.4: detail connection net, scale 1:1


Figure 9.5: detail hook, scale 1:2

Figure 9.6: mechanism of rotating tube

Figure 9.7: detail rotating tube, scale 1:2


10 Transport&storage The project has had a focus on the practical aspects of storage and transport from the beginning. First, when deciding after the pitch that the strong points from the ‘‘PouchFence’’ and the ‘‘Rotating Hook’’ had to be combined in one new design which was easy to store, it was also adecided that this new design would be part of the existing system instead of an addition to it. Second, when three designs were proposed after the pitches, each taking a different approach to the sitting problem, it was always done by keeping in mind that flat and easy storage was essential. Third, when the weight of the new design started to count as well: a lighter fence, means easier to move, store and assemble. This chapter describes how the new design is transported and stored before and after use at the festival.


Two storage elements store 28 fences.

x2 Standard vertical storage elements are used. Advantage is that there are no horizontal forces on the fence, and therefore there will be less deformation of the fence.

Load in truck together with feet and ready to go Figure 10.1: storage & transport


11 Impressions This chapter contains renders and impressions of the final finished product, Fancy Fence.


Figure 11.1: Fancy Fence

Figure 11.2: Fancy Fence side view

Figure 11.3: Fancy Fence exploded view



Figure 11.4: Fancy Fence social spaces


Figure 11.5: Fancy Fence social spaces

Conclusion This report describes the most important steps taken during the process of designing and building the Fancy Fence. It describes finding a solution for a problem: not enough sitting spaces at festivals. However, what every festival does have a lot of, is fences. Therefore, it was decided decided to use them, and give a fence a double function. In the end, a functional solution was found, which incorporates the two functions: serving as a barrier and comfortable sitting for festival visitors. During the process the Fancy Fence became more than just these two functions. It became part of a fabric of social landscapes. From private meeting places for new lovers to relaxing areas where one can get away from all the noise, every festival is a mosaic of public, semi-public and private areas where people can mingle and meet. This way, the sum of the double function which shape the Fancy Fence makes it a stronger product than these functions seperately.




by Maria Mourtzouchou

Bucky Lab was a unique experience of designing a project with every detail, from sketching the first concept ideas and conducting research about suitable materials and how to produce and assemble to making it structurally correct and finally building it in scale 1:1. I found it really nice and interesting that all courses were combined with each other with the purpose to help us consider every aspect of our design. The most interesting part for me was the material and production research, because it was surprising to find out how so different and versatile materials could be used for the same purpose or how objects that we use in everyday life are produced. The only thing that would be better in the way the course was shaped is that the structural tutorials could have been earlier because it was a very important aspect in the design decision making. As far as the specific project of this semester is concerned, it was really challenging that there was a real client, namely Mojo, with specific requirements so that the design had to be not only aesthetically nice but also working in reality and be efficient both for the user and for Mojo. Throughout the whole process it became clear how difficult it is to combine the interests of all but also keep the initial design concept unchanged. I realized that compromises have to be made so that a balance is achieved. The group work was really nice and for me, working for the first time with an international team, was interesting to see how others work and cooperate. What’s more, I believe that having one Dutch person in the team was an asset since the design was intended to be used in festivals in the Netherlands. Moreover, I believe that it would be better if the groups 68

were created earlier because too much time was lost in the first individual designs compared to the amount of workload that the final project had. In that case, details could have been worked more in depth and the whole group would have been prepared to order materials for the building weeks on time. In general, I was very pleased with the feedback given by all the tutors and Mojo which made me feel that everything was nicely organized and had a continuous, logical flow, aspects which led to the realization of a project that I really liked working on.


by Shirin Masoudi

Bucky Lab has been the most complete and unique course I ever attended over my university career. Even if I had already studied some of the topics of the courses during my previous studies, how the different subjects were correlated with each other has never been so clear. During this semester, I understood how each of them contributes to realize a project and applying them in practice made the comprehension of the single courses more efficient. Generally everything was perfectly organized and the cooperation between the professors and their courses was one of the best qualities. In particular, the most relevant courses have been Structural Mechanics, Material Science and CAD Design because they largely contributed in the evolution of the Design process. Nevertheless, I believe that an improvement would be possible switching, in the schedule, Structural Mechanics and BT Research Methodology because the former largely influences the design process that, in case of structural problems, is difficult to be modified over the last month, while the latter would be helpful during the final period when all the reports have to be written.

relationship with my group-mates have been harmonious and synergetic. The first part of the course, when everyone had to find a design idea has been helpful because it allowed to have different proposals that later could be combined into the final project, but at the same time, I think that the time spent on it could be shorter leaving more time for the final developed of the details and material aspects. The production week has been one of the best and interesting experiences during the course. The possibility to realize our own project in scale 1:1 is uncommon during the university career and the possibility to use many different tools allowed to understand that every step has a proper way to be realized. Moreover during the two production weeks many aspects of the project have been clarified and the time spent resulted not only nice, but also interesting and useful.

I think that overall the course has been the best way to start my new master Focusing more on the Design course, a good aspect was that there was a experience at TU-Delft because it gave me the possibility to familiarize real client and a real project to realize. Consequently, the goal went beyond with the new environment and thankful to the professors and my coursethe academic purpose, and this was very useful because the practical mates that have always been helpful and friendly this time could never feedbacks helped during the project development and influenced many been more enjoiable. choices. An aspect that had a significant impact was that the groups were composed both by international and Dutch students and this positively influenced the quality of the project, but also allowed a cultural exchange that helped the international students to better understand and be part of the Dutch culture. In particular, in my experience, the work and the 69


by Dora Vancso

Bucky Lab has without a doubt been one of the most instructive and fun courses I have had. For the first time during my studies I got the opportunity to actually build what we drew, which is a rarity for a (former) architecture student. This makes the entire process of designing something much more tangible, and the decisions which have to be made during the process are not only made based on ‘‘funkiness’’, but are largely dependent on whether something works, or it does not. This was a joy to experience.

a better way: but due to making decisions late, we didn’t have the time to design a more esthetic solution.

Working together in the group went very well, because everybody had their strong points and weaker poins, and we could divide the work in an efficient way. The only thing I would’ve done differently, looking back on the process, is making a schedule in which we would give ourselves hard deadlines: a decision has to be made, or a solution found before a certain An interesting challenge during the process was that what we were date/time. That way we might’ve prevented discussing too long about a designing was a product, and not a building. You’re not designing a one- certain subject. time unique building, but something of which multiple will be made, and which has a more intimate relationship with the user: the fence is in direct The way the course was shaped was nice: the interaction between the contact with somebody’s body, and suddenly aspects like comfort become different subjects helped in learning and understanding the material. The very important. It made me think about seemingly simple questions like only course which was seperate from the rest was building physics, and ‘‘what chair do I find comfortable, and why?’’ How do different people this also meant it was a bit difficult to keep up with this course next to the experience using this product? Is it easy to understand?’’ Because I asked other subjects. Perhaps this course could also be integrated better with myself these questions and pictured how I, and other people would use the rest of the courses. the product, it became a very identifiable and personal thing, and this The mentoring by and talks with Marcel, Casper and Mojo were simply made me more passionate about our design. great. Being able to talk to the ‘‘client’’ directly and get their opinions and What I found a pity is that we got stuck on a few parts of the design, and feedback also made the project feel like a real life situation. Everything we couldn’t really finish it in the end. For example, the net hasn’t really considered, I was very pleased with the way the course was organised, and been designed into detail: we only knew it would be a custom made piece, the way we were able to work on the project. but it would’ve been nice if we would’ve been able to learn about how to weave it, different types of weaves, and which one would be best for our design. Another aspect is the hook which I believe we could’ve designed in 70

Sources • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Figure 1.1 to 1.8: own material Figure 2.1 to 2.14: retrieved from Heras, Figure 2.15 to 2.18: own material Figure 3.1 to 3.4: own material Figure 4.1: retrieved from ConceptLandscapeblog, Figure 4.2 to 4.3: retrieved from Trendhunter, Figure 4.4: retrieved from WebUrbanist magazine, Figure 4.5: retrieved from Figure 4.6: retrieved from Dezeen magazine, Figure 4.7: retrieved from Archdaily, Figure 4.8: retrieved from C-more blog, Figure 4.9: retrieved from Materials Lab, Figure 4.10: retrieved from Metropolis Magazine, Figure 4.11: retrieved from Alibaba, Figure 4.12: own material Figure 4.13: retrieved from Archello, Figure 4.14: retrieved from Ecospecifier global, Figure 4:15 to 4.17: retrieved from Henry Sgourakis, Figure 4.18: retrieved from Les creations de Salvina, Figure 4.19: retrieved from atninc, Figure 4.:20: retrieved from Henk van der Veer, Figure 4.21: retrieved from Eurovlag, Figure 4.22 & 4:23: own material Figure 5.1 to 5.6: own material Figure 5.7: retrieved from 71

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •


Figure 5.8: S/V LUX, retrieved from Figure 5.9: retrieved from, Figure 5.10: retrieved from @Sport, Figure 5.11: retrieved from Figure 5.12: retrieved from Figure 5.13 to 5.16: own material Figure 6.1: own material Figure 6.2: own material Figure 7.1 to 7.5: own material Figure 7.6 & 7.7: retrieved from Marcel Bilow Figure 7.8: own material Figure 8.1: retrieved from YouTube, Figure 8.2: retrieved from Build Industrial Pakistan, Figure 8.3: retrieved from MTLexs, Figure 8.4 to 8.14: retrieved from YouTube, Figure 8.15: retrieved from Picssr, Figure 8.16: retrieved from Chris Berkely, Figure 8.17: retrieved from S3i group, Figure 8.18: retrieved from HIKitchen Figure 8.19: retrieved from Henry Sgourakis, Figure 8.20: own material Figure 9.1 to 9.7: own material Figure 10.1: own material Figure 11.1 to 11.5: own material

Bucky lab fancy fence project  

Mojo, one of the most experienced festival organising companies in the Netherlands, has asked the Bucky Lab students of TU Delft's Building...

Bucky lab fancy fence project  

Mojo, one of the most experienced festival organising companies in the Netherlands, has asked the Bucky Lab students of TU Delft's Building...