Wooden Adaptive Architecture System (WAAS

Wooden Adaptive Architecture System (WAAS)

Andr Potvin1, Claude Demers2 and Cdric DuMontier3 1, 2, 3 Groupe de recherche en ambiances physique

cole darchitecture, Universit Laval, Qubec, Qubec, Canada [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The development of a Wooden Adaptive Architecture System (WAAS) is part of a larger research-creation project on Adaptive Architecture (AA) [1] exploring the entire design process leading to a fully adaptable three story high 1:3/4 wooden structure. This paper links the notion of imagining and speculating on an innovative adaptive system within the process of fabrication where problem solving and problem finding are intimately related. It addresses the disconnect between imagination and fabrication that should be at the heart of quality artefacts and architecture. WAAS allows the easy manoeuvrability by the occupants of walls and floors in order to adapt the space to their environmental and functional needs. Eighteen 6x 6 cells can be entirely reconfigured with movable planes in x, y and z directions. The omnidirectional mobility criteria challenged conventional building techniques and led to an innovative all-wood rigid node. Extensive prototyping using digital fabrication allowed the team to optimize the node assemblage and precision through parametric experimentation before proper production. Digital fabrication allowed the adaptation of the system through full-scale prototype nodes and bridges ultimately made of 2000 small prefabricated sticks measuring as little as 1 x 1 x 24. The WAAS system, apart from providing fully adaptable space configurations, can be easily deconstructed, transported, and reassembled in totally new building shapes.

Key Words: architecture, adaptability, wood, prefabrication, design process

1. INTRODUCTION

The Adaptive Architecture project challenges traditional comfort theories based on standardised comfort conditions by providing inhabitants with several adaptive opportunities that foster their embodied agency. Evidence suggests that people are intrinsically active participants in buildings whereas modern architecture mistakenly speculated that people were passive actors in controlling their environment [2]. This assumption, combined with seemingly endless non-renewable energy, has led to exclusive architecture with its adverse consequences on resources and the environment. Technology has accomplished major advances in the fields of system efficiency and renewable energy, but this progress may soon culminate in conjunction with peak oil and the rebound effect. We therefore face a significant behaviour shift in the way we inhabit buildings. Biology equipped inhabitants with remarkable adaptive capacities that are yet to be discovered in our quest for a more sustainable future. Autonomization of building occupants by providing them with adaptive opportunities should be the new goal instead of their automation. If future buildings are to produce considerably less or even no GES, they will have to become more robust to changing outdoor conditions and engage their inhabitants in adapting to changing indoor environmental conditions.

Adaptive Architecture asks the designer to not only provide the obvious environmental controls such as the operable window and adjustable sun shading devices but also to explore all possible ways

Proceeding of International Conference on Adaptation and Movement in Architecture (ICAMA2013)Proceeding of International Conference on Adaptation and Movement in Architecture (ICAMA2013)Proceeding of International Conference on Adaptation and Movement in Architecture (ICAMA2013)

356

Proceeding of International Conference on Adaptation and Movement in Architecture (ICAMA2013)

Wooden Adaptive Architecture System (WAAS)

Andr Potvin1, Claude Demers2 and Cdric DuMontier3 1, 2, 3 Groupe de recherche en ambiances physique

cole darchitecture, Universit Laval, Qubec, Qubec, Canada [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The development of a Wooden Adaptive Architecture System (WAAS) is part of a larger research-creation project on Adaptive Architecture (AA) [1] exploring the entire design process leading to a fully adaptable three story high 1:3/4 wooden structure. This paper links the notion of imagining and speculating on an innovative adaptive system within the process of fabrication where problem solving and problem finding are intimately related. It addresses the disconnect between imagination and fabrication that should be at the heart of quality artefacts and architecture. WAAS allows the easy manoeuvrability by the occupants of walls and floors in order to adapt the space to their environmental and functional needs. Eighteen 6x 6 cells can be entirely reconfigured with movable planes in x, y and z directions. The omnidirectional mobility criteria challenged conventional building techniques and led to an innovative all-wood rigid node. Extensive prototyping using digital fabrication allowed the team to optimize the node assemblage and precision through parametric experimentation before proper production. Digital fabrication allowed the adaptation of the system through full-scale prototype nodes and bridges ultimately made of 2000 small prefabricated sticks measuring as little as 1 x 1 x 24. The WAAS system, apart from providing fully adaptable space configurations, can be easily deconstructed, transported, and reassembled in totally new building shapes.

Key Words: architecture, adaptability, wood, prefabrication, design process

1. INTRODUCTION

The Adaptive Architecture project challenges traditional comfort theories based on standardised comfort conditions by providing inhabitants with several adaptive opportunities that foster their embodied agency. Evidence suggests that people are intrinsically active participants in buildings whereas modern architecture mistakenly speculated that people were passive actors in controlling their environment [2]. This assumption, combined with seemingly endless non-renewable energy, has led to exclusive architecture with its adverse consequences on resources and the environment. Technology has accomplished major advances in the fields of system efficiency and renewable energy, but this progress may soon culminate in conjunction with peak oil and the rebound effect. We therefore face a significant behaviour shift in the way we inhabit buildings. Biology equipped inhabitants with remarkable adaptive capacities that are yet to be discovered in our quest for a more sustainable future. Autonomization of building occupants by providing them with adaptive opportunities should be the new goal instead of their automation. If future buildings are to produce considerably less or even no GES, they will have to become more robust to changing outdoor conditions and engage their inhabitants in adapting to changing indoor environmental conditions.

Adaptive Architecture asks the designer to not only provide the obvious environmental controls such as the operable window and adjustable sun shading devices but also to explore all possible ways


356


to improve adaptive opportunities by structural, enclosure and inhabitants behavioural adaptive opportunities according to diverse environmental conditions. What should be an architecture that would encourage more active forms of bodily engagement with architecture? How could we tackle adaptability at the onset of the design intention and carry it through the entire design process in order to reach adaptive architecture? The development of the WAAS serves to illustrate the importance of the notion of embodied agency at every level of architectural design to re-establish the connection between the intelligent human agent and the environment through our inherent tactile oriented thinking and bodily experience of the world as suggested by Pallasmaa [3] and Crawford [4]. Araya [5] even suggests that architecture should be no longer limited to a static object but actually do things through human agency.

Native architecture provided flexibility and adaptability to their inhabitants. In the absence of any other option, they had to adapt, and their ingenuous shelters provided them with all sorts of adaptive opportunities by simple transformations of the enclosure. Curvilinear shapes of native architecture where wood or other organic material is intertwined produce highly efficient shells but more importantly, native shelters expressed in their built form the explicit adaptive nature of their inhabitant and their embodied agency with the architecture intimately dependent on the building technique. Organic materials lack the strength in compression common in non-organic material such as concrete or steel. They perform otherwise relatively well in flexion and therefore could be used more efficiently when optimising this structural property. Todays grid shells stand out as a clever reinterpretation of curvilinear native architecture. Although highly innovative assembly technique had to be developed in these projects, the shells themselves always remain static and do not allow for moving elements due to their curvilinear shapes. The exploration of an easily transformable space by human force alone called for the optimisation of a simple orthogonal system of posts and beams and moving panels. Unlike building scaffoldings or Segals Self Build system [6], WAAS has to act as a rigid frame without the aid of diagonal bracing that would impede the free transformation of the space. 2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. The plan libre Challenge

Traditional timber frame architecture provided continuity and fit conditions for rigidity through complex joinery. Careful craftsmanship of joinery insured much of the structural continuity and rigidity of the connections in Western traditional timber frame building but bracing by means of diagonal wood elements or solid walls was always required to prevent racking. In ancient Chinese wooden architecture however, the wall only defines an enclosure, and does not form a load-bearing element [7]. Dougong (fig.1) provided continuity and rigidity by transferring the weight on secondary horizontal elements over a larger area to vertical elements. Dougongs prove that it is possible to design a rigid yet elastic wooden structure providing continuity and fit while allowing a complete liberty in internal partition layout just like in the plan libre, one of LeCorbusiers five points for a new architecture. Unlike LeCorbusiers solution however, traditional oriental architecture incorporated mainly organic materials including wood, bamboo, straw and rice-paper screens. Traditional and modern Japanese interiors represent paradigms of adaptive architecture allowing inhabitants to easily transform spaces according to changing use of environmental conditions. Moreover, this high adaptability was made possible within the physical constraints of wooden construction technology inherited from Chinese and other Asian cultures. Its success relied on a strong sense of craftsmanship and inhabitants interaction with architecture. By liberating the wall from its load-bearing function, rigid frames also allow the orthogonal movement of sliding screens or walls. But how could we provide a full three dimensional movement of walls within the structural limitations of a rigid frame? Japanese chidori (fig.2) inherited from the dougong craftsmanship provided the first clue. Not unlike traditional wood frame assembly emulating tree structures, it was decided that wood alone had to provide the basic three-dimensional structural integrity of the Adaptive Architecture project.


357


to improve adaptive opportunities by structural, enclosure and inhabitants behavioural adaptive opportunities according to diverse environmental conditions. What should be an architecture that would encourage more active forms of bodily engagement with architecture? How could we tackle adaptability at the onset of the design intention and carry it through the entire design process in order to reach adaptive architecture? The development of the WAAS serves to illustrate the importance of the notion of embodied agency at every level of architectural design to re-establish the connection between the intelligent human agent and the environment through our inherent tactile oriented thinking and bodily experience of the world as suggested by Pallasmaa [3] and Crawford [4]. Araya [5] even suggests that architecture should be no longer limited to a static object but actually do things through human agency.

Native architecture provided flexibility and adaptability to their inhabitants. In the absence of any other option, they had to adapt, and their ingenuous shelters provided them with all sorts of adaptive opportunities by simple transformations of the enclosure. Curvilinear shapes of native architecture where wood or other organic material is intertwined produce highly efficient shells but more importantly, native shelters expressed in their built form the explicit adaptive nature of their inhabitant and their embodied agency with the architecture intimately dependent on the building technique. Organic materials lack the strength in compression common in non-organic material such as concrete or steel. They perform otherwise relatively well in flexion and therefore could be used more efficiently when optimising this structural property. Todays grid shells stand out as a clever reinterpretation of curvilinear native architecture. Although highly innovative assembly technique had to be developed in these projects, the shells themselves always remain static and do not allow for moving elements due to their curvilinear shapes. The exploration of an easily transformable space by human force alone called for the optimisation of a simple orthogonal system of posts and beams and moving panels. Unlike building scaffoldings or Segals Self Build system [6], WAAS has to act as a rigid frame without the aid of diagonal bracing that would impede the free transformation of the space. 2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. The plan libre Challenge

Traditional timber frame architecture provided continuity and fit conditions for rigidity through complex joinery. Careful craftsmanship of joinery insured much of the structural continuity and rigidity of the connections in Western traditional timber frame building but bracing by means of diagonal wood elements or solid walls was always required to prevent racking. In ancient Chinese wooden architecture however, the wall only defines an enclosure, and does not form a load-bearing element [7]. Dougong (fig.1) provided continuity and rigidity by transferring the weight on secondary horizontal elements over a larger area to vertical elements. Dougongs prove that it is possible to design a rigid yet elastic wooden structure providing continuity and fit while allowing a complete liberty in internal partition layout just like in the plan libre, one of LeCorbusiers five points for a new architecture. Unlike LeCorbusiers solution however, traditional oriental architecture incorporated mainly organic materials including wood, bamboo, straw and rice-paper screens. Traditional and modern Japanese interiors represent paradigms of adaptive architecture allowing inhabitants to easily transform spaces according to changing use of environmental conditions. Moreover, this high adaptability was made possible within the physical constraints of wooden construction technology inherited from Chinese and other Asian cultures. Its success relied on a strong sense of craftsmanship and inhabitants interaction with architecture. By liberating the wall from its load-bearing function, rigid frames also allow the orthogonal movement of sliding screens or walls. But how could we provide a full three dimensional movement of walls within the structural limitations of a rigid frame? Japanese chidori (fig.2) inherited from the dougong craftsmanship provided the first clue. Not unlike traditional wood frame assembly emulating tree structures, it was decided that wood alone had to provide the basic three-dimensional structural integrity of the Adaptive Architecture project.


357


Figure 1: Traditional dougong joint assembly showing the progressive interlocking superposition of bowed shape gongs on the dou block.

Figure 2: A chidori, Japanese six-pieces wooden puzzle inspired from traditional dougong suggesting a relatively rigid yet elastic post and beam assembly.

2.2. The Structural Challenge

A rigid frame consists simply of two columns and a beam, but unlike a portal frame, it is laterally and vertically stable without any type of wall infill or diagonal bracing. Stability is only achieved by providing rigid joints between columns and beams, and/or at the column bases. Rigid joints are bending-resistant connections that prevent relative rotation between the members. This implies that the columns and/or beams must bend if the frame is to deflect sideways. According to Sandaker et al. [8] : the stiffness of the structural elements provides stability, although in a flexible way, just like in a branch-to-trunk tree joint. The continuity and fit of the joint is therefore a fundamental characteristic of rigid frames allowing the load-sharing responsibility of all elements.

The characteristics of the wooden joint, its strength, flexibility, toughness, and appearance thus derive from the properties of the materials and the skill of the craftsman. Timber frame structural elements, prefabricated in the craftsman studio, were traditionally preassembled, numbered, and disassembled for final manual erection on site. It is precisely this building for disassembly attribute of timber framing, combined with digital prefabrication, which constitutes most promising research avenues in the field of sustainability. It reintroduces all the advantages of a renewable material within the efficiency of modern prefabrication techniques. Figure 4 presents the development flow diagram of the WAAS bespoke rigid node. Each figure represents a particular iteration of the rigid node development answering structural, functional or aesthetic considerations. The development demonstrates the necessary trade-offs and constant adaptation negotiated by the craftsman in balancing these three conditions when considering the actual fabrication of the joint. As an embodied agent animated by a multisensory sensibility and a subjective judgement, the craftsman continuously plays on three fronts to deliver an optimized artefact integrating complexity in a seemingly simple solution. This flow diagram depicts a specific design process path but is in no way the only possible one. Having to dissect the design process a posteriori from old sketches and models, we were striken by the many possible ways we could have achieve our goals and the complexities of design and intuition. Along the way several struggles occurred between the objective deterministic knowledge of the scientist and the subjective empirical intuition of the artist.

A Cross Node constitutes the most obvious orthogonal continuous rigid joint but still falls short in

providing support for movable panels. In Japanese traditional buildings, rails hidden in the thickness of the walls insured stability of the sliding partitions. In the absence of any fixed walls or any other hardware device, only a twin structure can provide the necessary support and movement for the panels. The duplication of the basic Cross Node in all three axes generates a Twin Cross Node where


358


Figure 1: Traditional dougong joint assembly showing the progressive interlocking superposition of bowed shape gongs on the dou block.

Figure 2: A chidori, Japanese six-pieces wooden puzzle inspired from traditional dougong suggesting a relatively rigid yet elastic post and beam assembly.

2.2. The Structural Challenge

A rigid frame consists simply of two columns and a beam, but unlike a portal frame, it is laterally and vertically stable without any type of wall infill or diagonal bracing. Stability is only achieved by providing rigid joints between columns and beams, and/or at the column bases. Rigid joints are bending-resistant connections that prevent relative rotation between the members. This implies that the columns and/or beams must bend if the frame is to deflect sideways. According to Sandaker et al. [8] : the stiffness of the structural elements provides stability, although in a flexible way, just like in a branch-to-trunk tree joint. The continuity and fit of the joint is therefore a fundamental characteristic of rigid frames allowing the load-sharing responsibility of all elements.

The characteristics of the wooden joint, its strength, flexibility, toughness, and appearance thus derive from the properties of the materials and the skill of the craftsman. Timber frame structural elements, prefabricated in the craftsman studio, were traditionally preassembled, numbered, and disassembled for final manual erection on site. It is precisely this building for disassembly attribute of timber framing, combined with digital prefabrication, which constitutes most promising research avenues in the field of sustainability. It reintroduces all the advantages of a renewable material within the efficiency of modern prefabrication techniques. Figure 4 presents the development flow diagram of the WAAS bespoke rigid node. Each figure represents a particular iteration of the rigid node development answering structural, functional or aesthetic considerations. The development demonstrates the necessary trade-offs and constant adaptation negotiated by the craftsman in balancing these three conditions when considering the actual fabrication of the joint. As an embodied agent animated by a multisensory sensibility and a subjective judgement, the craftsman continuously plays on three fronts to deliver an optimized artefact integrating complexity in a seemingly simple solution. This flow diagram depicts a specific design process path but is in no way the only possible one. Having to dissect the design process a posteriori from old sketches and models, we were striken by the many possible ways we could have achieve our goals and the complexities of design and intuition. Along the way several struggles occurred between the objective deterministic knowledge of the scientist and the subjective empirical intuition of the artist.

A Cross Node constitutes the most obvious orthogonal continuous rigid joint but still falls short in

providing support for movable panels. In Japanese traditional buildings, rails hidden in the thickness of the walls insured stability of the sliding partitions. In the absence of any fixed walls or any other hardware device, only a twin structure can provide the necessary support and movement for the panels. The duplication of the basic Cross Node in all three axes generates a Twin Cross Node where


358


sliding panels could be inserted between the beams and columns. However, the flat to edge connection between the x and z members would create an incompatibility between the y and x sliding elements. Rotating the x members to the flat and reinserting them between the y members, a symmetrical well-balanced node is created with equal edge to flat joining, equal spacing between the twin members AND compatible sliding movements in all three axis. However, the spacing between the twin members still remained far too wide to hold thin sliding panels. At this point, halving all members flat to edge in all axes would have been the most obvious solution to settle the spacing issue yielding directly to a fully isotropic node. However, halving was not an option since the integral section of the already small lumber elements had to be preserved and the complex crafting of a half-cross wood joinery was far beyond the competence of the design team.

Figure 4: Flow diagram presenting the development of the bespoke rigid node for the purpose of Adaptive Architecture. The left portion shows the isotropic (ISO) node where members are placed on edges in all directions whereas the right portion shows the anisotropic (ANISO) node where members are placed on the flat.

Joining the z elements flat to flat generates a Flat Node yielding a smaller spacing in the x axis but more disturbingly, it created an anisotropic node challenging the basic common-sense structural


359


sliding panels could be inserted between the beams and columns. However, the flat to edge connection between the x and z members would create an incompatibility between the y and x sliding elements. Rotating the x members to the flat and reinserting them between the y members, a symmetrical well-balanced node is created with equal edge to flat joining, equal spacing between the twin members AND compatible sliding movements in all three axis. However, the spacing between the twin members still remained far too wide to hold thin sliding panels. At this point, halving all members flat to edge in all axes would have been the most obvious solution to settle the spacing issue yielding directly to a fully isotropic node. However, halving was not an option since the integral section of the already small lumber elements had to be preserved and the complex crafting of a half-cross wood joinery was far beyond the competence of the design team.

Figure 4: Flow diagram presenting the development of the bespoke rigid node for the purpose of Adaptive Architecture. The left portion shows the isotropic (ISO) node where members are placed on edges in all directions whereas the right portion shows the anisotropic (ANISO) node where members are placed on the flat.

Joining the z elements flat to flat generates a Flat Node yielding a smaller spacing in the x axis but more disturbingly, it created an anisotropic node challenging the basic common-sense structural


359


laws, with flat beams in two axes. This Flat Node reduces the flexural resistance in the x axis and the flat to flat joining in the x and z axis appears to improve the overall rigidity. Functionally, the flat x and z members minimized the actual risk of tumbling over beams. In fact, beams on the flat in the z axis could significantly increase the usable horizontal working surface. Between architects, we were also fascinated by this non-intuitive solution where the structure now seemed to literally disappear when observed normal to the x axis. This immateriality of the structure, a new attribute otherwise unheard of since the beginning of this experiment, was seen from that point onward as a necessary condition to give sliding panels their full presence as the expressive elements of an Adaptive Architecture. Minimizing the visual presence of the structure meant that further rotation of the remaining x and y members to the flat could not be the easy answer to equal spacing. This fully flat node would also have increased the danger of tippling on the x members. Halving some of the members while preserving minimal structural continuity now appeared unavoidable forcing us to break from conceptual thinking in favour of a more craft-oriented object making.

The Half Node preserves a critical third central section for structural continuity by halving two thirds of the elements on edge (one third on each side). Halving flat to edge produces relatively weak joints prone to splitting, especially when using non-homogeneous lumber wood, due to the lack of shoulders, which would otherwise prevent twisting. Further halving the x members provided us, at least theoretically, with equal spacing in all axes. The actual making of the node presented several challenges, the most important being the precision or craftsmanship when halving. Moreover, adding mechanical fastening would only decrease the already minimal section of the halved x and y elements. Lumber wood could clearly no longer fulfill our continuity and fit objectives and needed to be substituted with a more resistant material especially at the junction of the halved elements. The introduction of a more resistant connector would reduce considerably the laborious and tricky halving process. Engineered wood could provide the much needed structural resistance AND dimensional stability.

Figure 5:1:2.5 scale model components and assembly. Figure 6: 1:15 scale components and final model.

Prefab Node - The final development to our bespoke anisotropic node came with the necessity

to attach the nodes together to form the basic structure. Nodes could be attached with a hinge joint or a rigid joint. Whilst a hinge would have been enough to resist lateral and gravity loads, a rigid attach would considerably diminish bending moment and shear forces in the members. Therefore, bridges, as we called them, had to provide continuity and fit with the nodes. The next natural step was to break down all members, both nodes and bridges, in sub-members or sticks that would be mechanically fastened together. In the context of prefabrication and manual assembly, this was a thrilling option since the breaking down of the node in smaller pieces meant straightforward cuts that open up the possibility for a simple yet very fit and rigid node. Moreover, it replaced the complex halving process by a simple cut and drill prefabrication process. The fit and continuity condition being now met, the fastening process of the sticks became the only remaining determinant of the prefab node performance. Only large-scale models could allow the exploration of the fastening solution. Figure 5 and 6 shows the construction of the broken-down anisotropic rigid node at 1:2.5 and 1:15 scale models. The 1:2.5 scale model is made of individual members that are cut, drilled and preassembled


360


laws, with flat beams in two axes. This Flat Node reduces the flexural resistance in the x axis and the flat to flat joining in the x and z axis appears to improve the overall rigidity. Functionally, the flat x and z members minimized the actual risk of tumbling over beams. In fact, beams on the flat in the z axis could significantly increase the usable horizontal working surface. Between architects, we were also fascinated by this non-intuitive solution where the structure now seemed to literally disappear when observed normal to the x axis. This immateriality of the structure, a new attribute otherwise unheard of since the beginning of this experiment, was seen from that point onward as a necessary condition to give sliding panels their full presence as the expressive elements of an Adaptive Architecture. Minimizing the visual presence of the structure meant that further rotation of the remaining x and y members to the flat could not be the easy answer to equal spacing. This fully flat node would also have increased the danger of tippling on the x members. Halving some of the members while preserving minimal structural continuity now appeared unavoidable forcing us to break from conceptual thinking in favour of a more craft-oriented object making.

The Half Node preserves a critical third central section for structural continuity by halving two thirds of the elements on edge (one third on each side). Halving flat to edge produces relatively weak joints prone to splitting, especially when using non-homogeneous lumber wood, due to the lack of shoulders, which would otherwise prevent twisting. Further halving the x members provided us, at least theoretically, with equal spacing in all axes. The actual making of the node presented several challenges, the most important being the precision or craftsmanship when halving. Moreover, adding mechanical fastening would only decrease the already minimal section of the halved x and y elements. Lumber wood could clearly no longer fulfill our continuity and fit objectives and needed to be substituted with a more resistant material especially at the junction of the halved elements. The introduction of a more resistant connector would reduce considerably the laborious and tricky halving process. Engineered wood could provide the much needed structural resistance AND dimensional stability.

Figure 5:1:2.5 scale model components and assembly. Figure 6: 1:15 scale components and final model.

Prefab Node - The final development to our bespoke anisotropic node came with the necessity

to attach the nodes together to form the basic structure. Nodes could be attached with a hinge joint or a rigid joint. Whilst a hinge would have been enough to resist lateral and gravity loads, a rigid attach would considerably diminish bending moment and shear forces in the members. Therefore, bridges, as we called them, had to provide continuity and fit with the nodes. The next natural step was to break down all members, both nodes and bridges, in sub-members or sticks that would be mechanically fastened together. In the context of prefabrication and manual assembly, this was a thrilling option since the breaking down of the node in smaller pieces meant straightforward cuts that open up the possibility for a simple yet very fit and rigid node. Moreover, it replaced the complex halving process by a simple cut and drill prefabrication process. The fit and continuity condition being now met, the fastening process of the sticks became the only remaining determinant of the prefab node performance. Only large-scale models could allow the exploration of the fastening solution. Figure 5 and 6 shows the construction of the broken-down anisotropic rigid node at 1:2.5 and 1:15 scale models. The 1:2.5 scale model is made of individual members that are cut, drilled and preassembled


360


6"

before the final assembly begins. First the x members, then the flat z members and finally y vertical members are stuck into place and bolted to lock the assembly just like a chidori puzzle game. The 1:15 scale model validated the rigidity of the entire structure and its potential for generic expansion in all 3 directions. 2.3. Prototyping

The transition from conceptual scale models to real scale fabrication requires the acknowledgement of the basic laws of physics namely gravity and elasticity. Gravity loads should not pose a serious problem but lateral loads would be challenging. The sharing of lateral forces through the elements of this rigid frame are most unpredictable and depends ultimately on the structural properties of each individual element composing the frame, namely the basic wood sticks and the bolts. The engineers are also particularly anxious about the loss of structural rigidity due to wood hygrometric variations and lack of accuracy in the elements cutting and drilling. Two anisotropic node prototypes were built out of two types of engineered wood, laminated veneered lumber (LVL) and laminated stranded lumber (LSL) using state-of-the-art Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) cutting and milling to optimise accuracy.

The transformation of large 2 by 9 feet LVL and LSL panels into small sticks reveals the intrinsic fabrication of these engineered woods by exposing their section to the eyes. The LVL immediately appeals by the alternation of light Douglas fir layers and black binding layers. Only small transversal holes betray the necessary gap between wood layers during the veneering process. This manufacturing flaw of the LVL reminds us of the Japanese aesthetic ideals of imperfection where the raw beauty of bamboos with their knots and smooth surfaces is literally sought after. LSL cuts suggest no such reference to a natural material. The sticks present neither contrast of texture nor colour differences between faces. However, the fact that polymer glue by volume is as much important as wood chips confers LSL an excellent resistance to compression parallel to the grain compare to LVL.

Figure 7: Anisotropic node. Six slightly different components make up this node but the front elevation clearly shows the minimal dimension of the horizontal structural elements suggesting a disappearance of the structure and enhancing the perception of the planes.

Once every individual stick has been drilled, we can at last assemble our first prototype node,

beginning with the anisotropic one. We first preassemble the six members made out of five sticks using simple hammer and ratchet hand tools to fasten four 5-1/4 by 1/4 diameter bolts per member. The fit is absolutely perfect and yields a very stout and rigid node. Its size and presence suggests a cast-iron Industrial Revolution look with its multiple bolts and nuts. Looking closer though, one is stuck


361


6"

before the final assembly begins. First the x members, then the flat z members and finally y vertical members are stuck into place and bolted to lock the assembly just like a chidori puzzle game. The 1:15 scale model validated the rigidity of the entire structure and its potential for generic expansion in all 3 directions. 2.3. Prototyping

The transition from conceptual scale models to real scale fabrication requires the acknowledgement of the basic laws of physics namely gravity and elasticity. Gravity loads should not pose a serious problem but lateral loads would be challenging. The sharing of lateral forces through the elements of this rigid frame are most unpredictable and depends ultimately on the structural properties of each individual element composing the frame, namely the basic wood sticks and the bolts. The engineers are also particularly anxious about the loss of structural rigidity due to wood hygrometric variations and lack of accuracy in the elements cutting and drilling. Two anisotropic node prototypes were built out of two types of engineered wood, laminated veneered lumber (LVL) and laminated stranded lumber (LSL) using state-of-the-art Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) cutting and milling to optimise accuracy.

The transformation of large 2 by 9 feet LVL and LSL panels into small sticks reveals the intrinsic fabrication of these engineered woods by exposing their section to the eyes. The LVL immediately appeals by the alternation of light Douglas fir layers and black binding layers. Only small transversal holes betray the necessary gap between wood layers during the veneering process. This manufacturing flaw of the LVL reminds us of the Japanese aesthetic ideals of imperfection where the raw beauty of bamboos with their knots and smooth surfaces is literally sought after. LSL cuts suggest no such reference to a natural material. The sticks present neither contrast of texture nor colour differences between faces. However, the fact that polymer glue by volume is as much important as wood chips confers LSL an excellent resistance to compression parallel to the grain compare to LVL.

Figure 7: Anisotropic node. Six slightly different components make up this node but the front elevation clearly shows the minimal dimension of the horizontal structural elements suggesting a disappearance of the structure and enhancing the perception of the planes.

Once every individual stick has been drilled, we can at last assemble our first prototype node,

beginning with the anisotropic one. We first preassemble the six members made out of five sticks using simple hammer and ratchet hand tools to fasten four 5-1/4 by 1/4 diameter bolts per member. The fit is absolutely perfect and yields a very stout and rigid node. Its size and presence suggests a cast-iron Industrial Revolution look with its multiple bolts and nuts. Looking closer though, one is stuck


361


by the wood feel and precision that we can now reproduce quickly and easily thanks to the digital prefab process. Isotropic and anisotropic nodes are linked together with bridges using LVL and LSL prototypes to form our basic rigid frame prototypes (fig. 8). These first full-scale node-to-bridge structures show the expressive qualities of the LVL over those of the LSL. The visible layering structure of the LVL inspires strength and confidence in flexion compared to the cake-like structure of the LSL that looks about to crumble. LVLs black and white linear structure exposed in section, enhanced by the warm red-brown color of its flat surfaces, elegantly expresses the linearity and simplicity of the structure. It engages a respectful dialogue between the craft and the craftsman in the hidden understanding of the process that generated the form. The rigid node assemblage puzzles the mind of the observer by its precision referring to steel working and yet this is made of wood. Therefore this structure can still be considered as being a hybrid-crafted artefact made with the help of machine. However, the objective/subjective debate between architects and engineers could not vanish that soon as much uncertainty still persisted about the material to be used. Engineers preferred LSL for its intrinsic homogeneity and low cost whereas architects preferred LVL for its laminar visual and tactile feel and imperfection still suggesting the fibrous structure of a tree.

Figure 8: Anisotropic Node on the left and the engineer expressing his bias for the Isotropic Node on the right. The contrasting layered texture of the LVL expresses more clearly the physical properties of the material compared to the homogeneous feel of the LSL. 2.4. Physical Property Tests

The only possible way to isolate the material most relevant for WAAS application came to the objective assessment of the respective physical properties of the LVL and LSL. The elastic and maximum resistances of these two types of engineered wood were tested using ASTM test norms for their respective compression and flexion resistances, tearing threshold and hygrometric dimensional variations. More specifically, two types of LVL, a softwood foreign option made of spruce already used for the LVL prototype and a hardwood LVL locally sourced option made of fast growing aspen and birch trees will be tested in addition to the LSL. The hygrometric variation test is probably the most important condition for the structural integrity since AA will be erected outdoor and subjected to rain and the thawing cycle of snow and ice. Dimensional variation is of particular concern since the assemblage resistance depends ultimately on the exact fit between elements following successive episodes of saturation and drying. Table 1 presents the results of these normative property tests.

The flexion resistance parallel to the wood plies is 10 to 30% higher than perpendicular to the

plies; A drilled element losses as much as 20% of its flexion resistance compared to a solid element;


362


by the wood feel and precision that we can now reproduce quickly and easily thanks to the digital prefab process. Isotropic and anisotropic nodes are linked together with bridges using LVL and LSL prototypes to form our basic rigid frame prototypes (fig. 8). These first full-scale node-to-bridge structures show the expressive qualities of the LVL over those of the LSL. The visible layering structure of the LVL inspires strength and confidence in flexion compared to the cake-like structure of the LSL that looks about to crumble. LVLs black and white linear structure exposed in section, enhanced by the warm red-brown color of its flat surfaces, elegantly expresses the linearity and simplicity of the structure. It engages a respectful dialogue between the craft and the craftsman in the hidden understanding of the process that generated the form. The rigid node assemblage puzzles the mind of the observer by its precision referring to steel working and yet this is made of wood. Therefore this structure can still be considered as being a hybrid-crafted artefact made with the help of machine. However, the objective/subjective debate between architects and engineers could not vanish that soon as much uncertainty still persisted about the material to be used. Engineers preferred LSL for its intrinsic homogeneity and low cost whereas architects preferred LVL for its laminar visual and tactile feel and imperfection still suggesting the fibrous structure of a tree.

Figure 8: Anisotropic Node on the left and the engineer expressing his bias for the Isotropic Node on the right. The contrasting layered texture of the LVL expresses more clearly the physical properties of the material compared to the homogeneous feel of the LSL. 2.4. Physical Property Tests

The only possible way to isolate the material most relevant for WAAS application came to the objective assessment of the respective physical properties of the LVL and LSL. The elastic and maximum resistances of these two types of engineered wood were tested using ASTM test norms for their respective compression and flexion resistances, tearing threshold and hygrometric dimensional variations. More specifically, two types of LVL, a softwood foreign option made of spruce already used for the LVL prototype and a hardwood LVL locally sourced option made of fast growing aspen and birch trees will be tested in addition to the LSL. The hygrometric variation test is probably the most important condition for the structural integrity since AA will be erected outdoor and subjected to rain and the thawing cycle of snow and ice. Dimensional variation is of particular concern since the assemblage resistance depends ultimately on the exact fit between elements following successive episodes of saturation and drying. Table 1 presents the results of these normative property tests.

The flexion resistance parallel to the wood plies is 10 to 30% higher than perpendicular to the

plies; A drilled element losses as much as 20% of its flexion resistance compared to a solid element;


362


The tearing resistance of perpendicular to ply bolt assembly is 20% higher than the parallel ply assembly.

The most important dimensional variation (10%) occurs perpendicular to wood ply orientation (thickness) ; water absorption causing the wood to return to its non-compressed state before manufacturing ;

Water saturation incurs a 30% reduction in compression resistance; and The average balance humidity value (BHV) of wood at the plant is 7% whereas its saturated BHV

is 100% meaning that water account for a s much as wood at a saturated state. The prototyping process identified the main advantages and limitations of the WAAS

prefabricated construction system. The anisotropic node option provides large horizontal surfaces that facilitate and improve security of the construction team. The physical properties of hardwood LVL, in particular its relative dimensional stability compared to softwood LVL and LSL confirm that this option was best suited for outdoor application. Moreover, the directionality of its laminated plies conveys the direction of the actual forces at stake in the assemblage. Aesthetically, LVL allows a clear reading of the individual sticks composing the assemblage and the appreciation of its precision manufacturing.

Table 1: Relative performance of three engineered wood samples (LVLhard, LVLsoft and LSL) with LVLhard as a reference value. LVLhard clearly outperforms LVLsoft for all tests but flexion perpendicular to the ply.

3. FABRICATION

Fabrication is divided in two major phases: workshop prefabrication and in situ assembly. The former celebrates the machine-made efficiency and precision whereas the latter focuses on human agency. Prefabrication made assembly on site efficient by providing small human-scaled elements easy to fasten. Apart from its inherent superior product quality, the prefabrication process allowed the project team to build AA on a tight schedule. The entire prefabrication took the equivalent of 10 weeks and the actual erection on site took only 4 days. A graduate student with a background in carpentry and Computer Numerical Command (CNC) fabrication supervised five architecture and wood engineering graduate students. Figure 9 shows the entire production process from workshop-based LVL cutting to the final in-situ assembly.

0"0,5"1"

1,5"2"

compression" 0lexion3para" 0lexion3perp" tearing" dimensional"variation"tests$

LVL3hard"LVL3soft"LSL"


363


The tearing resistance of perpendicular to ply bolt assembly is 20% higher than the parallel ply assembly.

The most important dimensional variation (10%) occurs perpendicular to wood ply orientation (thickness) ; water absorption causing the wood to return to its non-compressed state before manufacturing ;

Water saturation incurs a 30% reduction in compression resistance; and The average balance humidity value (BHV) of wood at the plant is 7% whereas its saturated BHV

is 100% meaning that water account for a s much as wood at a saturated state. The prototyping process identified the main advantages and limitations of the WAAS

prefabricated construction system. The anisotropic node option provides large horizontal surfaces that facilitate and improve security of the construction team. The physical properties of hardwood LVL, in particular its relative dimensional stability compared to softwood LVL and LSL confirm that this option was best suited for outdoor application. Moreover, the directionality of its laminated plies conveys the direction of the actual forces at stake in the assemblage. Aesthetically, LVL allows a clear reading of the individual sticks composing the assemblage and the appreciation of its precision manufacturing.

Table 1: Relative performance of three engineered wood samples (LVLhard, LVLsoft and LSL) with LVLhard as a reference value. LVLhard clearly outperforms LVLsoft for all tests but flexion perpendicular to the ply.

3. FABRICATION

Fabrication is divided in two major phases: workshop prefabrication and in situ assembly. The former celebrates the machine-made efficiency and precision whereas the latter focuses on human agency. Prefabrication made assembly on site efficient by providing small human-scaled elements easy to fasten. Apart from its inherent superior product quality, the prefabrication process allowed the project team to build AA on a tight schedule. The entire prefabrication took the equivalent of 10 weeks and the actual erection on site took only 4 days. A graduate student with a background in carpentry and Computer Numerical Command (CNC) fabrication supervised five architecture and wood engineering graduate students. Figure 9 shows the entire production process from workshop-based LVL cutting to the final in-situ assembly.

0"0,5"1"

1,5"2"

compression" 0lexion3para" 0lexion3perp" tearing" dimensional"variation"tests$

LVL3hard"LVL3soft"LSL"


363


Workshop

cutting drilling preassembling

In-situ

assembling nodes bridging nodes

Figure 9: AA chain of production from the workshop-based prefabrication process of cutting, drilling and preassembling members to the in situ nodes assembly and final bridging.

3.1. Workshop Prefabrication

Large 40 x 80 LVL panels are cut into small 24 and 48 1 x 1 square elements on a CNC saw bench. 3 axis CNC router is used for the elements necessitating drilling on two sides whereas 2 axis CNC router is used for drilling single sided elements. Human agency proved again critical to ensure the required fit of the structure, as these machines require precise manual feeds using clamps mounted on the suction routing table. All elements are saturated in a water repelling solution to improve their dimensional stability under high humidity content.


364


Workshop

cutting drilling preassembling

In-situ

assembling nodes bridging nodes

Figure 9: AA chain of production from the workshop-based prefabrication process of cutting, drilling and preassembling members to the in situ nodes assembly and final bridging.

3.1. Workshop Prefabrication

Large 40 x 80 LVL panels are cut into small 24 and 48 1 x 1 square elements on a CNC saw bench. 3 axis CNC router is used for the elements necessitating drilling on two sides whereas 2 axis CNC router is used for drilling single sided elements. Human agency proved again critical to ensure the required fit of the structure, as these machines require precise manual feeds using clamps mounted on the suction routing table. All elements are saturated in a water repelling solution to improve their dimensional stability under high humidity content.


364


Workshop prefabrication In situ assembly 48 nodes and 104 bridges made of 52 LVL sheets 4 x 8 x 1 cut into 1472 LVL elements 24 x 1 x 1 and 400 LVL elements 48 x 1 x 1 preassembled into 496 node components using 3008 sets stainless steel bolts 5 x , nuts , washers and split-ring lock washers in 51 days by 6 graduate students part-time.

12 screw-in piles (outsourced) 496 node components preassembled in situ into 48 nodes linked with 104 bridges supporting 48 sliding panels on 3 levels accessible via 3 ladders and completed in 4 days by 6 graduate students full-time.

3.1. In-situ Assembly

Careful upstream planning and the quality of the workforce play a major role in the achieved quality of a project. Whatever the extent of upstream planning, the erection phase of a project is always a reality checkpoint where any kind of unsuspected contingency requires a good amount of creative thinking for quick assessments and successful adaptive strategies. Site work supervisors always try to avoid trades overlapping which is much easier to achieve with prefabrication. Apart from the necessary screw-in piles outsourced by professionals, the entire assembly and erection of the structure was realised by non-professionals graduate students. Figure 10 shows three stages of the in-situ assembly process and the final fully adaptable space.

Figure 10: In-situ assembly process from foundation to sliding panels insertion and the resulting fully adaptable space allowing walls, roof and floors movements in all directions.

4. CONCLUSION

According to Stacey [9], the new digital paradigm may well represent the epitome of embodied agency in facilitating a seamless process between imagination and fabrication where thinking and feeling become contained within the process of making. In this sense, digital fabrication may well require more, not less craftsmanship knowledge than traditional analogical fabrication process. Digital prefabrication made possible the actual erection of a three story high wooden structure by graduate students alone. The prefabrication of small, precise and easily handled building components maximised the tactile learning of the students with the reassurance that everything would fit perfectly.


365


Workshop prefabrication In situ assembly 48 nodes and 104 bridges made of 52 LVL sheets 4 x 8 x 1 cut into 1472 LVL elements 24 x 1 x 1 and 400 LVL elements 48 x 1 x 1 preassembled into 496 node components using 3008 sets stainless steel bolts 5 x , nuts , washers and split-ring lock washers in 51 days by 6 graduate students part-time.

12 screw-in piles (outsourced) 496 node components preassembled in situ into 48 nodes linked with 104 bridges supporting 48 sliding panels on 3 levels accessible via 3 ladders and completed in 4 days by 6 graduate students full-time.

3.1. In-situ Assembly

Careful upstream planning and the quality of the workforce play a major role in the achieved quality of a project. Whatever the extent of upstream planning, the erection phase of a project is always a reality checkpoint where any kind of unsuspected contingency requires a good amount of creative thinking for quick assessments and successful adaptive strategies. Site work supervisors always try to avoid trades overlapping which is much easier to achieve with prefabrication. Apart from the necessary screw-in piles outsourced by professionals, the entire assembly and erection of the structure was realised by non-professionals graduate students. Figure 10 shows three stages of the in-situ assembly process and the final fully adaptable space.

Figure 10: In-situ assembly process from foundation to sliding panels insertion and the resulting fully adaptable space allowing walls, roof and floors movements in all directions.

4. CONCLUSION

According to Stacey [9], the new digital paradigm may well represent the epitome of embodied agency in facilitating a seamless process between imagination and fabrication where thinking and feeling become contained within the process of making. In this sense, digital fabrication may well require more, not less craftsmanship knowledge than traditional analogical fabrication process. Digital prefabrication made possible the actual erection of a three story high wooden structure by graduate students alone. The prefabrication of small, precise and easily handled building components maximised the tactile learning of the students with the reassurance that everything would fit perfectly.


365


None of the team members had ever built anything full scale apart from the supervisor. This may come as a surprise to a non-architect reader but unfortunately, as reckoned by Sennett [10], most architectural student never build what they design. In fact, few professional architects ever build what they design. Throughout the erection process, students were confronted to ever-present gravity challenge ultimately facing the architect in-situ compare to the relative off-hand conceptual thinking. The learning experience of such an undertaking cannot be over emphasised in the context of adaptive architecture and human agency. If human scale adaptive opportunities are to be provided to inhabitants, it is intimately related to the actual fabrication of architecture.

The development of the WAAS raised passion among the design team. More than a mere multidisciplinary exercise, the design process was clearly transdisciplinary and asked a good dose of adaptability from every participant. Either guided by scientific evidence or pure design intuition, architects and engineers often clashed. In such occasions, scale models still proved invaluable as common tools to shake-up beliefs and engage the team towards more innovative solutions by tactile thinking and empirical knowledge. However, the most important fact about building your own design perhaps resides in the acknowledgement that architecture does not exist until it actually interacts with a site. AA interaction with the sun, light and wind and the rich interior-exterior transactions could not have been predicted in simulations and scale models. Full-scale spaces initiate a brand new dialogue between architecture, landscape and inhabitants. AA will allow the inhabitants to constantly reinvent this dialogue in the flesh of architecture by adapting itself seamlessly to diurnal and seasonal cycles. The actual inhabitation and transformation experimentations of AA are presented elsewhere.

Architecture has always been a medium to support what cannot be predicted: life. Since inhabiting a space involves the continuous movement through spaces defined by walls, architects will never be able to predict how program will change, how movement will be performed, how changes will occur. Instead of battling against the unpredictability of the users in static buildings, the WAAS development aims at fostering and celebrating inhabitants-architecture dynamic interactions leading to more Adaptive Architecture. REFERENCES

[1] Demers, C. and Potvin A. 2009. Adaptive Architecture. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Research-Creation Grant. Ottawa, Canada.

[2] Cole, R.J., Robinson, J., Brown, Z. and O'Shea, M. 2008. Re-contextualizing the notion of comfort. In: Building Research & Information. 36:4, pp. 323-336.

[3] Pallasmaa, J. 2009. The Thinking Hand: Essential Embodied Wisdom in Architecture. Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.

[4] Crawford, M. 2009. Shop Class as Soulcraft: an Inquiry into the Value of Work. Waterville ME: Thorndike Press.

[5] Araya, S. 2011. Performative Architecture. DSpace@MIT [Online], Available at: http://18.7.29.232/handle/1721.1/68413?show=full [Accessed 23 March 2013].

[6] Segal, W. 1979. [Online], Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ 2011011 8095356/ http://www.cabe.org.uk/case-studies/walter-segal-self-build [Accessed 15 August 2013].

[7] Ssu-ch'eng, Liang. 2005. Chinese Architecture: A Pictorial History. Mineola NY: Dover Publications. 232 p.

[8] Sandaker, N. et al. 2011. The Structural Basis of Architecture. London: Routledge.

[9] Stacey, M. 2012, Digital Craft in the Making of Architecture. In: B. Sheil, ed. 2012. Manufacturing the Bespoke. Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 58-77.

[10] Sennett, R. 2008. The Craftsman. London: Penguin Books.


366


None of the team members had ever built anything full scale apart from the supervisor. This may come as a surprise to a non-architect reader but unfortunately, as reckoned by Sennett [10], most architectural student never build what they design. In fact, few professional architects ever build what they design. Throughout the erection process, students were confronted to ever-present gravity challenge ultimately facing the architect in-situ compare to the relative off-hand conceptual thinking. The learning experience of such an undertaking cannot be over emphasised in the context of adaptive architecture and human agency. If human scale adaptive opportunities are to be provided to inhabitants, it is intimately related to the actual fabrication of architecture.

The development of the WAAS raised passion among the design team. More than a mere multidisciplinary exercise, the design process was clearly transdisciplinary and asked a good dose of adaptability from every participant. Either guided by scientific evidence or pure design intuition, architects and engineers often clashed. In such occasions, scale models still proved invaluable as common tools to shake-up beliefs and engage the team towards more innovative solutions by tactile thinking and empirical knowledge. However, the most important fact about building your own design perhaps resides in the acknowledgement that architecture does not exist until it actually interacts with a site. AA interaction with the sun, light and wind and the rich interior-exterior transactions could not have been predicted in simulations and scale models. Full-scale spaces initiate a brand new dialogue between architecture, landscape and inhabitants. AA will allow the inhabitants to constantly reinvent this dialogue in the flesh of architecture by adapting itself seamlessly to diurnal and seasonal cycles. The actual inhabitation and transformation experimentations of AA are presented elsewhere.

Architecture has always been a medium to support what cannot be predicted: life. Since inhabiting a space involves the continuous movement through spaces defined by walls, architects will never be able to predict how program will change, how movement will be performed, how changes will occur. Instead of battling against the unpredictability of the users in static buildings, the WAAS development aims at fostering and celebrating inhabitants-architecture dynamic interactions leading to more Adaptive Architecture. REFERENCES

[1] Demers, C. and Potvin A. 2009. Adaptive Architecture. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Research-Creation Grant. Ottawa, Canada.

[2] Cole, R.J., Robinson, J., Brown, Z. and O'Shea, M. 2008. Re-contextualizing the notion of comfort. In: Building Research & Information. 36:4, pp. 323-336.

[3] Pallasmaa, J. 2009. The Thinking Hand: Essential Embodied Wisdom in Architecture. Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.

[4] Crawford, M. 2009. Shop Class as Soulcraft: an Inquiry into the Value of Work. Waterville ME: Thorndike Press.

[5] Araya, S. 2011. Performative Architecture. DSpace@MIT [Online], Available at: http://18.7.29.232/handle/1721.1/68413?show=full [Accessed 23 March 2013].

[6] Segal, W. 1979. [Online], Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ 2011011 8095356/ http://www.cabe.org.uk/case-studies/walter-segal-self-build [Accessed 15 August 2013].

[7] Ssu-ch'eng, Liang. 2005. Chinese Architecture: A Pictorial History. Mineola NY: Dover Publications. 232 p.

[8] Sandaker, N. et al. 2011. The Structural Basis of Architecture. London: Routledge.

[9] Stacey, M. 2012, Digital Craft in the Making of Architecture. In: B. Sheil, ed. 2012. Manufacturing the Bespoke. Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 58-77.

[10] Sennett, R. 2008. The Craftsman. London: Penguin Books.


366


Documents

Wooden Adaptive Architecture System (WAAS