This is Adam Taylor- our Wood expert. He also happens to have access to this abnormally large saw, which we used to cut our 6.25" x 3.5" cants into 5/8" thick pieces of siding. Huge thanks to the volunteers who probably walked away from this work day bruised and exhausted.







The siding was cut in preparation for our wall experiment. Of course with typical construction all of the walls would be built simultaneously, but since this is a new process and we're first time Wall-Builders, we have restricted our learning experience to one portion of the cabin.

Here's the step by step on how we build a wall: 

1. Widen the rough opening to accommodate the new window

2. Apply vertical furring strips





3. Wrap, cut, and flash the opening






4. Insert the window





5. Apply horizontal furring strips





6. Slide in metal flashing above the window




7. Complete the pattern

And repeat!

Green Oak "Continuance"

The first bent was dangerous.
The second bent was nerve-wracking.
The third, fourth, and fifth bents basically put themselves up. ...What really happened was Josh and Blake got into a rhythm of constructing and we enlisted our engineers to help with the raising.

Here we are today!

The team (most of it) has returned from the Holidays with a sense of satisfaction at a job well partially done and an eagerness to push forward with improvements.

The reviewers had some suggestions:

embracing construction methods

experiment with openings

increased natural light

Design Build Studio

FIVE MONTHS LATER...the true test has begun.

5 studio + 3 seminar + 1 professor + 1 Jeremy = Green Oak Initiative Materialized.

Step Zero: deconstruct

Step One: get the wood

This was harder than we imagined. After weeks of phone calls to local sawmills, we started the telethon. Each of us was frantically googling sawmills in every surrounding state; we catalogued, pitched the Green Oak Initiative, and finally dropped our phones as soon as Hunter yelled "You all owe me drinks!" 

4:30pm Wednesday, September 23, the wood arrived from South Carolina. They told us we had three hours to unload and the clock began as soon as we cut the cants loose. By the time 7:30 rolled around we had sweat drenched t-shirts, several pinched fingers, a bundle of aching muscles, and most importantly we had the wood unloaded into the atrium of the Art+Architecture building. 

No more pretending. Now that we have the main ingredient, we need to build as quickly and carefully as possible because every day that wood shrinks a little bit, so does our window for construction.

Each 14'-16' member weighs in at about 150lbs wet. Thanks to Hunter Todd's home scale we know that one foot of a typical cant weighs exactly 9.85lbs right now.

Two weeks into building: two massive bents stand precariously upright before us. We've already encountered one casualty. Lesson learned- metal clamps become weapons when they fall from 16'. The number one rule on the building pad is if this thing starts falling, run away.

Final Review

On Monday, April 20th 2015, our studio had our final review for our Green Oak Project of a design for a bunk house at Red Bird Mission in Clay County, Kentucky. Reviewers Kevin Stevens and Katherine Ambroziak from The University of Tennessee College of Architecture and Design, as well as Mark Sanderson, one of the Principals at DIGSAU architects in Philadelphia and Brian Court, a partner with Miller Hull Partnership in Seattle, gave us their time, experience, and expertise for a few hours. We presented them with twelve boards, a model, and physical 1:1 scale mockups explaining the work we have done this semester.

They reviewed our research and design and believe that the work we have done looks thorough, competent, and overall like a successful project. They gave us constructive criticism and advice ranging from specific construction methods to presenting alternative ways of thinking about architecture, design, and construction.

Our work this semester seems to have been successful. We still have some things to take care of concerning handing this project over to the next set of students so that they can actually build it. Building it will be the first true test, and then evaluating the building's sustainable design qualities and construction methods. It will take some time to truly validate our work, but we all believe that the work we have done will do some true good for the people of Clay County and for any designers who wish to use our research as a precedent for their own designs.

Winning Gold at University of Tennessee Knoxville EUReCA

At The University of Tennessee, Knoxville we have our annual Exhibition of Undergraduate Research and Creative Achievement. Even though we are still designing and our final review for this semester is less than a week away, we took the time to create a poster and give a presentation at the exhibit. This year the Green Oak Initiative won Gold in the Architecture and Design category. 

The exhibit showcased many projects and it was exciting seeing all of the work all these students have done and the potential that research projects can do for the world. Being recognized for the work that we have done this semester, as well as showcasing the work that students have done in the previous semesters, was wonderful. We are also glad we are spreading the word about the amazing work we are doing that we know will be doing some real good once we can utilize this material and construction methods.

Penultimate Review

On Wednesday, April 1st we had our penultimate review.  Bill Martella, James Rose, and Matt Culver were our reviewers and gave us a great critique and great advice that we have already started to implement into our design.

This review covered the previous semester's work with green oak, the site and context, program, research, living building challenge, sustainable strategies, materials, details, and landscape. Having a team of 12 students and a knowledgeable, passionate professor has allowed us to get so much work done. The design is nearly finished and the construction drawings constructions specifications will be finished by our next review on the 20th of April.

Exterior Mockup

We have one more building mockup completed!  This time we’re looking at how the green oak cants can be used as siding on a building.  With this 1:1 scale mockup, we’re investigating the weathering capabilities of 5/8” thick boards and the fasteners that are used to attach them.  This mockup will use stainless steel screws as well as typical woods screws to get a better idea how the acid in the oak will corrode the different metals.  We will evaluate the structure periodically to look at how ‘fissures’ or cracks may occur along the fastener point where the boards are pinned.

A roughly 4”x6” cant can be milled into 6 boards. We purchased ours cants from United Forrest Products in Morristown, Tennessee, they also milled them down for us.  The great folks were a big help in cutting a small order like ours (48 boards), I think they’re used to cutting quantities like 4,800!

The initial idea for this mockup was a 4x4x8’ box that would be clad in oak boards, using a pattern called reverse board and batten.  The box allows us to simulate the proper air space behind the boards that we would expect in the final project.  The air space is critical as this allows moisture to leave the boards easier after a rain. 

We re-purposed two floor panels that were used in the original green oak exhibit; those 2”x6”s frames are beefy!  

No, Oliver isn't parkouring, he’s fastening in a lot of extra cross bracing.  We decided to build most of the structure inside the Art + Architecture building for the ease of construction and access to the woodshop. It’s too bad that not all construction sites have air conditioning!

No this isn’t a port-a-john! It is the pre-oak-sided box frame being lowered with the help of a UT motorpool truck and its tremendously helpful lift gate.  Just the frame alone probably weighs a little more than three hundred pounds, didn’t I say those 2”x6”’s were beefy!  No problem with five architecture students eager to get their hands dirty! 

  

You can see the house wrap that covers the box.  This is because we wanted to be true to the wall design and prevent water from escaping into the plywood covered frame.  Those 2”x3”s and 2”x4’s you see are called furring strips, in our case, we over sided them to allow us hang the very heavy oak siding without concern.  

Hey it’s looking good!  We've got the boards spaced appropriately and Oliver is putting his finishing touches on the roof.  Why a roof?  Well, want to keep the inside dry.  

And it’s done!! Yes, it may look like an over glorified outhouse but we have bigger plans.  We expect to monitor this mockup over the next three months.  We’re happy to get it up this time in the year where it’ll be experiencing a wide range of temperature changes and precipitation. 

-Paul Attea

Back To The Hardwood Mill!

I recently took a trip to pick up a batch of freshly cut oak cants for our next building mock-up.  Because cants aren't available in a typical home improvement store, I had to go right to the source: the sawmill.  I took our big UT  Motor pool truck down to Seymour, TN and paid the East Tennessee Wood Products Company, Inc. a visit. 

The visit had been delayed for about two weeks because of the ice and snow, and by the looks of the lumber yard I’m glad we waited.  (I’ll make send my apologies to the UT Motopool employees who had to clean up all the mud in the truck, I’m Sorry!)

Ronald, Mark, and Randy Dixon, the sawmill’s owners and operators, were a great help in humoring us with such a small order.  Randy, who was driving that ridiculously huge machine, helped to flawlessly maneuver the 16’ cants on our 10’ bed.  The wood weighed the truck bed down so much that I didn’t think I’d be able to make it out of the yard!

This research can have a profound impact on these small, owner operated sawmills, who make up the majority of sawmills in the US hardwood industry.  Creating value added solutions for these low grade byproducts means that these ‘mom and pop’ sawmills could draw in more revenue with no change to their typical operations.   

Hopefully these 25 cants should hold us over for a while, now we have some building to do!

-Paul Attea

Green Oak Seminar Class

In order too supplement the research taking place in the Green Oak Studio and fully explore the possibilities of this project a separate team of students meet twice a week to help investigate the Green Oak Project. This team broke itself down into four sub groups in order to concentrate mental capabilities and production. The groups work to solve any challenges which arise in studio as well as provide other areas of expertise to influence studio design.

The four groups are categorized into:

Technical Challenges
Investigates any potential problems in the construction of a green oak assembly such as openings and shrinkage or types of joints and connections 

Pre-Fab
Focuses on off-site construction and moving strategies to optimize a bent system for interstate transportation, and on site assembly. 

Sustainability
Explores the requirements of the Living Building Challenge and how these requirements will affect the design and technicalities of the project.

'DIY' Mechanical Systems
Collaborates with the sustainability group to find systems such as solar hot water heating systems or storm water systems that are compatible with the Living Building Challenge requirements.

-Oliver White

Preliminary Design

After visiting the site we have started to design. Between the twelve of us we have a few hundred sketches. Everyone is exploring the site, intended uses, climate, culture, materials, sustainable strategies, codes, ADA requirements, and even more to produce diagrams and concepts. Collaborating our ideas and goals together to produce a single design concept is a great challenge, but so far we are doing so expediently.

Another challenge we have taken upon ourselves is the Living Building Challenge. This, to our knowledge, is the most strict sustainable design challenge using the most advanced methods in measuring sustainability. Its main areas are site, water, energy, health, materials, equity, and beauty. This undertaking will be one of our greatest challenges, but even if we realize the task is impossible for this project, the final product will be an incredibly sustainable building. 

Phase II

A new phase for the Green Oak Initiative. A new semester. A new team. Since winning the U.S. EPA Sustainable Design Challenge, we have $90,000 in grant funding for a real-world application. After Phase I's success we can now continue to design and build a full scale building in Phase II.

The primary objectives in Phase II will be:

• To develop, detail, and construct a full-scale building using green oak pallet cants as structural members.
• To monitor, record, and analyze the demonstration project for structural, acoustic, and thermal performance over a two-year period as the green oak members dry. (Due to the length of time necessary for drying, only the first part of this monitoring will be supported by the P3 Phase II grant.)
• To disseminate our findings widely through multiple digital media platforms, peer reviewed publications, design award programs, and programs recognizing the integration of pedagogy and practice such as the NCARB (National Council of Architectural Registration Boards) Award and the ACSA (Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture) Creative Achievement Award.

This semester will be for designing and creating drawings and specifications for the building. General task for the semester include:

• Meetings with community partner to identify any shortcomings in the proposed design
• Detailed climatic and site analysis
• Detailed code review
• Target setting for Living Building Challenge (LBC) or LEED Platinum rating as appropriate for selected project
• Preliminary energy modeling to “tune” envelope and solar apertures
• Daylighting studies
• Development of envelope sealing and insulating details
• Explore potential for sustainable site strategies such as graywater treatment or rainwater harvesting
• Explore sustainable strategies for interiors such as reducing the use of coatings with VOCs and low energy lighting
• Development of an outline specification for the envelope, site, and interiors.
• Refine the drawing set for the demonstration project
• Provide drawings and specifications to the county code officials in support of the issuance of a building permit

The building will be a cabin at Red Bird Mission's Campus in Beverly, Kentucky. People travel to the campus to assist Red Bird and the local community usually though construction and maintenance projects. During their stay they sleep in cabins on the campus. A new cabin will provide more beds, meaning more capacity for volunteers. The volunteers spend most of their time away working, but when they are on campus they clean up, eat, sleep, and hang out together. We intend for the cabin to provide spaces for washing up, sleeping, and community.

The site

Discussing Red Bird, the site, and the design requirements.

Inside of one of the cabins.

Surveying the site.

We are off to a great start this semester, but we still have a lot of work to do.  

Proposed Designs

Our team studied different variations for a proposed house design. We integrated these projects into our Phase 2 proposal. Here are the three drawing sets that we brought to Washington DC:

Team A

Team B

Team C 

Results with Sam

We were able to talk to Sam Mortimer from the New Norris Project who won the same EPA Grant a few years back.  After contacting him by email a few times we were able to meet with him a few times and get some tips.

Meeting with Sam Mortimer – 03_02_14

Things that we need to consider or be able to answer:

Set up a strategy for presenting:

                  How many people at the booth at once?

                  Do we have one or two “know-it-alls”/”MCs” that can point certain questions to certain people?

                  What are people’s strong points?

                  Our main speakers need to be good at…

                                    Being efficient.

                                    Confident in answering.

                                    If don’t know the answer, know the plan.

                                    Show the WANT we have to build this structure.

“Can you build this with 90,000 dollars?”

“How will this educate people at different levels? How will this empower people at different levels?

-        Building Industry

-        Architects

-        Communities

-        Students

“How are you interacting with the groups you are working with?  How are all the groups benefitting from this project?”

Understanding how this project EMPOWERS people.

Set our goals for Phase II.

How are we going to evaluate afterwards?

We should have a 1 minute speech, 5 minute speech, 20 minute speech.

Get on Archinect.

 Meeting with Sam Mortimer – 02_28_14

Things that we need to consider or be able to answer:

Why does England use green oak? Because they have an abundance of resource, because of tradition, etc.?

Know our data – we know our idea, but we need to be able to throw out the numbers to back it up (and make that data easy to grasp, making the idea apparent)

How did we come to the conclusion of the prototype as the correct solution?

Be able to understand what design/build is.

With explaining design/build…

                  We know what we are doing.

                  Explaining the Fab Lab, and the resources our school has for a design/build.

                  What we are learning as architecture students.

Go over EPA stuff…

                  What are the goals of P3?

                  Why does this competition exist?

How can we have community engagement? Either engage before the competition, or have a plan for how we WILL engage the community with the project.

What will we do with the diorama after the competition?

Talk to _______ about Earth Day. – How can we get more involvement on campus?

Ready for DC

The P3 Competition is starting to feel very real (and we're feeling pretty giddy) after a brainstorming session this past Sunday in the 65 degrees of Knoxville sunshine.  Our team divided and conquered in a two group charrette to take on the challenge of "now just how ARE we going to present this stuff?"  Ideas were bouncing off one another and onto our rolls of trace, documenting as much of the delivery as possible.  Some ended up on the chalk board, some ended up cast aside in a crumpled mess--to be recycled of course.  All in all we had a lot of success on narrowing in on a design,  stay tuned to see what in store!

EPA Grant from New Norris House

We contacted the team from the New Norris House to discuss different reactions and possibilities to apply to our Green Oak Seminar. Here is the conversation we had with Samuel Mortimer.

How well was the demonstration model received versus the board?
The model was received very, very well. I refuse to believe that only the time with the judges is important. I think it is pretty important to engage the public really well during your time on the mall. Big things we emphasized about the model were: 1. Proof we could build things cheaply and with craft; 2. It was to be used later on as a travel exhibit (one of the aims of p3 is educational as precedent and teaching tools); 3. As a tool to engage people (above all) in a 1:1 scale; 4. As a leadin to the designbuild nature of the project

How did you get the demonstration model to DC? Was it built on site? Did it break down into smaller pieces?
The model was built in 6 floor pieces (think about the ice rink in market square), with several vertical elements placed strategically on top. The model was hauled for us by a driver from the TVA (a partner we made who gave us $5000 and use of their truck and a driver for the trip.

Were you allowed to have smaller articles as selling points? (Pamphlets? Brochures? Etc.)
We made some postcard sized handouts. Some people have take home things (keychains, and the like… think solar decathlon), but I don’t think that’s a good use of your time or money. We also had a few smaller scale models that went on the table in front of our boards. Material samples or other things people can touch.

Do you give the judges any kind of paperwork or brochure or is it purely by talking and the board?
We spoke a little bit at the boards, but spent most of the time in the demonstration model. We gave them our postcard handout, but otherwise I think that was it.

How strict were the constraints on the board design? Did you have to put in certain graphics?
We struggled with this at first and looked at modifying the boards with photoshop filters, etc (that strange colorful nautilus). In the end we didn’t do this. The board design is quite important to convey a clear message. Don’t put too much importance on setting yourself apart and concentrate on having a well laid out presentation. Your boards will likely look significantly different that most other people there anyway… so no need to try too hard and muddy up the message. Look at photos from years passed at other peoples boards. They are sciency, have no sense of heirarchy, and are generally a design nightmare. Make your boards look like Edward Tutfe working for National Geographic. 

That being said, I’m not sure if we followed the font suggestion or not. All the indesign files are on the server for you to reference if you like.  

If you could have done anything different, what would it be? (and maybe nothing, because you guys won :)
Beginning of the project was a little overwhelming even with only a few people at times. Once the project became more “set” it was easier to function behind one common goal… but identifying that goal in the first place was difficult and engaged people in a lot of different ways (mostly resulting in a handful of inactive participants at times – both mentally and physically). I’m not sure exactly what I would do, but I would find a way to make sure everyone was pulling a rope of their own (but in generally the same direction) from much earlier on. Does that make sense? Not always possible, but we could have done better. It’s an issue of ownership (mostly) related to group projects that isn’t unique to p3 by any means. This isn’t just a matter of being better suited to win the content, but fundamentally about ensuring everyone is learning. (Though that isn’t necessarily up to you I suppose, so just concentrate on winning!)

Lastly, how many people went? Was there a limit? Was it just whoever could make it got to go or did you select the students who went?
We brought 2 architecture students and 5 (or 4?) planning students, plus 4 faculty members. There was no limit, except the budget (this was all of the people working on the project at the time though). I think with some clever transport (megabus!) and carpooling, you could likely all go… but you know the project and team better than me! How you delegate responsibilities within your presentation (both for judges and public) is a pretty important exercise. Who knows what things best and who is the best at talking about them. It’s not always the same person.

Whew.  Sorry -- that is what we are trying to figure out right now.

Narrowing our Focus

Designing the connections for our bent was a challenge but with numerous iterations of sketches and a compilation of ideas, we finally hammered out the ideal connections we would like to build.

Here the whole class is talking about graphics for the final presentation board

Paul is explaining a previous grant project board and talking about what we could pull to use for our own