Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts

4.28.2016

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!






2.18.2016

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









2.08.2015

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.  



5.06.2014

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 

5.01.2014

Closer Look at our Final Board

If you did not get a chance to view our final presentation up close, here is another look at it. You may also download it here: Green Oak Presentation


4.29.2014

P3 Grant Award Winners

As you may or may not have heard, we are now the proud recipients of the EPA P3 Phase 2 grant! The whole team is brimming with excitement over our victory and cannot wait to see where the project takes us next! Not only did we win the Phase 2 grant, we took home a Student's Choice award; our fellow exhibitors voted and agreed we were worthy of taking home the prize! We are deeply honored and just want to say that every single booth that participated in the exposition did a knock-out job creating projects that benefitted People, Prosperity, and the Planet! We are all winners when it comes to improving the quality of life for everyone. One of the most exciting parts of the exposition was getting to talk to the students of different universities and share similar research stories and talk about what worked and what did not. All in all, we had an extremely successful semester and an invaluable exposition. Thank you to everyone involved at the EPA, the USA Science and Engineering festival, and everyone who proposed a project. Who knows, the next time we all meet up we may have built a Green Oak House! 


4.18.2014

Green Oak as Sculpture?

Meanwhile.. We have art!  Well, what we are calling our "Green Oak Research Sculpture".  Students are working with the Tennessee Center for Renewable Carbon and the UT Arboretum to develop this portion of our materials research.  We have 15 pallets nine feet above ground that are subjects to measure dimensional movement, durability, and weathering qualities ( such as change in appearance).  Students will monitor this project with photographic documentation once a month for the next 3 years to develop conclusions that can be applied to our future design/build/evaluate project.


3.12.2014

Gathering it all together

With D.C. looming closer and closer, we are taking steps to gather everything together. Graphics, teeshirt sizes, proposal revisions, and document sorting are happening all around. We have decided to take a diorama that will exhibit our intent and research as well as demonstrate our application to design. This should be an interactive experience for all.






3.02.2014

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?

2.26.2014

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!



2.25.2014

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.

2.19.2014

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

2.13.2014

FabLab Certification

The old faces had already been certified to work in the FabLab but for the 5 new faces, we had to have Matt Culver show us the machinery and explain how it works before we could use it. We watched and even cut and planed a few pieces. We are all now caught up and able to construct using the FabLab.






The FabLab is a warehouse but the office and meeting areas are very nice. 







2.11.2014

Designing Structure

Over the past four weeks Team Structures has been brainstorming possible building strategies for our green oak pallet cants.  They have considered things such as traditional heavy timber methods, engineered fastening techniques,  and everything in between.   A meeting was held this past Thursday between two professors in the Engineering Department, Dr. Retherford and Dr. Bennett, to discuss three possible building strategies.   Most of the topics discussed revolved around spanning capabilities of the oak beams.   Our proposed schemes are based on prefabricated methods to help ease the cost of construction as well as material efficiency.  Because the methods proposed were more unconventional, our team was a bit skeptical as to how well they would be received by our structural experts, but we are glad to report that the preliminary discussion was a very positive one. Our Green Oak Initiative team is very excited about this step, it seems to give us a solid lead on a potential candidate to demonstrate at D.C!