November 30, 2010 § Leave a comment
As of today, The Evolution of the Chicago Skyscraper is under contract with University of Illinois Press. They have been fantastic over the last ten months or so as I’ve whittled down acres of note cards into a digestible manuscript, and their plans for the book should make it both a good read and a visual feast. I’m thrilled to be working with them, and to be following in Frank A. Randall’s footsteps.
No publication date discussed yet, but I’d guess mid- to late 2012. Watch this space…!
November 24, 2010 § Leave a comment
I’ve given the staff and interns here at Architecturefarm the week off. There’s good news to report on the Chicago project, but it will have to wait until we’re all back in our cubicles early next week. “Watch this space…”
November 19, 2010 § Leave a comment
To follow up on the last post, we’ve done two more labs in 245X this last week with some more good results. Yesterday we did the infamous “12-node” project that Kevin Dong has developed at Cal Poly. Students are given 12 “nodes” (actually Skittles, though I’m sure at MIT they would use stainless steel ball bearings), and they have to stabilize them 3″ above a fixed plane using wooden sticks. The key is that the math behind translational stability says that no matter how many nodes you have, and no matter what arrangement they’re in, you will always need three restraints (sticks) to stabilize each node. So for this, you should be able to do it using 36 sticks. Students have to figure out, though, how to arrange the sticks so that each plane (count them–there are seven) is adequately stabilized.
One of the most interesting parts of the last couple of labs has been what happens when you get many, many iterations of the same model. What we’ve noticed is that, despite what we think are carefully written ‘rules’ for each lab, there are always a few projects that think a bit more laterally than we thought possible. We’ve taken to calling these “cheats,” but we’ve rewarded them with some special shout-outs and some explanations about why they might work better, or differently, than the “textbook” models. In this lab, the most common cheats were to use bracing in the top, horizontal plane (which allows distribution of in-plane stability among more than one column line) and bracing that occupied a diagonal in plan (thus bracing multiple planes at once). Both of these anticipate the next exercises in the 12-node series, so it gave us a good segueway into the work we’ll do after Thanksgiving break.
As one student put it (and this might be the new STP motto), “if you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t tryin’…”
November 12, 2010 § Leave a comment
Long time readers and SCI-TECH alums will recognize the pasta engineering to the left as the Spaghetti Bridge project, an introductory exercise we’ve used to start off our structures coursework in Iowa State’s M. Arch. program. The last couple of weeks, Rob Whitehead and I have started a massively scaled-up version of the SCI-TECH structures sequence for our undergraduate program.
Our B. Arch. program is much larger–the class also includes second year interior design students–so we’ve had to scale things up from 16-20 students to, um, 120. But we’ve decided to keep as much of the hands-on work as possible, and so far it seems to be proving itself even at the larger scale.
Spaghetti Bridge requires teams of 3-4 students to construct a structure that can span up and over a standard shoebox, and that can support a 200g weight at its midpoint for ten seconds. We usually try to have students do as many iterations as possible–three has been ideal, but with time for weighing, testing, etc., we can only get two in during a 110-minute class. Still, one of the points that gets made is that the iterative design process pays off–the second round involves bridges that are invariably lighter and more efficient than the first.
The winner–in fact the new all-time Spaghetti Bridge champion–is shown to the left. Pedagogically this wasn’t the greatest outcome, since one of the things we try to stress is the usefulness of trusses in reducing weight of spanning elements (we put it in simpler terms than that). The winning bridge relied on a bundled beam to span the box, but it used very lightweight tetrahedral supports that allowed it to carry the 200g weight with only about 18g of pasta, a “lunchable” amount, in the words of one SCI-TECH alum. Students have to prepare a 4-5 page lab notebook after the class that describes their process and results, and these demonstrated that they did, in fact, pick up some basic principles of triangulation, depth, and stability.
The second lab in the sequence was one of Rob’s inventions, and it proved to be pretty brilliant. Students were assigned to use their own bodies to demonstrate some basic structural types–columns, cantilevers, and simple beams. How high, the assignment asked, can three people lift a 5-pound book? Or how far can they extend themselves from a desktop? Teams had to do these in advance of the lab, and prepare some summary images and text describing their efforts. The entire class then voted on their favorites, and spent the rest of the lab time building concept models that embodied the principles at work in their anthropomorphic experiments.
The aspect of the lab that seemed to really work well was that students could feel the internal forces at work in their ‘structures.’ The student to the left, for instance, informed the class that his back and glutes were working quite hard to hold up his legs, but that he also felt it in his arms and shoulders. Not surprising, we pointed out, given that a cantilever beam experiences tension on its top surface. Likewise, the human Eiffel Tower below showed these students that stability works in multiple directions; the student on top said that she felt very confident that she wasn’t going to fall left to right, but she was quite nervous about falling to the front or to the back.
We’re waiting to get the lab notebooks back for this one, but already we’ve been able to use these images in lecture to talk about some basic equilibrium principles and structural types. Beats doing free body diagrams and trig as an introduction to statics, we think, especially for designers who will likely never size a beam, but who will need to know the fundamental principles behind shapes, systems, and types.
More soon. I should mention that this curriculum was developed in collaboration with Kevin Dong of Cal Poly SLO, and that several of the upcoming labs are directly borrowed from his outstanding work teaching structures to engineers and architects there.
November 4, 2010 § Leave a comment
Just a quick note to say that the Construction History Road Show continues this Friday at the AIA Minnesota Convention. Meghan Elliott, Lee Gray, and I will all present short excerpts of our research tomorrow at
(I think) 10:45 10:15. Hope to see some ‘Sotans there…