shelter design for the philippines · 2016. 8. 4. · needs category, and comfort, privacy,...
TRANSCRIPT
Shelter Design for the Philippines Team #2
Team Name: The Lion Order Marissa Bacon, Nick Macaluso, Alexandria Prajzner, Samuel Vibostok
Instructor: Jesse McTernan EDSGN 100 Section 018
04 March 2016
Context and Customer Needs Development:
The Philippines is a nation in southeast Asia consisting of 7,100 islands (2,000 of which are
inhabited) and is currently home to about 98,393,574 Filipinos [1] . It is a very diverse country in several
aspects. For example, although the official language is Filipino, 111 distinct indigenous languages exist and\
many people are also fluent in both Spanish and English. Compared to countries like the United States, the
Filipino culture focuses less on nationalism and places more emphasis on the family [2]. The family is the
endall of of the culture as many rely on family members both nuclear and extended for strength and
stability. Education is also of huge importance, being that many believe a good education is the way to fix all
of the problems throughout the country. Economically, the Philippines is still an extremely poor country.
Though agriculture, forestry, and fishing make up 40% of the occupations of the 30 million people that are
currently employed, 9% of the country remains unemployed and 50% lives below the poverty line. In a 2012
report, 87.5% of the Philippines population had access to electricity, which is a steady rise from the 65.4%
that had access in 1990 [3]. Many people look to government officials, wealthy friends and community
leaders to fix the problems facing the country as well as the large disparity between the rich and the poor. In
a political infrastructure similar to the United States, citizens also frequently petition their legislators and local
officials (barangay captain) for cityhood since this would allow federal money to be continuously poured into
various areas.
With its position so close to the equator, the Philippines can have average temperatures ranging
from 85 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit (lower temperatures during wet months) [4]. The Philippines also
happens to lie in the Western Pacific rim of the Pacific Ocean where the water is extremely warm and deep.
Sadly, due to these unique characteristics of the water, the islands of the Philippines are said to lie in “the
most tropical cycloneprone water on Earth” [5]. Each year in the wet season (July to December) when
monsoons are typically active, the country accumulates on average 160 inches of rain. During the typhoon
season (June to November) the country can anticipate about thirty tropical cyclones of which about eight or
nine make landfall [4]. These storms are responsible for 78.7% of the country’s total mortality and are the
direct cause 79% of economic shortcomings [6]. In fact, eight of the top ten deadliest cyclones that hit the
Philippines reached a death count of 1,000 to 2,000people [7]. One of the largest typhoons in the history of
the Philippines, Typhoon Haiyan, cost the government 24.54 Philippine pesos ($559 million) [8].
Displacement after each of these storms varies widely. For example, 15 million people were affected and 4
million were displaced when Typhoon Haiyan made landfall in 2013 [9]. The majority of those who were
displaced remain that way temporarily. They were able to return to their homes within a few weeks or
months. On the other hand, as many as 180,000 could not do the same [10]. This is due partially to the fact
that one storm can hit different sections with varying intensities; causing a wide range of destruction. Also,
even though the Philippines is a relatively poor country, there are still member of the community who are
richer than others. These individuals have the ability to build their homes with more durable materials and
are able to live in the more urban parts of the country that are more developed and have greater resources.
When the project was announced, the team was originally split between designing for Syria or the
Philippines. Ultimately, the Philippines won and the research began. No one knew exactly where to start, so
each person did separate research on the Philippines and the storms that affect it and then brought all the
information together into one Google document to share the facts that each person found. From there,
Marissa organized the facts into a coherent piece that summarised the culture, history, and the displacement
caused by storms that Filipinos has to endure. It was astounding to find out just how frequently these storms
hit the Philippines and it caused the team to ask the question, “Why do these people keep returning to a
place that has the potential to destroy their livelihood annually?” The only reason imaginable was that there
is such a deep emotional connection to their homes that overrides any thought of moving. Home is truly
where the heart is.
Before any ideas were generated, the team decided that whatever shelter was built needed to be
able to fit six or more people, withstand heavy winds, be secure, and have good roofing (primary needs). In
addition to these needs, the team wanted a filtration system for water, some form of a rechargeable light
source, privacy, comfort, and a simplified design. Once further discussion about the project took place, it
was decided that the needs of withstanding winds and dry roofing would be moved down to a moderate
needs category, and comfort, privacy, simplified design, and cost would replace those needs in the primary
needs category. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Worksheet (Figure 1) was then used to decide which
needs in the primary category were the most important. Each need was compared to the other six and
ranked on a scale from 15 according to how much more important one was than the other. The final
numbers for each need were totalled and then given calculated percentage which correlated to its weight of
importance.
Figure 1: The Analytic Hierarchy Process Worksheet compares all needs; the team ranked each comparison on a scale of 15 according to importance.
Concept Development: Prototype 1:
In addition to the needs determined by the AHP worksheet, it was decided that the shelter also
needed a slanted roof, so that rain could not collect on it and damage the material. In order to generate
more ideas about the look of the shelter, the team first participated in a gallery in which each team in the
class posted its ideas to the board and everyone observed the various processes each group went
through.This lead to consideration of the ideas such as a gutter system with a water filtration system and a
rechargeable solar panel lamp to serve as a light source. Figure 2 and figure 3 show some of these early
concepts for the shelter and concepts that were added after the gallery held during class. Of these ideas, the
slanted roof was the only concept that was implemented into the final design.
Figure 2: These are the early concepts for the shelter. Ideas include: slanted roof with gutter system, water filtration, front door with padlock, rechargeable solar panel lamp, and stake supports which go into the ground.
Figure 3: This early design of the shelter includes the gutter system, the slanted roof, the interlocking components, and the metal stake supports.
Next, the team chose to participate in a variation of the 635 method to generate more ideas about
the structure. The four teams members each had three minutes to write down three ideas for the shelter
design one one piece of paper. After three minutes, the papers rotated and each member again had three
minutes to write down three more ideas (Figure 4).This exercise helped to ignite conversation but more
importantly produced the idea of creating shelters with an optional interlocking component to other shelters,
based on the importance of family in Filipino culture. After the 635 activity, there were three models for a
shelter that the team had come up with: a shelter with a interlocking option, a shelter with one bedroom, and
a shelter with three bedrooms. The next step was to put each model into a scoring matrix to see which one
was the best overall in regard to the needs of comfort, privacy, simplified design, cost, security, and fitting
six people. In the scoring matrix (Figure 5), the team used the IKEA shelter as a reference and compared it
to to the three proposed models. The matrix revealed that the interlocking shelter was the best design
according to the criteria that we selected, but since the bedroom was still a major discussion point after the
matrix, it was decided that the final shelter would have interlocking components and three bedrooms (the
two highest scoring models). The final step the team had to accomplish before building prototype 1 was
sketching and dimensioning the final model. Figures 6 and 7 show these sketches.
Figure 4: Each team member had an opportunity to write down three ideas on each paper. A maximum of
48 ideas were possible.
Figure 5: The IKEA shelter was the reference for the comparison of the three other models. The
interconnecting shelter was ranked first, the three bedroom shelter second, and the one bedroom shelter
third.
Figure 6: A front view and side view of the shelter show the slant of the roof as well as the dimensions.
Figure 7: The dimensions of the bedrooms and the rest of the inside of the shelter from an aerial view.
Testing Summary Prototype 1:
Following the construction of prototype 1, a crush test was conducted. The prototype was built with
a slanted roof and twopiece support structure in the middle (Figure 8). A single door was cut out on the front
(Figure 9). At the beginning of the crush test, buckets of sand were added and the structure was able to
withstand them. After three buckets were added, reams of paper were then added. After the third ream was
added, the roof collapsed due to the separation in the middle support giving out (Table 1). This twopiece
support was the weak point in the roof.
Figure 8: Side Opening Figure 9: Front
Prototype 1 Crush Test Results
Amount of Weight Pass/Fail Description
3 Buckets Pass Structure standing strong
3 Buckets + 2 reams of paper Pass No apparent change
3 buckets + 3 reams of paper Pass Structure still standing, roof collapses
2 people Pass Buckets + Papers removed, people start standing
4 people Pass No apparent change
5 people Pass No apparent change
6 people Pass No apparent change
7 people Pass No apparent change
8 people Fail Remaining structure collapses
Table 1: The different amounts of weight and their effects on the status of the prototype are shown.
Following the roof giving out the test continued, since the remaining structure was still standing.
The buckets and paper were removed, and people stood on top in their place. One by one each person
stood up and the building held. The seventh person stood on top and the structure still held. The eighth
person stood up and finally the structure collapsed (Figure 10). The results of the test showed the shelter’s
strong overall structure. However, what was learned was that having a twopiece support made the roof
weak. Therefore, prototype 2 would replace it with a onepiece support. The building passed expectations,
but was only a rough design.
Figure 10: Post Crush Test
Concept Refinement Summary:
After looking at the results of prototype 1, there were design flaws that needed fixing. The biggest
flaw in the initial prototype was the support of the roof. In the first prototype, the middle wall holding the roof
up was built using two pieces and it gave out at the point where those two pieces connected. To fix that, the
new prototype would need one solid piece holding the roof up in the middle. In the first prototype, there were
no inner doors or bedroom walls. In the second prototype, walls separating the back part of the shelter
divided the rooms up and the doors were put in. The optional connecting doors were also cut out on the
sides of the shelter. Overall, the second prototype fixed the main issue of the first prototype, while adding in
all the details that were not initially included.
Testing Summary Prototype 2:
For the second model, the side walls now come to a point in the middle to meet the roof and better
provide structural integrity. This change provides more stability against the harsh winds. The inner
compartments separating the bedrooms have also been added, for support and privacy. There were no
doorsother than the frontcut out of the first prototype, so the second prototype had two doors cut out for
the optional interconnecting feature, as well as three bedroom doors. These changes allow more overall
comfort and specifically the feeling of interconnectedness in a large family. Below are two different
representations of the finished prototype. Figures 11 and 12 are Solidworks models; Figure 13 is a
photograph.
Figure 11: Solidworks model Figure 12: Solidworks model Figure 13: Photograph of
of Prototype 2 of Prototype 2 of Prototype 2
To test the second prototype, a simple survey was conducted covering four main criteria. The
results are displayed in a table below (Table 2). The scale for the set of criteria was 15. The interpretation of
the scale is as follows: a score of 3 is average, not great but not bad. A score of 1 implies that the design did
not fulfill that category whatsoever. A score of 5 implies that the design completely fulfilled that category to
the highest degree expected of a shelter. Eleven people were surveyed, and the average of all eleven
scores for each category is displayed at the bottom set of cells.
Team Lion Order: Prototype 2 Survey Results
Test
#
Comfort Simplistic
Design
Safet
y
Privacy
1 5 5 4 5
2 5 5 3 5
3 4 4 3 4
4 5 4 4 5
5 4 4 4 5
6 5 4 4 5
7 4 4 4 5
8 4 5 4 5
9 5 4 4 4
10 4 5 4 5
11 4 5 4 5
AVG 4.45 4.45 3.81 4.81
Table 2: Results from survey conducted for second test.
Based on the results seen from our second test, the conclusion was made that the second prototype
was a success. All average values for each category tested were above 3, which was the desired outcome. Cost Analysis:
Prototype Square Footage Material Cost
1 4.38 ft² Cardboard
($0.50/ft²)
$2.19
2 4.88 ft² Cardboard
($0.50/ft²)
$2.44
Table 3: Prototype Cost Analysis.
The estimated costs of the first and second prototypes are modeled in Table 3 above. The
adjustments in the design of the second prototype increased the square footage by 0.50 ft², which in turn
affected the cost by $0.25.
Given that the square footage for the shelter in full scale is 759.25 ft², using the density formula
(d=m/v) and the density of the material chosen (HDPE or high density polyethylene) which is 59.3 lb/ft3,
some different price applications can be analyzed.
Material Cost/ton Final Cost
Low Range HDPE [11] $50 $93.87
Mid Range HDPE [12] $275 $516.17
High Range HDPE [13] $500 $938.70
NonBulk Sold HDPE $1500 $2816.00
Table 4: Material Cost Analysis
The range of cost, depending on the exact materials distributer chosen, is highly variable. Assuming
that for most of production a price could be found between the high and low range HDPE, say around
$275/ton, the final shelter could be produced for about $516. This cost takes into account the fact that the
raw plastic sold is priced in a way to benefit those who buy in bulk (the minimum required for most
distributors is one ton). To purchase enough polyethylene to make just one shelter would require buying
from the much more expensive distributors who allow for small purchases, and would cost closer to $2816
per shelter (as shown in Table 4 above). In order to avoid this unnecessary added cost, the intention would
be to produce in bulk.
In terms of the cost in the long run — looking ten years down the line — there should be no obvious
need for the replacement of any parts within the shelter. The structure is made of solid pieces (four walls,
two roof pieces, three center supports/dividers), and no additional components, such as gadgets that require
batteries, electricity or maintenance, are included. So, unless there is an uncalled for attack on the shelter
(that is, not the calculated wear and tear of the storm environment in which it will be placed) there should be
no need to replace the shelter for a family for many years. In any case, maybe at the very least, ten years
down the line, a family’s shelter may need replacing, which would obviously account for an additional cost of
$516, or whatever price variant the shelter is being sold at during that time.
The material chosen to produce the whole of the shelter is high density polyethylene, which is a
durable, highly distributed plastic. Because of its high availability, the raw materials for the production of the
shelters can be sourced in a location close to the Philippines, such as Hong Kong, Taiwan or (where the
materials are least expensive) China. [11] Producing the shelter in China for example, would allow for the
structure to be made for the price range previous predicted ($516) and be easily distributed to the
Philippines close by. This would make distribution costs much lower than they would if the structures were
manufactured in the US and shipped across seas to the Philippines.
Obviously the prices analyzed above take into account only the minimum breaking point in price for
the materials used to create the shelter. It does not factor into consideration the exact cost of labor,
distribution, setup or any other variables. Assuming the relief effort is a completely nonprofit, there remains
these factors to add onto the pricing model before the shelters can be situated for sale or charity
sponsorship.
Consideration of Human Needs:
The team explored the consideration of human needs in great depth during the design for the
shelter. After establishing and evaluating the pyramid of consumer needs, the team began with basic
survival necessities and to cover all bases. From there, the decision was made for a well sealed structure to
keep the Philippians dry during the tragic storms. Stepping up the ladder of human needs (and down the
importance pyramid) the team approached tactics to satisfy components relative to daily life and each
individual. The team delved very seriously into consideration of the level of comfort for the families who
would be using the shelters in their disastrous situation — making an effort to include multiple bedrooms and
separation between living spaces in order to provide more normalcy (to replicate a typical home) and allow
for the ability to seek solitude in the whirlwind of chaos.
The most important consideration of human needs was produced in the design model to allow for
these shelters to transition into a larger connection between the community at large during this traumatic
time. The team created a shelter with the ability to have joined structures. Given the standard of Philippians’
large extended families, the design provided the option to take multiple shelters and connect them along
their sides to provide for large standing structures with easy access to one another. This provides a solution
to the isolation that would occur with a structure designed only for six people, and allows for endless amount
of interpersonal connection. With the use of this design, entire communities could have much better access
to one another within a safe context of the storm around them.
Considerations for overall system/camp:
In the design the team intended to design a structure that had the ability to be easily produced and
set up. A strong durable material was chosen, HDPE plastic, as the basis for the components, which include
the four exterior walls, three internal wall separations, roof and doors. After this structure is manufactured in
the chosen material, it very easily can be packaged in a box with each piece lying flat on top of the other,
and distributed to the location of set up.
As mentioned before, in the consideration of the needs of the customers, a design was selected to
provide a well balanced community, by making interconnecting structures. This provides the ability to aid
communities at large, because it allows unlimited access to the size a single standing structure can have.
This connecting ability, in addition, provides for great efficiency in terms of its standing on a larger scale,
many of the shelters tethered together strengthens stability and generates optimized use of the allotted area.
The structures can be applied to greater community needs as well, as they can accommodate any
use necessary, for example, though designed to allow for a single family to have a larger communal room
and three bedrooms, multiple shelters can be connected and used as for any number of greater community
needs, a first aid center, a place to store resources, a restroom facility, etc. This flexibility of the structure
allows for optimized use of provided monetary contributions, which allows any charities’ resources to be
stretched much further than they would if they needed to allot for individualized structure sizes (from much
higher price ranges) for different families and community needs.
Redesign Thoughts/Conclusion:
If a prototype 3 was built, there are some improvements that could be made. Some of the major
improvements would be a gutter system, a lockable front door, removable/reattachable side doors, and
pieces that could be snapped together. The gutter system would allow the collection of rainwater runoff from
the slanted roof. This water would obviously save a lot of time and effort to find clean water to drink. The
lockable front door would make the shelter much more secure by preventing against possible looters and
criminals. The removable/reattachable side doors would improve the interconnectedness of the shelter. If
family members lived next door and a family wished to be able to freely go between one shelter and another,
the door would be able to be completely removed from the wall. On the other hand, if the family wished for
the door never to open, it should be so secure that it is a part of the wall itself. Finally, if the pieces of the
shelter could be assembled just by snapping them together, there would be no need for tools or adhesive to
hold it together. Assembly time would be cut down dramatically and ease of assembly would be much better.
To implement these changes, several aspects of the project would need revamped. The gutter
would require a specialized design and, like the walls, a method of attaching to the entirety of the shelter
without screws, bolts, glue, etc. The front door could be changed easily by adding a hole for a padlock,
possibly on both sides to allow locking from inside and out. The side doors could have hinges that can be
locked with a pin, so that if the pin is removed, the door comes out of the wall to allow for entry between
shelters, and viceversa.The walls would need holes or jigsawlike edges so that they could be snapped and
locked together tightly.
Overall, prototype 2 was a success. It was strong and could support the family size and lifestyle of
the Filipino culture. The criteria that was set for it was fulfilled in a perfectly adequate manner. Some
changes could be made to improve the shelter, but in general it would act just fine in its current state, and
would likely serve the purposes it was originally designed for.
Works Cited
[1]"Philippines Language, Culture, Customs and Etiquette." Philippines. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/globaletiquette/philippinescountryprofile.html>.
[2]"The Philippines." Culture of the Philippines. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.everyculture.com/NoSa/ThePhilippines.html>.
[3]"Philippines Access to Electricity Data, Chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com." TheGlobalEconomy.com.
Web. 28 Jan. 2016.
[4]"Climate of the Philippines." Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services
Administration. Republic of the Philippines. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
<https://web.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/index.php/climateofthephilippines>.
[5] Rice, Doyle. "Why Is Philippines a Hot Zone for Typhoons?" USA Today. 10 Nov. 2013. Web. 27 Jan.
2016. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/11/09/philippinestyphoonhotzone/3483837/>.
[6] "Philippines Disaster & Risk Profile." Philippines. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.preventionweb.net/countries/phl/data/>.
[7] Brown, Sophie. "The Philippines Is the Most StormExposed Country on Earth | TIME.com." World The
Philippines Is the Most Storm Exposed Country on Earth Comments. TIME Magazine, 13 Nov.
2013. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.
<http://world.time.com/2013/11/11/thephilippinesisthemoststormexposedcountryonearth/>.
[8] Zhang, Moran. "Philippine GDP Growth Forecast Cut For 2013, Typhoon Haiyan Rebuilding Efforts To
Give 2014 An Economic Boost." International Business Times. 25 Nov. 2013. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.
[9]"Responding to Typhoons in the Philippines." UNDP. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/ourprojectsandinitiatives/TyphoonYolandaP
hilippines.html>.
[10]"IDMC » Philippines: Longterm Recovery Challenges Remain in the Wake of Massive Displacement."
IDMC » Philippines: Longterm Recovery Challenges Remain in the Wake of Massive
Displacement. 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.internaldisplacement.org/southandsoutheastasia/philippines/2015/philippineslongter
mrecoverychallengesremaininthewakeofmassivedisplacement/>.
[11] “High Density Polyethylene.” Alibaba. Web 3 March. 2016
<http://www.alibaba.com/productdetail/HOTSALESHDPEhighdensitypolyethylene_6037312606
6.html?spm=a2700.7724838.0.0.tG87aH>.
[12] “HDPE PE 100” Alibaba. Web 3 March. 2016.
<http://www.alibaba.com/productdetail/hdpepe100_1892981970.html?spm=a2700.7724838.0.0.G
eGRQ>.
[13] “High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Sheeting” USPlastic. Web 29 Feb 2016.
<http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=23869>.