fyrkat viking museum

FYRKAT VIKING MUSEUMMA1-ARch4, 2010, AAlboRG UNIVERSITY

SYNopSIS

This project report presents a competition proposal for a new Viking Museum at Fyrkat, Hobro, designed in the 1st semester master of the Architecture & Design education, Aalborg University. The proposal reinterprets the historic context of the scenic site into a contemporary building which poetically frames a transition from the present to the past and serves as a starting point for the experience of the impressive Viking fortress, Fyrkat. The new museum is constituted by two main elements; a monolithic main building situated firmly into the site sheltered by a light woven screen, which together form a whole composition that links the elements of the site and treats the themes of Nordic and tectonic architecture. The exhibition spaces consist of outer open spaces and closed volumes presenting moments in the history of the Vikings. Together these spaces create an experience based on uncovering the layers of time.

PROJECT TITLE FYRKAT VIKING MUSEUM NUMBER OF PAGES 76 NUMBER OF APPENDICES 7 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL CD DRAWING FOLDER

SEMESTER 1st MASTER, AALBORG UNIVERSITY ARCHITECTURE, DESIGN AND MEDIA TECHNOLOGY

SEMESTER THEME TECTONIC DESIGN: ARCHITECTURAL FORM AND STRUCTURE YEAR 2010 PROJECT PERIOD 07.10.2010 - 15.12.2010 GROUP MA1-ARCH4 GROUP MEMBERS ................................................................................................................. Davide Bello ................................................................................................................. Kristina Møller Hansen

................................................................................................................. Luke Lorimer Baylis

................................................................................................................. Martin Andersen

................................................................................................................. Randi Elisabeth Knudsen

................................................................................................................. Stina Holm Jensen SUPERVISOR ADRIAN CARTER

TECHNICAL SUPERVISOR ALBERTO PUGNALE

A coNTEMpoRARY bUIldING whIch poETIcAllY

FRAMES A TRANSITIoN FRoM ThE pRESENT To ThE pAST

4 | FYRKAT VIKING MUSEUM

Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

pRoJEcT pRoGRAM Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Nordic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Tectonics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

ExploRING ThE pRoJEcT coNTExTTime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Constructional Motifs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14The Core of the Building Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

pRoJEcT dEScRIpTIoNArchitectural Main Idea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Site plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Arrival space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Entering the Main Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Exhibition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Auditorium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23In the Village. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Principles of Exhibiting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Spatial Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Entry Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Connection to the Playground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Lower Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Upper Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Materiality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Acoustics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Structural System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Fire Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Daylight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

dESIGN pRocESSIntroduction to Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46How to Add? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Volume Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47How to Arrive? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48How to Relate to the Landscape?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Museum Flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Materiality and Weaving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Relation between Building and Screen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50The Screen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51Interior Moods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

REFlEcTIoNSConclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

AppENdIxApp. 1: Room ProgramApp. 2: Constructional ConsiderationsApp. 3: AcousticsApp. 4: DaylightApp. 5: Dimensioning of Concrete Deck Height and ReinforcementApp. 6: Dimensioning of Column in ScreenApp. 7: Workshop

ThE NEw FYRKAT VIKING MUSEUMhobRo

1. Night time view of Fyrkat Viking Museum, seen from the meadow and railway.

6 | FYRKAT VIKING MUSEUM | PROJECT PROGRAM

pRoJEcTpRoGRAM

within the fortress housed the kings soldiers and their families [Nørbach, 08.10.2010]. The Trelleborgs are some of the most important epicenters of knowledge about the development of the Danish Viking Age in a time where the country was unified under one king and the Danes were christened [Magnusson, 2000, p67].

The Fyrkat monument was excavated from 1951 [web 1], where after the embankments, the moast and the building foundations of the original wooden longhouses were marked. A reconstruction of a longhouse was reconstructed outside the fortification to give an impression of the original layout in 1980. In addition a reconstruction of Viking farm buildings were erected approximately 1 kilometre away from the monument 1992-2000 [Nørbach, 2010 (brief), p2].

Today the museum is owned by the Danish National Museum. In collaboration with Mariagerfjord Municipality and North Jutland Historical Museum it is responsible for the site. Following a tentative UNESCO World Heritage listing of the monuments there is an ambition to build a new museum at Fyrkat, in a beautiful setting of unspoiled nature, which it to house the unique artifacts and communicate the significant story of the area. The museum is to consist of exhibition space, educational spaces and administrative spaces [app. 1].

With this proposal for a contemporary museum at Fyrkat a unique opportunity of reinterpreting the historic context in which the museum is to act is found; creating a transition space from the present everyday life, where the wear of time only allows glimpses of what used to be, back through the layers of time to historic times. Preparing the visitor for his further experience of the reconstructions on the site and the centerpiece; the Fyrkat monument. In the proposal the aim is to continue the Nordic tradition of building, paying attention to the phenomenological approach that we find represented here, and further to address the subject of tectonic architecture.

Fyrkat site

Hobro

Mariager Fjord

2. Situation of site, map of Denmark

INTRodUcTIoN

The sound of crackling gravel under my feet. The wind in my face as I walk the vast expanse, climbing the stairs to the reconstructed longhouse near the fortress, crossing the bumpy grass area while taking in the beautiful views of the area. Approaching the gap between two steep ramparts I find myself infused in the mystique of history. I enter through the narrow passage and realize by surprise - overwhelmed by scale, by the spaciousness of the fortress – the extent of what lies before me. I momentarily forget the vast and open landscape outside the ramparts. It is a strong calming feeling within this enclosed space which gives me the opportunity to focus on my own presence and my understanding of my immediate surroundings. A silent and long aged, yet breathtaking witness of a significant era in the history of the Danes.

The monumental defensive structure of Fyrkat fortress is part of a series of four ‘Trelleborgs’ erected in the near of Slagelse, Odense, Aggersborg and Hobro of the same strict circular layout, only differing in scale. They were presumably built during the reign of the Viking King Harold Blue-tooth (around 980-81) and firmly consolidated his power as the first king of Denmark [Magnusson, 2000, p67]. The main purpose of Fyrkat fortress is believed to be control of the traffic between Aalborg and Aarhus [Nørbach, 2010 (brief), p1] and hence the longhouses erected

7

NoRdIc ARchITEcTURE

Since the beginning of 20th century, architecture in the Nordic countries has developed its own distinctive characteristics. Contrary to the built environment in other parts of Europe, the Nordic tradition is based upon a foundation of a more social and cultural character. Nowhere else in the world has design of common housing played such an important part in the architectural tradition [Lund, 2008, p12]. One could argue that there is a profound natural connection between form and content in Nordic architecture. It is a tradition of both ethics and aesthetics [Lund, 2008, p21].

What characterizes the Nordic architecture of the 20th century, and especially from the 1930s onwards, is furthermore a translation of the strict and simplistic functionalism into a regional expression that combines light and refined architecture with a more ‘soft’ approach based on the use of regional materials and building construction [Lund, 2008, p18 and p20]. This is supported by Christian Norberg-Schulz: ”These methods are not merely due to available building materials and technologies but also to the desire to accommodate building to a local context. […] Nordic regions have determined a sense of form that remains despite changes in technology and despite the arrival of the imported” [Norberg-Schulz, 1996, preface]. This is for instance evident in Aarhus University by Kay Fisker, C.F. Møller, Poul Stegmann and C. Th. Sørensen from 1931, where a profound use of brick in clearly defined volumes links the new functionalistic building to the Danish tradition of craftsmanship [Hammershøj, 2006, p30 and Lund, 2008, pp70-73].

“As early as the end of 1930s Functionalism was further ‘softened’ everywhere in Scandinavia. The international element was partly replaced by local features”…”local materials and traditional architectural motifs” [Lund, 2008, p20].

Christian Norberg-Schultz argues that contemporary architecture to a high degree suffers from a “loss of place” [Norberg-Schulz, 1996, p175]. He stresses the importance of regaining a rootedness in architecture. The importance of understanding the specific charachter of a place and designing buildings that “…gathers and represents the world to which it belongs” [Norberg-Schulz, 1996, preface] in order to provide people with a feeling of identity of the place. One can question the rootedness of at least some of the domiciles and housing projects in the new Ørestad region south of Copenhagen, for instance the VM-houses by BIG, which do not seem to relate specifically to the site to which they belong. Yet, a good example of a contemporary piece of architecture that treats this issue in a very poetic, yet rationalistic way is St. Henry’s Ecumenical Art Chapel by Matti and Pirjo Sanaksenaho, due to choice of materials, construction and the situation on the site (fig. 3). ”…built form becomes an art when it gathers and represents the world to which it belongs” [Norberg-Schulz, 1996, preface].

3. Interior of St. Henry’s Ecumenial Art Chapel (2005), Turku, Finland. Sanaksenaho Architects.

“ARchITEcTURE IS AS MUch AboUT EThIcS AS

AESThETIcS.”Nils-Ole Lund [Lund, 2008, p21]

8 | FYRKAT VIKING MUSEUM | PROJECT PROGRAM

The phenomenological approach which Norberg-Schulz represents has gained great influence in the Nordic architectural theory [Lund, 2008, pp279-291]. Norberg-Schultz stresses the importance of viewing life and place as a unity. A place cannot be understood without treating the “life which place admits” [Norberg-Schulz, 1996, preface], an approach which links to the humanistic tradition of Nordic architecture. The appearance of a phenomenon is in this sense always an appearance of something for someone – and therefore introducing the intentional first person perspective as a basic precondition [Zahavi, 2007, p16].Juhani Pallasmaa further argues that a person experiences the world with his entire body, the experience of architecture being a movement of the body through time and space, and that in giving architecture a human measure one should address more senses than the mere visual by strengthening the sense of materiality [Pallasmaa, 2005].

This statement is supported by the Swiss architect Peter Zumthor: “Architecture is not abstract, but concrete. To experience architecture in a concrete way, means to touch, see, hear and smell it.” [Zumthor, 2010, p66]. Zumthor is mentioned in this chapter though he is not a Nordic architect, because the climatic and cultural conditions and landscape context under which he normally works resemble those of the Nordic countries. Furthermore his works represent some of the values that we in this project wish to extract from the Nordic tradition. He is, for these reasons used as an important reference throughout the project.

Lastly we find Christian Norberg-Schulz’ description of the Nordic as characterized by a specific mood particularly interesting. Light defines the manner in which things appear and in contrast to the South, were the light defines “clear massings and distinct spaces” [Norberg-Schulz, 1996, preface], the light of the North “…creates a space of moods […] of shifting nuances, of never-resting forces, even when the light is withdrawn and filtered through an overcast sky.” [Norberg-Schulz, 1996, preface]According to Nils-Ole Lund, there has been a demand in Nordic Architecture for ‘honesty’ from the beginning of the 20th century. Yet, the target of this honesty has changed to cover as different subjects as honesty in materials, cultural heritage, the functions of the building, the construction and reflection of the industrial society [Lund, 2008, p129]. This project treats honesty as a way of treating materials and construction, linking to the thoughts about tectonics.

To sum up, this project is addressing the following issues relating to Nordic architecture:• Linking functionalism as well as simplicity of form and

construction to the tradition of craftsmanship and giving it a regional expression

• Phenomenological approach in terms of rootedness to the site and strengthening the visitor’s experience of identity of the place.

“ARchITEcTURE IS NoT AbSTRAcT,

bUT coNcRETE. To ExpERIENcE

ARchITEcTURE IN A coNcRETE wAY, MEANS

To ToUch, SEE, hEAR ANd SMEll IT.” Peter Zumthor [Zumthor, 2010, p66].

4. Thermal Baths, Vals by Peter Zumthor (1996)

9

TEcToNIcS

The expression ‘tectonic’ is Greek in origin, deriving from the word ‘tekton’ meaning carpenter or builder [Frampton, 1995, p3]. Over time the term has come to cover diverse meanings. The following text serves to clarify what understanding of how the term ’tectonics’ is used in this particular project.

In the following a comparison is made on two different approaches presented under the term tectonics by Kenneth Frampton in his book “Studies in tectonic culture – The poetics of construction” (1995) as well as his own view on the subject and the view of Peter Zumthor, as it is presented it in his book “Thinking Architecture” (2010). On the basis of this comparative study the main points of interest in the matter is put forward:

Gottfried Semper: (Die vier Elemente der Baukunst, 1851):• The primordial dwelling constituted by 4 basic elements; (1)

the earthwork, (2) the hearth, (3) the framework/roof, (4) the lightweight enclosing membrane or infill wall.

• Distinguishing between tectonics/stereotomics; tectonics being the “frame in which lightweight, linear components are assembled so as to encompass a spatial matrix” – die Wand [Frampton, 1995, p5] and stereotomics being the earthwork, heavyweight elements – die Mauer [Frampton, 1995, p5].

• Stoffwechselteorie [Frampton, 1995, p5] • Semper focuses his attention on the fourth element, the

enclosure based on techniques related to weaving and textiles in a broad sense. He claims that “the logic of technique gives identity to the form” [Jones, 2006, p9 and Wraber, 2005, p12]. The most significant tectonic element is the joint or the knot [Frampton, 1995, p86].

Kenneth Frampton (Studies in Tectonic Culture, 1995):• Focus on tactility [Frampton, 1995, p377]• Overall constructional logic• Articulated detailing which reflects the transfer of loads

through the joints [Wraber, 2005, p16]• “When a structural concept has found it’s implementation

through construction the visual result will affect it through certain expressive qualities which clearly have something to do with the play of forces and corresponding arrangement of parts in the building yet cannot be described in terms of construction and structure alone. For these qualities which are expressive of a relation of form to force, the term tectonic should be reserved.” Kenneth Frampton [web 2].

Peter Zumthor (Thinking Architecture, 2010):• “…the qualities I am giving the design must merge and blend

with the constructional and formal structure of the finished building. Form and construction, appearance and function are no longer separate. They belong together and form a whole” [Zumthor, 2010, p26].

• “Details express what the basic idea of the design requires at the relevant point in the object: belonging or separation, tension or lightness, friction, solidity and fragility” [Zumthor, 2010, p15]

dEFINITIoN oF FocUS poINTS FoR ThIS pRoJEcTAchieving a common understanding of the concept of tectonics has proved to be both challenging and enriched by the project group representing different cultures of building. As a result of different educational backgrounds in the group it has been an important goal to always strive to integrate aesthetics as well as functional and constructional aspects in the design of the building project – that is to continue the approach pointed out in antiquity by Vitruvius concerning venustas, utilitas and firmitas (beautiful, useful and solid), and hence viewing constructional considerations as something implicit. Yet, talking about a tectonic piece of architecture, implies making the overall constructional principle or logic evident to the visitor. This can be seen as a continuation of Frampton’s approach in a way where the logic of the construction adds to and serves to underline the architectural idea [web 2], so that “logic of technique gives identity to the form” as expressed by Semper [Jones, 2006, p9]. Furthermore, great interest has been found in the joint or knot as a tectonic element. These relate back in time to traditional building methods at the same time as revealing a great deal about the structural and architectural principles of the building. As both Frampton and Zumthor points out it is for instance how the forces are transferred and how architectural elements relate to each other.

5. Project model treating the subject of jointing and weaving.

6. Bagsværd Church, Denmark, by Jørn Utzon (1976). A poetic vision is materialized through light, structure and construction.

7. St. Benedict Chapel, Sumvitg Graubünden, Schwitzerland, by Peter Zumthor (1988). A symbiosis of form, construction, appearance and function.

10 | FYRKAT VIKING MUSEUM | EXPLORING

ExploRING ThE pRoJEcT coNTExT

TIME

Time is evidently an essential factor in the experience of the historical site. This can both be seen in the perspectives of Viking tradition and archeological traces.

The concept of time appears in many aspects of the Viking life, e.g. in terms of their travel activities as well as in their belief of reincarnation. What might be more interesting is however that the story of Fyrkat cannot be understood outside a framework of time. Archaeological findings are scattered fragments of a vanished past. They serve as small pieces in the construction of a Viking story – a story which must be made mainly by imagination and qualified guessing. Time deletes certainty. Time makes traces fade out.

It is the fact that materials and forms over time cease to exist which makes it impossible to read the Viking stories directly. The variations in speed of materials’ decomposition leaves behind traces of different tangibility. From color variations in soil which indicate that someone has once made changes here, to jewelry or weapons which practically still look the same.

8. Airplane with its fading vapor stripe. Conceptual point of departure.

11

REGISTRATIoNS

In order to get an understanding of the context of the new museum, an analysis has been carried out on the basis of two visits to the site during the initial phase of the project. The approach has been partly empirical - mapping measurable features like infrastructure, landscape elements etc. through registration on the site and by means of map material - and partly by means of a phenomenological approach. The latter by means of subjective registrations on the site, trying to capture the specific character of the place [Lund, 2008, p.288]. The chosen approach has been walking through the site, mapping the sensory perceptions of different areas of the route (fig. 9), based on Juhani Pallasmaa’s focus on the experience of a place or a piece of architecture as a multi sensory experience [Pallasmaa, 2005, p.41]. In the following a selection of the investigations are shown.

Smell of of dust An enclosed space

Smell of woodGathering point; the fireplace

A single light ray lighting the room

Sun reflection in the lakeSoft ground under your feet

Twirping birds

Panorama view of the landscapeFramed view to the lake

Awareness of the changing foundation under your feet; grass and grit

Uneven “floor” under your feetSmell of smoke and burned wood

Light vs. darkness

Impressive wooden constructionRoughness

Refined handicraftSmell of wood

Wooden bridge Hollow sound under your feet

View to the village

Quietness -sound of your breath

Calmness - awareness of your existence

ProtectionAn enclosed space

Wind blowingTwirping birdsSmell of trees

Smell of treesHard ground under your feet

Smell of treesHard ground under your feet

Limited views

Quietnesssound of your breath

calmnessawareness of your existence

protectionan enclosed space

Smell and taste of dustan enclosed space

smell of woodgathering point; fireplace

a single ray of light

Sun reflection in the lakesoft ground under your feet

twirping birds

Wooden bridgehollow soundview to village

Panorame view of the landscapeframed view to the lake

awareness of the changing foundation

under your feet: grass and grit

Uneven ”floor” under your feetSmell of smoke and burned wood

light vs. darkness

Impressive wooden constructionroughness

refined handicraftsmell of wood

Wind blowingtwirping birdssmell of trees

9. Sensory diagram. A walk through the historic site.


Historic elements of interest

Fyrkat vej (main road)

Focus Meadow land - low and open flora

Building site

Pathway

Railw

ay

Main arrival direction

View from the village Forest - high and dense/closed

INFRASTRAcTURE ANd hISToRIc ElEMENTS oF INTERESTThe main arrival direction is from Hobro via Fyrkat vej. Hence this direction will be of great importance in the initial experience of the museum and in starting off a natural flow on the site. The museum and the monument are situated approximately 1 km apart, with only limited visual contact and connected via Fyrkat vej (main road) and a pathway along Fyrkat Engsø (the lake). Of additional interest is it that the railway passes through the meadow area, where the building potentially can serve to advertise that something particular is going on in this beautiful, yet rather anonymous landscape. In this project the main focus will be on communicating the history of the centerpiece, the monument. Yet a clear challenge is to link the elements of the site; the museum, the village, the longhouse and the monument in a natural flow (fig. 10).

Reconstructed viking farm village

Fortress

Reconstructed Viking longhouse

Fyrkat monument- Inwards focus

Village - inwards/outwards focus?

dIREcTIoN oF FocUSThe fortress has a clear internal focus due to its geometry, vast scale and clarity. The reconstructed village seems to have difficulties in apointing a focus - it wants to be a ’closed unit’ at the same time as protecting and directing views outwards to Fyrkat Engsø (fig. 11). One could imagine this to be an external exhibition space which adds to the experience of understanding the Viking era.

TopoGRAphY - opEN/cloSEdThe building site is situated in a transitions area between the dense forest area an a more open meadow land characterized by open views. The forest defines a backdrop for the village and the building site, which in turn opens up towards the meadow (fig. 12). This transition is a characteristic of the historic walk and is therefore seen as a great potential to be incorporated in the concept.

Playground

Village

Fyrkat

Arrival

dIREcTIoNSThe building site is constituted by a sloping, narrow site, bordered by Fyrkat vej, the reconstructed village and a small gravel road connecting to the recently built building in the rear of the village (fig. 13).

Besides linking the museum to a natural flow to the fortress, the new museum should make a natural link to the reconstructed village and the playground in a way that respects the preservation of flora.

Building site

Main directions

10. Infrastructure and historic elements of interest.

11. Physical surroundings dictating focus - or not?

12. An experience of openness vs. closedness.

13. Flowdirections to be considered.

13

14. View from the building site towards Fyrkat Engsø and Fyrkat.

15. View from the meadow towards the village.

AddING To A lANdScApEThe landscape of the area forms an impressive, scenic context for the experience of the monument. The seemingly untouched nature strongly participates in creating a feeling of authenticity; a feeling which is important to treat with care. Hence it becomes crucial to create positive contribution to the site, a building which forms a natural part – and which through its contemporary expression serves to enhance the historic character and the mood of the place.


16. Although only a shed, this sensously wowen structure is traversed with delicacy, with a play of light and with a tactility that makes you want to touch it - even though it made of Corten steel. The Composting Shed, Groves-Raines Architects.

17. Wooden fence used as enclosure of the Viking village near Fyrkat.

18. Intricate and ornate carvings on the Oseberg Viking Ship, Oslo.

coNSTRUcTIoN MoTIFS

Of great interest in connection with the site are the presumed constructional principles of the Viking Age, which are found on the site as reconstructions. Especially the weaving technique in exposed screen walls, fences and additionally in the inner construction of the village houses covered with clay, have attracted our attention (fig. 17). The semi-transparent quality, the play of light and the purity of the principle makes it appear both logic and sensuous at the same time. It is a motif that reappears in jewellry and clothing of the period (fig. 18), and hence holds important information about the constructional logic as well as aesthetics as an implicit quality. Please see p. 49 for further investigations of the principle.

Another aspect that has caught interest is what appears to be a difference in treatment of construction elements depending on their placement. From registering the reconstructed longhouse at Fyrkat it seems that the elements, which the residents were to come into closer contact with, a more elaborately treated than for instance the exterior supporting members.

ARchITEcTURAl wEAVING As a means of understanding the concept of weaving from a more theoretical point of view, one could again turn towards the architect and theoretician Gottfried Semper (see chapter Tectonics). Semper in his book ’Die vier Elemente der Architektur’ from 1850 argues that the primordial dwelling was constituted by

four primary elements, a hearth, an earthwork, a framework/roof and an enclosing, screen like membrane, paying particular interest to the latter [Frampton, 1995, p87]. This theory was put forward as a reaction against the claims of his time, that architecture has its origins in pure construction. He distinguishes between the heaviness of die Mauer as opposed to the screen like Wand based on the craft of weaving. He argues that die wand “should bear the noble memory of its origin” [Jones, 2006, p9].

Peter Blundell Jones in his article “Architectural Weaving” carries out a survey through history and different cultures to verify the importance of the weaving in the history of building up to present days, that is for instance in the Japanese culture. In this project Semper’s theory is interpreted in a way where the weaving possess spatial, metaphoric and sensuous qualities - holding a clear reference to traditional building implicit in its technique. Qualities that should not fall into oblivion as a consequence of a tunnel visioned focus on construction. Not as a mere coulisse, but enclosing spaces, “allowing for different kinds of spacial layering” [Jones, 2006, p9] and this in a way where the “logic of technique gives identity to the form” [Jones, 2006, p9].

15

ThE coRE oF ThE bUIldING TASK

On the basis of the context studies, in which the museum is to act, and of the subject of Nordic architecture and tectonics, the following problem is put forward:

How to design a contemporary museum at Fyrkat that:• relates, as a new building in a historic site, to the landscape

in a way where it is clearly inviting and defined in its own right, but posses a rootedness to the place and becomes an integrated part of the experience of fortification, landscape and reconstructions?

• initiates the experience, incorporating the reconstructed village as additional exhibition room, and prepares people for the experience of the centerpiece; the fortress. The museum should suggest a natural flow in the area?

• frames the fragments found at Fyrkat and create a specific narrative atmosphere around these - The different atmospheres relate to the Vikings activities and will except substantiating the fragments story, titillate the senses of the visitors.

• continues the simplistic approach of the Nordic tradition of building, attempting to continue the phenomenological approach and further addresses the subject of tectonic architecture.

• Treats the more poetic subjects of time and enclosure derived from our experience of the place?

TIME• Change the visitor’s state of mind, take them through a

transition from the present to historic times and mentally prepare them for the experience that lies ahead.

• Reinterpret the process of aging on the site – the fact that time has gradually covered most traces of the past and made it impossible to read the Viking history directly. One has to uncover the layers of time in order to understand the truth about the past.

ENcloSURE• Addressing and interpreting the subject of enclosure. The

area offers a variety in the feeling of enclosure, foremost in the Fyrkat fortress, but also in the reconstructed village, the longhouse and the forest landscape. This feeling is enhanced by the contrasting low and windy meadow landscape and open views. How can this feeling be communicated in the new museum, creating focus by removing visual impacts or creating new directed ones?

• That deals with how to give significance to the views on the site. Taking the stand that a view can potentially have a stronger effect if not presented at all times from every angle and hereby enhancing the internal focus.

16 | FYRKAT VIKING MUSEUM | PROJECT DESCRIPTION

FYRKAT VIKING MUSEUMdEScRIpTIoN

19. Concept sketch.

ARchITEcTURAl MAIN IdEAScREEN ThE ShRINEThe architectural main idea is constituted by two elements; a monolithic volume and a more light, sensuous woven screen that form the preparing base for experience of the site. The screen is both a symbol of protecting what is behind it, and the symbol of a beginning transition from the present to another time – a gradual process of uncovering the layers of time which have removed certainty. A process further intensified in the exhibition, where the visitor moves through space to uncover frozen moments in time – atmospheres from the Viking life communicated by use of artifacts and sensory impact. A carving in the volume defines a central connection point within the building, and clearly anchors the building to the site, offering immediate access to the Viking village as an integrated exhibition space.

20. Daytime view of the museum.


21. New flow directions and views on site.

22. The Fyrkat experience. Keeping a Viking-state of mind and giving a momentary preview before getting the full bodily experience of the traces of the past.

SITE plAN

THE EXPERIENCE INITIATORThe new museum, with the Viking village as an integrated part, serves as the initiator of the experience of the site. This is where the atmosphere is set and the experience begins; an experience which is completed by the visitor experiencing the actual centerpiece, the Fyrkat monument, and fully understanding the historic significance of the place.

The three level museum building is situated halfway underground and placed in direct connection to the village and adjacent playground by creating a leveled outdoor area in between the three; museum, village and playground (fig. 21).

With the intension of creating a transition from one sense of time to another, the building is situated on its elongated, narrow site so that you as a visitor upon arrival to the museum is led through firstly a semi-outdoor space created by the screen, then into the main building and afterwards to the outdoor part of the ‘Fyrkat experience’.

FYRKAT EXPERIENCEIt has been of great importance to obtain a natural flow on site and to continue this in an overall Fyrkat experience. This experience consists of several interconnected parts; an semi-outdoor arrival space, the indoor museum exhibition, the outdoor museum (the village), a walk through the dense forest which serves to keep the visitor in a viking-state of mind before moving into the open landscape with the earthworks of Fyrkat ring fortress in front. Continuing the tour the visitor will visit the reconstructed longhouse before passing through the gap to the inside of the fortress. When experienced a stroll back to Fyrkat Viking Museum takes the visitor along the gravel path in the untouched meadow area (fig. 22). From here a beautiful view to the museum is given, while getting further information from posters and mobile downloads. The experience ends - but remains a part of the ongoing present lives.

Dim forest

Longhouse

Preview of what to expect.

Restaurant

Fyrkat Engsø

Open meadow

Arrival

Fyrkat Viking Museum

Playground

Inward focusVillage

Fyrkat

Directed view

Filtered view to landscape

Arrival

23. Site plan, 1:500.

N

Entry Parking

Fyrkat vej

Playground

Village

Fyrkat

Exit Parking


ARRIVAl SpAcE

Upon arrival to Fyrkat Viking Museum via Hobrovej, the visitor recognizes the new museum building as one of three motives – the others being the open landscape to the right and the second the denser Viking village to the left. The screen stands as a distinct element in the landscape. With its clear reference to the original enclosing structure of the monument, this is a first statement of the historic past of the site which is to be explored. The screen allows the visitor glimpses of what lies behind, but one has to pass it as one of more layers in the experience in order to get the full understanding of the subject. From the parking the visitor is sluiced into a space defined by the volume on one side and the screen on the other with a defined view of the sky. The screen is a clear symbol of protection of the artifacts and knowledge of the past which is kept in the museum building and the Viking village. The screen at the same time defines a space in front of the main building in which a transition from our present everyday life on the one side of the screen to a different time and atmosphere on the other takes place.

In the transition space more senses are addressed – the shimmering light through the weaving touches the ground and the brick of the main building and enhances the tactility of these materials, whereas the gravel on the ground makes us aware of our own movement. This transition area serves to cleanse our minds – preparing us for the coming experience in the museum, with the village being an integrated part, and foremost for the experience of the centerpiece; the Fyrkat monument.

FILTERINGFrom the interior and the Viking village the screen allows filtered views, suggesting the landscape that lies beyond, but still marking a boundary. This serves to underline the concept of not having a clear view from all spaces at all times, but using the views in more narrative way shifting between framed views, unobstructed views and filtered views to create the wished experience in and around the building. To not have the view to the landscape everywhere will create an excitement and incentive to visit the vast natural element after experiencing the museum.

24. Arriving between screen and building, in a space shrouded with sensous, filtered dayligt.

21

ENTERING ThE MAIN VolUME

From the exterior entrance space you enter the next layer, the foyer space, which carves itself out of the monolithic building volume. The intense, warm brick used on the exterior facades is continued inside the foyer creating an intimate, relaxing atmosphere. The space ‘tunnels’ your attention to the environment on the opposite side of the building, the village – an environment from the past. Upon entering you are immediately able identify the exhibition entrance as well as the café. Also adjoining this central distribution space is a vertical volume that appears to be cut out from above. This accommodates a light staircase which is showered in daylight from the daylight above. The staircase leads either back to the foyer from the exhibition or to the upper level.

25. Foyer view with stairway to the village in the background.


ExhIbITIoN

EXPLORING THE PASTThe answers of the past lie in the ground. One has to peel of the layers to expose the essence of Viking life and tradition. The project proposes an exhibition concept based on mystery, curiosity and layering in which the visitor has to move through space in order for things to become clearer. You move through the dimly lit, intimate exhibition spaces in a continuous flow, where the movement is guided but not dictated, and where you seek deeper into the ground (lower level) to grasp the essence.

The exhibition spaces consist of outer open spaces and closed volumes of moments in time. Interplay between these spaces is introduced by composing a multilayered experience using translucency in opposition to solidity to create ‘filters’.

26. Exhibition area with translucent volume.

23

AUdIToRIUM

The auditorium has fixed seating for 66 persons and is shrouded in the calming view to Fyrkat Engsø. Should one wish to facilitate larger events a folding wall makes it possible to include the multifunctional presentation room.

27. Auditorium viewed from the back with a filtered view to the landscape.


IN ThE VIllAGE

Ascending the wooden staircase with the hollow sound of your steps accompanying you to the lower level of the sloping village site is reached. To create an enclosed and inward focus on ones presence in and exploration of the village the museum building and the screen purposely removes the otherwise ubiquitous, and thus uninteresting, view temporarily. This will furthermore underline the experience of the village as an inherent room in the exhibition. Once you move to the higher level of the village site you are given both a filtered (screen) and clearly marked (building roofline) view to the meadow landscape. The downward-shaping curve of the screen guides the attention in the direction of the fortress.

28. View from village to Fyrkat Engsø.

29. Nighttime expression of Fyrkat Viking Museum.


pRINcIplES oF ExhIbITING

The closed volumes are constructed partly by milky white translucent glass partitions, partly solid concrete walls. The exhibited artifacts and the visitors inside the volume will cast their shadows on the glass creating an incentive for visitors outside to move around in the exhibition in order to find the entrance (fig. 32). What is inside is momentarily unclear but as you approach the inside you are enlightened, focus is sharpened and the bright light reveals the Viking stories. In the open space a strategic placement of artifacts according to their size (one will need to come closer to small objects) should likewise encourage the visitors to engage with the space.

These closed volumes are clear architectural spaces exhibiting a story (a theme) in terms of sensory impressions. Tactility, smell, light, sound, taste and visual experiences can be suggested to be used as sensory stimulation to convey the story. Only a few selected artifacts which have significant connection to the story are exhibited within the volumes (fig. 31).

The volumes are strategically placed in the open exhibition spaces in order to create defined ‘spaces within spaces’. In these spaces bigger centrally placed artifacts can be experienced from all directions.

30. Principle of exhibition, section

open spaceclosed volume

Solid Translucent partition

Omni lightDirected spotlight

Framed artifacts

Translucent partition

open space

Backlit posterand transparent projecting box

ONE OBJECT, ONE FRAMEEvery artifact is given importance; it visually stands out from its surroundings (fig. 33). Inside the volumes smaller artifacts are hanging with varied distances from the translucent glass, in minimalistic thin frames, each one customized to its specific artifact. When illuminated from within the volume the shadow intensity (darkness) will decrease as the frames are suspended further away from the glass (fig. 34).

ELECTRONIC DEVICESWhen entering the exhibition area from the foyer one could imagine audio guides being available from the museum reception. In the open exhibition spaces latest forms of information technologies may be used (internet, mobile download etc.). When moving into the closed volume only a simple storytelling in the audio guide should support the architectural sensory experience.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONFor visitors who do not wish to visit the exhibition, but only to use the other facilities in the Viking center (e.g. presentation, auditorium, café or village) the foyer space can be used to present a brief overview of the archaeological site Fyrkat. Furthermore, the dimensions of the foyer allows for a bigger object to be placed centrally.

31. Plans of exhibition principles. Themes of the presented stories within the volumes are suggested. Further development of exhibition concept will determine the relevant stories.

Bigger foyer object

Artifact, e.g. Vølven

Bigger artifact

Bigger artifact

HANDICRAFT

TRAVEL

LONGHOUSE

ARTWARE

FYRKAT TRELLEBORG

Bigger artifact

ViewPeephole

Walk line

RECEPTION

FOYER

View to external entrance space

To create a sensory experience of being in a workshop space it could be suggested to work with the smell, sound and taste (through smell) of wood or metal, e.g. dust, splinter or shavings shavings on the floor.

Focused view to Fyrkat and surrounding landscape

To emphasize the characteristic tactility of juwelry and clothing it is suggested to work with different surface materials.

Staircase connecting the two exhibition levels

The atmophere could be created by the view to the open nature with its hint of the ring fortress in the far distance.

The dim interior of the reconstructed longhouses could be conveyed by special gentle lighting or one could suggest to use the characteristic smell of burned wood to give a slight hint of the past housing conditions.

Wind, cold, moisture could potentially create a sensoric experience to present the environment of the seafaring Viking.

27

SpATIAl oRGANISATIoN

The result is a functional, rationally arranged, yet with a pleasant intimate scale and welcoming materiality, interior which has good flexible options besides its primary function; to be a Viking museum, which channels the visitor’s state of mind from one time to another.

Initial studies of the brief identified two main function groups; ‘Viking museum’ and ‘Viking center’, the latter consisting of functions related to educational, administrative and social purposes. This division paves the way for the possibility of opening the building to the public in terms of facility booking for private events, such as conferences, parties and so on. The two groups have different requirements concerning daylight, views, and vertical connections within the building, hence the proposed arrangement (fig. 35).

The two groups wrap themselves around a central connection space, the foyer. This foyer serves both to connect the functions within the building and to connect these to the exterior surroundings. A practical vertical connection between staff areas is established in one end of the building body.

With the spatial organization a series of sequences are created makes the visitor move in a certain way, yet unforced and natural, returning to the same point, the foyer, which link the elements of the near context.

OfficesStorage

Wood workshopLunch room

KioskCafé

AuditoriumPresentation

High demand for daylight and views to landscape

Little daylight needed, few

views required

CaféAuditorium

PresentationWood workshop

Preservation+ storage

ReceptionExhibition

KioskOfficesStorage

Wood workshopLunch room

3

2

1

Staff only

Public

Public

Public

Staff only

Vertical connection

Connecting space

Preservation + storageReceptionExhibition

32. Translucent glass partitions in exhibition space at Hayward Gallery, London.

33. Exhibiting an artifact. Sverre Fehn delicately creates a unique holder for each featured object at his Hamar Bispegaard Museum, Norway, completed 1973

34. Exterior image of tent with clothing shop inside. The shadows vary in intensity depending on number of layers and the distance from the tent canvas.

35. Spatial organization. 1) The two groups. 2) Connecting space, daylight and view considerations. 3) Staff/public, vertical connections


ENTRY lEVEl

Besides the central foyer space, the entry level of the main building houses the upper exhibition space. This space can be closed off so that other facilities within the building may be used outside exhibition opening hours. In connection with the foyer a wardrobe and lockers for group entry storage can be found.

In the café one can enjoy the filtered panoramic view to the landscape. Within the café one can find a small kiosk/bar. This staff area is in open connection with a small kitchen and staff lunch room.

coNNEcTIoN To ThE plAYGRoUNd

Due to preservation of the flora on the area between the project site and playground, a pedestrian coonection to the playground has been established.

The connection starts on the east side of the new museum, from where a stairway leads the visitor from the foyer and up to the level of the village. From the top of the stairway grit pathways leads the visitors to either the village, the playground or to the fortress (fig. 37).

After passing the small gravel road which separates the playground from the building site, the visitors are led onto a footbridge, a bit raised from the ground, to protect the unique flora underneath. The footbridge is, as described in the material chapter, executed wood to create a connection to the materiality of stairway and screen of the museum. The railings of the bridge are inspired by the Viking fences which surrounds the village area (fig. 36). As is the case around the village, the fence here has its original appearance as opposed to the museum building, where it is translated into a more contemporary language of form.

36. Moodboard concerning the connection to the Viking playground.

37. Site plan, 1:200.

exhibition 146 m²

café 47 m²

storage 5 m²

kiosk/bar7 m²

kitchen 9 m²

lunch room, staff 12 m²

foyertoilets unisex

ventilation shaft

gravel

lifttoiletstaff

lockers

disabled

wardrobe

possible exhibition

area

reception

stair case to top floor

stair case to exhibition below

connection toplayground

N


lowER lEVEl

From the exhibition space on the entry level, the visitor moves down into the ground. This lower level mainly houses a spacious exhibition space and related preservation and storage space with adjoining plant room (fig. 39).The lower exhibition space is considered as safety class skafor 1. Therefore this level does not have any natural daylight and can be completely closed off.

UppER lEVEl

The visitors are greeted by a wide and spacious gallery corridor on the upper level of Fyrkat Viking Museum. This gallery corridor can be used for minor exhibitions of artifacts or artwork, group workplaces and as intermission bar area in connection with bigger functions, such as conferences, lectures and workshops. The flexible space has views to the village and at the southern end a large window extends the corridor into the vivid landscape. From the elevated viewing platform the visitor can get a good view of the surrounding landscape.

Adjoining the gallery are the auditorium and presentation facilities. The auditorium can be accessed from the back via the viewing platform and below from the gallery.

woRKShopThe brief is arranged so that activities for school classes can benefit from the outdoor spaces on the eastside of the museum. By dividing the rather large wood workshop into two parts, one being restricted to staff use only, educational activities can comprise a more hands on approach, e.g. role play with wooden swords, model making of small wooden boats to be tested on the shore of Fyrkat Engsø or other playful assignments. A direct access to the workshop and nearby lift makes deliveries easy.

Office spaces for five employees are situated on the upper level as well, with a great, filtered meadow view and good daylight conditions.

38. Section through landscape and building, 1:1000

31

gallery

auditorium 63 m²66 persons

fixed seating

presentation room, multifunctional 100 m²

exhibition 246 m²SKAFOR Class 1

plant room 31 m²storage

preservation room 60 m²

office 22 m²3 persons

office 17 m²2 persons

wood workshop, staff 22 m²

wood workshop 38 m²

portable intermission bar

ventilation shaft

lift

ventilation shaft

stair case to foyér

stair case from foyér

access to village

stair case from exhibition

lift

viewing platform

possible exhibition area

stair case from exhibition

39. Upper level, 1:200 Lower level, 1:200

N


40. Longitudinal section A-A, 1:200.

33

41. Cross section B-B, 1:200. 42. Cross section C-C, 1:200.


43. North elevation, 1:200 44. West elevation, 1:200

35

45. South elevation, 1:200 46. East elevation, 1:200


MATERIAlITY

”I believe that they (the materials) can assume a poetic quality in this context of an architectural object, although only if the architect is able to generate a meaningful situation for them, since materials in themselves are not poetic.” [Zumthor, 2010, p10]

This argumentation presented by Peter Zumthor goes hand in hand with the discussion put forward by Juhani Pallasmaa in his book The Eyes of the Skin (2005); that is the critique of contemporary architecture as only being concerned with instant image production and focus on mere appearance. Pallasmaa is concerned with ‘the bias towards vision, and the suppression of other senses (…) and about the consequent disappearance of sensory and sensual qualities” [Pallasmaa, 2005, p10 ].

In the choice of materials of the various building parts it has been important to keep the above-mentioned discussion in mind and to try to infuse a level of poetry by ‘sense of materiality, hapticity, texture and weight, density of space and materialized light’ [Pallasmaa, 2005, p37] into the architecture. The materials have been chosen in order to substantiate the building concept, the thoughts on nordic architecture and tectonics as well as sustainability of architecture. Furthermore, the aspect of ageing of materials has had a strong impact on the choices made.

In consideration of the architectural main idea the selection of materials has been made to create a perception of a very delicate and refined screen structure contrasting the solid and monolithic museum building. Based on creating a building that represents the Nordic architecture, it has been important to implement regional materials, Danish building traditions and materials titillating the visitors’ senses by material tactility. The tectonic approach has been considered mostly in terms of honesty, so that the overall constructional principle or logic is evident to the visitor.

ThE ScREENThe wowen parts of the screen are made of untreated oak and the vertical beams of homogeneous laminated, surface treated, pinewood. It is proposed to leave the oak untreated because the color over time will turn in to a silvered color, which will compliment the warm materials of the building volume beautifully (fig. 47). These materials are chosen to create the perception of a very delicate and refined screen, built with a local material, which, in the Viking age, was one of the primary construction materials (fig. 48).

Seen from a more subjective and sensual perspective the wood has a certain quality with its strong materiality which titillates the senses of the visitors – almost as if it is telling you its life story. It is a material that shows its history, its age, in a very delicate and direct manner, by gradually turning into a silvered color. In addition, the wood creates a clear reminder about the handicraft traditions of the Viking age.

In a sustainable perspective the choice of wood has arguments both for and against it. Considering the production methods of the wooden elements they do not produce much pollution, because it is a natural material and because it is a local material, it will not create much pollution in terms of transportation. Oak wood is a relatively expensive material; on the other hand untreated oak has a relatively long durability compared with other wood types. The untreated oak will last 20-25 years or more [web 3]. Since the wood is untreated a minimum of maintenance is required.

47. Inspiration: aged wood in silverlike color.

48. The oakwood reconstruction of a viking longhouse near the ramparts of Fyrkat trelleborg.

49. Nature taking its course over time, brick work.

37

ThE bUIldING VolUMEThe building volume is made of brick; Kolumba43 from Petersen Tegl (fig. 52). Kolumba bricks are handcrafted, horizontal building ceramics. The specific color 43 is chosen, because it is a relatively dark but still warm color with a high level of depth, which will create a harmonious contrast to very light colored screen. A strong feeling of time and human effort is inherent in this tactile handmade brick, which creates an intense textural expression.

This material is chosen to create the perception of a monolithic building, built with a local material, which in ages has been used as a traditional building material in a Danish context. The masonry structure has an authority as a material that most clearly expresses the Danish building tradition. The bricks are used exterior and interior as a layer of the enveloping wall. It is used on all surfaces in the foyer, so to give the visitors an impression of a room carved out of the monolith and an experience of sensing the material tactility. In terms of tectonics the bricks are used as the load bearing element in the building, which gives the visitors an impression of honesty.

In consideration of the environment brick is an energy consuming material to produce. On the other hand, however, brick is a local material, which will not create much pollution by transportation. Economy wise is it a relatively expensive material and it will take time to close the building envelope in the actual building process, but on the other hand is it a long lasting material which is very easy to maintain [see appendix 2 for further considerations].

ExTERIoR GRoUNd MATERIAlSThe walking main pathways connecting to the museum building is covered with grit. This material is chosen to continue the materiality of the ‘Fyrkat experience’ (connecting route to fortress) and because the visitors are sensing the materiality and the sounds created when walking on it. Furthermore, the grit has a practical function to assist drainage of the areas close to the building volume.

In front of the museum building is a wooden plateau to tell the visitor where to enter the foyer. This wooden plateau also has a connection to wooden plateau on the other side of the foyer space, from where the visitors are led to the village by an exterior wooden stairway in the landscape (fig. 51).

GREEN RooFAs the roof of the building is visible from the higher levels of the village, the expression and material of this ‘fifth facade’ is a relevant to treat. The roof of the museum is covered with sedum with grass. Sedum is a plant species which can be used as roof covering as green roofs, often preproduced. This creates a view from the village where the museum becomes a part of the

50. Project made in Kolumba brick masonry. Orangery and stud farm in Geneva, Charles Pictet Architects FAS, 2008.

51. Grit footpath and wooden bridge in the Fyrkat Engsø meadow with the site and Viking village in the background. The experienced materiality has been implemented in the Fyrkat Viking Museum.

52. Kolomba brick, K43 - brown violet.


landscape.INTERIoR MATERIAlITYAs mentioned earlier, all the surfaces in the foyer is brick, Kolumba43. The decks in the building are made of reinforced concrete (see chapter Structural System), and it is proposed to leave the ceilings on all the stories in this untreated concrete, whereas the floors are covered with oak (fig. 53).

The material for all the interior walls, besides the ones in the foyer, are evaluated in terms of the functions they enclose, since they are not load bearing. It can be in one of the three following materials: light colored concrete, transparent or translucent glass partitions (fig. 54). These materials form a group which is to be in contrast with the volume-defining darker masonry structure of the envelope and carved out foyer space. The core of the staircase going all the way through the building, are made of Kolumba43 contrasting the steps made of oak like the flooring.

All these different materials, both exterior and interior, are suggested to emphasize a strong sensory experience of transitioning through different layers as a metaphor of travelling through time to reveal new understandings.“…the experience of architecture being a movement of the body through time and space, and that in giving architecture a human measure one should address more senses than the mere visual by strengthening the sense of materiality” [Pallasmaa, 2005, p17].

53. Wooden, light floors at the Saatchi Gallery, London.

54. Translucency and light colored surfaces. Here used as envelope and interior of the Bloch Building, Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, by Steven Holl, 2007.

39

AcoUSTIcS

When examining the acoustical performance of the Fyrkat Viking Museum focus has been given to the auditorium. In the following the auditorium will be referred to as a ’lecture room’ since this is the term used for such a room in the reference books.

To create a room with good room acoustics there is a number of properties which must be fulfilled. The design goal has been to achieve high intelligibility of spoken words throughout the room, which dictate a room• shaped to direct sound from the speaker’s position and

towards the audience• avoiding echoes• avoiding “hot” spots (focused sound)[Egan, 2007, p88], [Kirkegaard, 2004 p49]

To create a lecture room with good perception of speech and good sight conditions for the audience different parameters have been considered. The results are commented in the following [see app. 3 for further information].

VolUMETo achieve a loud enough speech a compact room shape with low room volume is required [Egan, 2007, p88]. Figure 55 shows that the lecture room has a compact shape and a room volume, which gives the audience 2.77 m3 per person, which is within the proposed interval.To avoid the mentioned hot spots the lecture room does not consist of any concave reflectors which focus the sound.

REVERbERATIoN TIMEThe lecture room should provide a controlled reverberation time ≤ 0.6 s [Hoffmeyer, 2004, p4] so that speech will not be garbled. This is done by using sound absorbing materials, ensuring constant absorption within the frequency range for speech [web 4] [Voetmann, 2009]. This gives a result of 0.47 s (fig. 56).

dISTANcEThe distance between speaker and the rear of the audience area should be short, so that the loudness will be sufficient throughout the room and the audience will have the ability to see the person talking [Egan, 2007, p88]. The lecture room has a distance from the speaker and to the rear of the audience of 5.7 m. This gives a satisfactory loudness for the audience and at the same time a good ability to see the person talking.

SoUNd REFlEcTIoNThe sound reflecting surfaces should provide short-delayed sound reflections to the audience [Egan, 2007, p96]. The path difference for the lecture room is 2.7 m for the seat located in front and 0.8 m for the seat located in the back (fig. 56). This means that the lecture room provides very short-delayed sound reflection.

EchoTo avoid echo a time delay < 50 ms (corresponding to a distance at 17 m) should be obtained [Kirkegaard, 2004, p49]. The distance of the reflected sound in the lecture room is 4.4 m for the seat located in front and 6.5 m for the seat located in the back (fig. 57). This means that the time delay is much lower than the limit and an echo would not arise.

SEATING ARRANGEMENTThe seating should be sloping greater than 7 degrees to provide good sight lines and reduce audience attenuation [Egan, 2007, p88]. The lecture room is sloping 14 degrees, so good sight lines for the audience are provided.

Room dimensions Floor area Room volume Seats Path different = reflected path - direct path

Distance of the reflected sound Reverberation time Sound pressure level

Front seat Back seat Front seat Back seat Front seat Back seat

The aim Compact room shape Low volume(2.3-4.2 m3 per. person)

< 10 m and < 7 m if the lecture room are supposed to be used for speech

time delay < 50 ms - corresponding to a distance at 17 m

≤ 0.6 s for danish lecture rooms

See figure 58.

Lecture room Length: 7.7 mWidth: 8 mHeight: 2.3-3.5 m

61.36 m2 183.08 m3

(2.7 m3 per. person)66 2.7 m 0.8 m 4.4 m 6.5 m 0.47 s 48.99 dB 47.3 dB

55. Geometry of lecture room.

56. Table; Room acoustics for the lecture room. For calculation on reverberation time, see appendix 3.

57. Ray diagram. Measurements in mm.

58. Changes in sound pressure level. [Kirkegaard, 2004, p37]

2.3m

7.6m

3.5m

8.0m

2043 2439

1707

5679

25903882

21.5460.64 60.64

SoUNd pRESSURE lEVElThe sound pressure level for the lecture room is calculated to evaluate, how the sound level decreases throughout the room [app. 3]. The calculations are based on a sound pressure level of 60 dB, which is an average of speech level (Egan, 2007, p13). Figure 56 shows that the sound pressure level in the lecture room decrease 1.69 dB from the audience seated in front to the audience seated in the back. Figure 58 shows that a change of 1.69 is not even audible.

Change in sound pressure Experienced a change in pressure

3 dB5 dB10 dB20 dB

Just audibleClearly audible

Doubling/halving4 times or 1/4

21.54 21.54


STRUcTURAl SYSTEM

The structural system of the screen consists of fixed vertical elements, which mainly act as beams due to the dominating wind load from west. The elements are interconnected by fixed woven elements as a secondary system, which stabilize the primary system. In plan view the overall system forms a curve, which again adds stability to the construction. The vertical elements taper towards the top to counteract the forces in the fixing point at the same time as achieving a slender expression upwards. Furthermore, they are designed with a high moment of inertia to optimize the cross section according to the aimed expression (fig. 65).

The structural system of the main volume consists of bearing exterior walls which functions as shear plates in the areas with few openings and decks spanning the full width of the building (fig. 59).

Vertical loads are distributed in the slabs and led further down the building in the exterior walls and the central staircase as well as the wall of the other staircase (fig. 60).

Horizontal loads are transferred in the exterior walls, that will function as plates, and in the central staircase core. Additionally post-stressed brick is used withstand cross going horizontal loads (fig. 61).

Calculations on the roof deck and the deck between lower and entry level have been carried out (fig. 62 and 63 + appendix 5).

59. Structural system of main volume and columns of the screen.

60. Simplified illustration of the transfer of vertical loads down the staircase core and the building envelope.

61. Simplified illustration of the transfer of horisontal loads in the walls of the building envelope and the staircade core.

41

The columns of the screen have been subject to integrated investigation in terms of dimensioning of the profile and architectural expression (see p52). In detailing the concept, the dimensions have been optimized to support the architectural main idea. In figure 64 and 65 the final dimensions of the tallest column of the screen are listed as well as illustrations showing the final design of the screen. These calculations are based on a single tapering element, whereas the final column is divided into two elements interconnected by metal trusses to articulate the weaving - hence the calculations serve as a guideline to define realistic proportions. The strategy of the calculations have been to list relevant loads and load cases, thereafter applying these imformations together with materials, cross sections in the finite element program ’Autodesk Robot’ in order to calculate the deformation and maximum stresses in the structure here. Please see appendix 6 for further information concerning the calculations.

Material and profile Requirements for SLS - max. deformation [mm]

Actual deformation [mm] Requirements for ULS: the strength of the material, fc,0,d=18,407 n/mm2, should not be exceeded

Actual normal stresses [n/mm2]

Wood, GL28h, Tapering from 530x200 to 280x200

90 114 18,407 16,96

Dimensions of the heighest column in the screen.

63. Dimensioning of concrete slabs and reinforcement [appendix 5].

64. Final dimensions of the heighest column in the screen. The requirements for SLS have been set to lenght/100 since we do not wish the deformation to be perceivable to the visitor. Due to the fact that we have calculated with a more closed screen (80 % solid) than the actual design (less than 50 %), resulting in bigger wind pressure, it is decided to accept a deformation of 114 mm. [appendix 6].

62. Element A (roof) and B (deck between lower and entry level).

Structural element: Height [mm]

Rquirements for SLS - max. deformation [mm]

Actual deformation [mm]

Calculated moment in element [kNm]. Should not exceed the design bending moment of the material.

A_roof slab: 240 21 5,47 Mrd: 185,821 [kNm] > MEd

: 157,228 [kNm]

B_deck: 270 21 5,85 Mrd: 256,682 [kNm] > MEd

: 249,969 [kNm]

Calculation of height of roof deck and floor deck:1,169m10,5m

B

A


65. Screen, part of elevation, section and plan, 1:50

43

boNdThe bricks are laid in seemingly random bond (fig. 52 in the chapter Materiality). This implies that the stone parts which are cut off in connection with corners are introduced into the bond in other places, thereby creating a more random expression. In order to maintain stability, each stone has an overlay of min. 80 mm from the one above and below [Schmidt, 2010]. The joints between the bricks have a dark color and whereas the horizontal joints are recessed, the vertical ones are leveled with the brick. The windows could be placed either within the wall (to enhance the idea of a clear cut) or attached to the wall in the interior (to emphasize the depth of the wall).

Window

66. Principle detail, oblique angled brick wall and insertion of window, 1:20

67. Principle detail, meeting between enveloping brick wall and interior concrete wall, 1:10

68. Elevation detail, bond and construction principle around window, 1:10


69. Fire escape plans, upper, entry and lower levels.

FIRE REGUlATIoNScATEGoRIES oF USEThe new museum of Fyrkat is categorized as category 3, which is defined as a building section for daily use for a big amount of people, who does not necessarily have knowledge about the fire escapes of the building section, but is, by themselves, able to reach safety. This category includes facilities as restaurants, assembly rooms, concert halls, exhibition rooms etc. for more than 50 people [de Place Hansen, 2010, pp153-154].

FIRE EScApESTotal evacuation of the new Fyrkat Viking Museum happens via the two fire escapes on each level, - all with the width of minimum 1.3 m. Depending on which level you are on the fire escapes will lead the visitors and the staff directly out through outward opening doors with dimensions from 1-2 meters or to a fire escape through a staircase, all with the width of 1.3 m. These staircases are defined as safe rooms (fig. 69). The building is planned, so that the distance from any point in the building to the nearest fire escape does not exceed 25 meters, which is recommended in order keep the escape route as clearly identifiable for the visitors. In the wood workshop an extra rescue opening is added, because rooms with particular fire risk require two fire escapes.

bUIldING MATERIAlSThe building is constructed mainly with non-inflammable or fire resistant materials, i.e. concrete, bricks and glass with the exception of the wooden floor. This secures that the fire escapes will remain operable while the evacuation proceed.

AcTIVE FIRE pRoTEcTIoNAn automatic smoke detector, which emits alarm to the rescue service, is installed in the museum to handle the safety of the staff and the visitors in the best way.

pASSIVE FIRE pRoTEcTIoNThe whole museum is defined as one fire section divided into fire cells, 2-3 on each floors. The staircases from the lower level to the landing between entry and upper levels, both the central and the one in the exhibition, are categorized as safe rooms, which can be shut off the rest of the building by sliding doors.

AccESS RoAdThere is easy access to the museum from all sides, so that the rescue service easily can rescue the staff and the visitors of the building.

Section Cells Fire escape Sliding doors Secured staircases

45

dAYlIGhT

With the aim to provide good daylight conditions for the staff in the museum and the visitors, daylight factor and daylight sufficiency for the two offices, due to normative requirements in workspaces, and the foyer, due to the choice of rather dark materials, is calculated.

In the Danish regulations [de Place Hansen, 2001, p234] it is described that the daylight is deemed to be sufficient if the window area equals 10 % or more of the floor area. In each of the three cases this is fulfilled (fig. 70).To get a better understanding of how the light is distributed throughout the rooms a simulation of each room is performed in the building simulation program DIAL-Europe, a decision support tool for early lighting design.

The offices are calculated with exact dimensions, whereas the foyer is calculated as a rectangular room due to lack of modelling possibilities within the program. According to the program a luminance of 200 lux is required in the offices, whereas 100 lux is required for the foyer.

70. Table, window area in comparison to floor area.

71. Table, resulting daylight factors and sufficiency.

72. Office 1, daylight factor. 74. Office 1, daylight sufficiency.

76. Foyer, daylight factor.75. Office 2, daylight sufficiency.

77. Foyer, daylight efficiency.

73. Office 2, daylight factor.

Floor area (m2) 10 % of floor area (m2)

Window area (m2)

Office 1 18.36 1.84 2.88

Office 2 22.66 2.27 2,44

Foyer 52.1 5.2 37.56

Requirements Average of daylight factor

Average of daylight sufficiency

Office 1 200 lux = 2 % DF 2.3 % 65 %

Office 2 200 lux = 2 % DF 2.8 % 67 %

Foyer 100 lux = 1% DF 4 % 82 %

window window window

entrance

connection between offices though transparent glass partition, but

calculate as concrete.

window window window

entrance

connection between offices though transparent glass partition, but

calculated as concrete

> 10% > 10%> 7,5% > 7,5%> 5% > 5%> 3% > 3%> 2% > 2%> 1% > 1%

> 1%

< 1% < 1%

< 1%

oFFIcESThe average daylight factor for the offices is calculated to 2.3% and 2.8% respectively (fig. 71) and the values varies from 0.9% in the back of the room and 5.8% near the windows in office 1 and 0.7% and 8% respectively in office 2 (fig. 71). From these indications one could deem that the offices will be comfortable to stay and work in. Further evaluation, however, shows that the daylight could be more equally distributed throughout the room, so that the contrast from one part of the room to another would be smaller resulting in a better work environment. In order to rectify this imbalance a skylight window could be added in office 1, just as the skylight in office 2 has been added due to insufficient daylight. This has, however, been considered innessesary because the primary workspaces are placed near the windows.

The daylight sufficiency is calculated to 65% and 67% respectively, which means that the natural daylight in the rooms, on an annual basis, would be sufficient 65 % and 67 % during daylight hours (fig. 71).

FoYERThe average of the daylight factor in the foyer calculated to 4% and varies from 0.7% in the middle of the room to 11% by the facades (fig. 71 ). This gives an indication of a foyer space with a good distributed throughout the room, even with a dark material on all non-window surfaces. The average daylight factor in the foyer may in reality be higher because the room is calculated as a rectangular room (program limitation) and the calculated value therefore is at its lowest in the part which does not exist. This is also the case for the daylight sufficiency calculations (fig. 71). The daylight sufficiency is calculated to 82%, which means that the natural light in the room, on an annual basis, would be sufficient 82 % during daylight hours.

These calculations give us an indication of interior spaces that are well lit by natural daylight, which reduces the need for artificial lighting during the day. The light is distributed so that unpleasant contrasts do not occur when working and moving through the spaces.[appendix 4]

46 | FYRKAT VIKING MUSEUM | DESIGN PROCESS

dESIGN pRocESSINTRodUcTIoN To dESIGN pRocESS

In the following a short overview of crucial steps in the design process is presented.

The chapter is divided into two parts; the initial process up until the development of the architectural main concept and the following synthesis. Different concept are listed and the chosen direction is indicated with a blue arrow. The project period has been characterized by a looping process with parallel investigations of subjects of technical, functional as well as aesthetic character throughout the semester. The methods have been theoretical studies as well as conceptual diagrams, extensive use of working models and sketching. During the semester the project group has furthermore participated in three workshops under the theme ‘form finding’ [app. 7]. The workshops have given an insight into new approaches, giving hands on experience from the beginning of the project. In addition investigations on the idea of a woven screen were carried out as a simplified 1:1 mock up, making a section of the screen as it appeared in the project at the time of the workshop.

how To Add?

One of the first considerations in the design process has been how to situate the building on the site and in the landscape and how to connect to the recreated farm buildings. The following diagrams show four different concepts (fig. 78-81). In the brief is written “The museum’s architecture should create an aesthetic connection between the beautiful landscape and the picturesque recreated farm buildings that are situated close to the museum”. The concept “Obstructing the view” was chosen to enhance the enclosed feeling of being in the village as an external exhibition space. This is the main reason for doing so. A clear physical connection between museum and village is created by placing the museum in the immediate continuation of the village. Another purpose of obstructing the view from the farm is to borrow it and implement it in the building, so views of different focus points, from the inside of the building, are framed. 78. Framing the view. 79. Respecting the view.

80. Halfway hidden underground. 81. Obstructing the view.

47

VolUME STUdIES

An extensive experimentation with volumes has been carried out as model studies. A consideration behind the studies have been to underline the project brief which, in our interpretation, suggests a separation of functions in a more public part and a more administrative and educational part connecting in a central point, which shows in the models (fig. 82-85).

From the previous investigation the concept of two different building elements arose; the building and the screen. An iteration of this concept created four concepts for the relation between the building and the screen (fig. 90-93).

The concept “The screen creating an outdoor space” was chosen for further development, because the idea about this outdoor space has potential in terms of dealing with the concept of time, where the outdoor space could be a part of the transition between the present an the past at the same time as focusing the attention of the visitor.

82. A central point, a ‘heart’ in the building.

83. A single volume relates to the lines on the site.

84. Two leaning volumes. 85. A rectangular volume, with the central point being a void.

how To ARRIVE?

In the process the arrival situation has been treated with great interest. How to welcome the visitor and make the whole arrival and enter-situation an experience, treating the subject of transition in time. The fourth concept is chosen for further investigations, introducing an extra layer in front of a main volume forming the transition (fig. 86-89).

86. Arriving from below. 87. Arriving through cave.

88. Arriving via a ramp. 89. Arriving between two elements.

90. The screen being the climate screen.

91. The screen separating the museum from the road

92. The screen leading the visitors.

93. The screen creating an outdoor space.


how To RElATE To ThE lANdScApE

clEARING SpAcE SENSING ATMoSphERESSToRY

obJEcT

The study on building in landscape shown above takes into consideration the sloping of the site. It has been registered that the positioning of the building has great influence on the definition of a volume – how much the building is clearly defined in its own right or is subordinated to the landscape.

MUSEUM Flow

94. Over ground – defined volume.

98. “One-way Street” potentially consolidating a time line, like Yad Vashem, the Holocaust History Museum in Jerusalem by Moshe Safdie.

95. The building appearing from the landscape.

99. “Shopping mall”, like Heart Art Museum in Herning, by Steven Holl

96. Combination of the two previous studies: emphasizing an entrance.

100. Dictating vs. optional flow” like Hamar Bispegaard in Hamar, Norway by Sverre Fehn

97. Combination of the two previous studies: Emphasizing the direction of arrival.

101. Natural directing flow” like Aros in Århus by Schmidt Hammer Lassen

103. Altogether these stories communicate fragments of the history of the Vikings.

104. Yad Vashem, the Holocaust History Museum in Jerusalem by Moshe Safdie.

102. The objects serve to tell a story.

105. Directed vs. optional, Hamar Bispegaard Museum, Sverre Fehn.

In the very beginning of the design process a research about museums flow, based on case studies of different museums, was carried out (fig. 98-101). The concept “Natural directing flow” was chosen, because it is a natural flow, where the visitors are directed in a specific direction, but still being able to influence their own experience (see chapter Principles of Exhibiting).

After choosing the concept of a natural directing flow it was further developed how the exact exhibition spaces are organized, where the artifacts represent a story, which altogether gives an understanding of the history of the Vikings.

49

ARchITEcTURAl MAIN IdEA

MATERIAlITY ANd wEAVING

Following the studies of the site, the weaving constructions of the Viking Age have been investigated. Scale models have been made in order to understand the original concept and to develop the concept in way which enhances the architectural idea. Especially working in wood have served to get and understanding of the constraint of the principles. Figure 106 is made to understand the original construction principle. Here the columns serve as a primary structural system and the woven elements transfer their self loads down through

106. Understanding the original construction principle.

108. Exploring different levels of transparency. Homogenous expression.

110. Model representing the physical expression of the architectural main idea.

107. Working with a slightly double curving wall.

109. Example of working with openings in specific places.

the next elements. Figure 107 shows a slightly double curving structure, slightly decreasing in height, which introduces the issue of how to treat connections and terminations. Figure 108 illustrates an example from the process concerning creating transparency. This model shows a homogenous expression, resulting from an equal spacing between the elements throughout the screen. Here the columns are carrying the loads of the weaving. Figure 109 shows another example of working with transparency, here creating openings in specific places.


RElATIoN bETwEEN bUIldING ANd ScREEN

Structural considerations have been a defining part of the concept development. After developing the main concept of a volume and a sheltering structure, the relationship between these elements became an issue of great interest.

Description Evaluation

Screen and main volume as seperate structural systems.Main volume: frame structure or walls and decks. Sheltering structure: A fixed structure. Can be considered as a wall of columns (acting as beams due to horisontal wind loads) or as a shell structure depending on the execution and fixing of the woven elements.

Screen and main volume are structurally dependent on each other. Potentially as a frame structure - if it is realistic to make a ridig corner where the connection to the screen is.The screen will function as a row of columns since it is carrying the loads of the main volume, as well as its selfweight.

Focus on the elements as clearly defined, physically independent elements that together create the layout of the building. In the composition of these elements a spatial tension is created. The transition area from the parking to the entrance becomes an area defined by two vertical planes.

Focus on an overall structure with internal outdoor and indoor spaces. The screen becomes a physically integrated part of the main building.

111. Finnish Pavilion, Expo Seville 1992, architect Matti Sanaksenaho et al.

The screen ‘leaning’ on a mainstructure - the structural system of the main building supports the screen.

The leaning of the screen does not correspond to the wished expression. No dynamics. This structural system does not correspond to the image of the screen being a sheltering structure.

112. Danish Pavilion, Expo Seville 1992, KHR Architects.

51

ThE ScREEN

Parallel to developing the design of the screen and the spatial composition, focus has been on the structural potentials. A wall structure consisting of columns has been chosen for the structural system, as opposed to for instance a shell structure. This is primary due to the fact that we hereby continue the original concept of one primary system, the columns, and the woven elements as a secondary system. Furthermore we keep a vertical and horizontal direction, which works well together with the main building instead of introducing a third direction, which could be the consequence of working with a shell structure. Different materials (steel and wood) and different cross sections have been tested by means of calculations in the the Finite Element program Robot (in ULS and SLS) (see appendix 6 and fig. 113) and parallel sketching to get an initial understanding of scale and proportions.

It is chosen to work with a curving column and a curving wall, when viewed in plan, which enhances the conceptual idea of sheltering, as well as physically optimizing the screen’s ability to withstand the considerable windloads.

113. A selection of iterations showing the resulting expression of different choices of materials and cross sections for the heighest column (in this listing, the height of the column i only 8 m, whereas it is 9,5 m in the final design. In addition the loads have been edited sligthly in the final calculation) (see appendix 6 and CD for final calculation).

EXPERIMENT NO. 1 2 3 4

MATERIAL Wood, GL24h Steel, S235 Wood, GL24h Wood, GL32h

CROSS SECTION Rectangular, b: 300 mm and h: 400 mm

IPE-profile, b: 150mm, h: 300mm, d: 7,1mm, t:10,7mm

2 rectangular elements. h: 400 mm, b: 150 mm, d: 100 mm

Rectangular, b: 200 mm, h: 500

EVALUATION Initial test. Very dimonating expression.

The dimensions can be decreased considerably in comparison to wood columns. Yet wood has been chosen due to its tactile qualities and humane character.

Divided in two. This does not serve well in terms of creating a more slender expression.

The moment of inertia is increased, which optimizes the dimensions in relation to wind loads.

. . . . . . . Final calculation

Wood, GL28h, Tapering from 530x200 to 280x200

Final calculation (See page 41). Here we have used a height of 9 m.


Considerations about how to work with layers in the exhibition as an interpretation of the concept of time have been made. These layerings are introduced in connection with the stories communicated in the exhibition area in order to create an atmosphere of mystique and encouraging the visitor to investigate what it is that the layers conceal.

INTERIoR MoodS

114. Layering of plates. 115. Layering by use of semi transparent materials.

116. Light enhancing the tactility of a material.

117. Framing a view.

118. Scale and direction has been important subjects through the process.

54 | FYRKAT VIKING MUSEUM | REFLECTIONS

coNclUSIoN

With this proposal for a new museum near Fyrkat the historic site is reinterpreted into a clear contemporary expression that forms a base for the experience of the site. Arriving from Hobro the visitor will see the monolithic museum building lying firmly in thelandscape, rooted to the site in scale, direction and footprint. This monolith is sheltered by a delicate and sensuous woven screen structure, which rises from the ground to protect the relics of the past with a clear reference to the original enclosing structure of the monument and the original construction principles. The curving shape suggests a relationship with motifs on the site; being the soft curves of walls and roofs of the village houses and the footprint of the monument.

From the parking area the visitor is sluiced gently into an enclosed space defined by the meeting of screen and volume; a space defining the starting point of a transition from everyday life to historic times - the transition to a different state of mind. The tactility of the solid brickwork is complemented by the delicacy and fragility of the weavings, which are softly reflected onto the ground.

A clear carving in the volume defines a caved entrance area at the same time as creating a central space within the building that links the exhibition spaces, educational spaces and administrative spaces of the program in a natural flow. In the exhibition the concept of time is interpreted into a proposal based on mystery, curiosity and multiple layers to be explored in order to reach an understanding of the history. Closed volumes form spaces within the exhibition area, which each exhibit a split moment in time – a story told through selected artifacts and sensory impression that convey the story. Additionally one of the rooms frames a view towards the fortress to put the stories and artifact of the exhibition into perspective. Within the building a more delicate use of materials contrasts that of the outer envelope; translucent glass and thin, light concrete elements. On the upper floor the educational facilities are placed, overlooking the beautiful lake Fyrkat Engsø and the meadow land. The view, which is restricted in the village in order to gain an inwards focus, is here ‘given back’. The auditorium provides proper sound conditions for lectures etc., and is placed in immediate continuation of the presentation room, in order to make use of the full extent of the rooms in connection with larger events. In this connection the wide gallery corridor can be used as bar area and/or additional exhibition space for temporary exhibitions. The upper level has direct access to the level of the village, which gives the opportunity of opening up to the surroundings during summer time.

Back in the central foyer the visitors ascends the exterior stairs and find themselves immediately situated within the village, which becomes an integrated space within the exhibition. The village has an inwards orientation with a filtered view to the lake Fyrkat Engsø. From here the large scale of the screen, as experienced upon arrival, becomes the small scale of a village fence. This change in scale is further evident in the building, which experienced from the village has a height of one story and thereby adapts to the scale of the village houses. The visitor is now mentally prepared for the experience of the centerpiece; the Fyrkat Monument and is gently led in the direction of the fortress through the forest area and a circular route along Fyrkat Engsø is suggested for the return back to the parking, the present.

The proposal reflects a process based on a phenomenological approach. Aiming to understand and translate the notion of time and creating a strong rootedness to the site. The main means to do so have been visits to the site, sketching, integrated studies of construction and acoustics and extensive experimentation with especially physical but also virtual models – bearing in mind the materiality of elements from an early stage.

The resulting proposal is a museum building which, in accordance with the Nordic tradition, has a simplistic form and overall interior organization principle and is rooted to the historic site in terms of material use – the rough brick that links to the Danish building tradition in a contemporary way, and the wood of the screen which is found in the constructions throughout the site - and in terms of situation on the site, paying attention to the detailing of meeting between landscape and building. In terms of tectonics the proposal provides the visitor with an understanding of constructional logic at the same time as underlining the architectural main idea.

The proposed building creates a time tunnel to the past of the site. An architectural idea manifested through the material use; the brick wall which holds traces of its production and assemblyimplicit in its materiality and the wooden screen, which will overtime communicate the process of aging. The expression of the building changes over the year; from the lively and warm colors of the summertime to the soft expression of a snow covered landscape claiming the screen and shrouding the dark main volume in an undulating white blanket. It only gains in beauty and authenticity when exposed to the wear and tear over time and can hence be appreciated for many years.

A MoNolIThIc MUSEUM bUIldING lYING

FIRMlY IN ThE lANdScApE, ShElTEREd

bY A dElIcATE ANd SENSUoUS woVEN ScREEN STRUcTURE,

whIch RISES FRoM ThE GRoUNd To pRoTEcT ThE

RElIcS oF ThE pAST

REFlEcTIoNS

55

dIScUSSIoN

In the following text a brief discussion on how the proposal meets the main themes of the semester, Nordic and tectonic architecture, is put forward.

TEcToNIcSIn the chapter ‘Tectonics’ the approach in this project is defined as based on making the overall construction principle or logic evident to the visitor, in a way where the “logic of technique gives identity to the form” as expressed by Semper [Jones, 2006, p9].

In the main volume this is carried out by using brick as the load bearing material, using the width of the load bearing walls as a means of enhancing the concept of a solid volume. The walls that are not load bearing can be distinguished by a change in material use; translucent glass and thinner concrete walls. The visitor can hence easily decode the bearing construction. However, there are a few exceptions from this ‘rule’, as the walls of the foyer are not continuous load bearing walls, though naturally bearing their own self weight, and the ceiling of the foyer is ‘cladded’ with brick. This is done to make a clear image of a solid which have been carved out. The aim has deliberately been to create a different interior organization on the entry level than in the other levels, since this once again enhances the concept of an object having forced its way through the solid. Yet, this has been the subject of many considerations, since it challenges the project interpretation of the term tectonics. If one should suggest a different approach, it could have been to start our investigations from studies of the materials (which have been more the approach in relation to the screen) and from there derive the architectural expression – resembling the approach of Louis Kahn, who often takes his point of departure in the structural properties of the material [Frampton, 1995].

Through having worked with materiality from the initial part of the project, an architectural main idea has instead been defined and hereafter potential materials have been investigated in order to underline the wished expression. This has implied a need for prioritizing the integrity of the architectural idea over

consistency in terms of the definition of tectonics in the initial part of the project period. The project has turned towards the works of Peter Zumthor, which in his Thermal Baths in Vals in a wider sense works with bringing out the sensuous qualities of the material: “… we must constantly ask ourselves what the use of a particular material could mean in a specific architectural context. Good answers to these questions can throw new light on both the way in which the material is generally used and its own inherent sensuous qualities” [Zumthor, 2010, p10]. In this proposal the sensous qualities implicit in the brick is used to enhance the architectural idea, bringing out the solid, heavy and permanent expression.

A different approach has been carried out in connection with the screen. Here the process has been initiated by model making in wood, to understand the potentials and constraints of the material and construction principle. Here one can argue that the logic of technique is exactly what gives identity to the form. Yet, the potential of the weaving could have been explored further in different directions. It has been chosen to have an approach that to a high degree stays true to the original layout, though introducing fixing of the elements to create spacing.

In the screen the joints can be said to be articulated to communicate how loads are transferred, for instance in the fixing to the ground. In contrast to this, it has deliberately been chosen to enhance a separation of elements in the main volume, the inner non bearing elements from the enveloping load bearing construction - for instance in the meeting between deck and enveloping wall - again using Zumthor’s Thermal Baths as a reference. NoRdIcLinking functionalism as well as simplicity of form and construction to the tradition of craftsmanship and creating a rootedness to the site in order to strengthen the visitor’s experience of identity of place. This is how the term ‘Nordic architecture’ has been addressed in this project. If paying specific interest to the words ‘simplistic and functionalistic’ it is interesting to discuss the

relevance of the screen introduced in the main concept; could one imagine the museum building without this rather extravagant element, which does not play a role in the structural system of the main building, nor seems to accommodate specific functions of the room program?

If viewed from a solely rationalistic point of view, one can argue that the answer should be ‘yes’. Basing the investigation on the thoughts of Abbé Laugier, the counterpart of Gottfried Semper, from 1753, would further support this stance [Frampton, 1995, p5]: “…he argued that all proper architecture was traceable to a single prototype in prehistory: the primitive hut. This pure building type, Laugier believed, was entirely rational, composed of columns, lintels, or entablatures and a sloping roof…” [Moffet, 2003, p409]. Yet, when Semper introduces his theory of 4 basic elements constituting the primordial hut, and argues that die wand (the enclosing wall, based on weaving) “should bear the noble memory of its origin” [Jones, 2006, p9], he allows for a more nuanced approach to architecture.

This works well with a phenomenological approach as formulated by Christian Norberg-Schulz [Norberg-Schulz, 1996], focusing on more poetic qualities. The screen and the main building of this proposal complement each other; a spatial tension is created and the solid volume together with the more fragile screen forms a space, which is important to the total experience as it communicates the concept of time – acknowledging the experience of architecture as a movement of the body through time and space. At the same time the screen serves to clearly link the new building to the site, as it holds a clear reference to the enclosing structure of the fortress and links to the area via construction technique and materiality. Our answer to the above-mentioned question is therefore no. Fyrkat Viking Museum is an inseparable unity of building and screen; solid and woven structure, robust and delicate form, internal and external space, the protected and the protector.

56 | FYRKAT VIKING MUSEUM

bIblIoGRAphY

de place hansen, Ernst Jan (2010): Anvisning om Bygningsreglementet 2010, Statens Byggeforsknings Institut, DK

Egan, Henry (2007): Architectural Acoustics, J. Ross Publishing, US

Frampton, Kenneth (1995): Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture, MIT Press, Cambridge, UK

hammershøy, Maria Krabbe et al (2006): Kulturkanon, Politikkens forlag, Kulturministeriet, DK

hoffmeyer, Dan (2004): Vejledning om lydforhold i undervisnings- og daginstitutionsbyggeri, Erhvervs og Boligstyrelsen, DK

Jones, Peter Blundell (2006): Architectural Weaving, Daylight & Architecture Magazine by Velux, Summer 2006, issue 03, Velux Group, DK

Kirkegaard, Poul Henning (2004): Building and room acoustics, Aalborg technical University Publishing, DK

lund, Niels-Ole (2008): Nordisk Arkitektur, 3rd edition, Arkitektens forlag, DK

Magnusson, Magnus (2000): The Vikings, Tempus Publishing, UK

Moffet, Marian et al (2003): A World History of Architecture, Laurence King Publishing, UK

Norberg-Schulz, Christian (1996): Nightlands – Nordic Building, MIT Press, US

Nørbach, Lars (2010): Project Brief (Museum director)

pallasmaa, Juhani (2005): The Eyes of the Skin – Architecture and the Senses, Wiley-Academy, UK

Voetmann, Jan (2009): Om akustik – gode toner i arkitekturen, L. Hammerich A/S, DK

FIGURE cREdITS

All figures not accredited below is produced by the project group.

Fig. 4 http://www.flickr.com/photos/uelis/3373604214/sizes/l/ in/photostream/ (Zumthor)

Fig. 6 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ ae/16-07_08.58_2007.jpg (Bagsværd)

Fig. 7 http://v4.cache2.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static. (Zumthor)

Fig. 8 http://www.flickr.com/photos/kohitsuji/2440223827/ (Airplane in the sky)

Fig. 16 http://michellekaufmann.com/2010/05/composting-as- sculpture/ (woven shed)

Fig. 18 [Magnusson, 2000, p39] (carvings)

Fig. 32 http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/ archive/01178/arts-graphics-2007_1178508a. jpg (Hayward Gallery)

Fig. 47 www.thefrenchphotograph.com/ (aged wood)

Fig. 49 Petersen, magazine from Petersen Tegl, issue 22 sommer 2009, p24 (aged brick)

Fig. 50 http://www.petersen-kolumba.dk/referencer.aspx# (Genova project)

Fig. 52 http://www.petersen-kolumba.dk/media/52880/k%20 43%20t.jpg (kolumba brick)

Fig. 53 http://www.flickr.com/photos/istorija/3750386100/ (Saatchi)

Fig. 54 http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrism70/559289957/ sizes/l/in/photostream/ (Bloch Building)

Fig. 104 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/ Yad_Vashem_interior_9354.JPG (Holocaust)

Fig. 105 http://www.flickr.com/photos/festisei/2991055417/ (Hamar Bispegaard)

Fig. 111 http://www.expo92.es/pabellon/75_pabellon_finlandia (Finland Pavilion)

Fig. 112 http://www.khr.dk/#/144825/ (Danish Pavilion)

wraber, Ida (2005): Digital Tectonics (project at Architecture & Design, Aalborg University)

Zahavi, Dan (2007): Fænomenologi, 3rd edition, Roskilde Universitetsforlag, DK

Zumthor, Peter (2010): Thinking Architecture, 3rd edition, Birkhäuser, CH

oRAl REFERENcES

Nørbach, Lars (2010): studytrip to Fyrkat, 08.10.2010

Schmidt, Torben (2010): Petersen Tegl, 12.11.2010

wEb

[web 1] http://www.fyrkat.dk/vcf/hist.htm 12.12.2010

[web 2] http://www.arch.columbia.edu/workpage/work/courses/ history-/-theory/studies-tectonic-culture (Course description), verified 02.10.2010

[web 3] http://vot.teknologisk.dk/18174,3, 06.12.2010

[web 4] http://www.gyproc.dk/files/download/4/4.4.4%20Materialers%20lydabsorberende%20egenskaber.pdf, 06.12.2010

58 | FYRKAT VIKING MUSEUM | APPENDIX

AppENdIxAppENdIx 1: RooM pRoGRAM

Initial room program

The room program is based on the project brief and own requirements:Requirements from the project brief are marked with green color.

Room description Min. Area (m2)

Required relation to other rooms

Light requirements Min. room height (m)

Acoustic requirements User group Views Additional information

Exhibition All visitors/staff

Room 1 200 No daylight, artificial lighting

No views SKAFOR-1 protection (locked and no windows)

Room 2 200 Daylight; indirect from above, artificial lighting, creating atmosphere and enhancing focus on an object by use of light rays

Framed view to the fort

Offices 60 Daylight, artificial lighting 2,5 Reverberation time , T, office for 1 person or in Staff View to surroundings [web 2] 5 offices of which a min. of 2 are to be in a seperate room

Wood workshop 50 Daylight, artificial lighting 2,5 Staff View to surroundings [web 2] Machinery etc. Are used by carpenter, garden keeper etc.

Presentation 100 Daylight, artificial lighting, the possibility to use blackout

Reverberation timeTrinlydniveau , L'n,w

Luftlydisolation ,

(educational buildings) [web 1]

Schools/visitor group + meetings

View to surroundings

Toilets No requirements for daylight, artificial lighting

1 handicap toilet 5 All visitors/staff

2 toilets for women (T1) 10 All visitors

2 toilets for men (T2) 10 All visitors

1 staff toilet (Unisex) (T3)

3 In connection with other staff facilities

Staff

Lunchroom 12 Daylight, artificial light Staff View to surroundings

Auditorium 60 Daylight from windows in the walls and ceiling, artificial light, the possibility to blackout

Reverberation timeTrinlydniveau , L'n,w

Luftlydisolation ,

(educational buildings) [web 1]

Some visitors/staff View to surroundings 40-70 persons

Café 30 Daylight, artificial lighting All visitors/staff View to surroundings Kiosk and café operated by 1 person or self service.

Dining area incl. Kitchen

50 Daylight, artificial lighting Scool groups etc. View to surroundings

Kiosk/reception/serving 15 Daylight, artificial lighting All visitors/staff

Foyer 20 Daylight, artificial lighting Reverberation time1,3 s. (educational buildings) [web 1]

All visitors/staff Possible exhibition areas for special exhibitions should be accomodated within the entrance hall and corridor spaces.

Storage 1 20 For kiosk and presentation room

No daylight, artificial lighting

Staff

Storage 2, incl. Preservation room

200 No daylight, artificial lighting

Staff For museum items - storing on shelves, room for at least 1 computer and desk

Total: 1045

References:

Web:

[Web 1]: Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority, www.ebst.dk, verified 2010.12.08

[Web 2]: The Danish Working Environment Authority, www.arbejdstilsynet.dk, verified 2010.12.08

59

References Evaluation - for and against

In Zumthor’s building, brick is used as an architectural feature to create an experience of a solid stone volume. Yet, the the loadbearing structural system is a concrete ’skeleton’.

- Fast construction - the building envelope can be closed early in the process.- Potentially less expensive, if the brick work on the interior is only a thinner cladding.- The visitor would not perceive the brick being a cladding, if the detailing of corners etc. are carried out in a proper way.- Since the walls are divided in two bricklayers and an insulation layer, one could argue that it does not decrease the level of honesty to implement yet another layer, the concrete.

- We aim at an expression where the visitor perceives the wall as a solid brick wall at the same time as wanting to make the structural logic evident to the visitor - using the brick as loadbearing material could be viewed as a more honest approach in these terms.- The strength of the brick is supposedly enough to withstand the forces in the building [Kristensen, 2010]. If critical, a broader brick can be used in the lower part of the building. - Using brick as loadbearing material aims to continue the danish tradition of craftsmanship, communicated by architects like Kay Fisker etc. [Hammerhøy, 2006, p30 and Lund, 2008, p14] and hereby connects the contemporary museum building to the nordic building tradition.

AppENdIx 2: coNSTRUcTIoNAl coNSIdERATIoNS

As written in the chapter about materials brick is chosen as the facade material and is further used in the interior in order to enhance the experience of a volume being carved through. In this connection considerations concerning whether the brick should be the loadbearing material have arisen.Below is listed arguments for and against the use of brick as the bearing material. For this project brick as loadbearing material is chosen.

Concrete as loadbearing material

Brick as loadbearing material In the danish building tradition the use of brick as loadbearing element is widespread. Here seen in Aarhus University [Kristensen, 2010].

119. Thermal Bath, Vals. Architect Peter Zumthor, completed 1996.

120. Aarhus University. Architects Fisker, Møller, Stegmann and Sørensen, 1931.

References:

Kristensen, Claus (2010), associate professor, Architecture and Design, Aalborg Universityhammershøy, Maria Krabbe et al (2006): Kulturkanon, Politikkens forlag, Kulturministeriet, DKlund, Niels-Ole (2008): Nordisk Arkitektur, 3rd edition, Arkitektens forlag, DK

Figures:Thermal Bath, Vals, http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/16570771.jpg, 08.12.10

Aarhus University, http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/2833796101_95d7f782ff_o.jpg, 08.12.10


AppENdIx 3: AcoUSTIcS, lEcTURE RooM

α

α

α

REVERbERATIoN TIME

SoUNd pRESSURE lEVEl

61

AppENdIx 3 coNTINUEd: AcoUSTIcS, 3 cASES

56o

56o

21,85o

21,85o

2262

3755

3071

2122 165

1150

7377

5097

4574

7410

5405

2122

2411

47,78o

47,77o

16,38o

16,38o

3701

57,72o

57,74o

3931

4805

73992122

2262

3071

cASE 1 cASE 2 cASE 3

63

- - -


- - -

65

- - -


AppENdIx 4: dAYlIGhT

Daylight calculation in DIAL_Europe

Destination: Denmark, Aalborg

Functions Office 1 Office 2 FoyerIlluminance 200 200 100Facade orientation W W E/WRoom height 3.5 m 3.5 m 3.5 mRoom width 3.7 m 4.36 m 7.13 mRoom depth 5.28 m 5.28 m 9.72 mReflection factorFloor 0.4 0.4 0.25Walls 0.5 0.5 0.25Ceiling 0.5 0.5 0.25Overhang 0.5 0.5 0.5Openings All the windows consists of clear low‐E glazing with a transmission at 0.75 %, Facing west 2(1.2*1.2) 1.2*1.2 3.6*3.5 except form the the window in office 2 facing indoor, which consists of Ceiling 1*1 light tinted single glazing with a transmission at 0.5 %Facing indoor 2.28*3.5 All the windows have a small frame area aproxx. 5 % of the openingFacing east 7.13*3.5Wall thichnessFacing west 0.47 0.47 1Facing east 0.1 0.47Shading devise horisontal outdoor slates horisontal outdoor slates No protection The horisontal slates in the offices are seen as the screen in front of the buildingObstruction angle, lightnessFacing west none none noneFacing east average, medium very high, dark

67

AppENdIx 5: dIMENSIoNING oF coNcRETE dEcK hEIGhT ANd REINFoRcEMENT

The height of the decks are here set to be higher than the height, we use in the following calculations, because we wish to have less height were the deck is attached to the wall for at visual expression of a deck 'floating' (please see detail drawings).

μ

Ψ

C. [Jensen (2009): 141]

μ


α

α

Ψ Ψ

Ψ

Ψ

α

SLS (Serviceability limit states):

For element B the slab is impacted by the same load types in SLS as ULS.

- - -

-

-

- -

69

Beam A_Roof

ULS:

Preconditions:

It is chosen to investigate for load combination 6.10.a.

q= 11,4089 [kN/m]

Length of beam: 10,5 [m] 10500 [mm]

Proposed height of beam: 0,24 [m] 240 [mm]

Width of beam: 1,196 [m] 1196 [mm] [web_a1]

Calculation of the maximum moment in the structure:

Maximum moment in the structure: [Jensen, 2007, p109]

MEd=Mmax=1/8*p*l^2 , where

l: length of the beam

p: load

MEd= 157,2289031 kNm

[Jensen, 2009, p177]

Normal control class

Moderate enviroment class (Roofs on buildings) [Jensen, 2009, p164]

Moderate enviroment class => distance from top of concrete to midpoint of the reinforcement = 25 mm

[Jensen, 2009, p170]

Material parameters:Concrete (C25, pre-fabricated): Fck (Mpa)= 25 For moderate enviroment class [Jensen, 2009, p164]

fcd (Mpa) = 17,2 For normal control class, reinforced

[Jensen, 2009, p. 176, 5.3.3]

Steel B500 Fyk(Mpa)= 500 For normal control class, [Jensen, 2009, p176, 5.15]

fyd (Mpa)= 417 For normal control class, [Jensen, 2009, p176, 5.15]

Optimization of reinforcement:

For a rectangular cross section, the nessecary steel-area (area of reinforcement) to counterbalance

a given maximum moment in the structure, MEd, can be calculated using the following series of formulas:

µ=MEd/(b*d^2*fcd) [Jensen, 2009, p177]

We here guess for the diameter of the reinforcement wires to be 16 mm:

d (height of use)= 207 [mm] [Jensen, 2009, p177]

µ= 0,178

ω= 1-kvrod(1-2*µ) , where [Jensen, 2009, p177, 5.19]

ω: mecanical reinforcement ratio = degree of reinforcement [Jensen, 2009, p159]

ω= 0,19797034

ω ωmin

ωmin= 0,03151744 ok!

ω ωbal For C12-C50 and fyk= 550 Mpa

ωbal= 0,483 ok! [Jensen, 2009, p176, 5.15]

ω ωmax

η= 1 For C12-C50 (strength)

ωmax= 10,6674419 ok! [Jensen, 2009, p177, 5.17]

Calculation of nessecary steel area (As):

As= ω*(b*d*fcd)/(fyd) 2021,594489 [mm^2] [Jensen, 2009, p177, 5.14, p179]

It is chosen to use 12 reinforcement bars with diameter 15,2 mm

As= 2176,3968 [mm^2]

Design bending moment for the chosen reinforcement:

Actual height of use:

d= 207,4 [mm]

ω=(As*fyd)/b*d*fcd 0,212718742 [Jensen, 2009, p.177]

µ= 0,21 [Jensen, 2009, p.178]

Mrd=μ*b*d^2*fcd [Jensen, 2009, p177, 5.18]

Mrd= 185,8216985 [kNm] > / = 157,2289031 [kNm] ok!


SLS:

In the following verification of the beam in SLS-state we simplify the calculation

by assuming that there are no cracks in the concrete beam.

Load combination (3):

q= 10,349157 [kN/m]

Deformation in the beam:

Umax= (5/384)*((qtot*l^4)/(E*I)) , where [Jensen, 2009, p109]

E: Coefficient of elasticity

I: Moment of inertia

I=(1/12)*b*h^3 1377792000

Es= 210000 [Mpa] [Jensen, 2007, p213]

Acceptable deformation: < l/500 21 [mm]

We have here defined a more strict requirement than in the beginning of the calculations, since we have a relatively large span.

Umax:

Bjælke A: 5,661063132 < 21 ok!

From the above it is shown, that the chosen beam fulfills the requirements.

Beam B_Deck between lower level and entry level

ULS:

Preconditions:

We chose to investigate for load combination 6.10.b.1:

q= 18,1384 [kN/m]

Length of beam: 10,5 [m] 10500 [mm]

Proposed height of beam: 0,27 [m] 270 [mm]

Width of beam: 1,196 [m] 1196 [mm] [web_a1]

Calculation of the maximum moment in the structure:

Maximum moment in the structure: [Jensen, 2009, p109]

MEd=Mmax=1/8*p*l^2 , where

l: length of the beam

p: load

MEd= 249,969825 kNm

[Jensen, 2009, p177]

Normal control class

Passive enviroment class (Indoor reinforced concrete in dry enviroment)

[Jensen, 2009, p164]

Moderate enviroment class => distance from top of concrete to midpoint of the reinforcement = 15 mm

[Jensen, 2009, p170]

Material parameters:Concrete (C20, pre-fabricated): Fck (Mpa)= 20 Min. for passive enviroment class [Jensen, 2009, p164]

fcd (Mpa) = 13,8

Steel B500 Fyk(Mpa)= 500 For normal control class [Jensen, 2009, p176, 5.15]

fyd (Mpa)= 417 For normal control class [Jensen, 2009, p176, 5.15]

Normal control class, reinforced [Jensen, 2009, p176, 5.3.3]

71

SLS (Serviceability limit states):

For element B the slab is impacted by the same load types in SLS as ULS.

- - -

-

-

- -

Optimization of reinforcement:

For a rectangular cross section, the nessecary steel-area (area of reinforcement) to counterbalance

a given maximum moment in the structure, MEd can be calculated using the following series of formulas:

µ=MEd/(b*d^2*fcd) [Jensen, 2009, p177]

We here guess for the diameter of the reinforcement wires to be 16 mm*:

d (height of use)= 242 [mm] [Jensen, 2009, p. 177, ill. 5.9]

µ= 0,259

ω= 1-kvrod(1-2*µ) , where [Jensen, 2009, p177, 5.199

ω: mecanical reinforcement ratio = degree of reinforcement [Jensen, 2009, p159]

ω= 0,305177373

ω ωmin

ωmin= 0,039282609 ok!

ω ωbal For C12-C50 and fyk= 550 Mpa

ωbal= 0,483 ok! [Jensen, 2009, p176, 5.15]

ω ωmax

η= 1 For C12-C50 (strength)

ωmax= 13,29565217 ok! [Jensen, 2009, p177, 5.17]

Calculation of nessecary steel area (As):

As= ω*(b*d*fcd)/(fyd) 2923,0881 [mm^2] [Jensen, 2009, p177,5.14, p179]

It is chosen to use 12 reinforcement bars with diameter 18 mm

As= 3052,08 [mm^2]

Design bending moment for the chosen reinforcement:

Actual height of use:

d= 240 [mm]

ω=(As*fyd)/b*d*fcd 0,321299804 [Jensen, 2009, p177]

µ= 0,27 [Jensen, 2009, p178]

Mrd=μ*b*d^2*fcd [Jensen, 2009, p177, 5.18]

Mrd= 256,6826496 [kNm] > / = 249,9698 [kNm] ok!

SLS:

In the following verification of the beam in SLS-state we simplify the calculation

by assuming that there are no cracks in the concrete beam.

Load combination (2):

q= 15,2159 [kN/m]

Deformation in the beam:

Umax= (5/384)*((qtot*l^4)/(E*I)) , where [Jensen, 2009, p109]

E: elasticity module

I: Moment of inertia

I=(1/12)*b*h^3 1961739000

Es= 210000 [Mpa] [Jensen, 2007, p213]

Acceptable deformation: < l/500 21 [mm]

We have here defined a more strict requirement than in the beginning of the calculations, since we have a relatively large span.

Umax:

Bjælke A: 5,845653927 < 21 ok!

From the above it is shown, that the chosen beam fulfills the requirements.


AppENdIx 6: dIMENSIoNING oF colUMN IN ScREEN

ф

We treat the screen as being straight in plan - that is not having return corners. Due to our solidity ratio = 0,8 we get the following values for cp,net which is then to be used for the relevant zones. Zone: A B C

cp,net: 1,2 1,2 1,2 As seen above, the value cp, net is similar in all zones.

Facade situation for l≤4*h.

73

ce(z)=2,6 qb:

qb= *ρ*vb

2, where

Ψ Ψ Ψ Ψ

ρ

Wind load

Self weight


Deformation [mm] Accepted deformation [mm]

Evaluation

114

Aesthetic evaluation

The tapering helps create a more slim and dynamic expression. The column has a high moment of inertia, which serves to create a slim expression when viewing the screen in façade. The tapering increases an understanding of the transport of loads in the structure.

Simplified model of the final column. Showing how the column deforms when loads are added.

Showing the places in the columns where the stresses are highest.

75

AppENdIx #: woRKShop pIcTURES

woRKShop 1 woRKShop 2 woRKShop 3The aim of the first workshop ‘Convergence in Shape and Material’ was to make an element, which could form a transformation within a system.

The second workshop ‘‘Suspended Membrane Experiments – Morphological derivatives’ evolved around making hanging membranes in plaster of Paris and fabric to understand the structural potentials of working with inverse models of potential compression based structures.

In the third workshop ‘Design of timber spatial structures with the aid of real scale prototypes’ we worked with the process from developing an architectural idea and manifest this idea in a full scale wood model – achieving an understanding of the potentials and constraints of the material and different structural approaches.

fyrkat viking museum

Documents

new viking museum

project period

monolithic main building

fyrkat viking museumma1arch4

architecture design

building task

design processintroduction

main elements