Shelter Design for the Philippines Team #2

Team Name: The Lion Order Marissa Bacon, Nick Macaluso, Alexandria Prajzner, Samuel Vibostok

Instructor: Jesse McTernan EDSGN 100 Section 018

04 March 2016

Context and Customer Needs Development:

The Philippines is a nation in southeast Asia consisting of 7,100 islands (2,000 of which are

inhabited) and is currently home to about 98,393,574 Filipinos [1] . It is a very diverse country in several

aspects. For example, although the official language is Filipino, 111 distinct indigenous languages exist and\

many people are also fluent in both Spanish and English. Compared to countries like the United States, the

Filipino culture focuses less on nationalism and places more emphasis on the family [2]. The family is the

end­all of of the culture as many rely on family members both nuclear and extended for strength and

stability. Education is also of huge importance, being that many believe a good education is the way to fix all

of the problems throughout the country. Economically, the Philippines is still an extremely poor country.

Though agriculture, forestry, and fishing make up 40% of the occupations of the 30 million people that are

currently employed, 9% of the country remains unemployed and 50% lives below the poverty line. In a 2012

report, 87.5% of the Philippines population had access to electricity, which is a steady rise from the 65.4%

that had access in 1990 [3]. Many people look to government officials, wealthy friends and community

leaders to fix the problems facing the country as well as the large disparity between the rich and the poor. In

a political infrastructure similar to the United States, citizens also frequently petition their legislators and local

officials (barangay captain) for cityhood since this would allow federal money to be continuously poured into

various areas.

With its position so close to the equator, the Philippines can have average temperatures ranging

from 85 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit (lower temperatures during wet months) [4]. The Philippines also

happens to lie in the Western Pacific rim of the Pacific Ocean where the water is extremely warm and deep.

Sadly, due to these unique characteristics of the water, the islands of the Philippines are said to lie in “the

most tropical cyclone­prone water on Earth” [5]. Each year in the wet season (July to December) when

monsoons are typically active, the country accumulates on average 160 inches of rain. During the typhoon

season (June to November) the country can anticipate about thirty tropical cyclones of which about eight or

nine make landfall [4]. These storms are responsible for 78.7% of the country’s total mortality and are the

direct cause 79% of economic shortcomings [6]. In fact, eight of the top ten deadliest cyclones that hit the

Philippines reached a death count of 1,000 to 2,000people [7]. One of the largest typhoons in the history of

the Philippines, Typhoon Haiyan, cost the government 24.54 Philippine pesos ($559 million) [8].

Displacement after each of these storms varies widely. For example, 15 million people were affected and 4

million were displaced when Typhoon Haiyan made landfall in 2013 [9]. The majority of those who were

displaced remain that way temporarily. They were able to return to their homes within a few weeks or

months. On the other hand, as many as 180,000 could not do the same [10]. This is due partially to the fact

that one storm can hit different sections with varying intensities; causing a wide range of destruction. Also,

even though the Philippines is a relatively poor country, there are still member of the community who are

richer than others. These individuals have the ability to build their homes with more durable materials and

are able to live in the more urban parts of the country that are more developed and have greater resources.

When the project was announced, the team was originally split between designing for Syria or the

Philippines. Ultimately, the Philippines won and the research began. No one knew exactly where to start, so

each person did separate research on the Philippines and the storms that affect it and then brought all the

information together into one Google document to share the facts that each person found. From there,

Marissa organized the facts into a coherent piece that summarised the culture, history, and the displacement

caused by storms that Filipinos has to endure. It was astounding to find out just how frequently these storms

hit the Philippines and it caused the team to ask the question, “Why do these people keep returning to a

place that has the potential to destroy their livelihood annually?” The only reason imaginable was that there

is such a deep emotional connection to their homes that overrides any thought of moving. Home is truly

where the heart is.

Before any ideas were generated, the team decided that whatever shelter was built needed to be

able to fit six or more people, withstand heavy winds, be secure, and have good roofing (primary needs). In

addition to these needs, the team wanted a filtration system for water, some form of a rechargeable light

source, privacy, comfort, and a simplified design. Once further discussion about the project took place, it

was decided that the needs of withstanding winds and dry roofing would be moved down to a moderate

needs category, and comfort, privacy, simplified design, and cost would replace those needs in the primary

needs category. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Worksheet (Figure 1) was then used to decide which

needs in the primary category were the most important. Each need was compared to the other six and

ranked on a scale from 1­5 according to how much more important one was than the other. The final

numbers for each need were totalled and then given calculated percentage which correlated to its weight of

importance.

Figure 1: The Analytic Hierarchy Process Worksheet compares all needs; the team ranked each comparison on a scale of 1­5 according to importance.

Concept Development: Prototype 1:

In addition to the needs determined by the AHP worksheet, it was decided that the shelter also

needed a slanted roof, so that rain could not collect on it and damage the material. In order to generate

more ideas about the look of the shelter, the team first participated in a gallery in which each team in the

class posted its ideas to the board and everyone observed the various processes each group went

through.This lead to consideration of the ideas such as a gutter system with a water filtration system and a

rechargeable solar panel lamp to serve as a light source. Figure 2 and figure 3 show some of these early

concepts for the shelter and concepts that were added after the gallery held during class. Of these ideas, the

slanted roof was the only concept that was implemented into the final design.

Figure 2: These are the early concepts for the shelter. Ideas include: slanted roof with gutter system, water filtration, front door with padlock, rechargeable solar panel lamp, and stake supports which go into the ground.

Figure 3: This early design of the shelter includes the gutter system, the slanted roof, the interlocking components, and the metal stake supports.

Next, the team chose to participate in a variation of the 6­3­5 method to generate more ideas about

the structure. The four teams members each had three minutes to write down three ideas for the shelter

design one one piece of paper. After three minutes, the papers rotated and each member again had three

minutes to write down three more ideas (Figure 4).This exercise helped to ignite conversation but more

importantly produced the idea of creating shelters with an optional interlocking component to other shelters,

based on the importance of family in Filipino culture. After the 6­3­5 activity, there were three models for a

shelter that the team had come up with: a shelter with a interlocking option, a shelter with one bedroom, and

a shelter with three bedrooms. The next step was to put each model into a scoring matrix to see which one

was the best overall in regard to the needs of comfort, privacy, simplified design, cost, security, and fitting

six people. In the scoring matrix (Figure 5), the team used the IKEA shelter as a reference and compared it

to to the three proposed models. The matrix revealed that the interlocking shelter was the best design

according to the criteria that we selected, but since the bedroom was still a major discussion point after the

matrix, it was decided that the final shelter would have interlocking components and three bedrooms (the

two highest scoring models). The final step the team had to accomplish before building prototype 1 was

sketching and dimensioning the final model. Figures 6 and 7 show these sketches.

Figure 4: Each team member had an opportunity to write down three ideas on each paper. A maximum of

48 ideas were possible.

Figure 5: The IKEA shelter was the reference for the comparison of the three other models. The

interconnecting shelter was ranked first, the three bedroom shelter second, and the one bedroom shelter

third.

Figure 6: A front view and side view of the shelter show the slant of the roof as well as the dimensions.

Figure 7: The dimensions of the bedrooms and the rest of the inside of the shelter from an aerial view.

Testing Summary Prototype 1:

Following the construction of prototype 1, a crush test was conducted. The prototype was built with

a slanted roof and two­piece support structure in the middle (Figure 8). A single door was cut out on the front

(Figure 9). At the beginning of the crush test, buckets of sand were added and the structure was able to

withstand them. After three buckets were added, reams of paper were then added. After the third ream was

added, the roof collapsed due to the separation in the middle support giving out (Table 1). This two­piece

support was the weak point in the roof.

Figure 8: Side Opening Figure 9: Front

Prototype 1 Crush Test Results

Amount of Weight Pass/Fail Description

3 Buckets Pass Structure standing strong

3 Buckets + 2 reams of paper Pass No apparent change

3 buckets + 3 reams of paper Pass Structure still standing, roof collapses

2 people Pass Buckets + Papers removed, people start standing

4 people Pass No apparent change

5 people Pass No apparent change

6 people Pass No apparent change

7 people Pass No apparent change

8 people Fail Remaining structure collapses

Table 1: The different amounts of weight and their effects on the status of the prototype are shown.

Following the roof giving out the test continued, since the remaining structure was still standing.

The buckets and paper were removed, and people stood on top in their place. One by one each person

stood up and the building held. The seventh person stood on top and the structure still held. The eighth

person stood up and finally the structure collapsed (Figure 10). The results of the test showed the shelter’s

strong overall structure. However, what was learned was that having a two­piece support made the roof

weak. Therefore, prototype 2 would replace it with a one­piece support. The building passed expectations,

but was only a rough design.

Figure 10: Post Crush Test

Concept Refinement Summary:

After looking at the results of prototype 1, there were design flaws that needed fixing. The biggest

flaw in the initial prototype was the support of the roof. In the first prototype, the middle wall holding the roof

up was built using two pieces and it gave out at the point where those two pieces connected. To fix that, the

new prototype would need one solid piece holding the roof up in the middle. In the first prototype, there were

no inner doors or bedroom walls. In the second prototype, walls separating the back part of the shelter

divided the rooms up and the doors were put in. The optional connecting doors were also cut out on the

sides of the shelter. Overall, the second prototype fixed the main issue of the first prototype, while adding in

all the details that were not initially included.

Testing Summary Prototype 2:

For the second model, the side walls now come to a point in the middle to meet the roof and better

provide structural integrity. This change provides more stability against the harsh winds. The inner

compartments separating the bedrooms have also been added, for support and privacy. There were no

doors­­other than the front­­cut out of the first prototype, so the second prototype had two doors cut out for

the optional interconnecting feature, as well as three bedroom doors. These changes allow more overall

comfort and specifically the feeling of interconnectedness in a large family. Below are two different

representations of the finished prototype. Figures 11 and 12 are Solidworks models; Figure 13 is a

photograph.

Figure 11: Solidworks model Figure 12: Solidworks model Figure 13: Photograph of

of Prototype 2 of Prototype 2 of Prototype 2

To test the second prototype, a simple survey was conducted covering four main criteria. The

results are displayed in a table below (Table 2). The scale for the set of criteria was 1­5. The interpretation of

the scale is as follows: a score of 3 is average, not great but not bad. A score of 1 implies that the design did

not fulfill that category whatsoever. A score of 5 implies that the design completely fulfilled that category to

the highest degree expected of a shelter. Eleven people were surveyed, and the average of all eleven

scores for each category is displayed at the bottom set of cells.

Team Lion Order: Prototype 2 Survey Results

Test

#

Comfort Simplistic

Design

Safet

y

Privacy

1 5 5 4 5

2 5 5 3 5

3 4 4 3 4

4 5 4 4 5

5 4 4 4 5

6 5 4 4 5

7 4 4 4 5

8 4 5 4 5

9 5 4 4 4

10 4 5 4 5

11 4 5 4 5

AVG 4.45 4.45 3.81 4.81

Table 2: Results from survey conducted for second test.

Based on the results seen from our second test, the conclusion was made that the second prototype

was a success. All average values for each category tested were above 3, which was the desired outcome. Cost Analysis:

Prototype Square Footage Material Cost

1 4.38 ft² Cardboard

($0.50/ft²)

$2.19

2 4.88 ft² Cardboard

($0.50/ft²)

$2.44

Table 3: Prototype Cost Analysis.

The estimated costs of the first and second prototypes are modeled in Table 3 above. The

adjustments in the design of the second prototype increased the square footage by 0.50 ft², which in turn

affected the cost by $0.25.

Given that the square footage for the shelter in full scale is 759.25 ft², using the density formula

(d=m/v) and the density of the material chosen (HDPE or high density polyethylene) which is 59.3 lb/ft3,

some different price applications can be analyzed.

Material Cost/ton Final Cost

Low Range HDPE [11] $50 $93.87

Mid Range HDPE [12] $275 $516.17

High Range HDPE [13] $500 $938.70

Non­Bulk Sold HDPE $1500 $2816.00

Table 4: Material Cost Analysis

The range of cost, depending on the exact materials distributer chosen, is highly variable. Assuming

that for most of production a price could be found between the high and low range HDPE, say around

$275/ton, the final shelter could be produced for about $516. This cost takes into account the fact that the

raw plastic sold is priced in a way to benefit those who buy in bulk (the minimum required for most

distributors is one ton). To purchase enough polyethylene to make just one shelter would require buying

from the much more expensive distributors who allow for small purchases, and would cost closer to $2816

per shelter (as shown in Table 4 above). In order to avoid this unnecessary added cost, the intention would

be to produce in bulk.

In terms of the cost in the long run — looking ten years down the line — there should be no obvious

need for the replacement of any parts within the shelter. The structure is made of solid pieces (four walls,

two roof pieces, three center supports/dividers), and no additional components, such as gadgets that require

batteries, electricity or maintenance, are included. So, unless there is an uncalled for attack on the shelter

(that is, not the calculated wear and tear of the storm environment in which it will be placed) there should be

no need to replace the shelter for a family for many years. In any case, maybe at the very least, ten years

down the line, a family’s shelter may need replacing, which would obviously account for an additional cost of

$516, or whatever price variant the shelter is being sold at during that time.

The material chosen to produce the whole of the shelter is high density polyethylene, which is a

durable, highly distributed plastic. Because of its high availability, the raw materials for the production of the

shelters can be sourced in a location close to the Philippines, such as Hong Kong, Taiwan or (where the

materials are least expensive) China. [11] Producing the shelter in China for example, would allow for the

structure to be made for the price range previous predicted ($516) and be easily distributed to the

Philippines close by. This would make distribution costs much lower than they would if the structures were

manufactured in the US and shipped across seas to the Philippines.

Obviously the prices analyzed above take into account only the minimum breaking point in price for

the materials used to create the shelter. It does not factor into consideration the exact cost of labor,

distribution, setup or any other variables. Assuming the relief effort is a completely non­profit, there remains

these factors to add onto the pricing model before the shelters can be situated for sale or charity

sponsorship.

Consideration of Human Needs:

The team explored the consideration of human needs in great depth during the design for the

shelter. After establishing and evaluating the pyramid of consumer needs, the team began with basic

survival necessities and to cover all bases. From there, the decision was made for a well sealed structure to

keep the Philippians dry during the tragic storms. Stepping up the ladder of human needs (and down the

importance pyramid) the team approached tactics to satisfy components relative to daily life and each

individual. The team delved very seriously into consideration of the level of comfort for the families who

would be using the shelters in their disastrous situation — making an effort to include multiple bedrooms and

separation between living spaces in order to provide more normalcy (to replicate a typical home) and allow

for the ability to seek solitude in the whirlwind of chaos.

The most important consideration of human needs was produced in the design model to allow for

these shelters to transition into a larger connection between the community at large during this traumatic

time. The team created a shelter with the ability to have joined structures. Given the standard of Philippians’

large extended families, the design provided the option to take multiple shelters and connect them along

their sides to provide for large standing structures with easy access to one another. This provides a solution

to the isolation that would occur with a structure designed only for six people, and allows for endless amount

of interpersonal connection. With the use of this design, entire communities could have much better access

to one another within a safe context of the storm around them.

Considerations for overall system/camp:

In the design the team intended to design a structure that had the ability to be easily produced and

set up. A strong durable material was chosen, HDPE plastic, as the basis for the components, which include

the four exterior walls, three internal wall separations, roof and doors. After this structure is manufactured in

the chosen material, it very easily can be packaged in a box with each piece lying flat on top of the other,

and distributed to the location of set up.

As mentioned before, in the consideration of the needs of the customers, a design was selected to

provide a well balanced community, by making interconnecting structures. This provides the ability to aid

communities at large, because it allows unlimited access to the size a single standing structure can have.

This connecting ability, in addition, provides for great efficiency in terms of its standing on a larger scale,

many of the shelters tethered together strengthens stability and generates optimized use of the allotted area.

The structures can be applied to greater community needs as well, as they can accommodate any

use necessary, for example, though designed to allow for a single family to have a larger communal room

and three bedrooms, multiple shelters can be connected and used as for any number of greater community

needs, a first aid center, a place to store resources, a restroom facility, etc. This flexibility of the structure

allows for optimized use of provided monetary contributions, which allows any charities’ resources to be

stretched much further than they would if they needed to allot for individualized structure sizes (from much

higher price ranges) for different families and community needs.

Redesign Thoughts/Conclusion:

If a prototype 3 was built, there are some improvements that could be made. Some of the major

improvements would be a gutter system, a lockable front door, removable/reattachable side doors, and

pieces that could be snapped together. The gutter system would allow the collection of rainwater runoff from

the slanted roof. This water would obviously save a lot of time and effort to find clean water to drink. The

lockable front door would make the shelter much more secure by preventing against possible looters and

criminals. The removable/reattachable side doors would improve the interconnectedness of the shelter. If

family members lived next door and a family wished to be able to freely go between one shelter and another,

the door would be able to be completely removed from the wall. On the other hand, if the family wished for

the door never to open, it should be so secure that it is a part of the wall itself. Finally, if the pieces of the

shelter could be assembled just by snapping them together, there would be no need for tools or adhesive to

hold it together. Assembly time would be cut down dramatically and ease of assembly would be much better.

To implement these changes, several aspects of the project would need revamped. The gutter

would require a specialized design and, like the walls, a method of attaching to the entirety of the shelter

without screws, bolts, glue, etc. The front door could be changed easily by adding a hole for a padlock,

possibly on both sides to allow locking from inside and out. The side doors could have hinges that can be

locked with a pin, so that if the pin is removed, the door comes out of the wall to allow for entry between

shelters, and vice­versa.The walls would need holes or jigsaw­like edges so that they could be snapped and

locked together tightly.

Overall, prototype 2 was a success. It was strong and could support the family size and lifestyle of

the Filipino culture. The criteria that was set for it was fulfilled in a perfectly adequate manner. Some

changes could be made to improve the shelter, but in general it would act just fine in its current state, and

would likely serve the purposes it was originally designed for.

Works Cited

[1]"Philippines ­ Language, Culture, Customs and Etiquette." Philippines. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.

<http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global­etiquette/philippines­country­profile.html>.

[2]"The Philippines." Culture of the Philippines. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.

<http://www.everyculture.com/No­Sa/The­Philippines.html>.

[3]"Philippines Access to Electricity ­ Data, Chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com." TheGlobalEconomy.com.

Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

[4]"Climate of the Philippines." Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services

Administration. Republic of the Philippines. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.

<https://web.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/index.php/climate­of­the­philippines>.

[5] Rice, Doyle. "Why Is Philippines a Hot Zone for Typhoons?" USA Today. 10 Nov. 2013. Web. 27 Jan.

2016. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/11/09/philippines­typhoon­hot­zone/3483837/>.

[6] "Philippines Disaster & Risk Profile." Philippines. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

<http://www.preventionweb.net/countries/phl/data/>.

[7] Brown, Sophie. "The Philippines Is the Most Storm­Exposed Country on Earth | TIME.com." World The

Philippines Is the Most Storm Exposed Country on Earth Comments. TIME Magazine, 13 Nov.

2013. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

<http://world.time.com/2013/11/11/the­philippines­is­the­most­storm­exposed­country­on­earth/>.

[8] Zhang, Moran. "Philippine GDP Growth Forecast Cut For 2013, Typhoon Haiyan Rebuilding Efforts To

Give 2014 An Economic Boost." International Business Times. 25 Nov. 2013. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

[9]"Responding to Typhoons in the Philippines." UNDP. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.

<http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/our­projects­and­initiatives/Typhoon­Yolanda­P

hilippines.html>.

[10]"IDMC » Philippines: Long­term Recovery Challenges Remain in the Wake of Massive Displacement."

IDMC » Philippines: Long­term Recovery Challenges Remain in the Wake of Massive

Displacement. 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

<http://www.internal­displacement.org/south­and­south­east­asia/philippines/2015/philippines­long­ter

m­recovery­challenges­remain­in­the­wake­of­massive­displacement/>.

[11] “High Density Polyethylene.” Alibaba. Web 3 March. 2016

<http://www.alibaba.com/product­detail/HOT­SALES­HDPE­high­density­polyethylene_6037312606

6.html?spm=a2700.7724838.0.0.tG87aH>.

[12] “HDPE PE 100” Alibaba. Web 3 March. 2016.

<http://www.alibaba.com/product­detail/hdpe­pe­100_1892981970.html?spm=a2700.7724838.0.0.G

eGRQ>.

[13] “High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Sheeting” USPlastic. Web 29 Feb 2016.

<http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=23869>.