(Team 1) Pg.1
South Sudan Refugee Shelter
Designed for Dr. Knecht
E-Design 100 Section 26
Created By: Team 1
Andrew Berliner
Jonathan Hamilton
Joshua Kwak
Alexa Trautz
March 3, 2016
Abstract:
Due to the civil war and interior conflict in South Sudan 700,000 people have been
displaced. Most refugee camps in South Sudan are overfilled with people leaving many without
shelter. The refugees are expected to stay in the camps for at most another three years before
being able to return to their homes. The area they reside in often experiences extreme heats, and
a brief rainy season. Along with that, the lack of infrastructure in South Sudan makes it difficult
to send things to the refugees. A shelter was designed to create a home and community for the
refugees to reside in for the next three years. The shelter is rainproof and maintains a
comfortable environment even in the extreme heat. The total weight of the shelter is appropriate
for airdropping the pieces to the refugees and it is buildable in one day because of its simple
design. The shelter designed can effectively help the refugees in South Sudan.
(Team 1) Pg.2
Table of Contents
Pg. 1
Introduction
Pg. 1
Methods Section
Pg. 6
Results and Discussion I
Pg. 9
Results and Discussion II
Pg.11
Conclusion
Pg.11
Refrences
Pg.12
Appendix
(Team 1) Pg.3
Introduction:
The refugees in South Sudan have been living without a home since 2013 (1). Over a
million people have been displaced and half of those people have not received any outside
assistance due to the political situation in the country (3). Most refugee camps don’t have access
to clean water causing outbreaks of cholera (1). Although Oxfam is working to provide the
refugees with drinkable water and food, most of still left without an effective shelter (1). Due to
the country’s lack of infrastructure, the entire country only has 31000 miles of roads and 3000
miles of train tracks (6). This makes it difficult to send things to the refugees. The climate in
South Sudan ranges from 63̊ F to 107̊ F and has a brief rainy season (7). The refugees in South
Sudan are expected to return to their homes within three years (3). The refugees in South Sudan
need homes that will survive the next three years, maintain a comfortable inside environment in
110̊ F, withstand rain, and help to generate a community, while still being simple to build,
airdropable and cost effective.
The shelter designed to solve this problem was based around the idea of creating a
community space, while still providing privacy for multiple families. This is because of the
massive amount of refugees and the need to fit lots of people in one home. The people living in
the camps need to be able to transform their home for multiple uses other than just sleeping.
Along with that the shelter was designed with the idea of keeping a cool temperature even in the
hot weather. This meant using materials that reflected lots of light or having a way to ventilate
out the hot air. The shelter also would need to last the next three years. It would need to be
sturdy, sustainable and simple, to lower the chance of it breaking and parts needing to be
replaced. The refugee shelter was based around these initial ideas as they were further
distinguished into criteria used in the designing of it.
Methods Section:
The project posed many difficult problems that needed to be solved using a creative and
innovative shelter idea. In order to create the perfect shelter, research was conducted into the
South Sudan area. The climate, weather patterns, infrastructure, technological capabilities and
aspects of the South Sudanese culture were researched and analyzed in order to create a set of
design requirements that were utilized during the brainstorming phase.
These requirements were important guidelines for the brainstorming process. The
requirements are as follows:
 Affordable: A max budget of $6000 dollars per shelter was set. This budget was based on
the donations and capital provided by Oxfam and other charitable relief organizations.
The total funds available for shelters specifically was divided by the amount of refugees
to determine the amount per refugee. Then the amount per refugee was multiplied by 12
refugees per shelter to determine the max budget per shelter.
 Durable: The shelter had to survive for at least three years. This was determined to be the
most important criteria because the refugees need this place to last for it to remain a home
to them.
 Sustainable: The shelters parts had to be easily replaced, or not easy to break.
 Simplicity: The shelter had to be easy enough to put together within one days’ worth of
light. It also had to be built using less small parts so that specific tools weren’t required.
(Team 1) Pg.4

Sanitary: Each shelter has to have one bathroom. This criteria was later discarded due to
the fact that having a plumping system throughout the refugee camp may further increase
the spread of disease because of the ineffective means of creating one.
 Portable: The shelter would have to weigh between 500-2200 pounds. This was
determined to be the appropriate weight to airdrop the shelter. The shelter had to be
airdropped in order to reach the refugee camp because of the country’s lack of
infrastructure.
 Hospitable: The shelter had to maintain a comfortable temperature in the extreme heat of
less than 75̊ F. It also had to fit twelve people comfortably inside.
 Adaptable: The inside of the shelter should contain modular or moveable furniture or
walls, to create alternate spaces for both families and communities.
 Privacy: Each family had to be given access to their own space.
 Safety: The shelter had to be not only sturdy, but it had to let some lite in to create a safer
environment.
Four solutions were created based around the ten requirements above.
(Image 1)
Image 1 above shows some of the initial design sketches of the four solutions.
Design one had a flat roof with a community area on top for the people living there. It
also included solid inner walls splitting the space into four separate living areas. Design two
consisted of four wooden walls, a tarp for the roof, and no floor. The tarp would allow for water
collection that could later be purified and drank by the inhabitants of the shelter. Design three
had a solid, aluminum roof with a tarp that connected to the ground some distance away from the
structure. This system allowed for water to run down the tarp and collect in a container on the
ground, which could also be purified and consumed. This design included walls inside that could
be folded in or moved so that a community space could be created in the daytime, and separate
bedrooms could be made at night. The forth design had a slanted roof that was only fully
connected to the shelter on the sides to allow ventilation through the top. This design also
included curtains for walls on the side that could be moved to create separate spaces. All four
(Team 1) Pg.5
designs included hammocks that attach to the wall supports for the people to sleep in, that could
be taken down and put back up at night.
(Table 1)
Criteria
Durability
Sanitary
Safety
Hospitable
Portability
Sustainabity
Privacy
Simplicity
Total
Weight
175
125
125
100
100
75
75
50
Rating
3
3
3
3
5
1
4
2
Design 1
Weighted Score
525
375
375
300
500
75
300
100
2550
Rating
2
3
3
2
4
3
4
4
Design 2
Weighted Score
350
375
375
200
400
225
300
200
2425
Rating
5
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
Design 3
Weighted Score
875
375
500
400
300
225
300
200
3175
Rating
5
3
4
3
3
4
4
2
Design 4
Weighted Score
875
375
500
300
300
300
300
100
3050
Table 1 above shows the design selection matrix used to determine which of the four
initial designs would be most effective. Each criteria was given a weight based on its importance
then each design was given a rating for that criteria. The rating was then multiplied by the weight
to determine its weighted score for that criteria. After each weighted score was calculated for
each criteria, they were added together to determine the final score. The design with the highest
score was selected.
Six tests were created and conducted.
 Heat Test: This test would be conducted by using a heat gun to raise the temperature
outside the shelter to 110̊ F. The temperature outside would be measured using a
thermometer. The temperature inside would be measured with a thermometer as well to
determine the maximum temperature it reached. If the test was successful it would prove
our shelter had good ventilation.
 Water Test: This test would be conducted by splashing water on the shelter to determine
whether or not the inside would remain dry.
 Cost Evaluation: This test would compare the total cost to build one shelter against the
max budget. The total cost to build one shelter would be calculated by adding up the cost
of all the materials.
 Shake Test: This test would test the stability of our structure. It would be completed by
putting the shelter on another surface and shaking the surface to see if the shelter faltered
in any way.
 Crush Test: This test would be conducted by putting the shelter on a wooden frame with
four rods attached at the corners. A thin slate with 4 holes in the corners would be put on
the four rods to hold the slate steady. Buckets of sand would be placed onto the slate
along any form of weight. This test is to determine the stability and durability of the
shelter.
 Full Size Test: This test is used to test the comfort of the shelter and its ability to hold
twelve people. This test would be completed by setting up wooden boards and tarps in the
specific size of the shelter and standing inside to see how comfortably everyone would
fit. This would simulate a room.
(Team 1) Pg.6
Results and Discussion I:
Initially the third design was selected out of the decision matrix (see table 1). This was
because it had the highest weighted score. Although during the initial prototyping stage it was
determined that this design was extremely flimsy and not structurally sound. The roof was then
converted to the forth design. This roof was attached to the structure as opposed to the original
roof which was a separate piece. The final roof was attached to two ends of the structure, leaving
two sides open to allow ventilation. The walls were made out multiple pieces that were attached
together using a Lego like interlocking system. The walls and roof of the prototype were
constructed out of cardboard. The wall struts were created out of foam board. The entire
structure was sealed together using hot glue.
(Image 2)
Image 2 above shows the final prototype from a front facing view. The foam board wall
struts are white, while the cardboard roof and walls are brown. The walls connect into the struts
and are then further sealed using the hot glue. The roof was hot glued on top.
(Team 1) Pg.7
(Image 3)
Image 3 above shows a birds eye view of the final prototype.
The prototype was tested using the six tests stated above. It passes all of the tests.
The results of the heat test proved the shelter to have great ventilation. The measured
temperature created outside the shelter was about 110 degrees. In contrast, the inside temperature
was measured to be about 82 degrees. The design of the gap between the roof and the top of the
wall served its purpose to ventilate the hot air.
In the shake test the shelter proved to hold up quite well and did not take any noticeable
damage.
The shelter passed the water test. It proved effective in keeping the outside dry while
water rolled off the slanted roof.
The shelter passed the full size test because the small size room could easily fit three
people, which is the amount of people that is set per room. The large scale open area room was
definitely large enough to comfortably fit any community activity.
The crush test proved that the shelter was extremely durable. In fact the sand buckets
were not enough to make the shelter cave in, so multiple human beings stood on it. Weight was
constantly added until it maxed out at the range of 350 to 380 pounds when the prototype was
crushed. Images 4 and 5 below show the crushed prototype.
(Team 1) Pg.8
(Image 4)
Image 4 above shows the front view of the crushed prototype. The prototypes walls
buckled at the top meaning the weakest point in the structure was around the top. This also
shows how the people inside this structure would’ve been safe because the entire prototype
didn’t collapse.
(Image 5)
Image 5 above shows the back of the crushed prototype. Here it is clear that one of the
support beams split open. This demonstrates that that support beam needed to be strengthened
with more support.
(Team 1) Pg.9
(Table 2)
Table 2 above demonstrates the total cost of the shelter. This is under the max budget of
$6000. This shows that the cost evaluation of the shelter passes because the shelter is over $1000
dollars under budget.
Although our shelter did pass all of the tests, they still proved some major design issues
in the original prototype. The crush test demonstrated where the walls would need extra support,
and that the beams would been to be extremely secure. The roof also caved in due to weakness in
the middle support beams. Those would need to be strengthened in order to better support the
roof. The full size test showed that while our shelter fit the prescribed amount of people
comfortably, its dimensions could be reduced and still fit the twelve people easily. This could be
helpful in the community for saving space and building more shelters for more people.
Results and Discussion II:
After finding out which test the first prototype passed and failed, a second prototype was
designed. The second prototype was made using solid works and addressed the problems from
the first prototype. The biggest change in the design had to be the drastic enhancement of the
roof. In the first prototype the roof was weak and flimsy. This was due to the way the roof was a
separate structure from the walls. By redesigning the roof and making it attached to the walls the
support of the walls would aid the structure in holding weight. The new roof was also slanted
which aided with the runoff of water so the structure does not hold any unnecessary weight.
Also, with the new roof the structure was able to hold 380 pounds before being crushed.
(Image 6)
Image 6 above shows the final design of the shelter including the slanted roofs attached
to the structure.
(Team 1) Pg.10
Another change that was addressed in the second prototype was the slim door that was
very unrealistic. If scaled to real life the door in the first prototype was about 1 foot wide. In the
second prototype the door was a bit over two feet and was still able to maintain the strength it
had in the first prototype due to strengthened support beams by the door.
The last modification made to enhance the second prototype was altering the inner
modular walls within the structure. The original walls required a lot of moving walls which was
very expensive and had a higher chance of breaking. For the second prototype the idea was
dismissed and a new idea of using curtains was introduced. The idea of using curtains lowered
the cost drastically because instead of having full-on walls we had curtains that hung from poles
the connected on the walls. The curtains would provide a sufficient amount of privacy while
being relatively inexpensive. The curtains would easily be pulled out to create rooms or retracted
to create a community room.
When the modified roof was tested there was significant increase in the amount of weight
the structure could hold. While building the prototype it was observed that it could barely
support five pounds, but the final prototype help 380 pounds before being crushed. This was a
huge improvement which aided the structure greatly. Also, with the modified door the structure
was able to contain a door double the width of the door from the first prototype. This made the
structure more realistic and reasonable. The last modification which consisted of changing the
idea of having modular walls inside the structure to hanging curtains helped minimize cost
immensely.
There were many lesson learned throughout the test performed on the structure. The
crush test proved that any structure should contain a roof that can disperse weight across a plane
to stop pressure from gathering at one point. This was addressed in the design by having a roof
that would have the weight spread evenly across the top of the structure. The cost evaluation had
a huge impact on what can and cannot be afforded. This test helped form an idea of what
materials can be used or should be used. Because cost was a huge factor the lesson learned from
the test was that there are ways to use less materials in certain areas to bring down the cost of the
shelter. The lesson learned is addressed in the design multiple times. The width of most of the
walls were brought down because the cost would be too high if the walls were too thick. Cost
also affected the idea of modular walls that would designate rooms and add privacy. The price of
modular walls so expensive that it was deemed unnecessary. Instead of the expensive modular
walls the structure was given curtains on poles to create rooms. The curtains lowered the price
significantly and would still provide privacy for the inhabitants of the shelter.
Because the design of the second prototype passed all test for a third prototype cutting
cost would be of utmost importance. If cost can be cut even a little then more shelters can be
provided at a certain cost.
If 1000 shelters were needed the cost would be $4313000.
The estimated cost for a displacement period of 3 years would be $250. This number was
given because the only material that can get damaged severely would be the wood used for the
walls and floor. $250 would be able to repair 50 square feet of wood.
The materials need to make this shelter are wood, aluminum, metal poles, and curtains.
All of the materials would need to be imported. Although some materials can be bought locally,
the prices of domestic materials are cheaper than those of the local resources.
Maslow’s Hierarchy is addressed thoroughly in the design. The physiological needs of
breathing, sleep, food, water, and sex are meet. Food and water are provided by Oxfam while
breathing is provided by the roof gap that allows air to flow in and out of the structure. Sleep is
(Team 1) Pg.11
provided by hammocks that hang from wall struts. These hammock provide comfort and a place
to sleep which is a necessity in a shelter. Hammocks can also be taken down when not in use to
increase space inside the living space. Sex will also be available because of the privacy attained
from the curtains. The needs of safety are addressed in this design. Thanks to the shelters privacy
curtains there would be a feeling of safety throughout the community. A sense of family and
friendship can be accomplished within the shelter. Because the curtains can be retracted to
provide a huge community space. The space will provide the attributes of community and
strengthen relationship throughout the community.
The overall camp addresses the idea of community crucially. Because the inner walls can
be move freely and easily to be morphed into any desired environment. If the community wanted
a day-care then they can customize the walls to fit the design they wanted. With this idea of
walls that can be turned into different spaces to fit the need of the community, the design of these
shelters can fit into larger scale communities and camps.
Conclusion:
Over a million refugees have been displaced in South Sudan and are not expecting to
return to their homes for another three years. The refugees need a shelter that will last the three
years, hold 12 individuals, can be assembled easily, maintain a comfortable temperature, and
maintain a clean environment. The shelter designed accomplished all of this by using sturdy
materials, having inner wall curtains that can be moved to create different living spaces for many
people, simple lock together walls, and a ventilating roof system.
This project taught the importance of creating effective criteria and tests, researching
something fully, building a prototype, and watching it be destroyed.
References:
1. "Crisis in South Sudan." Crisis in South Sudan. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2016.
2. "Military." South Sudan. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2016.
3. "More than 2.25 Million Now Displaced in South Sudan and across Its Borders."
UNHCR News. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2016.
4. "Public Health in the Sudan." Public Health 41 (1927): 236. Web.
5. "Society and Culture." Sudan:. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2016.
6. "Sudan - Infrastructure, Power, and Communications." Sudan Infrastructure, Power, and
Communications, Information about Infrastructure, Power, and Communications in
Sudan. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2016.
7. "WeatherSpark Beta." Average Weather For Khartoum, Sudan. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Jan.
2016.
8. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2016.
9. "Construction Notes." Malakal South Sudan Community Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Jan.
2016.
10. "2 In. X 4 In. X 96 In. Premium Kiln-Dried Whitewood Stud-161640 - The Home
Depot." The Home Depot. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2016.
11. "Layne Heathered Solid Curtain Panel." Target. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2016.
12. "Metal Curtain Poles." Metal Curtain Poles. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2016.
13. "Special Order RV Aluminum." RV Parts Nation. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2016.
14. "Wood Densities." Wood Densities. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2016.
(Team 1) Pg.12
Appendix
Description of Simple Lock Together Walls (Lego Walls)
Lock together walls are very helpful for easing ascension so the length of time for the shelter to
be installed would be miniscule. These walls will provide the occupants with the ability to
transform the space to their liking when wanted. Because of the quick and effortless installation
the walls of the shelter can be personalized. The ability to custom-build a space in little time
allows the residents to capable to render room to embody a community friendly state.
The lock together walls also provide a minimalistic tenderness because the design allows
for there to be no need for unnecessary parts. Giving the walls the capability to interlock with the
need of tools or parts sets a sense of relaxation to inhabitants of the shelter because there is no
excess parts that need to be replaced.
(Images 6, 7, 8)
Images 6, 7, 8 above show the pieces in the simple lock together walls. The first image
(6) shows the wall alone. The middle image shows a single structural support beam. The right
most image (8) shows both the beam and the wall locked together.