James Emery 'Alchemy' by Christopher Pierce

James Emery Technical Studies Portfolio

Alchemy

[Transmutation]

Transforming local material resources [mushrooms, seashells, seaweed and plastic waste] into building construction elements following traditions of vernacular architecture.

AA Experimental Unit 14: Hoary Building [2019/2020] Amandine Kastler & Christopher Pierce with Erland Skjeseth & Aram Mooradian

Technical Studies Statement:

Project Statement:

Transforming local material resources [mushrooms, seashells, seaweed, and plastic waste] into building construction elements following traditions of vernacular architecture.

The project began with a series of vernacular building surveys conducted across the UK and the Norwegian outer ports: - Newtown, Isle of Wight, UK - Loshavn, Vest-Agder, Norway - Merdø, Aust-Agder, Norway - Lyngør, Aust-Agder, Norway The building surveys focus on vernacular use of materials and how these express fundamental relationships between geographic and cultural contexts. Through investigations into the cultural significance of using local materials, this project seeks to develop an architecture that remains sensitive to local cultural heritage values whilst offering a progressive and relevant vision for the 21st century.

The project is informed but remains critical of three distinct texts: ‘Building, Dwelling, Thinking’ by Martin Heidegger, ‘Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture’ by Christian Norberg-Schulz, and ‘Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance’ by Kenneth Frampton. Other important texts particular to my project include: ‘Metamorphism: Material change in Architecture’ by Ákos Moravánszky, ‘Style in the Technical and Techtonic Arts: or Practical Aesthetics’ by Gottfried Semper, ‘Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture’ by Robert Venturi, and ‘Architecture, Language, and Meaning’ by Donald Preziosi.

Contents:

- How to Read this Portfolio...........................................................................................................................4 1. Four Buildings, Four Landscapes...............................................................................................6 - Locations..............................................................................................................................................................8 - Newtown Old Town Hall [Newtown, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom]......................................................10 - Bedehus [Loshavn, Vest-Agder, Norway].............................................................................................................16 - Old Post Office [Merdø, Aust-Agder, Norway]................................................................................................22 - Lyngørstua [Lyngør, Aust-Agder, Norway]........................................................................................................28 2. Vernacular Building Elements.................................................................................................34 - Building Elements.........................................................................................................................................36 - Artefact 1............................................................................................................................................................38 3. Vernacular Material Transformation Processes....................................................................46 - Clay [process of forming mathematical tiles and bricks]...............................................................................48 - Stone [process of forming rubble masonry foundations]...............................................................................50 - Wood [process of forming timber notched logs and weatherboarding]......................................................52 4. Contemporary Material Transformation Processes.............................................................54 - Material Harvesting......................................................................................................................................56 - Precedent Studies...........................................................................................................................................68

- The Growing Pavilion.............................................................................................................................................68 - Hy-Fi...........................................................................................................................................................................70 - Allmannajuvet Zinc Mine Museum......................................................................................................................72 - Understanding Brick Construction........................................................................................................74 - Mycelium Brick Processing.......................................................................................................................76 - Germinating mushroom spawn to create mycelium spawn...........................................................................78 - Developing mycelium substrates and inoculating this with the spawn......................................................80 - Condition of inoculated substrate after 10 day incubation in grow bags...................................................84 - Developing a mycelium brick mold.....................................................................................................................86 - The thermoforming vacuum forming process...................................................................................................87 - Initial mycelium brick mold tests.........................................................................................................................88 - Development of mycelium brick design..............................................................................................................92

- Artefact 2.................................................................................................................................98

- Final test mold design...........................................................................................................................................106 - Growing the mycelium in the molds..................................................................................................................108 - Condition of inoculated substrate before 10 day incubation on molds.....................................................110 - Condition of inoculated substrate after 10 day incubation in molds.........................................................111 - Drying the grown mycelium bricks....................................................................................................................112 - Mycelium brick prototypes ready to test..........................................................................................................113

- Material Testing Mycelium Brick Prototypes..................................................................114

- Compression test machine shop drawing and photographs.........................................................................118 - Brick tests.................................................................................................................................................................120 - Overview and analysis............................................................................................................................................148 - Final test conclusions............................................................................................................................................151

- Design of Mycelium Brick in Response to Test Results.................................................152 - Further Material Speculations in Response to Test Results..........................................154 - Seashells [process of forming lime plaster].......................................................................................................154 - Seaweed [process of forming seaweed thatch and screen]...........................................................................156 - Plastic waste [process of forming weatherboarding].....................................................................................158

- Preliminary Design of Mycelium Brick Building Construction...................................161

How to Read this Portfolio

The heading and title appear in the top left corner of the double spread, sometimes there are titles on both pages.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. In vitae molestie urna. Pellentesque imperdiet sagittis massa nec scelerisque. Donec vitae sapien et est ornare pharetra venenatis at elit. Morbi ut enim urna. In posuere eget neque a laoreet. Nullam semper sapien ac sapien facilisis, eu malesuada tortor mattis. Phasellus blandit neque ac nisi dignissim ultrices. Donec laoreet dignissim lectus id dignissim. Nulla non metus dui. Aliquam nec mi magna. Duis volutpat in ligula vel porta. Sed sagittis risus vitae nulla viverra sagittis. Ut gravida ultrices dolor, at porttitor enim consequat at. Curabitur ultrices quam quis suscipit tristique. Fusce ultricies enim non ex sodales sagittis. Aenean neque ligula, malesuada ac aliquet elementum, commodo at lorem. Maecenas tristique erat eu mi cursus mattis. Maecenas pellentesque, lectus eget fringilla volutpat, odio leo bibendum odio, a tempor mauris libero sit amet ipsum. Nam nec mi quis libero tempor pellentesque. Donec vitae sapien faucibus, pharetra enim vitae, porttitor quam. Nullam ac felis a turpis consequat semper sit a eu tincidunt ligula. Proin at posuere tellus, vitae tincidunt augue. Maecenas sagittis sem non congue egestas.

Any information that is of great importance will either be written in bold, written in a different colour, or written in red boxes like this one.

Each double spread usually has an introductory paragraph at the top left explaining the context of the information presented and why this is relevant to the overall project.

At the bottom right corner of the double spread there is usually a red box containg conclusions. This box explains what has been learned over the course of the spread and usually how this links with the next double spread unless this information is self-explanatory. Sometimes red boxes like this can appear anywhere on the page to draw attention to important information.

Conclusions: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. In vitae molestie urna. Pellentesque imperdiet sagittis massa nec scelerisque. Donec vitae sapien et est ornare pharetra venenatis at elit. Morbi ut enim urna. In posuere eget neque a laoreet.

1. Four Buildings, Four Landscapes:

- Locations.......................................................................................................................................8 - Newtown Old Town Hall [Newtown, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom]..............................10 - Bedehus [Loshavn, Vest-Agder, Norway]....................................................................................16 - Old Post Office [Merdø, Aust-Agder, Norway]........................................................................22 - Lyngørstua [Lyngør, Aust-Agder, Norway]................................................................................28

Four Buildings, Four Landscapes

Locations

United Kingdom

Norway

Newtown Old Town Hall [Newtown, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom] Lyngørstua [Lyngør, Aust-Agder, Norway] Old Post Oﬃce [Merdø, Aust-Agder, Norway]

Bedehus [Loshavn, Vest-Agder, Norway]

Four Buildings, Four Landscapes

Newtown Old Town Hall [Newtown, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom] Newtown as a town descends from Franchville, a borough of prescription which existed on the current site from the 1000s. Their is evidence that the settlement was of a substantial size with the reputation of having the safest harbour on the Isle of Wight. Owing to abundant oyster beds and salt the town became a thriving community by the mid 1300s. However, due to persistent raids by the French up to the end of that century, the town was largely destroyed. The town has never fully recovered from these raids despite large efforts over the years. Newtown Old Town Hall is evidence of such effort. In 1585 the town became a parliamentary borough as a way to help inspire the town’s development and as such, the town hall was built. The building was erected on top of an old limestone rubble farmstead building dating back to the times of Franchville. In the 1700s the existing brickwork and tiled roof were erected on top of the limestone building. Both the limestone and clay for the bricks were sourced from the surrounding landscape. Due to the structural insufficiency of the limestone basement to support the hall above, the building begun to slowly collapse and sink into the clay rich ground. After years of neglect, in 1933 repair work was initiated on the town hall. This was due to the efforts of the ‘Ferguson’s gang’. This female gang, reacting to the increasingly homogeneous nature of suburban development at the time, worked to restore heritage buildings of significance across the UK. As well as serving as a town hall, the building has been used as a dwelling and a school. The hall is now owned by the National Trust and has become a museum exhibiting the rich history of the town and the hall itself. Repair work is an ongoing task.

Four Buildings, Four Landscapes

Newtown Old Town Hall [Newtown, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom] South elevation 1:50

Iron and Lime Rich Clays

Concrete

Fired Clay Mathematical Tiles - product of local Prangnell brickworks - made using locally sourced clay - yellow lime-rich clay - nailed to timber battens behind

Lead

250

Limestone

Iron

Oak

Limestone Quoining - locally sourced and processed limestone - mild lichen growth on surface

Timber Battens - nailed to original brickwork wall - used to attach mathematical tiles - allows airflow between building elements

Original Brickwork Masonry Wall - built in 1700s - signs of significant wear

250

Limestone Portico - originally made in 1700s - renovated in 1900s - acute signs of movement though stable in wall construction - mild signs of weathering

Fired Clay Mathematical Tiles - addition made in 1800s - protects the wall construction behind - cheaper than rebuilding brickwork - used aesthetically Limestone Quoining - addition made in 1800s - protects the corners of the building - improves structural ingerity - used aesthetically

5570

Oak Door - originally made in 1700s - renovated in 1900s

Iron Railings - addition made in 1900s - added for improved safety and structural integrity Limestone Plinth - originally constructed in 1000s as a farmstead building - locally sourced limestone - renovated in 1700s and 1900s - now serves as basement and foundation

Conclusions: The building construction is a product of additions made over time in response to new uses and to maintain structural integrity. The predominant materials used are clay, limestone and oak. Later I will have a closer look into how the mathematical tiles, and limestone quoining work. I will also look into how the mathematical tiles were made, why their material is appropriate for their use and their cultural significance.

Four Buildings, Four Landscapes

Newtown Old Town Hall [Newtown, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom] Local material resources 1:10000

Iron and Lime Rich Clays [Hamstead Member]

Calcerous Limestone [Bembridge Marls Member]

Deciduous Hardwood Trees [predominantly oak and beech]

Newtown

Conclusions: The building materials of clay, limestone and oak, predominantly used in the construction of Newtown Old Town Hall, exist in abundance in the surrounding landscape. The building is an intimate cultural expression and transformation of its specific geographic context. The building belongs to this context and could not exist elsewhere.

Four Buildings, Four Landscapes

Bedehus [Loshavn, Vest-Agder, Norway] Loshavn is located at the mouth of the Lyngdalsfjorden, about 2.5 miles south of the town of Farsund. In the past it is recorded to have been a thriving community with 200 residents living in Loshavn in 1865. Nowadays there are very few permanent residents with most of the houses and other buildings being used for holiday rentals, hotels or privates holiday homes. It is thought that the village has some of the best preserved wooden buildings along the southern Norwegian coast. As a typical example of one of the outport communities, the history of Loshavn is varied. During the years of the ‘Gunboat War’ [1807-1814] Loshavn was militarised to protect the mainland from British invasion. In some cases the residents were given governmental approval to hijack British ships, an officially unauthorized activity. The bedehus at Loshavn is typical of this type of Christian prayer house. These houses were usually used for meetings and other events within the ‘low-church/lay movement’. They were erected across Norway from the mid 1800s. Today around 3,000 of these buildings are known to exist across the country, many of which have lost their original religious use. At Loshavn the bedehus still functions as a religious prayer house but also, more prominently, as the village hall with a small museum. The museum documents a brief history of the village.

Four Buildings, Four Landscapes

Bedehus [Loshavn, Vest-Agder, Norway] West elevation 1:50

Steel

Pinewood

140

Granite

Vertical Pine Timber Panelling - loaclly sourced and processed pine timber - protects corner of notched log wall - encloses ends of horizontal panelling - painted white for protection and aesthetic purposes

Pine Timber Weatherboarding - locally sourced and processed pine timber - router cut to produce tongue and groove mechanism

Pine Timber Notched Log - locally sourced and processed pine timber - cut, carved and sawn

Steel Guttering - addition made in 1900s - painted white for protection and aesthetic purposes - water run-oďŹ&#x20AC; down over granite bedrock to sea 300

Pine Timber Notched Log - part of original construction from 1800s - provides main structural and thermal properties for building - notches allow for easy erection and stability - can be easily disassembled

5800

Pine Timber Weatherboarding - part of original construction from 1800s - weather protection for notched log wall behind - horizontal rotation to aid protection from rain/seawater - router cut for both functional and aesthetic purposes - painted white for protection and aesthetic purposes

Moss Insulation - locally sourced and dried moss - packed between notched logs - aid against wind draft

Granite Rubble Masonry Foundations - part of original construction from 1800s - locally sourced and processed granite - a rubble wall construction - gaps either left open or filled in with cement mortar Granite Bedrock - building constructed directly onto bedrock - provides hard stable base for foundations

Conclusions: The predominant materials used are pine and granite. Later I will have a closer look into how the notched logs and horizontal weatherboarding work. I will also look into how they were made, why their material is approriate for their uses and their cultural significance.

Four Buildings, Four Landscapes

Bedehus [Loshavn, Vest-Agder, Norway] Local material resources 1:2500

Granite Bedrock

Coniferous and Deciduous Trees [predominantly pine, spruce and oak]

Conclusions: The building materials of pine and granite, predominantly used in the construction of the Bedehus, exist in abundance in the surrounding landscape. The building is an intimate cultural expression and transformation of its specific geographic context. The building belongs to this context and could not exist elsewhere.

Four Buildings, Four Landscapes

Old Post Office [Merdø, Aust-Agder, Norway] The small island of Merdø, measuring around 0.3km2 lies along the Skagerrak coast near the main shipping channel [Galtesundet] leading to Arendal, the largest town in the municipality. A part of the island is included in the ‘Raet National Park’. Records show that a permanent settlement has existed on Merdø since the 1300s. Merdø served as one of the most important outports along the Skagerrak coast since 1580, owing to its freshwater springs that still function today. Traditionally fisherman and their families lived on the island. In 1900 a reported 26 houses were inhabited with a total of 144 permanent residents. Today the island has become a holiday destination with permanent residences falling dramatically to just 1. The old post office, located in the centre of the village is evidence, along with the customs house, shop, school building, and pilot station, of Merdø’s importants as an outport. Like all the public service buildings, the post office no longer functions and is now owned privately. The post office closed in 1975 in response to the diminishing demand for the ports.

Four Buildings, Four Landscapes

Old Post Office [MerdĂ¸, Aust-Agder, Norway] West elevation

1710

1:50

Oak Entablature - locally sourced and processed oak timber - router cut to produce decorative Italianate motif

Terracotta Clay

Steel Vertical Pine Timber Weatherboarding - part of original construction from 1800s - weather protection for notched log wall behind - router cut for both functional and aesthetic purposes - painted white for protection and aesthetic purposes

Iron

Concrete

Granite

Asphalt

Pinewood

Pine Timber Battens - part of original construction from 1800s - used to attach timber panelling to notched timber logs - allows for air flow between panelling and notched timber logs - airflow reduces chances of mold decay from moisture build up Terracotta Roof Tiles - part of original construction from 1800s - provides shelter/protects wooden roof structure behind - imported from the mainland - mild lichen/moss growth

6710

Satellite Dish - a 2000s addition - indicative of current private ownership - nailed to timber panelling

Oak Door - part of original construction from 1800s - painted green for protection and aesthetic purposes - green paint decaying - a neoclassical detail of Italian origin - intricate wood work - used aesthetically

2800

Oak Entablature - part of original construction from 1800s - provides shelter over doorway from rain/snow - protects timber door frame behind - a neoclassical detail of Italian origin - used aesthetically

Oak Timber Door Frame - part of original construction from 1800s - structurally supports oak doors

Concrete Stairs - a 1900s addition, replacing original timber construction from 1800s - cast iron railings driven into concrete

Conclusions: The building construction is a product of additions made over time in response to new uses. The predominant materials used are oak, pine and granite. Later I will have a closer look into how the oak entablature and pine timber battens work.

Four Buildings, Four Landscapes

Old Post Office [MerdĂ¸, Aust-Agder, Norway] Local material resources 1:2500

Granite Bedrock

Coniferous and Deciduous Trees [predominantly pine, spruce and oak]

Conclusions: The building materials of oak, pine and granite, predominantly used in the construction of the Old Post Office, exist in abundance in the surrounding landscape. The building is an intimate cultural expression and transformation of its specific geographic context. The building belongs to this context and could not exist elsewhere.

Four Buildings, Four Landscapes

Lyngørstua [Lyngør, Aust-Agder, Norway] Lyngør is a village spread across a small group of islands [Holmen, Odden, Lyngøya, and Steinsøya]. The village was popular with sea captains since it is only accessible by boat. The village is recognised as one of the best preserved communities in Europe. Today most of the buildings function as summer houses but there are still about 75 permanent residents as of 2017. Lyngør is a very popular holiday destination in the summer which has caused some tensions with the permanent residents. The Lyngørstua originally functioned as the village’s bedehus but now, due to increasing secularisation, is used as a village hall by the permanent residents. Inside the building is a small museum documenting local history including models of ships.

100 Four Buildings, Four Landscapes

Lyngørstua [Lyngør, Aust-Agder, Norway]

West elevation 1:50

Terracotta Clay

Pine Timber Weatherboarding - imported timber panelling - router cut for aesthetic purposes - hit and miss design - painted white for protection and aesthetic purposes

Steel

Iron

Concrete

Granite Rubble Masonry Foundations - locally sourced and processed granite - built directly onto granite bedrock

Granite

Pinewood

Terracotta Roof Tiles - part of original construction from 1800s - provides shelter/protects wooden roof structure behind - imported from the mainland - mild lichen/moss growth

3850

6820

Pine Timber Vertical Weatherboarding - part of original construction from 1800s - weather protection for notched log wall behind - vertical rotation allows for cheaper cuts of timber - router cut for aesthetic purposes - painted white for protection and aesthetic purposes

Concrete Floor Slab - a 1900s addition - economical building technique used for building’s extension

Granite Bedrock - building constructed directly onto bedrock - provides hard stable base for foundations Granite Rubble Masonry Foundations - part of original construction from 1800s - a rubble wall construction - gaps either left open or filled in with cement mortar

Conclusions: The predominant materials used are pine and garanite. The new extension, and state of materials used reflects the more economically developed character of Lyngør and the needs of the permanent community that reside there. Later I will have a closer look into how the vertical weatherboarding and granite foundations work. I will also look into how they were made, why their material is approriate for their uses and their cultural significance.

Four Buildings, Four Landscapes

Lyngørstua [Lyngør, Aust-Agder, Norway]

Local material resources 1:2500

Granite Bedrock

Coniferous and Deciduous Trees [predominantly pine, spruce and oak]

Conclusions: The building materials of pine and granite, predominantly used in the construction of the Lyngørstua, now exist in abundance in the surrounding landscape. It is known that all the pine timber on Lyngør was originally imported from the mainland. The building is still an intimate cultural expression and transformation of its specific geographic context, though this context is a little wider than the previous examples. The building belongs to this context and could not exist elsewhere.

2. Understanding How Existing Building Elements Work:

- Building Elements................ ............................................36 - Artefact 1...............................................................................38

Understanding How Existing Building Elements Work

Building Elements Nailed to timber battens on building facade

1:50

Transfers vertical load from roof down to foundations

Nailed to pine timber battens Provides protection from weathering Provides protection from weathering

Nailed to oak timber door frame Built into corners of brickwork wall

Nailed through timber panelling to pine timber notched logs

Limestone Quoining [Newtown, Old Town Hall] - Structurally load-bearing - Provides weather protection to corner of building - Provides strength to corner of building - Used aesthetically to accentuate corners of building - Locally sourced and processed limestone

Fired Clay Mathematical Tiles [Newtown, Old Town Hall] - Provides weather protection to wall of building - Used aesthetically to resemble brickwork bonding - Cheaper than bricks - Made using locally sourced clay

Horizontal Pine Timber Weatherboarding [Loshavn, Bedehus] - Provides weather protection for notched log wall behind - Horizontal rotation to reduce wood rot growth - Router cut to produce tongue and groove mechanism - Painted white for protection and aesthetic purposes - Locally sourced and processed pine timber

Oak Entablature [Merdø, Old Post Office]

- Provides weather protection over doorway - Protects timber door frame behind - Used aesthetically to accentuate entrance - Router cut to produce decorative Italianate motif - Locally sourced and processed oak timber

Transfers vertical load from roof down to foundations Transfers vertical load from notched log wall to ground

Notches allow logs to be assembled and dissasembled easily

Nailed to pine timber notched logs Provides protection from weathering

Transfers horizontal load [wind] to foundations

Nailed to pine timber battens

Reaction force upwards

Granite Rubble Masonry Foundations [Lyngør, Lyngørstua]

Vertical Pine Timber Weatherboarding [Lyngør, Lyngørstua] - Weather protection for notched log wall behind - Vertical rotation allows for cheaper cuts of timber - Hit-and-miss design - Router cut for aesthetic purposes - Painted white for protection and aesthetic purposes - Imported timber panelling

Pine Timber Battens [Merdø, Old Post Office] - Used to attach timber panelling to notched timber logs - Allows for air flow between panelling and notched timber logs - Airflow reduces chances of mold decay from moisture build up - Hidden beneath timber panelling

Pine Timber Notched Logs [Loshavn, Bedehus]

- Provides main structural and thermal properties for building - Provides support for both horizontal and vertical loads - Notches allow for easy erection and stability - Can be easily disassembled - Locally sourced and processed pine timber - Cut, carved and sawn

- Provides stable base for timber notched log construction - Very durable - A rubble wall construction - Gaps either left open or filled in with cement mortar - Built directly onto granite bedrock - Locally sourced and processed granite

Conclusions: For each building element, the materials are sourced locally with the exception of the wood on Lyngør which was imported. Each element serves at least one practical function with some elements also being used for aesthetic impact as well. To demonstrate further how each element works I have constructed a 1:10 artefact model.

Understanding How Existing Building Elements Work

Artefact 1 Shop drawing 1:5 The purpose of constructing artefact 1 is to demonstrate how each wall element studied works. For this artefact I combined the different wall elements I identified across all the surveyed sites. These elements were combined in relation to how they function on their respective buildings and seeing how they could function working together in a single wall construction. The artefact was made at a scale of 1:10, a manageable scale that allowed me demonstrate each building elementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s function without requiring the space and material quantities of making an artefact at 1:1. As an experiment I decided to translate the materials used to make each element and make all elements from each respective material. This was done to see how the materials might behave in different scenarios. I also altered the scales of each building element to see how this might effect the function and aesthetic of each element. 18a

18b

18c

18d

2 12a 6a

6b 7a

6c 7b

12b 7c

8b 8c

17 12c

9c 13a

18e

10a

16a

18f

13b

10b 10c

13c 16b

18g

11a 11b

18h

14a

11c 18i

14b 14c

NB: All building elements fixed by nails on original buildings are fixed by steel pins on model.

Understanding How Existing Building Elements Work

Artefact 1

Dimensions

Shop drawing key

1:40

1 15

300

5 5

324

Batten

Pine

Bedrock

Limestone

Rock

10-20

Granite

Mortar

n/a

Cement+Aggregate

Weatherboarding

Smooth Body Clay

Weatherboarding

Smooth Body Clay

Weatherboarding

Smooth Body Clay

Weatherboarding

Terracotta Clay

Weatherboarding

Terracotta Clay

Weatherboarding

Terracotta Clay

Weatherboarding

Pine

Weatherboarding

Pine

Weatherboarding

Pine

Mathematical Tile

Smooth Body Clay

Mathematical Tile

Smooth Body Clay

Mathematical Tile

Smooth Body Clay

10a

Mathematical Tile

Terracotta Clay

10b

Mathematical Tile

Terracotta Clay

10c

Mathematical Tile

Terracotta Clay

11a

Mathematical Tile

Pine

11b

Mathematical Tile

Pine

11c

Mathematical Tile

Pine

12a

Weatherboarding

Smooth Body Clay

12b

Weatherboarding

Smooth Body Clay

12c

Weatherboarding

Smooth Body Clay

13a

Weatherboarding

Terracotta Clay

13b

Weatherboarding

Terracotta Clay

13c

Weatherboarding

Terracotta Clay

14a

Weatherboarding

Pine

14b

Weatherboarding

Pine

14c

Weatherboarding

Pine

Terracotta Clay

Quoining

Pine

Quoining

Pine

18b 18c

16 71

400

106

13c

18a

18b

300

14c

18f

12b 13b

300

18e

18d 35

14b

18e

Quoining

Terracotta Clay

18f

Quoining

Smooth Body Clay

18g

Quoining

Smooth Body Clay

12a

18h

Quoining

Terracotta Clay

13a

18h

100

300

14a

18c

18g 14

Terracotta Clay

400

12c

Quoining

400

106

18d

Quoining

400

16b

Smooth Body Clay

18i

∞ 134.21¬∞

Quoining

115.34¬

18a

16a

Pine

Door Frame

20 1.5

13 1.5

Terracotta Clay

10 1

Post

18i

16b

Smooth Body Clay

Post

Mixture of 3 parts sand to 1 part cement to 0.5 part water

16a

1.5

Pine

11c

Exact quantity depends on the dimensions of each rock and the bedrock

Entablature

Exact dimensions can’t be known before construction

300

Horizontally and vertically positioned

10c

11b

10b

Pine

11a

1.3

Notched Log

10a

1.3

Comments

Material

Quantity

Part Type

Item Number

300

101

Understanding How Existing Building Elements Work

Artefact 1 Photographs

Terracotta Quoining - originally made from limestone [Old Town Hall] - demonstrates protective function - terracotta not as hard as limstone so less protective - can shrink by 12% when drying - attached to notched logs with metal bolts - sizes at 1:1 would be very diﬀicult to produce

Pine Timber Quoining - original made from limestone [Newtown Old Town Hall] - easy to translate to pine in diﬀerent dimensions - wood grain betrays scale - size at 1:1 would be possible for the smaller dimensions

Pine Timber Notched Logs - original made from Pine [Bedehus] - easy to demonstrate at 1:10 - wood grain betrays scale Pine Timber Battens - original made from pine timber [Old Post Oﬀice] - easy to demonstrate at 1:10 - other materials not attempted - fixed to notched logs with metal pins

Smooth Body Clay Horizontal Weatherboarding - originally made from pine timber [bedehus] - diﬀicult to shape at 1:10 - shrinks and warps considerably when dry [12%] - size at 1:1 using clay would be impossible - tongue and groove impossible to shape at 1:10

PLA PLastic Entablature - original made from Oak [Old Town Hall] - diﬀicult to shape wood at 1:10 so 3D printed instead - demonstrates function though PLA is not a substitute for oak - larger dimensions enable lintel to provide more shelter

Terracotta Horizontal Weatherbaording - originally made from pine timber [bedehus] - diﬀicult to shape at 1:10 - shrinks and warps considerably when dry [8-12%] - size at 1:1 using terracotta would be impossible - tongue and groove impossible to shape at 1:10

Terracotta Vertical Weatherboarding - original made from Pine [Lyngørstua] - hard to work into desired form at 1:10 - shrinks and warps considerably when dry [8-12%] - size at 1:1 using terracotta would be impossible

Pine Timber Horizontal Weatherboarding - originally made from pine timber [bedehus] - easy to shape at 1:10 - wood grain betrays scale

Granite Rubble Masonry Foundations - original made from granite and cement [Lyngørstua] - easy to demonstrate at 1:10 - other materials not attempted

Understanding How Existing Building Elements Work

Artefact 1 Photographs

Steel Pin Attachments - working as screws do at 1:1 - demonstrates function

Smooth Body Clay Mathematical Tiles - originally made from terracotta and lime rich clay - form hard to replicate at 1:10 since clay becomes very thin - the larger the dimensions the easier the clay is to form - demonstrates protective function

Smooth Body Clay Vertical Weatherboarding - original made from Pine [Lyngørstua] - hard to work into desired form at 1:10 - shrinks and warps considerably when dry [12%] - size at 1:1 using clay would be very diﬀicult

Pine Vertical Weatherboarding - original made from Pine [Lyngørstua] - easy to work into desired form at 1:10 - wood grain betrays scale

Smooth Body Clay Quoining - originally made from limestone [Old Town Hall] - diﬀicult to shape limestone at 1:10 so clay is used - demonstrates protective function - clay not as hard as limstone so less protective - can shrink by 12% when drying - attached to notched logs with metal bolts

Terracotta Mathematical Tiles - originally made from terracotta and lime rich clay - form hard to replicate at 1:10 since clay becomes very thin - the larger the dimensions the easier the clay is to form - demonstrates protective function

Limstone Bedrock - originally made from granite [Lyngørstua] - granite is not easy to work at 1:1 due to hardness - demonstrates supporting function for building

Pine Timber Mathematical Tiles - originally made from terracotta and lime rich clay - form easy to replicate at 1:10 - easy to translate to pine in diﬀerent dimensions - wood grain betrays scale - demonstrates function

Conclusions: The artefact demonstrates how each element works. Although the experiments in material translation and scale do indicate aesthetic implications they do not enlighten on how this changes the function of each element due to the 1:10 scale of the model. 1:1 tests would be necessary. Importantly, through making the model I am more aware of how each building element’s function and appearance is directly informed by the material used, the location of the original building’s site, and the craftsmanship required to process this material. I will take a closer look into material transformation processes to better understand this relationship.

3. Understanding Material Transformation Processes:

- Clay [process of forming mathematical tiles and bricks].......................................48 - Stone [process of forming rubble masonry foundations].......................................50 - Wood [process of forming timber notched logs and weatherboarding]..............52

Understanding Material Transformation Processes 18th Century Pug Mill

Clay [process of forming mathematical tiles and bricks] Newtown, Old Town Hall These two pages document the qualities inherent in the base material used [iron rich clay], the location where this material was extracted and how this material was originally refined to produce the building elements concerned. The purpose of this is to better understand the traditions of material transformation processes involved in the formation of the mathematical tiles and bricks of the Old Town Hall in Newtown. Through this deeper understanding I hope to dispel ideas of superficially recreating old building elements and become more aware of the important implications of using local material resources and how this can be a strength in the development of an architectural project.

mixing and grinding mechanism horse drawn

hatch for feeding clay and water into mill mixed clay

1] Local clay was dug up from the surrounding landscape of Newtown. Large stones and similar contaminates were removed. The clay was then mixed to a plastic consistency with water by the use of a horse driven pug mill. The pug mill ground and mixed the clay. Pallet Molding

ceramics

wood/metal construction 10,000

brick pallet mold metals and alloys

composites

mathematical tile pallet mold

strong

iron rich clay resources base 1,000

glasses

Newtown estuary

porous ceramics

woods Strength [MPa]

polymers 100

granite stone

brick/mathematical tile

oak pine

2] The clay was then shaped to form the mathematical tiles or bricks by pallet molding. A pallet mold consisted of a four sided wooden or metal construction that slotted onto a base. For brickmaking, the base was often raised in parts creating the hollow which reduced the volume of clay needed per brick. Sand was sprinkled onto the mold to prevent the clay from sticking, then the clay was rolled into fat sausages before being thrown with force into the mold. The force used allowed the clay to fill the molds completely and expelled potential trapped air. A wire bow was then used to remove excess clay from the top of the mold. A wooden board was positoned on top of the mold before the mold was flipped upside down to remove the molded clay from the mold. The resulting mathematical tile or brick was then left to slow dry in the sun for a week often shrinking by about 7% in volume.

[with the grain]

oak

[across the grain]

pine weak

[across the grain]

800˚C - 1000˚C

18th Century Downdraft Kiln

rubbers

chimney

1 ceramics: chart shows compressive strength [tensile strength typically 10% of compressive] other materials: strength in tension/compression airflow up and out of chimney

foam

airflow in through firehole

perforated floor

clay tiles/bricks 100

300

1,000

3,000

10,000

30,000

heavy

light

baﬀles firehole

burning coal/wood

Density [kg/m³]

The clay composites that constitute the material used for the manufacture of both the mathematical tiles and the brick masonry units on the Old Town Hall in Newtown are sourced locally and exist in abundance. These two economic qualities are inherent to the use of the clay composites as building materials for the Old Town Hall. As data on the original bricks used on the Old Town Hall is not available, based from data collected on solid brick materials, the density range of the material is roughly between 1,600-1,900 kg/m3 with a compressive strength range of between 26-60MPa. These values are well suited to the bricks use as a structural building element. The tensile of strength of the material is much weaker explaining why bricks are predominantly used to carry compressive loads. To fulfill the functions of masonry [supporting, separating, facing, insulating, and protecting]there is a huge variety in material compositions of bricks. Density and compression strengths alter depending on these compositions and by the manufacture processes used to make the bricks. As a general rule high dry specific density = good compressive strength, high dry specific density = good sound insulation, and low dry specific density = good thermal insulation. Water absorption is another key concern for bricks. If water absorption is over 20% then this can cause structural problems due to water related defects such as freeze-thaw action and efflorescence. Being more water absorptive and therefore porous also means that the material is less solid and so will have a reduced strength. However a water absorption of below 12% can increase the dificulty of forming a strong mortar bond to the brick. Thereforefore it is recommended that bricks are between 12-20% water absorptive. In the case of the mathematical tiles used as weather protection, it is vital that the porosity remains below 20%.

3] After the mathematical tiles and bricks had slow dried they were fired in a kiln, transforming the clay from a plastic material into a rigid building material. At Newtown a downdraft kiln was used to fire the clay building elements. These kilns usually had a capacity of around 12,00 bricks and could fire the clay materials at temperatures ranging from 800˚C to 1000˚C. Coal and wood was lit inside the fireholes causing hot air to pass up into the kiln and then pass down through the stacked mathematical tiles and bricks. The air would then pass through a perforated floor beneath the tiles and bricks, by the draught caused by the chimney. The kiln firing cycle would take approximately 14 days [2 days loading, 3 days curing, 2 days heating to full temperature, 1 day at full heat, 4 days cooling, and 2 days unloading]. After the mathematical tiles and bricks had been fired they were ready to be used as building elements.

Finished fired clay mathematical tile

Finished fired clay brick

Conclusions: The function and use of the building elements produced are inextricably linked to the qualities of the material used, to the location from where this material is extracted, and to the craftsmanship needed to refine the building elements. Local industry was formed and developed through the demand for these building elements. The mathematical tiles and bricks are a deep expression of the geographical and cultural context of their local. In the production of my own building elements, all these factors will be considered.

Understanding Material Transformation Processes

cleavage plane granite stones as found near buiding site

Stone [process of forming rubble masonry foundations]

granite bed

bedding plane

All Norwegian Sites These two pages document the qualities inherent in the base material used [granite stone], the location where this material was extracted and how this material was originally refined to produce the building element concerned. The purpose of this is to better understand the traditions of material transformation processes involved in the formation of rubble masonry foundations found across all the Norwegian sites. Through this deeper understanding I hope to dispel ideas of superficially recreating old building elements and become more aware of the important implications of using local material resources and how this can be a strength in the development of an architectural project.

1] The granite rubble masonry foundations on the Norwegian sites were predominantly made directly from stones found in locations near to the building sites.

quarts seam between granite beds

2] Alternatively, the granite was first found in horizontal beds as part of the bedrock. Between the granite beds lie thin seams of quarts.

10-15cm deep holes granite stone resources

iron chisel

sledgehammer

Loshavn ceramics

3] In order to split the rock into stones for a rubble masonry foundation an iron chisel was driven into the granite along the cleavage plane. This was done with a sledghammer until a hole of 10-15cm deep was formed. The process was repeated in a line according to the grain of the granite. For safety this process often required 4 people.

10,000 metals and alloys

strong

composites

1,000

wedges and shims inserted into holes and pounded MerdĂ¸

glasses

wrought iron wedge wrought iron shim

porous ceramics

woods Strength [MPa]

polymers 100

granite stone brick/mathematical tile

oak pine

[with the grain]

4] Wrought iron wedges were then inserted into the holes of the line and driven into the granite between two wrought iron shims. Each wedge was pounded once before moving to the next consecutive wedge. This process was repeated many times.

oak

[across the grain]

LyngĂ¸r

pine weak

[across the grain]

rubbers

granite split along line of holes

1 ceramics: chart shows compressive strength [tensile strength typically 10% of compressive] other materials: strength in tension/compression

split along original bedding plane

foam

100

300

1,000

3,000

10,000

30,000

heavy

light Density [kg/mÂł]

The granite stone used to form the rubble masonry foundations across all the Norwegian sites is locally sourced and abundant as granite forms the local bedrock. These two economic qualities are inherent to the use of granite as a building material across all the Norwegian sites. Granite stone has a density of between 2,600-2,800kg/m3 with a compressive strength of between 130-270 MPa. These values are well suited to the use of granite to form the load-bearing function of a rubble masonry foundation. Granite has a water absoprtion of 0.1-0.9% which suggests it performs excellently as a barrier against water, a necessity for foundation design. Granite stones were originally used in the form that they were found in to use in rubble masonry foundation construction, this required very little material processing and was easy to implement. The heavy weight of the stones meant that many people were involved in the construction of the foundations. If loose granite stones could not be found a much more labour intensive process was involved in splitting granite stone from the bedrock between seams of quarts.

5] When the wedges were driven deep enough into the granite, the rock was forced apart and split along the line of the holes. Granite has the tendancy to rend easily and with regularity along a plane at right angles to the cleavage plane. The stone split along the original bedding plane. Finished rubble masonry foundation

joints filled with mortar and small granite stones

6] The granite stones were then positioned and balanced on top of one another forming the rubble masonry foundation. The joints were often filled with mortar as well as smaller granite stones to help secure the foundation and to prevent air draughts inside.

Conclusions: The function and use of the building element produced is inextricably linked to the qualities of the material used, to the location from where this material is extracted, and to the craftsmanship needed to refine the building element. Many people were involved in the splitting and transportation of the granite stones. The rubble masonry foundations are a deep expression of the geographical and cultural context of their local. In the production of my own building elements, all these factors will be considered.

Understanding Material Transformation Processes

pine tree [heartwood] - more weather resistant compared to close-textured and sapwood trees

Wood [process of forming timber notched logs and weatherboarding] All Norwegian Sites

pith [where cell growth takes place]

bark

These two pages document the qualities inherent in the base material used [pine timber], the location where this material was extracted and how this material was originally refined to produce the building elements concerned. The purpose of this is to better understand the traditions of material transformation processes involved in the formation of timber notched logs and weatherboarding found across all the Norwegian sites. Through this deeper understanding I hope to dispel ideas of superficially recreating old building elements and become more aware of the important implications of using local material resources and how this can be a strength in the development of an architectural project.

dark heartwood core iron axe with steel cutting edge

1] Pine trees were felled using an iron axe with a steel cutting edge. The axe was used to cut wedges into the tree trunk. A larger wedge was cut into the side that tree was to fall. peeling spud

2] The felled tree was then stripped of the branches and debarked using a an iron peeling spud with a steel cutting edge.

10,000 metals and alloys

composites

strong

light sapwood

Pine timber resources

Loshavn

ceramics

cambium layer

transportation via the sea this prolonged period of soaking the timber in water had the additional advantage of drawing out the sugars in the wood which then reduced the chances of insect infestation and fungal infection.

3] In the case of Lyngør the pine timber was then transported in the sea from the mainland to the island for further processing. At Loshavn and Merdø the trees were already in close proximity to the building sites so the timber was carried by hand.

1,000

glasses

circular rip saw

porous ceramics

woods

Merdø

plain sawn

quarter sawn

Strength [MPa]

polymers 100

live sawn [modern technique]

rift sawn

granite stone

brick/mathematical tile

oak

pine

[with the grain]

hewn timber notched log 10

plain sawn timber

oak

[across the grain]

pine weak

[across the grain]

Lyngør

rubbers

[pine sourced from mainland]

1 ceramics: chart shows compressive strength [tensile strength typically 10% of compressive] other materials: strength in tension/compression

4] After an extensive drying period [up to several months], allowing the moisture content of the timber to drop to between 9-18%, the timber was hewn with an axe to form the notched logs.

5] To form the weatherboarding the timber logs were plain sawn using a circular man-powered rip saw. Plain sawn timber was and remains the most economical method of processing wood as it produces the highest yield of timber boards per timber log.

metal roof covering [sun and rain protection]

foam

rocks to weigh roof down

wooden stickers

possible distortion of timber during drying 100

300

1,000

3,000

10,000

30,000

wooden stilts

plain sawn timber

heavy

light Density [kg/m³]

6] The plain sawn timber was then air dried in stacks for several months. The drying process ensured that the moisture level of the timber was between 9-18% before being used for construction. wood plane

The pine timber used to form the notched logs and weatherboarding across all the Norwegian sites was locally sourced and abundant. These two economic qualities are inherent to the use of pine timber as a building material across all the Norwegian sites. Pine wood has a density of between 510-690kg/m3, a compressive strength with the grain of 41-58 MPa, and a tensile strength with the grain of 105 MPa. These values are well suited to the use of pine timber to form the load-bearing function of a notched log wall. The timber can effectively transfer the vertical loads from the roof and horizontal loads from the wind down to firm granite foundations. Due to the porosity of Pine timber the thermal conductivity is realtively low [between 0.14-0.22 W/mK] indicating that it can function resonably well as an insulating material though there are much better insulating materials available. The heat storage index of pine is between 660- 900 kJ/m3K although this depends on the moisture content of the wood. The heat capacity of pine is almost the same as brick although the density of pine compared to brick is only 1/3. These qualities mean that a notched log wall can function as a relatively good external wall construction. Pine is known as a heartwood because the cross-section of the trunk reveals a dark heartwood core surrounded by a light sapwood. Heartwoods are considered to be particularly weather-resistant compared to other types of wood [close-textured and sapwood] indicating why this type of wood was used as weatherboarding across all the Norwegian sites. Moisture content is crucial to the correct use of pine timber as a structural building element. The timber’s weight, its resistance to fire and rot, its load-bearing capacity, stability, and consistency are all governed largely by moisture content. A high moisture content reduces the strength, stability and dimensional accuracy of pine timber as well as leaving the timber susceptible to rot. Permanent means of ventilation are a necessity. Pine timber swells and shrinks in response to moisture conditions. With increased moisture, the wood swells and with decreased moisture, the wood shrinks. Because pine timber is hygroscopic it can give off or absorb moisture according to ambient conditions. Construction pine timber should always be installed in a dry state and if possible at the moisture level expected at the building site location. This explains why it was important, among other things, for the wood used in the Norwegian sites to be sourced locally. Dry timber for construction is considered to have between a 9-18% wood moisture level. If the wood is dried too much fissures can form rendering the timber unusable. Boards of timber cut from timber logs can distort as they dry out due to the different moisture contents of the heartwood and sapwood.

steel edged iron blade

planed timber weatherboards

handles wooden body

7] To correct distortions in the timber due to the drying process, the boards were planed flat using wood planes. These were made from a steel edged iron blade for cutting enclosed in a wooden body. Certain wood planers were also used to create joints and decoractive motifs in the weatherboarding. painted with linseed oil based paint for protection

8] To protect the weatherboarding from adverse weather conditions, leading to potential rot and further distortions of the wood, the weatherboards were painted in a linseed oil based paint. Conclusions: The function and use of the building elements produced are inextricably linked to the qualities of the material used, to the location from where this material is extracted, and to the craftsmanship needed to refine the building elements. The sourcing of timber was both local and imported involving the skills of many different people. The notched logs and weatherboarding are a deep expression of the geographical and cultural context of their local. In the production of my own building elements, all these factors will be considered.

4. Contemporary Material Transformation Processes:

- Material Harvesting......................................................................................................................................56 - Precedent Studies...........................................................................................................................................68

Having learned of the communities and craftsmanship involved in vernacular material transformation processes, it is clear that the use of local material resources is central to cultural heritage values of both Newtown and the Norwegian outer ports. My intention in this chapter is to follow the same logic of using local material resources in an attempt to create an architecture that remains sensitive to local cultural heritage values whilst offering a progressive and relevant vision for the 21st century. Material harvesting will take place across the Norwegian sites as this is where my architectural intervention will be situated.

- Artefact 2.................................................................................................................................98

- Material Testing Mycelium Brick Prototypes..................................................................114

- Design of Mycelium Brick in Response to Test Results.................................................152 - Further Material Speculations in Response to Test Results..........................................154 - Seashells [process of forming lime plaster].......................................................................................................154 - Seaweed [process of forming seaweed thatch and screen]............................................................................156 - Plastic waste [process of forming weatherboarding]......................................................................................158

- Preliminary Design of Mycelium Brick Building Construction...................................161

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Harvesting Loshavn 1:2500

Plastic Waste

Seashell

Granite Bedrock

Mushroom

Kelp and Eelgrass Seaweed

Coniferous and Deciduous Trees [predominantly pine, spruce and oak]

mushroom

mber

plastic waste

ar y

Marc

Octob er

b Fe

mbe

size and number indicates relative ubiquity throughout the year

Septe

April

us t

Au g

y June

July

seashells

Janu

Dece

kelp and eelgrass

Conclusions: Seashells can be found predominantly on the shorelines. Mushrooms grow well but tend to flourish in the wooded areas away from the shoreline. Kelp and eelgrass forests grow voraciously in the shallow waters. Plastic waste can be found strewn all over the site, particularly caught in or surrounding boat paraphernalia.

Steinsopp Mushroom Oyster Mushroom

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Harvesting

mbe Dece

ar y

No ve m er Octob

Fåresopp Mushroom

h Marc

Blue Mussel

size and number indicates relative ubiquity throughout the year April

r mbe Septe

1:2500

Rødgul Piggsopp Mushrooom

Penny Bun Mushroom

r ua br Fe

be r

Merdø

Janu

us t

Au g

y June

Chanterelle Mushrooom

July

Plastic Waste Norwegian Kelp

Pacific Oyster

European Flat Oyster

Plastic Waste

Seashell

Granite Bedrock

Mushroom

Kelp and Eelgrass Seaweed

Coniferous and Deciduous Trees [predominantly pine, spruce and oak]

mushroom

kelp

seashells

plastic waste

Conclusions: Seashells can be found predominantly across beaches to the south. Mushrooms grow very well but tend to flourish in the wooded areas away from the shoreline. Kelp and eelgrass forests grow voraciously in the shallow waters and are collected on the southern shoreline. Plastic waste can be found strewn all over the site, particularly found near the built up areas to the north.

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Harvesting LyngĂ¸r 1:2500

mushroom

kelp

seashells

plastic waste

Plastic Waste

Seashell

Granite Bedrock

Mushroom

Kelp and Eelgrass Seaweed

Coniferous and Deciduous Trees [predominantly pine, spruce and oak]

mber

Janu

ar y

Marc

Octob er

y ar

b Fe

Dece

Septe

April

mbe

size and number indicates relative ubiquity throughout the year

us t

Au g

y June

July

Conclusions: Seashells can be found on the seabeds, especially to the west and across beaches to the south. Mushrooms grow in quantity and flourish in the wooded areas usually away from the shoreline. Kelp forests grow voraciously in the shallow waters. Plastic waste can be found strewn all over the site, particularly found caught in seaweed and near the built up areas to the north.

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Harvesting Materials common to all Norwegian sites

Mushrooms Across the Norwegian sites the growth of different types of mushrooms is abundant. The types of mushrooms seen growing include: Steinsopp [Boletus edulis], Kantarell [Cantharellus cibarius], Traktkantarell [Craterellus tubaeformis], Blek Piggsopp [Hydnum repandum], Rødgul Piggsopp [Hydnum rufescens], Skrubber [Leccinum], and Oyster [Pleurotus ostreatus] The term ‘mushroom’ is usually used to refer to the fruiting body of a fungus. Most fungi are made up of many fine, branching threads called hyphae which consist of elongated cells separated by porous cross cell walls. These protective cell walls provide mechanical strength to the entire organism. This network of hyphae specific to each fungus is called the mycelium. The growth process of the mycelium results in a sponge-like hard material with a high strength to weight ratio and is composed of chitin, glucans and protein. Mycelium is usually hidden from view due to their size and location usually deep within their food sources such as rotting matter in the soil, rotting wood and dead animals. The location of the mycelium is only made obvious when fruiting bodies (mushrooms), containing reproductive spores, develop. Due to the unique properties of mycelium, including the fact that it can be molded into any desired form, the building industry has recently demonstrated interest in the organism with its possible use as a construction material. Biological resources such as mycelium can lead to the production of sustainable and low-cost construction materials. Previous research into mushroom growth for the construction industry has indicated that both physical and mechanical properties of the material can be customised during the growth process. Examples exist where mycelium composites have been used to replace oil-based materials such as plastic, used to create packaging and furniture, and even used to create light-weight masonry structures. As a construction material mycelium has the potential to provide an inexpensive and 100% sustainable solution to the worries over the environmentally questionable use of materials such as concrete and plastic. Chracteristic of mycelium is that it also has a good shock absorbency and insulation potential. The current drawbacks of using mycelium as a building material are that there are currently limited manufacturing options and therefore limited availability as well as questions regarding its compressive strength.

Kelp and Eelgrass Seaweed

Seashells

Plastic Waste

In the shallow waters that surround the Norwegian sites rich kelp and eelgrass forests grow. These forests grow in abundance across the entire Skagerrak coast. Kelp, making up the Laminariales order, are a large brown algae seaweed that first appeared in the Miocene between 5 to 23 million years ago. In order to grow they require nutrient rich water of 6-14oC. They can grow incredibly fast, in some cases growing as much as half a metre a day reaching lengths of between 30-80 metres. Large kelp forests exist along the Norwegian coast covering about 5800km2 and serve vital ecological functions, supporting a vast array of animal life.

Since the Norwegian sites are all coastal, a diverse array of seashells wash up onto their shorelines. A seashell is a hard protective outer layer common to many animals that live in the sea. Once these animals have died the soft tissue decomposes or is eaten by other animals and the seashell is all that remains. Seashell is usually composed of calcium carbonate or chitin. The word seashell is most often used to refer to the shells of marine mollusks as these shells are normally composed of calcium carbonate which endures far longer than those composed of chitin. Marine mollusk shells that can be found on Merdo are largely from the bivalve marine species. There are more than 15,000 species of bivalve, those particular to Merdo include clams, scallops, mussels and oysters. As the name suggests, bivalve species are usually composed of two identical shells attached by a central hinge with the soft tissue of the animal supported between. The calcium carbonate shell is formed in layers and is secreted from the mantle.

As the Norwegian sites become a tourist destinations every summer with many hundreds of people enjoying their natural and historic characters, the volume of plastic waste is substantial. A vast amount of this plastic waste is PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate). PET provides good chemical resistance, is tough, has low friction and low water absorption. PET is also cheap, very easy to process, vastly versatile and recyclable. However PET is not readily biodegradable meaning that the majority of products made with the polymer, which have a very short consumable lifespan, exist in their consumable form for well over 450 years. This statistic becomes even more shocking when considering that these plastics are made from oils that take more than 65 million years to form.

Kelp has been traditionally burnt to create soda ash [sodium carbonate]. This ash can then be used in the production of soap and glass. The Alginate carbohydrate, derived from kelp, is often used as a thickner in foods, included in some dog foods, and used as a molding medium. Within horticulture kelp can be used as a natural fertilizer. As well as maintaining moisture in soil, kelp enriches soil with nutrients including nitrogen, potassium, phosphate, and magnesium. It has been speculated that large forests of kelp could be used as a source of renewable energy owing to their high sugar content that can be converted into ethanol and the fact that they do not require fresh water irrigation systems to grow. The eelgrass, a seagrass known scientifically as Zostera angustifolia, is found on the sandy substrates that surround the Norwegian sites. They have long, bright green, ribbon-like leaves, with a width of about 1 centimetre. Short stems grow up from white branching rhizomes. The flowers are enclosed in the sheaths of the leaf bases and the fruits are bladdery and buoyant. Zostera beds are important for sediment deposition, substrate stabilization, as substrate for epiphytic algae and micro-invertebrates, and as nursery grounds for many species of economically important fish and shellfish. Zostera has been used as packing material and as stuffing for mattresses and cushions. On the Danish island of Læsø it has been used for thatching roofs. Roofs of eelgrass are said to be heavy, but much longer-lasting and easier to thatch and maintain than roofs made with more conventional thatching materials.

Due to their strength and variety of shapes, seashells have often been used as tools throughout human history. Tools range from bowls, spoons and water receptacles to scrapers, blades, oil lamps, and even currency. Within architecture, seashells have been traditionally used in mosaics and inlays as decoration for walls and furniture. Because seashells are a good source of calcium carbonate, the shells are often used to improve soil conditions in horticulture. The shells are ground up to have the optimum effect of raising the pH level and increasing the calcium content of the soil. Owing to their calcium carbonate composition, seashells have the potential to be used as raw material in the production of lime. Seashell is being increasingly tested and used as an environmentally sustainable alternative aggregate for concrete manufacturing. Phoebe Quare, a recent graduate from Central Saint Martins in London has developed a new plaster-like material using ground up seashells. The shells are crushed into a poweder and combined with a natural binding agent to produce the new material. Quare has created a series of lamps with the material that honour the local traditions of Bare, Ireland, where the seashells are sourced from. With her novel material Quare hopes to offer alternative revenue streams for the local community, helping to regenerate diminishing economies through the use of locally sourced materials.

The majority of PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) production is for the synthetic fibres, bottle production alone accounts for 30% of the demand globally. The chemical structure of PET consists of polymerized units of the monomer ethylene terephthalate, with repeating C10H8O4 units. PET is commonly recycled having the number ‘1’ as its resin identification code (RIC). PET sheets can be thermoformed to make a vast array of items including packaging. In 2016 it was estimated that 56 million tons of PET was produced in that year alone. 480 billion plastic drink bottles were made that year with less than half being recycled. The primary uses for recycled PET are polyester fiber, strapping and non-food containers. There are three ways PET can be recycled: -Chemical -Chemical (with transesterification) -Mechanical (the most common) Owing to the Mechanical recyclability of PET and its highly versatile applicability countless new uses are being explored, many of which can be done along a DIY basis. The ‘Precious Plastic’ initiative demonstrates this new approach to plastics. They encourage people to re-use plastic waste through open source instructions on how to make a series of machines that work to convert the plastic waste into new usable products.

Conclusions: In order for my project to be applicable to all three Norwegian sites it was important to identify common materials I could use that occur across all the sites. The materials I identified were mushrooms, kelp and eelgrass, seashells, and PET plastics. Looking into the variety of seashells and mushrooms available might clarify my approach.

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Harvesting Seashells common to all Norwegian sites

Blue Mussel Shell [Mytilus edulis] - Light to dark blue spectrum colour - Bivalve hinge mechanism - <6cm long

Queen Scallop Shell [Aequipecten opercularis] - Thin, brittle and colourful [red/orange/pink/cream/white] - Bivalve hinge mechanism - <10cm in size

Pacific Oyster Shell [Crassostrea gigas]

- Native to the Pacific coast of Asia - Unintentioanly introduced to Scandinavia due to boat trade - Invasive and competing with indigenous European flat oyster - Threatening local micro-ecology - <10cm in size

European Flat Oyster Shell [Ostrea edulis] - Native to Europe - Oval/ pear shaped - Smooth white/yellow/cream colour on left valve - Rough blue concentric bands on right valve - <10cm in size

Conclusions: The range of seashells that can be harvested from and off the coast of the Norwegian sites is varied. Using the pacific oyster shell for some kind of building material might help cut down on the volume of these oysters that threaten the survival of the indigenous European flat oyster.

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Harvesting Mushrooms common to all Norwegian sites

Steinsopp [Boletus edulis]

- Edible - White tubes that become yellow with age - Brown cap with white rim - White network on the stem - Most commonly found growing with spruce or birch trees

Chanterellle [Cantharellus amethysteus] - Edible - Forked ridges on underside - Funnel shaped and egg yellow with violet tinge - Usually grows with hardwood trees

Rødgul Piggsopp [Hydnum rufescens] - Edible - Terracotta in colour - Underside densely covered with ‘soft teeth’ - Vary in size - Grow in groups and late in season

Fåresopp [Albatrellus ovinus]

- Thin layer of pores that turn green/yellow when scraped - Irregular domed cap - White to grey/brown colour - Short stem - Turn yellow when cooked

Penny Bun [Boletus edulis]

Chanterellle [Cantharellus cibarius] - Edible - Forked ridges on underside - Funnel shaped and egg yellow - Apricot odour

Gallerørsopp [Tylopilus felleus]

- Not poisonous but not suitable for food - Bitter taste - Rough brown network on stem - Tubes become pink with age

Oyster [Pleurotus ostreatus]

- Edible - Fan shaped cap - White/grey colour - Fast growing and hardy - White, firm flesh and gills - Spore print is white/lilac-grey - Bitter almond aroma [benzaldehyde] - Used in creation of mycleium bricks/furniture

- Edible - Large brown cap - White tubes extending down from cap, age to green/yellow - Stem is white with has raised network pattern [reticulations]

Conclusions: The range of mushrooms that grow in all three Norwegian sites is diverse. The oyster mushroom is of particular interest because it has been used to make building material, though usually for objects of a product design scale. I will explore these possibilities further.

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Precedent Studies

Pine timber structural frame grown into mycelium panel 1cm below surface - allows for attachment to load-bearing wall structure Pine timber structural frame mycelium wall panel

1:5

The Growing Pavilion As a response to the societal challenges of climate change the team behind ‘The Growing Pavilion’: Company New Heroes and the Dutch Design Foundation saw this as a call to demonstrate the possibilities of a more biobased circular economy. The pavilion was constructed in 2019 from a vast array of biobased materials including wood, hemp, cattail, cotton, and mycelium. The problems they see as limiting this approach to building is the wider recognition of the viability of using biobased materials in construction. In this way, the project’s aim, as well as demonstrating that building from biobased materials is possible, was to create a wider awareness of the materials and processes used in the hope that they might inspire more people to engage in a biobased future. As a precedent study for my own project ‘The Growing Pavilion’ provides inspiration as to their use of mycelium, one of the materials I have identified to use on Merdo. The mycelium they used was taken from the Ganoderma Mushroom, also known as Reishi. This species of mushroom is non-native to the Netherlands, where the pavilion was constructed, and instead can be found growing in Belgium and the United States. They sourced their mycelium from Krown.bio, a Dutch company that has established a sustainable circular relationship with the agricultural sector. They source the substrate for their mycelium matter from local farmers’ ‘residual flows’. ‘Residual flows’ are the products that are left over at the end of a growing cycle including branches and stumps. Calculations by Krown.bio show that for every ton of mycelium, two tons of CO2 is captured from the atmosphere by the organism. The mycelium elements that the pavilion used were specifically designed and grown to serve as non-loadbearing insulating wall panels. According to the team behind ‘The Growing Pavilion’, mycelium building products, like the ones used for the pavilion, can last for decades.

Load-bearing wall structure

Mycelium wall panel screwed to load-bearing wall structure

Non-load-bearing insulating mycelium wall panel with wooden structural frame inside

1:20

Conclusions: ‘The Growing Pavilion’ is evidence that mycelium used as a building material is possible and relevant in our efforts to deal with the climate crisis. Their mycelium is sourced from a non-native species of mushroom to their construction site which poses questions as to the environmental impact of introducing alien species to a existing micro-ecology. The developed mycelium panels where non-loadbearing, performing only as a source of insulation. Perhaps my project can try to develop a mycelium material that functions as both an insulation and structural component.

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Precedent Studies

Stack eﬀect - low pressure hot air drawn up and out of structure through roof openings - maintains cool environment

Mycelium bricks measure 457x229x101mm and weigh 450g Top courses made from plastic brick molds used to grow mycelium bricks.

Mycelium bricks are only capable of supporting themselves

Hy-Fi Designed by David Benjamin of the New York architecture firm ‘The Living’, ‘Hy-Fi’ acted as the 13 metre high centrepiece for MoMA’s Warm Up music festival in the summer of 2017. The project was devised as being the first large scale structure to use a mushroom brick technology as a development of a technique initiated by Ecovative in 2007. Around 10,000 bricks, measuring 457 x 229 x 101mm and weighing 450g each, were made and used for the construction. The bricks were tested for compression strength with a resulting strength of around 0.2N/mm2. The built bricks were composed of corn stalks as a substrate for the growth of the mycelium and were apparently grown in five days. The materials used to construct ‘Hy-Fi’ were entirely biodegradable except the plastic brick molds used to form the mycelium bricks. These plastic bricks were also used as a building material themselves with the top few courses of the structure being constructed with them. The plastic bricks reflected light back down into the interior space below. Since the temporary structure has been taken down all the materials have been composted. Using the stack effect, the cylindrical design of the form of the structure was conceived to allow a breeze to be drawn into the interior. This provided a cool, shaded environment, perfect for the structure’s function as a temporary summer pavilion. David Benjamin however does not believe that these bricks have a functional future in architecture. Instead he envisions them being used to help form a part of a building structure to help cut down on energy demands.

Low Pressure

Wooden structure providing additional support for mycelium bricks in wall openings -attached with steel screw mechanism

Stack eﬀect - high pressure cool air drawn into structure through wall openings - maintains cool environment

High Pressure

1:20 Conclusions: ‘Hi-Fi’ demonstrates the structural possibilities of using mycelium as a construction material well. The substrate and mycelium they used were non-native to New York, where the structure was erected which, even if the material used is biodegradable and sustainable, the possible transport emissions and energy costs of transporting the material raises other questions of the process’ sustainability. This pavilion used mycelium bricks to create a stable construction, this idea should be explored further in my project. The bricks here provided structure and shade but did not provide any insulating properties. The mycelium bricks are only used to support themselves and in this way are nonload-bearing. My project will try to develop a mycelium material that functions as both an insulation and structural component with the knowledge that it is unlikely that the bricks will be able to support external loads.

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes Vertical load

Precedent Studies

Load-bearing glued laminated timber frames - creosote coated for protection Horizontal load [wind]

Non-load-bearing enclosed space - constructed from 18mm plywood sheets Timber frames transfers vertical load from roof down to foundations

Allmannajuvet Zinc Mine Museum Designed by Atelier Peter Zumthor, the Zinc Mine Museum at Allmannajuvet was commissioned by the Norwegian road administration to be a rest area, museum and cafe. The site was part of a large zinc mine, operating between 1881 and 1899. At its most productive the mine employed 160 workers and formed a major part in the exportation of zinc from Norway. Costing £9.5 million, the aim of the project was to increase visitor numbers in the region by unearthing and illuminating the history of the old mine. Zumthor has said that, among other things, his aim with the project was to reference the day to day ‘drudgery’ that the miners experienced. Completed in 2016, the project now forms part of the Ryfylke National Tourist Route.

Cross-bracing for horizontal load support

The walls forming the interior spaces are all non-load bearing and consist of 18mm plywood sheets covered with jute burlap and then coated with an acrylic (PMMA) developed in Germany. These enclosed spaces are supported by glue-laminated pine timber frames. These negotiate the uneven mountainous terrain below using steel brackets attached to concrete piles that bury into the rock. The timber frame construction is cross braced and creosote coated for protection. The timber frames extends above the walls of the interior spaces to support monopitched roof structures. The roofs are constructed from the same timber as the frame and support corrugated zinc roof panels.

Steel brackets screwed to concrete base -concrete pile cast into rock

Zinc is used symbolically throughout the project. It is present as the roof cladding, as the facing of the doors, and is roughly forged to form the door handles. This use of the material was chosen to connect the zinc back to its geological and geographic origins as well as to remind visitors of the adaptability and beauty of the metal.

Reaction force upwards

Prefabrication played a key role in the construction of the buildings. Temporary tents were erected in Sauda, where the initial construction began. All the finished elements were finally transported by lorry and craned into position on site.

1:20 72

Conclusions: The Allmannajuvet Zinc Mine Museum demonstrates how a non-load bearing wall structure can be supported by timber framing which also supports a roof structure. The steel brackets used to attach the timber frames to the rock are reminiscent of the mechanisms found on Lyngør at the Lyngørstua. The fact that everything was prefabricated within temporary tent structures is a practical solution to building in unforgiving landscapes. That zinc is used both as a functional building material and as a symbolic gesture is elegant.

Wythe - continuosly vertical section of wall -one masonry unit thick

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Course - continuosly horizontal masonry units

Understanding Brick Construction Before developing the mycelium brick, a brief understanding of brick construction is necessary. Brick building is one of the earliest construction methods on earth, it has ancient origins. The qualities that have contributed to its long use include its simple design and manufacturing techniques, its cheap cost to produce and its use of local materials. Brick dimensions are governed by their ability to be easily carried in one hand.

Stack bond

Bricks are laid directly on top of one another with joins aligned running vertically down the entire wall. -very minimal bonding -bond is weak -structurally unsound unless wire bed-joint reinforcement used. -often used just for non-load-bearing decorative purposes.

Adobe brick - 70000 BC

- soil, clay, straw and water - packed into wooden molds - sun dried - wet mud for mortar - common throughout the world - simple design and manufacture - inexpensive - in dry climates extremely durable - high thermal mass - susceptible to earthquake damage

Roman brick - 700 BC

- clay - packed into wooden molds - molds include brick maker’s stamp - molds of varying shape - fired in kilns [often portable] - Roman concrete for mortar - perfected around 1 AD - brick as indicator of Roman presence - Romans introduced brick to Europe. - durable in most climates - susceptible to earthquake damage

Georgian stock brick - 1700 AD

Extruded brick - 1900 AD

- clay - pallet molded [in wood or metal mold] - slow dry for 7 days - shrink by 7% - fired in kiln, sometimes a ‘clamp’ - water, sand, cement/lime mortar - yellow bricks have a higher lime content - red bricks have a higher iron content - durable in most climates

- clay mixed with 10-20% water - forced through die creating long cable - cut into bricks with wall of wires - fired in kilns - water, sand, cement/lime mortar - durable in most climates - brick used for small-medium sized buildings

Stretcher bond

Bricks laid as stretchers with joins on each course centered above and below by half a brick. - not particularly strong - most common bond in UK - easiest to lay

Header - masonry unit laid across width of wall - short face parallel with face of wall - used to bond 2 wythes

Stretcher - masonry unit laid across length of wall - long face parallel with face of wall

Effect of load on unbonded and bonded walls: Vertical load

Header bond

Horizontal load

Similar to stretcher bond only bricks laid as headers. Courses of headers offset by half a brick above and below. - not particularly strong - mostly used for decorative purposes

English bond

Bricks laid in alternate courses of stretchers and headers. Joins in stretchers are centered on the headers in the course below. - One of the strongest bonds - requires more facing bricks than other bonds Facing Brick - brick exposed on external facade

Mortar - dries to bind monsonry units together - mixture of sand, cement or lime, and water

Unbonded wall

Vertical load Vertical load Flemish bond

Bricks laid with headers and stretchers alternating within each course. Headers of each course are centered on stretchers of the course below - strong bond - used for walls two-bricks thick

Spread of load in wall Buckling

Unbonded wall 74

Bonded wall

Dutch bond

Also the same as ‘English cross bond’. Bricks laid in alternate courses of stretchers and headers. Stretchers are centered on the joins of the strectchers 2 courses below. Headers are centered on joins of stretchers below. - strong bond - requires more facing bricks than other bonds

Conclusions: Brick bonds are fundamental in brick construction. Without bonds a wall cannot withstand vertical or horizontal loads well and in some cases can cause the wall to buckle. Different bonds change the strength of the wall construction and require differing amounts of bricks. Brick strength also relies on the brick’s ingredients and manufacturing method. Irregularities in bricks can weaken the structure. As mycelium bricks will be non-load-bearing, the stretcher bond is the most efficient bond to use as this uses the least bricks, is easiest to lay, yet still has some structural qualities.

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Mycelium Brick Processing Having been inspired by the potential of using mycelium as a building material, the following pages document the process of growing, testing, and developing a variety of different mycelium brick prototypes.

1]Remove the outer layer of a piece of corrugated cardboard revealing the corrugations. Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Mycelium Brick Processing

1 1 1 1 1

hr hr

The process of making a mycelium brick can be easily learned by unskilled home-owners and has several stages: - Germinating mushroom spores to create mycelium spawn - Developing mycelium substrates and inoculating this with the spawn - Developing a mycelium brick mold - Growing the mycelium (inoculated in the substrate) in the mold - Drying the grown mycelium bricks

2]Soak the piece of cardboard in hot water for one hour allowing the fibers to soften.

11 1

hr hr hr

Ammonia

Isopropyl

Clean

Isopropyl

hr hr

Ammonia

Clean

Isopropyl

Clean

3]Now wearing the sterile gloves, wipe down every working surface/tool with the ammonia solution and then with the isopropyl alcohol. Clean

Variable Control - In order to carry out valid tests the only variables that will differ across the sample bricks will be the substrate composites.

Ammonia

Isopropyl

Ammonia

Isopropyl

Ammonia

Isopropyl

Ammonia

Isopropyl

Ammonia

Isopropyl

Ammonia Ammonia

Isopropyl Isopropyl

Clean Clean Clean

Clean Clean

Germinating mushroom spores to create mycelium spawn

4]After an hour, still wearing the gloves, remove the cardboard from the water and squeeze excess water out so the cardboard is only damp.

This process is very straightforward and allows for a substrate to be inoculated with mycelium. Mushroom spores germinate into mycelium and when this mycelium is used to inoculate a substrate it is called spawn. I will be using an Oyster mushroom to create the mycelium spawn as this mushroom exists on the Norwegian sites and has been traditionally used for similar purposes due to its fast growing rate and hardiness.

1 1 5]While still wearing 1the gloves, use the sterile scalpel to carefully cut away the cap of the mushroom from the stalk and place the cap on the moistened cardboard bed. 1 1 day

What you will need: - Isopropyl alcohol - Ammonia solution [household ammonia cleaner] - Sterile gloves - Corrugated cardboard - Hot water - 1 Oyster mushroom - Sterile scalpel - 1 plastic zip-lock bag - Sterile scissors

day day

day

11 1

day day day

day day

Dark and Below 30˚C Dark and Below 30˚C

2 2

weeks

Dark and Below 30˚C weeks

6]Leave the mushroom on the bed for 1 day to allow the spores from the cap to fall on the cardboard bed. 2

Dark and Below 30˚C weeks

weeks Dark and Below 30˚C

weeks

Dark and Below 30˚C Dark and Below 30˚C Dark and Below 30˚C

Method: 1]Remove the outer layer of a piece of corrugated cardboard revealing the corrugations. The corrugations help contain the mushroom spores and supply a high surface area and textural platform beneficial for mycelium growth. 2]Soak the piece of cardboard in hot water for one hour allowing the fibers to soften. 3]Now wearing the sterile gloves, wipe down every working surface/tool with the ammonia solution and then with the isopropyl alcohol. 4]After an hour, still wearing the gloves, remove the cardboard from the water and squeeze excess water out so the cardboard is only damp. 5]While still wearing the gloves, use the sterile scalpel to carefully cut away the cap of the mushroom from the stalk and place the cap on the moistened cardboard bed. 6]Leave the mushroom on the bed for 1 day to allow the spores from the cap to fall on the cardboard bed.

2 2 2

weeks weeks

each week each

7]Wearing

week each week each theweek gloves, each week

weeks

Dark and and Below Below 30˚C 30˚C Dark

2 2

weeks weeks

remove the mushroom cap and incubate the spores on the cardboard for a period of about 2 weeks [depending on the mushroom species].

each each week each week week each each week week

8]Periodically [about once a week] open the zip-lock back to inspect for germination and to supply fresh air to aid the germination process.

7]Wearing the gloves, remove the mushroom cap and incubate the spores on the cardboard for a period of about 2 weeks [depending on the mushroom species]. Incubation should be done inside the plastic zip-lock bag and placed in a cool, dark place [prior to this the inside of the bag should be wiped with the isopropyl alocohol]. 8]Periodically [about once a week] open the zip-lock back to inspect for germination and to supply fresh air to aid the germination process. The cardboard should remain moist throughout so excess water should be supplied in the plastic zip-lock bag and topped up throughout the germination process. 9]Once germination is successful, through visible growth of mycelium colonies, transfer this colony on the cardboard to a larger soaked corrugated cardboard piece to allow for further growth until you have enough spawn to inoculate a substrate. Spawn refers to the mycelium and the cardboard as a whole as both become inseparable during the process. 10]Using the sterile scissors, cut the cardboard with the mycelium colony into small pieces creating a usable spawn.

9]Once germination is successful, through visible growth of mycelium colonies, transfer this colony on the cardboard to a larger soaked corrugated cardboard piece to allow for further growth until you have enough spawn to inoculate a substrate.

10]Using the sterile scissors, cut the cardboard with the mycelium colony into small pieces creating a usable spawn.

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Mycelium Brick Processing

Substrate Composite Tests

Developing mycelium substrates and inoculating this with the spawn A mycelium substrate is the material on which the mycelium grows and obtains its nourishment. Each species of mushroom reacts differently to different substrates. Some species are highly adaptive to a wide range of substrates such as Oyster and Hypholoma mushrooms.

Cellulose based materials:

In terms of creating a structural and thermal mycelium brick, using different substrates results in different mechanical qualities of the resulting brick. Mycelium substrates are typically composed of cellulose based materials such as straw, sawdust, cotton, wood, food waste and even hair. Research has suggested that substrates made from harder to digest substances such as hardwoods results in harder composites with higher compressive strength when compared to composites of easier to digest substances. In order to test the viability of growing mycelium bricks on Merdø I will be using locally sourced cellulose based materials to form the substrate. Furthermore, I would like to test whether other local materials, while perhaps not aiding the growth of mycelium, might, when added to the substrate, help improve the mechanical properties of the finished brick.

Oak Chippings [hardwood]

Pine Chippings [softwood]

Locally sourced materials: Cellulose based materials: - Oak chippings [hardwood] - Pine chippings [softwood]

Other materials:

Other materials: - 1-5mm Pacific Oyster Shell Chippings - <1mm Pacific Oyster Shell Chippings - 1-3mm Dried Norwegian Kelp Chippings 1-5mm Pacific Oyster Shell Chippings might aid mechanical properties of brick

What you will need: - Substrate materials - 2 large trugs - Water - Isopropyl alcohol - Ammonia solution [household ammonia cleaner] - Sterile gloves - Dust mask - Pressure cooker - Mycelium spawn - 2 mixing bowls - Cup and tablespoon measures - 1 draining colander - Plain flour - Grow bags [Type: Unicorn 14A, gussetted, polypropolene, filter patch pore size: 0.5 microns] - Plastic zip ties - Electronic measuring scales

<1mm Pacific Oyster Shell Chippings might aid mechanical properties of brick

1-3mm Dried Norwegian Kelp Chippings might aid mechanical properties of brick

Substrates Method: 1] Using the large trugs, soak the cellulose based materials in water for 24 hours. 2]Drain the majority of the water from the cellulose based material using the colander. 3]To make the substrate composites combine different quantities of the different substrate materials using the cup measures. 4]Mix 5 tablespoons of the plain flour into each substrate composite. This aids the growing process of the mycelium. 5]Pack each mixed substrate composite into separate grow bags. Do not seal the bags at this point. These bags can be sourced from Ann Miler’s Speciality Mushrooms Ltd [www.annforfungi.co.uk]. For each substrate composite bag: 6]Add 2 cups of water into the pressure cooker. Position pieces of aluminium foil in the pressure cooker such that when the grow bags are placed within, the bags do not directly touch the sides of the pressure cooker, touching the aluminium instead. Place the full grow bag into the pressure cooker. Roll down the sides of the grow bag open to allow optimum air circulation. 7]Close the lid of the pressure cooker and, with the settings on high/maximum, cook for 30 minutes. 8]Wearing sterile gloves, wipe down every working surface/tool with the ammonia solution and then with the isopropyl alcohol. 9]When the pressure cooker has finished the cooking cycle, wearing the sterile gloves and dust mask, open the pressure cooker lid and quickly remove the full grow bag and seal the bag using a plastic zip tie. Make sure that the bag is sealed above the filter patch to allow filtered air to enter the grow bag. 10]Label the grow bag with a marker pen. Allow the substrate composite grow bag to cool for 24 hours to below 35oc [a higher temperature will kill the mycelium spawn]. 11]After 24 hours, wearing sterile gloves and a dust mask, place the grow bag on the electronic mearuring scales, open and add the mycelium spawn [10% of the wet weight, measured using the electronic measuring scales] to the substrate composite. Break up any large lumps of the spawn and mix until everything is thoroughly combined. Re-seal the bags with a new plastic zip tie.

12]Place the grow bag in a cool, dark place where temperatures don’t exceed 30oC for a 10 day incubation period.

Brick Number

Oak

Pine

Oyster Shell [1-5mm]

Oyster Shell [<1mm]

Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

✓

oak - 6 cups

✓

pine - 6 cups

✓

oak - 6cups, oyster shell - 1 cup

✓

oak - 6 cups, oyster shell - 1 cup

✓

pine - 6 cups, oyster shell - 1 cup

✓

pine - 6 cups, oyster shell - 1 cup

✓

oak - 6 cups, kelp - 1 cup

✓

pine - 6 cups, kelp - 1 cup

✓

oak - 3 cups, pine - 3 cups, oyster shell - 1 cup

✓

oak - 3 cups, pine - 3 cups, oyster shell - 1 cup

✓

oak - 3 cups, pine - 3 cups, kelp - 1 cup

✓

oak - 6 cups, oyster shell - 1/2 cup, kelp - 1/2 cup

✓

pine - 6 cups, oyster shell - 1/2 cup, kelp - 1/2 cup

✓

oak - 3 cups, pine - 3 cups, oyster shell - 1/2 cup, kelp - 1/2 cup

Quantaties

Each brick will be mechanically tested for its: - mycelium growth - density - compressive strength - water absorption - thermal properties - flamability

Conclusions: The objective in testing the 14 different samples is to identify how the different composites perform mechanically to help determine the optimum mycelium brick composite. The results of the tests will inform the design decisions going forward. First the bricks need to be made and this process is what follows.

Maximum Pressure Maximum Pressure

30 30 Maximum Pressure Maximum Pressure 30 30 30 Maximum mins Pressure

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

mins

Mycelium Brick Processing

mins

Maximum Pressure

Developing mycelium substrates and inoculating this with the spawn

mins

7]Close the lid of the pressure cooker and, with the settings on high/maximum, cook for 30 minutes. 24

hrs

Clean Ammonia

1] Using the large trugs, soak the cellulose based materials in water for 24 hours. 24 24

hrs

Clean

Isopropyl

Ammonia

Clean Clean

Isopropyl

Ammonia

hrs

Clean

Isopropyl

8]Wearing sterile gloves, wipe down every working surface/tool with the ammonia solution and then with the isopropyl alcohol. Ammonia Ammonia

Isopropyl Isopropyl

Ammonia

Isopropyl

Clean

hrs

Quick Quick

2]Drain the majority of the water from the cellulose based material using the colander.

Quick Quick Quick

Quick

9]When the pressure cooker has finished the cooking cycle, wearing the sterile gloves and dust mask, open the pressure cooker lid and quickly remove the full grow bag and seal the bag using a plastic zip tie. Make sure that the bag is sealed above the filter patch to allow filtered air to enter the grow bag. 3]To make the substrate composites combine different quantities of the different substrate materials using the cup measures.

Cool to Below 35˚C Cool to Below 35˚C

24 24 CoolCool to Below 35˚C to Below 24 35˚C 24 24 hrs

Cool to Below 35˚C hrs

hrs

Cool to Below 35˚C

hrs

4]Mix 5 tablespoons of flour into each substrate composite. This aids the growing process of the mycelium.

10]Label the grow bag with a marker pen. Allow the substrate composite grow bag to cool for 24 hours to below 35oc. 10% of Wet Weight

10% of Wet Weight

10% ofQuick Wet Weight

Quick

10%10% of Wet Weight of Wet Weight

Quick

Quick Quick

10% of Wet Weight

Quick

5]Pack each mixed substrate composite into separate grow bags. Do not seal the bags at this point.

11]After 24 hours, wearing sterile gloves and a dust mask, place the grow bag on the electronic mearuring scales, open and add the mycelium spawn [10% of the wet weight, measured using the electronic measuring scales] to the substrate composite. Break up any Dark and Below 30˚C large Dark andlumps Below 30˚Cof the spawn and mix until everything is thoroughly combined. Re-seal the bags with a new plastic zip tie. 10 10 DarkDark and and Below 30˚C30˚C Below 10 10 10 days Dark and Below 30˚C days

days

Dark and Below 30˚C

days

Maximum Pressure

mins

Maximum Pressure

6]Add 2 cups of water into the pressure 30 cooker. Position pieces of aluminium foil in the pressure cooker such that when the grow Maximum Pressure bags are placed within, the bags do not directly touch the sides of the pressure cooker, touching the aluminium instead. Place the full grow bag into the pressure cooker. Roll 30 down the sides of the grow bag open to allow optimum air circulation.

12]Place the grow bag in a cool, dark place where temperatures don’t exceed 30oc for a 10 day incubation period.

mins

Maximum Pressure Maximum Pressure

30 30 mins

Maximum Pressure mins

mins

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Mycelium Brick Processing Condition of inoculated substrate after 10 day incubation in grow bags

Oak

Pine

Oak, Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Pine, Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Oak, Oyster Shell [1-5mm]

Oak, Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm]

Oak, Oyster Shell [<1mm]

Oak, Pine, Oyster Shell [<1mm]

Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm]

Oak, Pine, Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm], Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Pine, Oyster Shell [<1mm]

Oak, Oyster Shell [1-5mm], Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Oak, Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm], Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Transforming Local Material Resources into Building Construction Elements

Mycelium Brick Processing

Developing a mycelium brick mold

The thermoforming vacuum forming process

One of the advantages to using mycelium as a material is the fact that it can be formed into almost any shape. Translucent plastic molds are the most ideal choice of mold material because this allows you to easily create a stable sealed environment, to see the progress of the mycelium growth, and to easily remove the mycelium out of the mold at the end of the process. Using plastic as opposed to other materials such as wood allows the molds to be re-used for future use as long as the molds have been cleaned and sterilised.

Prepare translucent PETG plastic sheet

Heating element PETG plastic sheet

PETG plastic sheet

In order to begin making test molds I will be using similar dimensions of regular UK clay bricks. This size is space efficient, easily handled, and good for small scale tests. After the initial tests, further elaboration of mold shape and size will be developed with the knowledge gained from the first test samples. In order to efficiently manufacture many of the same molds for the test samples I will be using the plastic thermoforming process of vacuum forming. This process is very cost effective. In order to carry out the vacuum forming process, a positive mold needs to be made of the item to be formed in plastic. This mold should be made from a material resistant to heat and pressure, typically any type of wood can be used as a cheap mold for low volume production. Draft angles of at least 3o in the wooden mold are essential when thermoforming to allow easy removal of the wooden mold. Drafting angles are needed because when the plastic to be molded is heated it expands and then once molded and cooled it can shrink by up to 2%. Without a drafting angle of at least 3o can result in the wooden mold becoming stuck inside the plastic. Common plastics used for vacuum forming are PET and PETG, both are highly recyclable plastics. The glycol in PETG reduces brittleness and premature ageing often characteristic of PET plastic.

Insert PETG plastic sheet into clamp ring of vacuum former

Clamp ring Wooden male mold with 3Âş drafting angle Air sealed chamber

Lower heating element at 180Ë&#x161;C

Perforated platform

Wait for PETG plastic sheet to warp with heat - approx. 60 seconds

Heating element

PETG plastic sheet

Standard brick dimensions [mm]

Raise heating element

Raise perforated platform to PETG plastic sheet and suck air out of air sealed chamber

Heating element

Perforated platform

Using UK standard for initial mold tests

Lower perforated platform with male mold

Remove molded PETG plastic sheet and let cool - shrinkage approx. 1-3%

PETG plastic sheet

Wooden male mold

Perforated platform

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Mycelium Brick Processing Initial mycelium brick mold tests

Brick design

Brick mold

Vacuum form male positive lid - shop drawing of male positive 218

105

220

107

Diﬀicult to cut plastic precisely due to webbing so a border is left around lid

lid - shop drawing 221

108

223

110

1:10

lid - wooden male positive

Diﬀicult to cut plastic precisely due to plastic webbing

Plastic webbing

1:10

container - shop drawing 216

105

211

1:10

container - shop drawing of wooden male positive

215

Lid does not fit onto container because of plastic webbing

102

3˚

3˚ 208

1:10

lid and container

1:10

container - wooden male positive

brick - shop drawing 96

208

3˚

3˚ 215

102

1:10

Conclusions: The vacuum forming process works well with the 3˚drafting angle, allowing the wooden male positive to be removed easily after casting. The mold is hard to cut precisely and the lid does not fit the container due to the plastic webbing phenomenon that can occur while vacuum forming. A new brick mold design is needed.

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Mycelium Brick Processing Initial mycelium brick mold tests

Brick design

Brick mold design

Vacuum form male positive lid - shop drawing of male positive 212

100

210

Border allows lid to rest on container

lid - shop drawing 260 215

147 103

213

101

1:10

Border left on container allowing lid to rest on it

lid - wooden male positive

Easier to cut border precisely

1:10

container - shop drawing 260 220

147 107

211

1:10

container - shop drawing of wooden male positive

217

1:10

Lid locks into container and can be used to compress brick substrate

Mold works well despite plastic webbing

104

3˚

3˚ 208

lid and container

1:10

container - wooden male positive

brick - shop drawing 208

3˚ 215

3˚ 102

1:10

Conclusions: Brick mold design concept works well. The brick design itself needs some more work since the 3˚ drafting angle affects the stacking potential of the brick. The brick will therefore not be able to be used like an ordinary rectangular cuboid brick.

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Mycelium Brick Processing Development of mycelium brick design

Because the mycelium bricks will be most likely non-load-bearing [taking the ‘Hy-fi’ project as a reference, pages 70-71], and to reduce the number of molds and bricks needed, the stretcher bond will be used. At a later stage this will need to be reinforced so that roof structures, windows and doorways can be supported.

Standard cuboid brick shop drawing

stretcher bond wall construction

Spread of load test A 6kg rock was positioned on the brick stack to test the spread of load. A 5cm thick foam matt was positioned beneath the bricks. To test the spread of load the foam matt thickness was measured at the point where most deformation occured when the brick stack was under the load of the rock.

load

215

102

vertical distribution of load

This standard brick stack design will be used as the control to test whether increasing the drafting angle of the bricks increases the spread of load or not.

rea ct

ion

1:10

for ce

1:10 5.0cm 2.0cm

polystyrene maquette

polystyrene maquette of wall construction

Conclusions: 1:10

made at 1:2

5.0cm

The standard brick is a proven solution. However, with the necessity of having at least a 3˚ drafting angle for the vacuum forming process, this solution is not viable.

2.0cm

Brick with 3˚ drafting angle

5.0cm 2.2cm

shop drawing

stretcher bond wall construction

96 65

The 3˚ drafting angle improved the spread of load. Where the standard brick stack formed a deformation measurement of 2.0cm, this brick stack deformed the foam matt less with a measurement of 2.2cm. This is not a considerable difference but does verify the claim that the drafting angle on the bricks does improve the spread of load and thus the stability of the brick stack. Increasing the drafting angle more might spread the load more effectively still.

load

208

3˚

3˚ 103

215 3˚ drafting angle required for vacuum forming - horizontal and vertical load distribution - more stable than standard brick

rea ct

1:10

ion

for ce

Spread of load test

1:10 5.0cm 2.2cm

polystyrene maquette

polystyrene maquette of wall construction 5.0cm 2.4cm

Conclusions:

1:10

made at 1:2

Working with the 3˚ drafting angle is a good solution. The added benefit of incorporating the drafting angle is an increased spread of load due to the interlocking mechanism, aiding stability. Increasing the drafting angle might benefit the design further.

5.0cm 2.0cm

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

5.0cm

Mycelium Brick Processing

2.2cm

Development of mycelium brick design Spread of load test

Brick with 10˚ drafting angle shop drawing

stretcher bond wall construction

The 10˚ drafting angle of the bricks improved the spread of load further. This brick stack formed a deformation measurement in the foam matt of 2.4cm compared with the 2.2cm measurement of the last test. Compared with the standard brick stack where a 2.0cm measurement was made, it is now more evident that increasing the drafting of the bricks does increase the spread of load. To push this idea further, another drafting angle will be tested

load

192

10˚

10˚ 102

215

5.0cm 2.2cm

1:10

rea ct

ion

for ce

2 smallest cross-section surface area = 15360mm2 - 1:2.4 ratio between width and length of smallest cross-section

1:10 5.0cm 2.4cm

polystyrene maquette

polystyrene maquette of wall construction

Conclusions:

1:10

made at 1:2

2.4cm

Spread of load test

Brick with 20˚ drafting angle shop drawing

stretcher bond wall construction

Increasing the drafting angle to 20˚ was problematic. The smaller surface area created by the drafting angle caused the brick stack to be very unstable. Before there was time to take any measurements the brick stack collapsed.

load

168

55 20˚

102

5.0cm

20˚

215

1:10

polystyrene maquette

rea ct

ion

for ce

1:10

smallest cross-section surface area = 9240mm2 - 1:3 ratio between width and length of smallest cross-section - reduced surface area - less stable

polystyrene maquette of wall construction

1:10

The 10˚ drafting angle applied to the bricks improves both the distribution of load and the interlocking potential of the bricks. Both these factors aid the stability of the system as well as the 1:2.4 ratio between the width and length of the smallest crosssection. Increasing the drafting angle might further enhance these qualities.

Conclusions:

made at 1:2

The 20˚ drafting angle applied to the bricks decreases the surface area of the smallest cross-section of the bricks with a 1:3 ratio between width and length of the crosssection decreasing stability substantially. Increasing the drafting angle here had negative consequences in terms of stability. The 10˚ drafting angle worked the most effectively and will be used going forward. A ratio lower than 1:2.4 between width and length of the smallest cross-section will also be used to ensure stability. Since the bricks will most likely be non-loadbearing, a reinforcement system needs to be designed to allow the wall to support roof, window, and door structures. This will be tested next.

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Mycelium Brick Processing Development of mycelium brick design

Introducing incision cuts into the bricks might allow for a wooden frame system to be inserted. This would become the load-bearing element of the wall structure and support roof, window and door structures. The idea of using an external load-bearing wooden structure to support a nonload-bearing wall can be seen in the ‘Allmannajuvet Zinc Mine Museum’ project [pages 72-73].

Brick with 10˚ drafting angle and incision cuts

Vertical load

stretcher bond wall construction

arbitrary length of brick

10˚

102

2x-µ

vertical load-bearing wooden frame

192

10˚

arbitrary length

In order for the incision cuts to line up in the brick stack, I created a simple formula. The formula accounts for the drafting angle used in the vacuum forming process. x

shop drawing 80

arbitrary length

Incision cuts for wooden frame

215

1:10

polystyrene maquette

1:10

polystyrene maquette of wall construction

Conclusions:

Making incision cuts into the brick form allows for a load-bearing wooden reinforcement system to be inserted. From this wooden system, roof, window and door structures can be supported. As the bricks haven’t been made and tested yet it is too early to determine dimensions for the wooden system. However the dimensions of the bricks have not been taken into serious consideration yet.

Conclusions:

The larger dimensions of the brick offer easy transportability whilst reducing both the quantity of molds needed and the time needed to construct the wall. The increase in width might also improve the insulating potential of the brick. The incisions can be used for both the load-bearing structure and for possible cladding attachment. This brick design will be used as the basis for the mycelium brick tests. First through the making of Artefact 2, the building construction using this brick design will be developed in the knowledge that this will change as a result of the mycelium brick prototype tests.

Incision cuts for wooden frame

1:10

made at 1:2

Dimensioned brick with 10˚ drafting angle and incision cuts shop drawing 200

429

load-bearing wooden frame

stretcher bond wall construction 10˚

500

929

Vertical load Sizing of brick dimensions [approx. 1000x500x200mm] based on the potential of a person to carry one brick at a time. Maximum weight of each brick to be <25kg for health and safety. Increased width might improve insulation potential of brick.

10˚

1000

wooden battens for possible cladding attachment

Using diﬀerent thicknesses of wood for diﬀerent purposes - larger cross-section for load-bearing structure - smaller cross-section battens for possible cladding attachment [see battens used in Norwegian case studies, p. 34-35]

1:50

polystyrene maquette

polystyrene maquette of wall construction

1:50

1:10

made at 1:10

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Artefact 2 Shop drawing 1:5 The purpose of making artefact 2 is to project how the mycelium bricks might function as part of a building construction. For this artefact I used the mycelium bricks I developed as the primary thermal barrier of the wall. Because it is unlikely that the bricks will perform structurally, having looked at previous examples of mycelium constructions [pages 68-71], I have projected the use of a glued laminated timber frame as the primary loadbearing structure of the wall. Furthermore, on the presumption that the mycelium bricks will need protection from the harsh weather conditions present in Norway, I have projected the use of a plastic panelling system. These panels are inspired by the timber panels studied on Artefact 1. I am speculating that the plastic used could be recycled PET plastic found on the Norwegian sites. The artefact was made at a scale of 1:10, a manageable scale that allowed me demonstrate each building elementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s function without requiring the space and material quantities of making an artefact at 1:1.

2 3 4

6c 7c

7b 7a

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Dimensions

Shop drawing key

1:40

96.5

10.00ยบ

Artefact 2

10.00ยบ

3.5

89.4

42.9

22.5

41.5

22.5

Item Number

Part Type

Quantity

Material

Comments

2 7

Vertical Batten

GluLam Pine

Supporting Column

Glulam Pine

Horizontal Batten

Glulam Pine

Brick Bed

Glulam Pine

Cladding

Recycled PET

Cladding

Recycled PET

Cladding

Recycled PET

Cladding

Recycled PET

Cladding

Recycled PET

Cladding

Recycled PET

450

320

Mycelium

319

Brick

1.5

134.5

1.5

100

330

1.5

134.5

101

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Artefact 2 Photographs

Mycelium bricks - primary thermal barrier Glued laminated brick bed - compresses mycelium bricks into position - ensures a tight fit

Glued laminated timber columns - primary load-bearing structure - keep mycelium bricks in place

Glued laminated brick bed - secondary load bearing structure

102

103

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Artefact 2 Photographs

Mycelium bricks - primary thermal barrier - left exposed on interior

Glued laminated timber battens - inserted into mycelium brick - used for plastic panel attachment

Recycled PET plastic panelling - made from plastic waste found on site - weather protection for mycelium bricks

Interior glued laminated timber columns - primary load-bearing structure - keep mycelium bricks in place

Conclusions: As a projection of how the mycelium bricks might function as part of a wall construction, the model is quite useful. The inclusion of the recycled PET plastic for the paneling appears to work quite well as do the load-bearing glued laminated timber columns. However, the columns have not been properly sized and there is no bracing elements to help the wall construction withstand horizontal loads. The basic concept is good but the idea needs more development. After the mycelium bricks have been tested this will inform the next artefact iteration.

104

105

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Mycelium Brick Processing Final test mold design

The final test mold design is a direct result of the brick design development. The mold is designed to make a 1:5 version of the latest brick design. Making the mold at 1:1 would be spatially impractical whereas the scale chosen will still allow me to make appropriate tests when the bricks are made.

Brick design

Brick mold design

Vacuum form male positive

lid - shop drawing of male positive 200

100

197

Molded incisions allow lid to fit into container

lid - shop drawing 246 203

146 103

199

Incisions

1:10

lid - wooden male positive

Border left on container allowing lid to rest on it

Air holes to allow mycelium to breath

1:10

container - shop drawing 246 206

146 106

188

Incisions of male positive vacuum formed as required

1:10

container - shop drawing of wooden male positive Lid locks into container and can be used to compress brick substrate

203 186

103

10˚ 86

10˚

1:10

lid and container Molded incisions to form incisions in brick

Incisions

1:10

186

10˚

10˚ 200

NB: this will not be the final brick design but is functional for all the appropriate material tests.

container - wooden male positive

brick - shop drawing

100 10

1:10

106

1:10

Conclusions: The test brick mold is complete [note: this will most likely not be the final brick design but is functional for all the appropriate material tests].

107

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Mycelium Brick Processing

Dry

Growing the mycelium in the molds Isopropyl

Ammonia

After the 10 day incubation period the mycelium inoculated substrate composites should appear completely white as the mycelium has been allowed to colonise the substrate composite material. The inoculated substrate composites are now ready to be transfered to the plastic molds for forming.

Isopropyl

Ammonia Ammonia

Clean

Dry Dry

Dry

Clean

Isopropyl

Dry

What you will need:

Dry Clean 1]Wearing sterile gloves wipe down every working surface/tool and the plastic molds with the ammonia solution and then with the isopropyl Isopropyl Ammonia alcohol. Also spray to soak the laboratory filter papers with the isopropyl alcohol. Let everything dry.

Clean

- Isopropyl alcohol - Ammonia solution [household ammonia cleaner] - Sterile gloves - Dust mask - Inoculated substrate composites - Plastic molds - Plain flour - General purpose grade laboratory filter paper [1 sheet per mold] - Clear tape

Method: 1]Wearing sterile gloves wipe down every working surface/tool and the plastic molds with the ammonia solution and then with the isopropyl alcohol. Also spray to soak the laboratory filter papers with the isopropyl alcohol. Let everything dry.

Ammonia Ammonia

Isopropyl

Clean

Isopropyl

2]Wearing the sterile gloves, open the bag of inoculated substrate composite and crumple the contents. Break it apart until all the particles are loose [the white colour of the inoculated substrate composite will disappear]. Breaking the weak bonds that formed during the first incubation phase allows stronger bonds to form during the second and final incubation phase.

For each inoculated substrate composite: 2]Open the bag of inoculated substrate composite and crumple the contents. Break it apart until all the particles are loose [the white colour of the inoculated substrate composite will disappear]. Breaking the weak bonds that formed during the first incubation phase allows stronger bonds to form during the second and final incubation phase. 3]Add 3 tablespoons of the plain flour to the material and throughly mix by hand. This flour supplies extra food for the mycelium and is needed due to the stress of being broken up.

3]Add 3 tablespoons of the plain flour to the material and, wearing the sterile gloves, throughly mix by hand. This flour supplies extra food for the mycelium and is needed due to the stress of being broken up.

4]Pack the sterilised plastic mold by gently pressing the inoculated substrate composite into the molds and put the lid on the mold. 5] Using the clear tape, seal the plastic mold’s edges. 6]Place the contained mold in a cool, dark place where temperatures don’t exceed 30oc for another 10 day incubation period. 4]Pack the sterilised plastic mold by gently pressing the inoculated substrate composite into the molds using the lid to apply a light pressure.

Dark and Below 30˚C

days

Dark and Below 30˚C Dark and Below 30˚C

days

5] Place a10 sheet of laboratory filter paper on the lid making sure the paper covers the whole lid. The filter paper is acting as an air filter to prevent unwanted substances entering the mold. Using the clear tape, seal the plastic mold’s edges, fixing the filter paper simultaneously. days

Dark and Below 30˚C

days

Dark and Below 30˚C Dark and Below 30˚C

10 10

days

6]Place the contained mold in a cool, dark place where temperatures don’t exceed 30oC for a further 10 day incubation period.

108

109

110

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Mycelium Brick Processing

Condition of inoculated substrate before 10 day incubation in molds

Condition of inoculated substrate after 10 day incubation in molds

Oak

Pine

Oak

Pine

Oak, Oyster Shell [1-5mm]

Oak, Oyster Shell [<1mm]

Oak, Oyster Shell [1-5mm]

Oak, Oyster Shell [<1mm]

Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm]

Pine, Oyster Shell [<1mm]

Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm]

Pine, Oyster Shell [<1mm]

Oak, Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Pine, Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Oak, Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Pine, Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Oak, Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm]

Oak, Pine, Oyster Shell [<1mm]

Oak, Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm]

Oak, Pine, Oyster Shell [<1mm]

Oak, Pine, Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Oak, Oyster Shell [1-5mm], Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Oak, Pine, Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Oak, Oyster Shell [1-5mm], Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm], Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Oak, Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm], Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm], Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Oak, Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm], Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

111

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Mycelium Brick Processing

Drying the grown mycelium bricks

Mycelium brick prototypes ready to test

After the second incubation phase of 10days, the mycelium bricks are ready to be dried.

You will need: - Inoculated substrate composites contained in plastic molds - Wooden rack - Oven preheated to 95oc

Method: 1]Carefully remove the inoculated substrate composites [bricks] from the molds making sure not to damage their molded brick forms.

Oak

Pine

Oak, Oyster Shell [1-5mm]

Oak, Oyster Shell [<1mm]

Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm]

Pine, Oyster Shell [<1mm]

Oak, Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Pine, Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Oak, Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm]

Oak, Pine, Oyster Shell [<1mm]

Oak, Pine, Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Oak, Oyster Shell [1-5mm], Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm], Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

Oak, Pine, Oyster Shell [1-5mm], Dried Kelp [1-3mm]

2]Place the bricks in a well ventilated area on a wooden rack to allow good air circulation. Allow to dry for 1-2 days. 3]Once dry, place each brick in the oven for 30 minutes at 95oc and after allow to cool. This process stops the growth of the mycelium by desiccating it. 4]The mycelium bricks are now made and ready for use.

1]Carefully remove the inoculated substrate composites [bricks] from the molds making sure not to damage their molded brick forms. 1-2 1-2

days days

1-2

days

1-2

days

2]Place the bricks in a well ventilated area on a wooden rack to allow good air circulation. Allow to dry for 1-2 days.

Oven set to 95˚C Oven set to 95˚C

30 30

Oven set to 95˚C Oven set tomins 95˚C mins

30 30 mins

mins

3]Once dry, place each brick in the oven for 30 minutes at 95oc and after allow to cool. This process stops the growth of the mycelium by desiccating it.

4]The mycelium bricks are now made and ready for use.

112

113

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength cont.

Compressive Strength

Purpose of test:

7]The force of one brick at 1:1 will then be calculated using the formula:

To determine how well the mycelium grows in each substrate composite. Through this, the aim of the test is to help refine the design of the brick.

To determine the density of the mycelium brick prototypes and therefore calculate the expected mass of the bricks at 1:1. This mass should aim to be <25kg for carrying safety reasons [on earth]. Through this, the aim of the test is to help refine the design of the brick.

To determine the compressive strength [N/mm2 or MPa] of the mycelium brick prototypes.

F = ma

Why is this important?

Although the mycelium bricks are unlikely to be load-bearing, they still need to be able support their own weight [self-weight] in a wall construction in order to be used as a viable building element.

8]The maximum number of bricks an individual of that same brick type can carry before failure will be calculated. This is done by the following calculation:

Why is this important? Since the mycelium is acting as the binding agent for all the substrates, the growth of the mycleium will affect all the mechnical properties of the brick prototypes. Dimensional regularity is essential in ensuring structural stability in a brick wall construction. Mycelium growth will affect the moldability of the substrate composite to fit the form of the brick mold, largely influencing the dimensional regularity of the bricks. With poor moldability dimensional regularity cannot be guaranteed and hence nor can the structural stability of the brick wall construction.

Poor Moldability

Good Moldability load

The density of a substance is its mass per unit of vloume and can be used as a comparative measure. From this calculation it is possible to scale up the dimensions of an object and work out the new expected mass of that object. As the dimensions of my brick prototypes are made to a 1:5 scale, the density measurement allows me to calculate the expected mass of the bricks at 1:1. Density is important to take into consideration when designing bricks that have to be carried and assembled into a wall construction by an individual. If the density is too high the mass per brick might exceed the recommended safe carrying mass for an idividual of <25kg [on earth].

How will this be tested? The compressive strength of a material is the value of unaxial compressive stress reached when the material fails. A material fails at the point when the material begins to break, being unable to return to its original shape when the load is removed. Before this point there is a linear region where the material follows Hooke’s law and behaves elastically.

where m is taken from the mass[kg] at 1:1 of one brick, as calculated in the density column.

(maximum force each brick at 1:1 can withstand)/(force of one brick at 1:1) The same test [parts 1 to 5] will be carried out on the water-submerged bricks from the water absorption test to see how water absorption alters the compression strength of the bricks. The higher the compression strength value, the more suited the brick is for use as a building element. This will help refine the design of the brick.

To calculate the compressive strength of a material the following formula is used:

load

ơ = F/A

stable even distribution of load

maximum mass of brick <25kg

unstable uneven distribution of load

[on earth] 25kg = 245.17N

How will this be tested? Sizing of brick dimensions [approx. 1000x500x200mm] based on the potential of a person to carry one brick at a time. Maximum mass of each brick to be <25kg for carrying health and safety [on earth].

1] Each mycelium brick will be closely observed for success and distribution of mycelium growth. The form of each brick will also be compared to the form of the brick mold used.

where ơ is the compressive strength, F is the load applied at the point of failure[N], and A is the area of the cross-section of the material at the start of the experiment[mm2].

Compression test machines capable of exerting compression forces of up to 100kN are used to test compressive strength. Compression strength is measured in N/mm2 or MPa [both units of measurement are equal]. As I do not have the resources needed to properly determine the compressive strength I will attempt to understand the compressive strength of the mycelium brick prototypes by making my own low-tech compression test machine:

As recommended by: www.beckettandco.co.uk/manual-handling-faq-weight/

wooden beam

2] A mycelium growth rating from 1 to 10 will be given to act as an easy comparative measure. [1 = extremely good, 10 = extremely poor ]

How will this be tested?

The higher the rating given, the better the growth of the mycelium observed. This will help refine the design of the brick.

Density can be calculated with the following formula:

1] Each brick will be measured for its mass[g] and volume[cm3] to determine the density of each brick material.

p = m/V

where p is the density[g/cm3], m is the mass[g], and V is the volume[cm3].

steel pin fixings wooden plate [spreads load]

steel frame columns steel frame columns under tensile stress wooden plate [spreads load]

bottle jack

1/2 mycelium brick

wooden resting plate

electronic scales

wooden beam

2] The density in g/cm3 will then be converted to kg/m3 by multiplying the value by 1000 and the mass[kg] of the brick for dimensions at 1:1 will be claculated by re-arranging the density formula:

1] Each brick will be measured for its approximate cross-sectional area[mm2]. [NB: the bricks will be cut in half, the other half will be used to test flamability]

m = pxV

2] Each half brick will be loaded into the machine and the hydraulic bottle jack will be pumped increasing the load on the brick.

where V = 0.08m for 1:1 mycelium brick 3

The same test will then be calculated for the water-submerged bricks from the water absorption test to see how water absorption alters the density of the bricks. The lower the mass of the brick at 1:1, the safer the brick will be to carry and assemble into a wall construction. If the mass is >25kg adjustments will need to be made in the brick dimesions to reduce the mass. This will help refine the design of the brick.

3] At the point when the brick fails [when it begins to break] a recording of the mass[kg] measured on the electric scales will be taken. 4] The mass[kg] measured will then be converted to force in Newtons using the following formula: F = ma

where F is the force[N], m is the mass[kg], and a is the acceleration[m/s2] [on earth a = 9.81m/s2].

5] Following the formula: ơ = F/A, the compression strength will be recorded. 6] By re-arranging the formula to ơ = F/A, the maximum force[N] each mycelium brick at 1:1 can withstand before failure will be claculated. F=ơxA

114

where A = 379727mm2 [approximate cross-sectional area of brick at 1:1]

115

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

Flamability

Purpose of test:

To determine the water absorbancy percentage by mass of the mycelium brick prototypes. This is to better understand how the bricks might perform under wet conditions. Through this, the aim of the test is to help refine the design of the brick.

To determine the relative thermal conductivity of each mycelium brick prototype in order to suggest which brick is most insulating and speculate why this might be and how this might be improved. Through this, the aim of the test is to help refine the design of the brick.

To determine the relative flamability of the mycelium brick prototypes.

Why is this important?

The average rainfall in days throughout the year across the three Norwegian sites is as follows:

That the mycelium brick prototypes should have substantial thermal properties is undeniable. The average temperature ranges throughout the year across the three Norwegian sites are as follows:

Loshavn - 147 days Merdø - 104 days Lyngør - 100 days Due to the substantial chance of rain across all the Norwegian sites it is important to test the mycelium brick prototypes for their water absorbancy. Water absorbancy of a material can affect many of the properties of that material including the density and compressive strength. Because of this the water absorbancy of a material can be a key factor in determining the structural stability of a building material. How will this be tested?

Loshavn - lowest = 0˚[Jan], highest = 17˚ [Aug] Merdø - lowest = -2˚ [Feb], higest = 19˚ [Jul/Aug] Lyngør - lowest = -2˚ [Feb], highest = 20˚ [Jul]

Why is this important? Flamability tests are extremely important in preventing the potential for fires occuring in a building. The affect of heat and fire can drastically reduce the structural stability and safety of a building. It is important to reduce the potential for fires occuring and spreading by using materials that reduce these chances. How will this be tested?

These substantial temperature ranges dictate that the mycelium bricks should perform well as insulating material. The lower the thermal conductivity the better insulator the material is. Rock wool, now commonly used for wall insulation across the three Norwegian sites, has a thermal conductivity of 0.044 W/mK [watts per metre-kelvin] so the bricks should aim to have a similar thermal conductivity as this.

mins

mycelium brick

burn time recorded [mins] mycelium brick burning

steel tripod

How will this be tested?

mycelium brick

The thermal conductivity of a material can be obtained by using the following formula derived from Fourier’s law of thermal conduction:

water at room temperature [20˚C]

K = (QL)/(A∆T) scales

mass measurement [m1]

brick submerged in water

mass measurement [m2]

where K is the thermal conductivity[W/mK], Q is the amount of heat transferred through the material [W], L is the distance between the two isothermal planes[m], A is the surface area[m2], and ∆T is the difference in temperature[K].

hrs

1] Each brick will be measured for its mass[g] in its dry state [m1]. 2] Each brick will then be submerged in water at room temperature [20˚c] for 24hrs. 3] After 24hrs each brick will be removed from the water and measured for its mass a second time [m2]. 4] The water absorbancy percentage by mass per brick will then be claculated using the following formula: Water absorbancy percentage by mass = ((m2-m1)/m1)100

As I do not have the resources needed to work out the thermal conductivity of the bricks using the above formula, I will be conducting a much simpler experiment:

1] Each brick will be placed above a flame source for 10 minutes. 2] After 10 minutes the flame will be removed and the length of time the brick continues to burn for is recorded and used as a comparative measure. The shorter the burning time, the more flame resistant. This will help refine the design of the brick.

mycelium brick

wooden stand

laser temp. reading [t1]

laser temp. reading [t2]

mins

heat source [tealights]

6] The density of the water-submerged bricks will be claculated to compare with the density of the bricks as they were in a dry state.

1] Using a digital laser infrared thermometer, a temperature measurement[t1] will be taken on one side of each brick.

7] The compressive strength of the water-submerged bricks will be calculated to compare with the compressive strength of the bricks as they were in a dry state.

2] Each brick will be heated on the opposite face for 10 minutes.

The test will provide information on what the water absorption percentage by mass is for each mycelium brick prototype. The bricks will then be tested for compression strength and density to see how water absorbency affects the mechanical properties of each brick. This will help refine the design of the brick.

flame source

3] After the 10 minute time period, a second temperature measurement[t2] will be taken on the same side of each brick as before. 4] To allow comparability across the brick prototypes the temperature difference will then be claculated as a percentage change in temperature using the following formula: percentage change in temperature = ((t2 - t1)/t1)100 The lower the percentage change, the more thermally insulating the brick is. This will help refine the design of the brick.

116

117

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Compression test machine shop drawing and photographs 1:10 [measurements in mm]

8mm diameter steel pin

steel angle post

474

bottle jack

plywood surface

electronic scales pine timber beam

mycelium brick

118

pine timber support

119

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 1 [oak control test]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 157.00/676.45 p = 0.2321g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 157g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 15.1˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.2321x1000 = 232.10kg/m3] m = 232.10 x 0.08 m = 18.57kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 347.00/676.45 p = 0.5130g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.5130x1000 = 513.00kg/m3] m = 513.00 x 0.08 m = 41.04kg 3] % change in density: = 121%

- Mycelium growth is extensive - Even distribution of mycelium - Removed from mold very easily - Corners are well articulated - Incision cuts are articulated - Surface finishes have moderate irregularities in uniformity - Reasonably flat surfaces Mycelium growth rating: 7

3] Mass at breaking point: = 146kg

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 19.5˚C

4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 146 x 9.81 F = 1432N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 1432/7594 ơ = 0.18 N/mm2

4] % change in temperature: = 29.1 %

3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 347g

6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.18 x 379726 F = 68350N

4] Water absorbency percentage: = 121%

7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 18.57 x 9.81 F = 183N

7] [see compressive strength column]

8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 68350/183 = 373 bricks

6] [see density column]

2] Burning time: = 0:58 minutes

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Brick 1 [oak] Mycelium Growth

rating = 7

Density

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = wet brick = mass at 1:1 = 3] Mass at breaking point: = 133kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 133 x 9.81 F = 1304N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 1304/7594 ơ = 0.17N/mm2

0.23g/cm3 18.57kg 0.51g/cm3 41.57kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.18N/mm2 wet brick = 0.17N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 373 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 121%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 29.1%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 0:58

120

121

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 2 [pine control test]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 83.00/676.45 p = 0.1227g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 83g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 14.5˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.1227x1000 = 122.70kg/m3] m = 122.70 x 0.08 m = 9.82kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 236.00/676.45 p = 0.3489g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.3489x1000 = 348.90kg/m3] m = 348.90 x 0.08 m = 27.92kg 3] % change in density: = 184%

- Mycelium growth is very extensive - Even distribution of mycelium - Removed from mold very easily - Corners are well articulated - Incision cuts are well articulated - Surface finishes have minor irregularities in uniformity - Reasonably flat surfaces

Mycelium growth rating: 8

3] Mass at breaking point: = 86kg

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 19.7˚C

4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 86 x 9.81 F = 843N 5] Compressive strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 843/7594 ơ = 0.11N/mm2

4] % change in temperature: = 35.9 %

3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 236g

6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.11 x 379726 F = 41769N

4] Water absorbency %: = 184%

7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 9.82 x 9.81 F = 97N

7] [see compressive strength column]

8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 41769/97 = 430 bricks

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

6] [see density column]

2] Burning time: = 1:29 minutes

Brick 2 [pine] Mycelium Growth

rating = 8

Density

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = wet brick = mass at 1:1 = 3] Mass at breaking point: = 81kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 81 x 9.81 F = 794N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 794/7594 ơ = 0.10N/mm2

0.12g/cm3 9.82kg 0.35g/cm3 27.92kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.11N/mm2 wet brick = 0.10N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 430 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 184%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 35.9%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 1:29

122

123

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 3 [oak, oyster shell 1-5mm]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 221.00/676.45 p = 0.3267g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 221g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 15.2˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.3267x1000 = 326.70kg/m3] m = 326.70 x 0.08 m = 26.14kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 398.00/676.45 p = 0.5884g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.5884x1000 = 588.40kg/m3] m = 588.40 x 0.08 m = 47.08kg 3] % change in density: = 80%

- Mycelium growth is quite poor - Uneven and sparse distribution of mycelium - Removed from mold with slight difficulty [superficial damage] - Corners are articulated - Incision cuts are articulated - Surface finishes have considerable irregularities in uniformity - Moderately flat surfaces

3] Mass at breaking point: = 68kg

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 18.8˚C

4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 68 x 9.81 F = 667N 5] ơ = F/A ơ = 667/7594 ơ = 0.08N/mm2 6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.08 x 379726 F = 30388N 7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 26.14 x 9.81 F = 257N 8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 30388/257 = 118 bricks

4] % change in temperature: = 23.7%

3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 398g 4] Water absorbency %: = 80% 6] [see density column] 7] [see compressive strength column]

2] Burning time: = 0:46 minutes

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Brick 3 [oak, oyster shell 1-5mm] Mycelium Growth

rating = 4

Density

Mycelium growth rating: 4

3] Mass at breaking point: = 62kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 62 x 9.81 F = 608N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 608/7594 ơ = 0.08N/mm2

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = wet brick = mass at 1:1 =

0.33g/cm3 26.14kg 0.58g/cm3 47.08kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.08N/mm2 wet brick = 0.08N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 118 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 80%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 23.7%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 0:46

124

125

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 4 [oak, oyster shell <1mm]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 211.00/676.45 p = 0.3120g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 211g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 14.7˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.3120x1000 = 312.00kg/m3] m = 312.00 x 0.08 m = 24.96kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 416.00/676.45 p = 0.6150g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.6150x1000 = 615.00kg/m3] m = 615.00 x 0.08 m = 49.20kg 3] % change in density: = 97%

3] Mass at breaking point: = 53kg

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 20.1˚C

4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 53 x 9.81 F = 519N 5] Compressive strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 519/7594 ơ = 0.06N/mm2

4] % change in temperature: = 36.7% 3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 416g

6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.06 x 379726 F = 22783N

4] Water absorbenct %: = 97%

7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 24.96 x 9.81 F = 245N

7] [see compressive strength column]

8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 26580/245 = 108 bricks

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

6] [see density column]

2] Burning time: = 0:38 minutes

Brick 4 [oak, oyster shell <1mm] Mycelium Growth

rating = 4

Density

Mycelium growth rating: 4

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = wet brick = mass at 1:1 = 3] Mass at breaking point: = 50kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 50 x 9.81 F = 490N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 490/7594 ơ = 0.06N/mm2

0.32g/cm3 24.96kg 0.62g/cm3 49.20kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.06N/mm2 wet brick = 0.06N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 108 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 97%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 36.7%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 0:38

126

127

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 5 [pine, oyster shell 1-5mm]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 153.00/676.45 p = 0.2262g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 153g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 14.2˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.2262x1000 = 226.20kg/m3] m = 226.20 x 0.08 m = 18.10kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 272.00/676.45 p = 0.4021g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.4021x1000 = 402.10kg/m3] m = 402.10 x 0.08 m = 32.17kg 3] % change in density: = 77%

- Mycelium growth is moderate - Even distribution of mycelium - Removed from mold easily - Corners are well articulated - Incision cuts are articulated - Surface finishes large irregularities in uniformity - Moderately flat surfaces

Mycelium growth rating: 5

3] Mass at breaking point: = 72kg

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 19.7˚C

4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 72 x 9.81 F = 706N 5] Compressive strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 706/7594 ơ = 0.09N/mm2

4] % change in temperature: = 38.73%

3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 272g

6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.09 x 379726 F = 34175N

4] Water absorbency %: = 77%

7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 18.10 x 9.81 F = 178N

7] [see compressive strength column]

8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 34175/178 = 191 bricks

6] [see density column]

2] Burning time: = 1:12 minutes

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Brick 5 [pine, oyster shell 1-5mm] Mycelium Growth

rating = 5

Density

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = wet brick = mass at 1:1 = 3] Mass at breaking point: = 64kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 64 x 9.81 F = 627N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 627/7594 ơ = 0.08N/mm2

0.23g/cm3 18.10kg 0.41g/cm3 32.17kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.09N/mm2 wet brick = 0.09N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 191 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 77%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 38.73%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 1:12

128

129

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 6 [pine, oyster shell <1mm]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 152.00/676.45 p = 0.2247g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 152g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 13.4˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.2247x1000 = 224.70kg/m3] m = 224.70 x 0.08 m = 17.97kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 298.00/676.45 p = 0.4406g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.4406x1000 = 440.60kg/m3] m = 440.60 x 0.08 m = 35.25kg 3] % change in density: = 96%

- Mycelium growth is moderate - Somewhat even distribution of mycelium - Removed from mold easily - Corners are well articulated - Incision cuts are articulated - Surface finishes have irregularities in uniformity - Moderately flat surfaces

Mycelium growth rating: 6

3] Mass at breaking point: = 64kg

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 20.8˚C

4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 64 x 9.81 F = 627N 5] Compressive strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 627/7594 ơ = 0.08N/mm2

4] % change in temperature: = 55.2%

3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 298g

6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.08 x 379726 F = 30378N

4] Water absorbency %: = 96%

7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 17.97 x 9.81 F = 176N

7] [see compressive strength column]

8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 30378/176 = 172 bricks

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

6] [see density column]

2] Burning time: = 1:12 minutes

Brick 6 [pine, oyster shell <1mm] Mycelium Growth

rating = 6

Density

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = wet brick = mass at 1:1 = 3] Mass at breaking point: = 58kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 58 x 9.81 F = 568N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 568/7594 ơ = 0.07N/mm2

0.23g/cm3 17.97kg 0.45g/cm3 35.25kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.08N/mm2 wet brick = 0.07N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 172 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 96%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 55.2%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 1:12

130

131

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 7 [oak, dried kelp 1-3mm]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 125.00/676.45 p = 0.1848g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 125g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 13.6˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.1848x1000 = 184.80kg/m3] m = 184.80 x 0.08 m = 14.79kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 288.00/676.45 p = 0.4258g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.4258x1000 = 425.80kg/m3] m = 425.80 x 0.08 m = 34.07kg 3] % change in density: = 130%

- Mycelium growth is poor - Sparse and uneven distribution of mycelium - Removed from mold with some difficulty [superficial damage] - Corners are articulated - Incision cuts articulated - Surface finishes have considerable irregularities in uniformity - Moderately flat surfaces

3] Mass at breaking point: = 24kg

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 18.8˚C

4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 24 x 9.81 F = 235N 5] Compressive strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 235/7594 ơ = 0.03N/mm2

4] % change in temperature: = 38.2%

3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 288g

6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.03 x 379726 F = 11391N

4] Water absorbency %: = 130%

7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 14.79 x 9.81 F = 146N

7] [see compressive strength column]

8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 11391/146 = 78 bricks

6] [see density column]

2] Burning time: = 2:17 minutes

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Mycelium growth rating: 4

Brick 7 [oak, dried kelp 1-3mm] Mycelium Growth

rating = 4

Density

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = wet brick = mass at 1:1 = 3] Mass at breaking point: = 22kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 22 x 9.81 F = 215N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 215/7594 ơ = 0.02N/mm2

0.19g/cm3 14.79kg 0.43g/cm3 34.07kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.03N/mm2 wet brick = 0.02N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 78 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 130%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 38.2%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 2.17

132

133

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 8 [pine, dried kelp 1-3mm]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 87.00/676.45 p = 0.1287g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 87g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 15.6˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.1287x1000 = 128.70kg/m3] m = 128.70 x 0.08 m = 10.30kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 215.00/676.45 p = 0.3179g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.3179x1000 = 317.90kg/m3] m = 317.90 x 0.08 m = 25.44kg 3] % change in density: = 147%

- Mycelium growth is very poor - Very sparse and uneven distribution of mycelium - Removed from mold with some difficulty [superficial damage] - Corners not well articulated - Incision cuts articulated poorly - Surface finishes have serious irregularities in uniformity - Surfaces are not flat

Mycelium growth rating: 3

3] Mass at breaking point: = 45kg

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 21.6˚C

4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 45 x 9.81 F = 441N 5] Compressive strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 441/7594 ơ = 0.05N/mm2

4] % change in temperature: = 38.5%

3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 215g

6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.05 x 379726 F = 18986N

4] Water absorbency %: = 147%

7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 10.30 x 9.81 F = 102N

7] [see compressive strength column]

8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 18986/102 = 186 bricks

6] [see density column]

2] Burning time: = 2:43 minutes

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Brick 8 [pine, dried kelp 1-3mm] Mycelium Growth

rating = 3

Density

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = wet brick = mass at 1:1 = 3] Mass at breaking point: = 43kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 43 x 9.81 F = 421N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 421/7594 ơ = 0.05N/mm2

0.13g/cm3 10.30kg 0.32g/cm3 25.44kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.05N/mm2 wet brick = 0.05N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 186 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 147%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 38.5%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 2:43

134

135

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 9 [oak, pine, oyster shell 1-5mm]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 188.00/676.45 p = 0.2780g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 188g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 14.8˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.2780x1000 = 278.00kg/m3] m = 278.00 x 0.08 m = 22.24kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 344.00/676.45 p = 0.5086g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.5086x1000 = 508.60kg/m3] m = 508.60 x 0.08 m = 40.69kg 3] % change in density: = 83%

- Mycelium growth is extensive - Even distribution of mycelium - Removed from mold very easily - Corners are well articulated - Incision cuts are well articulated - Surface finishes have minor irregularities in uniformity - Reasonably flat surfaces

Mycelium growth rating: 7

3] Mass at breaking point: = 163kg

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 19.6˚C

4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 163 x 9.81 F = 1599N 5] Compressive strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 1599/7594 ơ = 0.21N/mm2

4] % change in temperature: = 32.4%

3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 344g

6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.21 x 379726 F = 79742N

4] Water absorbency %: = 83%

7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 22.24 x 9.81 F = 219N

7] [see compressive strength column]

8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 79742/219 = 364 bricks

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

6] [see density column]

2] Burning time: = 1:14 minutes

Brick 9 [oak, pine, oyster shell 1-5mm] Mycelium Growth

rating = 7

Density

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = wet brick = mass at 1:1 = 3] Mass at breaking point: = 157kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 157 x 9.81 F = 1540N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 1540/7594 ơ = 0.20N/mm2

0.28g/cm3 22.24kg 0.51g/cm3 40.69kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.21N/mm2 wet brick = 0.20N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 364 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 83%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 32.4%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 1:14

136

137

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 10 [oak, pine, oyster shell <1mm]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 191.00/676.45 p = 0.2824g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 191g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 15.2˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.2824x1000 = 282.40kg/m3] m = 282.40 x 0.08 m = 22.60kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 352.00/676.45 p = 0.5204g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.5204x1000 = 520.40kg/m3] m = 520.40 x 0.08 m = 41.64kg 3] % change in density: = 84%

- Mycelium growth is considerable - Somewhat even distribution of mycelium - Removed from mold with difficulty [acute damage] - Corners are articulated - Incision cuts are articulated - Surface finishes have considerable irregularities in uniformity - Moderately flat surfaces

3] Mass at breaking point: = 77kg

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 18.8˚C

4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 77 x 9.81 F = 755N 5] Compressive strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 755/7594 ơ = 0.09N/mm2

4] % change in temperature: = 23.7%

3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 352g

6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.09 x 379726 F = 34175N

4] Water absorbency %: = 84%

7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 22.60 x 9.81 F = 222N

7] [see compressive strength column]

8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 34175/222 = 153 bricks

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

6] [see density column]

2] Burning time: = 1:52 minutes

Brick 10 [oak, pine oyster shell <1mm] Mycelium Growth

rating = 5

Density

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = wet brick = mass at 1:1 =

Mycelium growth rating: 5

3] Mass at breaking point: = 65kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 65 x 9.81 F = 637N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 637/7594 ơ = 0.08N/mm2

0.29g/cm3 22.60kg 0.53g/cm3 41.64kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.09N/mm2 wet brick = 0.08N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 153 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 84%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 23.7%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 1:52

138

139

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 11 [oak, pine, dried kelp 1-3mm]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 127.00/676.45 p = 0.1878g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 127g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 14.7˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.1878...x1000 = 187.80kg/m3] m = 187.80 x 0.08 m = 15.03kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 229.00/676.45 p = 0.3386g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.3386x1000 = 338.60kg/m3] m = 338.60 x 0.08 m = 27.09kg 3] % change in density: = 80%

- Mycelium growth is poor - Uneven and sparse distribution of mycelium - Removed from mold well - Corners are not well articulated - Incision cuts are not well articulated - Surface finishes have considerable irregularities in uniformity - Uneven surfaces

3] Mass at breaking point: = 31kg

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 18.8˚C

4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 31 x 9.81 F = 304N 5] Compressive strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 304/7594 ơ = 0.04N/mm2

4] % change in temperature: = 27.9%

3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 229g

6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.04 x 379726 F = 15189N

4] Water absorbency %: = 80%

7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 15.03 x 9.81 F = 148N

7] [see compressive strength column]

8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 15189/148 = 102 bricks

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

6] [see density column]

2] Burning time: = 1:49 minutes

Brick 11 [oak, pine, dried kelp 1-3mm] Mycelium Growth

rating = 4

Density

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = wet brick = mass at 1:1 =

Mycelium growth rating: 4

3] Mass at breaking point: = 29kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 29 x 9.81 F = 281N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 284/7594 ơ = 0.03N/mm2

0.19g/cm3 15.03kg 0.34g/cm3 27.09kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.04N/mm2 wet brick = 0.03N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 102 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 80%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 27.9%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 1:49

140

141

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 12 [oak, oyster shell 1-5mm, dried kelp 1-3mm]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 175.00/676.45 p = 0.2587g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 175g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 15.2˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.2587x1000 = 258.70kg/m3] m = 258.70 x 0.08 m = 20.70kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 374.00/676.45 p = 0.5529g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.5529x1000 = 552.90kg/m3] m = 552.90 x 0.08 m = 44.24kg 3] % change in density: = 114%

- Mycelium growth is quite poor - Uneven and sparse distribution of mycelium - Removed from mold with some difficulty [superficial damage] - Corners are articulated - Incision cuts are not well articulated - Surface finishes have considerable irregularities in uniformity - Uneven surfaces

3] Mass at breaking point: = 52g 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 52 x 9.81 F = 510N 5] Compressive strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 510/7594 ơ = 0.06N/mm2

4] % change in temperature: = 27.6%

3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 374g

6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.06 x 379726 F = 22783N

4] Water absorbency %: = 114%

7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 20.70 x 9.81 F = 204N

7] [see compressive strength column]

8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 22783/204 = 111 bricks

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

6] [see density column]

2] Burning time: = 1:23 minutes

Brick 12 [oak, oyster shell 1-5mm, dried kelp 1-3mm] Mycelium Growth

rating = 4

Density

Mycelium growth rating: 4

142

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 19.4˚C

0.26g/cm3 20.70kg 0.56g/cm3 44.24kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.06N/mm2 wet brick = 0.05N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 111 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 114%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 27.6%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 1:23

143

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 13 [pine, oyster shell 1-5mm, dried kelp 1-3mm]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 133.00/676.45 p = 0.1967g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 133g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 14.5˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.1967x1000 = 196.70kg/m3] m = 196.70 x 0.08 m = 15.74kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 303.00/676.45 p = 0.4480g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.4480x1000 = 448.00kg/m3] m = 448.00 x 0.08 m = 35.84kg 3] % change in density: = 128%

- Mycelium growth is reasonable - Uneven ditribution of mycelium - Removed from mold easily - Corners are articulated poorly - Incision cuts are articulated - Surface finishes have considerable irregularities in uniformity - Uneven surfaces

Mycelium growth rating: 6

3] Mass at breaking point: = 84kg

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 19.6˚C

4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 84 x 9.81 F = 824N 5] Compressive strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 824/7594 ơ = 0.10N/mm2

4] % change in temperature: = 35.2%

3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 303g

6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.10 x 379726 F = 37972N

4] Water absorbency %: = 128%

7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 15.74 x 9.81 F = 155N

7] [see compressive strength column]

8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 37972/155 = 244 bricks

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

6] [see density column]

2] Burning time: = 1:46 minutes

Brick 13 [pine, oyster shell 1-5mm, dried kelp 1-3mm] Mycelium Growth

rating = 6

Density

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = wet brick = mass at 1:1 = 3] Mass at breaking point: = 80kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 80 x 9.81 F = 784N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 784/7594 ơ = 0.10N/mm2

144

0.20g/cm3 15.74kg 0.45g/cm3 35.84kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.10N/mm2 wet brick = 0.10N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 244 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 128%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 35.2%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 1:46

145

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Brick Number: 14 [oak, pine, oyster shell 1-5mm, dried kelp 1-3mm]

Mycelium Growth

Density

Compressive Strength

Dry brick:

1] Density: p = m/V p = 166.00/676.45 p = 0.2454g/cm3

1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

Water Absorption

Thermal Properties

1] Mass in dry state [m1]: = 166g

1] Temperture measurement [t1]: = 15.0˚C

Flamability

2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.2454x1000 = 245.40kg/m3] m = 245.40x0.08 m = 19.64kg

Water submerged brick: 1] Density: p = m/V p = 312.00/676.45 p = 0.4613g/cm3 2] Mass at 1:1: m = pxV [0.4613x1000 = 461.30kg/m3] m = 461.30 x 0.08 m = 36.91kg 3] % change in density: = 88%

- Mycelium growth is quite poor - Uneven distribution of mycelium - Removed from mold easily - Corners are articulated - Incision cuts are not well articulated - Surface finishes have considerable irregularities in uniformity - Uneven surfaces

3] Mass at breaking point: = 88kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 88 x 9.81 F = 863N 5] Compressive strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 863/7594 ơ =0.11N/mm2

4] % change in temperature: = 34.0%

3] Mass after water submersion [m2]: = 312g

6] Maximum force on 1:1 brick: F=ơxA F = 0.11 x 379726 F = 41769N

4] Water absorbency %: = 88%

7] Force of one brick at 1:1: F = ma F = 19.64 x 9.81 F = 193N

7] [see compressive strength column]

8] Maximum brick load at 1:1: = 41769/193 = 216 bricks

Water submerged brick: 1] Area of cross section: = 7594mm2 2]

6] [see density column]

2] Burning time: = 1:17 minutes

Brick 14 [oak, pine, oyster shell 1-5mm, dried kelp 1-3mm] Mycelium Growth

rating = 5

Density

Mycelium growth rating: 5

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = wet brick = mass at 1:1 = 3] Mass at breaking point: = 76kg 4] Force at breaking point: F = ma F = 76 x 9.81 F = 745N 5] Compression strength: ơ = F/A ơ = 745/7594 ơ = 0.09N/mm2

146

3] Temperature measurement [t2]: = 20.1˚C

0.25g/cm3 19.54kg 0.47g/cm3 36.91kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.11N/mm2 wet brick = 0.09N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 216 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 88%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 34.0%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 1:17

147

200 180

Water Absorbency [%]

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes Overview and analysis

Brick Prototype Ingredients: - Oyster mushroom mycelium [all bricks contain this]

The following four pages show an overview and analysis of the test results. Below is a table recording the important results [mycelium growth, density, compression strength, water absorbency, change in temperature, and burning time]. The column charts illustrate these results with more clarity, offering a clear insight into each brickâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s properties and in comparison to the other bricks tested. In order to ascertain which brick perfomed best overall I took mean averages of the results [indicated in red on the table below] and then for each brick I assesed its relation to the given average. For mycelium growth and compression strength [where higher values are preferred] if the value was above the average that would be favourable. For density, water absorbency, change in temperature and burning time [where lower values are preferred] if the value was below the average that would be favourable. All favourable values are highlighted in green. Brick 9 performed best overall since it has the largest number of favourable values. The last of these four pages documents the final conclusions as learned through the test analysis.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

- Oak

- Pine

Brick Prototype

- Oyster shell [1-5mm] - Oyster shell [<1mm] - Dried kelp [1-3mm]

Test

Brick Prototype

Mycelium growth rating:

mean average

Compressive strength correlates somewhat with the level of mycelium growth in each brick. The bricks with the strongest compressive strength [1,2, and 9] were bricks where the mycelium grew most effectively. Possibly due to the increased density of oak, the bricks that grew well with oak [1 and 9] perfomed best for compressive strength. Water absorption reduces the compressive strength of each brick.

Due to the hygroscopic properties of the cellulose material, water absorption was relatively high across the brick prototypes. Pine appears to be more hygroscopic than oak. When the dried kelp was introduced, the water absorption increased and when the oyster shells were added, water absorption decreased indicating that oyster shell was the least hygroscopic material used.

Density [g/cm3] - dry brick:

0.23

0.12

0.33

0.32

0.23

0.19

0.13

0.28

0.29

0.19

0.26

0.20

0.25

0.23

Density [g/cm3] - wet brick:

0.51

0.35

0.58

0.62

0.41

0.45

0.43

0.32

0.51

0.53

0.34

0.56

0.45

0.47

Compressive strength [N/mm2] - dry brick:

0.18

0.11

0.08

0.06

0.09

0.08

0.03

0.05

0.21

0.09

0.04

0.06

0.10

0.11

0.09

Compressive strength [N/mm2] - wet brick:

0.17

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.09

0.07

0.02

0.05

0.20

0.08

0.03

0.05

0.10

0.09

Change in Temperature [%]

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Water absorbency [%]:

121

184

130

147

114

128

108

Brick Prototype Change in Temperature [%]:

29.1

35.9

23.7

36.7

38.73

55.2

38.2

38.5

32.4

23.7

27.9

27.6

35.2

34.0

Burning time [min:sec]:

0:58

1:29

0:46

0:38

1:12

2:17

2:43

1:14

1:52

1:49

1:23

1:46

1:17

1:28

Many of the brick prototypes performed similarly in terms of thermal performance. When osyter shells of <1mm were introduced, this mostly increased the change in temperature though this is not conclusive since the results are quite varied. Repeating this test overall would be necessary to establish stronger correlations and reduce the chance of error. The test method itself might need improvement.

Burning times were largely increased with the introduction of the dried kelp into the substrates. Dramatic increases can be seen, due to the addition of the kelp in bricks 7 and 8. That the kelp is the cause can be seen through the control test bricks [1 and 2]. Oyster shell [calcium carbonate] appears to act as an effective fireresistant material.

Mycelium Growth Rating

9 8

Brick 9 [oak, pine, oyster shell 1-5mm]

7 6

Mycelium Growth

rating = 7

Density

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = water submerged brick = mass at 1:1 =

2 1 0

0.28g/cm3 22.24kg 0.51g/cm3 40.69kg

Compressive strength

Brick Prototype

dry brick = 0.21N/mm2 water submerged brick = 0.20N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 364 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 83%

As can be seen from the graph above, the addition of both the oyster shells and the dried kelp hindered the growth of the mycelium. Pine performed particularly badly when combined with the dried kelp [the lowest rating]. When the pine or oak was left pure, the mycelium grew more effectively making their ratings two of the highest. Although the growth rating is a qualitative assesment a relationship to investigate would be the growth rating against the compressive strength of each brick to see how growth of mycelium affects the mechanical properties of the brick prototypes.

148

As can be seen from the graph above, density increased whenever oak was used as the cellulose substrate material. This is not surprising since oak, with a known density of 0.6-0.9g/cm3 is more dense than pine, with a known density of between 0.3-0.5g/cm3. Oak with the addition of oyster shells, with a known density of roughly 0.8g/cm3, made for the most dense mycelium bricks. Kelp, with a known density of 0.3g/cm3, when combined with pine, produced the least dense brick. The density of each brick increased by at least 80% after the water absorption test was carried out. The least dense dry materials [pine and kelp] increased in density the most as a result of the water absorption test.

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 32.4%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 1:14

Conclusions: Brick 9 performed best overall according to the test results. The tests are by no means conclusive as I had to fabricate my own tests instead of using industry standard testing methods. The tests do however present indications of what would be expected outcomes from professional testing. The tests have revealed many qualities in the materials used that could be exploited further. Before making final conclusions I will look into some of the relationships between the test results as this might provide insights into how the different characteristics inform one another. This should provide more indications as to what further tests might help improve the brick design.

149

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Material Testing The Mycelium Brick Prototypes

Overview and analysis

- Oak/pine control test bricks

Final test conclusions

- Test bricks with oyster shell - Test bricks with dried kelp - Test bricks with oyster shell and dried kelp

As can be seen from the graph opposite there is a positive correlation between the density and compressive strength characteristics of the brick prototypes. The correlation determines that the more dense the bricks are, the higher the compressive strength. Despite the positive correlation, when the dried kelp or oyster shells were introduced to the substrates, the correlation between these prototypes no longer appears to exist. However, the oak and pine control tests [bricks 1 and 2] follow the correlation as does brick 9. The correlation might be determined by the growth success of the mycelium in the substrates. One hypothesis is that if the mycelium canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t grow well, the correlation between density and compressive strength is weakened. Since brick 9 contains both oak and pine with only the oyster shell slightly hindering growth, a good level of mycelium growth overall can be observed. However perhaps because the oyster shell increases the density of the brick, the brickâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s compressive strength is higher than it otherwise would be without the oyster shell. A further test would be to grow the mycelium in a substrate composed of just oak and pine and test this for compressive strength. This test would determine if the introduction of the oyster shells does truly benefit the compressive strength.

There is a strong positive correlation between compressive strength and the mycelium growth rating. Although the growth rating is qualitative the fact that mycelium growth does seem to correlate positively with the compressive strength of each brick is revealing. This evidence goes some way into verifying the hypothesis posed above. The more the mycelium can grow, the higher the compressive strength. As mentioned on the previous page, the mycelium grew most succesfully on the control tests [bricks 1 and 2]. For the 20 day growing phase, the mycelium appeared to grow the fastest and most successfully on the pine control test [brick 2]. However, owing to the lower density of the pine control test[brick 2] as compared to the oak control test[brick 1] and brick 9, the compressive strength is inferior. Compressive strength appears to rely on the growth of the mycelium combined with the density of the substrate. If both properties align as indicated by brick 9, you have the potential to possibly create a load-bearing mycelium brick.

A positive correlation appears to be established between burning time and density. This indicates that the more dense the brick prototypes are, the more flame-resistant they become. All of the more dense bricks were made from substrates containing oyster shell. While oyster shell has the largest density of all the ingredients used [0.8g/cm3] it is uncertain whether or not this density is determining the fire-resistence of the bricks. To better understand the fire resistivity of the bricks more rigourous tests would need to be carried out. It is however evident that the addition of oyster shells does aid the relative fireresisitivity of the bricks. For this reason perhaps the oyster shells could be utilised elsewhere to aid fire-resistance such as being applied as an interior wall covering.

Mycelium Growth - The introduction of both the oyster shells and the dried kelp hindered the growth of the mycelium - Dried kelp hindered growth the most - The more successfully the mycelium can grow in the substrate, the higher the compressive strength of the brick prototypes and the higher the substrate's ability is to take the form of the mold

Density - Using oak and oyster shells produced the densist brick prototypes - Depending on the successfull growth of the mycelium, the more dense the dry bricks are, the higher the compressive strength - Brick 2 was least dense however all dry bricks [apart from brick 3] have a mass of <25kg at 1:1 and are therefore safe to carry by an individual - Water absorption increased the density of the bricks but reduced the compressive strength values - Water absorption percentages were highest in the least dense dry brick protoypes

Compressive Strength - Higher compressive strength values appear to be determined by the successfull growth of the mycelium combined with using higher density substrate composites - Water absorption reduces the compressive strength of each brick prototype - Brick 9 had the highest compressive strength of 0.21N/mm2. Comparatively, the compressive strength of the mycelium bricks used on the 'Hy-Fi' project [pages 76-77] was recorded to be around 0.2N/mm2. Due to the similarity in results, it is reasonable to assume, as was determined by David Benjamin on the 'Hy-Fi' project, that my bricks will not have a load bearing function. The wooden load-bearing support structure as previously explored [pages 100-101] should be developed further.

Water Absorbency - Water absorbency is high overall due to hygroscopic nature of cellulose substrate material. - Water absorption reduces the compressive strength of each brick prototype - External rain protection, such as weatherboarding and use of large roof eaves, is necessary to prevent water absorption of bricks. - The higher the density of the brick, the less water absorbent the bricks tend to be. - Pine is more hygroscopic than oak. - Introducing dried kelp increased water absorption. - Introducing oyster shells decreased water absorption.

Thermal Properties - The bricks do perform as thermal barriers - Repeating this test overall would be necessary to establish stronger correlations. - The test method itself might need improvement [possibly by isolating the heat source more]. - Data gathered by Elise Elsackera, Simon Vandelookb, Joost Brancartc, Eveline Peetersb, and Lars De Laeta of the University of Brussels indicates that mycleium based composites have a thermal conductivity of around 0.0587-0.0404W/mK. This value in comparison to other insulating materials such as rock wool [0.044W/mK] is promising and suggestive of the thermal conductivity to be expected in my brick prototypes. - With the thermal conductivity value determined by Elise Elsackera et al. the bricks can be sized according to the U-value standards in Norway that stipulate that a U-value of â&#x2030;¤0.18 W/m2K is required for outer walls [source: https://www.epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/CA-EPBD-IV-Norway-2018.pdf]

Dry Density [g/cm3]

Flamability

150

Water absorbency in general is quite high due to the hygroscopic nature of the cellulose substrate material [oak and pine]. There is a strong positive correlation between dry brick density and water absorbency. This indicates that the higher the density of the brick, the less water absorbent the bricks tend to be. As can be seen in the graphs on the previous page, water absorbency negatively affects the compressive strength of the bricks which would in turn have a negative affect on the structural stability of the brick wall construction. Therefore, to avoid a high water absorption, using denser bricks would be a solution. Further measures to protect the bricks from rain and snow would include possible weatherboarding as seen in the Norwegian site surveys [pages 18-39] and the use of large roof eaves.

- Burning times were largely increased with the introduction of the dried kelp into the substrates. - Oyster shell [calcium carbonate] appears to act as an effective fire-resistant material.

Responses to final conclusions to be considered as part of the development of a mycelium brick building construction: - Disgard use of dried kelp [this decreased growth of mycelium, negatively affected compressive strength, and increased water absorbency and flamability] - Test mycelium substrate using pine and oak alone to see if addition of oyster shells [as in brick 9] really benefits the compressive strength of the brick - Use brick 9 as the basis on which to move forward with the design of the building construction as this brick performed best as an average across all tests. - Size the brick using its presumed thermal conductivity [between 0.0587-0.0404W/mK] according to U-value standards stipulated in Norway. - Develop wooden load-bearing support structure [pages 100-101] since bricks cannot safely function as load bearing wall elements - Explore fire-resistant uses for oyster shells [could be used as an interior wall coating as a kind of plaster] - Develop effective weatherprotection devices to help reduce exposure of bricks to rain/snow [possible weatherboarding and use of large roof eaves]

151

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Design of Mycelium Brick in Response to Test Results Responses: New brick dimensions

- Test mycelium substrate using pine and oak alone to see if addition of oyster shells [as in brick 9] really benefits the compressive strength of the brick

1:20

- Use brick 9 as the basis on which to move forward with the design of the building construction as this brick performed best as an average across all tests

29 729

350

The recommended test would be beneficial in determining the use of oyster shell as a measure to increase compressive strength of the mycelium brick. However, since brick 9 [containing oyster shells] performed the best as an average across all the tests, this brick will be used as the basis on which the design of the building construction will be developed. To add to this, it has been proven through the tests that introducing oyster shells does reduce the flamability and water absorption of the bricks, two vital concerns that equally deserve close attention.

162

10.00˚

R = 0.350/0.0578 R = 6.06m2K/W U-value = 1/6.06 U-value = 0.17W/m2K

0.17W/m2K is ≤ 0.18W/m2K [Norwegian restriction]

Response:

The new brick's U-value is still below the Norwegian U-value restriction. The new size means that the brick will weigh less, be easier to handle and use less material in it's production as compared to the old brick design.

- Size the brick using its presumed thermal conductivity [between 0.05870.0404W/mK] according to U-value standards stipulated in Norway.

In order for the building construction to exist in Norway, the bricks will have to fulfill the local U-value regulations for exterior walls. The Norwegian U-value regulations state that the exterior wall U-values cannot exceed 0.18W/m2K. [source: https://www.epbd-ca.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/CA-EPBD-IV-Norway-2018.pdf].

Using the thermal conductivity for mycelium based composites, as sourced from Elise Elsackera et al., of between 0.0587W/mK and 0.0404W/mK the sizing of my bricks can be adjusted to fit within the U-value standards stipulated in Norway. [source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331605737_Mechanical_physical_and_chemical_characterisation_of_mycelium-based_composites_with_different_types_of_lignocellulosic_ substrates of mycelium between 0.0578 and 0.0404W/mK

To work out U-values, the R-values [the resistivity] of the elements that make up the building's specific construction [walls, floors, roofs etc...] are needed. R-values are measured in m2K/W and are claculated using the following formula: R = I/λ

where I is the thickness of the material[m] and λ is the thermal conductivity of the material[W/mK].

The U-value, measure in W/m2K can then be calculated as the reciprocal of all the R-values that make up the specific construction of the building [in this case just the brick as the wall construction]: U-value = 1/(∑R-values) Depending on how the brick performs at the current 1:1 dimensions the sizing of the brick will be adjusted.

NB: for these claculations the higher thermal conductivity value of 0.0587W/mK will be used as a precautionary measure.

Weighs 14kg - considerably lighter than old design [old design weighed 22.24kg] Smaller dimensions [approx. 40 x 78 x 16cm] - easier to carry - uses less material [old dimensions approx. 50 x 96 x 20cm]

The new dimensions alter some of the brick's characteristics [shown in red below]: Brick 9 [oak, pine, oyster shell 1-5mm] Mycelium Growth

rating = 7

Density

Original brick dimensions 1:20

R = 0.429/0.0578 R = 7.42m2K/W

U-value = 1/7.42 U-value = 0.14W/m2K 0.14W/m2K is ≤ 0.18W/m2K [Norwegian restriction] Since the brick has a U-value well below the U-value restriction the sizing of the brick can be reduced.

dry brick = mass at 1:1 = water submerged brick = mass at 1:1 =

0.28g/cm3 14.0kg 0.51g/cm3 25.43kg

Compressive strength

dry brick = 0.21N/mm2 water submerged brick = 0.20N/mm2 maximum dry brick load = 211 bricks

Water absorbency

% = 83%

Thermal properties

% change in temperature = 32.4%

Flamability

Burning time [min:sec] = 1:14

152

29 729

350

153

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

calcium oxide [quicklime]

Further Material Speculations in Response to Test Results Seashells

dried sand [commonly found on coastline]

Pacific oyster shell

5] The quicklime [calcium oxide] is then combined with dried sand at a ratio of 1:2 [Sand is an abundant material across the coastlines of the outer ports].

1] After collecting the Pacific oyster shells they should be pounded and crushed. This could be done on a small scale with a pestle and mortar.

crushed oyster shell [calcium carbonate]

Response: - Explore fire-resistant uses for oyster shells [could be used as an interior wall coating as a kind of plaster] As noted earlier on page 65, the Pacific oysters that can be found across the sites pose a considerable risk to the survival of the indiginous European flat oyster. Efforts by locals has been attempted to limit the spread of these oysters by dredging them and depositing the shells along the coastlines. Owing to their calcium carbonate composition, oyster shells have the potential to be used as raw material in the production of lime plaster. One of the many properties of lime plaster is it's flame resistance and as my tests on the mycelium bricks have also indicated, oyster shell does appear to be a fire resistant material. Due to a drive to improve the fire resistivity of the mycelium bricks and considering the abundance and demand to reduce the numbers of Pacific oysters across the Norwegian outer ports, it would be pertinent to use these oyster shells in the production of a fire resistant lime plaster. The following method is a speculative study on the potential of using Pacific oyster shells in the production of lime plaster to be used as a fire resistant material. [source: https://johncanningco.com/blog/lime-plaster-historic-use-andtechnique/]

calcium oxide

water

CaO + H2O

calcium hydroxide [slaked lime]

calcium hydroxide

Ca[OH]2

lime plaster applied to mycelium wall

3] Protective devices should then be worn including heat resistant gloves, a dust mask and protective eyewear.

mycelium bricks

7] Calcium hydroxide is also known as slaked lime. When an excess of water is added to the calcium oxide a wet slaked lime is made which is also known, when combined with sand, as lime plaster. This plaster has an adhesive quality and could be applied as an interior layer onto the mycelium bricks.

Kiln set between 700˚C - 1000˚C

3-4

4] The crushed oyster shell should then be transferred to a metal tray and fired [calcinated] in a kiln at between 700˚C - 1000˚C for 3-4 hours.

5] After the shells have been fired [calcinated] the calcium carbonate of the shells has reacted with heat to become calcium oxide with the release of carbon dioxide. Calcium oxide is better kown as quicklime. calcium carbonate

CaCO3

154

6] Water is then slowly combined with the mixture. The addition of water creates an exothermic reaction with the quicklime [calcium oxide] creating calcium hydroxide. A slow addition of the water helps maintain a safe reaction.

2] The oyster shells shoud be pounded and crushed into a coarse powder.

calcium oxide heat

carbon dioxide

CaO + CO2

hrs

calcium oxide [quicklime]

8] The lime plaster carbonises to form calcium carbonate again, thus completing the lime cycle. This calcium carbonate layer applied to the mycelium bricks could form an effective fire resistant barrier. calcium hydroxide

carbon dioxide

Ca[OH]2 + CO2

calcium carbonate

water

CaCO3 + H2O

Conclusions: In consideration of the response from the mycelium brick research and anaylsis, I have explored a possible fire-resistant use for oyster shells in my project. Since Pacific oyster shells pose a threat to the indiginous European flat oysters throughout the Norwegian outer ports the use of Pacific oyster shells in making a fire resistant material could help in the fight to control this invasive mollusc as well as increasing both construction safety and lifespan.

155

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Nov-April

1] Seaweed collected and left to dry by the sun throughout the winter [approx. Nov-April].

Further Material Speculations in Response to Test Results Seaweed

dried seaweed

a ‘vask’

2] The dried seaweed is then twisted together, forming ropelike 'vasks'.

Læsø Seaweed Roof Thatch

cotton netting

Response: - Develop effective weatherprotection devices to help reduce exposure of bricks to rain/snow [possible weatherboarding and use of large roof structure] Since the addition of seaweed [specifically kelp] had no beneficial effect on the mechanical properties of the mycelium bricks, this page speculates on alternative uses for the abundant kelp and eelgrass seaweeds that grow throughout the Norwegian outer-ports. Zostera [eelgrass] has been used as packing material and as stuffing for mattresses and cushions. On the Danish island of Læsø it has been used for thatching roofs. Roofs of eelgrass are said to be heavy, but much longer-lasting and easier to thatch and maintain than roofs made with more conventional thatching materials. On top of providing a possible roof structure, the local seaweeds could be used elsewhere. Outlined throughout the mycelium brick production process [pages 76-113], key requisites for mycelium growth are darkness and cleanliness. Utilising the knowledge gained about the use of seaweeds as roof thatch material, the adjacent page speculates further about the possibility of also using the seaweeds to help create the requisite conditions for mycelium brick growth.

1] Seaweed was collected and left to dry by the sun throughout the winter [approx. Nov-April].

2] The dried seaweed was then twisted together, forming ropelike 'vasks'.

Nov-April

dried seaweed

3] The vasks could then be looped onto some cotton netting. The netting could be made from any material [preferably biodegradeable to support a circular economy].

seaweed ‘vask’ looped onto cotton netting

a ‘vask’

4] The entire netting should then be covered with looped vasks, creating a screen. 3] The vasks were then looped around the first few layers of roof rafters.

4] Small tree branches were then placed on the upper roof rafters.

5] Over time the natural binder in the seaweed [alginic acid] gels the layers together forming a solid semi-waterproof screen. This screen, offering a form of shelter, could help maintain a clean environment needed for mycelium brick production.

solid seaweed mass - providing semi-waterproof shelter - allowing for clean environment needed for mycelium brick production

[sources: http://naturalhomes.org/seaweed-house.htm, https://kathrynlarsen.com/seaweed-thatch-reimagined]

5] Loose seaweed was then placed on top of the branches. The looped vasks and tree branches both kept the loose seaweed in place on the roof.

6] Over time the natural binder in the seaweed [alginic acid] gelled the layers together forming a thick solid semi-waterproof mass [a metre in thickness].

156

6] The seaweed screen would also provide shelter from the sun. the screen could be used to create the dark environment needed for mycelium brick production.

solid seaweed mass - providing shelter from sun - allowing for dark environment needed for mycelium brick production

Conclusions: Through knowledge gained about the use of seaweeds as roof thatch material, I have explored another possible use for the seaweeds that grow throughout the Norwegian outer ports. As well as being used to provide roofing, the seaweeds could also be used to help provide the optimum conditions of darkness and cleanliness needed for mycelium brick production.

157

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Heating elements set between 80˚C - 140˚C

Further Material Speculations in Response to Test Results Plastic Waste 6] The sheetpress machine is then turned on and the heating elements set to between 80˚c - 140˚c. When the desired temperature is reached the bottlejack is then cranked to raise the heating plates together with the mold placed in-between.

1] Waste plastic is sorted [separating different types of plastics], collected, cleaned and shredded. [Straight-forward instructions

for making the shredder are open source and provided by the 'Precious Plastic' initiative.]

2-60

mins

mold [in-between heated plates]

cranked bottle jack

steel frame steel sheet

Response: - Develop effective weatherprotection devices to help reduce exposure of bricks to rain/snow [possible weatherboarding and use of large roof eaves] Since waste plastic represents a considerable material resource across the Norwegian outer ports it is important that it is brought into a circular economy to reduce both its economic footprint and its damage to ecological systems. As indicated on page 63, the vast amount of this plastic waste is PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate). PET provides good chemical resistance, is tough, has low friction and low water absorption. PET is also cheap, very easy to process, vastly versatile and recyclable.

2] A mold is prepared consisting of two steel sheets and a steel frame. [Straight-forward instructions for making the mold are open source and provided by the 'Precious Plastic' initiative.]

steel sheet

7] After the appropriate time, anywhere between 2-60 minutes [depending on the type of plastic used], the bottle jack can be released, lowering the bottom heating plate with the mold. The mold should be removed to cool.

mold removed to cool

bottle jack released

steel sheet

shredded plastic

3] The shredded plastic is placed into the mold.

8] A now solifidified plastic sheet can be taken out of the mold.

steel frame

solidified plastic sheet removed from mold

steel sheet

There are three ways PET can be recycled: -Chemical -Chemical (with transesterification) -Mechanical (the most common)

The most common form of plastic recycling is mechanical as this doesn't necessarily require heavy industrial practices. Owing to the Mechanical recyclability of PET and its highly versatile applicability countless new uses are being explored, many of which can be done along a DIY basis. The ‘Precious Plastic’ initiative demonstrates this new approach to plastics. They encourage people to re-use plastic waste through open source instructions on how to make a series of machines that work to convert the plastic waste into new usable products. Due to the need to protect the mycelium bricks from rain and snow as outlined on page 151 and the fact that the PET plastic waste found across the Norwegian outer ports has a low water absorbtion rate, it would be pertinent to recycle the PET and use it to provide weatherprotection for the mycelium bricks. This would involve the plastic waste in a circular economy. The following method is a speculative study on the potential of recycling plastic waste according to methods put forward by the ‘Precious Plastic’ initiative. Through recycling the plastic the aim is to provide an effective weatherprotection device to protect the mycelium bricks against rain and snow. [source: https://preciousplastic.com]

158

pine weatherboarding [pages 20-53] waterproof plastic sheet

4] The shredded plastic should be levelled with the thickness of the steel frame. The top steel sheet is then placed on top of the steel frame, enclosing the plastic in the mold.

shredded plastic levelled with steel frame

9] The resulting plastic sheet would be waterproof. The sheet could provide the same weatherprotection to the mycelium bricks as the pine tongue and groove weatherboarding provides for the notched timber logs as seen in the vernacular surveys [pages 20-53].

plastic tongue and groove weatherboarding - protects mycelium bricks from rain and snow

sheetpress machine heated plate

5] The full mold is then placed into a sheetpress machine.

[Straight-forward instructions for making the sheetpress machine are open source and provided by the 'Precious Plastic' initiative.]

heated plate

bottle jack

10] By adjusting the type of mold used in the sheetpress, a plastic tongue and groove weatherpboarding could be produced. This weatherboarding could protect the mycelium bricks from rain and snow.

Conclusions: In consideration of the response from the mycelium brick research and anaylsis, I have explored a possible method of recycling the plastic waste currently polluting the Norwegian outer ports to produce a type of weatherboarding to protect the mycelium bricks from rain and snow. By recycling the plastic waste in this way, I have involved it within a circular economy which both reduces its economic footprint and its damage to ecological systems.

159

Contemporary Material Transformation Processes

Preliminary Design of Mycelium Brick Building Construction

These two pages explain how a corner section of the building construction might work. All of the design decisions have been made in response to the test results on the premise that the mycelium bricks should be protected from degradation.

Eelgrass seaweed roof thatch [page 156] - eelgrass grows in abundance along the Skagerrak coast - high fire resistance due to high salt content of the seaweed - thick roof provides adequate roof insulation - protects mycelium bricks from rain/snow - weaved onto glulam timber roof battens - traditionally used on the Danish island of LĂŚsĂ¸

Hip roof structure with large overhanging eaves - protects mycelium bricks from rain/snow fall - reduces the chance the bricks come into contact with water

Mycelium brick wall construction - sandwiched between glulam timber columns - provides thermal insulation - protected against rain/snow by weatherboarding and large roof eaves.

Horizontal weatherboarding - protects mycelium brick from rain/snow - horizontal weatherboarding provides better protection than vertical weatherboarding since boards overlap with the direction of rainfall/snowfall

Glulam timber battens - allows for attachment of weatherboarding

Recycled plastic weatherboarding [pages 158-159] - possible use could be as weatherboarding - nailed to glulam timber battens

Glulam timber roof battens - allows for attachment of roof tiles Hip roof structure with large overhanging eaves - protects mycelium bricks from rain/snow fall - reduces the chance the bricks come into contact with water

Interior view

Glulam timber boards - supports roof structure - spreads load from roof - distributes load evenly to glulam timber columns - compresses mycelium bricks together

Glulam timber columns - provides primary load-bearing support - keeps the mycelium bricks in place

]

[wi

nta

rizo

ad l lo

Mycelium bricks coated with fire-resistant lime plaster derived from Pacific oyster shell on the interior [pages 154-155] - oyster shell reduced burning time in tests - possible application could be in lime plaster fire-resistant finishes - plaster would also protect mycelium bricks from damage on the interior

Glulam timber columns under compression stress Interior steel rod bracing - supports structure against horizontal loads [wind]

Glulam timber boards - supports mycelium bricks - distributes load evenly to glulam timber columns - works with other board to compress mycelium bricks together

Interior steel rod bracing - supports structure against horizontal loads [wind]

1:50 160

1:50 161