Constructing Environments Journal Week 1 This week’s task served an introduction to construction out of basic materials. The state of material that has been the focus of this activity is compression – concerning solid matter through which the weight is compressed and transferred. The materials that deal well with compression are concrete, masonry, brick, anything solid and rigid really; in this case wooden blocks have been used to symbolise bricks. The goal is to construct a tower for a mascot of relative size, achieving maximum height and a base stable enough to support it. The size of the mascot in proportion to the blocks, defining the minimum dimentions of the base of the future structure
This was the initial proposed shape for the base; however then the issue of the doorway surfaced.
Referencing realistic architecture, a simple lintel seemed a logical solution , with the weight coming down a 'doorframe' consisting of tightly stacked blocks. The use of rubber bands as reinforcements also left us facing the issue of having protruding material on the otherwise smooth sides. What I understand to be an important part of compression is having a relatively even, solid shape. Having wobbly edges won't allow that and also will inevitably undermine the stability of the structure. Therefore, a simple arch of blocks pressing into blocks and the weight being shifted to the centre gradually proved to suffice, as seen in smallscale trial builds.
Said lintel had been created using rubber bands to hold the blocks together, however being placed in a situation of tension as well as having to transfer the load from above, this did not prove to be stable – either the rubber band slipped off during the assembly of test runs, or the middle block would inevitably collapse under the weight of more than 4 or so blocks placed on top of it. This wasn't an optimal solution.
The weight transfer in the formation used is more stable/resilient
The curvy shape was suggested by our group member Daniel who had preciously trialled this particular shape on a human-sized scale and it proved to be the right stability and height, however throughout the construction process the shape shifted to be more cylindrical.
Because there was a time limit involved to achieve maximum height, resilience and stability of the upper sections of the tower has been sacrificed to project it upwards whist being more efficient with material and time. The arch over the entrance was surprisingly stable once all placed, with the weight being gradually transferred on the sides of the 'door frame' as opposed to straight down. If this structure was exposed to other lateral forces such as wind, and not only gravity, it would probably collapse quite easily – one side is obviously heavier than the other, and thus more vulnerable. This, however, proved sufficient to gain height quickly, due to the method of stacking as sketched above, and the size of the initial base. Two turrets had been put into place to gain even more height on both sides of the upper section to maintain balance.
The deconstruction process proved to be interesting. As well as withstanding the removal of 'loose' parts a la jenga, the tower stood through the reduction of the width of the upper section by up to 5 blocks on each side, creating small 'windows', and even larger openings which seem to undermine the base of the structure, as seen in the image on the left. Creating the same opening on the opposite lower side, however, lead to a collapse. Curiously, the last part standing was the arch of the entrance and the doorframe, which we've concidered the weakest point., lacking the solidity of a regular door frame. The close tessalation of the pieces proved really stable there.