Iona Orams
Week 1 Studio Journal
ENVS10003
Week 1 studio began with an introduction to the subject, including its requirements and workload. The class was then required to partake in a casual conversational activity in order to meet and get to know others. These activities enabled the class to become familiar with what is expected from students and tutors and become more comfortable with the classroom environment. The next activity required the class to form small groups of 3 – 4 people and build the tallest structure possible from small wooden MDF blocks. The structure needed to house a large plastic animal which must be able to enter and exit from an opening in the structure. The group I was in was in chose to begin with a step-building method to ensure the base of the structure was wide and sturdy.
Fig 5. The group decided to create a rectangular pyramid structure. As stability was the focus initially, the group used many blocks to create a wide base. Blocks were placed perpendicular to one another with the purpose of increasing strength. This process of building was slow and required many blocks. Fig 2. As the pyramid structure progressed, it was obvious that, given time constraints, the building method was inefficient and not resourceful. The group began to focus instead on creating height using minimal blocks. A running bond brick laying method was used in order to do this, as seen in Figure 3. The group found that unneeded bricks could be removed from the large base and used to create the height.
Fig 3.
Iona Orams
Week 1 Studio Journal
ENVS10003
As time disappeared, the initial building idea was replaced by the fastest method possible that would give us the greatest height. The walls became rounded, as seen in Figure 4. This was because the structure was not sturdy enough to support three essentially free-standing walls. The structure became cave-like in order to make an entrance, which detracted from its strength and stability as the load was shared unevenly. Less careful building methods were then used due to lack of time.
Fig 4.
Fig 5.
The group quickly realised that the initial method was clearly unsatisfactory. However, alternative ideas were brainstormed for future reference and faults were able to be seen that could be avoided next time. The included making the structure from straight walls, as the lack of bonding materials meant that there was nothing holding the walls together and the load would be placed on weak foundations. A curved, circular wall would mean that the load is shared more evenly and the removal of bricks from the lower part of the structure can be managed without collapse. This was observed in another group’s structure, which was cylindrical and therefore quite sturdy. As demonstrated in Figure 5, the running bond brick laying method meant the load path was not concentrated towards a single point, but was shared. The load path of the base structure was less even due to the nature of the bricklaying. Here, the overall load was not shared, but unevenly applied to points beneath areas with height.