To create the tile, we began with a process of experimenting with the possibilities and limitations of the parameters of the hexagon – mainly the shape, size and quantities of the water excavation curves.

L-System

Voronoi Web

Bent Whirlpool

Lofting Curves

 From this early point of experimentation, we moved into simplifying the process and the design. The result was to take a direct inspiration from natural. A beautiful, naturally occurring phenomenon known as the channel country.

Seemingly chaotic in many senses, the channel country follows a very simple order – the water flows along the path of least resistance, slowly creating rivers and networks in its wake. Ever changing, yet ever lasting.

The process to take this idea into a reality came when exploring tools in rhino. We understood that we could use the variants of gradients in an image to create depth on a 2-dimensional field.

From the drawings, it was a long and educational experience to understand how to transfer the imagined images into drawings, and then into a 3-dimensional field in Rhino.

The final output of the tiles into a built form was an interesting experience to say the least. Working with compressed foam-board had limitations of its own. Our mould suffered a crack after the first pour. Prior to that, machining had resulted in the CRC Milling Machine cutting a line through the side of the mould, leaving a hole to be filled by Stucco.

Although the cold weather significantly slowed down the progress of curing the concrete, we were able to overcome this by efficient time management to produce 6 full tiles as per the brief.

Stage 1 & 2

GroupTEN approached brief of the 3D printing excersize with a vision to create a kinetic, 3-Dimensional form, exploiting all of the properties of the given materials. This was no doubt the approach taken by all other groups. So what made us different?

We did not look at creating a structure, or a string of points. We instead looked at creating a malleable surface. A moving geometry which would flow and adapt based on the applied forces.
Post Research & Design stage, we moved into understanding the techniques involved in 3D printing. A Rhino file was simple enough to draw, with numerous joints developed – each designed to test minimum tolerances of the printing material, both in terms of breaking and connecting to the plastic rods.

Sadly time ran short for our project, and our test pieces were not able to be printed.

Alas, we were able to print our pieces and explored the various assembly approaches available to us. Having a very simple and adaptable piece of geometry repeated many times allowed us to experiment with the form until we were happy.

This experimentation began with a single spine, from which all rods would meet at a perpendicular angle, and spin around. This created a form which was random and chaotic. Although the printed pieces were designed to limit the movement of each one next to it to 10°, the tolerance of the machine rendered this feature useless.

To overcome this problem, we decided to create the desired flowing surface by stringing the rods between two spines. This was successful, and provided us with a malleable, flowing surface, whose stiffness maintained its shape and form, but small movement through multiple pieces had the residual of a graceful form.

Connecting to the board was initially intended to be the standard “screw a hole” technique, employed by many. However, after exhausting our supplies of plastic rods, we decided to use our few remaining joints to create the connection to the board. Yes, it does use glue.

The flexible, malleable, adaptable surface  was created by something never designed to act as a surface. The possibility of 3D printing has allowed us to join the given material – plastic rods – into a graceful sculpture.

Group 16 has constructed a tower through a process of experimental design & highly adaptive problem solving.

Our initial design was far too complex. We attempted to create something so different and innovative that we lost sight of our goals . We over-complicated.

The original main structural component.

After breaking many, many lengths of plywood, drastic re-design was imminent.

Attempting to bend the pieces.

We only cut 3 different pieces – two of which were designed for the failing aspect of the design. We simplified our structure, taking out the problem pieces that continued to break, and designing a tower that could stand with just the one replicated piece – a 38mm x 7.5mm length, with a small 5mm notch cut into both ends. This piece was twisted to add aesthetics and add in the flowing spiral form – a point which led to more problems.

Soaking the plywood was initially a major set back. We didn’t achieve the twist we anticipated as we were too hurried to assemble the pieces, and did not allow sufficient drying time. Furthermore, after finally drying, the property of the plywood has changed, making it more brittle.

Soaking the plywood.

Finally we constructed a very simple, elegant tower. This is when we reach the next major set back. Height.

Twisting the lengths.

Building up the first tower.

Standing Tall.

As our tower was now taller than the door, we realised we would have to move it outside to continue construction. Although successful, the tower suffered irreparable damage – a benefit in hindsight, as hidden structural faults exposed themselves.

First tower – on the road to ruin.

We soon realised that the tower became very unstable when we made the diameter of the ring (in plan) too small. We had to keep this diameter maximised to spread the load and centre of gravity over a larger area.  We also believed the structure was too simple (and we had 300+ spare 38mm lengths of plywood), so we decided to add an outer ring. this ring, although loosely woven, provided us with a better understanding of the structure and the options available to us.

Disaster.

The morning after, the tower had collapsed. A quick rebuild led to our second tower (& third design), where we experimented with bracing and tension. This tower had many of the same flaws as the original tower – the inner ring had too smaller diameter to support itself correctly, and wavered in the slightest breeze.

The second tower – experimenting with bracing.

Disaster (2.0).

Again, the tower failed to last through the night. Leaving us with as much knowledge of what not-to-do as we could fathom.

The final tower stands at around 3.8 meters tall, with two rings, each made of 10 members, braced against each other. The load is distributed directly down to the base, and also through the outer ring, which acts as a buttress.

(Click here to watch the assembly video)

Basking in the shadow of the tower.

movie fabrication final day from Ian Mann on Vimeo.

Lessons Learnt.

Amongst the lessons about structure and load distribution, as well as material transformation and durability, we have learnt a lot about teamwork. There were many instances in our project when a member has needed a third hand – promptly supplied. Through all of our failures and endeavours, we were able to overcome our stresses, and develop a project which has adapted to the situation and circumstances surrounding every aspect of it’s creation.

The final outcome – through a testing and triumphant process – has used only 190 lengths of 38mm x 7.5mm plywood members. This is less than two of our boards. If we would have developed the final outcome as our initial design (and only cut 2 out of our 4 boards), we could have halved the material use. Our structure stands tall and strong, using only half of the prescribed materials, only one repeated component & one connection.

The 4 Plywood Boards.

The left overs