Being inspired by the perpetual geometry of fractals in which similar shapes recur at progressively bigger scales, we created a flower-like pattern based on our Grasshopper definition.

Shallow in the middle and gradually deeper towards the edges, our concrete tile works as a landscape, driving the water flow outwards. The number of recesses on each side of the tile was done according to the requirements. The aforementioned restriction helped us to make a more dynamic pattern, dense in some sides and sparse to others.

The basic concept behind the whole design was to have dynamism in a vertical design by using one single element, and the possibility of this element to either move in the vertical axis so as to either merge the vertical rods inwards or expand them outwards or rotate the element in horizontal axis creating a spire effect in the vertical rods.

The Structure consists of two basic joints 3-D printed. One of which is a spherical egg shaped joint which is made by joining two hemispherical pieces together. The hemispherical pieces have ten holes in each piece which allow the vertical rods to go through making it possible to move this joint in the vertical axis, both the hemispherical joints get locked into each other providing the rotational flexibility in the horizontal axis.

There are five more identical joints which tie two vertical rods together under the spherical joint, the main function of these joints is to make the joints rigid or flexible near the base, which can be done by moving these pieces in the vertical axis. The closer they are to the base, greater rigidity the vertical rods have in the base, as you move these pieces farther away from the base, the vertical rods become more flexible near the base. this causes the vertical robs to either concave in or convex out near the base.

We were able to achieve a composition which is vertical in nature, but which can be able to change its geometry ( Straight vertical members or Spiral), height and radius.

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