Hand In Hand, Tower

“The process began with a Spiral as our inspiration. We wanted to explore the potential of the material to its maximum threshold; hence the Spiral was the best fit for our endeavor.

 Working with this geometry helped us discover various complex issues and challenges at every step of construction. The unique module evolved, has been used in different sizes with variations in engravings.

Series of tests were carried out using different spacing between engravings on strips of wood along with soaking them in water. With the said experimentation, we were able to bend the wood significantly more than expected.  The various permutations and combinations of the modules enabled the unique twisting and interlocking between the modules. The final installation is a dynamic structure put together piece by piece, almost in a poetic way, where the form was evolved purely by the properties of the module rather than following a preconceived idea of the form.”

The design of our tower was driven by several criteria: || maximization of material usage
|| repetition of a single member
|| achieving of several possible configurations

As a result of a successful implementation of the first and the second criteria, we were able to make use of 97% of the available material, consequently reaching the height of nearly 5 meters in the virtual model simulation. Nevertheless, the height of the virtual model was modeled in the “perfect world” conditions, thus not reflecting such important physical criteria as material stress capabilities and the vertical load distribution in a structure of this type. Having assembled several sections of the tower into their envisioned arrangement, we confirmed that such material as wood fails in direct correlation with the grain its cut along and the amount of stress it experiences in the thinnest joinery areas. We realized that in order to reduce the stress||strain loads in our tower we need to drastically reduce the total height of the structure and hence tackle the third design criteria, multiple configurations using a repetitive single element.

The base unit of the structure is a slightly curved uniform strip of wood that interlocks with two more identical elements to form a stiff, yet elegant triangle. Further mirrored upwards the newly formed two triangles visually mimic an “expanded metal” element, and are connected via cross-joints in the center and longitudinal joint at the vertices of the triangle. Once unified into one and rotated 30 degrees the units begin locking into each other, thus reinforcing the overall structure of the tower. Lastly, to break the uniform look of the structure we introduced the “turning torso” movement, physically rotating one third of the overall tower height by 15 degrees at each joint.

95 % use of material

Top View

Assembling pieces to form a triangle || 2 triangle form one unit || 2 units joined by cross joints

Scale Comparison

STOPMOTION

The central theme of the project was to create a structure that arose from a flat plane into a three-dimensional object while challenging the properties of the materials used.

The uniqueness of the structure lies in the individual strips that lift from the flat surface, requiring no joints hence forming smooth curves.

The structure evolved over time to its final result where the support members were shifted from the exterior to the interior. Also a few curves were detached from the end strips in order to break the monotony of the overall structure.

Furthermore the strips created evolved from being just horizontal strips to multi directional curves using the laser cutter to our advantage.

Although the bending was done against the grains of the wood we were able to achieve the required result by laser cutters precision to create small perforations onto the surface.

To allow further bending of the wood, it was bent while wet. The inner structure was then fitted to hold the bend in place.

Through this process, it was possible to bend the two strips to achieve a gap of more than 15cm between them. Various distances have been used along the entire model that makes the overall structure more dynamic.

Additionally as the whole board was used to create the structure not much waste was generated from the process.

THE PROCESS:

1. Laser cut the perforations perpendicular to the curve required.
2. Wet the board for about 2minutes either by spraying or soaking (both methods were tried and gave positive results)
3. Bend the curve to the distance required and hold in place for a few seconds. Insert the central structure that would hold the bend while the structure dries and also as as the spine of the model.

Group 12 |  Akanksha Kargwal - Mamta Srinivas - Irina Shaklova

The structure is a simple constructive assembly system that allows us to experiment in a single object multiple and different types of joints and their possible variations/combinations that became our primary research, seeking to minimise waste.

The pentagonal footprint force us to generate horizontal elements that are connected by various elements in the vertical direction. The combination of both, horizontal and vertical parts is what generates height increase and stabilisation of the system when connected.

We also explored the void as an integral element in our structure, which reduces weight and helps with the distribution of the different parts to achieve an effective balance in our structure.

The result is, when unassembled; a compact structure system, easy to pack and transport,  extremely easy and quick to assemble based on the interlocking, bending, sectioning and clipping joints experimented and tested in different models and digital joinery. When assembled, is also stable and can be manipulated without the risk to be destroy.

Dimitrios Aidonis | Michele Braidy | Gustavo Triana

]]> http://legacy.iaacblog.com/maa2013-2014-digital-fabrication/2013/11/679/feed/ 0 http://legacy.iaacblog.com/maa2013-2014-digital-fabrication/2013/11/interweave/ http://legacy.iaacblog.com/maa2013-2014-digital-fabrication/2013/11/interweave/#comments Wed, 06 Nov 2013 01:12:39 +0000 Mary Katherine Heinrich http://legacy.iaacblog.com/maa2013-2014-digital-fabrication/?p=710  

Each element in this design is a rectangular wood strip of the same length. The width of the strips begins at 4cm and decreases gradually as the structure continues up. Structurally, the tower is organized in two perpendicular axes, crossing at a central datum. In both axes, the strips bend in an alternating pattern as they go up, switching direction at each bend’s apex. Within each axis, the strips notch together when they cross. When the two axes cross at the central datum, they weave through each other. This weaving joint (along with the surrounding bent strips acting in tension) gives the structure its stability. An “X” in one axis weaves through an “eye” in the opposing axis. The angles of each “X” determine and stabilize the position of the “eye” that encapsulates it. As the width of the strips decreases, the radius of the “eye” increases. This causes all the strips around it to increase in radius, becoming thinner in overall plan diameter. Therefore, as each section’s strips get thinner, that section of the tower gets taller.

TEAM: Efilena Baseta, Elena Mitrofanova + Mary Katherine Heinrich

The concept for this tower arose from the vertical aggregation of identical pyramidal components at decreasing scales. The component itself was developed through the distortion of simple geometries to find opportunities for self-replication without the use of additional components. The slight distortion of the resulting pyramidal form creates multi-planar vertices that can be utilized for vertical expansion. A simple stacking method generated a tall tower and presented an intriguing combination of height and density.

In an attempt to uncover further potential within the component, we re-examined the geometry and derived an alternative ‘sister’ method for stacking the pyramids which increased the suspension between the components to achieve greater height while using precise notching on the triangles to create connections of greater strength against laterally applied forces. The resulting product is a combination of digital processing and precision hand modeling, and has a playful twisting profile due to the duality of systematically generated connections and empirically derived custom connections.

Joshua Ranjit Pio John   //   Miguel Angel Juarez Diazbarriga   //   Robert Douglas McKaye

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

The final dimensions of the scratch joint were determined by the material’s flexibility as well as the joint’s arm length.  The 3mm wood gave us optimal flexibility to bend pieces and form connections adding strength through tension and compression.  The scratch tower went through many iterations: first, we looked at the geometry of a spiral. Creating a spiral configuration would provide us with maximum strength, but left us with less opportunities to play with the system.  Secondly, we combined a spiral base with an organic flow that formed an unstable tower.  Final build experiments taught us that we could achieve a more stable structure as long as we had a strong base, this allowed us to grow our tower from a ridged base and explore the possibilities of natural form using one component as well as experiment with the tower’s maximum height.

Start from Scratch!

The assignment was to build a tower, tall, freestanding, with no extra elements, using four 840x400mm 3mm thick Plywood sheets.

The initial thought process was to achieve height by eliminating vertical elements and reducing the amount of wastage of material. To create stabilitiy and variation a “RING MODULE” with 5 nodal points was designed which could be generated 2 on each board. The remaining material was designed to be the “DIAMOND CONNECTORS” connecting the horizontal rings. 

The concept was to discover the possibilities of the plywood, by testing the limits and methods in terms of flexibility and the effects of tension on the wood’s fibers. To be able to handle the circular tension, a locking mechanism was designed allowing the horizontal loops and vertical repetition of modules. Techniques such as soaking in water and letting the modules dry in their bent form helped us to reach the design objective.

MARIA CZAJCZYNSKA        HRIDAY SIDDHARTH        GOKHAN CATIKKAS

BENDING

FINAL BOARD

1/5 PIECES

1/5 RING

ASSEMBLY

Triagon is a combination of triangles and a penthagons coexisting in the same structure.

The goal of this first Digital Fabrication project was to build a tower out of 4 board of 3mm plywood while exploring the properties of the material and to acquaint ourselves with laser cutting.

The Triagon stands 2.7m tall. The structure is made out of a single 180° twisted plywood elements which works in tension along with the joints to form an equilateral triangle which is the basic unit of the tower.

Remita Thomas /Rodion Eremeev / Alejandro Martínez del Campo

We began with triangles as the basic geometry of our structure because of its stability. After inicial testings of the possible joinery with cartboard and plywood we realized that a combination of circles and rods would be the most efficient design for our conections.

Later on we wanted to play with the properties of the material, so we started bending and twisting the rod, which generates stress on the joints and makes the basic unit more robust. In order to twist the rods 180°  we had to use another technique which involved wetting the plywood so that it became more elastic and cuting inside the rod a dentate form with circular ends to prevent breakage. We also found out that rods needed to be cut in the same directions of the fibers so that the twisting could be achieved.

To minimize the waste of the material and the cutting time we used just 2 elements in the whole structure, one was the 30cm rod itself and the other was the circular conections which we also used for attaching the tower to the base.