Joseph Griffin LOGBOOK CONS10003 STUDIO 10AM-1PM FRI Students were given the task of building a tower out of small wooden blocks, as tall as possible and with an entrance large enough to fit a toy dinosaur through. Prior to commencing building many components of the task were considered and planned: Brick laying techniques: By interlaying the bricks between one another the structure was visibly a lot more stable. It is vital that corners are interconnected or the two separate walls are more likely to fall over. In addition, rounded edges allow for materials to be used more efficiently.
By interconnecting the walls they support each other. As such, a rounded structure made form the blocks would likely be very stable as it would be self supporting; a dome. We planned to build a dome similar to the one sketched: Efficient use of materials: In considering the size of the individual blocks (35mmx25mm12mm), the most efficient use of the materials was found to be by resting the blocks on upright (25mmx12mm base area), rather than lying them flat or on their side. However, after analysing three different ways of lying the blocks, it was found the two most efficient were also the most unstable and it was decided the blocks would be laid flat to stack. This decision was mainly
attributed to both the small nature of the blocks and sheer amount needed to create our structure; we could not stack them accurately enough to be stable when stacked upright on top of one another. Initial building: In practice, a half circle like structure was decided to be build instead of a dome. This was decided upon after the group came to the conclusion
building a dome/igloo like structure is too much of a timely process for our the time period we had. We were informed by out tutor for future reference that it is easier to remove the bricks to create an entrance once the structure is built rather than make an entrance whilst making the structure. The compressive load comes downwards and holds the bricks together. In building a door or arc framework is used (wood ect) to hold the structure together until enough compressive weight is on it and you can thus remove the framework.
Changes in construction techniques and concepts to overcome problems as building progressed: Changing our building structure occurred after we found a dome roof is extremely hard to build without any support system as every block on top of another creates compression and a downward force on the ones below. This saw our attempt at a domed roof continuously fall in upon itself. In this situation a static load was being applied to the structure. Ching (2008) explains a static load as a load applied slowly to a structure until it reaches its peak. The domes roof static load was considered to be a static dead load- loads acting vertically downwards on the structure occurring from self weight, weight of fixtures etc (Ching, 2008).
Building base of structure and entrance. Building on top of the entrance.
Building on top of the entrance.
Entrance now able to hold weight above itself.
In addition to this, the time period we had been granted was diminishing. We decided against creating a roof and instead building two towers (as tall as possible) on top of what we had built.
1 Deconstruction: We built up a corner of two by two bricks however it would not stay straight and became built nearly half over itself ( see fig 1.0). As we continued to build the critical collapse occurred, and the reason can be attributed to the structure lacking support and brick non alignment causing the tower to be constructed on an angle. Here, the load path could not be evenly distributed, and as the load path takes the easiest route to the ground, the tower collapsed.
Comparison to other groups work: Students in another group built a tower in a completely circular shape, with only one continuous corned. This structure proved to be extremely stable as the load of the structure was distributed consistently throughout the whole structure. Their structure proved to grow must more stable and higher than ours, however took more precision and time.
Fig 1.0) Note the tower leaning to the left of the sketch.
Mindmap 1: Grose (2014), Newton (2014a), Newton (2014e), Newton (2014f), Newton (2014g),
Mindmap 2: Ching (2008),
Studio session 2:
Description and analysis of construction systems employed: Tasked to use a single piece of balsa wood cut into approximately 40 pieces we had to create a tower tall enough to reach to ceiling of the room.
Cutting the balsa wood into 40 pieces, we measured the length of each piece to be 60cm. We decided 4 lengths would be needed in height to reach the ceiling (240cm). For this task, we decided to make 4 rectangular prisms and stack them amongst each other. We used a frame structure due to the materials given and its efficiency of transferring loads to the ground.
We intended to use the 10 spare pieces from the initial skeletal frame to use as bracing to assist the structure in transferring the static load and compressive force of itself downwards.
We used fixed joints in attaching the columns, beams and bracing. Caution was considered here as bending in materials can occur if loads are placed on one part of the structure and transferred.
Efficiency of material: This task allowed us to understand how efficiently materials can be used in construction. From one piece of balsa wood we could create up to 40 pieces which equals 40 times the length of
the original piece.
Sketches of deformation and stability during different processes of the construction: Balsa wood is a very flexible wood and as a result, constructing the tower saw many pieces deform when low loads such as the weight of our finger being placed on pieces. Our structure would of probably been quite stable once complete, however it would not of been able to take much, if any form of load being placed on it.
Due to our glue failing to dry in the time period we were granted, we could not erect our tower.
Many groups in our studio faced this issue.
Mindmap 3: Ching (2008), Newton (2014a), Newton (2014b), Newton (2014c), Selenitsch (2014)
Week 3: Footings and foundations Tour of Melbourne University, studying and analysing buildings within it.
Lot 6 Caf Lot 6 Caf is made of a hybrid structure consisting primarily of a frame system constructed out of concrete and glass windows. A major structural element here is the corner strut (column). This is taking part of the load from the beams it is connected to above, to the ground. The primary material used for this structure is reinforced concrete. In addition, glass windows in steel frames have also been used to enclose the structure. The structure is expressed: its frame is still bare and represents the exterior/appearance of the structure as well. As such, grade A concrete has been used. This ensures that it remains aesthetically pleasing. Watermarks can be noted where the concrete has been stained over time from water, as over time it can become porous. It is interesting to note that this extension from the building behind it, is clearly defined to be a newer structure and not an attempt to replicate the pre existing one.
Underground carpark/South lawn.
The underground carpark and south lawn are together, an extremely interesting structural system. The car park has been concealed underneath South Lawn, however the two are interconnected systems .The wide columns pictured on the bottom left image are big enough that drainage and soil can sit in and flow through them. This is necessary as the car park directly below south lawn. The trees roots are aligned with the columns in order to allow them to grow downwards (see right). These columns were made with formwork which can still be noted on the concrete through timber/plywood outline marks on it. We learnt that the white marking on the concrete is due to calcification occurring: the concrete is leaking water. This structure system used is a solid system made of concrete poured in-situ. The top right image shows the roof of the road entrance to the car park. Here a waffle slab has been used. A waffle slab has a thin top slab with narrow ribs spanning in both directions connecting the columns, which creates the waffle pattern. This may have been used due to its cost effectiveness. (Ching, 2008).
Stairs on west end of Union House
The stairs and supporting network in the images above are a hybrid structure. The stairs make a frame system, and additionally, the stairs appear to be held up by cantilevers and cables through tensile system. This is however, an illusion and the tensile system is for aesthetic purposes only, to appear to hold up the floating staircase through tensile forces. The illusion can be noted through the image on the left. The column and beam system supporting the stair case would not be needed if the cantilevers were actually holding up the staircase. Further, if it were only the cables holding up the staircase, it would sway with use. In this scenario the stair case would need to be anchored to the ground, which would detract from the purpose of using a tensile floating system in the first place. This structure is made primarily of steel beams and some columns to lead it to the ground. Part of the structures actual supports have been concealed and incorporated into the masonry brickwork on the walls and ground. The cable barriers on the staircase have been fixed through cable anchor joints. Here the cable can rotate, and can