Assignment 3

Reference and inspiration image – Lavaflow


after about 5min of stirring
after adding 40grams extra of water
After 5 mins we started to tilt the surface.
After 10 mins we started to tilt the board more and the concrete was sliding on the surface
After about 20 mins we started to tilt the board a lot more and the concrete was now sticking to the surface.
Result from experiment.
Here the concrete has been torn apart and has cracked
Here the concrete has gotten compressed


We wanted to try and emulate lava flow in this assignment. We mixed according to the recipe but thought the concrete was a bit to firm so we added a little extra water. To try and copy this effect we poured the concrete on a horizontal piece of wood and then tilted the surface to try and get the folds right. We soon realized that lava and concrete doesn’t really act the same way. It was hard to get the concrete to fold in the way we wanted but we did two test and one was more successful in emulating the lava, the other one was interesting because we could see a different effect with the cracked surface and the compressed part that broke of and was folded against the table.

Assignment 3

We started by mixing the default mix and then dividing it in three parts, keeping one as it was and adding different amounts of water to the other two mixes.
mix 1 – default
mix 2- default + 6 g water
mix 3- default +  13.3 g water
We then “poured” half the mixes on top of plastic cups and kept half.
An hour later we poured the rest on cups. The first mix (1.2) did not change much. The second (2.2)  had become more fluid and the third (3.2) had become less fluid.

Assignment #3

For this assignment I tried to cast in a medium with higher viscosity than water. I found that tapestry glue might shape the concrete without any other formwork. The glue mixture was made according to the instructions for putting up wallpaper, so it was quite thick. The concrete would sink slowly, I poured it in different parts of the container to see if this would create a variety of shapes. Some of it would just sink to the bottom, but when I poured the concrete slower, the lesser weight would make it float in the glue mixture.IMG_2243

Top view of the glue and the non cured concrete

IMG_2287One of the shapes

Assignment 3, AnnaEmanueleHanna

We wanted to investigate how concrete would behave when pouring it onto a almost vertical surface. So we attached a plastic sheet in a curve-like shape towards the wall. After mixing the concrete, with double amount of water, we decided to add some colour. Because we fell so much in love with the intense blue colour, we decided to not mix it in but to sprinkle some on top and see what would happen to in in the pour.


The result was quite nice. On the slope the concrete got really thin and cracked quite easy, in the “pool” the pigmentation gathered and created nice patterns of colour.

Looking at the thicker piece, the “pool”, you can see the difference in structure depending on what it was casted against. The plastic film created an extremely soft surface compared to the top which was quite 3dimentional and where the most of the colour ended up.

The edges are very thin and also very fragile. To summarise, it became a study of colour and pigmentation in concrete, but also a basic demonstation on how the surface of the form effects the surface of the cast.


Assignment 3 – fluid form – group 10

We used sliced baguettes in hopes that the fluid concrete would fill the air holes and cracks and pour out on the edges in spontaneous shapes. The breads holes were probably too small so the concrete didn´t sink so far into the bread. For the shape to be completely freed from the bread it will either have to dry more or be burnt off the concrete.



Assignment 03 – fluid form – group

Assignment 03 – Fluid form

Johan Wallhammar, Marieke van Dongeren


Concept: Spritzing concrete in several layers – like 3D-printing or spritzing cream on a cake

2 experiments:
– 1 on flat surface (Marieke)
– 1 on leaning surface (Johan)

Followed given recipe – with extra cement for a less fluid mix.

Four attempts were made at different times – so concrete was more cured:
– 1st attempt – directly when concrete was mixed
– 2nd attempt – 30 minutes after concrete was mixed
– 3rd attempt – 60 minutes after concrete was mixed
– 4th attempt – 80 minutes after concrete was mixed

Concrete mixture finished at 10.58.
– 1st attempt started at 11.03 – finished at 11.10
– 2nd attempt started at 11.30 – finished at 11.40
– 3rd attempt started at 12.00 – finished at 12.05
– 4th attempt started at 12.20 – finished at 12.25


1st attempt:
– heavy
– very hard to get concrete out of spritzer – we almost got cramps in our hands afterwards
– Mixture spritzed on flat surface was stable and could be built in several layers
– Mixture spritzed on leaning surface not as stable – fell over


2nd attempt:
– slightly less heavy, more fluid than 1st attempt.
– more smooth surface


3rd attempt:
– Perfect fluidity for spritzing –lighter
– more stable

4th attempt:
– slightly more fluid than 3rd attempt – less stable


Everything got wetter and more fluid as time passed – contrary to our expectations.
Johan had a bigger opening in his spritzer than Marieke. This might result in the different appearances of the tests.
The concrete was a lot blacker when we mixed it – after curing it got lighter.


Mix design:

mass (grams) parts percentage of cement
cement 1250 1
sand 2156 1.72 172.48%
fly ash 280 0.13 22.40%
silica 140 0.50 11.20%
water 420 3.00 33.60%
super plasticizer 18 0.04 1.44%
pigment 2.5 0.14 0.20%
total 4266.5 241.32%