We choose to work with flexible formwork with multi-material/ smocking and pinching.
Our intent was to create a repetition: one shape multiplied and then connected (smocking) with another material: multi-material. This could be applied as modals in an architectural context.
During the process six square shapes was casted in flexible plastic. Each square was attached to the next with a clamp. It could for example be a wall that is joined to another wall by pinching, where another material (multi-material) make the ”clamp effect” itself. The center of the clamp effect could be where another material makes out a joint. For example a rope, a screw, a bolt or a chain.
As a final conclusion it could be assumed this form in a bigger scale would allow the material being pinched to even better. Now it is fragile and the clamps almost erased what they are suppose to pinch.
Hanna-Thea Björö, Bisera Örn
We choose to work with cardboard to create a precise shape made out of “mountain” and “valley” folds. We wanted to work with a small shape to keep control over the materials and the shape. Too big of a size would probably become more unstable and also require a big amount of slurry and pebbles. Too small of a size could make it hard to make folds and also create a risk of slurry not entering all gaps.
We did not get a clear picture of what would be a good size and mix between peeblestone and slurry.
What is relevant sizes according to different sizes and shapes of mould shape?
Hanna-Thea Björö, Bisera Örn
Assignment 04—Multi material and Smocking & pinching.
We chose the two categories, multi material and smocking & pinching.
Multi material — we wanted to work with something that enveloped or “were threaded on” another material. We stitched three fabric parts that we came across an MDF.
smocking and pinching — In the experiment with smocking and pinching we stitched twopieces of fabric shapes.
1. is a simpler version of smocking where some points go inside, others outside.
2. Here, we wanted to test how we could work with smocking and pinching by adding it after we had concrete in the bag. We put on clothes pegs and a cord that we wrapped around.
Group 8, Hanna-Thea Björö och Bisera Örn.
Mix 1 : 7,5 parts sand.
Mix 2 : 0,8 parts water.
Mix 3,4,5 : 3 % pigment.
We started with mix 3, 4 and 5. The pigmented mixes.
*1 This time we decided to make one big mix based on double the amount of cement in the default mix. Then we divided into three and calculated 5 g of pigment in every bucket of mix. We added the pigment into the dry ingredients. Something went wrong again and we realized the importance of precision when putting all things together. So we decided to not make one big mix and divide it again.
*2*3 For some reason a kind of fat texture appeared in the buckets when we added water and the pigment did not blend well. Where there traces of fat dirt in them from earlier experiments?
We called for help and Annie- Locke came to the rescue.
She pointed out and helped us adjust some things:
*4 Write out the recipe first with all steps included so you easily can go back and analyze your mix.
*5 Small buckets on the small scales instead of large that can set the scale of. We also started to measure one thing at a time instead of putting the scale back to zero all the time and then add the next ingredient. So, if something go wrong you can always double-check separate ingredients instead of losing a hole mix, when unsure.
*6 Pigment is to be added with the dry ingredients.
*7 *8 It is also good to add a little water at a time and allow the dry ingredients react correct and work up the moist.
*9 We got the end result we aimed for, with some minor adjustment to the planned mix. *10 Mix 1 and 2 worked out fine and (*11) here is the end result.
Process —preparing the experiments
We wanted to capture the movement of the concrete but also experiment with the ”drying time”. We let two of the experiments dry for a while before we touched or moved the concrete.
Process —Making the experiments
We did two different mixtures. The first mix was wrong, then we mixed silica with water instead of super plasticizer and had to add a lot of water to compensate and make a more fluid mix. We used the mix on two of our experiments. They dried slowly, probably because of the amount of water and the result was a glossy finish. Those forms we had planned to adjust according to the experiment, we let dry for one hour.
What we learned from this is that the order of ingredients is as important as quantity.
The second mix followed the recipe and used in other experiments. We kept one of them since the others broke. The mix dried faster and got a matte finish in the end.
We did various forms with different materials. They gave different results as glossy, matte, various imprints of the material etc.
The rule was to remove all material from the mold: only concrete were to remain even if they broke.
As a summary we reflected on that same mix gives different expressions depending on the shape and its material. The way the material is characterized by the shape is extensive and valuable to utilize.
Grupp 8: Hanna-Thea Björö, Bisera Örn
Where: Slussen, Stockholm. Sweden.
Process: Pavement with structure added to create a rough surface.
Material: Concrete, Pebblestone. Tar?
In Slussen these two different structures meet in the street charing space
in the same pavement. Beautiful patterns created by function.
Where: Östermal, Stockholm. Sweden.
Process: Contrete and pebblestone fills a hole in the tree. Structure have
been added to create an illusion to be part of the bark.
Material: Concrete, Pebblestone.
In Östermalm in Stockholm this tree is to be found by the pavement in the
middle of the street. How did this happen?