__MAIN_TEXT__
feature-image

Page 1

Forks in trees

Test forks

Cultivating Complexity Robot testing

3 point system

Forester input

25 forks felled

.3DM Fork photos

Forks Traced

Fork analysis script

Fork cutting list

GPS data

Truss Mockup

Organization 3

Organization 2 Organization 1

Engineer input

Vierendeel truss

.3DM Truss volume 1

.3DM Not enough forks

Catenary arch

Truss volume 2

DESIGN NOTES The Tree Fork Truss employs twenty distinct beech forks within an arched vierendeel truss. An intentionally unusual arrangement for timber, its non-triangulated form is

Zachary Mollica

specifically enabled by the rigidity of these naturally formed joints.

Project brief

Larch poles


Field grown oak

2


Introduction Digital design and fabrication tools are often used to develop nonstandard series of components from standardized materials. In the case of wooden building, timber is reduced to sheets and sticks before having a complexity returned to it by milling procedures. And yet, trees and other such organic materials already present a naturally formed nonstandard series – each wholly unique. In The Alphabet and the Algorithm, Mario Carpo proposes that digital tools might allow: “a nimbler exploitation of organic building materials like timber or stone, which may be structurally unpredictable due to natural variations. Nonstandard technologies could interact with such irregularities, and adapt form and design to the variability of nature almost as aptly as artisanal manipulation once did.” The primary structure of the Wood Chip Barn is a robotically fabricated, arched Vierendeel like truss composed of twenty distinct tree forks. This work demonstrates clearly that digital tools are well suited to processing these inherent forms - creating strong, and complex ‘components’ with minimal energy. While some version of the structure might have been achieved without digital technologies, the efficiency and intelligence which they afforded us could not. Outlined on page 8, bringing tree forks from standing in the forest to within the truss required the development of an innovative, digitally informed workflow. This text expands a number of parts of this process in which I was directly involved. – Zachary Mollica.

3


4


5


Photo: Valerie Bennett

6


7


Forks in trees

Test forks

Robot testing

3 point system

Forester input

25 forks felled

.3DM Fork photos

Forks Traced

Fork analysis script

Fork cutting list

GPS data

Truss Mockup

Organization 3

Organization 2 Organization 1

Engineer input

Vierendeel truss

.3DM Truss volume 1

.3DM Not enough forks

Catenary arch

Truss volume 2

DESIGN NOTES The Tree Fork Truss employs twenty distinct beech forks within an arched vierendeel truss. An intentionally unusual arrangement for timber, its non-triangulated form is

8

Project brief

specifically enabled by the rigidity of these naturally formed joints.

Larch poles


Tool path script

Tools paths

Robot cell prepared

FABRICATION NOTES With a final truss organization selected, the robotic arm machined connection

3D scanning

geometries in to each fork to

Robot fabrication

define their relationships to each other. While digitally fabricated, the truss was pre-assembled in two halves in the Big Shed before eventually being erected on site. Connection script

.3DM

Connection mockup

Truss Organized

17 iterations

Scaffold design

Engineer input

Final truss model

.3DM Assembly jig

Final truss volume Concrete slab

Truss assembled

Web members 1

Top Chords

Surveying

Tripods

4 tripods

made

9

Forks in truss


10


Finding forks

In wanting to make use of the inherent forms of trees, it was important to understand those shapes from an early stage. A general survey of the forks available informed the design process and aided decisions as to which forks would be felled. With forks on the ground, a thorough 3D scan of each allowed us to work directly with their form.

11


12


Hooke’s trees Hooke Park contains approximately fifteen species of trees - a diverse mix of conifers and broadleafs. Although all species exhibit some kind of branching, only broadleafs produce the kind of forks explored in this project. In studying the species breakdown, and in conversation with Chris Sadd (forester), Charley Brentnall (Make Tutor) and Arup (Engineers) beech was determined as the most suitable species to work with. Wanting to work with found forms, it was important to establish an understanding of what forms beech forks offered. A rough survey was carried out in two compartments photographing forks and assigning them a grade of A, B or C.

= 5000 m2 of forest

Beech

Broadleaf

Conifer

Beech

Douglas fir

Corsican pine

Spruce

Larch

Red oak

Ash

Sitka spruce

Alder

Sycamore

Oak

Red cedar

Poplar

Broadleaf mix

Sweet chestnut

13


Though this grading was helpful in providing initial direction, it was clear that a way to generate an approximate digital representation of forks in standing trees was needed. Using an iPhone app, an approach was developed by which an outline of each fork traced on a photograph in Rhino could be properly scaled and its skew corrected. With this, a survey of all but one of Hooke Park’s beech compartments was carried out. Shown above, while surveying the woods, a rough map was maintained of each fork documented.

14


Fork Name: 08_D02 Date & Time: Thu May 7 19:40:09 BST 2015 Position: +050.79502째 / -002.67711째 Altitude: 184 m Azimuth/Bearing: 064 deg N64E 1138 mils (True) Elevation Angle: +26.5째 Horizon Angle: -00.3째 Zoom: 1X

15


7_A03

08_A03

08_A13

08_A14

08_A16

8_A18

08_C04

08_C05

08_C09

08_C14

8_D02

08_D03

08_D06

09_B04

09_F06

9_F09

09_F10

09_G03

09_G05a

09_G05b

9_G08

09_G16

09_G17a

10_E01

10_E03

0_E06

10_E07

11_A19

11_A22

11_A26

1_A28

11_B03

11_B15

11_B25

11_B26

16


20

18

16

Photo taken

14

12

10

Traced and corrected

08

06

04

02

00 18

Distortion corrected

16

14

12

10

08

06

04

02

00

Approximate FOV for 204 survey photos (1m grid)

Height to centre of fork (1m increments)

Photographed from the ground, each of the photos’ distortion was corrected using the angle at which it was taken, a distance from the stem and the camera’s FOV.

17


Forks= broken surveyed fork From the photos taken in surveying, an = fork approximate geolocation of each fork was extracted and mapped - ensuring they could be found again. A Grasshopper script was developed to combine the 204 polylines with each fork’s location. As each of the polylines had been traced with the same number of lines, the script was able to simultaneously evaluate criteria of all of them. By having GPS positions within this scripting, search parameters could be applied to the collection and live mapped - eg. where are all of the forks with over 30 deg opening?

18


07_A01

07_A02

07_A03

08_A01

08_A02

08_A03

08_A04

08_A05

08_A06

08_A07

08_A08

08_A09

08_A10

08_A11

08_A12

08_A13

08_A14

08_A15

08_A16

08_A17

08_A18

08_A19

08_A20

08_B01

08_B02

08_B03

08_B04

08_B05

08_B06

08_B07

08_B08

08_C01

08_C02

08_C03

08_C04

08_C05

08_C06

08_C07

08_C08

08_C09

08_C10

08_C11

08_C12

08_C13

08_C14

08_D01

08_D02

08_D03

08_D04

08_D05

08_D06

08_D07

09_A01

09_A02

09_A03

09_A04

09_A05

09_A06

09_A07

09_A08 09_B01a 09_B01b 09_B02

09_B03

09_B04

09_B05

09_B06

09_B07

09_C01

09_C02

09_C03

09_D01

09_E01

09_E02 09_F01a 09_F01b 09_F02

09_F03

09_F04

09_F05

09_F06

09_F07

09_F10

09_G01

09_G02

09_G03

09_G04 09_G05a 09_G05b 09_G06

09_G07

09_G08

09_G09

09_G10 09_G11a 09_G11b 09_G12

09_G13

09_G14

09_G15

09_G16 09_G17a 09_G17b

10_A01

10_A02

10_A03

10_D01

10_D02

10_E01

10_E02

10_E03

10_E04

10_E05

10_E06

10_E07

10_E08

10_E09

11_A01

11_A02

11_A03

11_A04

11_A05

11_A06

11_A07

11_A08

11_A09

11_A10

11_A11

11_A12

11_A13

11_A14

11_A15

11_A16

11_A17

11_A18

11_A19

11_A20

11_A21

11_A22

11_A23

11_A24

11_A25

11_A26

11_A27

11_A28

11_A29

11_B01

11_B02

11_B03

11_B04

11_B05

11_B06

11_B07

11_B08

11_B09

11_B10

11_B11

11_B12

11_B13

11_B14

11_B15

11_B16

11_B17

11_B18

11_B19

11_B20

11_B21

11_B22

11_B23

11_B24

11_B25

11_B26

11_B27

11_B28

11_B29

11_B30

11_B31

11_B32

11_B33

12_A01

12_A02

12_A03

12_A04

12_A05

12_B01

12_B02

12_B03

09_F08

09_F09

Line = 40 forks selected from analysis script.

12_B04

12_B05

12_B06

12_B07

12_B08

12_B09

12_B10

12_B11

12_B12

12_B13

12_B14

12_B15

12_B16

12_B17

12_B18

Colour = 25 forks felled and 3D scanned.

19


07_A03

08_A03

08_A13

08_A14

08_A16

08_D02

08_D03

08_D06

09_B04

09_F06

09_G08

09_G16

09_G17a

10_E01

10_E03

11_A28

11_B03

11_B15

11_B25

11_B26

The 40 forks to be considered for felling.

20


08_A18

08_C04

08_C05

08_C09

08_C14

09_F09

09_F10

09_G03

09_G05a

09_G06

10_E06

10_E07

11_A19

11_A22

11_A26

12_A03

12_A04

12_B05

12_B08

12_B13

The next 4 pages show sample evaluations applied to the 40 forks which were eventually selected from this script.

21


17.1°

24.8°

23.6°

27.2° 60.2°

07_A03

08_A03

08_A13

08_A14

08_A16

30.1° 29.1°

27.6°

21.4° 25.8°

08_D02

08_D03

20.2°

08_D06

09_B04

09_F06

23.1° 22.4°

17.9° 21.8°

09_G08

09_G16

09_G17a

23.3°

10_E01

17.1°

10_E03

15.8°

33.4° 21.6°

11_A28

11_B03

11_B15

11_B25

Fork opening range: 14.9° - 60.2° (avg. 24.5°)

22

11_B26


26.2° 25.7° 25.6°

32.0°

08_A18

08_C04

08_C05

22.3°

08_C09

08_C14

23.9° 22.2°

23.5°

09_F09

09_F10

09_G03

21.7°

09_G05a

32.6°

09_G06

23.3°

22.8°

20.6°

26.7° 23.1°

10_E06

10_E07

11_A19

14.9°

11_A22

11_A26

23.4°

18.4°

22.5° 24.6°

12_A03

12_A04

12_B05

12_B08

12_B13

An important criteria in selecting forks was the angle of opening between branch and stem. As most forks have curved limbs, it is difficult to define a single angle - as a change of one’s length results in a change of angle.

23


07_A03

08_A03

08_A13

08_A14

08_A16

08_D02

08_D03

08_D06

09_B04

09_F06

09_G08

09_G16

09_G17a

10_E01

10_E03

11_A28

11_B03

11_B15

11_B25

11_B26

525

24

Diameter range

100


08_A18

08_C04

08_C05

08_C09

08_C14

09_F09

09_F10

09_G03

09_G05a

09_G06

10_E06

10_E07

11_A19

11_A22

11_A26

12_A03

12_A04

12_B05

12_B08

12_B13

The script was also capable of evaluating a fork’s diameter at a given interval. Providing this information to Arup they were able to begin to accurately evaluate forks performance.

25


Felling with Chris With this shortlist of 40 forks prepared, we returned to the woods with Hooke Park’s Forester, Christopher Sadd. First revisiting each of the trees which had been surveyed to ensure the accuracy of the initial survey, and to observe any noticeable defects which had been missed out in the first photos - a number of forks were omitted from the original list and a few added based on in the field observations. Additionally, another few were ruled out for forestry reasons - their removal having a potentially negative impact on the trees surrounding them. In total, 25 forks were successfully harvested.

26


27


Felled forks 25 forks were successfully harvested from throughout Hooke Park. In the felling process, 6 trees resulted in significant damage upon impact causing the loss of 7 forks.

07_A01

08_A15

08_C04

08_D07

09_C01

09_G01

09_G16

11_A01

11_A18

11_B06

11_B23

12_B02

07_A02

08_A16

08_C05

09_A01

09_C02

09_G02

09_G17

11_A02

11_A19

11_B07

11_B24

12_B03

07_A03

08_A17

08_C06

09_A02

09_C03

09_G03

09_G17

11_A03

11_A20

11_B08

11_B25

12_B04

08_A01

08_A18

08_C07

09_A03

09_D01

09_G04

10_A01

11_A04

11_A21

11_B09

11_B26

12_B05

08_A02

08_A19

08_C08

09_A04

09_E01

09_G05

10_A02

11_A05

11_A22

11_B10

11_B27

12_B06

08_A03

08_A20

08_C09

09_A05

09_E02

09_G05

10_A03

11_A06

11_A23

11_B11

11_B28

12_B07

08_A04

08_B01

08_C10

09_A06

09_F01

09_G06

10_D01

11_A07

11_A24

11_B12

11_B29

12_B08

08_A05

08_B02

08_C11

09_A07

09_F01

09_G07

10_D02

11_A08

11_A25

11_B13

11_B30

12_B09

08_A06

08_B03

08_C12

09_A08

09_F02

09_G08

10_E01

11_A09

11_A26

11_B14

11_B31

12_B10

08_A07

08_B04

08_C13

09_B01

09_F03

09_G09

10_E02

11_A10

11_A27

11_B15

11_B32

12_B11

08_A08

08_B05

08_C14

09_B01

09_F04

09_G10

10_E03

11_A11

11_A28

11_B16

11_B33

12_B12

08_A09

08_B06

08_D01

09_B02

09_F05

09_G11

10_E04

11_A12

11_A29

11_B17

12_A01

12_B13

08_A10

08_B07

08_D02

09_B03

09_F06

09_G11

10_E05

11_A13

11_B01

11_B18

12_A02

12_B14

08_A11

08_B08

08_D03

09_B04

09_F07

09_G12

10_E06

11_A14

11_B02

11_B19

12_A03

12_B15

08_A12

08_C01

08_D04

09_B05

09_F08

09_G13

10_E07

11_A15

11_B03

11_B20

12_A04

12_B16

08_A13

08_C02

08_D05

09_B06

09_F09

09_G14

10_E08

11_A16

11_B04

11_B21

12_A05

12_B17

08_A14

08_C03

08_D06

09_B07

09_F10

09_G15

10_E09

11_A17

11_B05

11_B22

12_B01

12_B18

28


Fork: 12_A03 Forks were brought back to the yard as large as we could manage to allow flexibility approximately 6 m long and over half a ton

29


Going in circles This image shows the sequence in which forks were felled. As the whole process was an ongoing negotiation with Chris as to the best trees, and with changing standards for suitable forks in working with Arup, we ended up traveling in circles

Campus

= fork = broken fork

30


The inside of fork 08_A16. In total, 6 trees including 7 forks were broken in the felling process. In a number as above, damage and rot was exposed which might not have been noticed

08_A16

08_D05

09_B05

09_E02

09_G05a

09_G05b

11_B19

31


08_D02 scan with 57118 faces Each fork was prepared for the organisation script by adding three reference points which refer to physical holes in the forks and generating centrelines for each of their limbs

32


Organizing forks

Instead of allowing the forks’ forms to directly generate the overall geometry, the Fork Truss organizes 20 of them within a volume which has been designed with their size and shapes in mind.

33


08_A03 42906

08_A12 68004

08_A13 61610

08_A14 37442

08_A20 54368

08_C05 44758

08_C11 64726

08_C14 56550

08_D03 61282

09_B04 56416

09_F09 56860

09_G15 61088

10_E01 64714

10_E07 42924

11_A12 41326

11_A29 52944

11_B03 56962

11_B06 65684

11_B09 63414

11_B16 63026

11_B25 66472

12_A03 63582

12_B10 55994

12_B13 55726

25 final 3D fork scans

34


Early versions of the truss were populated manually with polylines from the photo survey. While harvesting and scanning the 25 final forks, a script was developed which was capable of dynamically organizing them.

35


1 First point - move

Second point - rotate

3

2 1 Evaluate - deviation from target curves Third point - rotate

Based on the fork’s three limbs, a placement strategy was established by which a fork finds three points of contact with two target curves by three sequential transformations.

36


The scripting process was progressed from being capable of solving one fork at a time to solving the whole truss - this grid depicts steps along the way.

37


38


17 Fork Truss iterations With scans prepared for all 25 forks, the organization script was run to generate 17 different iterations of the truss. In considering the forks sizes, it was determined that the truss would be made up of 20 forks: six down each of the two outer chords, and two along each of four inner chords. All seventeen overlaid in this image, the variation within those twenty positions is visible. In working with Arup, truss iteration 9.1 was selected as the best arrangement. This version was then taken through a number of further developments before arriving at the built truss – 9.1F.

39


1

2

3

4

450 mm

40

6

6.1

7

7.1

7.2

8

8.1

9

9.1

9.1F

9.2

125 mm

10

10.1

10.2


1

2

3

4

6

6.1

7

7.1

7.2

8

8.1

9

9.1

9.1F

9.2

10

10.1

10.2

These images show each truss iteration’s local colour, these models allowed Arup to accurately in the drawing above and graph to the left, 9.1F than any other - with both fewer very large

fork diameters. Layered by evaluate the truss. Visible has a more even distribution and very small sections.

41


8

08_A03

18

08_A12

14

08_A13

17

08_A14

9

08_A20

18

08_C05

7

08_C11

18

08_C14

18

08_D02

18

08_D03

8

09_B04

18

09_F09

18

09_G15

17

10_E01

16

10_E07

16

11_A12

15

11_A29

14

11_B03

14

11_B06

12

11_B09

12

11_B16

14

11_B25

16

12_A03

14

12_B10

11

12_B13

Organizations This diagram attempts to make some sense of the information generated in outputting 18 distinct iterations of the truss (1-10.2). While a number are similar, each contains a unique arrangement of the 25 forks. On the opposite page, the graph above outlines which forks appear in each iteration of the truss - listing them alphabetically, with blanks indicating a fork left out of that iteration. In the graph below it, the order of these selected 20 forks has been rearranged to describe the exact position (A-T) in which each of the 20 forks included in the truss has been placed. Of note, is the absence of forks 10_E01, 10_E07 and 11_A29 in 9.1F. Three of the more commonly placed forks in other iterations, As the truss was finalized, a number of defects were found in these forks causing their manual exchange.

42

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T


08_A03 08_A12 08_A13 08_A14 08_A20 08_C05 08_C11 08_C14 08_D02 08_D03 09_B04 09_F09 09_G15 10_E01 10_E07 11_A12 11_A29 11_B03 11_B06 11_B09 11_B16 11_B25 12_A03 12_B10 12_B13

1

2

3

4

6

6.1

7

7.1

7.2

8

8.1

9

9.1

9.1F

9.2

10

10.1

10.2

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T

43


08_A03

08_A12

08_A13

08_A14

08_A20

08_C05

08_C11

08_C14

08_D02

08_D03

09_B04

09_F09

09_G15

10_E01

10_E07

11_A12

11_A29

11_B03

11_B06

11_B09

11_B16

11_B25

12_A03

12_B10

12_B13

Range of positions occupied by each fork in the 18 iterations

44


E

08_A03

08_A12

10_E01

08_A13

10_E07

A

N

P

F

M

D

G

K

T

I

08_A14

08_A20

08_C05

08_C11

08_C14

08_D02

08_D03

09_B04

09_F09

09_G15

11_A12

Q

11_A29

11_B03

11_B06

11_B09

11_B16

11_B25

12_A03

12_B10

12_B13

C

R

O

S

H

L

B

J

Organization of forks in the built truss — 9.1F

45


6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Position: A Fork: 08_A14 Weight: 200kg

Position: B Fork: 12_B10 Weight: 260kg

Position: C Fork: 11_B03 Weight: 150kg

Position: D Fork: 08_D02 Weight: 320kg

Position: E Fork: 08_A12 Weight: 190kg

Position: K Name: 09_B04 Weight: 220kg

Position: L Fork: 12_A03 Weight: 170kg

Position: M Fork: 08_C14 Weight: 320kg

Position: N Fork: 08_A20 Weight: 180kg

Position: O Fork: 11_B09 Weight: 135kg

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Meshes above illustrate the portion of each fork selected to fabricate truss iteration 9.1F. A wide range of shapes, each is directly related to its position within the truss.

46


6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Position: F Fork: 08_C11 Weight: 215kg

Position: G Fork: 08_D03 Weight: 160kg

Position: H Fork: 11_B25 Weight: 280kg

Position: I Fork: 09_G15 Weight: 260kg

Position: J Fork: 12_B13 Weight: 255kg

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Position: P Fork: 08_C05 Weight: 200kg

Position: Q Fork: 11_A12 Weight: 270kg

Position: R Fork: 11_B06 Weight: 275kg

Position: S Fork: 11_B16 Weight: 165kg

Position: T Fork: 09_F09 Weight: 320kg

Consistently longer, A to L are those which form the outer chords of the truss. M to T are the inner chords, and use more open angle forks to allow forks to cross in the groin

47


Output geometry With a final fork organization selected, a Rhino model was output with the centrelines, reference points, meshes and three new diameter reference circles in order to inform the robotic fabrication process.

48


Curve D_2 Circle D_9

Point D_6

Curve D_1

Circle D_7 Point D_4

Curve D_0

Point D_5

Circle D_8

Mesh D_3

49


Assembly jig

Robot cell

3D scan image generated by Emmanuel Vercruysse

50


Assembling forks

Based on this overall model, the robotic arm was used to mill the connection geometries that would be necessary to join a fork to those around it. With all of its components prepared, the Fork Truss was preassembled in two halves in the Big Shed.

51


Front half assembly In order to assemble these large pieces precisely, it was determined that all ten forks of one half would need to be supported in their respective positions before connections could be made. In order to facilitate this, a large jig was constructed which would allow support points to be set out accurately in three dimensions - recreating a rhino model.

52


53


54

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18


18 sheets of OSB were CNC’d with reference geometry from a Rhino model. The underside of each was roughly supported by adding blocking where it seemed likely that support or a tie point might be needed. Two sheets without pockets were instead added to stabilize the frame.

55


Jig assembled Leaving room for the telehandler to operate, the assembly jig was constructed in the Big Shed. A rough frame of 50 x 100 mm timbers was constructed on to which the OSB sheets could be aligned and fastened. This photo shows the support points being prepared for the assembly of the rear half of the truss. Each fork is supported by three vertical posts which are precisely positioned to line up with three holes milled into each fork by the robotic arm.

56


57


A:08_A14

B:12_B10

C:11_B03

D:08_D02

E:08_A12

F:08C11

I:08_D03

H:11_B25

G:09_G15

L:12_B13

K:09_B04

J:12_A03

M:08_C14

N:08_A20

O:11_B09

P:08_C05

Q:11_A12

R:11_B06

S:11_B16

T:09_F09

Each fork is oriented on the assembly jig by its three vertical support points.

58


M

A N

B

C G

H

O

P I

59


Pulled in all directions, front half of the truss held loosely together. Weighing approximately 300kg, each fork was lifted in to place by the telehandler. In order to ensure the precision of the entire assembly, all of the forks and top chords were loosely positioned on the jig together before any connections were made. Working around the truss with sledge hammers, and ratchet straps, the various pieces were pulled in to their exact location. With all of the pieces confidently positioned, connections were made. Each had been set out by the robot - milling holes into one of the two forks to be joined - allowing the determination of its final orientation in place by finishing the other half of the connection. With the primary connections completed, additional web members were fixed in place, and the truss half eventually removed from the Big Shed. The assembly jig was then cleared off and set up anew for assembly of the second half.

60


61


1. Jig fully set up

2. First two forks supported

3. Third fork added

4. Fourth fork added

5. Crossing groin forks added

6. Eight forks - first full side

62


7. Complete chord of three forks

8. Final fork positioned

9. First top chord added

10. Second top chord added

63 11. All top chords added

12. All web members added


3D scan of the rear half of the truss in the Big Shed

3D scan image generated by Emmanuel Vercruysse

64


65


Ready to move All of its pieces joined together, the front half’s vertical supports are removed. In preparation for transport to site, temporary additional bracing is added.

66


67


Image: Valerie Bennett

68


69


Twenty distinct beech forks organized within an arched Vierendeel like truss. The Fork Truss spans 25 m x 10 m, and rises to 8.5 m at its zenith.

70


71


Truss by the numbers 0

15

204

Major injuries sustained during the build

Dominant tree species found in Hooke Park

Number of beech forks identified around Hooke Park

2

18

400

Number of truss halves preassembled in the Big Shed.

Number of OSB sheets used to construct the Assembly Jig.

Cubic meters of wood chip to be stored - one year’s supply

3

20

1300

Reference holes drilled in to each fork.

Positions within the truss occupied by forks

Length of auger bit needed to finish truss connections (MM)

5

23

7000

Days working on site to erect the pieces of the truss

Piece polyline used to trace forks in the initial survey

Approximate weight of the two truss halves (KG)

6

31

56,635

Axes of rotation of Hooke Park’s robotic arm

Number of beech trees felled in order to harvest 25 forks

Average number of faces in full 3D scan meshes of forks

9

42

9,000,000

Ash trees accidentally documented in surveying

Cubic meters of concrete within the truss’ slab

Viewers of BBC Countryfile’s piece on the Wood Chip Barn

11

60

Number of curves that define the truss’ overall volume

Approximate age of beech trees felled

Projection of OMA’s ‘European Flag’ on the truss.

72


73


Tool path script

Tools paths

Robot cell prepared

FABRICATION NOTES With a final truss organization selected, the robotic arm machined connection

3D scanning

geometries in to each fork to

Robot fabrication

define their relationships to each other. While digitally fabricated, the truss was pre-assembled in two halves in the Big Shed before eventually being erected on site. Connection script

.3DM

Connection mockup

Truss Organized

17 iterations

Scaffold design

Engineer input

Final truss model

.3DM Assembly jig

Final truss volume Concrete slab

Truss assembled

Web members 1

Top Chords

Surveying

Tripods

4 tripods

made

Forks in truss

Profile for Zac Mollica

Tree Fork Truss - Zachary Mollica  

Tree Fork Truss - Zachary Mollica  

Advertisement

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded