How can I strengthen the bottom base of my project over several basepl

[knight_40k]

I am fairly new here and don't know many building techniques. I'm working on a project that covers 6 (48x48) baseplates and I would like to be able to pick up the whole thing when I'm done rather than move it in sections, however I don't know if it will be strong enough and just crack at the seams.

I'm planning to build up 3 standard brick lengths high except for a small 6 dot width, which will run the entire length, as the rest will be higher. So far I have covered most of the first layer in standard 2x4 bricks in a staggered formation with the odd 2x2 or 1x2 gap as to conserve bricks. Before I continue I would like to know if I should put a layer of plates on my first layer of bricks to try and lock it all together or should I have put a layer of plates directly on top of the baseplates first? Or will it automatically start to get stronger as I add more layers with standard bricks? I should also add that I'm going to put a layer of plates on the top of everything once it's completely covered.

Any advice is appreciated.

[Vorkosigan]

I wouldn't rely on bricks alone to provide rigidity for something that big. You could put some thick foamboard or plywood under the MOC to make it possible to move safely as a whole.

[UrbanErwin]

If you add a frame of technic bricks connected with pins you have a fairly strong base. If you overlay that with plates it would be quite strong (personal experience with layouts). But I'm not sure if that's enough for such a big structure.

[MECHALEX]

I'd go with Vorkosigan's suggestion to use wood. Otherwise you're in a position of using what may be a significant chunk of your collection underneath instead of on your creation!

[Peppermint_M]

Also a little advice: You lose a little of the total measurement across six baseplates due to clutch from bricks. Just a few mm but it happens.

Modular or even unconnected baseplates combat that problem in large builds.

[dr_spock]

Modular sections is easier to transport around and possibly get it through your door way and into the car.

[Blondie-Wan]

Also a little advice: You lose a little of the total measurement across six baseplates due to clutch from bricks. Just a few mm but it happens.

Modular or even unconnected baseplates combat that problem in large builds.

What do you mean by "lose a little of the total measurement"? Measurement of what?

[Peppermint_M]

Okay. On paper a BGB is 38.4cm x 38.4cm right? The 8mm stud dimension multiplied by 48. So, a layout that is four BGB by four BGB (so 16 in total) Should cover a space of 1m 53.6cm, in paper terms.

However, brick-clutch works by the tubes and grips pinching the studs ever so slightly, pulling the dimension shorter by micro-measurements. Over a single baseplate it isn't too noticeable, even across two it won't be something you'd see. However, the further distance you cross the more it appears, by joining a number of baseplates with a brick or plate. Cover a larger space in baseplates and try and get them all to stick together with plates or bricks on all four sides/corners... It won't happen, there will be plate popping and tugging and skewing. The more distance you cover the worse it gets. The parts are stressed, a fully joined up large layout wouldn't be possible without force that might damage a MOC or even the LEGO. The theoretical 1m 53.6cm might have lost that .6 (Not an exact figure, I am not sure of the actual measurement of "loss" clutching bricks cause or the ratio of how it transitions across a distance. There is bound to be a paper somewhere on this but I studied Civil & Construction Engineering, not Material Science so it is beyond me!).

So long story short, you lose a little of the total measurement. I wasn't trying to be obtuse and it sounded right to my (admittedly early morning coffee deprived) brain.

[rodiziorobs]

^ Also, there is the problem of an accumulation of tolerances to each brick. I.e. a 16 stud long brick is not actually the same length as 16 1x1s laid in a row, because each brick, regardless of size, is a little smaller at the edges.

This allows a brick to be placed easily between two others, albeit with a minimal gap between them. If they were perfectly exact on the edges this would be very hard due to the additional friction. This is why you may notice it is hard to line up several 1x1s next to each other without some looking crooked--each has a tiny bit of wiggle room. This is also why TLG began releasing, for example, 1x1x3 bricks rather than just 3 1x1s stacked high--to reduce the effect of accumulated tolerances.

The difference is minimal, but across long distances can become a problem, depending of course on exactly what you build and how.

Beyond the engineering complexities, I also see one giant baseplate as an accident waiting to happen. You have to carry all the weight at once, fit through doorways, balance it, and if it goes wrong--slides off, gets bumped, etc.--you risk the entire MOC being broken up.

Modularizing solves all of those problems. While having to plan and build modular connections can be difficult, I think the benefits--especially when facing a layout of any considerable size--definitely outweigh the risks and costs.

Edited April 17, 2015 by rodiziorobs

[Duq]

That whole theoretical piece about gaps and measurements is totally irrelevant. Yes, a 16 stud brick is longer than 16 1x1's in a row. Unless you put both on a baseplate in which case you get 15 tiny gaps between the 1x1's that make up the difference because the baseplate makes everything line up again. 1x1x3 bricks to reduce the effect of accumulated tolerances? Bollocks. The effect is too small to notice. And if it was noticeable then it would mean you couldn't use that 1x1x3 beside a wall made of regular bricks because the height would be uneven. Those bricks simply exist because it's cheaper to produce; fewer pieces, less plastic. And they look better than a stack of 1x1's that may not be nicely aligned.

Anyway.

Yes you can strengthen large mocs very effectively with Technic bricks and plates but 6 48x48 baseplates is BIG. Very BIG. It'll be heavy and difficult to handle. So if at all possible, go modular. My station is close to 3 32 baseplates long and even that is modular as is the platform it sits on. And both are reinforced with Technic.

[cgarison]

On both of my LUGs, we have developed a couple of method to reinforce baseplates to make them more durable for displays. First and foremost, we have a foundation of custom built tables that provide us with the stability to set up our large displays. Next, we have built up baseplates to be 5 plates high and that is the new level for the majority of our layouts. By being 5 plates high, we have the ability to to lock the plates together on the dispays using Technic bricks and pins to hold the baseplate to one another. On the moonbase layout, our hanging monorail supports are built into the moonbase plate modules that makes the moonbase core rigid enough to withstand a person stumbling across the stanchions and falling into our tables.

Our DelVaLUG standard is described in the moonbase wiki: http://www.brickwiki.info/wiki/Moonbase For the town section of the PennLUG display it is a baseplate plus 5 plates. Both of these modular designs help us to quickly assemble displays for exhibit and then tear them down even more quickly and efficiently at the end of the show.

[tedbeard]

^ whoops link should be: http://www.brickwiki.info/wiki/Moonbase

[zmasterbrick]

Okay. On paper a BGB is 38.4cm x 38.4cm right? The 8mm stud dimension multiplied by 48. So, a layout that is four BGB by four BGB (so 16 in total) Should cover a space of 1m 53.6cm, in paper terms.

However, brick-clutch works by the tubes and grips pinching the studs ever so slightly, pulling the dimension shorter by micro-measurements. Over a single baseplate it isn't too noticeable, even across two it won't be something you'd see. However, the further distance you cross the more it appears, by joining a number of baseplates with a brick or plate. Cover a larger space in baseplates and try and get them all to stick together with plates or bricks on all four sides/corners... It won't happen, there will be plate popping and tugging and skewing. The more distance you cover the worse it gets. The parts are stressed, a fully joined up large layout wouldn't be possible without force that might damage a MOC or even the LEGO. The theoretical 1m 53.6cm might have lost that .6 (Not an exact figure, I am not sure of the actual measurement of "loss" clutching bricks cause or the ratio of how it transitions across a distance. There is bound to be a paper somewhere on this but I studied Civil & Construction Engineering, not Material Science so it is beyond me!).

So long story short, you lose a little of the total measurement. I wasn't trying to be obtuse and it sounded right to my (admittedly early morning coffee deprived) brain.

Well said Boss, there really is nothing worse than plates throwing a tantrum, here is another idea, tensil stregth, as you lay bricks on their side, use plates on top and bottom with modified bricks with 2 studs to pull against each other. It works awesome, and it gives a really unique thickness. Or, if you really want to solve the problem, just mount the whole project on a layer of 3/4 AC plywood.