3D printed homes.

[allanyed]

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-3d-printed-houses-austin-texas/

What's next?

[Kevin-the-lubber]

I'd love to see the finished product. I know of a bridge being 3D 'printed' in Amsterdam, and I'm sure this kind of thing will become commonplace in years to come. 

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

They've just tested a rocket engine that was 80% 3D printed ... not sure if I'd want a ride on that.

 

[David Lester]

As chairman of our local Habitat for Humanity affiliate (Habitat for Humanity Northumberland) I have been following the development of 3d printed houses with great interest. There are a few Habitat projects in Canada and the US already using this technology.

 

The current high cost of building is putting a real strain on Habitat's ability to deliver affordable houses. As time moves on, this could become an attractive alternative. Now, if they could just figure out how to 3d print land, we'd be all set!

 

David

[Kevin-the-lubber]

1 hour ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

They've just tested a rocket engine that was 80% 3D printed ... not sure if I'd want a ride on that.

I think '3D Printed' is just a logical extension of CNC production techniques. The computerised machine can't give things 'soul' the way a craftsman can, but 99.99999% of the time it can do it more accurately, reliably and efficiently. I think I'd feel more comfortable every time sat in a vehicle built by robots than humans - provided the design and programming are good, it's much less likely to be a 'friday afternoon job', if anyone is familiar with that expression! The materials and kit people like me are using are just toys, industry is using some very exotic materials and processes that presumably allow for much better quality control than in years gone by. What springs to mind is when I worked in shipbuilding: I could lay down as reasonable a weld as anyone but every now and then it might not be so good. In contrast, the submerged arc machine did perfect welds all day every day!

 

[allanyed]

2 hours ago, Kevin-the-lubber said:

'friday afternoon job',

Kevin

I was taught to look at the MDH number on a car door jam before buying it,  That plus the year it was built can be used to see what day of the week as well as the hour it came off the line so you could avoid a car built on a Monday morning (hangover car) or Friday afternoon, (getting ready to party car)   Of course robotics supposedly have made such a worry nonsense, but.......... 

Allan

[Lieste]

11 hours ago, Kevin-the-lubber said:

I think '3D Printed' is just a logical extension of CNC production techniques. The computerised machine can't give things 'soul' the way a craftsman can, but 99.99999% of the time it can do it more accurately, reliably and efficiently. I think I'd feel more comfortable every time sat in a vehicle built by robots than humans - provided the design and programming are good, it's much less likely to be a 'friday afternoon job', if anyone is familiar with that expression! The materials and kit people like me are using are just toys, industry is using some very exotic materials and processes that presumably allow for much better quality control than in years gone by. What springs to mind is when I worked in shipbuilding: I could lay down as reasonable a weld as anyone but every now and then it might not be so good. In contrast, the submerged arc machine did perfect welds all day every day!

 

3D printing can have its place - particularly with powdered metals, printing with a solid support matrix and sintered... allowing far more complex forms in fewer parts than machining or casting... but for building scale 'in place printing' you get poor coherence of a material which has better properties if not modified to allow extrusions. Perhaps 3d printed 'moulds' for regular cast concrete are a more sensible method for the 'organic' shapes, or just continuing with prefab elements or simple shuttering for rectangular pours make more sense.

Finish and durability are poor for all of these 'amazing' projects that I've seen promoted. YMMV, and maybe there will be advantages to future methods, but I see no or few benefits of the technology demonstrated so far.

[mtaylor]

15 hours ago, Lieste said:

3D printing can have its place - particularly with powdered metals, printing with a solid support matrix and sintered... allowing far more complex forms in fewer parts than machining or casting... but for building scale 'in place printing' you get poor coherence of a material which has better properties if not modified to allow extrusions. Perhaps 3d printed 'moulds' for regular cast concrete are a more sensible method for the 'organic' shapes, or just continuing with prefab elements or simple shuttering for rectangular pours make more sense.

Finish and durability are poor for all of these 'amazing' projects that I've seen promoted. YMMV, and maybe there will be advantages to future methods, but I see no or few benefits of the technology demonstrated so far.

 

So far, other than "demonstration" buildings, the only thing I've seen done with this method is for temporary structures..  It is a new developing tech and time and investment will determine if it's go or no-go.

[Lieste]

I think it is a no-go for on site in-situ use. There may well be uses within the manufacture of pre-fabs constructed in clean, controlled conditions and making use of better qualities/uses of material - as noted above by making forms and casting within them, rather than additive manufacture using 'bad' concrete which must flow to be extrude-able, but then solidify to remain in situ, while still bonding adequately to layers above and below, or even to other extrusions in the same layer.

I'm familiar enough with home 3d printing which has similar concerns compared to 3d casting and how often pieces delaminate or get out of position/alignment... which is an annoyance with a 10g plastic 'toy', but a serious structural/durability concern is a mass-building structure.

[Kevin-the-lubber]

Just to play devils advocate - I know what you mean about delamination of filament-printed parts but this is all about (high) temperatures. If you get the settings and environment right, the fusion will be good. I don't know what the composition or properties are of the mortar/concrete mix used for 'printing' but I imagine it's a cold pour and you probably have a wider temperature opportunity. There might be other problems, there usually area! For context, over the years I've worked on many an old and not so old brick-built building and there have been a good few instances of doing a job on the brickwork and finding I could literally lift a course of bricks off the (de-bonded) mortar. The thing being that for a two storey, double skinned house, this hasn't really mattered a jot. There's enough integrity overall to keep the building together, it's not going to fall apart. I suspect the same kind of thing will be true for 'printed' properties; at two or three storeys, and with a bit of re-bar every so often, it'll be fine. I'm not so sure I'd want to commission a printed tower block, but I doubt anyone is going to stick their neck out tat far anyway.

 

The finish is an aesthetic issue - some people will love it, others loathe it. If you don't like the 'cake filling' finish I guess you can render it.

 

Either way, I suspect it'll become commonplace within 10 or 15 years. Here in the UK we have a housing crisis: there aren't enough properties and they cost too much. It takes years and years for developers to build new estates, and this tech could be a game-changer.

 

My reservation is different - it's that I cannot for the life of me understand why we are still building houses from bricks, concrete, mortar etc, that are so expensive to build and difficult to modify in subsequent years. 

[Lieste]

The main thing is an absence of aggregate, just sands and mortar to allow the extrusion through a nozzle/pipe able to traverse a site. These have poor coherence and durability in at least current mixtures, especially together with their high surface variability (and consequently variable thickness/behaviour of a surface skim, and weatherability... treated like Cobb they might be acceptable, but then Cobb does much the same already with no need for concrete.

There are advantages to mass-structures over sheetrock and frame, which I personally prefer, but not in the current 'visions' of printed homes.