from the good-luck-trying-to-pry-that-off-the-bed dept.
A 3D printer is taking home building to a new level — literally:
The enormous printer weighing more than 12 tons is creating what is believed to be the first 3D-printed, two-story home in the United States.
The machine steadily hums away as it extrudes layers of concrete to build the 4,000-square-foot home in Houston.
Construction will take a total of 330 hours of printing, said architect Leslie Lok, co-founder of design studio Hannah and designer of the home.
[...] The project is a two-year collaboration by Hannah, Peri 3D Construction and Cive, a construction engineering company.
Also at NPR and Yahoo! News. Originally spotted on The Eponymous Pickle.
Related: Texas Company Plans to Sell Country's First Permitted, 3D-Printed House
Related Stories
Larry Haines, founder of Austin-based Sunconomy, said his company has partnered with San Francisco residential building company, Forge New, to develop a system called We Print Houses. It will allow them to create bigger homes. They use a unique mobile platform to which they attach a print head.
[...] They also use a specific building method, placing geo-polymer concrete on the inside and outside of a steel beam with insulation in the middle.
"That's how we're meeting code is by being able to insulate and get the structural strength and integrity from slab to wall from wall-to-the-roof system all in one," said Haines.
Ultimately, Haines wants to print a whole house, including the roofs and floors, and sell it, something he says has never been done in the country. He's already obtained the permit to build the first model home in Lago Vista, about 30 miles outside of Austin. Construction would take two months, and safety inspections would be performed similarly to those done with a traditionally built house.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2023, @03:58PM (21 children)
Then there's the ridges artifact on the sides. It might be interesting for small numbers of buildings, but it's going to get old fast, if you have a zillion manufactured buildings that all have that look.
I actually think that the better approach to automated concrete construction would look more traditional. I don't think it would be that hard to bend and weld rebar with an automated system, create a mold and place the rebar, and then pour a normal concrete mix normally. You get a stronger structure and it meshes better with existing infrastructure.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Sunday January 29 2023, @05:27PM (11 children)
I don't see any wild claims that all human labor is eliminated, so what are you arguing against there?
Pre-fab frames and conventional construction techniques may be cheaper for the roof, so?
rebar and forms are definitely not less labor intensive than the printer. Somebody has to put the forms up and take the forms down once construction is complete. A lot of hard work involving sledge hammers. Definitely not faster either.
The layered 3D print look is a style choice. Chosen, no doubt, to show off the new construction technique. If it's not wanted, it can be manually finished before the concrete sets. That finishing would still be faster and less labor intensive than forms and rebar. For industrial buildings, I would expect they won't bother with the finishing (added expense) but some residential building might.
As for waterproofing, note that without some sort of additional treatment, no concrete is water proof.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2023, @07:02PM (1 child)
Nor do they need to be more labor intensive. Which is my point.
Like a robot? And I bet we could come up with a faster sledge hammer that's automated.
My point is not that this is something we just swap out human labor for today, but that it's not much more difficult than a fully automated concrete 3D printer, gives better quality results (unless you're going for really exotic shapes), and is more compatible with present day tech.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Sunday January 29 2023, @07:50PM
Forms and rebar ARE more labor intensive. That will likely be true for quite a while. 3D printing technology exists right now and is in at least limited use in construction. It seems to be perfectly compatible with current technology. Robots that can set and take down forms do not currently exist and would have to be a lot more sophisticated. It would be 'awkward' if robo-hammer had trouble releasing a form and accidentally knocked the wall down instead. A bit less awkward but expensive if it damaged the form in the process of removal.
Ideally, we would just use Star Trek replicator technology coupled with a brain scanner so you could just imagine the building and push a button, but I'm not expecting that tech any time soon either.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2023, @02:50AM (8 children)
Looking at the video, they don't show the work of setting these up. The steel beams just magically appear. I think they're downplaying the labor requirement.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday January 31 2023, @03:11AM (7 children)
Or, because just about everyone has seen construction workers working before but few have seen a concrete 3D printer, they were showcasing the new tech.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2023, @03:23AM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday January 31 2023, @03:38AM (5 children)
Well, you are saving labor. A lot of labor. Just not 100% of the labor.
Do you also object that commercials for restaurants show people enjoying the food but don't show them pooping?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2023, @05:36AM (4 children)
Is the food actually that glowing color you see in the commercials. Do you really eat that much at a sitting or put as much dip on a piece of food as the actors do? They play different games and it's not "objecting" to be aware of them.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday January 31 2023, @07:06PM (3 children)
Sure. They also don't show the person toiling away at work top be able to afford the food, or the drive in bad traffic to get to the restaurant, etc.
So then a video explicitly about using a 3D printer to lay concrete, you object that workers weren't shown putting a few steel plates and braces in? At least they didn't enhance any eye colors or throw in any supermodels wearing hardhats.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 01 2023, @03:39AM (2 children)
A significant cost of using this equipment has been downplayed (keep in mind the selling point "And since the printer does all the heavy lifting, less workers are needed at the construction site."). This is called "critical thinking" not "objecting".
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 01 2023, @05:17AM (1 child)
Less doesn't men none. It does indeed look like it requires less. Haven't you ever seen a typical active construction site? Also watch the video. The person speaking for the project specifically called out that they had 5 people on the site supporting the printing. You could see them working in the background.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 02 2023, @01:06PM
I doubt the missing action requires more than five people (seriously can't take much manpower to put up steel beams and supports), but it is possible that they need more labor than they claim.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Sunday January 29 2023, @06:22PM (6 children)
Nothing stops you from giving the walls a layer of plaster, stucco, etc. once they're up, though it does obviously cost extra. I do like the idea behind the printers that include a robot trowel to smooth the surface... but the ones I've seen in action (it's been a while) tend to leave a sloppy ridge between layers rather than a smooth wall... and I think that may look even worse - like the wall was built of sloppily mortared layers of unbroken concrete block.
One interesting option that will spice things up eventually is non-planar printing - there's no particular reason each layer has to be flat, it's just the easiest way to write the slicing software. You could instead have the head moving vertically as well, printing sine-waves or other patterns into the walls. The technique can also dramatically increase the maximum angle of unsupported overhangs that you can print - with something as viscous and quick-setting as plastic you can actually print horizontal ledges (like across windows) by vertically sloping the layers so each layer extends only a fraction a print-line width further over open space, supported by the previous layer.
I think you dramatically underestimate the difficulty (and expense) of doing bending, welding, framing, etc. by robot.
I mean, we're barely getting 3D printing working as a viable strategy, and all that needs is a simple 4-axis (3 if the print-head doesn't swivel) positioning robot and a concrete feed mechanism. It's pretty much literally the simplest robot you can possibly build, and it does...okay. Just welding two pieces of rebar together so they'll stay where they're supposed to be is vastly more difficult.
Our normal automation process in a factory is to keep repeating the exact same sequence of movements from an immobile platform, coupled with making sure all the parts are in just the right position beforehand so that they don't get destroyed by the robot doing the right thing in the wrong place. That doesn't work out in the real world where nothing stays quite where you put it, and dealing with the chaos of reality is still the problem cutting-edge robotics are trying to solve. Those Boston Dynamics demonstration videos are stitched together from the dozens or hundreds of takes it required to put together a film showcasing their potential, rather than how often they fail in the attempt.
It'll be interesting to see how 3D printed structures age - the layers should be laid quickly enough for a good bond between them, but the seams are still a focal point for stress. And one benefit of no rebar is that they don't have that self-destruct timer built into them as the rebar constantly expands as it corrodes until it shatters the surrounding concrete. All that ancient concrete work that's still standing was all made without such poison-pill reinforcement.
One final thought - I've seen 3D printing used as the framing for rebar-reinforced poured concrete, so you can still get the strength of a poured structure.
My biggest disappointment with 3D printed buildings so far, is that almost no-one makes use of its capacity for curved and biomorphic construction (which incidentally also tend to be much stronger), or even decorative embellishments. Our culture has become obsessed with simple rectilinear structures over the last several centuries because of how comparatively cheap and easy they are to build with standardized components. Printing removes that restriction, but cultural norms keep them in place anyway.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday January 29 2023, @07:28PM
If necessary, it probably wouldn't be too hard to set anchors into the wall as it's printed, either by the machine or manually for a variety of siding options.
In the Victorian era, curved doors to fit into curved walls weren't uncommon. It wouldn't be that hard to do today with modern sheet steel with foam core doors.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2023, @07:38PM (1 child)
Not buying it on welding rebar. My take is we crossed that bridge decades ago with automation a lot dumber than what we have today.
And how well it fits in a building. Cheap and easy goes pretty far when you're not trying to figure out what to do with wasted space from exotic shapes and the various gaps and nooks they create (which is a typical cheap and easy building requirement). And you'll need relatively flat floors or your stuff will roll all over the place.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday January 30 2023, @05:46PM
Welding rebar in a highly controlled factory setting is easy.
Welding rebar unstably mounted in a conrete pouring frame while it sways in the wind? Not so much. You need computer vision to figure out where it's actually at and graspers to grab the bars and move them to where they should be before welding. The actual welding itself is probably easy enough, but the setup is hard. Look at Boston Dynamic's robot dog trying to manipulate the world - cutting edge applied real-world robots slowed to a crawl just to pick something up. You really think that could install rebar at a decent pace? And god forbid a piece of rebar gets bent or falls down into the frame. And the framing? That makes installing rebar look like a cake walk. Not to mention removing it afterwards.
Could it be done? Probably. But I'd bet hard against doing so quickly, reliably, and more cheaply than existing construction. Just a single grasping arm is a considerably more complicated robot than an entire 3D printer. Humans are still orders of magnitude more dextrous and creative at solving the inevitable problems than even the best robots.
Yes, you want flat floors (Seriously? Why even bother mentioning that?), but everything above that is negotiable. And as a rule there's no more wasted space in good curving designs than in good rectilinear ones, though obviously a "shove all the furniture against the walls" philosophy of interior design can certainly create some, especially if you have tight curvatures or walls meeting at sharp angles. Which is why well-designed curvy architecture doesn't have those.
The rectilinear building aesthetic though has almost nothing to do with the spaces it creates, and is almost entirely an outgrowth of reducing construction cost and complexity rather than any desire for the final design. With traditional construction even a simple large-radius constant-curvature wall will typically cost several times as much to build as the same length of straight wall since it requires custom-forming all the pieces, and then installing them without the aid of any simple straight-line guide tools like mason or chalk lines. And bicurved surfaces are far worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2023, @02:50AM
> almost no-one makes use of its capacity for curved and biomorphic construction
One well known architect who has broken away from planar & rectilinear forms is Frank Gehry. Plenty of photos of his soaring and twisted buildings here, https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/frank-gehry [gettyimages.com]
My take on Gehry is that somehow he got his hands on one of the CAD packages used by aero and/or auto makers--CAD that readily supports the generation of curved surfaces, as used on planes and cars. Then he ran with it. Of course his buildings have all sorts of teething problems--leaks and worse--because the builders have no experience with curved surfaces.
Gehry seems to be well aware of 3-D printing, see this prize for example, https://phys.org/news/2012-10-d-method-gehry-prize.html [phys.org] but my search didn't turn up any buildings by him that were printed (at least not yet).
(Score: 2) by quietus on Monday January 30 2023, @08:33AM (1 child)
As to curved and biomorphic construction: maybe this [www.vrt.be] is what you're looking for? (short movie about 3d printed house, 2020, Belgium)
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday January 30 2023, @06:55PM
Exactly. Not nearly as fun as what could be done, but a lovely step away from rectilinear. I wish more groups would go that way. But for now it seems like curves are mostly limited to proof-of-concept construction, while all attempts at commerical applications revert to the boring norm.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 30 2023, @03:55PM
I don't know about that. Brick buildings number in the zillions but it's still an attractive look for many. Rammed earth has a layered look, too, that many people consider appealing.
Now, ridges like to capture water and channel it into a structure, or to produce calving like that which afflicts brick walls, but there's no reason that can't be addressed in the same way.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday January 30 2023, @04:26PM
Because the developers aren't using the same couple dozen plans for everything they build now.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by its_gonna_be_yuge! on Sunday January 29 2023, @08:18PM (6 children)
These 3D printed concrete buildings (this one and the single-floor earlier ones) don't have rebar. Won't pass an earthquake proofing test where
I live. Not sure about Texas, but I wouldn't want to live in this building.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2023, @09:16PM (1 child)
This is what I'm kind of wondering. Where does this 3D printed house pass the building code. Until it does then it's basically a 3D printed tool shed, a large and spacious and luxurious one at that but still not a house. It might be great for places that doesn't have a building code or a very lax one or in places that have a nice climate etc (until the next freak storm, earthquake, apocalypse happens etc).
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 30 2023, @07:28PM
I think you don't understand how bribery works. Wasn't this standard learning in high school? (Although not part of the official curriculum.)
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2023, @12:08AM (1 child)
Yeah, that's just one of many reasons this is a curiosity that will create a few structures and generate a few stories like this; but that's about it.
Construction isn't even the biggest cost in housing. Land, permitting, other local costs, and the general market for housing in an area where scarcity is often artificially driven (mostly by the permitting process) really drive costs.
If I were in Texas, I'd rather have a wood-framed prefab on a basement with a storm shelter. A tornado will take out the wood framed living area, but your "bunker" should be safe and often re-usable for the rebuild. Those kinds of storms are not as common as the news would have you think anyway.
Really though, maintenance is the big reason to stick with what most people do. Problem with traditional wood-framed house? There are hundreds of local contractors that can fix it. Problem with unusual concrete composite 3-d printed house? Uhhhhhh.... "I ain't never seen one uh them before."
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 30 2023, @04:01PM
You might be right, but sometimes the ultimate advantage of a technology is discovered more than it's planned. Other times people and societies do adopt new practices at large scale even though they are inferior to alternatives (VHS vs. BetaMax, I'm looking at you).
I suspect that one advantage of 3D printing a house could be that I could be John Q. Public who doesn't know anything about building a house from components the way contractors have always done it, but I do know that I can use the Home Depot App to rent a home-building printer for a week to print me a new house. They deliver it to my vacant lot with a pile of cement or whatever material it's to use, and I activate it after clicking and dragging on a site plan to establish the footprint of the structure. 4 days later, I have the house I wanted and never had to engage an architect, hire a contractor, or learn the slightest thing about construction.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday January 30 2023, @06:02PM (1 child)
Probably not - though there's a LOT of flexibility in designing the mechanical properties of a 3D printed structure, especially once you get away from simplistic flat layers. And most the world doesn't experience earthquakes worth concerning yourself with anyway.
I'd be far more confident that it won't pass earthquake-proofing *standards* though, which typically have far more to do with ticking the right government-mandated checkboxes than actual safety. For example, just try to get permitting to build an adobe house without rebar. Never mind the fact that there's a 400 year old adobe building next door, still standing after the rest of the neighborhood collapsed in the big quake of 1830... rebar is required for code.
I've also seen hybrid construction - essentially print the pouring frame, then install rebar pillars before pouring concrete. Crosspieces can be integrated as well - you've got to coordinate laying horizontal rebar between layers of printing, but since you're just pressing rebar into a wet concrete "shelf" it's not exactly difficult. All the connections between horizontal and vertical in traditional construction are just there to hold it in place while pouring, it doesn't actually offer any strength to the final structure.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2023, @05:33AM
So I can point to zero rebar, 2000 year old Roman construct structures when I want to make my home out of Home Depot concrete without rebar? Buildings aren't constructed equally well. After all, there were probably a bunch of adobe buildings that went down in that 1830 earthquake too.