construction 3d printing Archives - Perfect 3D Printing Filament

Mighty Buildings’ Commercial House 3D Printing Automates Construction by 80 Percent

3D printing construction today can build more than just walls, structural shells or components. It can build the entire house, as Mighty Buildings has shown, including floors, ceiling, roofs and overhangs. Completed this month, the Mighty Duo B model is a 700-sq-ft ADU with one bedroom, one bath, and a kitchenette. As Slava Solonitsyn, CEO and Cofounder of Mighty Buildings points out,

“As soon as you are able to produce not only the walls but also floor and ceiling, that saves a huge amount of hours, and specifically labor hours, which are very expensive,”.

3D Printed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Image Courtesy of Mighty Buildings

Additive construction has been increasingly expanding beyond proof-of-concept or research projects, and into commercial applications over the last few years. Increasing urbanization, rising costs of construction, and the need for affordable housing is driving the development of 3D printing applications in real-world construction. In addition, McKinsey reports estimated that California would need 3.5 million homes by 2025, and that improvements in productivity in the global construction industry could add $1.6 trillion (2% of the global economy) to the sector’s value—both areas that construction 3D printing technology is positioned to address.

The company, based out of California, U.S., has received $30 million to date (from Khosla Ventures, Y Combinator, and others), and has just announced its launch out of stealth. Mighty Buildings uses a 20-foot tall 3D printer, the Big-G, which can output at speeds of 120 millimeters per second, to construct a 350-square-foot studio in under 24 hours.

Image Courtesy of Mighty Buildings

The material used is a low-priced Light Stone Material (LSM), a thermal composite that hardens when exposed to UV light. Similar to Corian, a typical kitchen countertop material, LSM “freezes in air” on exposure to the light. While traditional walls are traditionally made from several materials, Mighty Buildings relies on a single material to print a monolithic shell (that improves its insulating properties, thermal and energy efficiency to the highest existing standards) with channels built in for electrical and plumbing requirements.

Chief Sustainability Officer at Mighty Buildings, Sam Ruben explained,

“From a sustainability standpoint, by being able to print the roof and the floors as well as the walls, it allows us to create monolithic shells that increase the airtightness, reduce the thermal leakage, and increase the overall energy efficiency of the structure, making it really easy to meet California zero net energy standards. We can even go past that into Passive House and other standards that are on the cutting edge of what energy efficiency can do.”

Compared to traditional construction methods, Mighty Building’s production platform saves 95% on labor hours, doubles the rate of traditional construction, and produces ten times less waste. The automated 3D printing construction process also automates up to 80% and saves a further 20-30% in costs compared to traditional prefab process, as the machine prints the entire structural shell of the home, as opposed to 3D printing sections for on-site assembly.

Mighty Buildings initially focused on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or backyard homes, since these were easier to obtain permits for than for empty lot construction. The Mighty Duo B unit took a total of five weeks to complete from construction to installation. The company says it is now ready to scale production having obtained certification and building code compliance for its advanced technology and material solutions. The company was the first to be certified under California’s UL3401 standard for 3D-printed building structures under the state’s Factory Built Housing program.

Advantages over the conventional prefab construction process. Image Courtesy of Mighty Buildings

The offering from Might Buildings also has other advantages, in that their customers do not have to be dependent on multiple subcontractors (for roofing, electrical, HVAC, plumbing and more) with unpredictable schedules for construction. The 3D printing construction company claims its turnkey solution simplifies the process “by being the only entity that you need to work with from start to finish.”

Image Courtesy of Mighty Buildings

The company has since installed units in San Ramon, and San Diego, and has fifteen more such ADUs under contract. These units can cost up to 45% less than comparable homes built traditionally. Their production as a service platform also allows for custom floor plans for each unit, using optimized software and low-cost printing materials in their design-to-production solution. Unlike concrete, typically used in 3D printed housing, Mighty Building’s material is lighter, has better thermal insulation properties, and can be tailored by robotic arms, in a production system that is 80% automated. The company is expanding its offerings in ADUs with six customizable options available (with the cost of the unit is roughly $314 per square foot) from 350 square foot studios priced from $115,000 to three-bedroom housing priced up to $285,000.

The company is now looking to develop a fiber-reinforced material comparable to steel, that would allow the 3D printing of multi-story, multifamily homes for dense, urban housing. Developers will be the primary customers for Mighty Buildings, as opposed to one-off customers, and the company will look to mass produce affordable, customizable housing from small factories setup in urban markets.

ICON, another company in this emerging sector, is bringing cutting edge 3D printing construction technology in an affordable, accessible way to low-income or homeless populations. Partnering with a non-profit called New Story, ICON is looking to build low-cost houses, the world’s first 3D printed neighborhood, in Mexico for rural populations. The company was the first company to obtain a building permit in the US to construct a 350 square foot 3D printed house in the Austin, Texas. The second version of its 3D printing system, the Vulcan II, can 3D print a 800-square-foot house in 24 hours for less than $4000. In New York, AISpaceFactory, that won the NASA 3D Printed Habitat Challenge expanded on its MARSHA design to build TERA, a Mars-inspired future of home concept house.

Winsun from China has already built multi-storied apartment buildings, and has claimed to build 10 houses in 24 hours, while HuaShang Tengda has created two-storied earthquake resistant buildings, over 4000 square feet, in just 45 days. Apis Cor, a pioneering Russian company in 3D printing construction, built a 400 square foot house in 24 hours that costs just over $10,000 to make. The firm also built the “world’s largest” 3D printed building in Dubai, UAE, a country that has pledged to use 3D printing construction technologies for at least 25% of all buildings made by 2030.

In Europe, Italian firm WASP has built one of the largest concrete 3D printers currently in the market, BigDelta, and has built an ‘ecosustainable’ 323 square foot house, Gaia, made using soil, straw and lime. A few weeks ago, one of Europe’s biggest 3D printers from COBOD (Denmark) was used to build a two-story house, Kamp C, in Antwerp, Belgium which saved at lest sixty percent on project materials, time and costs compared to traditional construction methods. In early July this year, a floating home, named ‘Prvok’ was completed, 3D printed in 22 hours using concrete in the Czech Republic. University of Eindhoven is constructing five, one story and multi-story, 3D printed houses, under Project Milestone, in the Netherlands, which will later be available through real estate agencies for customers to purchase and live in.

The advantages of 3D printing are beginning to be realized in residential and commercial-scale construction. In combination with automation and software, the 3D printing approach fundamentally reduces cost, time and improves efficiency in construction. It can be used to build entire houses now, as well as build components (tiles, slabs, and more) or tools (molds and support structures) in construction. These components and materials, from steel, basalt-based materials and improved concrete to straw and soil, may have better structural properties, improve energy efficiency and sustainability, and can be customized or personalized at the unit level. 3D printed construction can happen on-site or off-site and allows for flexibility in deployment and supply chain. 3D printed houses have already proven to meet certification or compliance requirements, to be earthquake resistant, and may be able to withstand extreme conditions or temperatures.

The post Mighty Buildings’ Commercial House 3D Printing Automates Construction by 80 Percent appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

MX3D Uses Robot Arm to 3D Print Robot Arm, Installs it on Robot

MX3D’s steel bridges are an inspiring sight to see, but, even if bridges are what the Dutch firm is known for, they are not the only thing the firm is capable of making. The company now has released a new 3D printed robot arm component made with its metal AM system, which relies on an industrial robotic arm of its own.

Made together with industrial automation company ABB and software simulation firm Altair, the new arm has been optimized by the Altair team working in conjunction with MX3D. Altair’s generative algorithms were not only used to cut part weight in half, but also to improve toolpath planning on the printer to increase the print speed. The total print time was four days and connecting surfaces were finished on a three-axis milling machine. The part has now been installed and is in use on an industrial robot.

It is a good week for 3D printing bridges since we recently wrote about DSM’s polymer bridges. MX3D has been making WAAM printers relying on industrial robotic arms since around 2014 and we’ve kept you in the loop on its progress, use of machine learning, and projects involving Digital Twins for bridges and other large steel structures. Coupling finite element analysis (FEA) and the Digital Twin to manufacturing large-scale 3D printed parts is a key component of the DSM polymer bridges, MX3D’s metal bridges, and BAM’s concrete bridges. Indeed BAM’s concrete bridge factory is around the corner from Olivier van Herpt’s Eindhoven ceramics 3D printing lab with its ceramics and porcelain. One does get the feeling that it would be great if these four firms spoke with each other at one point, given that so many similar 3D printing initiatives are ongoing in the Netherlands.

Are we seeing larger-scale 3D printing coming into its own? Firms are bridging the gap between the virtual and real-world through connecting data to optimized toolpaths, designs, and parts. Driven by resolution limitations, difficulties of working with industrial robots (lack of memory, proprietary syntax), and a strict regulatory environment large scale firms are turning to software to solve their problems.

We’re seeing a remarkable difference between the “house printing” companies—who seem, on the whole, to be rather optimistic and cavalier about their endeavors to print buildings—and the large scale part printing cohort of enterprises. The latter, which includes MX3D, seems much more in tune with regulatory requirements, certification, and software than the former. Perhaps, because you can’t really sell a bridge ex-works, while a demo house doesn’t have any regulatory requirements, so the parts builders have been put onto a more difficult digital path.

But, through controlling toolpaths, FEA, weight reduction, and using this as a tool to try to get parts built correctly, companies have been forced to deal with these things early on in their machine and process design stages. This, in turn, has led to them being better placed to build actual parts for the actual world. Meanwhile, the “housebuilders” are building much larger more media-savvy structures that have yet to be subject to many thoughts on how they will be built safely.

In 3D printing for construction, it would seem that the earlier on your business model encounters regulatory opposition, the earlier you will design safety, reliability, and repeatability into your process. Logical perhaps, but not something considered so far by the industry at large. One will expect however that the “go big or go home” crowd will seem to be ahead initially, but then take much longer to develop process control once they start building parts that will go on the open market and touch the realities of such arcane and frightening things, such as the law.

Whereas houses may be the best clickbait, there are myriad of other parts that can be built with robot arm construction systems through 3D printing. Generally, we can see that our market does nanoprinting on the submicron and micron-scale (femtoprint, nScrypt), microprinting on the mm to micron scale (3D Micro Print), regular 3D printing which starts from several mm parts to around 50 cm parts (RepRap, Ultimaker), medium format printing which is for parts of up to one cubic meter (BigRep, Builder), large format 3D printing for parts from one cubic meter to around ten cubic meters (CEAD, BAAM) and macro 3D printing which is parts that are larger than 10 cubic meters (3D Printhuset).

At each and every scale we can see a strange thing happening. Scale drives accuracy which drives value which, in turn, determines go-to market and that determines the level of quality leveled at the part. This is super logical in the sense that small things often have to be precise in order to exactly fit small assemblies, which in turn are likely to be a part of something complex that needs high tolerance—a watch, for example.

At the same time, if you can make things that are 1 mm x 1 mm or less, then a stent is something that you can do and you won’t think of car bumpers. Of the total set of things sold in the 1mm x 1mm x 1mm range, often a disproportionate number of these things actually have high value due to their precision manufacturing requirements.

This is, again, logical but could go against the conventional wisdom that more material equals more expensive production cost or the “rule of most things” that stipulates that larger things are typically bigger. In the mid-ranges, there also seems to be an ongoing effect whereby, if the things that you print are likely to be the same size as inexpensive manufactured goods but are more difficult to make, larger and smaller things can vary more widely in price. Production difficulty, in large or small structures, drives price and applications, as well. I’m not saying that size is solely deterministic, but we are seeing effects here.

On the micro- and nanoscale, quality systems are adopted rapidly by participants due to their adjacency to the medical business. If medical is the most profitable thing you can do and just about the only thing you can do, you’re going to end up having a cleanroom. Meanwhile, it took a long time for a lot of service bureaus to turn to ISO, and desktop machines are currently still sold with a warranty that scarcely lasts past the UPS carrier’s hands. Now increasingly, quality systems and certifications are being adopted by desktop companies and service bureaus. In larger-scale things, we’re seeing medium format start to look at quality now.

Many of us are familiar with the innovator’s dilemma, whereby a large volume good enough product displaces a better more expensive earlier one. Could we in 3D printing see a similar effect where higher quality systems engineered for smaller sizes could displace established entrants with larger sized parts? If Prusa and Ultimaker were good at precision in the 10-cm range, wouldn’t it be fairly easy for them to scale their systems on the back of their existing installed base?

Crucially, they wouldn’t have to adapt all systems completely, but just make some components stronger to reach the next size of medium-format machines. If they jumped to the Cincinnati BAAM category, of course then they’d have to completely re-engineer everything, but the adjacent category would be simple for them to do. But, for them to work at the microscale would mean a lot of adjustments to their current design and manufacturing of hardware components as well as working in a higher quality standards way.

This leap would be daunting, especially since the volume of products made with the smaller category would be less than with their own. Furthermore, they could expect to sell less material and fewer machines in the smaller size category, but more material and fewer machines in the one-size larger category. Especially consumables driven firms or companies such as polymer firms will benefit from more parts, faster print speeds and larger sized parts. The sum total of these effects could indicate pressure on firms to move into larger scaled manufacturing all the time, but ignore smaller scales.

If we look at MX3D for example, we may think of its bridges which it may sell in the hundreds if it got them right and could certify them. But, MX3D also can sell many more smaller components at larger volumes as well. Its Takenaka connector for example needs precision, but this component could sell in its thousands. Bike frames need to fit with precision components, such as derailleurs, and the precision and volume required for these components can drive its other businesses. Operational advantages gained here could be used to earn margin on larger components, such as bridges, that few can make. It seems blindingly obvious if we compare it to bicycle companies moving to passenger cars and then sometimes to vans and sometimes to trucks. This development seems to be a very similar one.

If this holds true, then for MX3D, the future could be in making many medium-sized parts for a larger scale future. In Dutch we have an expression, “wie het kleine niet eert, is het grote niet weed”, which means, “he who does not honor the small things does not deserve the large.” For 3D printing, this expression may hold very true indeed.

The post MX3D Uses Robot Arm to 3D Print Robot Arm, Installs it on Robot appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Hybrid Construction 3D Printing in Japan Combines Advantages of Wet & Dry Spraying

3D printing in construction continues to expand in Japan, driven by the need for more efficient, affordable processes, and higher-performance materials overall. In developing new technology for the construction industry, a research group from Gifu University (Gifu, Japan) has been joined by:

Construction Technology Research Institute
Sumitomo Osaka Cement
Shimizu Construction
NIPPO
Maruei Concrete Industry
FTS

Along with innovation in dry and wet spraying, the research and development group has now built a printer for on-site work, which the group states offers multiple benefits in combination with information communication technology (ICT) equipment. Typical modes of construction worldwide involve molding poured cement into shape using formwork. In Japan, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism recommends pre-casting with factory-made products; however, the researchers continue to move forward in refining technology—allowing a shift and employing a novel technique.

Undoubtedly, the research and development group is headed in the right direction with a focus on 3D printing. For industrial users—and especially in construction—the benefits are considerable. Greater affordability is possible on numerous levels, due to less time spent in production, transportation, less waste in materials, and reduced need for human laborers as well (becoming even more relevant with the greater use of more complex robotics).

With dry spraying, materials must be ‘separately conveyed’ and then sprayed from the nozzle tip, while wet spraying involves premixed materials being sprayed from the nozzle tip. With the team’s unique hybrid system, they are able to bring together all the benefits of both.

Outline of hybrid spraying system　Source: Gifu University, Research Institute of Construction Technology, Sumitomo Osaka Cement, Shimizu Construction, NIPPO, Maruei Concrete Industry, FTS

The new process works in the following steps:

3D modeling is performed on-site with spray nozzle attached to bucket tip of the ICT construction machine.
Infinite plane design data is created, controlling the horizontal axis.
Height is adjusted with an offset function.

Experiments at the Construction Technology Research Institute. Formwork from the left, wall　Source: Gifu University, Research Institute of Construction Technology, Sumitomo Osaka Cement, Shimizu Construction, NIPPO, Maruei Concrete Industry, FTS

“By using such ICT construction machinery technology, in the experiment of the Construction Technology Research Institute, we succeeded in directly outputting 3D concrete structures assuming a formwork (pillar) with a height of 1.5 meters and a wall with a height of 1 meter,” explained the researchers.

There are plans to deal with difficulties in transportation of materials, which is often an issue in the construction industry—for numerous applications. The team currently envisions “a buried formwork for construction of concrete structures” in their first phase, with newly applied accuracy and management in the second phase—to be used in abutments, piers, and more. In the third phase, they will be working on infrastructure like bridges, and other structures like railings.

Expected future application of bridge superstructure　Source: Gifu University, Construction Technology Research Institute, Sumitomo Osaka Cement, Shimizu Construction, NIPPO, Maruei Concrete Industry, FTS

As the research and development group moves from the conceptual phase to actually completing all three phases, it will be interesting to see the end results. While there are true benefits for use in the building industry, many have expressed skepticism as projects are slow to get off the ground, whether in building homes or entire villages.

The post Hybrid Construction 3D Printing in Japan Combines Advantages of Wet & Dry Spraying appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Machine Learning & Geopolymers: 3D Printing for Construction

Ali Bagheri and Christian Cremona explore complexities in digital fabrication, sharing their findings in the recently published ‘Formulation of mix design for 3D printing of geopolymers: A machine learning approach.’

Focusing on 3D-printed materials for construction, Bagheri and Cremona assess the potential for machine learning. Experimenting with geopolymer samples and different compositions, the authors evaluated target variables in machine learning. They began by looking at the compressive strength of geopolymer binders and the elements involved, to include:

Features of raw materials
Chemical composition of the aluminosilicate resources
Formulation of the alkaline activator
Alkaline ions in the activator
Fraction of silicate to hydroxide compounds in the activator
Water to binder ratio
Formulation of aggregates

Upon 3D printing, factors grow to include:

Printing method
Layer resolution
Shape of prints
Rates of extrusion
Orientation
Preparation and formulation of materials

“Given an innumerable number of independent variables, the prediction of the compressive strength of printed geopolymer samples without the use of a machine will generate a high level of error,” stated the researchers. “For instance, one can predict the strength of samples that are classified into four categories with 75% error. However, the use of machine learning would reduce this error significantly as can be seen further in this work.”

Current data offers benefits to researchers as they are able to learn more through printing variables and changing parameters:

“Among the mentioned effective parameters, the content of the fly ash, the content of the ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), as well as the ratio of boron ions, silicon ions, and sodium ions in the alkaline solution have the most significant impact on the compressive strength,” stated the researchers.

A small 3D printer was used to fabricate samples for the study, consisting of a piston-operated extruder. The researchers used vibration to make sure the mix was compacted, with resulting sample dimensions of 250x30x30.

Statistical summary of the input data

Target data classes

Slag was found in the geopolymer mix, and also displayed better compressive strength; conversely, samples with more sodium showed decreased compressive strength.

DT flowchart of the ctree function

Increased boron raised sodium ions, while lessening compressive strength—with the same shown in terms of lesser slag content too. Silicate is also a critical ingredient for strength development and cross-linking.

Confusion matrix of ctree function based on actual values

Confusion matrix of ctree function based on predicted values

Ultimately, Bagheri and Cremona discovered the true prediction value to be 63 percent.

Confusion matrix of rpart function based on observations

Confusion matrix of rpart function based on predictions

“The predictions could be compared in two efficient ways. First, the simplicity of the model could be assessed based on the predictions rules and comprising the number of parameters. Accordingly, rpart function is far more uncomplicated with only two parameters for 50% of the predictions and three parameters for another half,” concluded the researchers.

“Whereas, ctree function used four factors for 74% of the predictions and two factors for only 26% of the predictions. Secondly, the cumulative accuracy of each prediction function was used as a comparing criterion. The cumulative accuracy factor was obtained by multiplying the number of predictions in each category and the appropriate positive predictive value.

Acquiring 70% cumulative accuracy for rpart function with respect to 63% for that of ctree function evidenced similar but slightly better performance for rpart function to predict the compressive strength of 3D-printed boron-based geopolymer samples. Moreover, the importance of the percentage of slag and the ratio of boron ions can be seen in the decision trees created by ctree and rpart functions, respectively.”

3D printing in construction continues to be of growing interest, with the potential for homes, offices, and even entire villages to be built with a variety of different printers and materials. What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

Comparison of the results: from laboratory test to machine output

[Source / Images: ‘Formulation of mix design for 3D printing of geopolymers: A machine learning approach’]

The post Machine Learning & Geopolymers: 3D Printing for Construction appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Mobile Robotic System 3D Prints Single-Piece Concrete Structures

The scientists at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore have spent a lot of time and energy over the last few years researching construction 3D printing with concrete materials. Two years ago, the NTU Singapore Centre for 3D Printing (SC3DP) team, led by Assistant Professor Pham Quang Cuong with NTU’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, published a paper about their work developing concurrent mobile 3D printing construction robots. The idea was that multiple robots working together to build a concrete structure wouldn’t be held back by common issues like volume constraints and long lead times.

Adoption of concrete 3D printing is limited because of problems like lack of mobility and small size, and the use of synchronized, mobile robots is an excellent place to start working on the issue of scalability. But now, Professor Cuong and his team are taking things to the next level. They’re still using mobile robots for a print-while-moving approach, but instead of a pair systems, they’ve developed a single-robot industrial AM platform that can complete large-scale construction printing all by itself.

“Our system is mounted on a mobile robot. The ability to move the robot base in space allows our robot to print structures that are larger than itself,” Professor Cuong explained. “Also, having a mobile base makes it easier to bring the robot into the construction site and move it around inside.”

The NTU team—comprised of Mehmet Efe Tiryaki, Xu Zhang, and Professor Cuong—published a paper about their new system, titled “Printing-while-moving: a new paradigm for large-scale robotic 3D Printing.”

The abstract reads, “Building and Construction have recently become an exciting application ground for robotics. In particular, rapid progress in material formulation and in robotics technology has made robotic 3D Printing of concrete a promising technique for in-situ construction. Yet, scalability remains an important hurdle to widespread adoption: the printing systems (gantry-based or arm-based) are often much larger than the structure be printed, hence cumbersome. Recently, a mobile printing system – a manipulator mounted on a mobile base – was proposed to alleviate this issue: such a system, by moving its base, can potentially print a structure larger than itself. However, the proposed system could only print while being stationary, imposing thereby a limit on the size of structures that can be printed in a single take. Here, we develop a system that implements the printing-while-moving paradigm, which enables printing single-piece structures of arbitrary sizes with a single robot. This development requires solving motion planning, localization, and motion control problems that are specific to mobile 3D Printing.”

This system only needs one robot to print differently sized single-piece structures, which also helps to ensure better structural properties.

The mobile robotic 3D printing system

Typically, construction materials wider than the construction 3D printing system’s gantry foothold distance can’t be printed. That’s because a printed structure’s dimensions are constrained by one of three things: the robot arm’s reach, the gantry’s restricted volume, or the framework which enables the printhead to move along a particular axis. But the NTU researchers have enabled their system to move in any direction, so long as it’s on a flat surface, by mounting an industrial robot manipulator to a wheeled base. Then, a hose is used to connect the platform’s manipulator flange nozzle to a pump.

The robot manipulator’s motions, and those of the mobile platform, are painstakingly planned out in this new system in order to achieve a coordinated effort. It uses feedback motion control, and highly accurate robot localization, to make sure that the nozzle deposits the concrete material at the right pace in the correct location. By placing a camera on the back of the mobile base, its “localization system” works better over a larger surface area.

Model of NTU’s 3D printing system setup and printing process pipeline

The NTU research team claims that their printing-while-moving system can increase the size of structures that one robot can fabricate. To prove it, they used the platform to 3D print a single-piece 210 x 45 x 10 cm concrete structure, which is definitely larger than the robotic arm’s 87 cm reach. This system could significantly increase the effectiveness of 3D construction printing. But, their work is not yet done, as the system does still have some limitations, particularly in terms of uneven work areas.

Professor Cuong explained, “We’re planning to add collaborative features to our robot. The idea is to have a human operator take the robot by hand and move it around the construction site, towards the desired location, guiding it to achieve high-precision assembly.”

Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the Facebook comments below.

(Source: IEEE)

The post Mobile Robotic System 3D Prints Single-Piece Concrete Structures appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Sustainable Cabin Built on 3D-Printed Concrete Stilts from Infested Ash Wood

Our house had several ash trees in the front and back yard while I was growing up, and we lost three of them due to various acts of nature. Ash is a very soft wood, which is how we lost one to high winds, and another split at the top because it wasn’t well-supported at the bottom. The third was removed because it had been infected by the invasive Emerald Ash Borer beetle, a nasty little bugger that’s not even native to the US but is here wreaking havoc anyway.

Obviously, ash trees that have been infected and destroyed by the EAB aren’t often used for construction purposes, both because sawmills can’t process the wood, and due to their odd, irregular shapes. These trees are then usually burned or left to decompose, neither of which is a great option.

“Unfortunately, both scenarios release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and so the advantage to using compromised ash for construction is that is that it both binds the carbon to the earth and offsets the harvesting of more commonly used wood species,” said Sasa Zivkovic, the Co-Principal of New York-based architecture studio HANNAH.

The Ithaca studio—founded in 2014 by Zivkovic, along with fellow co-principal Leslie Lok, Alexander Chmarin, and Alexander Graf—worked with a group of Cornell University students to create the tiny but striking Ashen Cabin, located off the grid in upstate New York. The collaborative project was meant to be a small-scale study regarding sustainable construction, and combined EAB-infested ash wood with 3D printing to build the cabin.

“By implementing high precision 3D scanning and robotic based fabrication technology, HANNAH transforms Emerald-Ash-Borer-infested “waste wood” into an abundantly available, affordable, and sustainable building material. From the ground up, digital design and fabrication technologies are intrinsic to the making of this architectural prototype, facilitating fundamentally new material methods, tectonic articulations, and forms of construction,” the studio’s website states.

As architects are looking to construct houses more sustainably, these kinds of small, off-grid residences are becoming more popular housing options, and Ashen Cabin definitely fits the bill. The tiny residence, featuring walls made of infested ash wood, is elevated by 3D-printed concrete stilts, which form the angular base of the cabin and its heavy, hulking extrusions.

HANNAH stated, “The project aims to reveal 3D printing’s idiosyncratic tectonic language by exploring how the layering of concrete, the relentless 3D deposition of extruded lines of material, and the act of corbelling can suggest new strategies for building.”

All of the cabin’s 3D-printed concrete shapes, including the tall, curved chimney and fireplace, furniture, textured floor, and prismatic legs, have a distinct linear pattern that features jagged edges. By using 3D printing, HANNAH was able to lower its carbon footprint and reduce waste by using less material than would normally be required, as a concrete mold was unnecessary.

Lok explained, “By using 3D printing, we eliminate the use of wasteful formwork and can deposit concrete smartly and only where structurally necessary, reducing its use considerably while also maintaining a building’s integrity.”

Concrete was also used to 3D print a unique seating platform, which can be opened up to use for storage. A bench made of marine-grade plywood, painted black to offer a pleasing contrast to the light siding, extends out from the seat in order to form a single bed.

A robotic arm with a band saw attachment cut the irregular ash logs into curving boards of different thicknesses. Both the exterior and interior of Ashen Cabin are covered with the wavy timber panels, which also define the structure’s four, black plywood-framed windows and were used to create other architectural features, like surfaces and shelving, inside.

The studio explained, “The curvature of the wood is strategically deployed to highlight moments of architectural importance such as windows, entrances, roofs, canopies, or provide additional programmatic opportunities such as integrated shelving, desk space, or storage.”

Focusing on the aesthetics of the cabin, the wood boards will naturally turn grey over time, so that the siding will eventually match the color of the concrete. Its 3D-printed concrete floors feature interlocking designs, and the windows are all oriented so they face the surrounding wooded landscape. The scenery makes it look like any residents of Ashen Cabin will be in their own little world.

Speaking of off-grid living, Ashen Cabin does not have power or running water. The temperature is regulated through its wood-burning fireplace and foam insulation, while a small camping sink, also 3D-printed out of concrete, provides the water.

Discuss this news and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the comments below.

(All photos taken by Andy Chen, HANNAH)

The post Sustainable Cabin Built on 3D-Printed Concrete Stilts from Infested Ash Wood appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

3D Printing with Cement: Novel Spray-Based Materials

Lu Bing recently presented a thesis, ‘Mixture Design and Processing of Novel Spray-based Cementitious Materials for 3D Printing,’ to the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Nanyang Technological University.

With a focus on 3D printing with concrete, Lu Bing notes the ‘remarkable progress’ being made with such materials—promoting more expanded automation in construction, decreasing the need for labor, and improving efficiency over traditional techniques. This is true in many different applications feeling the positive impacts of 3D printing too, from the medical industry to automotive and aerospace. Construction has seen its uses in bridges and a variety of different aspects of infrastructure—not to mention homes.

Printing and assembly of a 3D printed concrete bridge (Salet et al. 2018): (a) printing of the structure unit; (b) onsite assembly of the bridge. Reproduced under Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, no changes were made to the figures)

Work with cement in 3D printing means the need for research and development regarding materials and inks, along with studies including investigation of sand/binder ratio, mixture optimization, and the use of a variety of materials.

“The 3D printing of cementitious materials could be divided into two phases, i.e. delivery and deposition phases (Lu et al. 2019b),” states Bing. “In the delivery phase, the printable cementitious material is delivered through the hose to the printing nozzle with the pressure provided by the pump. In the deposition phase, the printable cementitious material is deposited in a layer-by-layer manner to build the desired structure. The movement of the printing nozzle is usually controlled by gantry or robotic arm.”

Multi-level material design of 3D printable cementitious materials (Lu et al.
2019b). Reproduced with permission © Elsevier

Robotic arm printing system for large-scale 3D cementitious material
printing (Zhang et al. 2018a). Reproduced with permission © Elsevier

3DPCM requires materials with both good pumpability and good buildability in terms of printing. Good pumpability can be delivered in a streamlined manner from the hose to the nozzle, with little chance of clogging. Good buildability leads to large height with very little deformation, meaning that prints are consistent and stable.

During delivery, concrete materials should exhibit low viscosity, and also low dynamic yield stress for pumpability. During printing, the material should offer high static yield stress.

Unstable or inconsistent flow can lead to serious problems like tearing, or varied dimensions in the layers. With inferior pumpability, however, comes a poor structural performance—and with poor buildability, structures may collapse.

Reinforcements must be added either separate from printing or placed simultaneously during fabrication.

Defects due to poor pumpability

Sprayable materials are pumped through a hose and then sprayed onto the substrate after being injected with air. For greater robustness, a wet-mix is usually used, pouring in water at the nozzle during dry-mix.

“… sufficient material adhesion to the substrate in the experiments was guaranteed in this study. However, lack of material adhesion to substrate can lead to the fall of sprayed materials with large thickness, which may affect material distribution. On the other hand, while there is no relevant study on loading mechanism of overhead spray-based printing, it is suspected that the competition between gravity, cohesion between each layer and adhesion to substrate plays an important role in the deposition,” concluded the researchers.

“Substrates made of different materials may also affect the adhesion. In this thesis, timber plates were used as substrates. For more generic applications, other materials such as steel and hardened concrete can be applied in the future study. Tack test can be adopted to assess the adhesion, where thin plates made of substrate materials can be glued to the two parallel testing plates. Alternatively, overhead spray-based 3D printing can be carried out for different substrates with the same mixture. Through comparison of maximum sprayed layers and failure modes, the adhesion between mixture and different substrates can also be assessed.”

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source / Images: ‘Mixture Design and Processing of Novel Spray-based Cementitious Materials for 3D Printing’]

The post 3D Printing with Cement: Novel Spray-Based Materials appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Concrete 3D Printing: Nailing Layers for Added Reinforcement

Researchers from France and the UK seek ways to improve 3D printing for construction, revealing their analysis in the recently published ‘Nailing of Layers: A Promising Way to Reinforce Concrete 3D Printing Structures.’

Concrete extrusion is a continuing source of innovation for the construction industry, lending promise to 3D printed offices, homes, and entire village concepts—as well as added potential for more affordable housing. Greater affordability, speed in production, less need for manpower, and the ability to create composites for better performance are just a few of the benefits.

“Recent research on 3D printing has almost all been focused on mix-design, rheological and process related issues. It has allowed the production of a physically-based background in order to formulate concrete with the required fresh properties, and allowed us to evaluate a time window during which it is possible to deposit a new layer of cement-based material,” stated the researchers.

“Nowadays, some technical solutions have emerged in the development of successful concrete printing, and researchers have started to work on the structural performances of reinforced and unreinforced concrete printed structures.”

Additional reinforcements are the only way for some structures, including infrastructure like bridges, to adhere to standards in design. Contemporary solutions may include steel reinforcements or the use of cables, or fibers made of the following materials:

Steel
Basalt
Glass
Bio-based materials
Polymeric fibers

In this study, the scientists experimented with the use of nails, driven through several layers after they were 3D printed. The overall goal was to offer ductility, tensile, and shear strength—while also offering greater strength in between layers.

“This strategy can be easily automated using a robotic placement of the nail which can be a real advantage and beneficial in the context of digital construction,” stated the researchers.

Placement of nails was studied regarding gradient of mechanical properties, along with evaluating reinforcement effects through three-point flexural tests examining orientation, surface roughness, and steel density.

(a) Nails before and after rusting treatment; (b) Considered nail geometry.

Three-layer samples and ten-layer samples were fabricated with 10 × 25 mm² rectangular cross section layers of mortar with a screw extrusion system mounted on a WASP 3MT Industrial 4.0 printer.

Picture of the printing system: printer, printing head and nozzle.

Manufactured samples geometries: (a) schematic views; (b) pictures of samples after bending tests.

Bending resistance was tested, along with post-peak behavior, and the potential for durability issues and corrosion of steel. Numerous issues must be considered to avoid corrosion, beginning with permeability, as it must be ‘the lowest possible’ to decrease carbonation and any resulting corrosion. Covers must be used to protect steel, with other materials like fly ash or granulated slag preventing steel nail corrosion. Other solutions include using stainless steel, glass, basalts, or carbon to avoid corrosion.

“It was also demonstrated that reinforcement, by using nails, was able to efficiently strengthen printed samples if the orientation of the nails was correctly chosen and the nails surface was sufficiently rough to ensure a good interface with the mortar,” said the researchers.

“In conclusion, this investigation paved a new path towards fully automated selective steel nail placements as reinforcements during the digital fabrication of concrete in order to strengthen the concrete structure.”

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts; join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

Effect of the surface roughness on the post-peak behavior of the reinforced samples.

[Source / Images: ‘Nailing of Layers: A Promising Way to Reinforce Concrete 3D Printing Structures’]

The post Concrete 3D Printing: Nailing Layers for Added Reinforcement appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Janne Kyttanen: Live Entrepreneurship and 3D Printing Value Networks 3D Printing Concrete

This is a part of a series where 3D printing pioneer Janne Kyttanen explores value networks and 3D printing. He explains what this is here. Essentially the key point is that Janne is trying to explore established businesses through in-depth interviews with market participants. He then wants to see if he can line up significant players in these sectors to together disrupt the businesses. Janne believes that by working together through value networks, long-lasting consortia can play a part in transforming industry sectors. The cool thing is that he will be doing this right in front of our eyes. This is live entrepreneurship and quite the gamble on his part as he shares his explorations and discovery. Janne is trying to explore the world of concrete something superabundant and quite problematic. The first interview was with BAM’s Jeroen Nuijten on 3D printing concrete and another with Robert Niven of Carboncure can be found here.

Now Janne will look at the always exciting topic of…change management? Janne talks to Stephan Mansour. Stephan is a man of many talents and finds himself at a very exciting intersection of fields with a rather unique skill set. He is a developer, project manager, and consummate IT guy who then worked for years for construction companies exploring amongst other things, 3D printing for construction.

Janne says of the conversation,

“Let’s talk about change management! In this episode of 3D value network that’s exactly what we did when I sat down with Stephan Mansoor. Many times great ideas die because the organization is not set up for being receptive to adjustments. The organization would need to go through an immense change management curve in order for them to make these ideas a reality. I can reflect on my younger self about this very topic on multiple occasions and I believe we have all fallen into this trap. Whether the teenager version of you is misunderstood by his parents or your peers at work don’t see the value of your revolutionary idea, you own the communication part. It is your responsibility to give a presentation, which sticks, hits the benefits for all the stakeholders, is timed right for the organization, etc. Change management is a game of song and dance with politics and it is very complex to an old industry like construction to adapt to 3D printing concrete. Tune in to hear from Stephan Mansour what is at stake when trying to introduce 3D printing inside a very established construction company.”

We hope that you enjoy the journey that Janne is taking you on in this emerging series!

The post Janne Kyttanen: Live Entrepreneurship and 3D Printing Value Networks 3D Printing Concrete appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Twente AM Live Streams Large-Scale 3D Printing of Concrete Formwork

Dutch company Twente Additive Manufacturing B.V. (Twente AM, or TAM) is working to change the home building industry for the better, by challenging traditional construction methods through the use of automation and additive manufacturing. The company hasn’t been around that long, but had a big goal for its inaugural year in business – to create a large-scale 3D printer using an ABB 9-axis robot that is placed on a gantry-like structure for a large build footprint.

I’d say that Twente AM definitely succeeded in its mission. The structure supporting the conventional robot is able to move around enough so that it can build structures that are five meters high and ten meters long, which gives it a pretty impressive footprint of 391 m³….for comparison, a 6-axis robot can only complete a job with a 42 m³ footprint, but the rotational 9th axis that Twente AM added takes it the extra distance.

Ian Comishin, the President and Co-Founder of Twente Additive Manufacturing, explained in a press release that “The main role of this huge printer will be to create leave-in-place formwork for the construction of concrete homes to be built in British Columbia.”

The release goes on to explain that the extremely detailed prints its robotic AM system is capable of creating are made with a mortar material, which can rapidly cure within minutes to create artistic features and complex shapes that conventional methods of manufacturing just can’t complete. According to a video that the company released, parametric CAD/CAM software is directly connected to the large-scale printer, and makes these shapes through the use of algorithms.

The applications for Twente AM’s new 3D robotic 3D printing system include industrial architecture and building houses. That’s why the company took a pretty big risk in marketing its machine, only a few days after completing it, by live streaming its operation at the 40th Big5 international building and construction show in Dubai. Every day during the show, the team in Canada woke up at 2 am to get the machine started for the day. Check out the video to see the live 3D printing of Twente AM’s “record breaking concrete parts” below:

“Without hiding our failures, we gave them a taste of 3D concrete printing,” the video states.

And there were indeed some failures, though as awed exhibition attendees could probably tell you, most of the complicated parts they fabricated were completed successfully. The team in Canada showed off the system’s fancy footwork with intricate designs, had a little fun in making an Arabic beach cabana, and also created some necessary parts for its ongoing project, such as a formwork for the loading dock.

The Twente AM team is obviously thrilled with the results of what I’d call a pretty big gamble, which is making many in the industry think harder about what 3D printing is capable of in the architecture field. But the company also recognizes that they wouldn’t be where they are today without the help of many colleagues – collaboration is key to making these kinds of big advances.

“We couldn’t be where we are now without collaborating with other talented members of the industry…We didn’t make this ourselves, this technology is at the very early adoption stage and working with the other companies and academic institutions throughout the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, The UK and Canada who are taking on the challenge of solving 3D printing for home building is what Twente’s foundation is built upon,” said Tim Brodesser, head of R&D.

I’m pretty impressed with Twente AM’s work, and even more impressed by the fact that they live streamed the 3D printing process at a crowded exhibition not long after completing the system. It reminds me of something I witnessed two years ago in Illinois, by invitation of the US Army’s Engineer Research and Development Center’s Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL).

ACES demo (Image: Sarah Saunders for 3DPrint.com)

The team performed a live demonstration of its Automated Construction of Expeditionary Structures (ACES) technology by attempting to fabricate a 512 square foot barracks within 24 hours of continuous 3D printing; I say attempt because they did not succeed. But that’s what was so refreshing – we often hear a lot of hype about 3D printed construction, without much to back the claims up. So it’s really great to see teams that are brave enough to let others watch the process live, even if it may fail a time or two.

Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the comments below.

(Images provided by Twente Additive Manufacturing)

The post Twente AM Live Streams Large-Scale 3D Printing of Concrete Formwork appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.