Is 3D Printed House Sustainable
Is 3D Printed House Sustainable
Is 3D Printed House Sustainable
ABSTRACT
“3D printing technology has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost
everything”, so President Barack Obama recently said (Remarks by the President in the State
of the Union Address, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2013): the impression
is that three dimensional (3D) printing is taking the world by storm in different areas.
If for objects of small dimensions, the technology is well-established, great developments are
expected in the construction industry. As a matter of fact, since the beginning of 2000, with
the first attempts for a large-scale 3D printing construction system, the innovators are working
around automated additive manufacturing in order to print whole buildings as well as large-
scale subcomponents. To date, different processes trial has started, from the printing of
elements to the layer by layer construction of entire structures in a non-stop work session,
starting from the foundation level and ending on the top of the roof. Even the materials trial
has started: bio based plastic, mix of grinded-down rocks or sand held together with a liquid
binding agent, fiber-reinforced concrete, etc.
The objective stated by different manufacturers and researchers involved is the sustainability
of the built environment, in terms of economic, environmental and social benefits. But, is this
innovation really sustainable? What about the environmental sustainability of these new
construction processes?
The purpose of this study is to try to give an answer to this matter, through three research
phases: 1. gathering and analysis of the current information on the 3D printing technology
applied to construction; 2. identification and analysis of the main systems and case studies,
including those with a longer experience in terms of research and experimentation (e.g.,
Contour Crafting and D-Shape) and the younger ones that are rapidly gaining visibility (e.g.,
Canal House and the Chinese system WinSun); 3. their evaluation in terms of environmental
benefits and critical environmental issues.
The results obtained from each work phases, in particular the case studies analysis, leads us to
think that the potential of 3D printing technology is substantial for the construction
industry. If it continues to be developed, certainly it may revolutionize the construction
process. However, implementing the technology will not be without its challenges.
INTRODUCTION
Additive Manufacturing (AM), commonly known as 3D printing, is defined as «a process of
joining materials to make objects from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer, as opposed to
subtractive manufacturing methodologies.» [1]. It derives from the field of rapid prototyping,
developed during the late 1980s and 90s. The 3D printing process begins by digitally
modelling a blueprint of the object that is to be printed in a design program; this one then
“slices” the object into layers and sequentially sends this information to the 3D printer that
constructs the object by making repeated passes, each time depositing a thin layer of material
onto material previously deposited. The 3D printing fabrication has been largely adopted,
METHOD
The research was developed in three phases:
1. Gathering of information on 3D printing in construction
3D printing technology applied to construction was analysed, gathering information from
sources at different levels: scientific articles, information from manufacturers, informative
articles. The keywords used for searching are both words that indicate the type of process
(e.g., additive manufacturing or 3D print + automated construction; construction scale +
additive fabrication / manufacturing) and trade names of systems (e.g., D-Shape).
2. Identification and technical analysis of main systems
A selection was made among the identified systems, narrowing the field of investigation on
the following criteria:
- systems that are all actively undergoing development, rather than systems which, although
their high scientific value, have been relegated essentially to the research area (i.e. Pegna);
- systems involve the use of large machines that can print from big elements up to entire
buildings, instead of machines for printing small elements such as tiles or bricks;
- systems with technical information on the process and materials, needed for the purpose
of an assessment of environmental quality.
The selected systems were analysed and for each some summarized sheets were elaborated.
Only the information obtained from the manufacturers and scientific articles were included in
these technical sheets; the information obtained from informative articles were overlooked.
RESULTS
The system operates by straining a binder on a sand layer. Transport: The aluminum
An aluminium structure holds the printer head. D-Shape structure is very light and it can
can print any feature that can be enveloped into a cube 6x6 be easily transported, assembled
meters side. The process takes place in a non-stop work and dismantled in a few hours by
session, starting from the foundation level and ending on two workers.
the top of the roof. The printing rises up in sections of 5-10 Local material: The possibility
mm. During the printing of each section, a ‘structural ink’ to use local sand, as zero-mile
is deposited by the printer’s nozzles on the sand. Upon base material, makes D-shape
contact the solidification process starts and a new layer is like a technology attentive to the
added. The solidification process takes 24 hours to sustainability of the construction.
complete. Surplus sand that has not been embedded within
the structure acts as a buttressing support while the Air emissions: The used binder is
solidification process takes place. This surplus sand can be an inorganic bi-component, eco-
reused on future buildings. friendly; chemically, the final
(Source: http://www.d-shape.com) artificial marble is 100%
environmentally friendly.
Materials
Safety: no human intervention
The D-shape binding chemistry exploits two inorganic means substantially reduced risk
reactants: the first one is a metallic oxide in powder form of accidents.
that is dispersed among the granular material and the (Source: http://www.dinitech.it)
powder component comprises at least one among
Magnesium Oxide, Silicon Oxide, Iron Oxide, Calcium
Oxide and Aluminium Oxide. The granular material is
preferably selected from the group comprised of dolomite,
calcareous or siliceous sands to which Magnesium Oxide is
added, in a ratio set between 15% and 30% by weight. The
second reactant is Magnesium Chloride (MgCl2) and its
various hydrates MgCl2(H2O)x. These salts are typical ionic
halides, being highly soluble in water. The hydrated
Magnesium Chloride can be extracted from brine or sea
water. (Cesaretti et al, 2014).
Table 1: D-Shape technical sheet
Comparing the printing processes of the four selected systems, two typologies were
identified:
- The first (KM, CC, WS) involves the direct spillage of the print material from one or more
nozzles. The print material is quick-setting. The extruded elements, if with closed section,
can be filled by pouring or injection of filler material such as concrete (CC, KM).
- The second (DS) involves two print steps. During the first step, a uniform horizontal layer
of granular material (sand) is deposited by the machine. During the second step, a binding
liquid is sprayed on those parts of the layer which has to be bound; surplus sand that has
not been embedded within the structure acts as a buttressing support while the
solidification process takes place. At the end of the process, this surplus has to be
removed and can be reused on future buildings.
CONCLUSION
The results obtained from each of the three work phases, in particular the case studies
analysis, lead us to think that the potential of 3D printing technology is substantial for the
construction industry. If it continues to be developed, certainly it may revolutionize the
construction process.
However, to declare the 3D construction processes as sustainable, it is necessary to have more
certified information than that spread today by the producers. Some positive aspects are easy
to identify as special features of the 3D construction process, such as faster and accurate
construction, reduced labour costs, decreased construction waste, reduced safety risks for
workers. Much further research has to be done on still unclear points such as the complete
composition of the printing materials, which may have negative effects on indoor air quality
in the construction and use phases and on management of demolition waste at end of life.
REFERENCES
1. ASTM: F2792 REV A - Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing
Technologies. 2012.
2. Pegna, J. : Exploraty investigation of solid freeform construction. Automation in
Construction, 5, pp 427-437, 1997.
3. Khoshnevis, B. : Automated construction by contour crafting related robotics and
information technologies. Automation in Construction, 13(1), pp 5-19, 2004.
4. http://www.emergingobjects.com/
5. http://3dprintcanalhouse.com/
6. http://www.d-shape.com/index.htm
7. Khoshnevis, B. (2004). Houses of the Future. Construction by Contour Crafting Building
Houses for Everyone. Urban Initiative policy Brief. USC-University of Southern
California.
8. Sacchetti, V. (2013). Printable futures. Domus, 968/April 2013.
9. Balinski, B. (2014). Chinese company 3D prints 10 houses in a day from recycled
material. Architecture & Design; 22 April, 2014.
10. Zhang, J., & Khoshnevis, B. (2013). Optimal machine operation planning for construction
by Contour Crafting. Automation in Construction, 29(0), 50-67.
11. Buswell, R. A., Gibb, A. G., Soar, R., & Thorpe, A. (2007). Freeform construction: Mega-
scale rapid manufacturing for construction. Automation in Construction, 16(2), 224-231.
12. Cesaretti, G., Dini, E., De Kestelier, X., Colla, V., & Pambaguian, L. (2014). Building
components for an outpost on the lunar soil by means of a novel 3D printing technology.
Acta Astronautica, 93(0), 430-450.
13. http://www.yhbm.com/