In response to Joran Booth’s insightful comment on the “Why 3D Printing Buildings Leads to Problems” video, we at TAM find ourselves immersed in the conversation. Great, well produced content like Architecture w/ Stewart‘s are thoroughly appreciated.
Who’s perspective do you align with? The debate is open. What stands undisputed is our passion for fostering educated dialogues around our technology. These are indeed thrilling times in the realm of architectural innovation, and we embrace discussions with architects we speak with especially when it propels us to expand our boundaries. Join us as we dive into the intricacies of 3D printing in construction and explore its potential.
Head on over to Stewart’s video to add your educated insight.
Joran Booth – YouTube
I’ve worked closely with a leading concrete 3D printing company for several years now, so I hope my insight into the actual construction process provides some perspective.First, one clarification: There is no gravel aggregate in 3D printing concrete. It is only sand.
You’re right that the vertical integration is very strong in this industry, but there is already internal pressure to break that up. I expect in 10 years or so, you’ll see more open-access tools available to architects and construction companies alike. I can’t be too specific and honor my non-disclosure agreements, but there is recognition that the ability for architects to play with shape is very limited for now, which also limits the primary advantage of concrete 3D printing over other methods: complex shapes cost the same as simple ones. The primary reasons IMO for the vertical integration is 1) that there has been a high learning curve for the industry and 2) the business case relies on minimizing labor costs and the strategies for dealing with that are still being prototyped. Normally trivial things like laying foundations, running plumbing, tying roof timbers into the frame, and lintels as you mentioned, are difficult for concrete 3D printed construction. It’s only in the last year or so that acceptable, repeatable solutions have been identified for most of these and are finding their way into standard design practices. But even then, there are still maybe 5 or 10 years more of on-the-ground construction needed to establish best practice. It’s not too different from the way building materials and building science radically changed in the 1980’s, leading to a decade of extremely poorly built houses prone to water damage and short lifespans. It wasn’t until maybe 20 years after that best practices for high-quality construction had been standardized.
I would push back on the lack of repairability, though. This has always been an issue with concrete construction, and it’s likely to become increasingly common for plaster or stucco finishes to be applied to internal walls, allowing for intrusive renovations to be reintegrated. Structural stability is not likely to be an issue since all walls have reinforcement every half meter anyway and often exceed building strength standards by an order of magnitude. Further, virtually all concrete 3D printing for now is slab-on-grade construction, which already has the same repairability issues you mention but is already widely adopted and has best practices for dealing with things like electrical and plumbing repair. I would also point out that the timber frame construction that we love so much is largely an anomaly unique to the U.S. where wood is abundant and cheap. Concrete 3D printed homes have the (so far unrealized) potential of being many decades or centuries more durable than frame buildings, which will change the design requirements that often contribute to design choices that later need renovations and repairs.
I would also push back on the criticism of how windows and doors are seated in the concrete homes. I don’t doubt that many early concrete 3D printed homes were sealed with silicone only, but 1) the gap between windows and walls is already standard in frame construction and addressed with shims, spray foam, and trim and 2) the 3D printing companies have already started to adopt the same building techniques used by frame construction.
Echoing much of what you said, IMO concrete 3D printing has a high potential for unique design that won’t be unlocked until architects are given freer access to the tools and pre-fab construction is a necessary companion to this industry, but there is still a lot of building science that is being worked out. There are already some serious advantges, such as all walls having a native R40 insulation rating, but these will be tempered by the inherent limitations. I don’t expect to see a rapid adoption of 3D printed construction for another 5 or 10 years and for the U.S. market share to cap around 20% and primarily remain in the residential and light commercial construction spaces. I also think that the current bare-wall aesthetic will fall out of favor out in that timeframe since it will prove difficult to clean. I also expect that environmental costs will remain high as long as cement production relies on fossil fuels and concrete aggregate relies on mined sand. I also expect that a future use case for heavy construction is using 3D printing to create forms for much thicker concrete constructions, particularly for foundations, buttresses, and pillars, such as you see in airport construction.
Anyway, thanks for the video, and all the best!
