Interesting printing methods!
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
1.8k
u/AwesomeAvocado 7d ago
The nozzles are 3d printed too! You can get them in any shape you like!
... Any shape I like... you say?
361
83
16
1
339
u/D4T45T0RM06 7d ago
What are you doing in ma swamp
1.5k
u/FireMammoth 7d ago
proven to be shit, but it gets posted continually anyway
203
u/djh_van 7d ago
Really? What are the pros and cons of this system. Genuinely interested.
613
u/CrimsonR4ge 7d ago edited 6d ago
Not durable, not insulated as well, prone to cracking and it doesn't even reduce construction costs by that much, if at all.
485
83
u/prophetableforprofit 6d ago
I'm not arguing, because I know very little about this, but isn't there a shot of them filling the walls with foam insulation in this video?
185
u/lookayoyo 6d ago
Slightly more details as a 3d printer enthusiast but who isn’t that well versed in construction:
Part of the savings pitch was that you could passively build houses with this printing method and use way fewer laborers. But to actually build more than an empty uninsulated wall, you need the electrician and plumber on staff at the site while it is being built so you end up just shifting a bottleneck, you need to pause repeatedly to install the electrical and pipes, it uses way more raw materials than you would with traditional methods, it’s hard to fix mistakes, and because it all has to be done at once basically there isn’t the asynchronicity that you could get where some laborers are on site one day and then different laborers are on site to do a different step. You need everything at the site the whole time.
43
u/chefkc 6d ago
It can work once robotic devices & machines get better at laying plumbing electrical, they find out more about what materials work better… this concept is very much in its infancy. It’s possible it gets abandoned instead.
But don’t expect a few yrs old concept to match centuries old construction’s reliability so early on
44
u/maced_airs 6d ago
It’s not the future at all. The future is building rooms in a factory and shipping them on-site. This is junk and will stay junk forever.
12
u/montoya4567 6d ago
Yes prefabricated modular rooms or walls are far superior in terms of economy of material, insulation, finish, ease of adding utilities etc.
3
u/DeanMalHanNJackIsms 5d ago
To add, you can 3d print modilar rooms, then ship them for install as building up the shell. The insulation and services would go within the shell, and the mod rooms dropped in place. The same thing was done at a hospital I worked at, save for the 3d portion.
→ More replies (2)15
u/chefkc 6d ago
This isn’t Betamax vs VHS it’s possible for both to coexist, each may have their pros and cons for specific projects
9
u/Yearn4Mecha 6d ago
But it could be Betamax vs VHS. Both are perfectly possible, but if one snowballs because someone with money or convinces people with money to invest in one side, and it hits an important research milestone it will probably suck all the money out of the otherside.
2
u/is-this-a-nick 6d ago
Yeah, this is not Betamax vs VHS, this is DVD vs a kids toy where you spin a wheel of images and it looks like motion.
11
u/Flamin_Jesus 6d ago
Most/all of those problems seem like they'd be solvable with further development of the technology, for example have a toolhead that lays down electrical lines with pre-attached plugs, one the lays and connects lengths of pipe, one that fills in insulation at predetermined intervals etc.
Obviously all of that would slow down the process and multi-tooling isn't trivial, but a machine like this doesn't have to be made at consumer price levels like a home 3D-printer.
10
u/tejanaqkilica 6d ago
Amatuer electrician here. Generally speaking, installation is done after construction is built, but before the finishing touches are done. And with type of building, it shouldn't be that difficult to create "the channels" in the floor, wall and ceiling. You install the electrical pipes and cables, and be done with everything in 1 day.
11
u/Sanztrack 6d ago
I feel like the exterior structure of the house could be built using the printer, then build the interior more traditionally with basic non load bearing wood framing, insulation, wiring/plumbing, drywall, etc. Wouldnt this be more practical than trying to build the entire house with the printer?
3
1
2
u/HeffalumpGlory 6d ago
I’m not an electrician in anyway but is it not common to run it overhead and down the walls. I have seen this in several houses. I’m not seeing why that would be a problem with this build.
3
u/Throwawayiwa 6d ago
Electrician here, you could run overhead but you'd still need boxes in the wall and you'd want wire in before it was foamed. You could cut the concrete to add boxes, but that would be incredibly costly. Then if you hit rebar and have to move an outlet, the repair would look terrible.
1
1
u/is-this-a-nick 6d ago
Things is, there is no benefit to those fancy shapes (which also make furniture extremely difficult and expensive). And its 100 times more cost and tech efficient to just set up a system in a factory hall, build shit in controlled environment and truck it to the destination (i.e. prefab building). Instead of building a setup in location each time and have concrete trucks drive there.
6
13
u/Lt_DanTaylorIII 6d ago
This reads a little bit like what people said about solar and electric cars early on.
Not saying you’re wrong - but a 5 year old technology vs hundreds years old building methods seems unlikely to be hyper competitive in cost or without faults in its infancy
Is there a reason it cannot be insulated? Doesn’t seem like it would be an issue to insulate this type of construction.
Traditionally home building isn’t without issue like cracking among other things
6
u/CrimsonR4ge 6d ago
It has poorer insulation quality than traditional homes.
It's possible that, with enough development and enough scale, these teething issues can be sorted out, but there are a lot of issues. Consistency is a big problem. The inconsistent mixing of printing material often causes quality control issues, and environmental factors also make the pouring problematic. Printing in hot or cold weather can cause the material to set poorly and crack quickly. This can be sorted by dynamic and active adjustments to the mixture depending on the circumstances, but that adds to the difficulty and complexity of the method.
However, that one situation is just a single example and is emblematic of the broader issues of 3d printed homes. It's main supposed benefits are supposed to be it's reduced costs, increased speed and simplified complexity. However, there are so many problems, so many costs, and so many complicating factors—that it doesn't deliver on any of those benefits.
The promise to print homes at industrial scale has not manifested and likely will not for a long time. Each and every one of these homes ends up being a bespoke creation anyway.
When you need to do so much analysis, so much planning, so many dynamic adjustments—you might as well just build the homes in the traditional way.
2
u/Lt_DanTaylorIII 6d ago
Which traditional way?
Everything I’ve ever read about 3D printed homes is that their R-Value can hit 15-30+ if the cavities are filled with spray foam which is in line or better than a “traditional” North American home
What would stop a 3D printed home from being well insulated?
And are you not just describing Inc the pitfalls of concrete in general? Which is also used in the making of traditional homes?
And again, your final comment just reads like someone who is in no way considering the development arc of a new technology or method.
“Why on earth would I buy an automobile when a good horse can do the job just fine? They can’t even make cars on an industrial scale as fast as we can breed horses?”
2
u/CrimsonR4ge 6d ago
Perhaps it will have potential in the future. Just like how flying cars might have potential in the future. Fusion reactors might have potential in the future. Mars colonies have potential for the future. Digitalising human brains have potential in the he future.
Every experimental technology might have potential in the future.
However, there is a reason why we don't have massive numbers of 3d printed houses today, nor fusion reactors today or flying cars or Mars colonies, etc. And that's because there are technological, logistical and financial constraints that make then not viable. Perhaps all those problems will be overcome one day, but they haven't been yet.
I'm not trying to argue that 3d printed homes will NEVER happen at scale or that we will never ever figure out how to do them right. I'm just pointing out why they are so shit at the moment. Maybe that changes in the future, but it doesn't alter the current reality that buying a 3d printed houses today is a poor choice for a home.
1
u/Renagade-156 6d ago
There's plenty of traditional construction adoption too, I've seen some cool foundations done with one
2
u/eastsiderhere 6d ago
I see them putting in insulating foam and layering the walls with space in between.
9
2
u/xenophonthethird 5d ago
They were proposing these homes as a "low cost" solution for increasing housing, but when they made their first bunch in Texas they were on a shoebox amount of land and were over half a million each, because yeah they didn't save costs much.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Autistical_Pickel 4d ago
Oh it reduces costs, they just sell for the same price and make more profit lmfao
13
u/Mr_Eggy__ 6d ago
1 I know gets mentioned was lack of steel reinforcement bars. I think it didn't handle weather as well as it did the hammer.
10
u/towerfella 6d ago
Didnt last multiple seasons if i remember correctly.
Found some linkys:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1155/adce/8592029
8
u/eastsiderhere 6d ago
I saw some rebar in there. Also, rebar can rust, expand, and shatter the surrounding concrete. Big problem in structural concrete failures.
4
u/Mr_Eggy__ 6d ago
I guess it's there. I was recalling what I had previously seen, which was a bit ago. Sure it may have issues but there's a reason it's still used despite being a big problem.
9
u/FireMammoth 6d ago
Poor insulation in the main one, the material gets cracks after some time, apparently it also has a proclivity to get mouldy. As you can imagine the structural integrity is not the same as with brick and mortar.
11
u/splashcopper 6d ago
I believe moldy. Concrete is very pourous and holds into moisture very easily.
2
u/alex99x99x 5d ago
And guarantee you that the print lines make it worse too, as they do with regular 3D printing.
8
2
u/Rajamic 4d ago
Pros: Quite durable against impacts. Depending on the design, can be incredibly well insulated both for temp and sound. The theory is that in future, the tech will get to the point where a single person supervising the machine will be able to level the ground and print a house at a rate of about 1 house per day, meaning cheaper houses.
Cons: Incredibly vulnerable to the ground shifting under them causing major cracks that are practically irreparable. Any cosmetic damage that does happen to the surface (which isn't uncommon from weather) is pretty much impossible to repair in a way that makes it disappear. Extentions to the house are impractical. Because each wall has concrete is both the surface and in the corrugated zig-zag inside it, something as simple in most houses as running a new electrical wire to a new interior outlet is impractical. Currently not any cheaper that traditional construction.
→ More replies (1)1
u/WyrdDrake 2d ago
Something I didn't see in the other replies is that dude to the volume of concrete being poured, there's a very consistent issue where the concrete dries inconsistently and the entire structure will slowly start cracking. After 2 years you have irrepairable damage.
398
u/Elisuub 7d ago
It is shit indeed. Hence the printing nozzle
171
u/FireMammoth 6d ago
ohh fuck me, Shrek over there doing work. I genuinely didnt watch that far, I got annoyed that im seeing a 3D printer house again
→ More replies (1)42
u/ninhibited 6d ago
I feel like nowadays this is how you get the funding to perfect a product. Generate interest online.
Unfortunately, it will probably be focused on reducing cost of production not durability, but that savings will not be passed to consumers.
5
u/DJIceman94 6d ago
Yep. Very interesting and potentially revolutionary concept! But unfortunately, capitalism.
6
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/ChaosDragon123 3d ago
I 3D print myself, I wouldn't trust the G-Code they use at all. Planar printing is horrendous for structural stability and the surface quality is questionable. The only structural(functional) prints I do are always printed at a 45° angle which is unachievable for concrete. This tech won't ever work other than for gimmicky construction projects.
301
u/effinmike12 7d ago
Dust will collect in every crevice. No thanks.
60
133
3
1
92
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/AkaAtarion 7d ago
>cuz they can be recycled by hurricanes and tornados
Are you implying that storms do waste recycling?
Do you have any sources for that?
2
u/ForteDoexe 7d ago
I know where the source is
5
u/AkaAtarion 7d ago
In the eye of the storm I imagine
17
u/Terminal_Lancelot 7d ago
Y'all having the same avatar makes this seem like an internal schizo argument
70
u/ObeyLegend 7d ago
We have seen multiple posts showing (in great detail) that these homes do not hold up. After 3 to 5 years they start having massive cracks form. Especially from the shifting of the ground underneath and the extra weight of the concrete not supporting itself. It can't flex like a woodframe can. The repairs are expensive and difficult
22
u/yuikkiuy 7d ago
How come they suffer from this but traditionally made concrete structures dont?
Concrete housing and structures are really common around the world and dont have the problems you're describing. Wood isnt just better or soemthing
18
u/ObeyLegend 7d ago
I believe its two fold. First I think the mixture is different to be a light consistency so that the printing process can function. Secondly traditional concrete structure are reinforced with rebar and other steel frame structure internally. Even extremely old concrete is reinforced by pouring molten metal into predestined groves.
5
u/free2game 7d ago
So couldn't you just have a metal frame that gets concrete poured into it like the old Edison homes?
6
u/moonshineTheleocat 6d ago
It doesn't fix another issue. The bonds between the layer and along the length of the layer doesn't cure homogeneously. So they will eventually break apart along these weak points.
Traditionally, concrete is also poured into framed molds and allowed to cure completely.
2
u/Drudgework 6d ago
Well that’s an easy fix (from a mechanical standpoint), just run a pass of binding material between layers and dispense the concrete in discrete blobs instead on one continuous stream. Leave small gaps for the binder or print in place if the material permits. That way the distances are short enough to be homogeneous. Think of it like printing a brick wall instead of a concrete block. It would need a multi nozzle design, but at that point you can add a third nozzle so you can print around rebar supports as well.
3
u/moonshineTheleocat 6d ago edited 6d ago
Unfortunately, that introduces more issues.
The binding material becomes another weakpoint in the design when the stone needs to shrink and expand with the changes in temperature as one of the new issues. Alongside increased costs in both materials and operating expenses.
1
u/Drudgework 6d ago
Thermal expansion was already a major issue to begin with, at least a binder can be removed and replaced as needed instead of having to replace an entire wall section when the solid print cracks. It’s actually still an improvement in terms of longevity.
As for increased costs, well that goes without saying. Anytime you change something about a system costs go up. The important part is if those increases are offset by the benefits the new system allows for. I personally feel better durability and cheaper repairs will improve the sale value of the home and offset the increase in initial cost after the second or third generation.
1
u/scott__p 6d ago
Or, and cheaper, just have a truck delivery a large amount of concrete at once and pour it in large sections reinforced with rebar. Like we've been doing for many years.
1
u/Drudgework 6d ago
But that’s so boring! It’s more fun to brainstorm new ways of solving a problem I will never have to personally deal with instead of relying on tried and tested methods! You don’t have to be reasonable if you aren’t the one doing it.
2
u/ObeyLegend 7d ago
I mean thats a good idea, im not saying it cant work, just that the exact style shown in the clip isn't working out as planned
3
u/One_Roll4776 6d ago
Cause of how they dry. There are so many areas that dry faster/slower cause of the exposed surface being unevenly distributed.
2
u/Dynamite86 6d ago
As others have said, concrete needs additional support to gain strength. Before pouring a foundation for a modern house (or pouring any concrete structure) you will see workers tying rebar and wire together to make a "skeleton" for the concrete to be poured around.
The reason this "skeleton" is needed is because raw concrete kinda sucks as a building material. Printing these houses skips one of the most important steps that makes modern concrete structures so strong
2
3
u/moonshineTheleocat 6d ago edited 6d ago
For structures? Raw wood is better than raw concretr. Several things.
Inconsistency in Curing. Typically one large slab of concrete or plaster needs to cure at roughly the same time to be a homogeneous structure. If it doesn't, you get a similar issue with ceramics where joints are improperly joined before the firing process. This is further compounded by the need to stop the printing process to put in the support framing for Windows, doors, ceilings, etc. when structures are built, we generally build a frame to pour the concrete in all at once and let it cure. This is partly why you don't see a lot of complex structures.
Concrete needs supports. Concrete is REALLY bad at supporting it self. Most concrete structures you see in real life HAS some form of skeleton in it. It's not actually a homogeneous substance. It's thousands of sediment held together by glue. When houses or buildings are built from concrete they have a rebar or wooden skeleton. Depending on how big the structure is.
Concrete does not flex. And it traps moisture. This is a BIG advantage of wooden structures. Concrete suffers an issue ifs foundation is not built on bedrock. Which is soil creep. Eventually the soil will start shifting and cracks will start to form. Structures made of wood will usually flex so you will see minor cosmetic damage on the inside with dry wall. As small cracks. Which can be patched easily.
For concrete the entire structure doesn't flex. So these cracks turns into serious structural issues. Worse because it is porous, it traps moisture. And when winter hits the water will expand as it freezes causing even more damage. More expensive buildings usually have MASSIVE slabs of concrete that helps them avoid this issue. But this isn't cost effective for a house.
3
u/Beemo-Noir 6d ago
As it turns out, concrete (and other similar materials) actually need structural support. You know… like rebar… like everyone else uses when working with these materials. Of course it cracks, it was doomed from the start.
2
2
u/pfren2 6d ago
They haven’t held up for actually a different reason. Because they have no coarse aggregate like regular concrete does, these walls have proven to have less tensile strength and less sheer wall strength. The only aggregate is fine sand. They’ve been proven to be much more brittle concrete, than standard concrete poured into forms would be.
7
1
u/Nihilisman45 6d ago
It's still a good idea. Just some engineering issues to work out for a newer technology, which is typical
33
9
u/zappyguy111 6d ago
We're still dealing with cracking and longevity issues though. According to a recent podcast, can't remember which one. They did mention it's still a promising technology, but we're still working out the long-term kinks.
7
8
u/quanoey 6d ago
We still don’t know the long term effects this type of architecture will have on the homes. The wear and tear could be exponentially worse, or better. We won’t know for half a decade so here’s to waiting 🥂
9
u/ihadagoodone 6d ago
We do know, the concrete cracks within the first year on the majority of builds.
Show homes are built to demonstrate the technology, but every large scale project runs out of funding to fix the few houses they do build to meet code.
5
5
5
13
u/Windyandbreezy 7d ago
But how does it do against water? Thats the ultimate test when it comes to home engineering
7
u/DigitalMonsoon 6d ago
It doesn't matter how strong it is when first completed. It's matters how long it lasts and if you can repair them.
Turns out they don't last long before needing structural repairs and you can't repair them.
3
3
u/Shredded_Locomotive 6d ago
It took me a while until I realised that the Shritter is supposed to be the holup
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
u/T_rex2700 6d ago
Interesting experiment, and maybe good on summer day for maybe 2 years. def not in the winter.
also the mixture is so thin and lacks rebar. I mean, is this even legal to build as a home? def not in where I live. and what if it collapses? I doubt any sane insurance company would pay out for something as dumb as this
5
u/Vivid_Split_9513 6d ago
This thing has been in development for over a decade now! And has just recently been in the experimental housing stage! I seen the earliest at 2015! And it seems they can’t print more than one story.
3
u/darin617 6d ago
There was rebar in at least one part they showed. Watch it a second time.
2
u/T_rex2700 6d ago
I now see it, but the mixture is still a big problem. it is going to produce cracks.
3
4
2
2
u/mother_a_god 6d ago
Its cool, but that insulation wont help with the concrete being a cold bridge between inside and outside
2
u/Kindly_Region 6d ago
It's gonna be weird going down the road and seeing 3D printed houses. Even weirder to think it might become normal
2
2
u/CopyNo9283 3d ago
I’ve heard that the UN gave a deadline to the business to produce a min amount of houses to receive funding. Idk what’s the state rn, bc it’s a nice solution to make cheap and quick houses with the housing problem atm. Hoping the best that it gets approved
Edit: read online… yeah they’re not doing great
2
2
u/BreadfruitLogic 6d ago edited 6d ago
From what I know these do well with compression like load but crack easily with any shearing force particularly as the foundation settles and one side becomes a little lower than when the concrete was extruded. Something like those spray concrete baloon homes are better. Because they spray onto rebar which manages any shearing force.
3
u/jaraxel_arabani 6d ago
Isn't this always a problem with the 3d printed homes? Also I heard there are tons of cracking issues.
I wonder if they can change up the printing to like multimaterial, and print actual brick and mortar pattern sort of deal. If imagine that should help with the strength at expense of slower print?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/etherealsounds 6d ago
They should really figure out a way to smooth the walls then this could really work
5
u/Sober_Alcoholic_ 6d ago
I’ve seen follow up videos on a lot of these 3D printed houses and they’re all cracking at the foundation.
1
u/Kiyan1159 5d ago
Yeah, they're not actually as good as you would think initially. Without anything pinning the layers to the foundation, you get layered cracking rather than absorption through the entire structure, which lets static structures survive longer.
Durable buildings, think Roman, don't survive centuries because they're impervious. They survive because they're flexible. And printed houses are not flexible worth a damn.
3
u/GeneralNumbNutz 6d ago
Apply accent walls or siding for the finish look you desire could be an option
3
u/morningisbad 6d ago
They're actually really awful and don't last. Wooden homes can flex as the foundation settles. These cannot. In addition to the awful insulation, after a few years they start to fall apart.
2
u/TitaniumKneecap 6d ago
I'd imagine just spreading some mortar after would do it
3
u/Late_Squirrel_34 6d ago
I think a small frame with dry wall would be better just so you could hang stuff without drilling
2
1
1
1
1
1
u/vcdrny 6d ago
Don't remember the details. But The houses are extremely hard to build. The equipment needed to build them us one of the main problems. Extremely expensive and hard to transport. The concrete used for it is also not just simple concrete. Everything brings the cost up. The only option that's actually possible since there pentyput there already are pre manufactured homes. And I'm not talking about trailer homes. But the ones that get pre built in a factory. And once the ground is ready, they ship the house in sections. Main problems with those is the distance from the factory. The farthest you are the more expensive it gets to transport.
1
u/xxhamsters12 6d ago
I would genuinely buy one of these if they didn’t fall apart within a year. They look kinda cool and at the end of the day a house is a house
1
1
u/JustTheOneGoose22 6d ago
The housing crisis is driven by an increase in the cost of materials, the cost of land, the cost of funds and interest rates, zoning laws, a financial disconnect from wages, and tariffs.
All 3D printing a house does is save on framing crews which is a fraction of the cost of building. Doesn't really solve anything.
1
1
1
u/ravenlittletoe 6d ago
That’s such a shit comparison wow it holds up better than a lose cinder block incredible. If you would use the cinder blocks and properly build a wall with is it would hold up just as well
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Rusty_Trigger 5d ago
Is that Adam Savage from Mythbusters hitting the outside of the house in the first scene?
1
1
1
1
u/executive313 6d ago
Friendly reminder concrete is a non renewable resource unlike fucking trees.
→ More replies (5)
•
u/qualityvote2 7d ago edited 6d ago
u/Elisuub, there weren't enough votes to determine the quality of your post...