Iowa Demolishes Its First 3D Printed House
Iowa Demolishes Its First 3D Printed House
hackaday.com
Iowa Demolishes Its First 3D Printed House
48 comments
-
-
Is 3D printing houses a gimmick? Why not good old modular houses made in factories and shipped?
-
Not necessarily, the tech is still new and has its issues that need to be worked out.
Ultimately though, modular houses are nice, but they're all similar to each other because they're made in a factory and have a size limit.
3D printed houses have the advantage of being able to be any shape or layout (Within reason) that the builders/homeowners want while still having the potential to be significantly cheaper and faster than standard construction.
Basically, it's a good middle ground between standard construction and factory modular homes
-
modular houses are nice, but they’re all similar to each other
I'm not so sure. New American and Canadian houses are famously similar to each other. We build big neighborhood blocks of almost identical looking track houses. If I could, instead, order a house from online catalogs, that might actually increase aesthetic diversity.
We used to have more diversity in housing styles, which is why older neighborhoods have lots of different home styles. But a lot of those 100 year old neighborhoods are actually full of Sears catalog homes. Basically, pre-cut, pre-fabricated modular homes!
-
having the potential to be significantly cheaper and faster than standard construction
I don't see how this can ever be true. The only material that can come out of the printer is the concrete for the walls. The walls then have to be reinforced (because concrete is only good under compression), insulated, finished, and then have windows, doors, wiring and plumbing installed... all of which is still just manual labor. The walls aren't even the expensive part of homebuilding.
-
-
Maybe not completely a gimmick - you can actually build functional walls with it. But it is nowhere near replacing traditional construction in terms of cost or time.
Personally, I don't see this process ever getting easier. Concrete pumping is a nasty, complicated and error-prone business. Once you mix concrete it is immediately starting to cure - you have a very limited amount of time before it turns into rock inside the printer. Just think about trying to pump a thick fluid with the density of stone - every part of the system is always on the edge of clogging up. It's an impressive technical feat that any of these projects actually completed their walls, but none of the advertising videos are showing you how much micromanagement is being done to keep the printers working.
-
You can't see it getting any better? Has history not shown new technologies can change in ways unknown to the original inventors?
-
I mean, 3D printing itself was just a gimmick, some niche little curiosity that didn't have any practical use. Things improve, new use cases emerge, times change.
-
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
-
-
It’s easier to ship material than finished chunks. You can print all the shapes you need from one batch of material instead of having to fabricate and ship the correct modules.
-
But then you need to do significant construction with that material. And it’s not just one material: there are pipes, electrical, insulation, flooring, etc. It’s only replacing a few admittedly major parts of the material. Everything else still takes tons of labor. I could be wrong, but I’m not convinced the labor savings are greater compared to modular housing.
-
-
The real solution would be medium density housing, this is the best in terms of ecology and economy. Buy you know that's communism or something
-
Yes, strong agree! Medium density is also the most affordable to build per square footage, compared to low density detached single family homes and high density super tall glass and metal towers.
-
-
It might be cynical but 3D printed construction eliminates jobs and thereby increases the share of newly created wealth to the one who owns the means of production, and that seems to be attractive these days, especially if the means or production are priced or regulated out of reach of most everyone.
-
Why not wood? I guess progress is funny like that. We reach the end of one era where we're masters at one technique, only to leap to the next era where we're completely clueless using a new one. I'm sticking with wood, it's been good to me lol.
-
Wood isn't particularly sustainable the way it is being "farmed."
We're annihilating the rainforests and interior forests of north-west North America to build homes, and its not sustainable at all.
The pine beetle epidemic that has ravaged the interior forests of British Columbia is due to two things. One is warmer winters from climate change. The other is that the logging industry replanted the logged forests with the species of pine they could sell the easiest, not what was good for the forests or the land. if they had planted any sort of diversity of trees it would not have been nearly as bad as it turned out.
-
-
They're not a gimmick, they're dirt cheap to build relative to the quality you get (when you're not a pack of literal community college students using a non-load-bearing material like hempcrete, working on a learning project). Like, substantially cheaper than building and assembling modular houses.
For comparison, modular homes typically cost between $180,000-$360,000 to build and install, averaging about $270k. 3D printed homes can start around $4-$10k if you really scrimp and scrape and most examples I've seen average around $20-$40k.
Like, sure, there are tradeoffs probably, but I haven't seen any that outweigh a literal order of magnitude cost savings on construction. Look at housing prices and tell me honestly you don't see any value in kicking out starter homes for under $50k a piece.
-
Its worth noting, your numbers are super misleading..
the manufactured home cost in the bob vila article includes the entire house (foundations, land clearing, utilities, finishes, permit fees, etc).. aka, for the 270k, youre getting a move-in ready house.
The 3D printed home cost in your builtin article appears to only include the basic structure (aka the cheap part). Still gotta pay teams of people to come on-site to do everything else. The cheapest they mentioned was $299k for a move-in ready house.
-
-
Because you can't as easily slap the word "luxury" in front of "mobile home" and have it be believable.
-
Pre-fabricated homes are not all mobile homes. I wrote this elsewhere, but a lot of those charming 100 year old homes on the east coast and midwest are pre-fabricated Sears catalog homes.
-
-
-
Yeah, so two things.
- Standard hempcrete mixes don't exist which raises the barrier to entry substantially. You have to make your own at this time or buy a custom mix off someone. It's not surprising that they likely got it wrong, as they're community college students who were already playing with advanced industrial processes.
- You're not supposed to use hempcrete for load-bearing applications to start with, it lacks the structural strength!! What were they thinking!! It looks nice, has that lovely earth tone, and it has good insulating properties, but that's it! It's a finishing material! Here's a page from some random builder I found on Google who specializes in hempcrete construction:
Areas of use. It can be used to build self-insulating walls, roofs and screeds It can be adapted to all types of building project including new builds and renovations. It is not a load-bearing material. Consequently, when building walls, it is cast around a primary or secondary structural frame made of timber, metal or concrete.
Anyways, as someone who's looked into this stuff before, I'm irritated they did it like this. They were supposed to figure this out before they started printing. Where the hell was their professor?
-
It wasn't hempcrete they used (there's a note about the article being edited) and the article says that it performed appropriately in the lab, and they chose to tear it down because once built it didn't meet the requirements they had established in the lab it should be able to meet
-
Still lasted longer than what I 3D-print, so eh.
-
48 comments
For anyone who stopped reading at the headline, it's because the material they were using didn't reach the strength requirements of the project (5,000 psi), despite what previous tests had suggested (6,000 to 8,000 psi). With revisions to the material used, they intend to begin working on the second planned house in the spring.
You're a real one