[HN Gopher] The first house to be 3D printed from raw earth
___________________________________________________________________
The first house to be 3D printed from raw earth
Author : zoshi
Score : 232 points
Date : 2021-04-27 11:55 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.itsnicethat.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.itsnicethat.com)
| 101001001001 wrote:
| You can take soil and mix it with a little sand and cement and
| compress it into a brick. It's called earth blocks. It's
| interesting to consider how cheaply one could build structures if
| they are mostly dirt.
| xyst wrote:
| construction workers about to be automated out
| barry27 wrote:
| Does it have plumbing? Wiring? Or did they 3D print a shelter.
| frankbreetz wrote:
| Cool idea, the lack of discussion of longevity seems pretty
| glaring. While we would all love to not cause any stress on the
| environment, we also have to live though heavy rains, snow, and
| wind. Maybe this structure is designed for dry environment and
| can with stand a couple of rains a year. >>The architect studied
| how a building's shape could impact its efficiency, in relation
| to its climate and latitude. hopefully someone also studied
| materials the house is made of, because that seems pretty
| important. Dirt is a very good insulator of both heat and sound,
| so maybe they could build something like this a put some sort of
| shell around it, like siding on current houses, to protect it
| from weather.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| It probably needs some kind of render on the outside, lime
| plaster or something similar.
|
| There are old Wattle and Daub[1] houses near me that haven't
| been washed away by the UK weather.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wattle_and_daub
| dakna wrote:
| > Dirt is a very good insulator of both heat and sound
|
| Sound yes, heat not so much. While it can store heat due to
| it's thermal mass, it will release it quickly due to a low
| R-value, depending on moisture content the R-value could be
| below 1 per inch. Cellulose has around 3.5 per inch.
|
| Without adding additional insulation to restrict thermal
| transfer, you need to build very thick walls. In sunny desert
| climates where days are hot and nights are cold, you can build
| your wall in a way that allows it to go through the heat
| exchange synced with the 24hr sun cycle, and then it's very
| efficient. Thinner cob walls need to be wrapped with insulation
| to slow down heat transfer.
| goda90 wrote:
| From the looks of the video and pictures, they are going with
| pretty thick walls, and lots of air pockets. The dirt itself
| might not be the best insulator, but I think the whole wall
| would do well.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Disposable housing is common in some cultures who value new
| construction. Having a house naturally erode is better than
| what happens in Japan for example:
|
| [...] the value of the average Japanese house depreciates to
| zero in 22 years. (It is calculated separately from the land,
| which is more likely to hold its value.) Most are knocked down
| and rebuilt. Sales of new homes far outstrip those of used
| ones, which usually change hands in the expectation that they
| will be demolished and replaced. In America and Europe second-
| hand houses accounted for 90% of sales and new-builds for 10%
| in 2017. In Japan the proportions are the other way around. --
| The Economist
| alexvoda wrote:
| It looks like sea urchins.
| Oktokolo wrote:
| Looks, like they where real careful to not include any technical
| detail that would explain, how they manage to get that buildings
| stable and rain proof... Probably bullshit.
| 55555 wrote:
| I thought this was going to be about... bricks. Houses are
| traditionally made from earth.
| bobthechef wrote:
| Not in the US. Americans prefer living in cardboard boxes. I
| mean, timber frame and drywall palaces.
| kube-system wrote:
| You mean affordable structures made out of renewables and
| built to the latest safety and efficiency standards?
|
| I always feel like this sentiment sounds like nostalgia some
| express about the "sturdy" cars of the 60's. Sure, you can
| hit them with a hammer without a dent, but the engineering is
| crap.
| mnouquet wrote:
| The modern car's engineering of modern car might be
| astonishing, but at this point there is so much disposable
| parts that I question their environmental friendliness...
| kube-system wrote:
| Like what? Modern maintenance intervals are way longer
| than in the past, and vehicles today are way more
| reliable and last longer in general.
| mnouquet wrote:
| Reliance on non-repairable electronics everywhere, fully
| sealed mechanical parts, etc. Efficiency comes at the
| cost of more moving parts, more sensors, higher pressure,
| tighter tolerances, which all introduces more failure
| points harder to debug/replace. Not to mention lighter
| thinner non-cost prohibitive materials are easier to
| damage.
|
| As a rule of thumb, I will only buy pre-2008 vehicles,
| things only went from bad to worst after that era.
| kube-system wrote:
| And despite the additional complexity, reliability has
| improved. I have an old carbureted vehicle, and while it
| might be simple, the environmental shortcomings it has
| well outweigh any o2 sensor that might need replaced at
| 200k miles.
| ChucklesNorris wrote:
| Unfortunately, it's susceptible to the big bad wolf.
| ramboldio wrote:
| Stunning Aesthetics and sustainability characteristics. Unsure
| whether it is a contender of factory-built prefab homes when it
| comes to affordability & speed.
|
| 30 story building build in 15 days - prefabricated skyscraper:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajlUVSiUvWg
| newsbinator wrote:
| In all of these demos, they never show you the resulting
| bathroom, shower, or kitchen.
|
| It's always "here's a shell we made". I'd like to see the
| finished house, with fixtures in place and working.
| mft_ wrote:
| Not sure that fitting a bathroom or kitchen is the difficult
| part of the concept, though.
|
| It reminds me a little of an old Grand Designs episode. [0]
| Different, in that (AFAICT) the 3D-printed house isn't designed
| to have high thermal mass (the 'earthship' concept) but it
| gives an idea how a fully-functional house can be crafted from
| a lot of earth and work quite well.
|
| [0] https://www.granddesignsmagazine.com/grand-designs-
| houses/97...
| varjag wrote:
| While am generally a 3d printing skeptic I feel it's not quite
| a fair take. The bulk of a house (and its major cost component)
| _is_ the structure. So this could be useful even if it can 't
| print you the bathroom and the fridge.
|
| How well it going to work in practice is another matter (and
| here's where am skeptical).
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Absolutely not true. This is often referred to as the
| 'envelope' in construction and its not the majority of the
| cost of overall construction (or wasnt before the current
| outrageous lumber prices)
| dagw wrote:
| _The bulk of a house (and its major cost component) is the
| structure_
|
| Using current pre-fab techniques a half dozen builders can
| raise the core structure of a single family house in a few
| days. A friend of mine is in the process of building a house
| and raising the core structure was the fastest and easiest
| part of the whole process. I don't see this being either
| cheaper or faster.
|
| The bulk of the cost in many cases is things independent of
| the actual house, like purchasing the land, doing the ground
| work and the foundations and pulling in water and sewage.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Well lumbar is expensive too now.
| canadianfella wrote:
| Lumber
| dagw wrote:
| True. The question is if that is just a temporary thing
| or the new normal. I suspect prices will be back to
| 'normal' in a year
| karlerss wrote:
| There was a deep dive about this in Bloomberg Odd Lots
| podcast. Although some of the price increase was due to
| the industry predicting lower demand and getting rid of
| inventory. Another, more fundamental factor is the actual
| scarcity of lumber due to lower harvesting quotas set by
| Canadian govt. These quotas are unlikely to go up any
| time soon.
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| They aren't going to maintain a 3x increase in price
| though. If they do we're going to see a lot of new
| sawmills starting up.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| That's misleading when comparing this.
|
| There's a typical expectation of manufactured parts or
| prepared wood for a wood frame building. (It's not
| instantaneous to season wood for house building, and it's
| longer than this structure drying)
|
| I have looked into building a house a few month ago, the
| wait time for the structural lumber components to be
| manufactured to the spec - 3 months. "Raising the barn"
| part is hardly the long part.
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| Houses can also be "stick built" from lumber on site. The
| trusses will usually be manufactured so that they are all
| identical but they are generally quick barring any
| backlog of work.
| kube-system wrote:
| The structure also has to accommodate those features. They're
| not wholly independent.
| dcolkitt wrote:
| With pex plumbing and high velocity HVAC, you only need to
| run small, flexible tubes through the framing. It should be
| relatively easy to print small, flexible holes for tubing.
| Agree that traditional ductwork and copper pipping would be
| hard to accommodate.
| kube-system wrote:
| Drainage is the hard part. The pipes are larger and
| require you to cooperate with gravity.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Sewage is absolutely NOT a problem for a single story
| houses. No large sewage pipes are installed in the walls
| of all single story houses.
| kube-system wrote:
| Sometimes they are. My house is single story and has
| sewage pipes in the walls. Regardless of whether that is
| a requirement, the pipes have to go through some part of
| the _structure_ to get to the outside, regardless of
| whether that 's a wall, floor, foundation, etc.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Your toilet pipes are inside a wall? That's pretty
| strange, toilet drain pipe is usually 3" dia. Are there
| 90 degree bends? I don't understand how or why you'd put
| a toilet drain pipe in a wall when the drain pipe is in
| the middle of a bathroom floor, not in a wall.
|
| Are you sure you aren't thinking of sink drains?
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Yes but GP said large pipes, e.g. for a toilet or the
| main pipe that connects to the municipal sewer. In a
| single-story house these would be under the floor. Pipes
| in the walls of a single-story house would be sink drains
| or vent pipes, and are narrower.
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| It's possible but only done for convenience where it
| makes sense to, not a requirement for new construction
| since you just put the pipes in before the pad gets
| poured.
| mnouquet wrote:
| > The bulk of a house (and its major cost component) is the
| structure
|
| That's blatantly false, the structure is the easy part.
| dcolkitt wrote:
| Modern bathroom pods are very easy to install and come in pre-
| configured sizes. They're literally just plug and play.
|
| After that, the only challenge is making sure you have plumbing
| connections at the bathroom and kitchen sites. But modern pex
| plumbing makes that pretty easy. You're just running flexible
| rubber tubes from the multiplexer. In this sort of design, I'd
| imagine you can just pre-print the holes for the tubes, or
| punch through where needed.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| Modern houses are very easy to install and come in
| preconfigured shapes. They ship flat packed components and
| drop them on site for low skilled workers to build. They
| include things like bathrooms and kitchens as part of the
| build.
| 00jimbo wrote:
| they show you the kitchen and a shot of the bathroom sink in
| these pictures, actually. it's just so minimalist that it's not
| that obvious. not quite to my taste but that's in part because
| they just want to show off the building itself.
|
| really, though, you can finish them like any other house;
| there's nothing special about the kitchen, bathroom, or walls
| that precludes it.
|
| aside from the striping, i imagine there's not that much
| different about building internal structures into a house like
| this than there is into more traditional rammed earth housing.
| 0df8dkdf wrote:
| What about plumbing and water resistance to humidity in the
| bathroom?
| laumars wrote:
| The problem is the same irrespective of how the house is
| built. You need holes for pipes and holes for an extractor
| fan. The bonus here is that 3D printed surfaces mean you
| don't need to drill out material to make the holes.
| ChucklesNorris wrote:
| Unfortunately, it's susceptible to a big bad wolf attack.
| noughtme wrote:
| You might be more familiar with Mapei, the company that developed
| the material, TECLA. They are tight lipped about the actual
| ingredients and chemistry, but it seems to rely on soil that
| naturally contains cement or lime. The structure also requires a
| spray applied coating to ensure waterproofness.
|
| https://www.engineeringforchange.org/news/finally-credible-p...
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Just a nit-pick, but the spray applicants generally render
| earthen buildings moisture resistant, not waterproof.
|
| You generally use the old tried and true methods to handle
| moisture, water and rain. "Good hat. Good boots." Well
| coordinating landscaping. And appropriate interior ventilation
| in critical areas.
| noughtme wrote:
| Yes and no. Having worked in building construction, both
| classes of coatings would have relevant applications. I was
| going to complain that Mapei has not released any technical
| details, but it appears they have:
| https://www.mapei.com/it/en/news-and-events/event-
| detail/201...
|
| However, that their "water-repellent" provides
| "waterproofing" does not clear things up.
| Animats wrote:
| The actual products that make it work:
|
| Mapesoil 10.[1] "High-performance, fibre-reinforced
| powdered stabilising agent for sports sub-base contruction
| surfaces".The amount of Mapesoil 10 required is 3%-5% of
| the dirt weight. Comes in 500kg bags, on pallets.
|
| Dynamon SR4 [2] "Superplasticizer based on acrylic polymer
| for concrete with long slump retention". About 1%-2% of the
| mix. That gets the material through the 3D printer without
| clogging.
|
| Planicrete [3] "Synthetic-rubber latex to improve the
| adhesion of cement mixes". About 2% of the mix. That helps
| each layer adhere to the previous layers, the usual problem
| with 3D printing.
|
| These are all standard additives for concrete.
|
| There's also a waterproofing agent sprayed on afterwards.
|
| The same materials would probably work with concrete forms.
| Plus, then you could do tamping. The trouble with most of
| these 3D building systems is that there's no tamping or
| ramming to solidify the material. It's just squirted on
| like toothpaste. So problems with voids and leakage are to
| be expected.
|
| All this requires the right dirt. Probably something with a
| high clay content. Too much sand or too much topsoil and it
| probably won't become hard enough.
|
| As with rammed earth construction [4] this may not hold up
| in wet climates.
|
| [1] https://cdnmedia.mapei.com/docs/librariesprovider2/prod
| ucts-...
|
| [2] https://cdnmedia.mapei.com/docs/librariesprovider2/prod
| ucts-...
|
| [3] https://cdnmedia.mapei.com/docs/librariesprovider2/prod
| ucts-...
|
| [4] https://www.firstinarchitecture.co.uk/rammed-earth-
| construct...
| Animats wrote:
| When you add up all the additives, it's about the same as
| the percentage of cement in concrete. This isn't "raw
| earth".
| kragen wrote:
| Thank you for finding this wonderful information.
|
| In adobe construction, too-high clay content can be as
| big a problem as too low. All clays are somewhat
| expansive, and the most plastic clays like bentonite are
| also the most expansive. If your adobe is too expansive
| it cracks when it dries and contracts. Including enough
| sand makes it less expansive and less plastic when it
| gets moist, and including enough straw+ allows it to
| resist cracking.
|
| When you need to build in adobe, you analyze the local
| soil first. If there's topsoil, you dig through it to get
| to the clay, sand, and silt that you need. If there's too
| much clay or silt, you can defecate some sand in a
| settling tank and pour the mud off the top. If there's
| not enough clay, you do the same thing but it's the mud
| you use instead of the sand at the bottom. If your clays
| are too expansive, or you have way too much silt, you may
| need to dig somewhere else, or grout your adobe with lime
| or ashes like they're doing, which shades into building
| with cement, as you say.
|
| We have thousands of years of craft lore about how to get
| this to work, plus modern science. It's true that, like
| rammed earth, adobe works best in dry climates, but its
| range extends into wetter climates than you might think,
| especially in the wattle-and-daub form where you
| supplement the straw with wood.
|
| The big problem with adobe nowadays is not that it
| doesn't hold up or that you can't make the soils work;
| it's that it's a hell of a lot of work because your walls
| are two meters thick, and they're nearly as dense as
| concrete, and it's slow, because you need to cure the
| bricks for _months_ before you start construction. A
| double-wide trailer is just a lot more house for the
| money.
|
| The potential advantage to 3-D printing your adobe or
| concrete instead of tamping it into forms, plastering it
| on layer by layer, or stacking it up in bricks is that
| you can deploy the material where you think it'll be the
| most advantageous. The ruffled outside surface will
| channel rainfall into the grooves where more of it can
| flow down the wall before it soaks in. Those big spaces
| you see inside the walls might help with insulation, they
| will slow leaching of water that can produce moisture or
| efflorescence indoors, they might let you cure the adobe
| in place in the wall instead of in a pile of bricks
| beforehand, and they remove most of the weight of the
| wall without reducing its buckling resistance. The dome-
| vault shape allows you to reduce your roof expenses
| greatly. And maybe squeezing toothpaste out of a CNC
| crane will be less work than a team of sweaty guys
| tossing 20-kg bricks up ladders all day.
|
| Still, though, those gorgeous soaring vaults make me very
| nervous. An adobe wall collapsing on top of your kids
| would not be very fucking funny at all.
|
| ______
|
| + I guess straw is a "high-performance fibre-reinforced
| stabilizing agent". The amount used is typically around
| 1%, so maybe straw is higher-performance than Mapesoil,
| or maybe they're just arching the walls more than you
| would normally dare to do with adobe.
| Animats wrote:
| The 3D building printer people still don't have a good
| way to do compaction. Something like the Lil' Bubba curb
| machine.[1] It's a simple little device for making
| concrete curbs. You put in concrete, and it compacts and
| rams it into the curb it is making, pushing itself along.
| Something like that is needed at the output end of the 3D
| printing arm.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/A06vfELMIK8
| reversengineer wrote:
| Excellent idea as a proof of concept, and even beautiful in
| design. However one cannot help but wonder how structurally sound
| these materials are. Stress tests are needed to determine how
| well this would hold up over years of exposure to the elements
| before being produced en masse. For a sustainable alternative,
| homes made from repurposed shipping containers are a cost-
| effective solution for housing. They are made of weather-
| resistant Steel which, while not rust-proof, will not rot. A
| single unit can be kitted out and furnished for as little as
| $25,000, and yields 300+ square feet of space, comparable to a
| smaller studio apartment. Check out the YouTube Channel
| "Containing Luxury" which illustrates the sustainability of
| Container Homes and demonstrates them as a solution to several
| housing issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_sclvzg9dM
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| I don't understand why people think shipping containers are a
| good idea for housing. They were never designed for this and
| will always be compromised when you come to put windows, doors,
| insulation and services in them.
| bhandziuk wrote:
| Right, they're so bad. Structurally unsound once you start
| putting windows in. They need insulation which either
| significantly intrudes on your interior space or you put it
| on the outside and you then need to do basically a
| traditional exterior and lose any supposed benefit of the
| metal enclosure.
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| I guess because a shipping container is rectangular and that
| a house can be rectangular.
|
| This wasn't a bad series:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA5fh29rhLs
|
| Put me in the 'shipping containers make shitty houses' camp.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| I love that they wood frame the interiors for insulation
| and walls.
|
| Could have just built a wood frame house. Quicker, faster
| and more roomy.
| ihunter2839 wrote:
| Could you elaborate on what you mean by "compromised"? Sure,
| they can no longer be stacked 7 units high, but I am
| skeptical that cutting out a handful of windows and a door is
| going to make a container structurally unsound for the
| purposes of container homes.
|
| Cut out a whole side wall? That's a very different story.
| bsanr2 wrote:
| "Shipping container housing" is the "nuclear energy" of housing
| solutions.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| ?
| reversengineer wrote:
| Can you elaborate? Not everyone would see this as a bad
| thing. Many would argue that nuclear energy, while not
| perfect, is a logical next step that, solves quite
| effectively for the problem of demand.
| ehnto wrote:
| Often container homes go above and beyond in their
| retrofits, and it would have been more effective to just
| build it conventionally. Both from a cost perspective and
| as a final result. If someone is happy with a simple
| container home, it really wouldn't be hard to build a
| similar box more conventionally.
|
| I suspect the real issue at hand is that you're usually not
| allowed to build such a house, which is where the "tiny
| home on wheels" trend came about. Ignoring the part where
| an entire group of people seem to have forgotten that
| caravans exist, the "on wheels" part lets you build out-of-
| code homes and put them places you wouldn't be allowed to
| otherwise.
|
| It really depends on a lot of factors though. What draws
| someone to a container home, is it the re-use and
| recycling? Is it the do-it-yourself nature of the project?
| If so, that's wicked, but I think we can probably work out
| ways to achieve those two things while also getting better
| and cheaper houses as the end result, if regulations would
| let you actually deploy such a house.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| > Ignoring the part where an entire group of people seem
| to have forgotten that caravans exist
|
| I don't think they forgot that they exist, just that they
| serve a significantly different niche.
|
| A caravan (or travel trailer) is designed to be moved
| easily and regularly. Ideally with the smallest vehicle
| possible. This means they are built incredibly lightly,
| with at least a passing concern for aerodynamics.
|
| Tiny houses aren't really designed to be moved often.
| They have generally have much more sturdily built and
| larger internal fixtures. They aren't particularly great
| on the road, often people hire a company to move them
| when they need to. But they are designed to be lived in
| full time.
| BBC-vs-neolibs wrote:
| "It will fix all thing things!"
|
| Maybe?
|
| (Shipping container housing sometimes invokes the same
| enthusiams which could seen at times in the 1950s for
| nuclear.)
| [deleted]
| mort1merp0 wrote:
| I don't quite understand what they mean by the term "humane"
| architecture.
|
| I see that is has low carbon footprint, is made of local
| materials. But is that what they are defining as "humane"
| architecture?
| ratsforhorses wrote:
| I suppose one might consider the aspect that with ciment a lot
| of sand is used, which is a bane on the rivers (in Africa)
| causing terrible devastation... beyond that just the back
| breaking work of building a home ...seems much more "humane" if
| done by these methods...
| mbgerring wrote:
| Every one of these obnoxious mud huts I've ever seen are single
| story, on like 10 acres of land, in a car-dependent rural area.
| More people living like this would worsen every current issue we
| face with environmental sustainability.
| vanderZwan wrote:
| So you're complaining that these first demonstrations of a
| novel technology are not comparable to technologies developed
| over decades or even centuries? There is an expression for
| this: _" the last of the old outperforms the first of the
| new"_. Most of us don't seem to have too much trouble applying
| that concept to programming and hardware related developments,
| so why is this different?
| mbgerring wrote:
| In what sense is a mud hut a novel technology?
| vanderZwan wrote:
| Your argument is the equivalent of asking in what sense a
| wheel is novel technology while comparing a car to a horse
| drawn carriage.
|
| It's not about the mud hut. It's about _how the mud hut was
| made_.
| mbgerring wrote:
| I am aware that novel techniques for building mud huts
| are created all the time, and none of those new
| techniques address the fundamental issue with all of them
| -- this building technique is only suited to single-story
| buildings on large tracts of land. 3D printing the mud
| hut doesn't meaningfully alter that constraint.
|
| The "environmental sustainability" gains you get from
| using on-site materials would be totally erased by the
| fact that if you actually built houses like this at scale
| and expected people to live in them, we would have to
| massively increase the land area occupied by humans,
| which is the exact opposite direction we need to go in.
|
| Show me where this technology can knock down the cost of
| adding infill housing or building vertically in locations
| where land and construction are expensive (that is, where
| people actually want to live), and it'll be worth paying
| attention to. Otherwise it's just a dumb, expensive
| distraction.
| flatline wrote:
| Good luck trying to get permits to build anything the slightest
| bit unconventional in any populated area. I looked at building
| a geodesic dome, and was going to end up in the boonies and
| likely still paying off the inspector to pull permits. You
| could get it done in town and it would have to be over-built,
| completely ruining the whole efficiency angle of the dome to
| begin with, and taking months or years to work through the
| process.
| etxm wrote:
| Dammit. I just started looking into building a dome house.
|
| Did you call it off completely?
| flatline wrote:
| Yes. I talked to a builder, he thought he was going to have
| to do R22 insulation across the entire thing because it's
| not clear whether it is a wall or ceiling. Ridiculous
| because the engineering for domes has been around for 70
| years. Most lenders won't help you. Appraisal for resale is
| problematic.
|
| I concluded it is best done as a DIY project in a location
| where you know the inspector, or know he won't care, with
| cash. Here are some of the stories I was going from:
|
| http://www.domehome.com/scrapbook.html
| cheeze wrote:
| I think the lender thing makes sense. Lenders are all
| about risk mitigation, and unfortunately at this time
| there are just too many risks around a geodesic dome as a
| house. Lots of folks think that building a house is a
| potential approach to finding a place to live, but the
| reality is that doing so is playing house finding on
| extra hard mode.
|
| It's hard enough to get a loan to build a house, let
| alone an unconventional one.
| bruiseralmighty wrote:
| Yeah basically this. Trying to build an eco-structure or even
| a mostly earthen home in the US you are basically relegated
| to a sparsely populated counties or taking your chances
| squatting on Federal land.
|
| This was quite eye-opening to me once I had to actually
| attempt to find some land to build on.
| bluGill wrote:
| For good reason - most of these things don't have good
| engineering behind them. Standard stick frame construction
| has good insulation values (dirt/clay/mud/cement does not),
| holds up to weather, earthquakes, and has reasonable fire
| protection (it burns but in known amounts). This is all
| backed up by a lot of engineering data that doesn't exist
| for most alternatives, they might be better, but nobody has
| actually run all the angles to be sure.
| bruiseralmighty wrote:
| I don't disagree with you actually. I believe that
| building codes generally keep us safer and create a
| better standard of house. Most people don't want to
| become test subjects for an experimental technology.
|
| My point is just that the current building codes
| necessitate experimenting away from more developed areas
| in order to innovate and that this should _not_ be held
| against examples of construction innovation.
|
| After having had to search for land I would say that I
| feel that building codes are perhaps not overly
| restrictive, but too ubiquitous. Most experimentation and
| innovation can only happen on small patches of remote
| scrubland with poor soil, deep ground water, and limited
| access to the internet.
|
| It would be nice if some of these projects could take
| place 15 minutes out of a mid-sized town rather than 40
| minutes to an hour. I can see the value in enforcement
| within a city's limits, but we could get faster building
| innovation if counties and states were laxer with
| building codes on their unincorporated land.
| mnouquet wrote:
| > Trying to build an eco-structure
|
| This doesn't even qualify as "eco-structure". R-value is
| pretty terrible.
| mushbino wrote:
| To really solve the housing crisis we'll need to use this device
| to print some affordable land first.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| It also needs to magically make cities less desirable places to
| live.
| astrange wrote:
| Cities are "ideally" cheaper to live in because things are
| closer together and there's more economies of scale. American
| cities aren't expensive because they're too popular, it's
| because everyone wants to be the last person to live there
| and we let them NIMBY their own children out of it.
| doh wrote:
| There is plenty of land, just not in desirable locations. But
| if you could build infrastructure easily and with speed, maybe
| those locations can be transformed too.
|
| Up until last 40 years ago people didn't want to live on the
| ocean. Now they can't get enough. US has a huge swaths of land
| empty, especially in the Pacific Northwest.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| >Up until last 40 years ago people didn't want to live on the
| ocean. Now they can't get enough. US has a huge swaths of
| land empty, especially in the Pacific Northwest.
|
| Can you expand on this please? What do you mean by 'people
| didn't want to live on the ocean' and also, what do you mean
| by 'vast swaths of empty land in the PNW'. Are you talking
| east of the cascades? I don't think there is a whole lot of
| land there with an oceanic climate?
| doh wrote:
| > What do you mean by 'people didn't want to live on the
| ocean'
|
| I remember Arnold Schwarzenegger being confused why
| "nobody" wanted to live in Santa Monica or Venice Beach to
| a point that the government was subsidizing it to attract
| people.
|
| For instance north of San Diego there are old apartment
| buildings on the water that have only window facing the
| ocean in their bathroom.
|
| Historically ocean was considered as a hassle. You have to
| deal with the salty air that breaks down many material
| quite swiftly.
|
| In Turkey, fathers would give the prime land to their sons
| (pastures) and the crap land to their daughters (ocean
| fronts). How the world changed.
|
| > what do you mean by 'vast swaths of empty land in the
| PNW' If you go anywhere outside of the majors settlements
| there are major swaths of empty land which is fairly cheap,
| but there is no infrastructure there and people don't want
| to be the city founders anymore.
| danans wrote:
| > Historically ocean was considered as a hassle. You have
| to deal with the salty air that breaks down many material
| quite swiftly.
|
| Not only that, but you don't have to go very far from the
| ocean for the saltiness of the air to diminish, so
| there's not much sacrifice if you value being at the
| ocean.
|
| There's also a social element to it. Historically, most
| of the people living by an ocean were those traditionally
| employed in traditionally ocean-related industries, like
| fishing, canning, and shipping.
|
| These are traditionally associated with a grimier and
| more impoverished state of existence, because in most
| industrial cities, that's how oceanfronts were (or still
| are).
| doh wrote:
| I think this is even better explanation.
| soperj wrote:
| The entire west coast of Washington state is pretty well
| uninhabited, as well as anything West of Port Angeles to
| Neah Bay.
| nanna wrote:
| Lots of unfair negativity here. I think this is wonderful. HN is
| full of random hacked-up tech that will never solve the worlds
| problems but nonetheless give a glimpse at what alternatives
| could look like. Experiments. This is what this is, and in my
| opinion it's stunning and I would move into one in an instant.
| judge2020 wrote:
| HN worries about the hard problems because they're real
| challenges that need to be solved before any improvements reach
| the wider market.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Nonsense. HN worries (enjoys, rather) problems that appeal to
| them. Linux running on a pen. A new programming framework
| demonstrates an abstract point. Etc.
|
| What HN is doing here is internalizing cliches, responding to
| hyperbole/tropes they (we) assume is in the article. Also,
| the artsy-philosphical terms used by architects pisses off
| nerds. "Humane Architecture" and whatnot.
|
| This is HN being silly, not HN being smart. We do both here.
|
| Meanwhile, how is transporting materials vs equipment a Hard
| Problem?
| the__alchemist wrote:
| I disagree. It's common to see news headlines about things
| claiming to solve important humanitarian problems; they get
| shared on facebook, talked about over dinner tables, and online
| communities. They often ommit the downsides and alternatives,
| which in many cases (I speculate it applies here) make the
| product non-viable. For example: indoor farming, water-from-air
| schemes, solar-panels-in-surprising-places etc.
|
| The HN community is more likely to provide a check on these
| claims - I think that's valuable. You'll find the acerbity is
| triggered by exaggerated claims, humanitarian claims, and lack-
| of-discussion of downsides. The TECLA page is filled with lines
| like this: "TECLA, a 3D printed global habitat for sustainable
| living". It sounds manipulative, makes me not trust them, and
| based on past experience, pattern-matches to most of their
| claims being false or exaggerated.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| There are better ways to build affordable housing already.
|
| You make a factory that builds prefabricated panels then
| deliver them onsite. With prefab, you don't need to transport
| an expensive piece of equipment to remote parts of the world
| and have onsite experts there to supervise and repair it. You
| don't have to deal with tear down and setup of the equipment at
| every site and installers have predictable channels to install
| any power/ water infrastructure.
|
| I suspect the reason this is popular is more because they are
| aesthetically pleasing and use new/ special technology than
| anything else.
| bakatubas wrote:
| The first computers filled up an entire room and look where
| we are now...
|
| This is a proof of concept and surely it will be refined to
| make more efficient construction processes.
| vkou wrote:
| > The first computers filled up an entire room and look
| where we are now...
|
| So, in how many decades do you project that a house will
| cost $300, and will provide shelter for half-a-million
| people?
|
| Why compare to computing, which is a discipline that's less
| to a century old, when you can compare to any other
| millenia-old-industry, some of which have seen
| revolutionary improvements, some of which have seen minor
| incremental improvements, and some of which have seen
| serious cost and/or quality regressions over that period of
| time?
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| There's something cool in the idea of a community all
| building their own dwellings - even if it meant hiring a
| fancy machine to do the hard work while they all chipped to
| prep the ground the plumbing, fed the machine clay or
| whatever.
|
| It's not something you could measure on a spreadsheet but
| it'd be immensely cool to be a part of that, maybe even
| somewhere remote where you don't really want to bring much
| more than absolutely necessary.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Not only are there better ways to build affordable housing,
| there are better ways to do exactly what the article is
| describing.
|
| A buddhist monastery in my area managed to build beautiful
| structures using bricks made from local raw earth. No fancy
| giant 3D printers necessary.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| True, though you still need to transport all those panels to
| the site and assemble them - one interesting aspect here is
| that the materials are (mostly) present. That doesn't make
| for much savings of emissions for a single house, but if you
| built ten at once... I also wonder if you couldn't carve out
| a basement/cellar and use the dirt displaced to build the
| house over it, that'd provide storage.
| dalbasal wrote:
| This is besides the point, to the extent that it's not just
| wrong.
|
| The goal here is obviously to build an experimental building,
| and isn't even explicitly related to affordable housing.
| Meanwhile, this building method produces a _different_
| building to the one you suggest. It 's an irrelevant
| comparison for that reason alone, but there are lots. What if
| the factory is far away? The fact that transport needs are
| totally different is actually useful.
|
| Also, what's with this static mindset? Don't you think there
| are no new building methods to be had?
|
| Personally, I'm quite interested in these printed structures.
| They're not ready for major use yet, maybe they won't ever
| be. Practicability will (or won't) be proven when large
| projects are attempted. You need small projects first.
|
| TLDR, of course they could have just parked an RV there.
| That's not the point.
| brudgers wrote:
| The negativity is no more unwarranted than positivity. Each
| depends on what problem a person values. In terms of housing
| the unhoused this doesn't do anything. In terms of aesthetic
| possibilities for people with money it provides another option
| where a wide array of options already exist.
|
| In HN terms, this is a "rewritten in Haskell." It demonstrates
| someone understands a bit about 3D printing. It demonstrates
| some ideological purity. It doesn't demonstrate a better
| solution to existing problems.
|
| The complexity of the logistical chain precludes wide spread
| application where housing is a basic need. You don't just need
| the printer machine. You need a fleet of other machines to keep
| it full of ink. Shovels won't do.
|
| In the 1950's, my mentor the late David Crane, FAIA was a young
| man. He enthusiastically designed precast concrete shelters for
| post disaster housing. Running the economics at the end of it,
| its viability was mostly limited to lower Manhattan.
|
| People have been solving housing for millennia. Stick lumber
| and reinforced concrete are real breakthroughs by virtue of
| their commoditization.
|
| This is wrapped up in secret sauce. Beautiful as with the
| myriad other beautiful ways to build.
|
| Most choices are not between bread and cake. They are bread or
| nothing.
| williesleg wrote:
| That's the guy on youtube that builds the mansions with swimming
| pools with a knife and a stick, right?
| whall6 wrote:
| I want a dirt house
| tdhz77 wrote:
| Looks like LUKE SKYWALKER was born here.
| blitz_skull wrote:
| > needed no materials to be transported to the site Has glass
| doors...
|
| To be sure, this is really cool--breakthrough even. But the
| headlines are just factually inaccurate.
| cheschire wrote:
| I hope 3D printing homes will take off now that lumber prices are
| so ridiculous. The sudden cost increases in other materials will
| now hopefully give 3d printing space to achieve economies of
| scale.
|
| Imagine homes that are printed with a 20 year life expectancy.
| Especially in America where I don't know many families that
| remain in the same house for 20 years. We could start going to
| the Japanese model of razing the house as an expected part of the
| land purchase. This has the added benefit of making it
| significantly easier to keep houses up to modern code.
| kube-system wrote:
| We don't need a new construction methodology to fix a materials
| problem. A specialized construction methodology makes the
| problem worse, because they often require very specific
| materials.
|
| My 3D printer is compatible with ~5 very specific types of
| plastic. Traditional construction can be done with plastics,
| metals, masonry, wood, composites, and many others.
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| It would certainly fill a niche if they can create a system
| that only requires 2 guys and a truck to deliver and set up.
| Even better if they don't have to be on site while it's
| printing so they can do multiple jobs at once.
| kube-system wrote:
| This is pretty much the idea behind prefab/modular
| construction, isn't it?
| cheschire wrote:
| I didn't imply that 3d printing should fix the materials
| problem, I simply hope that the materials problem gives 3d
| printed housing enough room financially to achieve economies
| of scale to bring the prices down for those situations where
| 3d printed houses are specifically relevant.
|
| Consider as one example low income areas that are filled with
| housing built in the 40's and 50's which can now be razed and
| replaced without inadvertently causing gentrification.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Unless those houses are irretrievably dilapidated and
| neglected, why raze them? Seems more sustainable to re-use
| something that's already there.
|
| Agree that some areas like Detroit that have houses that
| have been abandonded, scavanged, vandalized, and left open
| to the elements for years are in most cases not salvagable.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I think that's the first time I've heard of someone considering
| the Japanese home ownership model aspirational. Isn't that also
| where the 100 year mortgage idea started?
|
| I'd rather see that we built really solid houses that are
| fundamentally designed for ease of renovation, rather than
| routinely raze and rebuild from scratch. Code improves over
| time but not on a timescale that makes 20-year rebuilds
| sensible.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| Unfortunately a lot of the rebuilds happens because of
| dramatic code changes. Houses built just 5 years ago will
| often be illegal to build again. Only way to bring it up to
| code is total remodel or worse tear down.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Your post is not how things work, already built homes are
| grandfathered in. There are still houses with knob and tube
| wiring, balloon framed houses, all sorts of things that
| aren't allowed any more by building code.
|
| If a Toll Brothers/(any builder) has generic plan house
| blueprints that need to be updated to include the new code
| changes, they pay an architect to change the drawings to
| include the new code requirements, and then continue
| building that design of house.
| mikeg8 wrote:
| This is an extremely exaggerated take. Again, the building
| codes do not upgrade on that fast of a time scale and even
| if a house is technically not up to code, they are
| grandfathered in based on the time they were built. A house
| that was built 10, 20, even 30 years ago, is still totally
| fine to live in, even if not up to the most current codes.
| Logon90 wrote:
| This tells you everything you need to know about the
| current codes.
| burlesona wrote:
| I mean, this is the same technology used to make....... bricks.
|
| We used to make homes out of bricks, and we could do that
| again, now that lumber is expensive.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Are you suggesting that this whole building be set on fire?
| Because unfired bricks are crap.
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| Something like that could actually work. Bricks were often
| assembled into the kiln that would fire them. If you could
| figure out a way to efficiently bake these structures they
| would be incredibly durable and would require no additives
| since you would want to use all clay.
| Thrymr wrote:
| > We used to make homes out of bricks, and we could do that
| again
|
| Not in areas with earthquake building codes.
| agotterer wrote:
| Is anyone trying to make homes out of plastic lumber? Like the
| material from the Trex decks and Polywood tables. My understand
| is that those are 100% recycled materials, solid, and a decent
| alternative to wood.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| A friend has a deck made of Trex (or some similar brand) and
| it's disintegrating. Needs to be completely rebuilt. The
| stuff doesn't hold up outdoors. Might be OK for structural
| framing that is kept dry under a roof and inside walls, if it
| compares to similar sized wood lumber in terms of strength in
| both shear and compression.
| lhpz wrote:
| The interesting question would be to know if the mix of raw
| earth + additives necessary for 3D printing, can be reused for
| a new construction after 20 years.
|
| The raw earth used for traditional building techniques like
| rammed earth, can be re-used just by adding some water after
| razing the earth walls, as long as no cement/lime additive was
| initially used. This is also the Achilles heel of these
| traditional techniques: moisture will destroy the structure of
| a rammed earth wall when not appropriately protected with a
| large roof + above the ground foundation to avoid capillary
| rise.
| surgeryres wrote:
| Yet another example of the over-hype of "3D Printing". Yes it's
| neat that they collected some local dirt, mixed it with some non-
| locally sourced water and binder, and poured it into an extruder
| run on some kind of non locally sourced energy, then sprayed it
| with some protective coating - it baffles me that people see this
| as a possible mainstream building technique. Running electrical,
| plumbing, air conditioning etc through this structure is doable
| but much harder, as the expectations of these niceties have
| evolved with modern construction and need easy access and hiding
| with things like dry wall.
|
| This almost reads as an onion article with the headline
| "brilliant scientists figure out how to overcomplicate the
| construction of mud huts similar to our earliest human
| ancestors".
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| Exactly. God knows how many concepts I've seen for mixing local
| soils with magic powder and (typically) forming up walls. I do
| like that these guys could make rather free-form structures,
| but building an envelope is straightforward and runs into the
| issues of actually using the thing (seismic&water issues,
| installation of utilities, insulation, HVAC, longevity,
| insurance).
|
| It's pretty hard to beat traditional methods and anything new
| typically has to be measurably quite a lot better.
|
| If a person wanted to drive down costs, I'd probably tend more
| towards larger prefab components.
|
| Maybe it's not so different from software in these areas.
| Valgrim wrote:
| I'd like to see how these compare with other earth-based
| construction methods (still used in many parts of the world,
| including developed countries [1]). My guess is that the
| voids improve the insulation, but reduce the compressive and
| shearing strength, but this may be mitigated by the round
| shape and the internal "triangular" structure.
|
| In any case, it's an interesting experiment that should
| provide good data and observations toward a more "complete"
| house prototype.
|
| [1] https://www.lemoniteur.fr/photo/le-pise-ressort-de-terre-
| a-l...
| bilbo0s wrote:
| You bring up a good point. I have yet to see anyone construct
| some of these structures on a shake table and report the
| resultant data. I wouldn't look for unreasonably good
| performance, but I wonder how it would perform against, for
| instance, modern rammed earth structures?
|
| If any engineers out there have links to tests or studies
| please do post them.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| You run utilities the same way as with masonry, either conduit
| outside the wall later, or flex conduit placed into the wall as
| you build it. I've done the latter in earth ship construction
| (meter thick walls built with dirt basically) and it was as
| simple as it gets.
|
| As far as practicality, I'd be more interested in the long term
| stability of the material. But you likely can do the same thing
| we did with my friends earth ship style domes, which was to
| coat them in fabric and then spray a few mm thick layer of
| cement all over it.
|
| Here's the result. As you can see this is something that would
| appeal to quite a few people. Pre COVID he had no problem
| booking airbnb guests for this every night for months out.
|
| https://www.instagram.com/p/CCWtTEQDJ1_/
|
| https://www.instagram.com/p/CCJnAB7DUfK/ (click through to
| second pic)
|
| I wouldn't be so quick to be dismissive of this general
| concept. Particularly in Mediterranean areas where wood framing
| materials are more expensive, this may a perfectly reasonable
| approach.
| prox wrote:
| While that's true, and this is no instanthouse.exe, these are
| all proof of concept projects. Things like longevity or other
| challenges might not even be the focus. So while this is no
| holy grail, it's a stepping stone towards certain building
| solutions or local solutions (think quick emergency shelters,
| or off world for instance, to name a few)
| surgeryres wrote:
| I think it's a great idea to build mud huts on another planet
| where labor is scarce, machine energy is under different
| constraints, and certain resources are "unlimited".
|
| But this approach for building a house on Earth to house
| humans seems way off the bell curve of potential to scale.
| FalconSensei wrote:
| You do realize that millions of people live in houses made
| of soil, right?
|
| And if you consider that brick houses have bricks made of
| clay, that's even more...
| troyvit wrote:
| Trashing the first iteration of this kind is easy. Seeing where
| it could be in ten years is more difficult and more rewarding.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| > Running electrical, plumbing, air conditioning etc through
| this structure is doable but much harder,
|
| You realize there are lots of brick houses out there and those
| things aren't run through the brick walls either right?
|
| 2x4 dimensional lumber framing is used inside and those are run
| through the studs.
| Glawen wrote:
| I live in a brick house in Europe, and my plumbing and wire
| do run in the walls.
|
| I just cut the wall, run my wires inside and cover with
| plaster.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| Your plumbing and wires are actually embedded into the
| brick walls? Not just a hole through the brick, but they
| are actually completely within the brick walls themselves?
| mikeg8 wrote:
| Yea but good luck running interior 2x4 furring walls for MEPs
| (Mechanical, electrical, plumbing) on curved wall structures
| like this. Would be an absolute carpentry nightmare.
| clairity wrote:
| curved wood features and structures are not uncommon, using
| materials like bamboo and engineered wood. it's not easy
| and requires specialized skills, but it's not a nightmare.
| and flexible wood structures tend to be more resilient on a
| per-mass basis.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| This is a POC and an art project.
|
| Stop with this arrogance, because I can bet that your POC
| are nowhere near as good looking.
| magikaram wrote:
| It would also be a nightmare on a curved brick wall, or
| curved cement structure. The point of the shown technology
| was the experiment and the potential of it, not the
| specifics of this single architectural design.
| surgeryres wrote:
| Yes true, but brick and other base material like it is very
| strong and support fixtures to attach ducting, pipes, cables
| - I'm not sure you can drill brackets into this mud and
| safely secure an AC duct or conduit.
| whoomp12342 wrote:
| Some day we will 3d print pipes and wire!!!
| kortex wrote:
| > Running electrical, plumbing, air conditioning etc through
| this structure is doable but much harder
|
| Have you seen architecture in like, any warm part of the world,
| especially Italy? Masonry/concrete techniques dominate.
|
| If anything, this is far easier to integrate with utilities,
| since it can be incorporated into the 3D design.
|
| It also seems easier to drill through than traditional
| masonry/concrete.
|
| This technique is even more labor-saving than filling formwork
| with local materials, because formwork is very labor intensive,
| and you can't readily incorporate unusual utilities, windows,
| shapes, etc.
| wmil wrote:
| Automating anything opens up new doors.
|
| Continuing to develop this tech could make it useful for
| setting up buildings in hostile environments. Initially deserts
| and the arctic/antarctic.
|
| But eventually using unattended robots to construct structures
| on the Moon and Mars.
|
| I think the relevant Onion article is this classic from 1998:
| "New $5,000 Multimedia Computer System Downloads Real-Time TV
| Programs, Displays Them On Monitor"
| https://www.theonion.com/new-5-000-multimedia-computer-syste...
|
| 20 years later analog TV is long dead. TVs are now computers.
|
| This probably won't add up to much in the next 20 years. But
| it's early tech and there are exciting long term possibilities.
| surgeryres wrote:
| Agree for Mars - this tech will translate well into other
| areas of need in hostile environments - like agriculture,
| mining, large scale manufacturing etc.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Also looks great for making WWII-style bunkers, machine-gun
| emplacements, etc.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| > Continuing to develop this tech could make it useful for
| setting up buildings in hostile environments.
|
| To add to this: If you've ever been to these embedments after
| the fact, they can leave behind a lot of waste/trash. Namely,
| concrete (pads, walls, etc). Much of which cannot be easily
| re-used and breaking it down is expensive/hard.
|
| You use 80% locally sourced materials, if the base just gets
| left, and starts to breaks down, all you wind up with is
| mostly original dirt from the area instead of toxic concrete
| dust.
|
| PS - Although Hesco barrier[0] has also made very positive
| inroads here, replacing concrete with mostly local dirt,
| chicken wire, and fabric. But it cannot be used for
| dwellings, only perimeter wall.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesco_bastion
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| And this technique really wouldn't work well in impoverished
| places where people need shelter. It works well when there's a
| lot of local technology but not a lot of labor, precisely the
| opposite working conditions in much of Africa.
| fidesomnes wrote:
| your lack of imagination defines you.
| intrasight wrote:
| Is beautiful!
| DougN7 wrote:
| Would this survive a rain storm or would it turn to mud? I
| couldn't tell from the article.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| It would pretty quickly erode away. I think that's why they've
| built it in a desert. Don't have to worry about rain if there
| is no rain!
| bobthechef wrote:
| Rain can be torrential in the desert.
| p_l wrote:
| It's in Ravenna, that's not a desert.
|
| The material used probably involves some form of binder,
| rammed earth is also an option but it doesn't look like
| rammed earth from the photos.
| deckar01 wrote:
| > The collaboration between MC A and WASP has been supported by
| Mapei, a worldwide producer of construction materials, which
| has studied the clay materials and identified the key
| components within the raw earth mixture to create the final
| highly optimised printable product.
|
| https://www.3dwasp.com/en/3d-printed-house-tecla/
|
| I think its safe to assume that the raw clay has been processed
| into a material more suitable for masonry.
| cptskippy wrote:
| It says that it's been optimized to be printable, not for
| longevity or other characteristics needed in construction.
| What are the tradeoffs?
| laumars wrote:
| I would imagine if this house isn't strong then future
| designs would be. Bricks and coffee mugs are also made out
| of clay so it's not like we don't already have a long
| history of experience working with the substance to create
| durable materials.
| bobthechef wrote:
| Yes, but bricks and coffee mugs are kiln fired, so this
| 3d printer would need to somehow accomplish that baking
| process or add something to the mix that would cause it
| to harden without being fired.
| laumars wrote:
| I don't think either scenario is beyond the realm of
| possibility.
| sacred_numbers wrote:
| The link below has more information about this project.
| Apparently they added a coating to help with water resistance
| and a stabilizing agent to help with strength.
|
| https://www.theplan.it/eng/architecture/tecla
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| The pictures reminds me of my uncle. He was a VP in charge of the
| companies real estate holdings. What he said about dealing with
| architects.
|
| 'That's nice but I was thinking of something... square. I'm into
| right angles'
| SeanFerree wrote:
| Very cool!
| m0llusk wrote:
| It seems strange that there is so much focus on 3D printing
| structures. Any close look at where the costs go in home
| construction can easily verify that foundations and services
| (power, water, sewage) are where the majority of the costs are.
| It always makes sense to pinch pennies, but starting with one of
| the smallest line items limits potential improvement. What we
| really need are ongoing improvements to modular service
| installations.
|
| This is also a complex cultural problem here as well because even
| though there are obvious ways of making even comparisons such as
| time and money spent before receiving a use permit the culture of
| construction likes to focus on a single innovation while leaving
| the rest out. There is a modular apartment building near me that
| took only hours to assemble from the component modules. However,
| doing that took many months of site preparation and module
| delivery and after the several hours construction it has still
| been months to get finishing done, construct sidewalks, and the
| rest. Without some general agreement about how to measure
| construction costs and time it is easy to present innovations
| that are either minor improvements or actually steps backward.
| elihu wrote:
| It seems like installing electrical and plumbing could be a lot
| easier if a 3D printed building was constructed with all the
| necessary channels for utilities already there in the walls,
| and all you have to do is feed wires and pipes through the
| routes and connect everything. Similarly, finish work is
| simpler if you don't have to put sheet rock up, and can just
| use the existing wall texture.
|
| I think the bigger advantage to 3D printed architecture,
| though, is that you can make drastic changes to the design of a
| building without having to consider whether a contractor with
| the necessary skills is available to do the work or spend any
| effort trying to communicate the design to another human. For
| example, if I'm an architect and my client wants their living
| room to look like a gothic cathedral, I could design their
| living room to look like a gothic cathedral without having to
| worry about whether I can find a builder who knows how to
| construct a vaulted arch ceiling. I'd just have to make sure
| it's within the capabilities of the construction machine and
| conforms to structural requirements. That opens up a lot of
| possibilities, especially when it comes to organic shapes,
| curves, and non-right-angles.
| nawitus wrote:
| Something like this already exists; you can construct a house
| from concrete elements with premade channels/cavities for the
| wires and pipes. However, they need to be finished up, I
| think with drywall usually.
|
| I'm not aware this method has any real cost savings though
| compared to wood frame construction.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| I'm very fearful of the incentives that come with making
| infrastructure easier and cheaper to install. We already have
| issues around sprawl, which is a gigantic waste of resources.
| Making it easier for people to extend their last miles puts an
| undue strain on the system and the environment.
|
| Maybe centering such infrastructure around self containment
| would prevent some of that but in itself seems wasteful
| (everyone needs their own water pump, sewage system and
| electrical generation management equipment?)
| mdorazio wrote:
| Yup. Foundation, services, and interiors are your big line
| items. The shell tends to be both cheap and very quick to build
| with common materials.
| dougmany wrote:
| Leaning on the culture part, I am sure we would find some great
| cost savings by improving human waste removed. Contaminating
| drinkable water is such a bad use for this and sewage is a huge
| part of the services part mentioned.
| travisporter wrote:
| Domes are ubiquitous throughout sci-fi. Why don't we have a
| competition to, say print domes or homes autonomously in
| antarctica or sahara?
| bluGill wrote:
| Because domes are a terrible shape for humans. You can't hang
| pictures on the walls - the curve makes weird things happen.
| Likewise your furniture can't be against the wall it must be
| out to account for the curve.
|
| Domes look cool, so of course fiction is full of them. They are
| not impossible to build so a few people have built them. They
| are not a good shape though, so they won't catch on.
| bobthechef wrote:
| Right. They're impractical and a poor use of space. Also, it
| constrains how much of the space is walkable without bumping
| your head into the wall/ceiling. It's like living in an
| attic.
| suyash wrote:
| Actually this might be the first house fully 3D printed by IIT
| Students in India
| https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/iit-madras-...
| freetime2 wrote:
| The "from raw earth" part is what makes the parent a first. The
| house in your link is "India's first".
|
| Both houses look very cool to me!
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| If you like this, look up "superadobe".
| ISL wrote:
| How well do structures like these perform in earthquakes? I can
| imagine that they might outperform some masonry but be inferior
| to modern stick-built?
| epx wrote:
| Remembers the Terrafoam of Mannah short story. Hope it is not a
| sign...
| LinuxBender wrote:
| I like the idea. Have these been put through stress tests? i.e.
| Wind tunnels, simulated forest fire, floods, earthquake, cold /
| hot weather, powder actuated projectiles and how do they compare
| to traditional wooden framed or steel framed homes? What is the
| thermal insulation rating? I would expect thermals to be pretty
| good. I've seen similar designs using aircrete [1] and those are
| fire-resistant. How strong is this compared to aircrete?
|
| [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VcdwDRNPzA
| adriancr wrote:
| I assume it has the same longevity as things built out of
| mudbricks...
| sneak wrote:
| So, it's going to have to switch to a subscription model
| eventually to continue to exist?
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| In my country, some poor people (unfortunately) live in mud
| houses. They periodically add a new layer of mud, as the
| old layers get eroded away.
|
| I imagine, this could be done by a robot for this 3D
| structure.
|
| Of course, this depends on house not collapsing under heavy
| rain.
| sneak wrote:
| Creative Ground.
| adriancr wrote:
| or critters digging through walls and into your house
| bogwog wrote:
| gotem
| lhpz wrote:
| The thermal resistance of raw earth is not good, similar to
| that of concrete. Thermal conductivity is around 10 W/m.K. To
| be compared to 0.1 W/m.K for a typical building insulating
| material.
|
| But raw earth is porous and will store moisture, hence behaves
| like a two-phase material. Water in the earth may vaporize or
| condensate in the pores, which helps in regulating indoor
| moisture levels, and explains the high thermal storage capacity
| of the material. Since earth is cheap, it's also possible to
| build thick walls and get a high thermal storage capacity in
| the building envelope. Sun heat will be re-radiated a few hours
| later at night during winter, and some the cool of the evening
| nights will be available indoor during summer days. Because of
| this high thermal capacity, raw earth buildings are good at
| this so-called thermal phase shift. But raw earth is still a
| poor insulating material.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Thankyou for that really detailed explanation. That reaffirms
| for me that I will most likely stick with aircrete and
| concrete/shotcrete when it comes time to build a few hobby
| structures I had in mind.
|
| Out of curiosity, could you suggest what material would be
| best for storing heat from the sun? I am going to build a
| greenhouse that will face the south and have a wall on the
| north side to absorb heat. I have seen some people use clay
| with a black metal wall and some use black barrels of water.
| I want to be able to extract some heat from it using pipes.
| Any thoughts on what might be even better?
| lhpz wrote:
| If you want to store solar heat, you cannot beat water
| @4000J/kg.K. Black barrels of water is probably the best
| solution, yet a very simple solution. I've checked the
| thermal capacity tables, only ammonia would do a slightly
| better job than water !
|
| I also toy with the idea of building a greenhouse myself,
| that's why I have done some research. If you want to
| harness the thermal capacity of earth for a greenhouse, I
| know of two tricks:
|
| - Excavate one or two meters of soil to build a "pit"
| greenhouse. You will get earth walls connected to an
| immense thermal storage capacity. This is the so called
| Walipini greenhouse concept
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walipini
|
| - The diurnal and seasonal temperature oscillations dampen
| quickly with depth in the ground. Below some meters of
| soil, the temperature will be stable at the average annual
| temperature at your location (Ta). If you can dig a trench
| to lay underground pipes to create a ground/air heat
| exchange connected to your greenhouse, you will get a free
| source of air heated at (Ta) in winter or cooled down to
| the same (Ta) in summer. Fans to force air circulation will
| help.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| I too have been looking into a sunken greenhouse and
| using geothermal venting and long pipes to bring the port
| temperature closer to earth, somewhere near 50 degrees F.
| Much easier to heat or cool that than the outside air.
|
| Thanks for the tips on the water. That has the benefit of
| having emergency access to water if I need it. Also much
| easier to build than a clay wall.
| 3dee wrote:
| It seems to be a mixture of clay, salt, rice fibers and lime.
|
| So I guess the lime prevents erosion.
| RosanaAnaDana wrote:
| Mineralization. Effectively turns the aggregate into a kind of
| concrete. I would put a significant bet down that the energy
| cost of the lime is not accounted for in their 6kwh
| calculation.
| mkaic wrote:
| This is superb. Obviously it's just a tech demo, but I'm
| optimistic for 3D printed houses in general in the near future.
| Exciting stuff!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-27 23:00 UTC)