CIFE
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
CIFE Seed Proposal Summary Page
2013-14 Projects
Proposal Title: A framework for bringing 3D printing into the
construction industry
Principal Investigator(s): Martin Fischer and Vladimir Bazjanac
Research Staff: Natasa Mrazovic
Proposal Number: (Assigned by CIFE): 2013-01
Total Funds Requested:
First Submission?
Yes If extension, project URL:
Abstract (up to 150 words):
The rapid development of 3D printing methods in almost every industry branch
has overwhelmed markets with 3D printed objects during the last few years.
However, why aren’t we printing 3D buildings? This research proposal will identify
the research of major progressive scientific groups, develop a framework that will
combine/merge identified research and applications, related or unrelated to the
construction industry, with the goal of streamlining the deployment of 3D printing
technologies and scientific efforts into the industry.
Introduction
3D printing technology has the potential to revolutionize the way we make
almost everything [1]. Even President Obama is a fan and called it the future of
manufacturing [2]. Almost any object can be created with a 3D printer [1]; clothing
[3][4], toys [5][6], machinery [2], weapons [7], prosthetic body parts [8], a first car
has been printed [9] (Figure 1). From the construction industry’s point of view,
buildings are products and the following questions remain to be answered: Why
are we not printing buildings? What is the state of the art of technology and
science in this field? What could be done to streamline and speed up the process
of the research related to 3D printing of buildings and, consequently, the
application of these technologies in construction industry? This research seeks to
address these questions by proposing a framework for organizing the most
advanced existing research related to 3D printing technology, applicable on
construction site, to speed up the process of integrating it into the construction
industry.
Figure 1 Examples of 3D printed objects – a great variety of existing application
Benefits for the industry
The large potential benefits of 3D printing technology for the construction
industry motivate this research. 3D printing applications will certainly give firms
that know how to use it a competitive edge and move them closer to firms in
other industries, like aerospace, automotive, and ship industries, making
potential entries into the construction markets by firms from those industries less
<dr.Fischer,dr.Bazjanac ><Framework for bringing 3D printing into the construction industry>
2
attractive. The benefits that 3D printing has brought to other industries, like
mass-production of custom parts, just in time deliveries and productions of
complex geometries, are just some hints of a revolution that these new systems
and processes could bring. Take for example the latest news from Silicon Valley
[10] about Foster's Apple campus being nearly $2 billion over budget due to the
complexity of its geometry of curved glazing and special parts systems.
Imagine now the application of 3D printing technology on this spaceshiplike building (Figure 2) without having to deal with the tolerances of prefabricated
components and wondering if they would fit. If this building could be 3D-printed,
we would not have this issue. Also imagine the "world of possibilities” where a
construction company would not be intimidated by Frank Geary’s artistic
geometries, or where every activity on a construction site would be executed,
recorded, and monitored by automated systems, the world without fear of
litigation as everything would be executed on construction site as predicted in the
design process, etc.
Figure 2 Foster’s design for Apple campus with complex space-ship like geometry
General definitions
3D printing is one of four common Rapid Manufacturing (RM) techniques
[11][12] which is a family of layer-based processes; the name Rapid Prototyping
(RP) describing the time saving associated with the negation of the human
modeler or tool maker employed to create the object for evaluation as part of the
design process. Rapid Manufacturing is the term applied when RP machines are
used to produce end use parts directly. In the US, Solid Freeform Fabrication
(SFF) is the preferred term for RM [13][14].
.
3D printing (3DP) is based on inkjet 3D printing technology. The inkjet
selectively deposits a liquid binder onto a bed of powder, which is effectively
“glued” together by the binder. A common 3D-printing process is depicted in
Figure 3. A 3D solid model of the desired component is created with a Computer
<dr.Fischer,dr.Bazjanac ><Framework for bringing 3D printing into the construction industry>
3
Aided Design (CAD) software (1). The model is then typically translated into
standard triangulation or Stereolithography Language (STL), a standard data
format that can be used by most Rapid Manufacturing (RM) machines. This
describes the surface of the object, which can then be ‘sliced’ into layers so that
the part can be constructed sequentially (2). Each layer is then sent to the
machine (3) and the information is used to control the location of a printer head.
The printer head deposits a binder on a fine layer of powdered material where
the layer is to be made solid (4). The machine reconstructs a 3D object by
sequentially bonding these ‘2D’ layers of material.
Figure 3 A representation of a common 3D printing process
A common term for mega-scale Rapid Manufacturing for construction is
“Freeform Construction” [13]. Besides the reduction of problems on construction
site related to human factors due to complete automation of construction, there
are three key issues that affect how Freeform Construction impacts traditional
methods: cost (Figure 4), time (Figure 5) and value added (Figure 6).
Figure 4: Traditional and 3D-printed wall construction cost comparison [13]; To identify the principal cost issues
associated with using additive processes for building large structural components a hypothetical wall structure was
devised, based on a typical domestic housing application. The wall is comprised of 13 mm of internal plaster finish on a
100 mm concrete block, with a 50 mm cavity and 100 mm external facing brick. Fixings, brick ties, insulation, etc. are
neglected. The wall is assumed to be 5 m long by 3 m high. Z Corporation's 3D printing process and powdered gypsum
as the build material were used to hypothetically calculate the cost of such as 3D-printed wall.
<dr.Fischer,dr.Bazjanac ><Framework for bringing 3D printing into the construction industry>
4
Figure 5: Comparison of time to completion [13]. The same wall as in Figure 4 was evaluated in terms of build time to
completion. The diagram compares building duration using a traditional process and the constant build rate of 43 mm/h
associated with the 810 machine (Z Corporation's 3D printing process). The steps in the traditional methods come from
having to leave every ∼1 m height in brickwork overnight for the mortar to cure (maximum weight on wet mortar).
Assuming no operational efficiency in the labor allocation (continuous work) and neglecting the set-up time for the
machine, the 3D printing is comparable in build time to traditional methods.
Figure 6: Thermal conductivity/density characteristics for building materials and 3D printed test panels. The thermal
conductivity of primary building materials is important and the requirements for greater levels of insulation are only
going to increase. Using a primary build material with a low thermal conductivity is therefore beneficial. Insulating
concrete blocks are a common solution for the wall construction. The experiment [13] considered a number of potential
wall panel designs. Using the Z Corporation 3D printing process, the panels were constructed from gypsum. The
internal geometry of the panels was designed to test the extent to which the material geometry could be used to improve
thermal conductivity. Two of the 3D printed panels are depicted on the left side of the Figure 6. Each panel, including a
panel of solid material, was tested on a UKAS accredited EN 12667 guarded hot plate apparatus. Although this does
not generate the industry accepted k-value (thermal conductivity, W/mK), the results give a good indication of
performance. The graph shows approximate regions of k-values for typical building materials, plotted against material
density. The test panels demonstrate a performance at least as good as aerated concrete. The performance is achieved
through maximizing the resistance of the conduction path. The panel in the left had a k-value of 0.112 W/mK, nearly
half that of the right hand panel.
<dr.Fischer,dr.Bazjanac ><Framework for bringing 3D printing into the construction industry>
5
In theory, once the RM layer-by-layer approach is considered for
construction, the possibilities for system integration and reduction of material
interfaces are striking [13][15] (Table 1):
• integration of mechanical and electrical services within the structure means
reduced amounts of wasteful and time-consuming work by builders;
• better control over the deposition of build material will result in better internal
and external finishes, completed as the structure is built;
• being able to consider the structure as a homogenous unit will negate the need
for difficult interface detailing, reducing the chance for error and hence costly
remedial work;
• the coupling of digitally controlled process with solid modeling techniques will
mean greater design freedom at no or little extra cost.
Table 1: Possibilities for processes for creating freeform structures [13]
Motivating engineering/business problem
The previous section identified the state of the art and the benefits of 3D
printing for the industry. Bringing 3D printing into the industry faces several
obvious obstacles, such as political will, the business case, and compliance with
building regulation/legislation [13][14]. However, a major problem this research
proposal addresses is the lack of understanding, communication, and
collaboration between isolated research groups that are trying to solve specific
parts of bringing 3D printing into the construction industry. Futhermore, there are
research groups outside the field that are not aware of the possible applications
or the impact that their research could have in the construction industry.
From my1 own experience as the chief designer on large-scale projects in
Croatia and Kazakhstan, some of the problems that I had to solve were:
1) streamline the communication between at least 20 different groups of
contractors, e.g., architects/designers, structural, mechanical, electrical, water
and sewage systems engineers, specialists’ groups, like fire proofing, code
1
Written from the perspective of Natasa Mrazovic, the research staff member of this proposed research.
<dr.Fischer,dr.Bazjanac ><Framework for bringing 3D printing into the construction industry>
6
compliance, building physics groups, etc., not to mention the communication
between investors, designers, and construction companies;
2) “translate” the information in a “language” that different groups could
understand, and
3) explain to each group the importance of their role and the work of other
groups.
In my first expert scientists’ survey, while reading some articles and
visiting lectures related to the topic, I had “flashbacks” from my practice
experience, but on a different scale; a mechanical engineering professor uses
terms like “impossible to solve exotic geometry” that an architect could create, an
engineering professor responds about the work of an architecture professor:
“...Yes I have read her thesis but that is just art, don’t see how this could help
us?”...
Or an example of an architecture professor that talks about her futuristic
concepts, but nobody in the audience quite understands how she is going to
transform those ideas into reality. Or an example of a nanoscientist that sends to
a research team the requested articles without being able or not knowing how to
explain where his research could be applied in the industry, etc. Metaphorically
speaking, the research team will become a group of “chief designers” that
combines and organizes existing knowledge and research related to the problem.
The big idea
A conceptual framework for researchers and innovative practitioners on
3d-printing applications in the construction industry could address the identified
problems. However, a systematic compilation of the existing knowledge and the
scientific research of the most progressive groups in the world does not exist.
The framework will provide a transparent comparison between currently
unrelated, but relevant, existing frameworks, identify theoretical gaps, and
recommend possible links in form of existing research, methodology or systems
in or outside the field of construction. The higher goal of this research is to
streamline the application of 3D printing into the construction industry, which
could one day revolutionize existing design/construction practice.
Theoretical and Practical Point of Departure
Pilot studies of freeform construction [15][14][13] have identified four groups
of problems and recommended possible approaches to solve them in the future
research:
1) The processes capable of delivering components large enough for building
structures are unlikely to be a scaled up versions of a current process used
for RM; new systems and processes need to be developed.
2) Material cost and its heterogeneity in a freeform process are important
issues; material properties and process characteristics need to be an
integral part of new delivery systems.
<dr.Fischer,dr.Bazjanac ><Framework for bringing 3D printing into the construction industry>
7
3) Building 3D printing processes are probably not going to be faster than
traditional approaches; the automation process should be re-evaluated and
re-designed.
4) A greater performance of building elements, build-in materials and
specialists’ applications, like automated plumbing and automated electrical
and communication wiring need to be solved; these can be achieved
through clever innovative design of the building element geometry.
The authors of this proposal have already identified several progressive
isolated research groups in the private sector, e.g., Italian roboticist Dini’s
“Monolite UK”, [16] and in academic institutions; e.g., Oxman’s Mediated Matter
Group at MIT’s Media Lab [17], Bechthold’s Design Robotics Group at Harvard
[18][19], Khoshnevis’ Center for Rapid Automated Fabrication Technologies
(CRAFT) at USC [15], and the Gibb–Thorpe’s group at the Department of Civil
and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, UK [14][13].
These groups are trying to address the above-mentioned problems, but
their projects and theoretical platforms are limited by focusing on specific issues
(Table 2). A research group that is trying to answer all four groups’ of problems
does not seem to exist. Furthermore, their prototypes exist only in the secure
laboratory environments (Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9) and their efforts focus on
improving their own platforms with little apparent consideration of another group’s
experience, knowledge, and achievements within the field.
For example, while Khoshnevis’ group at USC is most advanced in solving
automation-related problems by proposing robotic systems for dwellings on Mars
and has produced a two-story high prototype, it neglects the problems of
geometric complexity and material heterogeneity. On the other side, Oxman’s
group at MIT explores different aspects of biomimetic design by focusing on
material heterogeneity and the freedom of form fabrication, but their prototypes
are “desktop” sized. These two approaches are very complementary and a
detailed comparison and a possible merger of them into one functional system
are the goals of the proposed research (Figure 10).
<dr.Fischer,dr.Bazjanac ><Framework for bringing 3D printing into the construction industry>
8
Table 2: “Heat” map - comparison of different scientific research groups’ areas of interest identified by the authors of
this proposal. The table shows that a group with research in all identified general categories (in the first row of the
table) i.e. a framework with all “green” fields does not exist yet
Figure 7: The biggest 3D printed stone structure [16]; the structure exists only in a laboratory environment, and, in
comparison to prototypes of Khoshnevis’ group at USC, this structure does not have smooth surfaces.
Figure 8: At MIT, Media Lab, Computer based design computation methodology [20]: the robotic hand exists only in a
laboratory environment, and prototypes are limited to the radius and span of this arm.
<dr.Fischer,dr.Bazjanac ><Framework for bringing 3D printing into the construction industry>
9
Figure 9: At USC [15]; Contour Crafting methodology; the robotic system exists only in a laboratory environment
Research plan, schedule, and risks
One year deliverable:
The one-year deliverable for this project will be a framework for comparing the
different 3D printing methods available, according to the identified categories of
problems obtained from experts’ interviews and literature review and suggest
areas of further research. This report will include:
- In-depth research of each of the research groups identified in the previous
section.
- Classification of the different techniques employed; understanding their
advantages and limitations for the construction industry.
- Identification of opportunities for developing collaboration between
complementary technologies.
- Identification of possible applications of current technology to specific
problems in the construction industry.
- Identification of key gaps that could serve as points of departure for further
research.
Methods/workflow/schedules:
1. 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarter: obtain detailed laboratory reports, review the
literature and scientific projects extensively, identify specific parameters
(e.g. data input, output, exchange, connectors of the process, etc.),
successes and failures of a specific experiment.
2. 4th quarter: compare projects; identify the theoretical gaps and possible
common language between similar processes and systems, recommend
future research steps for closing the identified gaps. Figure 10 depicts an
exemplary scheme of the proposed work process.
<dr.Fischer,dr.Bazjanac ><Framework for bringing 3D printing into the construction industry>
10
Figure 10: Exemplary scheme of the work process
Next steps:
Proceed with the execution of the recommended steps in the report; close all
identified theoretical gaps and deliver a new framework that will comprise
identified or reconstructed most progressive research frameworks in the field.
Construction industry involvement (CIFE members)
CIFE members and other industry partners are welcome to provide any
data/knowledge and access into their projects if they already use any aspect of
Freeform Manufacturing technology. We are looking forward to collaborating with
CIFE members in future experiments of applying 3D printing technology on some
of their construction sites.
Relationship to CIFE goals
This research supports all CIFE breakthrough performance objectives. It is
an innovative multi-disciplinary project that will create the foundation for a
dramatic increase in efficiency by improving access to scientific research related
to 3D printing technologies applied in construction. CIFE’s vision, principles, and
methods to model and analyze projects, collaborate, and manage will be applied
in the research but on a different scale; the collected, interpreted, and translated
large volumes of data will originate from a specific scientific research project and
not from a specific AEC industry’s project.
<dr.Fischer,dr.Bazjanac ><Framework for bringing 3D printing into the construction industry>
11
A new framework will offer new processes, strategies, and methods for
further research in fabrication of 3D-printed building elements and application on
construction sites. In general, the new framework will be the first step in
streamlining current laboratory harbored technology to the industry.
The impact of 3D printing technologies on design/construction practice is
still unpredictable, but a revolution is at our doorstep. For researchers, the
framework will identify the key gaps that could serve as points of departure for
further research. It will also provide a roadmap for collaboration with the groups
outside the field and recommendations for joining complementary technologies.
The framework will benefit to practitioners by explaining advantages and
limitations and identifying possible applications of current technology to specific
problems in the construction industry. It will recommend future possible
experiments on a construction site.
References
[1] H. Lipson and M. Kurman, Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing, 1st ed. Wiley, 2013.
[2] “Professor: 3D printing technology ‘just beginning’,” CBS News. [Online]. Available:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33816_162-57572203/professor-3d-printing-technology-justbeginning/. [Accessed: 18-Apr-2013].
[3] “Voltage 3D printed clothes by Iris van Herpen with Neri Oxman and Julia Koerner,” Dezeen.
[Online]. Available: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/01/22/voltage-3d-printed-clothes-by-irisvan-herpen-with-neri-oxman-and-julia-koerne/. [Accessed: 18-Apr-2013].
[4] “Dita Von Teese Flaunts Fibonacci-Inspired, 3-D Printed Gown | Wired Design | Wired.com,”
Wired Design. [Online]. Available: http://www.wired.com/design/2013/03/dita-von-teese-3-dprinted-gown/. [Accessed: 18-Apr-2013].
[5] “Guys Behind World’s First 3D Printing Pen Launch Kickstarter, Raise Almost $2 Million In 5
Days,” Architizer. [Online]. Available: http://www.architizer.com/en_us/blog/dyn/77269/guysbehind-worlds-first-3d-printing-pen-launch-kickstarter-raise-almost-2-million-in-5days/#.UXCHesoRWRe. [Accessed: 18-Apr-2013].
[6] “GE Scientists Create 3D Printed Christmas Tree Ornaments!” [Online]. Available:
http://inhabitat.com/ge-scientists-creates-3d-printed-christmas-tree-ornaments/. [Accessed:
18-Apr-2013].
[7] “Gunsmith makes a rifle with a 3D printer,” 09-Apr-2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.3dprinter.net/gunsmith-makes-rifle-with-3d-printer. [Accessed: 09-Apr-2013].
[8] “3D printer creates human-like ear,” BBC, 21-Feb-2011.
[9] “The 3D-Printed Urbee 2 Hybrid Car is Light, Strong, and Nearing Production.” [Online].
Available: http://inhabitat.com/the-urbee-2-a-3d-printed-hybrid-car-that-is-light-strong-andnearing-production/. [Accessed: 18-Apr-2013].
[10] “Foster’s Apple campus nearly $2 billion over budget,” Dezeen. [Online]. Available:
http://www.dezeen.com/2013/04/08/fosters-apple-campus-nearly-2-billion-over-budget/.
[Accessed: 21-Apr-2013].
[11] T. T. Wohlers, Rapid Prototyping, Tooling and Manufacturing: State of the industry. Colorado,
US: Wohlers Associates, 2004.
[12] T. T. Wohlers, “Wohlers Report 2012: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing State of the
Industry; Annual Worldwide Progress Report,” 2012.
[13] R. A. Buswell, R. C. Soar, A. G. F. Gibb, and A. Thorpe, “Freeform Construction: Mega-scale
Rapid Manufacturing for construction,” Autom. Constr., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 224–231, Mar.
2007.
[14] R. A. Buswell, A. Thorpe, R. C. Soar, and A. G. F. Gibb, “Design, data and process issues for
mega-scale rapid manufacturing machines used for construction,” Autom. Constr., vol. 17,
no. 8, pp. 923–929, Nov. 2008.
<dr.Fischer,dr.Bazjanac ><Framework for bringing 3D printing into the construction industry>
12
[15] B. Khoshnevis, “AUTOMATED CONSTRUCTION BY CONTOUR CRAFTING – RELATED
ROBOTICS AND INFORMATION T ECHNOLOGIES,” J. Autom. Constr. – Spec. Issue, Jan.
2004.
[16] J. Belezina, “D-Shape 3D printer can print full-sized houses,” Gizmag, Feb-2012.
[17] N. Oxman, “Material-based Design Computation,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Boston, MA, 2010.
[18] “Martin Bechthold, Professor of Architectural Technology, Group Head - Design Robotics
Group,” Design Robotics Group. [Online]. Available:
http://research.gsd.harvard.edu/drg/people/people-test/. [Accessed: 19-Apr-2013].
[19] “Design Robotics Group - Material Processes and Systems Research,” Design Robotics
Group. [Online]. Available: http://research.gsd.harvard.edu/drg/. [Accessed: 19-Apr-2013].
<dr.Fischer,dr.Bazjanac ><Framework for bringing 3D printing into the construction industry>
13