Source (in Danish): dr.dk/…/poelset-op-i-beton-nu-staar-europas-stoer…
3D-Rinted Houses Are Already Failing - Megaprojects youtu.be/nRLqld_jD_g
3D printing a house
Submitted 19 hours ago by 
SorteKanin@feddit.dk to 3dprinting@lemmy.world
https://feddit.dk/pictrs/image/afc7b7e0-9a76-4bf5-94c4-b0dac3d5f331.mp4
Comments
nulluser@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
runner_g@piefed.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
I watched this video a couple weeks ago and it’s pure click bait. He discussed one single instance where a known scammer takes advantage of a poor community and doesn’t do what he said he would. The video completely ignores all the progress the printer manufacturing companies are making and only devotes like 60 seconds at the very end to mention that the industry is improving rapidly.
Here’s a Tested video from last year where Adam visits one of the manufacturers. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=orurGdrlzIs
Nomad@infosec.pub 17 hours ago
Tldw cracking in the concrete and quite scammy companies.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 16 hours ago
3D house printing has been a scam from day one. Not cheaper, not faster, not more reliable and they cannot be altered or upgraded in the future. Questionable R values.
These turds got pinched out but will all be knocked down in a decade.
chris@l.roofo.cc@l.roofo.cc 9 hours ago As far as I have seen it’s very finicky. The concrete mixture is very special because normalnconcrete is not made for stacking layers and it’s also very sensitive to the weather. If it’s not exactly right it will start cracking.
I am not sure if anyone could yet demonstrate it at scale while being cheaper than traditional building.
kalpol@lemmy.ca 3 hours ago
You are correct. I watched one being built. It is only the walls, for one thing, they still did foundation, roof, interior framing the old-fashioned way. The concrete was trucked in on pallets and mixed on site and it looked like a ton of work, and the machine was always breaking, it looked like.
Honestly don’t know why they don’t print the concrete forms in plastic and inject concrete, injectable cast concrete has been a thing for like a hundred years. You could do your raceways and plumbing runs and all then fill.
rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
“Der terk er jerbs” ~ Brickies
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 16 hours ago
“Deh derk eh durrrr!!!”
the_fuckler@nord.pub 13 hours ago
Can anyone tell me now this compares in efficiency to traditional building? It looks like a lot of setup
- SorteKanin@feddit.dk 13 hours ago
Not sure about speed but I imagine it could be pretty speedy, if for no other reason than the fact that it can run with much fewer workers and probably also running during the night. I mean even if it was half as slow as manual labour, if it ran for 24 hours, it would still be faster overall.
But another point is that it uses much less material, 70% less according to the article. I suppose that helps with costs and CO2 emissions.
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 8 hours ago
If you’re switching to concrete, emissions will be worse than pretty much anything else you could use. Concrete is already responsible for some 8-12% of all global CO2 emissions.
the_fuckler@nord.pub 13 hours ago
That makes sense. 70% less material is a staggering amount, that would probably offset if it ran on literal coal and steam
dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 12 hours ago Honestly, this would be a really cool way to build Cobb houses, which are very environmentally friendly, have fantastic insulation, and are some of our oldest still standing structures, iirc. Good hat and boots (roof with overhang and foundation), 3d printed Cobb walls, and a lime coating, and I could see this really making housing costs a lot lower in certain communities.
Biggest downside to Cobb from my research is just that electrical and plumbing typically needs to be running conduit on top of the wall, instead of inside the wall, if you want the option to upgrade or change it later.
Waterpumpee@lemmus.org 16 hours ago
If this is 3d printing, making love is bio engineering.
papalonian@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
How does this not meet the definition of 3d printing? The machines that do this are legitimately just giant core-XY machines with concrete hoppers instead of a hot end
AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
A shame they’re not brave enough to print a building on a bedslinger.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 16 hours ago
I want to 3D print bricks and use it to build my house so I can use a smaller printer.
Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip 17 hours ago
It’s neat in concept, but such a waste of material over stick framing.
Also, do you need to bust out the impact drill every time you want to hang a photo? What it you need to move an outlet?
Also also, what happened if you foundation shifts, like at all?
And how’s the insulation on this? Nothing is thermally broken, you’re gonna have a good amount of heat going through those rounded corners.
Nomad@infosec.pub 17 hours ago
I always thought it curious that Americans like to build houses that blow away while experiencing lots of hurricanes all the time.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 16 hours ago
Sure, pretend like European clay roofing tiles do not blow off and European stonework isn’t a patch quilt of continuous repair.
blackbeans@lemmy.zip 16 hours ago
You must be an American. Stone or concrete walls are normal in many countries.
Youn can indeed use a hammer drill to drill holes. You can buy them for as little as 30 dollars these days. And you can use an angle grinder to make cutouts for cables/tubes, and apply plaster afterwards.
Many houses in the colder regions already have cavity walls with insulation in between the walls regardless of the building method, so I don’t think this method is very wasteful in amount of material.
However, I agree that 3D printing houses had various downsides, such as the weird corners, inflexibility to modify/expand/repair after the initial build and potentiality worse insulation characteristics. I am more of a believer in prefabricated houses, where building houses becomes an industry instead of a project.
azimir@lemmy.ml 17 hours ago
As to the stone thing: most of the houses and apartments in Germany are mainly stone walls. Somehow we manage it here.
Benefits include: massive soundproofing. Heat and cold envelope. Stability of buildings in tighter blocks. Build once, use forever.
Store is just fine, and yes we have an impact drill. It cost 30 Euro and does all of the light duty stuff we need.
Renovations are tougher, but also rarer.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 16 hours ago
Stone is horrible for insulation.
runner_g@piefed.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
You print 2 layers with an air gap between. Themis gap gives room for plumbing and electrical, and also serves as an insulation layer. A thin layer of still air has relatively low thermal conductivity, minimizing heat exchange between inside and outside.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 16 hours ago
The people who thought 3D printed houses were innovative had no idea how houses are built.
AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
The problem with this kind of innovation is that it’s improving what’s already one of the fastest and easiest parts of building a house. Digging foundations, plastering the walls, doing the plumbing, doing the electrics and laying the flooring can all individually take longer than the bricklaying, and are much harder to automate.
It’s like they forgot precast exists and that there’s a reason you don’t see it used in houses.
bobslaede@feddit.dk 17 hours ago
Guessing you didnt read it, because its in danish.
The article specifically mentions that this technique uses 30% of the material that would have been used for precast.