Indoor Desktop 3D Printing Warning

Previously I had joked about 3D printing Star Wars figurines at one’s desk and though I still find that image funny recent news highlights an important safety issue to consider before starting your 3D printing project: The process of 3D printing polymers produces volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ultra-fine particles (UFPs) as a by-product. And while I’m not aware of any acute health risks of printing indoors – no one is dropping to the floor in distress – I’m also not willing to take the risk and sit beside one of these things indoors for months on end – I’d put it in the garage – and so therefore it seemed only fair to pass along on such information to our readers to make up their own minds.

3D Printing Industry: How Toxic Are ABS &PLA Fumes?

3Ders: New study shows health hazards of 3Dprinting

Supported Extrusion 3D Printing

It’s been a busy week for architectural 3D printing news with several good options to discuss but one breakthrough stands above the others. I was quite happy to see the efforts of the Bartlett School of Architecture, UK, reported by 3ders.org in regards to their cementitious 3D printing achievements using a supported extrusion technique. This method begins with the placement of a cementitious material by a robotic head unit similar to that which is used by other firms but differentiates itself by simultaneously laying down a granular support material. After manufacturing once removed the process leaves a distinctive pattern the designers call “Fossilized” and I call “circuit board”. The process represents progress toward refining cementitious 3D printing technology by allowing for smaller detail tolerances. Unoforunately factors such as the process’s structural strength and long-term performance are still underreported and therefore a certain amount of skepticism is still warranted before calling this technology useful architectural 3D printing. I also question the qualifications of a group of designers to tackle what is essentially a mechanical engineering problem. Absolutely their design aesthetic is beyond reproach but where are they getting expertise in process, control, chemical and mechanical engineering? Food for thought at this technology continues to improve.    

Agree? Disagree? Share your comments below.                                                                                   

Parametric Structural Design

I’ve been excited for this post for a couple of days now. I’ve been all over computational architecture for the last year and this Autodesk example extends that theory further. The ability to quickly test engineering design iterations with Dynamo has all sorts of interesting applications in finding novel and efficient engineering solutions. Dynamo, for those not in the loop, is an open source visual programming add-on for REVIT. But architecture is not the only domain parametric design can be utilized. Autodesk React Structures, based loosely on the REVIT BIM platform, is one of Autodesk’s enterprise level structural engineering applications. The program comes with a build in set of comprehensive programming tools for the analysis of complex structures. But adding the visual Dynamo interface lets designers try many complex structural variations to see if anything interesting or inspiring comes out. Normally to redo these engineering calculations strictly for experimentation is cost prohibitive. Much of the linked example might be over the reader's head - as it was mine - but I thought it a worthy example to squirrel away because it tells a story of where the AEC industry is going. 

Dutch Cementitous 3D Printing Project

I was excited to post this article about 3Dprinting concrete but first the bad news: The technology is still not big enough for what I wanted to use it for. That said, the article is a nice introduction to some of the changes 3D printing is expected to bring to design.

Dutch 3D printer manufacture Opiliones worked with designer Michiel van der Kley to establish Project Next which aims to solve the coveted goal of “a 3D printable bio-concrete and an accompanying 3D printer capable of making complete architectural spaces”. From what I can tell – at least initially – if by “architectural spaces” they mean spaces you’d need to crawl and squeeze into, mission accomplished. So yeah, scalability is still a factor. The project was focused on developing environmentally sustainable concrete and in the process experimented with several mixes including limestone, hemp fibers, flax fibers, etc., but ultimately I see the role of green building materials in architecture as presupposed and not something I need to be convinced of.  

What did catch my eye, however, was designer Van der Kley’s comments about how radically 3D printing will change what forms are possible architecturally. This is an facet of architectural 3D printing I am already engaged in. Sometimes it can be tough to described how architectural 3D printing affects form; therefore it becomes doubly difficult to predict how the technology will change architecture in the future. But that’s where I want to be: already where the crowd is going. And part of how to

get there is to understand theoretically where is going on aesthetically and economically with the technology.

In the piece Van der Kley’s calls for a “new design language”, the main thrust of his argument being that new techniques – such as 3D printing – require a new descriptive language. But here I must disagree with the good designer. When I look at the sculpture I immediately see math. In fact there are a variety of mathematical interpretations of the work: Manifolds defined by differential geometry; hyperbolic surfaces, etc. Nature also has a wealth of examples because anytime a membrane is put under tension it is capable of displaying this type of behavior and probably if I had more time we could narrow down an example from the human body, like the stomach lining or something. I think what Van der Kley really means is explained in the last paragraph, about the acceptance of such forms by the public. But his line of reasoning seems to assume he discovered the end of all possible forms of cementitious 3D printing, neglecting creative ideas from future architects and designers or further advances in the technology. A position which is hard to support.

Now You Finally 3D Print Star Wars Figurines At Your Desk!

Hype for 3D printing was turned up all the way to 11 at this year’s CES in Las Vegas - promising everything including“limitless possibilities”. There appears to be some substance behind the hype with several manufactures showing interest in the field. Strong competition in the sector bodes well for consumers. One of the highlights was ROBO 3D’s new R2 product lineup which introduces a set of mature consumer-friendly 3D printers stylish enough to sit on a desk while being affordable enough to buy for the office. The printer’s small form factor and Wi-Fi connectivity echoes how laser printers shrunk and shed wires during the last 10 years.

So what would if I got one? First off, family and friends would probably receive 3D printed necklaces and broaches on all occasions! But more to the point, one could at least start practicing 3D model making. My first introduction to 3D modeling was a slog. 3D printing has a steep learning curve in regards to 1) understanding the behavior of the printed material (too thin, too thick, etc.) and 2) how to use the complex 3D modelling software. Learning both is an uphill battle and the sooner one starts the sooner one will understand how to model replacement parts for broken things around the house.

Left unsaid in the glowing press coverage is the newly released printer’s failure rate; an important metric in consumer 3D printing. In my experience failure rates are still higher than normal when compared to other consumer goods. It’s a bit random when your continuous printing process fails. Imagine if your toaster burnt your toast 1 out of every 10 mornings; you’d think it’s a piece of junk. But such failures rates are still common in consumer-focused 3D printing, no doubt a facet manufactures are looking to reduce as a selling point. I’d also really like to see a closed looped 3D printer; where the used material can be recycled in the machine again. This – in my opinion - is sort of the holy grail of rapid desktop prototyping. 

2016 AEC Industry Forecast. Now with Comments!

I’m a sucker for forward looking articles. I’m always on the lookout for predictions of substance on topics I’m passionate about. Reading through Engineering News Record’s 2016 construction trends article I found some useful highlights. But first an apology; I’m really really sorry for the forced Christmas song structure the article takes at points. I’m sure it was just meant as light-hearted attempt to make the article more readable at Christmas but for me, it just makes the article longer without adding quality content. And it’s after Christmas. Below are the article’s main suggestions with my comments:

• Economic forecast for North America looks vaguely positive. I vaguely agree.
• Adopt future technology. Chances are if a firm isn’t already planning to do this they have much bigger problems.
• Try to understand global factors. Always good advice but where does one find the time?
• Aging Infrastructure. Did the author really just predict infrastructure would get older in the future?
• Sustainability. I’m so far past this trend. I consider sustainability factors core to all modern building design. 
• Take care of: experienced staff members, long-standing satisfied customers, solid financials and reputation. I don’t get this one. Isn’t this just common sense in the 21^st century marketplace? Nor is this specific to the AEC industry.
• Expect rare events. The author evidently read Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s The Black Swan in 2015.
• More women in the AEC industry. About time. Let’s keep moving forward on this.
• Firms should focus on their social responsibility. This is insightful if one accepts the assumption the values of the marketplace are shifting. Other firms will probably still advocate advertising in newspapers.
• Safety. Yes. Let’s continue to encourage amazingly safe working conditions for all involved in building endeavors.
• Alternative energy will continue to grow in importance. I will only add solar panels are easier to integrate into a good design than windmills.  
• The winning 2016 presidential candidate will have an effect on AEC industry. So think carefully. While trivially true I’d also like to point out the current crop of presidential candidates’ building design credentials are underwhelming.

Any comments from our readers? I know you’re out there. Are these predictions insightful? Too trivial? Cheesy?

Architectural 3D Printing is Robotic Construction

For the last post before the Christmas I wished to focus on an AECMag article entitled “Rise of the Robots”. Highlights from the lengthy piece include insights about drones, modular building techniques and architectural 3D printing.

Early into my architectural 3D printing research I made the connection between architectural 3D printing and drones: One - that the technologies tended to blur together on a continuum and two - the future will look nothing like we expected. The article highlights a number of different drone designs for construction applications and they don’t look anything like the drones from Star Wars who built the Death Star. Notably the brick laying robot Hadrian from Australia would make an excellent Minecraft robot with some slight modifications changing bricks to cubes.

I was happy to see UC Berkeley, previously mentioned on the blog, acknowledged for its continued research into materials and printing methods. Each MIT and the Institute of Advanced Architecture of Catalonia continue to advance swarm robotics (which directly relates to the use of multiple drones on a project). And in 2015 Dutch company MX3D, also previously mentioned on the blog, introduced an ambitious project to 3D print a 12 foot bridge using a wire welding robotic arm (see above). Once finished, I would not hesitate to cross over it. London-based D-Shape is also in there, leaders in 3D printing cementitious material who ignored my emails to purchase samples last summer.

I think the article does a good job outlining the history of architectural 3D printing and some of the obstacles facing early adoption but strains credibility when suggesting only signature firms are interested in technological approaches or complex forms when I think the exact opposite bares out in reality; that all AEC firms, almost without exception, want to be seen as technologically sophisticated. I was also less than enthused with the focus on 3D printing habitats on Mars and the Moon. The topic is too narrow with too many constraints specific to those alien locations to be helpful building on Earth. 

Modern Building Systems Effect on Modern Building Design

The development of modern building systems like HVAC and potable water had a major impact on the character of architectural design. Never before had the architect been asked to design sophisticated ventilation networks or heavy structural countermeasures. Increasingly complex public health and building safety were the pressures driving these changes and each was absent from the minds of Greco-Roman and Renaissance architects et al.

The need for interdisciplinary collaboration nor articles calling for its implementation are anything new. The linked article makes a strong point near the end of the piece arguing BIM establishes just such functionality but first the bad: There is little effort on the part of the author to analyze current obstacles to collaboration. In my experience designers, consultants, and contractors on a project - each fundamentally necessary to its completion - can be downright hostile to each other. Certainly there is enough blame to go around for this situation, nor can this behavior be assumed to be universal but in the meantime, it must be said, the article sheds little light on why collaboration fails in AEC projects.

Where I do express agreement is that - at least technologically – as building information modelling has matured collaboration has improved. This has allowed different disciplines to offer and receive accurate information earlier in the building design process leading to fundamentally more valuable buildings.  Quoted in the article, Andrea Scotti, director of Burohappold Engineering in Abu Dhabi, explains BIM's role in collaboration thusly: “In terms of difficult projects to coordinate on, I would say that a few years ago this would have been technical in nature, related to complex structures or geometry. Nowadays, technology is there to help reduce these complexities.” 

Improving High Rise Building Structural Design

We don’t often get the opportunity to cover innovations in the structural design of high rise buildings because improvements are so often incremental. The development discussed below is perhaps most applicable to locations with high seismic loads, a topic put on my radar after my experiences living overseas.

Kinetica, a University of Toronto research spin-off, is attempting to bring a new product to market for damping seismic and wind loads in high rise structures. I’m not sure how much market demand exists for such an innovation as their work seems to have been heavily subsidized. Be that as it may, their technology indisputably offers benefits for the construction of concrete high rise buildings.

Comparing first steel structures; it’s a rather trivial process to place decoupling devices in either braces or walls because they’re exposed. However, with cost structures changing, more and more projects are utilizing concrete in high rise construction. The long thick walls which characterize concrete high rise construction lack areas to integrate high performance damping systems in. This leads to the use of heavy counterweights high above to dampen swaying. 

The damper braces introduced by the company are made of large sheets of a rubber-like material — known as a viscoelastic polymer — sandwiched between steel plates. (Seen in yellow in the above picture during the testing phasing.) They work by absorbing vibrational energy and transforming it into heat energy, thereby reducing the stresses transferred into adjacent structural elements. The company’s founders Michael Montgomery and Constantin Christopoulos’ key insight was “to realize that there was a place to put viscoelastic dampers into a concrete building after all: the coupling beams. These smaller, horizontal concrete beams are used on each floor to connect the two giant walls together and increase the rigidity of the building. Under high winds and earthquakes, these smaller coupling beams become heavily stressed, so replacing them with something that can absorb energy — like a viscoelastic damper — seemed like an ideal solution.”