Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM), including 3D printing, has the potential to transform the construction industry. AM allows the construction industry to use complex and innovative geometries to build an object, building block, wall, or frame from a computer model. As such, it has potential opportunities for the construction industry and specific applications in the deep renovation process. While AM can provide significant benefits in the deep renovation process, it is not without its own environmental footprint and barriers. In this chapter, AM is defined, and the main materials used within the construction industry are outlined. This chapter also explores the benefits and challenges of implementing AM within the construction industry before concluding with a discussion of the future areas of development for AM in construction.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
7.1 Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM) is the process of fabricating three-dimensional (3D) physical objects by connecting materials together in a layer-based manner following a specific computer design (Guo & Leu, 2013). The concept of AM was first introduced by Chuck Hull (1984), who used ultraviolet (UV) light to harden a layer of a liquid polymer (Wong & Hernandez, 2012). In recent years, AM has evolved to include a wide range of solutions and techniques, including selective laser sintering (SLS), direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), laser engineered net shaping (LENS), electron beam melting (EBM), fused deposition modelling (FDM), and digital light processing (DLP) (Albar et al., 2020). These methods enable the use of different materials in AM such as metals, composites, ceramics, and polymers and the production of end-parts that are capable of serving different purposes (Albar et al., 2020). The rapid development of AM has encouraged researchers and practitioners to adopt this technology in the construction sector as a cost-effective solution to create various structural components, regardless of their complexity, with minimum waste (Lyu et al., 2021).
In the construction sector, a significant focus of research and development was observed towards the development of different AM methods to cope with the unique characteristics of cementitious materials. These mostly include material extrusion and particle-bed processes as well as other generative approaches such as Smart Dynamic Casting (Paolini et al., 2019). Aggregate-based materials such as concrete are most commonly used in AM for the construction industry (Paolini et al., 2019). According to recent estimates, the value of the AM market for concrete printing was over $310Â million in 2019 and is expected to reach $40 billion by 2027 with an annual growth rate of 116% (Pawar & Rohit Sawant, 2020). These figures suggest that AM will be rapidly and globally adopted by the construction sector, driven by the promise of reduced environmental impact, support for more complex designs, and more cost-effective construction (Mart et al., 2022). It is important to note that while AM processes are less labour-intensive, the adoption of AM in construction is expected to result in significant job creation, including new high-value roles, for example, 3D printer manufacturing and maintenance engineers, mixture designers, materials suppliers, and specialist software developers (Avrutis et al., 2019).
The remainder of this chapter introduces and defines AM and provides an overview of the main benefits of AM as well as its main applications in construction and deep renovationFootnote 1 projects. Finally, practical challenges in the implementation of additive manufacturing are summarised, and upcoming advancements are briefly discussed in the final section.
7.2 Additive Manufacturing in Construction and Deep Renovation
Significant advancements have been made in concrete 3D printing in recent years thanks to the introduction of a variety of different materials in producing concrete mixtures. Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) was the first material adopted by AM to produce full-scale printed concrete structures (Chougan et al., 2021). There are, however, concerns regarding the impact of OPC on the environment, which remains an issue with its implementation in AM. Cement production accounts for 5–7% of the total world CO2 emissions (Chougan et al., 2021). In order to achieve a sustainable built environment and reduce CO2 emissions, many researchers have suggested the implementation of alkali-activated materials (AAMs) as they can entirely replace OPC and produce a low-carbon binder (Chougan et al., 2021). In this case, materials such as metakaolin are used as aluminosilicate cementitious binders along with activators such as potassium silicate, sodium metasilicate, and potassium hydroxide to obtain AAM binders capable of building successful 3D printed structures (Alghamdi et al., 2019). Others have suggested enhancing AAMs’ rheological properties by integrating modifying agents and additives in the mixtures like polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), nano-graphite (NG), halloysite clay minerals, and attapulgite to improve the buildability, printability, and mechanical performance of AAMs for 3D printing (Chougan et al., 2021; Chougan et al., 2022).
The application of AM is not limited to the 3D printing of cementitious composites. Aside from cementitious composites, other categories of materials, such as polymers and metals, have also been used, particularly in renovation works. With the continuous development of AM technology, the customisation of parts and components needed for particular purposes in renovation projects became possible. For instance, the production and installation of precast concrete façade sections can be particularly challenging due to their complexity and the wide variation in their configurations in different buildings. In this context, AM could enhance the quality of the produced façade sections due to its higher degree of flexibility compared to standard production methods while also minimising post-installation problems such as air and water leakages. AM can also be used to print moulds that have the ability to produce façade sections with efficient passive shading (Harris, 2022).
AM is being scaled increasingly. Big area additive manufacturing (BAAM), a 3D-printing process similar to FDM, has been developed to construct segments of cylindrical single-floored building components out of polymer materials such as neat ABS and CF-ABS (Biswas et al., 2017). In addition, robotic 3D metal printing, also known as wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM), can be used to fabricate highly tailored and engineered steel connectors for large structures in the construction sector (Xin et al., 2021).
More examples of the cementitious composites, polymer, and metal additive manufacturing technologies in building structures can be found in Table 7.1.
7.3 Benefits of Additive Manufacturing in Construction
Historically, the construction industry was characterised by high energy consumption (i.e., 40% of the global energy consumption), high solid waste production (i.e., 40% of the global waste production), high greenhouse gases emission (i.e., 38% of the global CO2 emission), and high water depletion (i.e., 12% of the global water depletion) (Comstock et al., 2012). It has an undeniably high environmental footprint. Growing public interest in sustainability highlights the necessity for novel construction techniques and materials to mitigate traditional construction’s high environmental impacts. AM technology represents one possible way for construction companies to use available resources more efficiently. In fact, one of the main advantages of AM is the minimisation of raw materials consumption, which reduces the level of waste generated during construction (Yao et al., 2020; Valente et al., 2022).
A second related advantage of AM compared to traditional construction methods is the capacity to produce complicated large-scale structures while also minimising raw materials waste by lowering or eliminating the necessity of conventional formworks (Wangler et al., 2016). The increasing use of cementitious materials (e.g., concrete) in construction, along with the high costs of formwork production, emphasises the value of additive manufacturing technologies in constructing complex structures. Furthermore, the ability to fabricate complex objects enables building structures to possess “multi-functionality” by facilitating the integration of services, including piping, insulation, and electrical setups, and offering a secondary function through its complex geometry, such as instinct thermal insulation (De Schutter et al., 2018). This may be particularly beneficial in the context of deep renovation where the number of building elements to be replaced is quite large and existing building constraints make the installation of different individual elements quite challenging. As the structure becomes more complex, AM technology becomes more advantageous. In the same way, AM may be less cost-effective and less environmentally beneficial for more “standard” designs (Labonnote & Rüther, 2017).
Finally, as AM processes remove the need for conventional energy-consuming processes and labour-intensive activities like concrete pumping and casting, shuttering, material logistics, and steel fixing, it reduces the costs of on-site assembly and construction, minimises human error, and improves productivity (Avrutis et al., 2019).
7.4 Practical Challenges for AM in the Construction Industry
Despite the benefits of AM to the construction industry, there are a series of major challenges to its implementation, which could hinder adoption. Firstly, the high cost of obtaining 3D printing equipment, as well as printers’ transportation and logistics, could arguably represent a significant obstacle to the widespread application of 3D printing technology in the construction industry. Despite the technological advantages, many construction companies are still unable to justify or afford an investment in 3D printing equipment.
Secondly, while AM technology reduces human errors and the need for workers on construction sites, finding qualified individuals to work with AM remains difficult (Deloitte, 2016). In addition, the shorter production and installation time comes at the cost of a longer design phase, which requires significantly higher effort and specialised modelling skills (Buswell et al., 2018). These labour supply problems are multifaceted. They are driven by a decline in the attractiveness of the manufacturing and construction sector, a lack of labour supply from the education sector with sufficient STEM skills and knowledge, a shortage of AM-specific training programmes, and a general lack of AM knowledge and culture in many construction and construction-related manufacturing companies (Deloitte, 2016). Where skilled labour does exist, firms may face significant upskilling, skills maintenance, and retention challenges until the AM skills and training gaps are addressed (Deloitte, 2016).
Thirdly, there is a general lack of regulation, standardisation, and testing of AM printing structures and materials. Standards in AM facilitate technology adoption, boost confidence in the quality and safety of AM processes, materials, and outputs, and support the competitiveness of AM and construction companies (MartĂnez-GarcĂa et al., 2021). While standards have been developed by a wide range of organisations, for example, the German Society of Mechanical Engineers, the ISO, and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), there would appear to be some challenges in aligning existing standards for testing the mechanical properties of more traditional materials and manufactured polymers and composites, and those generated through AM (Forster, 2015; MartĂnez-GarcĂa et al., 2021). Indeed, it is fair to say that the flexibility AM introduces in terms of design and material use complicates testing and standards. MartĂnez-GarcĂa et al. (2021) note that despite significant efforts by the ISO and ASTM, AM technology requires specific standards in all the stages of the product development, including design, materials, manufacturing, and final part.
Finally, and somewhat contradictory to the benefits presented in the previous section, the environmental impact of AM may not be entirely positive. AM is still at an early stage of development and use in the construction sector. Much AM use still involves the use of environmentally hazardous substances (e.g., cement) in considerable quantities as well as substantial equipment and non-eco-friendly manufacturing (AgustĂ-Juan & Habert, 2017; AgustĂ-Juan et al., 2017). AM units are often powered by lithium batteries and the electricity consumption throughout the fabrication process may offset the waste reduction and the other environmental benefits generated by AM (AgustĂ-Juan & Habert, 2017; AgustĂ-Juan et al., 2017).
7.5 Future Areas of Development
AM is particularly economically beneficial for large-scale building developments due to the enhanced geometrical freedom enabled by this technology. Compared to traditional construction methods, AM technology provides architecture designers the geometric freedom to create ideal complex structures while minimising the use of materials (Labonnote et al., 2016). However, while AM construction methods have been extensively adopted in real applications, there is still a lack of knowledge regarding large-scale AM. As a result, large-scale AM can be considered an escalated challenge compared to lab-scale 3D printing. Large-scale AM is typically more complicated than lab-scale 3D printing, as several practical construction challenges must be addressed. Large-scale AM involves a set of discrete technologies and thus requires consideration of a very different set of parameters, not least materials, reinforcing admixtures, economics, environmental optimisations, structural limitations, and 3D printing system design (Xiao et al., 2021). The majority of the existing studies concentrated on 3D printing of cementitious composites containing fine aggregate (i.e., mortar); however, cementitious composites with coarse aggregate (i.e., concrete) are attracting considerable interest because of their remarkable mechanical and cost-efficiency advantages (Xiao et al., 2021). Therefore, further investigation is required to determine the impact of using coarse aggregates to move towards cementitious concretes in order to fulfil the large-scale 3D printing requirements.
4D printing, a novel approach that includes a fourth dimension (i.e., time and smart behaviour), can allow 3D-printed items to transform their geometry and behaviour throughout time in response to specific conditions such as radiation, light, and temperature. The smart behaviour of 4D printing in shifting configurations for self-assembly, multi-functionality, and self-repair is a crucial breakthrough in AM technology. While 4D printing delivers all of the advantages of 3D printing, its use in the construction sector is in its infancy, posing obstacles such as a considerable need for improved computer analysis, new design concepts, structure validation, and standardisation (Pan & Zhang, 2021).
7.6 Conclusion
AM technology represents a valuable innovation in the construction sector and is gaining popularity. There are many benefits to AM, such as its potential to significantly reduce the consumption rate of raw materials, reduce the generated waste during construction, lower CO2 emissions, reduce labour costs, minimise human errors, and improve productivity. Many complex designs, at a building or part-level, that previously were considered too problematic or costly for execution on-site can be easily implemented with the help of AM technology. Widespread adoption is not without challenges. In fact, some issues still exist in relation to process, materials, geometric complexity, software and building integration, and the standards associated with these elements. In order to capitalise on the impact of AM, additional research is needed to support the better integration of this technology in the construction sector. Moreover, to enable the rapid growth of this technology, standardised testing and quality control methods should be established to improve information sharing and benchmarking. Finally, without a pipeline of qualified labour, the full potential of AM will not be realised. This will be a key challenge to overcome if the technology is to be pushed further into full-scale industrialisation.
Notes
- 1.
Chapter 1 in this book provides a detailed definition of deep renovation.
References
AgustĂ-Juan, I., & Habert, G. (2017). Environmental design guidelines for digital fabrication. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2780–2791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.190
AgustĂ-Juan, I., MĂĽller, F., Hack, N., Wangler, T., & Habert, G. (2017). Potential benefits of digital fabrication for complex structures: Environmental assessment of a robotically fabricated concrete wall. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154, 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.002
Albar, A., Chougan, M., Al-Kheetan, M. J., Swash, M. R., & Ghaffar, S. H. (2020). Effective extrusion-based 3D printing system design for cementitious-based materials. Results in Engineering, 6(April), 100135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2020.100135
Alghamdi, H., Nair, S. A. O., & Neithalath, N. (2019). Insights into material design, extrusion rheology, and properties of 3D- printable alkali-activated fly ash-based binders. Materials & Design, 167, 107634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107634
Avrutis, D., Nazari, A., & Sanjayan, J. G. (2019). Industrial adoption of 3D concrete printing in the Australian market. In 3D concrete printing technology. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-815481-6.00019-1
Biswas, K., Rose, J., Eikevik, L., Guerguis, M., Enquist, P., Lee, B., Love, L., Green, J., & Jackson, R. (2017). Additive manufacturing integrated energy-enabling innovative solutions for buildings of the future. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, Transactions of the ASME, 139(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034980
Buswell, R. A., De Silva, W. R. L., Jones, S. Z., & Dirrenberger, J. (2018). Cement and Concrete Research 3D printing using concrete extrusion: A roadmap for research. Cement and Concrete Research, 112(May), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.05.006
Chougan, M., Ghaffar, S. H., Nematollahi, B., Sikora, P., Dorn, T., Stephan, D., Albar, A., & Al-Kheetan, M. J. (2022). Effect of natural and calcined halloysite clay minerals as low-cost additives on the performance of 3D-printed alkali-activated materials. Materials and Design, 223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2022.111183
Chougan, M., Ghaffar, S. H., Sikora, P., Chung, S. Y., Rucinska, T., Stephan, D., Albar, A., & Swash, M. R. (2021). Investigation of additive incorporation on rheological, microstructural and mechanical properties of 3D printable alkali-activated materials. Materials and Design, 202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109574
Chougan, M., Hamidreza Ghaffar, S., Jahanzat, M., Albar, A., Mujaddedi, N., & Swash, R. (2020). The influence of nano-additives in strengthening mechanical performance of 3D printed multi-binder geopolymer composites. Construction and Building Materials, 250, 118928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118928
Comstock, M., Garrigan, S., Pouffary, T. D., & Feraudy, J. (2012). Building design and construction: Forging resource efficiency and sustainable development. https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/cities/sustainable-buildings
Cuevas, K., Chougan, M., Martin, F., Ghaffar, S. H., Stephan, D., & Sikora, P. (2021). 3D printable lightweight cementitious composites with incorporated waste glass aggregates and expanded microspheres—Rheological, thermal and mechanical properties. Journal of Building Engineering, 44(February). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102718
De Schutter, G., Lesage, K., Mechtcherine, V., Nerella, V. N., Habert, G., & Agusti-Juan, I. (2018). Vision of 3D printing with concrete—Technical, economic and environmental potentials. Cement and Concrete Research, 112(November 2017), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.06.001
Deloitte. (2016). 3D opportunity for the talent gap—Additive manufacturing and the workforce of the future. Deloitte University Press. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/3d-printing-talent-gap-workforce-development/ER_3062-3D-opportunity-workforce_MASTER.pdf
Feng, L., & Yuhong, L. (2014). Study on the status quo and problems of 3D printed buildings in China. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 14(5), 1–4.
Forster, A. M. (2015). Materials testing standards for additive manufacturing of polymer materials: State of the art and standards applicability. NIST.
Galjaard, S., Hofman, S., & Ren, S. (2015). New opportunities to optimize structural designs in metal by using additive manufacturing. In Advances in architectural geometry 2014 (pp. 79–93). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11418-7_6
Gardiner, J. B., Janssen, S., & Kirchner, N. (2016). A realisation of a construction scale robotic system for 3D printing of complex formwork. In ISARC 2016—33rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC) (pp. 515–521). The International Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction. https://doi.org/10.22260/isarc2016/0062
Guo, N., & Leu, M. C. (2013). Additive manufacturing: Technology, applications and research needs. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 8(3), 215–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-013-0248-8
Harris, C. (2022). Pathway to zero energy windows: Advancing technologies and market adoption. April.
Hull, C. W. (1984). Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by stereolithography. United States Patent, Appl., No. 638905, Filed.
Joosten, S. K. (2015). Printing a stainless steel bridge: An exploration of structural properties of stainless steel additive manufactures for civil engineering purposes. Structural Engineering. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:b4286867-9c1c-40c1-a738-cf28dd7b6de5?collection=education
Keating, S., Spielberg, N. A., Klein, J., & Oxman, N. (2014). A compound arm approach to digital construction. In Robotic fabrication in architecture, art and design. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04663-1_7
Labonnote, N., & Rüther, P. (2017). Additive manufacturing: An opportunity for functional and sustainable constructions. In Challenges for technology innovation: An agenda for the future—Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Smart Manufacturing, S2M 2016, September (pp. 201–206). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315198101-41
Labonnote, N., Rønnquist, A., Manum, B., & Rüther, P. (2016). Additive construction: State-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities. Automation in Construction, 72, 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.026
Love, L. J. (2015). Utility of Big Area Additive Manufacturing (BAAM) for the rapid manufacture of customized electric vehicles. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Manufacturing Demonstration Facility (MDF). https://doi.org/10.2172/1209199
Lyu, F., Zhao, D., Hou, X., Sun, L., & Zhang, Q. (2021). Overview of the development of 3D-printing concrete: A review. Applied Sciences, 11(21), 9822. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11219822
Mart, A., Garc, R., Muñoz-sanguinetti, C., Felipe, L., & Auat-cheein, F. (2022). Recent developments and challenges of 3D-printed construction: A review of research fronts. Buildings, 12(2), 229. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12020229
MartĂnez-GarcĂa, A., MonzĂłn, M., & Paz, R. (2021). Standards for additive manufacturing technologies: Structure and impact. In Additive manufacturing (pp. 395–408). Elsevier.
Mrazovic, N. (2016). Feasibility study to 3D print a full scale curtain wall frame as a single element. http://cife.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/FeasibilityStudy3DPrinting4Permasteelisa.pdf
Pan, Y., & Zhang, L. (2021). Roles of artificial intelligence in construction engineering and management: A critical review and future trends. Automation in Construction, 122(November 2020), 103517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103517
Paolini, A., Kollmannsberger, S., & Rank, E. (2019). Additive manufacturing in construction: A review on processes, applications, and digital planning methods. Additive Manufacturing, 30(July), 100894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100894
Pawar, D., & Rohit Sawant, O. S. (2020). 3D concrete printing market by printing type (gantry system and robotic arm), technique (extrusion-based and powder-based), and end-use sector (residential, commercial, and infrastructure): Global opportunity analysis and industry forecast, 2020–2027. https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/3d-concrete-printing-market
Strauss, H., & Knaack, U. (2015). Additive manufacturing for future facades: The potential of 3D printed parts for the building envelope. Journal of Facade Design and Engineering, 3(3–4), 225–235.
Technology, B. (2017). Cellular fabrication. http://www.branch.technology
Valente, M., Sambucci, M., Chougan, M., & Ghaffar, S. H. (2022). Reducing the emission of climate-altering substances in cementitious materials: A comparison between alkali-activated materials and Portland cement-based composites incorporating recycled tire rubber. Journal of Cleaner Production, 333(November 2021), 130013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130013
Wangler, T., Lloret, E., Reiter, L., Hack, N., Gramazio, F., Kohler, M., Bernhard, M., Dillenburger, B., Buchli, J., Roussel, N., & Flatt, R. (2016). Digital concrete: Opportunities and challenges. RILEM Technical Letters, 1(November), 67. https://doi.org/10.21809/rilemtechlett.2016.16
Wong, K. V., & Hernandez, A. (2012). A review of additive manufacturing. ISRN Mechanical Engineering, 2012, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/208760
Xiao, J., Ji, G., Zhang, Y., Ma, G., Mechtcherine, V., Pan, J., Wang, L., Ding, T., Duan, Z., & Du, S. (2021). Large-scale 3D printing concrete technology: Current status and future opportunities. Cement and Concrete Composites, 122(December 2020), 104115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104115
Xin, H., Tarus, I., Cheng, L., Veljkovic, M., Persem, N., & Lorich, L. (2021, December). Experiments and numerical simulation of wire and arc additive manufactured steel materials. In Structures (vol. 34, pp. 1393–1402). Elsevier.
Yao, Y., Hu, M., Di Maio, F., & Cucurachi, S. (2020). Life cycle assessment of 3D printing geo-polymer concrete: An ex-ante study. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24(1), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12930
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chougan, M., Al-Kheetan, M.J., Ghaffar, S.H. (2023). Additive Manufacturing and the Construction Industry. In: Lynn, T., Rosati, P., Kassem, M., Krinidis, S., Kennedy, J. (eds) Disrupting Buildings. Palgrave Studies in Digital Business & Enabling Technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32309-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32309-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-32308-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-32309-6
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)