News 3D-printed homes tested against earthquakes for the first time — 'Dramatic leap forward' hailed for potential use in earthquake-prone countries

Yeah, the vectors for quakes aren't just horizontal oscillations. This paper does a better job explaining it. Plenty of energy and motion on the vertical axis. Proximity to and depth of the epicenter creates that fluctuation. I question this because purpose-built structures for research aren't going to be even close to real-world development as concrete consistency will vary since the 'pour' is continuous. These structures don't use rebar and instead rely on the mix-in fiberglass which is garbage. My 2.5 year old patio pour is clear evidence of that.
 
These structures don't use rebar and instead rely on the mix-in fiberglass which is garbage. My 2.5 year old patio pour is clear evidence of that.
When you say "These structures" are you referring to 3D printed buildings? There is rebar tying the whole structure together on every layer. Steel reinforcements don't pop out of a bag of premix or a concrete truck either, so arguing that the mix is inferior is a bit null, isn't it? Whether it's poured out of a truck or poured out of a print head, it still requires reinforcement and sound building practices.

I don't know how the test will fare, but it will be interesting to see the results. Meanwhile, I see a lot of negativities toward additive construction and it's almost always due to misinformation or assumptions that don't match reality.
 
Last edited:
What I want to know is how practical 3D printing is when a building needs to be repaired or improved upon. For those circumstances is it necessary to get a 3D printer back to the building?
 
Yeah, the vectors for quakes aren't just horizontal oscillations. This paper does a better job explaining it. Plenty of energy and motion on the vertical axis. Proximity to and depth of the epicenter creates that fluctuation. I question this because purpose-built structures for research aren't going to be even close to real-world development as concrete consistency will vary since the 'pour' is continuous. These structures don't use rebar and instead rely on the mix-in fiberglass which is garbage. My 2.5 year old patio pour is clear evidence of that.
Some of them do have rebar in the walls.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PrCzW5tdV8
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jabberwocky79
What I want to know is how practical 3D printing is when a building needs to be repaired or improved upon. For those circumstances is it necessary to get a 3D printer back to the building?
That's a good question. The technology is too new to be able to answer that definitively. Time will tell. I would imagine that every circumstance will be different. If someone wanted a new addition to their home? Sure, they would need to set up a printer again if they wanted it to match. But there's nothing to say you HAVE to have the entire building printed. Most 3D printed buildings are still using conventional roofs and second floors. Additionally, not all 3D printed buildings stick with the raw appearance. Many are plastered smooth, and in such a case a new addition wouldn't look any different, regardless of the underpinnings.
 
When you say "These structures" are you referring to 3D printed buildings? There is rebar tying the whole structure together on every layer. Steel reinforcements don't pop out of a bag of premix or a concrete truck either, so arguing that the mix is inferior is a bit null, isn't it? Whether it's poured out of a truck or poured out of a print head, it still requires reinforcement and sound building practices.

I don't know how the test will fare, but it will be interesting to see the results. Meanwhile, I see a lot of negativities toward additive construction and it's almost always due to misinformation or assumptions that don't match reality.
The printed (concrete pumped in a thin stream like any 3D printer) uses no vertical rebar support. It does use framing to support overhangs in windows and doors. Watch it yourself
 
The printed (concrete pumped in a thin stream like any 3D printer) uses no vertical rebar support. It does use framing to support overhangs in windows and doors. Watch it yourself
I've seen such videos many times, as I am a 3D printed construction enthusiast. Which is also why I took issue with your comment regarding the quality of the mix and lack of rebar. While it would be false to claim that every single 3D printed building is constructed the same way, the majority of them are tying an inner and outer wall together with horizontal reinforcement, and vertical reinforcement at the corners, pouring a solid inner column at those key locations. It's fine if people (maybe yourself?) don't like the idea of 3D printed construction, I just think it does the technology a disservice to make inaccurate, generalized statements. Don't worry, I do the exact same thing about other stuff, and I get called out for it as well. It was just your turn today 🤓

Maybe they do earthquake testing and find out it has been a horrible idea, maybe not. But let's not act like these buildings have the consistency of spaghetti held together with Elmer's glue. This tech has been in development for well over a decade with manufacturing and supply chains in place, and many proof-positive real-world examples currently in use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bfbenn