Next Big Future: Caterpillar Inc. Funds Viterbi 'Print-a-House' Contour Crafting Technology
jimmoore
· 1 year ago
Hey Brain, Tom Craver and others familiar with the idea of using nano-blocks to fabricate artifacts,
This set up is almost right, but instead of extruding concrete place pre-made building blocks that lock into place.
So the on site set up would look like this: You have prepared the site and have set up the giant 3-D plotter framework. An 18 wheeler pulls up and you unload bunch of skids that are numbered on the front. You bring the skids over to a robot (or worker?) that picks up blocks from the stack (in a systematic fashion) and loads them on to a conveyor belt one at a time. The blocks snake around the 3D plotter to the point of addition. At that point another robot (or worker?) takes the block from the conveyor and adds it to the building. Each block should have an edge length of about ~10 cm for easy handling yet rapid construction.
With blocks you get the same or more likely faster construction, wider use of materials, better thermal and structural properties, the potential for a nearly finished interior (run the pluming and electrical) and exterior (add doors) all in one pass. The buildings could be designed with disassembly in mind and blocks reused in new buildings.
The factories would be responsible for organizing the blocks on skids. Making sure that every block is on the right layer, in the right location with the right orientation. Probably there will only be a few types of blocks necessary for most construction although it is very likely the factory would also customize the appearance and texture of the sections of the blocks that will be visible when the building is complete.
One step back and you have a computer that turns an architecture design into a stream of instructions for the factory to follow .
This should be very doable with todays technology.
dennisk
· 1 year ago
jimmoore,
I that your modular component model is the more elegant from an engineering perspective, but I think the print paradigm is a superior commercial solution due to the HUGE value of logistic simplicity.
nextbigfuture
· 1 year ago
the cubes building bock is an interesting idea.
I am not sure that the 10cm cube method would be superior to the concrete extrusion/contour crafting method. There are already pre-fabrication of panels (sections of walls) that are assembled on site and there are prefabricated buildings that are built in sections suitable for movement by 18 wheelers. What is not pre-fabricated is the foundation. Making a system that is more easily fully automated on site is good but panelized systems could be adapted for on-site robotic assembly. Nanoblocks are a system architecture that addresses reduction of the total freedom of molecular nanotechnology for prevention of dangerous designs. Also, there is the difficulty in handling the smallest molecules while nanoblocks are easier to handle. The case is less clear with 10cm blocks versus concrete versus panels or pre-built sections as to what is the optimum size.
The dis-assembly and re-use feature is interesting. The strength of block attachments and having them fit to be airtight and watertight (for plumbing sections) would be needed.
Organizing the blocks is helpful but would also have bar code labelling to ensure quality control and verification of component.
jamescfield
· 1 year ago
What about the rebar (concrete reinforcing rods)? The fragility of plain concrete or other common -compressive strong materials- under earthquake or other vibration intensive conditions restrict the usefulness of this technique.
There is, however, a fascinating possibility for this technology in other places: Mars or the Moon!
Mars-Direct and similar proposals avoid the mass burden of shipping return fuel to the destination and utilize local materials (atmosphere) and some kind of energy source (solar? nuclear?) to manufacture fuel at the remote destination thus enabling a cheaper return and a greater chance of success due to already established resources at the remote site.
Instead of shipping complete habitats to Mars or the Moon a basic shell, providing radiation shielding and a pressure hull, could be constructed from previously surveyed surface materials in situ by a robotic constructor similar to the described concrete-jet.
Note Well: neither Mars or the Moon have significant seismic activity, unlike Japan and parts of the USA
Contour crafting is currently printing 6 foot walls. The Caterpillar inc funding will help to get the process to buildings. It will not be large scale for a few more years and it will take quite a while to scale up even with Caterpillar support. The construction industry is a big one and a lot of companies and workers are comfortable with existing methods.
lehenryjr
· 4 months ago
I think this is a fantastic idea. Best deployed in track lands, but probably wouldn't be applicable in mountainous terrain. Would also result in the instant and quality neighborhoods for low income or resource challenged countries. I look to see this to be used very soon.
All Comments
This set up is almost right, but instead of extruding concrete place pre-made building blocks that lock into place.
So the on site set up would look like this:
You have prepared the site and have set up the giant 3-D plotter framework. An 18 wheeler pulls up and you unload bunch of skids that are numbered on the front. You bring the skids over to a robot (or worker?) that picks up blocks from the stack (in a systematic fashion) and loads them on to a conveyor belt one at a time. The blocks snake around the 3D plotter to the point of addition. At that point another robot (or worker?) takes the block from the conveyor and adds it to the building. Each block should have an edge length of about ~10 cm for easy handling yet rapid construction.
With blocks you get the same or more likely faster construction, wider use of materials, better thermal and structural properties, the potential for a nearly finished interior (run the pluming and electrical) and exterior (add doors) all in one pass. The buildings could be designed with disassembly in mind and blocks reused in new buildings.
The factories would be responsible for organizing the blocks on skids. Making sure that every block is on the right layer, in the right location with the right orientation. Probably there will only be a few types of blocks necessary for most construction although it is very likely the factory would also customize the appearance and texture of the sections of the blocks that will be visible when the building is complete.
One step back and you have a computer that turns an architecture design into a stream of instructions for the factory to follow .
This should be very doable with todays technology.
I that your modular component model is the more elegant from an engineering perspective, but I think the print paradigm is a superior commercial solution due to the HUGE value of logistic simplicity.
I am not sure that the 10cm cube method would be superior to the concrete extrusion/contour crafting method. There are already pre-fabrication of panels (sections of walls) that are assembled on site and there are prefabricated buildings that are built in sections suitable for movement by 18 wheelers. What is not pre-fabricated is the foundation. Making a system that is more easily fully automated on site is good but panelized systems could be adapted for on-site robotic assembly. Nanoblocks are a system architecture that addresses reduction of the total freedom of molecular nanotechnology for prevention of dangerous designs. Also, there is the difficulty in handling the smallest molecules while nanoblocks are easier to handle. The case is less clear with 10cm blocks versus concrete versus panels or pre-built sections as to what is the optimum size.
The dis-assembly and re-use feature is interesting. The strength of block attachments and having them fit to be airtight and watertight (for plumbing sections) would be needed.
Organizing the blocks is helpful but would also have bar code labelling to ensure quality control and verification of component.
There is, however, a fascinating possibility for this technology in other places: Mars or the Moon!
Mars-Direct and similar proposals avoid the mass burden of shipping return fuel to the destination and utilize local materials (atmosphere) and some kind of energy source (solar? nuclear?) to manufacture fuel at the remote destination thus enabling a cheaper return and a greater chance of success due to already established resources at the remote site.
Instead of shipping complete habitats to Mars or the Moon a basic shell, providing radiation shielding and a pressure hull, could be constructed from previously surveyed surface materials in situ by a robotic constructor similar to the described concrete-jet.
Note Well: neither Mars or the Moon have significant seismic activity, unlike Japan and parts of the USA
JCF
Contour crafting is currently printing 6 foot walls. The Caterpillar inc funding will help to get the process to buildings. It will not be large scale for a few more years and it will take quite a while to scale up even with Caterpillar support. The construction industry is a big one and a lot of companies and workers are comfortable with existing methods.
Fantastic innovation.
Thanks,
L. Henry Jr.
http://www.lehsys.com