This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) This material is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user. Haghighat Khajavi, Siavash; Tetik, Müge; Mohite, Ashish; Peltokorpi, Antti; Li, Minyang; Weng, Yiwei ; Holmström, Jan Additive Manufacturing in the Construction Industry: The Comparative Competitiveness of 3D Concrete Printing Published in: APPLIED SCIENCES DOI: 10.3390/app11093865 Published: 01/05/2021 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published under the following license: CC BY Please cite the original version: Haghighat Khajavi, S., Tetik, M., Mohite, A., Peltokorpi, A., Li, M., Weng, Y., & Holmström, J. (2021). Additive Manufacturing in the Construction Industry: The Comparative Competitiveness of 3D Concrete Printing. APPLIED SCIENCES, 11(9), [3865]. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11093865
Additive Manufacturing in the Construction Industry: The Comparative Competitiveness of 3D Concrete Printing
Apr 07, 2023
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Additive Manufacturing in the Construction Industry: The Comparative Competitiveness of 3D Concrete PrintingThis is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
This material is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user.
Haghighat Khajavi, Siavash; Tetik, Müge; Mohite, Ashish; Peltokorpi, Antti; Li, Minyang; Weng, Yiwei ; Holmström, Jan Additive Manufacturing in the Construction Industry: The Comparative Competitiveness of 3D Concrete Printing
Published in: APPLIED SCIENCES
Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Published under the following license: CC BY
Please cite the original version: Haghighat Khajavi, S., Tetik, M., Mohite, A., Peltokorpi, A., Li, M., Weng, Y., & Holmström, J. (2021). Additive Manufacturing in the Construction Industry: The Comparative Competitiveness of 3D Concrete Printing. APPLIED SCIENCES, 11(9), [3865]. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11093865
Additive Manufacturing in the Construction Industry: The Comparative Competitiveness of 3D Concrete Printing
Siavash H. Khajavi 1,* , Müge Tetik 2, Ashish Mohite 3, Antti Peltokorpi 2 , Mingyang Li 4, Yiwei Weng 4
and Jan Holmström 1
Mohite, A.; Peltokorpi, A.; Li, M.;
Weng, Y.; Holmström, J. Additive
Manufacturing in the Construction
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11093865
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1 Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University, 00076 Aalto, Finland; [email protected]
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Aalto University, 00076 Aalto, Finland; [email protected] (M.T.); [email protected] (A.P.)
3 Department of Architecture, Aalto University, 00076 Aalto, Finland; [email protected] 4 Singapore Center for 3D printing, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore;
[email protected] (M.L.); [email protected] (Y.W.) * Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: The construction industry is facing increasing pressure to improve productivity and decrease its environmental impact. Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies, especially three- dimensional concrete printing (3DCP) technology, have provided many benefits for construction. However, holistic comparative studies of the competitiveness of 3DCP and conventional methods, from cost and time perspectives, are lacking. Choosing between the methods is difficult for practi- tioners. In this study, we investigated the current state of 3DCP in the construction industry using seven distinct scenarios. Our analysis was performed to illustrate the impact of design and supply chain configurations on performance. The results prove the notable competitiveness of 3DCP. In contrast to the conventional construction method, the more complex round design had a positive impact on the cost and process time in 3DCP scenarios. Additionally, we show that on-site 3DCP using a robotic arm was more cost-effective than off-site 3DCP.
Keywords: 3D concrete printing; additive manufacturing; supply chain configurations; process mapping
1. Introduction
The construction industry is estimated to comprise 13% of the global GDP and has been growing at a rate of 6% over the last five years due to rapid urbanization in countries such as China [1]. Due to the enormous size of the construction industry, its economic and environmental impact cannot be disregarded. In other words, even a modest improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the construction industry can have significant implica- tions for the global economy and the world population. Digital transformation might hold the key to such necessary change in the construction industry. While various aspects of human life have been transformed by digitalization during the last 30 years, and industries have been overhauled through digital transformations or even replaced by their digital versions (e.g., the retail and travel industries), the construction industry is known to be lagging behind most other modern industries in terms of digitalization and productivity improvements [2]. The industry has not yet experienced a sizable digital disruption, unlike many other industries.
Three-dimensional printing, also known as additive manufacturing (AM), contributes to digital transformation in the manufacturing sector. AM produces components directly from a digital design file and prints the special raw material layer by layer. Nowadays, AM technology is explored intensively in the construction industry, since it allows designs to be developed and manufactured rapidly [3]. It can also shorten supply chains in the construction industry by autonomously manufacturing components directly from a digital
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11093865 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 2 of 24
design model with the least possible human intervention [4]. Regarding concrete structures, 3D printing technology enables concrete to be printed at a desired location and at a desired speed, by pumping the concrete toward the printing head [5].
Since 3D printing technology is advancing and making it possible to print complex and large structures such as two-story houses [6] and five-story apartments [7], it is important to investigate the cost and sustainability aspects of 3D concrete printing (3DCP) technology. The construction industry is one of the most inefficient industries; hence, 3D printing technology may disrupt the construction industry operationally and economically. Prior research has shown that complex large-scale structures can be produced via 3DCP technology, and besides introducing automation, the technology can have social and design flexibility benefits [8]. The 3DCP technology offers design freedom, allowing designers to produce flexible designs [9]. Theoretically, 3D printing should allow for any shape to be printed [10] and it has the potential to change the effect of design and supply chain configurations on cost performance. Traditional construction methods have supported the use of standardized design solutions and industrialized prefabrication, but little empirical research has examined how 3D concrete printing might change these relationships.
The typical division of construction into industrialized prefabrication and on-site operations is still relevant for 3D concrete printing, even though AM originally facilitated local on-site production. Moreover, 3DCP can be performed on the production site while the robotic printer and the concrete pump are being transported to the site and installed for printing, which we call on-site printing. Printing can be performed in factories, and the produced components can be shipped to the construction site for assembly. Thus, multiple design and supply chain configurations are possible for 3DCP, and empirical research is needed regarding the cost and time effects of these different supply chain configurations.
The objective of this study was to compare the performance of conventional con- struction methods with that of 3DCP technology for different design solutions and supply chain configurations. We investigated the competitiveness of concrete printing in terms of cost and completion time to determine the optimal design solutions and supply chain configurations. The study contributes to the existing knowledge about concrete printing technology and the feasibility of its application for housing projects.
2. Literature Review 2.1. Evolution of Production and Design Methods in the Construction Industry
Humanity has engaged in construction since the beginning of history. Construction has evolved through the ages and by the discovery of new materials, means, and methods up to the modern age. During pre-industrial times, labor was the major factor in con- struction. During the 1900s, a transformation took place, from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy in which coal, steel, and construction businesses gained more importance [11]. The industry finally adopted more mechanized approaches that led to a mature form of technological thinking [12].
Regarding concrete construction methods, reinforced concrete was invented during the second half of the nineteenth century. The main driver for its development was the need for economic and fireproof building materials. The development of modern cement and steel during the first half of the nineteenth century made this invention possible [13]. In 1885, the first skyscraper was built in Chicago, which was the first metal-framed building in history [14]. In 1889, the Eiffel Tower was built by Gustave Eiffel and Maurice Koechlin to demonstrate the potential of iron for building structures [15]. Thus, it can be said that innovation in construction was more technology-driven than market-driven [16].
In 1973, the Sydney Opera House was built by structural engineers using computa- tional analysis software for the first time [17], which was estimated to save 10 years of human work. In the early 2000s, building information modeling (BIM) was introduced to replace CAD solutions, impacting all aspects of building design and development processes [18].
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 3 of 24
Since the end of the 1980s, some supply chain management developments have been introduced in the construction industry [19], and studies have attempted to integrate the construction supply chain with construction processes [20]. Recently, the role of logistics has become a major concern for construction industry managers [21].
2.2. Construction Supply Chain Configurations: On-Site and Off-Site
Two distinguishable supply chain configurations can be used to supply the final product to customers: a centralized configuration and a distributed configuration [22]. In a centralized configuration, products are produced at a single location, and the raw material is supplied to that location by the suppliers. The end product is then shipped from that single location to all the customers around the world. In the case of construction, the product (i.e., a building) is constructed from components that are prefabricated by a supplier in a central factory. The supplied prefabricated components are then assembled on the site, and finishing work is performed on them to complete the building.
The distributed supply chain concept refers to production facilities located near the points of consumption [23]. In this case, multiple factories in different geographical locations produce products near their points of use. In the case of the construction industry, on-site construction represents a decentralized supply chain, with all the components for production delivered to the production site. The construction and assembly then take place at the production site and are completed with finishing tasks. On-site printing is an example of a decentralized supply chain for construction, since the concrete printer is transported to the construction site and moved around the site as required until the construction is complete.
During the first wave of industrial automation, around the 1980s, the first prefabricated concrete and masonry elements and modules were developed [24]. Prefabrication means assembling building components in a factory or a special facility and then transporting the partially or completely assembled structures to the building location [25]. Prefabrica- tion contributes to standardization and labor reductions [26]. However, it requires extra engineering effort during the design phase and greater initial investment [27]. Moreover, design is limited to combining a set of prefabricated elements.
2.3. Additive Manufacturing and Application for Construction
Additive manufacturing (AM) was invented in the 1980s as a polymer prototyping method. In contrast to conventional manufacturing (CM) methods such as computer numerical control (CNC), AM creates the part geometry using a layer-by-layer process that adds material, rather than subtracting it. Additionally, AM differs from CM forming methods because it is tool-independent, and this makes the AM process much faster than tool-based conventional manufacturing processes for the first part of a production run. Being a toolless process, economies of scale only apply to AM parts until the production chamber is full; thereafter, the cost per part remains constant independently of the pro- duction volume. New sorts of structures with dimensional accuracy and evaluation of the morphologies of the structures are possible through 3DCP [28]. Using a concrete mix that satisfies several design and operational constraints, 3D concrete printing can be used without the use of formwork [29].
AM provides construction opportunities such as design flexibility [30,31], automation possibilities [32], digitalization [33], and high precision [34]. Studies have shown that novel shapes can be manufactured via large-scale 3D printing [35]. Using 3D printing for construction reduces the required labor, capital investment, and formwork [36] compared to traditional construction.
Figure 1 shows the generic components of an AM machine used for construction. The main components are the six-axis robotic arm, which moves the concrete nozzle used for printing; the concrete mixer and concrete pump, which feed the concrete to the nozzle; and the robotic arm control unit.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 4 of 24
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 4 of 24
printing; the concrete mixer and concrete pump, which feed the concrete to the nozzle; and the robotic arm control unit.
Figure 1. Components of an AM robotic arm for concrete printing.
2.4. Gaps in the Existing Knowledge Previous research has focused on the use of concrete printing for volume production.
Three-dimensional printing for construction applications has demonstrated its benefits, such as for one-story house printing in a day in China [37] and a canal house in Amsterdam [38]. Regarding performance, previous studies have focused on the quality of 3D concrete printing materials and environmental benefits [39,40]; job variability due to combining con- ventional construction techniques with 3D concrete printing [41]; different particle-bed 3D printing techniques for construction [42]; and various materials, opportunities, and chal- lenges [43]. Prior research claimed a roughly 25% cost reduction for prefabricated bathroom units achieved via 3DCP compared to prefabricated construction methods [44]. However, few articles [1,45,46] have studied the competitiveness of 3D concrete printing for complete house models in terms of cost and completion time compared to traditional construction methods. Moreover, there is a lack of research regarding the cost and time competitiveness of different design options (e.g., rounded or rectangular geometries) and 3D printing supply chain strategies, such as on-site and off-site concrete printing. The current research question is as follows: how feasible are different design solutions and supply chain configurations for concrete printing compared to conventional construction methods?
3. Methodology A deductive case study method using scenario analysis was selected for this study.
Futures studies is a new field of social inquiry aiming at the systematic study of the future, exploring alternative futures to create the most desirable future [47]. Since the scenario analysis method is suitable for futures studies [48], it is suitable for the emerging field of AM for construction, also known as three-dimensional concrete printing (3DCP). Two dif- ferent designs (round and rectangular) for urban residential buildings were utilized for the analysis (Table 1). The rectangular design represented a typical design solution for conventional in situ concrete work using molds, whereas the round design represented a more flexible design option. The area size of both building designs was approximately 40 m2. We assumed the scope of the project to be 100 buildings in each scenario (unit of anal- ysis). Seven scenarios were studied in total. Three scenarios for round house design and four scenarios for rectangular house design were defined, which differed in the method of construction (3DCP or conventional method) and the supply chain configuration for
Figure 1. Components of an AM robotic arm for concrete printing.
2.4. Gaps in the Existing Knowledge
Previous research has focused on the use of concrete printing for volume production. Three-dimensional printing for construction applications has demonstrated its benefits, such as for one-story house printing in a day in China [37] and a canal house in Ams- terdam [38]. Regarding performance, previous studies have focused on the quality of 3D concrete printing materials and environmental benefits [39,40]; job variability due to combining conventional construction techniques with 3D concrete printing [41]; different particle-bed 3D printing techniques for construction [42]; and various materials, oppor- tunities, and challenges [43]. Prior research claimed a roughly 25% cost reduction for prefabricated bathroom units achieved via 3DCP compared to prefabricated construction methods [44]. However, few articles [1,45,46] have studied the competitiveness of 3D con- crete printing for complete house models in terms of cost and completion time compared to traditional construction methods. Moreover, there is a lack of research regarding the cost and time competitiveness of different design options (e.g., rounded or rectangular geometries) and 3D printing supply chain strategies, such as on-site and off-site concrete printing. The current research question is as follows: how feasible are different design solutions and supply chain configurations for concrete printing compared to conventional construction methods?
3. Methodology
A deductive case study method using scenario analysis was selected for this study. Futures studies is a new field of social inquiry aiming at the systematic study of the future, exploring alternative futures to create the most desirable future [47]. Since the scenario analysis method is suitable for futures studies [48], it is suitable for the emerging field of AM for construction, also known as three-dimensional concrete printing (3DCP). Two different designs (round and rectangular) for urban residential buildings were utilized for the analysis (Table 1). The rectangular design represented a typical design solution for conventional in situ concrete work using molds, whereas the round design represented a more flexible design option. The area size of both building designs was approximately 40 m2. We assumed the scope of the project to be 100 buildings in each scenario (unit of analysis). Seven scenarios were studied in total. Three scenarios for round house design and four scenarios for rectangular house design were defined, which differed in the method of construction (3DCP or conventional method) and the supply chain configuration for the construction project (on-site or off-site). One scenario was omitted due to the obvious
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 5 of 24
disadvantages and impracticality of using the conventional method to construct the round house off-site. More information regarding the architectural design of the buildings is provided in Table A1 of Appendix A.
Table 1. Seven distinct scenarios for the research analysis and their designated names.
Technologies
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 5 of 24
the construction project (on-site or off-site). One scenario was omitted due to the obvious disadvantages and impracticality of using the conventional method to construct the round house off-site. More information regarding the architectural design of the buildings is pro- vided in Table A1 of Appendix A.
Table 1. Seven distinct scenarios for the research analysis and their designated names.
Technologies
3DCP Conventional construction
house: ONP-RND)
house: ONC-RND)
house: OFP-RND)
rectangular house: ONP- RECT)
Scenario 6 (On-site conventional
Off-site
rectangular house: OFP- RECT)
Scenario 7 1 (Off-site conventional
construction of rectangular house: OFC-RECT)
1. Scenario is not fully comparable to others, since the numbers include the profit margin of the prefabrication company.
The focus of this study was on the variable parts of the construction process for the concrete walls of the two designs, and the other components, such as the foundation work and roof construction, and exterior and interior components, such as doors, windows, and kitchen components, were ignored because they cost the same for both projects. In other words, our analysis compared the cost and completion times of different scenarios for the construction of concrete exterior and interior walls. For more detailed information related to the house design, dimensions, material used for the construction, and the 3DCP ma- chine specification, refer to Appendix A.
The starting point of the project was deemed to be when the structural design of the building was ready, and the end point was the end of the concrete wall construction and the transportation of the equipment off the site. We assumed that the remaining steps to project completion were identical. The justification for this scope was that the main capa- bility of 3DCP at this point was for the construction of wall sections.
Figure 2 shows the simulation of the model and how the printed wall components could be transported for the off-site scenarios. These constraints were considered when calculating the transportation costs.
Supply chain configuration 3DCP Conventional construction
On-site Scenario 1
Scenario 3 (On-site conventional
Off-site Scenario 2
-
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 5 of 24
the construction project (on-site or off-site). One scenario was omitted due to the obvious disadvantages and impracticality of using the…
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
This material is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user.
Haghighat Khajavi, Siavash; Tetik, Müge; Mohite, Ashish; Peltokorpi, Antti; Li, Minyang; Weng, Yiwei ; Holmström, Jan Additive Manufacturing in the Construction Industry: The Comparative Competitiveness of 3D Concrete Printing
Published in: APPLIED SCIENCES
Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Published under the following license: CC BY
Please cite the original version: Haghighat Khajavi, S., Tetik, M., Mohite, A., Peltokorpi, A., Li, M., Weng, Y., & Holmström, J. (2021). Additive Manufacturing in the Construction Industry: The Comparative Competitiveness of 3D Concrete Printing. APPLIED SCIENCES, 11(9), [3865]. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11093865
Additive Manufacturing in the Construction Industry: The Comparative Competitiveness of 3D Concrete Printing
Siavash H. Khajavi 1,* , Müge Tetik 2, Ashish Mohite 3, Antti Peltokorpi 2 , Mingyang Li 4, Yiwei Weng 4
and Jan Holmström 1
Mohite, A.; Peltokorpi, A.; Li, M.;
Weng, Y.; Holmström, J. Additive
Manufacturing in the Construction
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11093865
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1 Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University, 00076 Aalto, Finland; [email protected]
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Aalto University, 00076 Aalto, Finland; [email protected] (M.T.); [email protected] (A.P.)
3 Department of Architecture, Aalto University, 00076 Aalto, Finland; [email protected] 4 Singapore Center for 3D printing, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore;
[email protected] (M.L.); [email protected] (Y.W.) * Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: The construction industry is facing increasing pressure to improve productivity and decrease its environmental impact. Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies, especially three- dimensional concrete printing (3DCP) technology, have provided many benefits for construction. However, holistic comparative studies of the competitiveness of 3DCP and conventional methods, from cost and time perspectives, are lacking. Choosing between the methods is difficult for practi- tioners. In this study, we investigated the current state of 3DCP in the construction industry using seven distinct scenarios. Our analysis was performed to illustrate the impact of design and supply chain configurations on performance. The results prove the notable competitiveness of 3DCP. In contrast to the conventional construction method, the more complex round design had a positive impact on the cost and process time in 3DCP scenarios. Additionally, we show that on-site 3DCP using a robotic arm was more cost-effective than off-site 3DCP.
Keywords: 3D concrete printing; additive manufacturing; supply chain configurations; process mapping
1. Introduction
The construction industry is estimated to comprise 13% of the global GDP and has been growing at a rate of 6% over the last five years due to rapid urbanization in countries such as China [1]. Due to the enormous size of the construction industry, its economic and environmental impact cannot be disregarded. In other words, even a modest improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the construction industry can have significant implica- tions for the global economy and the world population. Digital transformation might hold the key to such necessary change in the construction industry. While various aspects of human life have been transformed by digitalization during the last 30 years, and industries have been overhauled through digital transformations or even replaced by their digital versions (e.g., the retail and travel industries), the construction industry is known to be lagging behind most other modern industries in terms of digitalization and productivity improvements [2]. The industry has not yet experienced a sizable digital disruption, unlike many other industries.
Three-dimensional printing, also known as additive manufacturing (AM), contributes to digital transformation in the manufacturing sector. AM produces components directly from a digital design file and prints the special raw material layer by layer. Nowadays, AM technology is explored intensively in the construction industry, since it allows designs to be developed and manufactured rapidly [3]. It can also shorten supply chains in the construction industry by autonomously manufacturing components directly from a digital
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11093865 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 2 of 24
design model with the least possible human intervention [4]. Regarding concrete structures, 3D printing technology enables concrete to be printed at a desired location and at a desired speed, by pumping the concrete toward the printing head [5].
Since 3D printing technology is advancing and making it possible to print complex and large structures such as two-story houses [6] and five-story apartments [7], it is important to investigate the cost and sustainability aspects of 3D concrete printing (3DCP) technology. The construction industry is one of the most inefficient industries; hence, 3D printing technology may disrupt the construction industry operationally and economically. Prior research has shown that complex large-scale structures can be produced via 3DCP technology, and besides introducing automation, the technology can have social and design flexibility benefits [8]. The 3DCP technology offers design freedom, allowing designers to produce flexible designs [9]. Theoretically, 3D printing should allow for any shape to be printed [10] and it has the potential to change the effect of design and supply chain configurations on cost performance. Traditional construction methods have supported the use of standardized design solutions and industrialized prefabrication, but little empirical research has examined how 3D concrete printing might change these relationships.
The typical division of construction into industrialized prefabrication and on-site operations is still relevant for 3D concrete printing, even though AM originally facilitated local on-site production. Moreover, 3DCP can be performed on the production site while the robotic printer and the concrete pump are being transported to the site and installed for printing, which we call on-site printing. Printing can be performed in factories, and the produced components can be shipped to the construction site for assembly. Thus, multiple design and supply chain configurations are possible for 3DCP, and empirical research is needed regarding the cost and time effects of these different supply chain configurations.
The objective of this study was to compare the performance of conventional con- struction methods with that of 3DCP technology for different design solutions and supply chain configurations. We investigated the competitiveness of concrete printing in terms of cost and completion time to determine the optimal design solutions and supply chain configurations. The study contributes to the existing knowledge about concrete printing technology and the feasibility of its application for housing projects.
2. Literature Review 2.1. Evolution of Production and Design Methods in the Construction Industry
Humanity has engaged in construction since the beginning of history. Construction has evolved through the ages and by the discovery of new materials, means, and methods up to the modern age. During pre-industrial times, labor was the major factor in con- struction. During the 1900s, a transformation took place, from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy in which coal, steel, and construction businesses gained more importance [11]. The industry finally adopted more mechanized approaches that led to a mature form of technological thinking [12].
Regarding concrete construction methods, reinforced concrete was invented during the second half of the nineteenth century. The main driver for its development was the need for economic and fireproof building materials. The development of modern cement and steel during the first half of the nineteenth century made this invention possible [13]. In 1885, the first skyscraper was built in Chicago, which was the first metal-framed building in history [14]. In 1889, the Eiffel Tower was built by Gustave Eiffel and Maurice Koechlin to demonstrate the potential of iron for building structures [15]. Thus, it can be said that innovation in construction was more technology-driven than market-driven [16].
In 1973, the Sydney Opera House was built by structural engineers using computa- tional analysis software for the first time [17], which was estimated to save 10 years of human work. In the early 2000s, building information modeling (BIM) was introduced to replace CAD solutions, impacting all aspects of building design and development processes [18].
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 3 of 24
Since the end of the 1980s, some supply chain management developments have been introduced in the construction industry [19], and studies have attempted to integrate the construction supply chain with construction processes [20]. Recently, the role of logistics has become a major concern for construction industry managers [21].
2.2. Construction Supply Chain Configurations: On-Site and Off-Site
Two distinguishable supply chain configurations can be used to supply the final product to customers: a centralized configuration and a distributed configuration [22]. In a centralized configuration, products are produced at a single location, and the raw material is supplied to that location by the suppliers. The end product is then shipped from that single location to all the customers around the world. In the case of construction, the product (i.e., a building) is constructed from components that are prefabricated by a supplier in a central factory. The supplied prefabricated components are then assembled on the site, and finishing work is performed on them to complete the building.
The distributed supply chain concept refers to production facilities located near the points of consumption [23]. In this case, multiple factories in different geographical locations produce products near their points of use. In the case of the construction industry, on-site construction represents a decentralized supply chain, with all the components for production delivered to the production site. The construction and assembly then take place at the production site and are completed with finishing tasks. On-site printing is an example of a decentralized supply chain for construction, since the concrete printer is transported to the construction site and moved around the site as required until the construction is complete.
During the first wave of industrial automation, around the 1980s, the first prefabricated concrete and masonry elements and modules were developed [24]. Prefabrication means assembling building components in a factory or a special facility and then transporting the partially or completely assembled structures to the building location [25]. Prefabrica- tion contributes to standardization and labor reductions [26]. However, it requires extra engineering effort during the design phase and greater initial investment [27]. Moreover, design is limited to combining a set of prefabricated elements.
2.3. Additive Manufacturing and Application for Construction
Additive manufacturing (AM) was invented in the 1980s as a polymer prototyping method. In contrast to conventional manufacturing (CM) methods such as computer numerical control (CNC), AM creates the part geometry using a layer-by-layer process that adds material, rather than subtracting it. Additionally, AM differs from CM forming methods because it is tool-independent, and this makes the AM process much faster than tool-based conventional manufacturing processes for the first part of a production run. Being a toolless process, economies of scale only apply to AM parts until the production chamber is full; thereafter, the cost per part remains constant independently of the pro- duction volume. New sorts of structures with dimensional accuracy and evaluation of the morphologies of the structures are possible through 3DCP [28]. Using a concrete mix that satisfies several design and operational constraints, 3D concrete printing can be used without the use of formwork [29].
AM provides construction opportunities such as design flexibility [30,31], automation possibilities [32], digitalization [33], and high precision [34]. Studies have shown that novel shapes can be manufactured via large-scale 3D printing [35]. Using 3D printing for construction reduces the required labor, capital investment, and formwork [36] compared to traditional construction.
Figure 1 shows the generic components of an AM machine used for construction. The main components are the six-axis robotic arm, which moves the concrete nozzle used for printing; the concrete mixer and concrete pump, which feed the concrete to the nozzle; and the robotic arm control unit.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 4 of 24
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 4 of 24
printing; the concrete mixer and concrete pump, which feed the concrete to the nozzle; and the robotic arm control unit.
Figure 1. Components of an AM robotic arm for concrete printing.
2.4. Gaps in the Existing Knowledge Previous research has focused on the use of concrete printing for volume production.
Three-dimensional printing for construction applications has demonstrated its benefits, such as for one-story house printing in a day in China [37] and a canal house in Amsterdam [38]. Regarding performance, previous studies have focused on the quality of 3D concrete printing materials and environmental benefits [39,40]; job variability due to combining con- ventional construction techniques with 3D concrete printing [41]; different particle-bed 3D printing techniques for construction [42]; and various materials, opportunities, and chal- lenges [43]. Prior research claimed a roughly 25% cost reduction for prefabricated bathroom units achieved via 3DCP compared to prefabricated construction methods [44]. However, few articles [1,45,46] have studied the competitiveness of 3D concrete printing for complete house models in terms of cost and completion time compared to traditional construction methods. Moreover, there is a lack of research regarding the cost and time competitiveness of different design options (e.g., rounded or rectangular geometries) and 3D printing supply chain strategies, such as on-site and off-site concrete printing. The current research question is as follows: how feasible are different design solutions and supply chain configurations for concrete printing compared to conventional construction methods?
3. Methodology A deductive case study method using scenario analysis was selected for this study.
Futures studies is a new field of social inquiry aiming at the systematic study of the future, exploring alternative futures to create the most desirable future [47]. Since the scenario analysis method is suitable for futures studies [48], it is suitable for the emerging field of AM for construction, also known as three-dimensional concrete printing (3DCP). Two dif- ferent designs (round and rectangular) for urban residential buildings were utilized for the analysis (Table 1). The rectangular design represented a typical design solution for conventional in situ concrete work using molds, whereas the round design represented a more flexible design option. The area size of both building designs was approximately 40 m2. We assumed the scope of the project to be 100 buildings in each scenario (unit of anal- ysis). Seven scenarios were studied in total. Three scenarios for round house design and four scenarios for rectangular house design were defined, which differed in the method of construction (3DCP or conventional method) and the supply chain configuration for
Figure 1. Components of an AM robotic arm for concrete printing.
2.4. Gaps in the Existing Knowledge
Previous research has focused on the use of concrete printing for volume production. Three-dimensional printing for construction applications has demonstrated its benefits, such as for one-story house printing in a day in China [37] and a canal house in Ams- terdam [38]. Regarding performance, previous studies have focused on the quality of 3D concrete printing materials and environmental benefits [39,40]; job variability due to combining conventional construction techniques with 3D concrete printing [41]; different particle-bed 3D printing techniques for construction [42]; and various materials, oppor- tunities, and challenges [43]. Prior research claimed a roughly 25% cost reduction for prefabricated bathroom units achieved via 3DCP compared to prefabricated construction methods [44]. However, few articles [1,45,46] have studied the competitiveness of 3D con- crete printing for complete house models in terms of cost and completion time compared to traditional construction methods. Moreover, there is a lack of research regarding the cost and time competitiveness of different design options (e.g., rounded or rectangular geometries) and 3D printing supply chain strategies, such as on-site and off-site concrete printing. The current research question is as follows: how feasible are different design solutions and supply chain configurations for concrete printing compared to conventional construction methods?
3. Methodology
A deductive case study method using scenario analysis was selected for this study. Futures studies is a new field of social inquiry aiming at the systematic study of the future, exploring alternative futures to create the most desirable future [47]. Since the scenario analysis method is suitable for futures studies [48], it is suitable for the emerging field of AM for construction, also known as three-dimensional concrete printing (3DCP). Two different designs (round and rectangular) for urban residential buildings were utilized for the analysis (Table 1). The rectangular design represented a typical design solution for conventional in situ concrete work using molds, whereas the round design represented a more flexible design option. The area size of both building designs was approximately 40 m2. We assumed the scope of the project to be 100 buildings in each scenario (unit of analysis). Seven scenarios were studied in total. Three scenarios for round house design and four scenarios for rectangular house design were defined, which differed in the method of construction (3DCP or conventional method) and the supply chain configuration for the construction project (on-site or off-site). One scenario was omitted due to the obvious
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 5 of 24
disadvantages and impracticality of using the conventional method to construct the round house off-site. More information regarding the architectural design of the buildings is provided in Table A1 of Appendix A.
Table 1. Seven distinct scenarios for the research analysis and their designated names.
Technologies
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 5 of 24
the construction project (on-site or off-site). One scenario was omitted due to the obvious disadvantages and impracticality of using the conventional method to construct the round house off-site. More information regarding the architectural design of the buildings is pro- vided in Table A1 of Appendix A.
Table 1. Seven distinct scenarios for the research analysis and their designated names.
Technologies
3DCP Conventional construction
house: ONP-RND)
house: ONC-RND)
house: OFP-RND)
rectangular house: ONP- RECT)
Scenario 6 (On-site conventional
Off-site
rectangular house: OFP- RECT)
Scenario 7 1 (Off-site conventional
construction of rectangular house: OFC-RECT)
1. Scenario is not fully comparable to others, since the numbers include the profit margin of the prefabrication company.
The focus of this study was on the variable parts of the construction process for the concrete walls of the two designs, and the other components, such as the foundation work and roof construction, and exterior and interior components, such as doors, windows, and kitchen components, were ignored because they cost the same for both projects. In other words, our analysis compared the cost and completion times of different scenarios for the construction of concrete exterior and interior walls. For more detailed information related to the house design, dimensions, material used for the construction, and the 3DCP ma- chine specification, refer to Appendix A.
The starting point of the project was deemed to be when the structural design of the building was ready, and the end point was the end of the concrete wall construction and the transportation of the equipment off the site. We assumed that the remaining steps to project completion were identical. The justification for this scope was that the main capa- bility of 3DCP at this point was for the construction of wall sections.
Figure 2 shows the simulation of the model and how the printed wall components could be transported for the off-site scenarios. These constraints were considered when calculating the transportation costs.
Supply chain configuration 3DCP Conventional construction
On-site Scenario 1
Scenario 3 (On-site conventional
Off-site Scenario 2
-
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3865 5 of 24
the construction project (on-site or off-site). One scenario was omitted due to the obvious disadvantages and impracticality of using the…
Related Documents
