TECHNOLOGY READINESS AND ADOPTION OF 3D-PRINTING IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Master’s Dissertation submitted to obtain the degree of:
Master in Business Engineering: Operations Management
Academic year: 2018-2019
Deze pagina is niet beschikbaar omdat ze persoonsgegevens bevat. Universiteitsbibliotheek Gent, 2021.
This page is not available because it contains personal information. Ghent University, Library, 2021.
I
Foreword
This master dissertation could not have been realised without the help of several individuals.
I would really like to express my gratitude to those people who contributed to the completion
of this dissertation.
First, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Paul Gemmel for giving me the opportunity
to explore this interesting topic and for his excellent guidance and valuable feedback.
Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to all respondents for their willingness to
cooperate. Their extensive answers definitely led to valuable insights and their enthusiasm
concerning the 3D printing technology really motivated me.
Finally, I would like to express a word of thanks to my family and friends for their endless
support and motivation.
2. 3D printing in construction ........................................................................................... 4
2.1 3D printing of architectural models ........................................................................ 4
2.2 3D printing of construction parts ............................................................................ 5
2.3 3D printing of entire buildings ................................................................................ 5
2.3.1 The benefits of 3D printing of buildings ........................................................... 5
2.3.2 The challenges of 3D printing of buildings ....................................................... 7
2.3.3 Different printing technologies ......................................................................... 9
2.3.4 Some actual examples of large-scale 3D projects ..........................................10
2.4 3D printing & BIM .................................................................................................12
2.6 Some future directions..........................................................................................13
3. Adoption models .........................................................................................................15
3.2 Technology-Organizational-Environment Framework ...........................................19
3. Results .......................................................................................................................28
III
V. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................47
A.2 Interview guide .................................................................................................... XV
BIM Building Information Modelling
GDP Gross domestic product
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
OECD Organisation for Economics Cooperating and Development
TAM Technology Acceptance Model
UV Ultraviolet
V
List of figures
Figure 1: Diffusion of Innovation with adopter categories (Rogers, 1962) ................ 17
Figure 2: Adoption behaviour at firm level according to Rogers (Oliveira & Martins,
2011) ........................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 4: Technological dimension ........................................................................... 28
Figure 5: Organizational dimension .......................................................................... 33
Figure 6: Environmental dimension .......................................................................... 35
Figure 7: Cost dimension .......................................................................................... 39
List of tables
I. Introduction
Three-dimensional printing has been a hot topic for some years now and in recent years the
technology has experienced a fast growth in many industry fields (Hager, Golonka, &
Putanowicz, 2016). In the construction sector, however, not many examples of completed
large-scale 3D projects can be found, especially in comparison with other sectors such as the
healthcare industry. In Belgium, not even a single full-scale construction project has been
realized yet. What lies at the heart of the delay of the adoption of the innovative 3D printing
technology in the construction industry? This seemed a very interesting question to investigate.
A wide range of adoption models have been developed to gain a better understanding of the
different factors that influence the acceptance of specific technologies (Taherdoost, 2018).
This master dissertation will examine the organizational adoption behaviour of construction
firms. It is important to make a distinction between individual adoption behaviour and
organizational adoption behaviour, because organizations are more complex entities and the
factors that influence the adoption decision differ (Mohammad, 2013; Oliveira, Thomas &
Espadanal, 2014). Two appropriate organizational adoption models are examined, with the
Technology-Organizational-Environment framework turning out to be the most extensive one.
The literature study leads to the formulation of the final research question:
“What are the different factors influencing the adoption of 3D printing in construction and to
what extent is the 3D printing technology already adopted by construction companies in
Flanders and the Netherlands?”
The research question is examined by making use of a qualitative, explorative study. This is a
good way for respondents to express their beliefs and concerns regarding the 3D printing
technology and to explore the specific factors influencing the organizational adoption
behaviour (Mortelmans, 2017). In-depth interviews with ten organizations from Flanders and
the Netherlands provide the necessary data. During the interviews, a semi-structured
questionnaire based on the Technology-Organizational-Environment-Cost framework is used
as a guide. The cost dimension is included, because this is a critical factor in the adoption
decision of organizations concerning the three-dimensional printing technology (Yeh & Chen,
2018).
2
This master dissertation consists of five parts. The first part provides a short introduction
regarding the topic of the dissertation. The second part discusses the literature review of both
three-dimensional printing technologies and adoption models. The third part explains the
actual empirical research with its methodology and results. In the fourth part, the results of the
empirical research are discussed and compared with the literature. In addition, some
limitations are described and some future directions are proposed. In the final part, this master
dissertation is completed with a general conclusion.
3
The first section of the literature review shortly explains the three-dimensional printing
technology in general, together with its trends. The second section dives deeper into 3D
printing in the construction industry, which will be the research field of this master dissertation.
The third section discusses the two most appropriate adoption models for the adoption of 3D
printing in the construction industry.
1. 3D printing defined
There exist several definitions of three-dimensional printing, but these all come down to the
same thing. The 3D printing process starts from a digital model and produces 3D solid objects
through an automated, additive manufacturing process (Bogue, 2013). In literature, the term
‘additive manufacturing’ is mostly seen as a synonym for three-dimensional printing, therefore
the same interpretation will be used in this master dissertation. The first 3D printer was
developed in 1984 and in recent years this technology has been experiencing a fast growth,
with a significantly increased use across numerous industry fields (Hager et al., 2016). This
automated production process with layer-by-layer control has a huge potential in many sectors:
applications in aerospace, the food industry (e.g. chocolate extrusion), medical and healthcare
applications (e.g. personalised prostheses), applications in the automotive industry, design,
jewellery, the fashion industry, toys, etc. (Masera, Muscogiuri, Bongiovanni, & Colombo, 2017).
Masera et al. (2017) state that while three-dimensional printing is already mature in several
areas of the manufacturing industry, the construction industry is lagging and practical
examples in this sector are still limited. This was also the experience during the research
process for this dissertation; few practical applications of 3D printing in architecture and the
building industry could be found, while many of them were available for other sectors. It
seemed very interesting to investigate this backlog and closely examine the possible causes.
That is why the decision was made to focus this master dissertation on three-dimensional
printing in architecture and the building industry.
4
2. 3D printing in construction
While a considerable part of the global GDP is represented by the construction industry, its
profit margins are rather limited (Masera et al., 2017). That is why many companies in this
sector are continually trying to improve the efficiency of the entire process (Kabirifar &
Mojtahedi, 2019). Since construction companies are striving to improve the efficiency, the
limited implementation of 3D printing in the sector is rather surprising, as this technology
increases the efficiency of processes (Dyson, 2013). Additive manufacturing in the
construction industry is also called additive construction and is seen as a disruptive technology
(Fiske, Edmunson, Fikes, Murphy Johnston, & Weite, 2018). A disruptive technology is one
that replaces a current technology and revolutionizes the industry (Christensen, 1997).
It is important to consider the fact that the three-dimensional printing technology can be
adopted by construction companies in several ways. The distinction will be made between
three phases: 3D printing of architectural models, 3D printing of construction parts and 3D
printing of entire building projects.
First, the three adoption phases will be discussed, with a focus on three-dimensional printing
of entire buildings. Then the potential of the integration of building information modelling and
additive manufacturing will be shown, followed by a short discussion of the restoration of
historical heritage by means of 3D technologies. Some future directions of 3D printing in
architecture are considered to end this section.
2.1 3D printing of architectural models
Since the early 2000s, 3D printed architectural models are being used as prototype in the
construction industry (Wu, Wang, & Wang, 2016). Concept modelling was the first technique
developed for creating architectural models with a rather low accuracy (Ryder, Ion, Green,
Harrison, & Wood, 2002). More recently, rapid prototyping technologies have been introduced,
with an improved accuracy compared to the concept modelling approach, thus making it
possible to produce more complicated models (Ryder et al., 2002). Wu et al. (2016) state that
using 3D printing technologies can speed up the development of physical 3D models; the
printing process can be finished within hours. 3D printed architectural models are already
implemented by many architectural bureaus and this phase has made the biggest progress in
adopting 3D printing so far (de Laubier, Wunder, Witthöft, & Rothballer, 2018). De Laubier et
al. (2018) declare that 3D printed architectural models are mature today and have reached
commercial viability.
2.2 3D printing of construction parts
Besides architectural models, construction parts can also be 3D printed in the construction
industry.
A first example are moulds, traditionally very expensive and time-consuming to produce, which
can be created by means of three-dimensional printing processes and that will decrease costs,
lead times and waste (de Laubier et al., 2018).
Other building components can be 3D printed too, such as partition walls, façades, joints, plug
sockets, window frame fixtures, plumbing fittings etc., making it possible for designers and
architects to add a personal touch to those components (de Laubier et al., 2018; Wu et al.,
2016).
Three-dimensional printing of full-scale constructions is still an emerging technology (Tay, et
al., 2017). Only in 2014 the first 3D printed house was realized, revolutionizing the building
industry (Hager et al., 2016). In 2018, additive manufacturing of entire buildings is still in its
infancy, with less than 40 large-scale projects and prototypes being completed around the
globe (de Laubier et al., 2018). No full-scale constructions have been realized in Belgium yet.
However, the province of Antwerp wants to encourage and accelerate the adoption of this
innovative technology in Belgium through the C3PO project, in cooperation with the University
of Ghent amongst others (Kamp C, 2017).
First, the benefits and challenges of the use of three-dimensional printing technologies for
building large-scale constructions will be discussed. After explaining the potential benefits and
challenges, some additive manufacturing methods used in construction will be explained
shortly. Finally, a number of practical examples around the world will be described.
2.3.1 The benefits of 3D printing of buildings
Three-dimensional printing of buildings can bring significant advantages to the construction
industry. The technology might be able to solve some of the problems our society is currently
dealing with.
It is a fact that the construction industry still has a higher number of fatalities, injuries and
illnesses than other industries (Meliá, Mearns, Silva, & Lima, 2008). 3D printers will be capable
6
to do most of the dangerous work, which will reduce the number of fatalities and injuries on
site (Hager et al., 2016).
Carbon dioxide emissions are still too high, which causes global health risks (Scovronick,
2015). Additive construction can reduce the carbon footprint by using fully electric 3D printers
and decreasing resource transportation, but also by limiting the manpower needed, which
reduces the number of vehicles being driven to and from the construction site (Smith, 2012).
Waste streams of about three to seven tons are produced by constructing a typical family home
and the construction sector consumes more than 40% of all raw materials used globally (Fiske
et al., 2018). These waste streams can be reduced by 3D printing, as this technology only
needs the required amount of materials (Wu et al., 2016). Three-dimensional printing
technologies can certainly have a positive impact on the environment and demonstrate an
advantage over traditional methods by investing in a low carbon, resilient and sustainable
future (United Nations, 2015).
3D printing technologies open the way to mass customization in construction (Paoletti, 2017).
Customers can co-design products that perfectly meet their wishes (Ghaffar, Corker, & Fan,
2018), because designers can now create whatever they want without having to take into
account economies of scale for keeping down the cost (Lim, et al., 2012). Three-dimensional
printers offer design flexibility and enable the production of structures that are difficult to
produce using conventional construction methods (Khoshnevis B. , 2004).
Additive manufacturing makes it possible to reduce the time required to complete a building
(Hager et al., 2016), which results in an increased efficiency of management and logistics
(Khoshnevis B. , 2003).
Construction formwork costs can contribute for 35 to 54% of the total construction cost and
can take 50 to 75% of the total construction time (Jha, 2012). Eliminating the expensive
formwork by adopting three-dimensional printing processes not only reduces the costs and
project timeline, but also leads to a decrease in waste material produced (Camacho, et al.,
2018).
Besides the reduced costs of resources and formwork, 3D printing can also decrease
transportation and installation costs (Masera et al., 2017).
Three-dimensional printing can help create a circular economy, which abandons the traditional
‘take-make-dispose’ economic model for a regenerative model (Paoletti, 2017). Creating a
circular economy leads to many economic and environmental benefits (Geissdoerfer, Savaget,
Bocken, & Hultink, 2017).
7
The use of additive manufacturing can help shorten the supply chain of construction firms,
bringing the supplier closer to the customer (Huang, Leu, Mazumder, & Donmez, 2015). In this
way, late deliverables to the job site are avoided, which increases productivity (Camacho, et
al., 2018).
Besides all advantages mentioned above, 3D printing could also bring significant benefits in
harsh environments by reducing exposure of on-site workers by means of automating several
construction tasks (Camacho, et al., 2018). Harsh environments can be caused by man-made
or natural disasters, such as war zones or areas affected by an earthquake, but these can also
be aggressive environments such as deserts, the Poles and chemically contaminated or highly
polluted zones (Labonnote, Rønnquist, Manum, & Rüther, 2016). The construction of first
response shelters (Howe, et al., 2014) and the repair of broken infrastructure are potential
applications that can be quickly manufactured, which can be of critical importance in these
harsh environments (Graham, Mitzalis, Alhinai, Hooper, & Kovac, 2014). For example, the
INNOprint 3D printer, developed by the University of Nantes, can build a small emergency
facility in less than 30 minutes, which is secured, isolated and safe to live in (Alec, 2015).
2.3.2 The challenges of 3D printing of buildings
Naturally, 3D printing technologies do not only bring advantages to the construction industry,
there are still many challenges and restrictions that limit the wide spread application.
The construction sector, with its traditional methods, is quite resilient to change (Paoletti,
2017). This can slow down the adoption process for disruptive, innovative technologies like 3D
printing (Renz & Solas, 2016).
Some people doubt the large scale applicability of 3D printing technology, because most
printers were rather small when this 3D printing trend started and the size of the printer was
directly related to the building elements it was able to print (Campbell, Williams, Ivanova, &
Garrett, 2011). However, in recent years, new large-scale 3D printers have been developed
that can print entire buildings (Wu et al., 2016). Later in this dissertation, under section 2.3.4
(Some actual examples of large-scale 3D projects), some examples will be provided.
One of the biggest challenges for 3D printing technology in construction industries is the limited
palette of materials currently applicable in practice (Perkins & Skitmore, 2015). De Schutter et
al. (2018) state that it remains a challenge to cure 3D printed elements appropriately without
formwork from the start, this requires further optimization. Materials used by conventional
techniques cannot automatically be used by 3D printing technologies, because these materials
have to be extruded from a nozzle first and on top of that the role of interfaces in a 3D printed
8
structure has to be taken into account (De Schutter, et al., 2018). However, recently, diverse
materials have been adapted and can function as high-strength printing materials (Wu et al.,
2016). An entirely new material palette can be developed by combining diverse polymers in
different combinations per 3D printed layer (Hager et al., 2016). Correct speed, resolution and
load-bearing capacity can be ensured by many systems (Lim, et al., 2012). Nevertheless, these
are not the only material properties that have to be taken into account, essential construction-
related properties such as water vapor diffusion resistance, durability or thermal and fire-
resistant properties have to be considered as well (Labonnote & Rüther, 2016). Practically
none of the existing studies discuss the anisotropic nature of many 3D printed objects, which
can challenge current approaches for durability design and performance testing (De Schutter,
et al., 2018). De Schutter et al. (2018) declare that a lack of appropriate design codes and
performance testing protocols can slow down the adoption of 3D printing technologies in the
construction industry.
It is also very difficult to estimate the final cost of a 3D printed building based on the
experimentations managed so far (Masera et al., 2017). On one hand, some costs will
increase, due to high costs of 3D printers and a lack of familiarity with additive manufacturing
in the construction industry (Sakin & Kiroglu, 2017), while on the other hand some costs will
decrease, such as transportation, installation, formwork and resource costs (see section 2.3.1:
The benefits of 3D printing of buildings). It is uncertain if 3D printing in the construction industry
will lead to an increase or a decrease of the total costs; life cycle costing of additive construction
will have to be evaluated more closely (Ghaffar et al., 2018).
The transportation, lifting and installation of heavy prefabricated building elements impose
some operational challenges (Masera et al., 2017). These challenges can be overcome by in-
situ 3D printing, where parts are produced on site (Perkins & Skitmore, 2015). However, the
disadvantages of on-site applications are the ambient conditions that can affect the materials
and processes (Lim, et al., 2012).
The life cycle performance of three-dimensional printed projects remains uncertain, as the 3D
printing technology in the construction sector is still in its infancy (Masera et al., 2017).
Besides, the printing rate of 3D printers is an important drawback of additive manufacturing,
especially for large-scale applications, which may restrict the competitiveness of 3D printing
over conventional production methods (Camacho, et al., 2018).
Additive manufacturing reduces the manpower needed, which will probably lead to the loss of
jobs for many qualified workers (Hager et al., 2016). The technology will also have a disruptive
impact on the type of skills and labour needed in the building industry (Sakin & Kiroglu, 2017).
9
However, this can also open new opportunities for jobs with other skill sets (Camacho, et al.,
2018) and workers may be employed for more creative activities (Ghaffar et al., 2018).
2.3.3 Different printing technologies
There exist several three-dimensional printing techniques that are used in the construction
industry. Printing time, accuracy, cost and printing materials differ according to the printing
technique implemented, so these properties must be taken into account for selecting the most
appropriate and most economical printing technology (Wu et al., 2016). Some of the best-
known 3D printing techniques in construction are briefly discussed below.
Binder jetting
In the binder jetting technique, two-dimensional cross sections are glued to each layer of
material powder and this incremental process is repeated until the complete 3D object is
manufactured (Perkins & Skitmore, 2015). The unbounded materials not glued by the binder
can support consecutive layers and can later be reused for another printing project
(Khoshnevis, Hwang, Yao, & Yeh, 2006). The binder jetting process makes it possible…