3D printers have started building houses. Would that mean that a house would be built on a construction site or would it be constructed in a factory and then moved in parts to the construction site.
The main benefits are supposed to be cutting on labour costs and working for 24/7. But what is the cost differences between traditional and 3D printer built-houses? I know that the 3D printer technology is still at its initial stages of development. But there should be some anecdotal evidence to prove that 3D printer technology is more cost-effective than the traditional building.
George Wolf
3D printing can provide an alternative and cost-effective way to build houses. However, it would require a heavy 3D printer, which is the major cost factor. Some benefits of 3D printing over traditional methods include less waste, flexible design and reduced labour works.
3D printing was used to build a 298.5 sq.m house in Yaroslavl (Russia) in 2015. Specavia made the walls which were mainly made offsite and then fitted manually.
In Spain, Acciona made a 3D printing bridge at an urban park of Castilla-La Mancha in Alcobendas, Madrid. The bridge has a total width of 1.75 meters and a length of 12 meters and printed in micro-reinforced concrete.
There are many printers used for construction, including COBOD BOD2, CyBe RC 3Dp, ICON Vulcan II, StroyBot, Apis Cor printer and MudBots concrete 3D printer.
Even though a 3D printer has a lot of merits, but it still has some limits such as rough exterior, high costs of 3D printer and partial construction.