3D Printing Architectural Freeform Elements: Challenges and Opportunities in Manufacturing for Industry 4.0
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3D Printing Architectural Freeform Elements: Challenges and Opportunities in Manufacturing for Industry 4.0 Marjo Niemelä, Anqi Shi, Sara Shirowzhan, Samad Sepasgozar and Chang Liu Pages 1298-1304 (2019 Proceedings of the 36th ISARC, Banff, Canada, ISBN 978-952-69524-0-6, ISSN 2413-5844) Abstract: Three-dimensional (3D) printing, as one of the additive manufacturing (AM) technologies, is transforming the design and manufacture of products and components across a variety of disciplines, however, architectural design and the construction industry have only recently begun to adopt these technologies for construction purposes. AM is considered one of the core technological advances in the paradigm shift to Industry 4.0 (the fourth industrial revolution). This term used to describe digitization and automation of the manufacturing environment and is widely recognized as a disruptive technology that could transform architectural design and the construction industry. The potential advantages of 3D printing in the construction sector are significant. They include not only improved environmental and financial resource efficiencies, but also, the capacity to produce complex customized designs for aesthetic and structural applications. As the cost of building houses continues to rise, it is crucial to find innovative ways to build houses efficiently and cost effectively. The earliest records of 3D printing date back to the 1980s and many industriesfrom manufacturing to medicinewere early adopters of the technologies resulting in many significant technological advances in those sectors from organ printing to aircraft fabrication. Currently available 3D printing technologies can be adopted for building construction and this paper discusses the applications, advantages, limitations and future directions of 3D printing as a viable solution for affordable house construction with a focus on printing architectural freeform elements. 3D printing offers a new and innovative method of house construction. For this study, an analytical, as well as a numerical model were specifically designed for 3D printing. Previous studies conducted found that the construction of a 3D printed truss-like roof in a cement mixture with high-density polyethylene (HDPE), spanning the entire structure, was structurally feasible in the absence of steel reinforcements. These results led us to investigate the feasibility of 3D printing an entire house without the use of reinforcements. Investigations were also performed on comparing flat-roof and arch-roof structures and found that whilst maximum tensile stresses within flat-roof would cause the concrete truss structure to fail, the HDPE cement mix in an arch-roof structure had reduced the maximum tensile stresses to an acceptable range to withstand loadings. At the time of writing this paper, several 3D printing techniques could be adopted for the purposes of 3D printing an entire house, and the team believes that future adaptations of existing technologies and printing materials could eliminate the current limitations of 3D printing and become common practice in house construction. Keywords: 3D printing; design; architectural freeform elements; construction; Fusion 360 Software; G-code; human-interface; Industry 4.0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2019/0174 Download fulltext Download BibTex Download Endnote (RIS) TeX Import to Mendeley
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it