| id |
acadia19_586 |
| authors |
Mitterberger, Daniela; Derme, Tiziano |
| year |
2019 |
| title |
Soil 3D Printing |
| source |
ACADIA 19:UBIQUITY AND AUTONOMY [Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA) ISBN 978-0-578-59179-7] (The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture, Austin, Texas 21-26 October, 2019) pp. 586-595 |
| doi |
https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.acadia.2019.586
|
| summary |
Despite, the innovation of additive manufacturing (AM) technology, and in spite of the existence of natural bio-materials offering notable mechanical properties, materials used for AM are not necessarily more sustainable than materials used in traditional manufacturing. Furthermore, potential material savings may be partially overshadowed by the relative toxicity of the material and binders used for AM during fabrication and post-fabrication
processes, as well as the energy usage necessary for the production and processing workflow. Soil as a building material offers a cheap, sustainable alternative to non-biodegradable material systems, and new developments in earth construction show how earthen buildings can create light, progressive, and sustainable structures. Nevertheless, existing large-scale earthen construction methods can only produce highly simplified shapes with rough detailing. This research proposes to use robotic additive manufacturing processes to overcome current limitations of constructing with earth, supporting complex three-dimensional geometries, and the creation of novel organic composites. More specifically the research focuses on robotic binder-jetting with granular bio-composites and non-toxic binding agents such as hydrogels. This paper is divided into two main sections: (1)
biodegradable material system, and (2) multi-move robotic process, and describes the most crucial fabrication parameters such as compaction pressure, density of binders, deposition strategies and toolpath planning as well as identifying the architectural implications of using this novel biodegradable fabrication process. The combination of soil and hydrogel as building material shows the potential of a fully reversible construction process for architectural components and foresees its potential full-scale architectural implementations. |
| series |
ACADIA |
| type |
normal paper |
| email |
|
| full text |
 file.pdf (8,209,095 bytes) |
| references |
Content-type: text/plain
|
Akadiri, P.O., E.A. Chinyio, and P.O. Olomolaiye. (2012)
 Design of A Sustainable Building: A Conceptual Framework for Implementing Sustainability in the Building Sector
, Buildings 2(2): 126-152
|
|
|
|
|
Augarde, C.E. (2015)
Earthen Construction: A Geotechnical Engineering Perspective
, Rammed Earth Construction: Cutting- Edge Research on Traditional and Modern Rammed Earth, edited by D. Ciancio and C. Beckett. Leiden, Netherlands: CRC Press LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Beckett, Christopher and Thomas Stone. (2011)
The Role of Material Structure in Compacted Earthen Building Materials: Implications for Design and Construction
, PhD thesis, Durham University
|
|
|
|
|
Bogue and Robert. (2013)
3D Printing: The Dawn of a New Era in Manufacturing?
, Assembly Automation 33(4): 307-311
|
|
|
|
|
Chaltiel, S., M. Bravo, A. Ibrahim. (2018)
Adaptive Strategies for Mud Shell Robotic Fabrication
, International Journal of Environmental Science & Sustainable Development 3(2): 64-74. https://press.ierek.com/index.php/ESSD/article/view/382
|
|
|
|
|
Derme, T., D. Mitterberger, and U. Di Tanna. (2016)
Growth Based Fabrication Techniques for Bacterial Cellulose
, ACADIA 2016, Posthuman Frontiers, Data, Designers, and Cognitive Machines; Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design Architecture, 488-49
|
|
|
|
|
Esam, A.E., M.M. Nasef, and A.H. Yahaya. (2012)
Preparation and Characterization of Chitosan/Agar Blended Films: Part 1. Chemical Structure and Morphology
, E-Journal of Chemistry 9(3): 1431- 1439. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/781206
|
|
|
|
|
Faludi, J., C. Bayley, S. Bhogal, and M. Iribarne. (2015)
Comparing environmental impacts of additive manufacturing vs traditional machining via life-cycle assessment
, Rapid Prototyping Journal 21(1): 14-33
|
|
|
|
|
Ford, S. and M. Despeisse. (2016)
Additive manufacturing and sustainability: An exploratory study of the advantages and challenges
, Journal of Cleaner Production 137: 1573-1587
|
|
|
|
|
Gibson, I., D.W. Rosen, and B. Stucker. (2014)
Development of Additive Manufacturing Technology
, Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing, 19-42. New York/Heidelberg/Dordrecht/London: Springer
|
|
|
|
|
Hansmeyer, M. and B. Dillenburger. (2012)
Digital Grotesque: Towards a Micro-tectonic Architecture
, SAJ, Serbain Architectural Journal 5(2): 194-201
|
|
|
|
|
Ingold, Tim. (2007)
Materials against materiality
, Archaeological Dialogues 14(1): 1-16. Published online by Cambridge University Press, April 4, 2007. doi.org/10.1017/S1380203807002127
|
|
|
|
|
Malda, J., J. Visser, F.P. Melchels, T. Jüngst, W.M. Hennink, W.J.A. Dhert, J. Groll, and D.W. Hutmacher. (2013)
Review: 25th Anniversary Article: Engineering Hydrogels for Biofabrication
, Advanced Materials 25(36): 5011-5028
|
|
|
|
|
Mogan-Soldevila, L., J. Duro-Royo, and N. Oxman. (2014)
Water- Based Robotic Fabrication: Large-Scale Additive Manufacturing of Functionally Graded Hydrogel Composites via Multichamber Extrusion
, 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing 1(3): 141-151
|
|
|
|
|
Shotton, Elizabeth. (2006)
Material Imprecision
, Material Matters: Architecture and Material Practice, Material Imprecision, edited by K. Lloyd Thomas, 91-102. Taylor & Francis e-library
|
|
|
|
| last changed |
2022/06/07 07:58 |
|
