3D-Printing Technology in Construction: Results from a Survey
10th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization
eISBN: 978-1-83867-051-1
ISSN: 2516-2853
Publication date: 1 May 2019
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to study the introduction of 3D-printing of concrete in the construction sector.
Design/Methodology/Approach
A survey was conducted to collect professional view on ongoing innovations in the construction sector, including 3D-printing. Participants were selected among the members of Norwegian networks for project and construction management research.
Findings
The survey highlighted effective leadership, collaboration with partners and industry-academia collaboration as primary enablers of innovation. Few of the respondents to the survey have used 3D-printing technologies.
Research Limitations/Implications
It is difficult to obtain representative samples in this type of research, including this study. The study can be seen as a snapshot of attitudes in the sector.
Practical Implications
3D-printing appear as a potentially interesting technology, especially for unstandardized construction components. Further work is needed to materialise the expectation for technological development in the construction sector.
Originality/Value
Most research on 3D-printing has focused on demonstrating technical potential. This study adds a practitioners’ perspective, with a large dose of pragmatism.
Keywords
Citation
Olsson, N.O.E., Shafqat, A., Arica, E. and Økland, A. (2019), "3D-Printing Technology in Construction: Results from a Survey", Lill, I. and Witt, E. (Ed.) 10th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization (Emerald Reach Proceedings Series, Vol. 2), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 349-356. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2516-285320190000002044
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2019, Nils O.E. Olsson, Ali Shafqat, Emrah Arica, Andreas Økland.
License
Published in the Emerald Reach Proceedings Series. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
This paper studies 3D-printing of concrete in the construction sector. As an innovative technology, 3D-printing offers interesting opportunities for the construction industry, such as increased flexibility and reduced operational costs. However, it is important to analyse and use the previous innovation experiences to increase the success potential of implementing the 3D-printing technology in the construction industry. The study is a part of the EU-funded research project HINDCON (2018).
The aim of this study is to investigate the implementation of 3D-printing in the construction sector. The following research questions are set up:
What is the status of implementation of 3D-printing technology in construction industry?
What are the expectations for 3D-printing in construction industry?
2. On 3D-printing as an innovation in construction
The construction industry has evolved from a craftsmanship to an industrialised and service-oriented business, owing to the significant efforts in development and implementation of technological and organisational innovations over the past 70 years. Nevertheless, it is questionable if the introduced innovations have yielded their full potential and promises in the construction industry. Many studies show that construction industry has failed to adopt innovations to improve its performance as in other industries (World Economic Forum, 2016). The lack of stakeholder's involvement, high initial innovation costs, lack of risk funding, inherent conservative behaviour of organisations and initial non-profitability of innovations are some examples of barriers leading to fails in innovation (Ozorhon et al., 2013). As an innovative technology, 3D-printing and hybrid additive/subtractive manufacturing offers significant opportunities for the construction industry, such as increased flexibility and reduced operational costs. However, it is important to analyse and use the previous innovation experiences to increase the success potential of implementing the 3D-printing technology in the construction industry.
2.1. About 3D-printing and additive manufacturing
3D-printing is an automated, additive manufacturing process for producing 3D solid objects from a digital (i.e. CAD) model, where the 3D CAD model is sliced into a series of 2D layers that are later deposited by the printer to construct the model (Boothroyd, 1994). A more recent definition for 3D-printing is "the fabrication of objects through the deposition of a material using a print head, nozzle, or another printer technology" (American Society for Material and Testing 2009). The term "additive manufacturing" (AM) is more generally defined as: "the process of joining materials to make objects from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer" (American Society for Material and Testing, 2009). Additive manufacturing can deliver parts of intricate and complex geometries, built from tailored materials with near-zero material waste, while being applicable to a variety of materials (Bikas et al., 2016).
Three important aspects of additive manufacturing are: material, process, and design. The main categories of 3D-printing have been detailed by (Labonnote et al. 2016) solid-like, viscous-like, powder-like and liquid-like. More complete overviews on previous and current additive construction experiences can be found in (Perkins and Skitmore, 2015; Labonnote and Rüther, 2016 and Wu, Wang et al., 2016).
PWC (2014) did a general about use of 3D-printing in manufacturing. It showed that about 25% of the companies were involved in prototyping using 3D-printing and 29% were experimenting how they can use it.
2.3. Drivers and barriers to use of 3D-printing in construction
A driver that supports the use of 3D-printing in construction is the significant customisation opportunities (Labonnote et al. 2016). Minimisation of waste (Berman, 2012) and improved carbon footprint (Achillas et al., 2015) are also interesting possibilities. There is a potential for cost-efficiency through high automation and reduced manpower requirement (www.3ders.org, 2014). Automation such as 3D-printing can reduce danger for human workers in harsh environments (Millsaps, 2015). 3D-printers also have quick deployability (Peter, 2015).
Issues that may serve as barriers include uncertainty regarding the size of demand for mass customisation and availability of high-strength printing materials. The literature also find it unclear whether 3D-printing could lead to reduced or increased construction cost (Wu, Wang et al., 2016). Owing to size limitation of existing 3D printers, it is difficult to print a multi-story building at a time (Gibson et al., 2002). However, users can print structural components piece-by-piece and then assemble them together as a real-scale building (Feng and Yuhong, 2014). Intellectual property issues have been raised in particular in connection with concerns that digital objects (including a digital file describing the construction of a given structure) can easily be copied and re-sold (Berman, 2012). There are also cyber security risks (Campbell et al., 2014).
3. Research approach
The paper presents findings from a questionnaire on use and expectations for 3D-printing in construction industry. Based on initial literature studies, the first version of the questionnaire was developed, which involved several workshops with the authors and the HINDCON team members. The result presented here is related to the 3D-printing experiences and expectations in the construction sector. In the second phase of the survey, the questionnaire was piloted in three companies with follow-up interviews. The questionnaire was adjusted after the feedback. The third phase of the survey was to collect an e-mail list of potential respondents. Survey participants were mainly selected among the members of Norwegian networks for project and construction management research. The types of companies involved in the survey are engineering and construction management consultants, clients, building owners, architects and suppliers of pre-assembled modules. The list of potential respondents included 235 persons. The fourth stage of the survey was to launch the final version of the questionnaire. A total of 36 valid responses were received. The results of the survey are entered in Excel format for analysis and graphical presentation.
The formal response rate was 15%. However, it was not realistic to receive answers from all as several organisations had more than one person listed, and the list covered a wide array of actors. We estimate that the response rate among realistic respondents was between 25 and 30%. The results are largely based on Norwegian companies, with a bias towards large actors in the construction industry and those with an interest in research and development. Reliability can be influenced by the selection criteria of respondents. However, the study can hopefully give indications of present thinking about 3D-printing, even though the quantifications are not based on a representative sample. Validity in the study was a main concern in the development for the survey and in the piloting with three companies.
4. Results about the use of 3D-printing
The results address two aspects of 3D-printing in construction. The first aspect is about present and expected degree of implementation, while the second aspect is about expected cost issues.
4.1. Implementation of 3D-printing
The questionnaire addressed the use and implementation of 3D-printing. Figure 1 indicates that most of the respondents had not used 3D-printing. Those who had used the technology had mainly used it for piloting and prototyping.
Figure 2 shows the expected areas of application of 3D-printing. Most respondents expected that 3D-printing would mainly be applied for small or complex parts, including decorations. However, some also believed in the production of building blocks.
Figure 3 indicate collaboration within the construction sector as a key success factor for implementation of 3D-printing, along with R&D funding.
Most of the respondents expect that it will take more than eight years for 3D-printing to be widely in use, as shown in Figure 4.
4.2. Cost issues
The survey also included questions about cost issues of 3D-printing. Figure 5 show that most respondents expected a high initial investment related to 3D-printing.
In spite of the expected high investment, a majority of the respondents believed that 3D-printing would eventually be cost efficient (see Figure 6).
5. Conclusions
We have investigated the implementation of 3D-printing in the construction sector. The first research question addressed the status of implementation of 3D-printing technology in construction industry. Despite the positive expectations from 3D-printing technology, it has so far only been applied to a limited extent in the Norwegian construction industry, and mainly for piloting and prototyping. The study shows that 20% of the respondents use 3D-printing for prototyping, while a smaller part of the companies uses 3D-printing for ordinary production. In terms of materials, plastic and ceramic are now not only widely used in 3D-printing, but also a big development in 3D-printing of metals. In comparison, the study by PWC (2014) found that some years ago, 25% of manufacturing companies were involved in prototyping using 3D-printing. Our results imply that the Norwegian construction industry is behind but still on somewhat the same level as for manufacturing.
The second research question is related to expectations for 3D-printing in construction industry. The respondents expected not only high initial investments, but also that 3D-printing would prove to be cost efficient in the long run, with an implementation time of more than eight years. The reviewed literature was not conclusive about the future cost efficiency of 3D-printing (quite naturally, as the technology is in an early stage of development).
The companies in the survey believe that research and development funding for the 3D-printing technology along with collaboration between suppliers and contractors will facilitate its wide future implementation of 3D-printing in the construction sector. Regarding future use, the survey pointed to production of small or complex parts, including decorations as key potential applications of 3D-printing. This is in accordance to the literature, which highlighted the significant customisation opportunities, even though the literature also addressed uncertainty regarding the size of demand for mass customisation. Overall, the study conveys the impression of 3D-printing as a potentially interesting technology, especially for unstandardized construction components. The technology appears to still be at a testing stage. However, there is interest in the industry and we expect to hear more as the technology matures, and we gain more experiences.
References
Achillas, Aidonis, Iakovou, Thymianidis, and Tzetzis, 2015Achillas, C., Aidonis, D., Iakovou, E., Thymianidis, M. and Tzetzis, D. (2015). “A methodological framework for the inclusion of modern additive manufacturing into the production portfolio of a focused factory.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37(1): 328–339.
American Society for Material and Testing, 2009American Society for Material and Testing (2009). “Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies”. West Consholhocken, US, ASTM International. F2792-12a.
Berman, 2012Berman, B. (2012). “3-D printing: The new industrial revolution.” Business horizons 55(2): 155–162.
Bikas, Stavropoulos, and Chryssolouris, 2016Bikas, H., Stavropoulos, P. and Chryssolouris, G. (2016). “Additive manufacturing methods and modelling approaches: a critical review.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 83(1-4): pp. 389–405.
Boothroyd, 1994Boothroyd, G. (1994). “Product design for manufacture and assembly”. Computer-Aided Design, 26(7), pp 505–520.
Campbell, Tibbits, and Garrett, 2014Campbell, T. A., Tibbits, S. and Garrett, B. (2014). “The next wave: 4D printing - Programming the material world”. Atlantic Council, Washington DC.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262818283_The_Next_Wave_4D_Printing_-_Programming_the_Material_World/download (accessed on 20 August 2018).
Feng, and Yuhong, 2014Feng, L. and Yuhong, L. (2014). “Study on the status quo and problems of 3d printed buildings in china.” Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research.
Gibson, Kvan, and Wai Ming, 2002Gibson, I., Kvan, T. and Wai Ming, L. (2002). “Rapid prototyping for architectural models.” Rapid prototyping journal 8(2): pp 91–95.
HINDCON, 2018HINDCON (2018) “Hybrid INDustrial CONstruction” http://www.hindcon3d.com, (accessed on 20 August 2018).
Labonnote, Rønnquist, Manum, and Rüther, 2016Labonnote, N., Rønnquist, A., Manum, B. and Rüther, P. (2016). “Additive construction: State-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities.” Automation in Construction 72, Part 3: pp. 347–366.
Labonnote, and Rüther, 2016Labonnote, N. and Rüther, P. (2016). “Additive manufacturing: an opportunity for functional and sustainable constructions”, Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing. Lisbon, Portugal. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309430330_Additive_manufacturing_An_opportunity_for_functional_and_sustainable_constructions, (accessed on 20 August 2018).
Millsaps, 2015Millsaps, B. B. (2015). “The Swarmscapers: Students create 3D printing robots capable of building in outlying areas”. www.3DPrint.com, (accessed on 20 August 2018).
Ozorhon, Abbott, and Aouad, 2013Ozorhon, B., Abbott, C. and Aouad, G. (2013). “Integration and leadership as enablers of innovation in construction: Case study”. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(2), pp. 256–263.
Perkins, and Skitmore, 2015Perkins, I. and Skitmore, M. (2015). “Three-dimensional printing in the construction industry: A review.” International Journal of Construction Management 15(1): pp 1–9.
Peter, 2015Peter, B. J. (2015). “Spiderbot: Large Scale 3D Printer.” Retrieved November 2015, from http://www.bnpeters.com/spiderbot.html (accessed on 20 August 2018).
PWC, 2014PWC (2014). “Technology forecast: The future of 3-D printing”, http://usblogs.pwc.com/emerging-technology/the-road-ahead-for-3d-printing/pp (accessed on 20 August 2018).
World Economic Forum, 2016World Economic Forum (2016). “Shaping the future of construction a breakthrough in mindset and technology”. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Shaping_the_Future_of_Construction_full_report__.pdf (accessed 20 August 2018).
Wu, Wang, and Wang, 2016Wu, P., Wang, J. and Wang, X. (2016). “A critical review of the use of 3-D printing in the construction industry.” Automation in Construction 68: pp. 21–31.
www.3ders.org, 2014www.3ders.org. (2014). “Loughborough University teams up with Skanska to build commercial 3D concrete printing robot.” http://www.3ders.org/articles/20141121-loughborough-university-skanska-to-build-commerical-3d-concrete-printing-robot.html, (accessed on 20 August 2018).
- Prelims
- THE ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION
- Updating and Cleaning Out: The “Make or Buy” Decision in Construction Revisited
- Bispevika Project: Research for Constructing a Collaborative Value Chain
- Social Considerations in the Procurement of Road and Railroad Projects in Sweden
- Standardization and Industrialized Construction of Special Purpose Building
- Identifying Contradictions of Integrating Life-Cycle Costing in Design Practices
- Advancing Networking-Based Business Management in Construction Markets
- Contracts and Culture in a Partnering Project
- Sub-Contractors’ Perception of Contracting: The Case of Crime
- Project Managers: Gatekeepers or Inside Men?
- The Hybridity of Strategic Partnerships and Construction Supply Chain Management
- Dynamic Capabilities and Risk Management: Evaluating the CDRM Model for Clients
- An Opposite Design-Build Procurement Method: Competing on Quality with a Fixed Price
- CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
- An Appraisal of Water Infrastructure Projects’ Financing Challenges in South Africa
- The Soft Factors in Design Management: a Hidden Success Factor?
- Room to Manoeuvre: Governing the Project Provisions
- A Longitudinal View of Adopting Project Alliancing: Case Finland
- A Simulation-Based Optimization for Contractors in Precast Concrete Projects
- Governed by Municipal Land Allocations: Implications for Housing Developers
- Situation Picture Through Construction Information Management
- Who Benefit from Crime in Construction? A Structural Analysis
- Quality Evaluation of Contractor’s Schedule in the Bidding Phase
- Activity Cruciality as Measure of Network Schedule Structure Resilience
- Construction Programmes and Programming: A Critical Review
- Procurement Research: Current State and Future Challenges in the Nordic Countries
- Exploitative Learning in Inter-Organizational Projects: Evidence from Dutch Infrastructure Practices
- The Transition from Design-Bid-Build Contracts to Design-Build
- Exploring the Dynamics of Supplier Innovation Diffusion
- Understanding Collaborative Working in a Facilitated Interdisciplinary Environment
- Ensuring Successful Knowledge Transfer in Building Renovation Projects
- Public Private Collaboration in the Context of Zero Emission Neighbourhood
- Strategizing and Project Management in Construction Projects: An Exploratory Literature Review
- BUILDING INFORMATION, DATA AND DIGITALIZATION
- BIM-Enabled Education: a Systematic Literature Review
- A BIM-Enabled Learning Environment: a Conceptual Framework
- “I Work All Day with Automation in Construction: I am a Sociomaterial-Designer”
- Developing Smart Services to Smart Campus
- An Overview of BIM Adoption in the Construction Industry: Benefits and Barriers
- BIM for Construction Education: Initial Findings from a Literature Review
- Model for Smart, Self-learning and Adaptive Resilience Building
- Investigating the Drop-Out rate from a BIM Course
- INNOVATIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
- Senior Residence Concepts in Norway: Challenges and Actions for a Sustainable Development
- 3D-Printing Technology in Construction: Results from a Survey
- Product and Manufacturing Systems Alignment: a Case Study in the Timber House Building Industry
- Opening the Black Box of Accessibility Regulation
- Orchestrating Multi-Actor Collaborative Innovation Across Organizational Boundaries
- SUSTAINABILITY AND RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
- Social Sustainability in Modelling of Value Creation in Housing Refurbishment
- Reviewing the Role of Sustainability Professionals in Construction
- Exploring the Evolution and Impact of Building Environment Assessment Methods in Achieving Green Building
- STAKEHOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE
- Challenging the Rhetoric of Construction Briefing: Insights from a Formula 1 Sports Venue
- Underlying Causes for Risk Taking Behaviour Among Construction Workers
- Towards Developing a Framework for User-Driven Innovation in Refurbishment
- Reconstructing Knowledge Integration in the Norwegian AEC-Industry
- Institutional Complexity for Chinese International Contractors
- BUILT ENVIRONMENTS
- BIM Related Innovation in Healthcare Precinct Design and Facilities Management
- Location is Crucial in Retrofit: Strategy Selection in Different Regions
- CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
- From Theoretical to Practical Competence on Health and Safety
- A Test Platform of Viable Methods to Improve Production and Learning on Construction Sites