3d printed buildings or structures

[Becktracker]

At the Floriade 2022 I came across the Pigeon Tower at the Qatar pavillion. It is the tallest 3d self-supported printed building with a height of 12,1 m. I heard that the first 3d printed houses in the Netherlands have been made this year. It seems the technology is making a breakthrough. It seems to me a good idea for a Waymarking category. The building or structure submitted should be largely 3d printed or made at least out of 75% 3d printed materials. What does the community think? Again I'm searching some help creating this category as I am not a premium member yet (problably in august 2022 at my birthday I will make this move to premium).

[+T0SHEA]

More information:

3D Concrete Printing – The Ultimate Guide

 

Guinness Book of Records

[+PISA-caching]

Prevelance might be an issue. How many of these 3d printed structures/houses exist so far approximately?

[+fi67]

9 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

Prevelance might be an issue. How many of these 3d printed structures/houses exist so far approximately?

Under-prevalence might be an issue now, massive over-prevalence might become an issue in a couple of years. Or development will turn into a completely different direction and make it a short hype.

We already have a couple of categories that made this mistake. An example of the first kind is Solar Power, Internet Cafes one of the latter.

We really should wait a couple of years before making a decision.

 

[+ScroogieII]

On 5/25/2022 at 11:24 PM, Becktracker said:

I am not a premium member yet ([probably] in august 2022 at my birthday I will make this move to premium).

 

And I shall wait until that moment to comment further as, by that time the Becktracker may have a different view or more info for us.

 

4 hours ago, fi67 said:

Under-prevalence might be an issue now, massive over-prevalence might become an issue in a couple of years. Or development will turn into a completely different direction and make it a short hype.

 

Here's a man with vision. Very few of us, if any, are very good at envisioning the road a new technology, or the implementation of a new technology, will travel. More often than not, it takes us by complete surprise.

keith

[Becktracker]

searching for a list of 3d printed buildings, I found this one: 

 

https://all3dp.com/2/3d-printed-house-3d-printed-building/

 

it features some very creative ones from all over the world.

 

As for becoming over-prevalent, I suggest taking the 'barns' approach, where you can only enter special or beatiful barns.

[+ScroogieII]

On 6/1/2022 at 9:45 PM, Becktracker said:

searching for a list of 3d printed buildings, I found this one: 

 

https://all3dp.com/2/3d-printed-house-3d-printed-building/

 

it features some very creative ones from all over the world.

 

As for becoming over-prevalent, I suggest taking the 'barns' approach, where you can only enter special or beatiful barns.

 

OHHHH, this is a bit eerie. Just outside my window several condos are presently under construction. Their foundations look eerily similar to to these, taken from the header of your included link:

 

 

I'm gonna run right out and get a pic or two of my buildings:

 

 

Unfortunately, here they've already wrapped the perimeters with water proofing, poured concrete in the voids and partially backfilled, so the similarity is no longer as striking..

But otherwise there are similarities. These similarities arise from the fact that the two sites are using relatively similar appearing foundation construction methods, one of which relies on prefab high density foam sections with encapsulated rebar, the other 3D printed concrete. Quite different in methodology. the two are also almost exact opposites in the resulting structures. The 3D printed concrete constitutes the structural aspect of the walls, with insulation occupying space between the double walls, while the prefab high density foam has the insulation on the outsides of the walls, with the structure, the concrete and rebar, within.

 

In any event, this doesn't likely mean that they're about to "print" me some buildings. We'll see ... ... ...

Keith

Edited June 8, 2022 by ScroogieII

[+ScroogieII]

After a short, quick and dirty, self education on the art and technology of 3D Concrete Printing, I want to change my vote.

 

First, I wish to encourage EVERYONE to read through the The Ultimate Guide, the link provided by T0Shea, and the 3D Printed House, the link provided by Becktracker.

 

Given its plethora of advantages, I now firmly believe that 3D Concrete Printing will be the future for building construction, if we consider the near future. The more distant future is as difficult to predict as was the advent of 3D Concrete Printing 20 years ago.

 

3D Concrete Printing is not a technical, or technological, breakthrough so much as an evolutionary step in the technology of 3D printing in general. Note that I use 3D Concrete Printing as somewhat of a generic term, as materials other than concrete may be used, and have already been used, in the "printing" of structures. The future will doubtless see more and more materials used in the process.

 

Among its many other advantages, 3D Concrete Printed buildings are capable of providing a viable solution to many current weather related dilemmas, such as tornadoes, hurricanes and wild fires, all of which are predicted to be exacerbated by Global Warming (I intentionally chose this particular [factual] link as a wakeup to our potential future, should we continue to drag our toes.). Much more robust than stick-built houses, they can be built to withstand both hurricane and tornadic winds. Much more fireproof than wood buildings, they can be built to withstand the passage of a forest fire.

 

Moreover, 3D Concrete Printed buildings can be built in a much shorter time than competing building methods and materials can accomplish, requiring fewer man-hours of labour AND less expense. Following a natural disaster, such as a tornado, the technology can therefore allow the reconstruction of a devastated town, or even city, in a much shorter time, and at less cost, meanwhile providing structures MUCH more capable of withstanding another.

 

Artistically, or architecturally, building design would have few limits using 3D Concrete Printing, allowing the construction of wonderful, useful buildings, the like of which we cannot yet even imagine.

 

I believe that Waymarking has its place in this milieu, if nothing else as a window for the world at large into the sensational architecture that this technological advancement will inspire, as well as the cost effectiveness and the energy and labour efficiency that can be, and has already been, achieved through this building method.

What more need I say?

Keith

 

EDIT: First, after further thought, I would like to see Becktracker go ahead with his proposal, for all the reasons outlined above.

In anticipation of the two reservations presented above by Pisa-Caching and fi67, I suggest that he (Becktracker) adopt an adaptive requirement:

Following initiation of the category, accept each and every submission which otherwise adheres to the stated requirements. At this time there are likely to be few submissions, as there will also be few structures available to be visited by Waymarkers. Assuming that Waymarking should continue in existence, after such structures become more commonplace, reduce the percentage of potentially acceptable submissions by making the requirements more rigorous.

 

This can be done in many ways, by thereafter concentrating on architecture, environmental benefit, cost effectiveness, innovation, or any number of parameters. Implementation of restrictions can be done arbitrarily or through the use of a predetermined formula, such as a single restriction coming into effect at 1,000 approved Waymarks, etc.

Just a thought, but not an outrageous one.

 

(In case you're wondering, I'm just sitting here, watching the ball game and letting my mind wander. [Jays just won, 7-0])

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by ScroogieII

[+pmaupin]

https://www.3dnatives.com/batiment-residentiel-imprime-en-3d-300920203/#!

[+pmaupin]

https://en.constructions-3d.com/

[Becktracker]

The group 3D building molders is now live! Please join if you want to cooperate.

[+ScroogieII]

Just Joined.

This one, Becktracker, I have more faith in.

As I wrote in an earlier post in a similar thread: "Gotta keep Waymarking advancing with the times, after all."

And yes, I wouldn't mind at all joining yourself and Phil as an officer.

Keith

[Becktracker]

I made the category description and the variables. Please check it out, because it was the first time I did this... I want to add some images to give the posters some idea how the construction is done, but I don't have an exterior host for images. I saw in the Puzzles in the real world category that the linked images at the category description are hosted somehow on geochaching.com. Anyone got any idea how I pull this off?

[+fi67]

I am sure there are other possibilities,  I use an old declined waymark of mine as a picture collection for category descriptions

[Becktracker]

Done! Thanks fi for your suggestion. Can someone check out the description?

[+ScroogieII]

On 8/29/2022 at 6:54 AM, Becktracker said:

Done! Thanks fi for your suggestion. Can someone check out the description?

 

Getting to it momentarily.

Keith

[Becktracker]

The category has been sent to peer review! Fingers crossed, but I believe in it

[Becktracker]

The peer review is going well for the category, it seems, with more in favor of the category than against it.

 

For the 'final push' let me comment on some of the reviewers comments:

 

The lack of signage and future development of the technology is something we have no effect on. I expect the buildings and structures that we are looking for are going to be in the media (news articles and others) or that the architects make the technology visible at the outside (the tell-tale ribbles of the layers). The simple block-shaped houses and bridges that may be built in the future aren't going to be distuiganable but these are not the buidlings or structures that we want to strive for in the category.

 

The 'interesting' clause is put into the description for two reasons:

1 to provoke the poster to make some research in the building or structure and to provoke the poster to make a nice description about the subject. A quote alone isn't going to be sufficient, because: "Tell in your own words why this is a uniquely made building or structure."

 

2 To prevent simple block-shaped (or round-shaped) buildings in the future being added to the category. We want to add building and structures that are uniquely shaped or made. If the poster makes an effort to locate some unusual features in the 'simple' building or structures or an unique cornstuction material or technique, we will tend to be favoured for inclusion.

 

We are not going to be very critical at this point, we just want the poster to make an effort and we also don't want to clutter the category with many buildings or structures that others don't want to visit.

[Becktracker]

Sorry but I'm flabbergasted. In peer review 36 votes were cast; 20 approves and 12 against. 4 people abstained. It looks like the mayority is in favor of the category but still it is denied! What are the rules regarding this process?

[+Alfouine]

You can also have secret vote

[+Max and 99]

12 hours ago, Becktracker said:

Sorry but I'm flabbergasted. In peer review 36 votes were cast; 20 approves and 12 against. 4 people abstained. It looks like the mayority is in favor of the category but still it is denied! What are the rules regarding this process?

I don't know who they are sent to, but doesn't the leader of the category also get to see the comments from the anonymous votes? 

Edited September 8, 2022 by Max and 99

[Becktracker]

The numbers I wrote were including the anonymous votes...

[+T0SHEA]

13 hours ago, Becktracker said:

20 approves and 12 against.

 

Without seeing the hidden votes, 20 votes approved and 12 deny,  just these numbers alone did not meet the 50% threshold. 

[+Max and 99]

37 minutes ago, T0SHEA said:

 

First, you always don't get what you see. Obviously there were hidden deny votes possibly 6 or more. 

BTW: The abstained vote basially are a non-vote, as they do not count for or against.

You quoted me and I did not say that.

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by Max and 99

[geoawareUSA9]

Let's all please remember decorum and discuss things like adults.

[+Max and 99]

3 minutes ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

Let's all please remember decorum and discuss things like adults.

What prompted that post? 

[+Max and 99]

18 hours ago, Becktracker said:

Sorry but I'm flabbergasted. In peer review 36 votes were cast; 20 approves and 12 against. 4 people abstained. It looks like the mayority is in favor of the category but still it is denied! What are the rules regarding this process?

Well I'm confused then because that is at least 50% approve, and you said it includes the anonymous votes. 

20 is more than 50% of 36. So what am I missing?

Edited September 8, 2022 by Max and 99

[+T0SHEA]

Abstained votes basically do not count towards an approval or a deny vote. 

 

20 approve with 12 deny still is not 50%. 

 

Even if there were 25 abstained votes it still would not change the outcome.

[+Max and 99]

36 votes, 4 of which were abstain.

32 votes, 20 approve 

That is more than 50%. 

[+Max and 99]

In the FAQ:

 

[Becktracker]

According to the math it was a 62% majority. This gives me the idea that with a few tweaks to the category it will pass. Maybe I'l take another try soon. I certainly won't wait for a year or more, maybe then I'm not a premium member anymore

[geoawareUSA9]

18 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

What prompted that post? 

 

User(s) reporting posts in this thread that they didn't like, which didn't violate the forum guidelines.

 

Those concerned have been privately contacted. Those whom I did not privately contact have no immediate concerns. But since many forum users (including me) are passionate about geocaching and Waymarking, sometimes it's helpful for everyone to be reminded that these are games, to be discussed with civility.

[+Alfouine]

2 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

 

User(s) reporting posts in this thread that they didn't like, which didn't violate the forum guidelines.

 

Those concerned have been privately contacted. Those whom I did not privately contact have no immediate concerns. But since many forum users (including me) are passionate about geocaching and Waymarking, sometimes it's helpful for everyone to be reminded that these are games, to be discussed with civility.

Are you really serious ?

Do you really think there is a problem with a MAx and 99 reply ?

[Keystone]

22 hours ago, Alfouine said:

Are you really serious ?

Do you really think there is a problem with a MAx and 99 reply ?

 

Yes, hence the moderator action.  Now, let's get back to discussing the proposed category, OK?  Future off topic replies will be hidden from view.

[wayfrog]

On 9/9/2022 at 11:42 AM, Becktracker said:

According to the math it was a 62% majority. This gives me the idea that with a few tweaks to the category it will pass. Maybe I'l take another try soon. I certainly won't wait for a year or more, maybe then I'm not a premium member anymore

That's right, it was 62% so 5% too less. Nice sunday to all!

[+Max and 99]

On 9/4/2022 at 2:11 AM, Becktracker said:

The 'interesting' clause is put into the description for two reasons:

1 to provoke the poster to make some research in the building or structure and to provoke the poster to make a nice description about the subject. A quote alone isn't going to be sufficient, because: "Tell in your own words why this is a uniquely made building or structure."

 

2 To prevent simple block-shaped (or round-shaped) buildings in the future being added to the category. We want to add building and structures that are uniquely shaped or made. If the poster makes an effort to locate some unusual features in the 'simple' building or structures or an unique cornstuction material or technique, we will tend to be favoured for inclusion.

 

We are not going to be very critical at this point, we just want the poster to make an effort and we also don't want to clutter the category with many buildings or structures that others don't want to visit.

The category requirements need to be as objective as possible. 

It really irks me when officers state in the category description: we will evaluate waymarks on a case-by-case basis. 

Either a waymark meets the category requirements or it doesn't. The review of a waymark should not be dependent on which officer reviews it and what he or she thinks is interesting. 

But I do think you can add wording that expresses you don't want these simple block buildings submitted. It's a tricky thing to add to a category description! 

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by Max and 99

[+Ariberna]

22 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

The category requirements need to be as objective as possible. 

It really irks me when officers state in the category description: we will evaluate waymarks on a case-by-case basis. 

Either a waymark meets the category requirements or it doesn't. The review of a waymark should not be dependent on which officer reviews it and what he or she thinks is interesting. 

But I do think you can add wording that expresses you don't want these simple block buildings submitted. It's a tricky thing to add to a category description! 

Of course Max, that on a case-by-case basis is converting the WM into I approve WM to who I want and who I don't, I don't approve or order a conditional evaluation.

[+ScroogieII]

On 9/11/2022 at 9:02 AM, Max and 99 said:

The category requirements need to be as objective as possible. 

It really irks me when officers state in the category description: we will evaluate waymarks on a case-by-case basis. 

Either a waymark meets the category requirements or it doesn't. The review of a waymark should not be dependent on which officer reviews it and what he or she thinks is interesting. 

But I do think you can add wording that expresses you don't want these simple block buildings submitted. It's a tricky thing to add to a category description! 

 

 

99, you are on the right track here.

Now hopefully we, too, can get on that track. We're working on it right now.

Keith

[+Smurffaaja]

I have tried to find 3D printed House or structure from my country. Found total 0. There was several articles how some company has printed concrete for supporting structures of various buildings. But when the building is completed, you cannot see them anylonger.

Some really artistic looking concrete surfaces are not directly 3D printed. Only moulds are done. So these cannot be waymarked?

Found also some start-up companies that are planning to create enough good concrete for 3D printing. So, this is clearly in near future much more used.

[Becktracker]

This leaf bridge from the university of Tampere Smurffaaja?:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.3dprintingmedia.network/finnish-3d-printed-leaf-bridge-shows-potential-of-natural-composite-materials/amp/

[+Smurffaaja]

44 minutes ago, Becktracker said:

This leaf bridge from the university of Tampere Smurffaaja?:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.3dprintingmedia.network/finnish-3d-printed-leaf-bridge-shows-potential-of-natural-composite-materials/amp/

 

Thanks Becktracker. Cool find! But... this was just study to try new materials. Leaf bridge went into annual house exhibition on 2018 and after that it has not seen on public places.

More about this pretty nice consept of natural bridge: https://www.rop.fi/leafbridge.html

[+ScroogieII]

On 9/13/2022 at 11:31 AM, Smurffaaja said:

I have tried to find 3D printed House or structure from my country. Found total 0. There was several articles how some company has printed concrete for supporting structures of various buildings. But when the building is completed, you cannot see them anylonger.

Some really artistic looking concrete surfaces are not directly 3D printed. Only moulds are done. So these cannot be waymarked?

Found also some start-up companies that are planning to create enough good concrete for 3D printing. So, this is clearly in near future much more used.

 

Fear not, Kai! Such things will appear in Finland in the not too distant future. After all, Finland is as progressive a country as any these days.

As the Brits are wont to say "Don't get your knickers in a knot." 

Keith

Edited September 18, 2022 by ScroogieII

[Becktracker]

Peer review 2 is on!

 

We hopefully have encompassed as much of your comments from the first round to your satisfaction. Please vote everyone, because as it was very close last time, we need all the votes we can get! Thanks already

[+Max and 99]

I'm not clear on the media option. 

[Becktracker]

The media is one of the grades we use. If something odd and unusual is going to appear or has appeared, a newspaper article or blog post seems like a good grade meter. Besides I wanted to include more options than simply the 'unusual shape or design' or 'unusual building material'.

 

The 75 percent issue was not commented on before. If we change this to 'has to consist largely out of 3d printed materials' will this be acceptable? Again we had to put in a grade meter or buildings and structures or we have to accept buildings and structures in which only a tiny bit is 3d printed.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Becktracker
Saw comments from peer review

[+Max and 99]

Thanks. So if a block shaped 3D printing building has an article about it, that's accepted? I'm worried I'm misunderstanding.

[+T0SHEA]

From category description: "As 3D construction grows, it has the potential to disrupt the traditional construction process. With many structures printed in a matter of days, 3D printing shelters, for example, can be beneficial for victims of natural disasters."

 

This statement sounds great on paper, however 3D printers create  walls, not complete homes or other buildings. If you factor installing windows, doors, roofs, electrical wiring, plumbing, insulation, interior walls and finishes, and millwork to name a few.  A livable structure could take months for them to be habitable. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Becktracker]

I'm calling off the peer review. It has no chance. The Waymarking community has shown to take nitpicking as their standard. It's no wonder why no new category has been posted in the entire year of 2022. I hope you all will reflect on that. 

 

I personally will not be losing any more energy or a night's sleep over this process. I will not take the effort anymore to create new categories and I will not post anymore of my ideas here.