http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-3-000-houses-
downloaded-printed-24-hours.html

Interesting technology.

Although billed as a 3D printer I think the main technological advance is
the concrete which can be laid from a nozzle and keep its shape. It must
set very quickly as well to be able to build a complete single storey
house within 24 hours. I wonder how well this would work with normal
shuttering as a former just being constantly jacked up?

The walls are dual thickness with cavities (but not continuous) and look
as though they should be strong.

Not up to building regulations (unless the concrete is also a very good
insulator) as there isn't insulation built into the walls.

Looks pretty good for fast build accommodation on a suitable site,
although you would also have to be laying all services prior to the build.
That would go with the concrete slab for the base, of course.

It looks to require a flat site, as well.

At the moment I'm trying to work out how this stacks up against a
traditional block build using brickies.

As far as I know the main constraint to speed of build is the time it
takes for the mortar to go off. You can only lay so many rows of blocks or
bricks before you have to leave it alone to cure.

I'm pretty sure there was a mechanical brick layer about 30-50 years ago.
Ah, yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MWald1Goqk

Haven't seen many of them around on building sites. Still better and
faster than me, though.

Cheers


Dave R

--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 13/03/18 19:27, David wrote:
At the moment I'm trying to work out how this stacks up against a
traditional block build using brickies.

As far as I know the main constraint to speed of build is the time it
takes for the mortar to go off. You can only lay so many rows of blocks or
bricks before you have to leave it alone to cure.
Having watched brickies I would say they spend 25% of the time doing
nothing productive, 25% moving materials from where te truck left them
to where they nmeed them, 40% of the time laying out the strings and 10%
of the time actually laying courses.


--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 14/03/2018 14:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:39:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 13/03/18 19:27, David wrote:
At the moment I'm trying to work out how this stacks up against a
traditional block build using brickies.

Are they really saying the entire cost was $10k, at US labour rates?
Including clearing the site, laying the foundations, that complicated
roof, all the windows and electrics, etc?

The extruded mortar machine is very impressive, and it does allow for
those very pretty curves, but a few blokes could run up the blockwork
equivalent (without the curves) in much the same time. The blocks and
mortar are not expensive.




As far as I know the main constraint to speed of build is the time it
takes for the mortar to go off. You can only lay so many rows of blocks
or bricks before you have to leave it alone to cure.
Having watched brickies I would say they spend 25% of the time doing
nothing productive, 25% moving materials from where te truck left them
to where they nmeed them, 40% of the time laying out the strings and 10%
of the time actually laying courses.

I am amazed that of all the jobs that have been mechanised, bricklaying
remains an exception.

It's economics, innit? Of the total cost of a house, the cost of a
brickie is a tiny part. For example, the cost of the bricks laid in a
day is typically several times the cost of the brickie. And the cost of
the walls is only a fairly small part of the overall cost.

The robots do exist:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5...ction-workers/




Mind you, modern dwellings seem quite brick-shy anyway.

On 14/03/18 15:12, GB wrote:
It's economics, innit? Of the total cost of a house, the cost of a
brickie is a tiny part. For example, the cost of the bricks laid in a
day is typically several times the cost of the brickie.

Crap. When I built my house the general spilt was 1/3rd material 2/3rds
labour.

The brickies cost up to 5 times as much as the bricks they lay, even
including the mortar. Same goes for render even moree so - its ALL
labour and even slapping on weatherboard is not that quick.

Only when you are fitting out a house does the materials cost exceed the
labour cost.




--
Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 14/03/2018 17:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/03/18 15:12, GB wrote:
It's economics, innit? Of the total cost of a house, the cost of a
brickie is a tiny part. For example, the cost of the bricks laid in a
day is typically several times the cost of the brickie.

Crap. When I built my house the general spilt was 1/3rd material 2/3rds
labour.

The brickies cost up to 5 times as much as the bricks they lay, even
including the mortar. Same goes for render even moree so - its ALL
labour and even slapping on weatherboard is not that quick.

It's also amazing just how fast a brickie can work when he's being paid
a fixed price for a job!

SteveW

On 14/03/18 17:37, Steve Walker wrote:
On 14/03/2018 17:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/03/18 15:12, GB wrote:
It's economics, innit? Of the total cost of a house, the cost of a
brickie is a tiny part. For example, the cost of the bricks laid in a
day is typically several times the cost of the brickie.

Crap. When I built my house the general spilt was 1/3rd material
2/3rds labour.

The brickies cost up to 5 times as much as the bricks they lay, even
including the mortar. Same goes for render even moree so - its ALL
labour and even slapping on weatherboard is not that quick.

It's also amazing just how fast a brickie can work when he's being paid
a fixed price for a job!

SteveW

https://www.self-build.co.uk/questio...-per-thousand/

£20/square meter
A brick is about £1 give or take.

60 bricks to the square meter, so if you CAN get that productivity out
of the bricklayer yers, the bricks are more expensive.
I've never seen it

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

Jethro_uk wrote:

I am amazed that of all the jobs that have been mechanised, bricklaying
remains an exception.

Mind you, modern dwellings seem quite brick-shy anyway.

And yet, with all the novel materials and off-site construction methods
brick'n'block still remains the cheapest built method - arguably with
the other methods, you can get a better insulated house to a more
predictable timescale.

On 14/03/18 16:26, Andy Burns wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:

I am amazed that of all the jobs that have been mechanised, bricklaying
remains an exception.

Mind you, modern dwellings seem quite brick-shy anyway.

And yet, with all the novel materials and off-site construction methods
brick'n'block still remains the cheapest built method

Well no it doesn't.

The developer/builder whos building site I was living in last yeat
simpley premakes wooden panels with strawboard walls and 6x3 structural
members, eecdts them, and then clads them in brick, weatherboard or
render depending.

Way faster than all blockwork and cheap as chips


- arguably with
the other methods, you can get a better insulated house to a more
predictable timescale.

And that saves money as well.


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Way faster than all blockwork and cheap as chips

faster, but every cost estimate I've seen says you pay more for
brick-skinned SIPs, or brick-skinned timber frame.

On 14/03/18 17:41, Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Way faster than all blockwork and cheap as chips

faster, but every cost estimate I've seen says you pay more for
brick-skinned SIPs, or brick-skinned timber frame.

Depends on how prefabbed your frames are.


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx