It feels like a ‘make-believe’ world, but according to the numbers, it is not. In 2022, the 3D printing construction market size was valued at U.S. $1.4 billion, with a projected compound annual growth rate of 87.3% until 2031. 3D printing construction companies such as ICON, Mighty Buildings and SQ4D have received hundreds of millions of dollars in investment funding, and builders have started to show interest in the technology. But is it here to stay? Let’s explore the benefits and challenges of this emerging home building technology.
What’s to love… Building homes in this manner could accelerate the rate of construction of the walls, while minimizing the labor needs. A 3D printed structure can also potentially integrate the functionality of several individual building enclosure components into one, thus reducing the number of trades involved in the process. Additionally, it may allow for simplified production logistics and the comparative reduction in the transportation of different materials and personnel.
When creating homes with a base slab, the process can be highly repeatable for large volume production. 3D printing allows for mass customization and can produce forms that can’t be easily achieved with conventional construction methods. Finally, when paired with Building Information Modeling (BIM) systems, the production of 3D printed homes is inherently more precise and controllable.
Why this might be difficult… Weather is a key factor to consider, as humidity, wind, and rain events can all slow down production. Secondly, the cost effectiveness of 3D printed homes relies heavily on the simplification of the building enclosure. This reality lends itself to challenges in insulation, utility access, and space constraints for mechanical systems.
Another limitation is the motion system, which sets constraints for the unit dimensions. Despite the recent development of the robotic arm crane extruding system, the technology is still not suitable for higher density communities where multi-story apartment buildings are prevalent.
Additionally, the fundamental use of concrete – despite recent material advancements – is not immediately seen as being carbon friendly or truly sustainable. Let’s also not forget the significant complexity and effort that will be required in gaining the appropriate code amendments across the nation and in ensuring their effective compliance.
So where does this leave us?
At this stage, 3D printed construction cannot compete with stick-built, prefab panelizing, or modular homes, due to the lag in technological, infrastructural, and regulatory development, as well as facing the uphill climb of competing with the well-accepted familiarity and abundance of lumber resources in North America. However, it could be an option for remote, rural regions where transportation is sparse, or perhaps for areas that face economic or environmental challenges and need affordable housing constructed quickly.