3D-PRINTED HOUSES PILOT PROJECT

Research Report 1: Pre-production Phase

By:

School of Civil Engineering & the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg

For:
National Department of Science and Innovation

30 November 2020
Authors: Prof Luxien Ariyan
Nicoline Reynecke
Dr J Mahachi
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Background ........................................................................................................ 4
1.2. Research methodology ...................................................................................... 5
1.3. 3D-printing methods ........................................................................................... 6
1.3.1. Selective laser melting (SLM) ...................................................................... 6
1.3.2. Fused deposition modeling (FDM) ............................................................... 6
1.3.3. Contour crafting (CC)................................................................................... 7
1.4. 3-D printing materials ......................................................................................... 9
1.4.1. Selective laser melting (SLM) ...................................................................... 9
1.4.2. Fused deposition modeling (FDM) ............................................................... 9
1.4.3. Contour crafting (CC)................................................................................... 9
1.5. General industrial use of 3D-printing methodology ............................................ 9
1.6. House production using 3D-printing methodology............................................ 10
1.7. Advantages and disadvantages of 3D-printed houses ..................................... 11
1.7.1. Advantages................................................................................................ 11
1.7.2. Disadvantages ........................................................................................... 11
2. AIM OF THE SURVEY ........................................................................................... 12
3. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ........................................................... 12
3.1. Sampling .......................................................................................................... 13
3.1.1. Sampling criteria ........................................................................................ 13
3.1.2. Criteria for choosing respondents .............................................................. 13
3.1.3. Sample size and response rate ................................................................. 14
3.2. Data analysis.................................................................................................... 15
3.2.1. Conventional house building methods and materials ................................ 15
3.2.2. Materials used in conventional building of houses ..................................... 19
3.2.3. General knowledge of 3D-printing ............................................................. 23
3.2.4. General knowledge of 3D printing of houses ............................................. 26
3.2.5. Impact of 3D printing of houses ................................................................. 33
4. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 38
5. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 40

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 2| Page

Figure 1: Selective laser smelting ................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Fused deposition modelling.............................................................................. 7
Figure 3: Contour Crafting 3D-printer .............................................................................. 8
Figure 4: Individual layers of cement on a structure created by Constructions-3D.......... 8
Figure 5: Survey response rate ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 6: Methods to produce houses ........................................................................... 15
Figure 7: Walls .............................................................................................................. 16
Figure 8: Materials for bricks, blocks and panels .......................................................... 17
Figure 9: Pre-eminence of bricks-and-mortar houses ................................................... 18
Figure 10: Bottle Houses at Prince Edward Island ........................................................ 20
Figure 11: The Bottle Chapel at Airlie Gardens, North Carolina. ................................... 20
Figure 12: Wood fibre wall ............................................................................................. 21
Figure 13: Mud and straw wall ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 14: Steel sheeting and rock wool inner core wall ............................................... 22
Figure 15: Materials used in house production.............................................................. 23
Figure 16: General knowledge of 3D-printing ................................................................ 24
Figure 17: General experience of 3D-printing ............................................................... 25
Figure 18: Knowledge and experience of 3D-printing of houses ................................... 26
Figure 19: 3D-printing house parts ................................................................................ 27
Figure 20: 3D-printing house shapes ............................................................................ 28
Figure 21: 3D-printing house sizes ................................................................................ 29
Figure 22: 3D-printing house types ............................................................................... 30
Figure 23: 3D-printed houses versus conventionally produced houses ........................ 33
Figure 24: Professionals and artisans affected by 3D-printing houses .......................... 35
Figure 25: Mortgage approval of 3D-printed houses ..................................................... 36
Figure 26: Municipal approval for 3D-printed houses .................................................... 37
Figure 27: Living in 3D-printed houses .......................................................................... 38

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 3| Page

1. INTRODUCTION

This Report is based on respondent perceptions of conventional and 3D-printed houses.

Arranged in five sections, this Report is the first of a trilogy of surveys that have been
planned as follows for the 3D-Printed Houses Pilot Project:

 Pre-production phase;
 Production phase; and,
 Post production phase:
a. Social Acceptance; and,
b. Technical Assessment.

1.1. Background

Unlike most other industries, the construction industry has not changed significantly in the
twenty-first century: the processes and materials have remained essentially the same.
And, bricks-and-mortar construction continues to monopolise the industry. As a result of
this fixation, many valuable benefits that it might otherwise have enjoyed are lost to the
industry.

A general reluctance by the construction industry to embrace technological advancement

has meant that productivity is tedious, outdated and lacking in dynamism and creativity.
There are various contributory factors. For example, there is insufficient collaboration
between construction suppliers and contractors, inadequate knowledge transfer from one
project to the next, and fear and anxiety by built environment professionals to explore
innovative ideas and solutions. Yet, the construction industry is well-positioned to: refine
its business-as-usual productivity and efficiency models; and, embrace technological
advances such as Building Information Modeling (BIM), 3D-printing and augmented
reality ((WEF), 2016).

3D-printing technology was developed in 1980 by Charles W Hull. Hull patented the first
commercial 3D-printer or stereolithographic machine in 1986. This machine functioned

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 4| Page

by having several layers of liquid UV-cured resin, one on top of the other, and then using
a UV laser to trace and solidify a pattern, which in turn caused each successive layer to
adhere to the previous layer. After receiving the first patent, Hull started the company 3D
Systems, that commercialised the original rapid prototyping systems for CAD (computer
aided design) software.

Also known as additive manufacturing, 3D-printing has since the 1980s infiltrated many
industries including aerospace, art, medical and engineering.

The basic machine used in 3D-printing is a frame capable of moving in a two-dimensional

plane and uses software to position the dispenser of materials.

The two main components of 3D-printing are:

 Method; and,
 Materials.

1.2. Research methodology

This pre-production survey used a quantitative methodology to gather and present the
data. A structured questionnaire was used. A descriptive survey design was applied to
collect data from respondents. The aim of this Report was to assess perceptions of
respondents on conventional construction of a house, and also on 3D-printing of a house.

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the questionnaire could only be disseminated to

respondents electronically. The completed questionnaires were uploaded on a
spreadsheet. The data was uploaded twice by two different individuals. This was to
ensure that there were no mistakes in the data capturing process. The data was then
analysed.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 5| Page

1.3. 3D-printing methods

The following section focuses on the methods used in 3D-printing.

1.3.1. Selective laser melting (SLM)

Selective laser melting (SLM) is a method where sintering takes place to form a 3D object.
Sintering is the process of compacting and creating solid objects from material by using
heat and pressure without melting the powder. The benefit of this method is that it does
not require abundant additional sanding or alterations once an object is completed (Ngoa,
et al., 2018).

Figure 1: Selective Laser Smelting

1.3.2. Fused deposition modeling (FDM)

S. Scott Crump invented fused deposition modeling (FDM) technology in 1988 (Crump,
1996). Scott Crump is the founder, Chief Executive and Chairman of Stratasys Inc which
is a 3D printing and additive manufacturing company incorporated in Israel. FDM
transpires when material of a ductile nature is forced through a double-headed nozzle.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 6| Page

The nozzle contains resistive heaters to keep the material at the required melting point
and allows it to flow through the nozzle, which forms layers of material one on top of the
other. After the material is pumped through the nozzle, it starts to cool and harden ready
for the next layer to be placed on top.

Figure 2: Fused deposition modelling

1.3.3. Contour crafting (CC)

Contour crafting (CC) was invented by Professor Behrokh Khoshnevis at the University
of Southern California. This is an additive fabrication technology. The method uses layer
upon layer of material to create an object with smooth surface qualities. Some of the
benefits of this method are an improved surface quality, broader choice of materials and
a higher manufacturing speed (Sakin & Kiroglu, 2017).

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 7| Page

 Figure 3: Contour Crafting 3D-printer

Figure 4: Individual layers of cement on a structure created by Constructions-3D

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 8| Page

1.4. 3-D printing materials

1.4.1. Selective laser melting (SLM)

The materials used most frequently for SLM are metallic based powders which are fused
together. The latest advances of fibre optics and high power lasers have permitted SLM
to process various metallic materials like aluminum, copper and tungsten.

1.4.2. Fused deposition modeling (FDM)

Materials used most often in FDM are filaments or rolls of thermoplastic material like
acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) or polylactic acid (PLA). ABS is available in a wide
range of colours. PLA is made from biodegradable material that contain cornstarch or
sugar cane. Fused deposition modeling has become the most popular type of 3D-printing
used globally (Ngoa, et al., 2018).

1.4.3. Contour crafting (CC)

Contour crafting uses materials which are quick setting, for example, concrete and sand.

1.5. General industrial use of 3D-printing methodology

The 3D-printing methods and materials discussed in the previous section have been used
in various industries primarily for the development of prototypes.

The adaption of 3D-printing methodology in the medical and dental prototyping industry
to create unique working models for each patient individually is discussed in Jeffrey et al
(Jeffrey W.Stansburya & Idacavagec, 2016). 3D-printing methodology is also used to print
bone and cartilage as well as replacement tissue and organs to assist with cancer
research (Wang1, et al., 2018).

In the aerospace industry, 3D-printing is applied where lightweight parts are essential and
require complex geometric shapes. Where engine components are easily damaged and

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 9| Page

must be replaced in a short time span, 3D-printing has been used as the process to
reproduce these parts is less time consuming (Ngoa, et al., 2018).

Artists and designers use 3D-printing to visualise the concepts of their work from a digital
image to a physical prototype before the product is ready for production. Artists are also
using 3D-printing to create once-off or limited edition art. At the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, 3D-printing is utilised for the improved perception of ancient artifacts. This
process includes the designing of artifacts, sculptures and jewellery (Franco, et al., 2015).

It is clear that 3D-printing has assisted in various industries to increase productivity and
improve efficiency.

1.6. House production using 3D-printing methodology

The previous section showed that various industries have successfully used 3D-printing.
The construction industry is also investigating new ways to improve production and
efficiency.

The Amsterdam Canal House Project in the Netherlands commenced using 3D-printing
in 2014. The printing of the house is still in progress and will consist of 13 rooms which
require various 3D printed elements (HOUSE, 2016). The walls and floors are printed
using 3D technology and then just click into place similar to giant Lego blocks.

Shanghai WinSun Decoration Design Engineering Company in China 3D-printed ten

houses in 24 hours. The pieces of the houses were printed and then transported from its
industrial park to the Shanghai’s Qingpu district site (Kira, 2015). The same company has
completed a six-storey apartment building covering approximately 1100 square metres
with 3D-printing technology. The materials used for this apartment building included
waste such as fibreglass, concrete, sand and a special hardening agent. This technology
is relatively unknown in the building industry and has not been applied to any building
construction in South Africa as yet.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 10 | P a g e

A low cost housing solution in Cape Town involves an earth bag building system whereby
walls are constructed out of sandbags which are then covered in earthen plaster as a
finish to the walls (Brendan Grady, 2019). These include methods to lower the cost of
construction and materials as well as a reduction in project completion time.

Concrete is one of the main materials used in the construction industry globally. The raw
materials required are relatively inexpensive and readily available in most countries.
Although concrete is one of the best materials to use in construction, it has some
disadvantages, which can ultimately have a cost implication. Some of the disadvantages
associated with concrete are that it is a quasi-brittle material; and has low tensile strength,
toughness and specific strength. Concrete also requires formwork and a long curing time.
All these require strict quality controls. The construction industry is investigating methods
to negate some of the disadvantages of traditional building material and methods. The
World Economic Forum started a multi-year effort to help the construction and
engineering industry with this ((WEF), 2016).

1.7. Advantages and disadvantages of 3D-printed houses

In this section, we list the advantages and disadvantages of using 3D-printing

methodology to produce houses in South Africa.

1.7.1. Advantages

The advantages of producing houses using 3D-printing are as follows:

 creating components with unlimited architectural flexibility and higher precision
(Hager, et al., 292 – 299)
 reducing health and safety risks
 Increasing production efficiency

1.7.2. Disadvantages

The disadvantages of producing houses using 3D-printing are as follows:

 the equipment may be large, resulting in high transport and placement costs

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 11 | P a g e

 can be a costly process in terms of the amortisation of expensive equipment
 material with unique properties focused on construction may be expensive
 the technology is not proven in South Africa

The advantages and disadvantages will need further investigation before any definitive
conclusion may be drawn on whether or not 3D-printing increases production efficiency
and reduces the time it takes to complete a house.

2. AIM OF THE SURVEY

This survey aims to get an indicative idea of stakeholders’ views on 3D-printed houses.

3. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The survey used a structured questionnaire to elicit responses from housing
stakeholders. This structured questionnaire is attached to this Report as Appendix A.

The quantitative information derived from administering the survey questionnaire was
collated and analysed. Consisting of five sections, the questionnaire uses an exploratory
research design method. An exploratory research design method focuses on investigating
a problem, and in doing so discovers a better understanding of the problem. This survey
explores respondents’ views on conventional building of houses, their knowledge and
experience of 3D-printing in general, and their views of 3D-printing of houses specifically.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 12 | P a g e

Table 1: Outline of the survey design

Conventional construction methods This section is mainly centred on

and materials “building” houses using bricks-and-mortar
3D-printing (general) This section probes respondents’
knowledge of 3D-printing methodology in
general
3D-printing (house production) This section probes respondents’
knowledge of 3D printing in relation to the
production of houses

3.1. Sampling

3.1.1. Sampling criteria

A sample is a small group of respondents that has been chosen from a larger group. But
the sample must still represent the larger group (Polansky, 1995). Random sampling was
used to distribute the questionnaire to respondents.

Respondents were not required to disclose their names. As a result, 2 of the 27

respondents chose to remain anonymous.

3.1.2. Criteria for choosing respondents

Those targeted by this survey included built environment professionals and artisans,
contractors, developers, homeowners, home-seekers, government officials involved in
the sector and bank employees involved in housing finance.

The restrictions related to the Covid-19 pandemic made face-to-face interviews

impossible. The questionnaire had to be emailed to respondents. And this proved to be
less than ideal. Indeed, Kwak showed in his 2002 study that the response rate to emailed
surveys is almost always lower than hand-delivered surveys.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 13 | P a g e

3.1.3. Sample size and response rate

The questionnaire was disseminated to 49 built environment stakeholders. Of these, 27

responded by completing the questionnaire. This equated to a response rate of 55.10
percent. It was also deemed an adequate sample size and response rate to proceed with.

Response rate

45%

55%

Answered Not answered

Figure 5: Survey response rate

The questionnaire did not require respondents to add their name. However, it was a
prerequisite for respondents to include their professional status. Of the 27 respondents,
32 percent was from the Civil Engineering discipline. Eighteen percent of respondents
were from the Electrical Engineering discipline and 8 percent were from the Mechanical
Engineering discipline. Twenty-two percent of respondents worked in the Project
Management sector, and the remaining 20 percent was evenly distributed among the
marketing; design; education; metal; and, construction and mining sectors. Every effort
was made to distribute the questionnaire especially to built environment professionals as
well as home seekers and financers. But, there was a nil return from home seekers and
financers, and any further enquiries could not be pursued because of restrictions relating
to the Covid-19 pandemic. The demographic information of the 27 respondents shows
that 67 percent was male and 33 percent, female.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 14 | P a g e

3.2. Data analysis

3.2.1. Conventional house building methods and materials

Section A of the survey explored views on building methods that use bricks and blocks.
These questions focused on what methods the respondents were familiar with and the
materials used to build a house.

3.2.1.1. Methods to produce houses

120%

100%

80%

60%
100%
40% 81%
19% 19%
20%

0%
1

Built Baked Other Manufactured

Figure 6: Methods to produce houses

All of the respondents (100 percent) stated that the use of bricks and mortar ensured
decent houses. Alternatively, manufacturing a house as second choice was selected by
81 percent of respondents. Fifteen percent of respondents chose only one answer for this
question; the other 85 percent chose more than one option. Some of the other methods
mentioned were subterranean, recycled containers and wood mouldings. The
respondents that stated “houses can be baked” were contacted to find out why they chose
this answer because houses cannot be baked. All five of them answered that they meant
sections of the houses could be baked, and then assembled on site.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 15 | P a g e

One can conclude that although 100 percent of respondents were confident about
building a house with conventional materials, 19 percent of them still indicated that they
would consider using alternative methods and materials.

3.2.1.2. Walls

Respondents were asked what could be put together to make walls. The figure below
shows their responses.

100%
90%
80% 85%
70%
60%
50% 100%
40% 85%

30% 37%
20%
10%
0%
1

Bricks Panels Other Blocks

Figure 7: Walls

All of the respondents stated that bricks could be used to make proper house walls. Eighty
five percent indicated that panels and blocks could also be used for the same purpose.
Under “other”, some respondents cited concrete slabs, stone cladding, steel or iron walls,
timber, corrugated metal, bamboo and stone. Some stated that natural materials such as
fibres and mud could also be used to make proper house walls.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 16 | P a g e

3.2.1.3. Materials for bricks, blocks and panels

100%
90%
80%
70% 93%
60%
50% 96% 100%
40%
30% 41%

20%
10%
0%
Cement Stone
1 Other Sand

Figure 8: Materials for bricks, blocks and panels

Of the 27 respondents, only 11 percent did not choose all three options of cement, sand
and stone as materials used to make bricks, blocks and panels. As illustrated in figure 5,
sand had a response rate of 100 percent, while cement and stone had response rates of
96 percent and 93 percent respectively. This was for materials that can be used in the
production of bricks, blocks and panels.

As shown in figure 5, some of the other materials mentioned were clay and ash. A
significant proportion of the world’s population lives in and or works in a building that is
prepared with clay as a crucial part of its load-bearing structure. Some products derived
from clay are paving bricks, terra cotta tiles, drain pipes and building bricks.

In South Africa, clay bricks predominate for wall construction. Fly ash is a big contributor
in green engineering. It is used as a component of concrete to produce a durable and
sustainable structure.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 17 | P a g e

Although clay, cement, stone and sand have been specified as the preferred material for
building a house, 41 percent of respondents indicated that they would consider ‘other’
material as the base material for making bricks, blocks or panels.

3.2.1.4. Pre-eminence of bricks-and-mortar houses

90%
81%
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%
19%
20%

10%

0%

Yes No

Figure 9: Pre-eminence of bricks-and-mortar houses

The majority of respondents (81 percent) stated that houses built of brick and blocks
should not be the only houses allowed in South Africa. Building houses exclusively from
bricks and blocks have a significant impact on sustainable development, cost of building
as well as the shortage of resources and the high cost of building materials in the
construction industry.

In South Africa, there is a significant shortage of housing which can be seen as a palpable
asset to the less privileged (Burgoyne, 2008). The construction industry is known for being
a major consumer of non-renewable resources and finding ways to rectify this through
sustainable development can have a positive impact.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 18 | P a g e

The high cost of building material contributes to the South African housing crisis.
Exploring ways to reduce material cost and re-using material would impact the methods
which the building industry employs to constructs houses. Additionally, respondents aver
that poor people cannot afford houses built from bricks and blocks and should be able to
use whatever material they can find.

Wood, corrugated-iron sheets and clay were among the other materials respondents
nominated.

Eighty-one percent agreed that houses could be built with material other than bricks or
blocks. This indicates that alternative materials and methods are acceptable for the
building of houses in South Africa.

3.2.1.5. Respondents’ views on the shortage of houses in South Africa and how
this can be resolved

This question generated varying responses. These included:

 “to stop corruption and fraud through funding for low cost housing going missing”
 “Put an end to moving the goal posts about ‘affordable’ housing”
 “Endeavour to employ alternative means of building houses, considering cheaper
building methods and materials as well as building low cost multi-level houses”

The results of Section A of the survey indicate that the respondents are in general
agreement that alternative materials and methods could be considered.

3.2.2. Materials used in conventional building of houses

Section B of the questionnaire focused on the type of materials used in the building
construction industry.

3.2.2.1. Additional materials used to produces houses

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 19 | P a g e

The majority of respondents (96 percent) answered that they have seen other materials
being used in the production of houses. They mentioned fibre panels, preformed walling,
mud and straw, in-situ cast concrete as well as concrete and glass bottles (for aesthetic
reasons), recycled materials and modular panels. Modular panels are interlocking panels
that are lightweight, fire resistant and insulated to create affordable prefabricated housing
and is being made by various companies in South Africa already.

Figure 10: Bottle Houses at Prince Edward Island

Figure 11: The Bottle Chapel at Airlie Gardens, North Carolina.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 20 | P a g e

 Figure 12: Wood Fibre wall

Figure 13: Mud and straw wall

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 21 | P a g e

 Figure 14: Steel sheeting and rock wool inner core wall

3.2.2.2. Materials used in house production

Eighty five percent of respondents agreed that the materials they have listed were solid
enough to make the walls of a house. According to SANS 10400 – A – 2010 A13 Building
Materials and Tests “Material used in the erection of a building shall be suitable for the
purpose for which it is to be used.” This indicates that any house produced through 3D
printing will need to go through relevant non-destructive testing to ensure that the material
being used is appropriate for the purpose it is intended for (SABS, 2010). The South
African Bureau of Standards approves new methods and materials used for building. This
is to ensure the quality of design and adherence to safety regulations (Douglas Aghimien,
2019).

According to the “Policy guidelines on the use of innovative technologies within the
Kwazulu-Natal Department of Human Settlements”, any house being erected needs to
comply with the following critical quality aspects: structural strength and stability; thermal
and energy performance and/or efficiency; water penetration; behavior in fire; durability;
condensation; quality management system; cost; and, design (guidelines, n.d.).

According to these Guidelines an innovative housing system includes: the use of new
materials; new ways or methods of applying traditional materials; improvements in
designs to enhance functionality of a house; system designs (designing for energy
efficient house); and, performance-based design fit for purpose.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 22 | P a g e

 100% 96%
90% 85%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 11%
10% 4%
0%
Yes No Yes No
1. Have you seen materials other 2. Do you think the materials you
than bricks or blocks used to listed above are solid enough for
make the walls of a house proper walls

Figure 15: Materials used in house production

The respondents’ feedback for Section B indicate that the types of materials used in the
building construction industry are regulated. However, 96 percent respondents indicated
that they had witnessed materials other than bricks or blocks used in the construction of
houses. They mentioned fibre panels, preformed walling, mud and straw, in-situ cast
concrete as well as concrete and glass bottles. Eighty-five percent believed that these
were solid enough for use in wall construction. This supports the theory that respondents
are in agreement that alternatives materials and methods should be considered.

3.2.3. General knowledge of 3D-printing

Section C of the questionnaire required information on 3D-printing and the respondents’

knowledge of any kind of 3D printing.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 23 | P a g e

3.2.3.1. General knowledge of 3D-printing

100% 96%

90% 81%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 11%
10%
0%
0%
Yes No Yes No
Have you heard of 3-D printing Have you seen a 3-D printer
before

Figure 16: General knowledge of 3D-printing

An overwhelming majority of the respondents (96%) had heard of 3D printing and 81

percent had seen a 3D-printer being used. The 8 percent that had never seen a 3D-printer
being used but had heard of 3D printing, was asked why they had never seen a 3D- printer
being used. Most respondents answered that they did not require anything to be 3D-
printed and, therefore, had no reason to see a 3D-printer being used. Some of the
respondents also stated that although they were too busy to watch videos on 3D-printing
they did know what 3D printing was. Two of the 27 respondents did not answer the
question.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 24 | P a g e

3.2.3.2. General experience of 3D-printing

4%
I saw it in real life
11%
44%
I saw it on television

I saw it in a newspaper
74%
or magazine
I saw it on the internet

70%
I saw it on a billboard

37% Other (please specify)

Figure 17: General experience of 3D-printing

Information regarding where respondents had seen a 3D-printer is shown in figure 14. It
shows that 74 percent had seen 3D-printing on the internet and 70 percent saw it on
television, in either a movie or series. Three of the 27 respondents became aware of 3D-
printing when watching a three part series on television entitled “3D-print the future” which
aired in 2017.

The respondent that selected ‘other’ owned his own 3D-printer. He used Polylactic (PLA)
to print. Commonly used by hobbyists, this material is an environmentally friendly
filament, which consists of cornstarch and sugar cane. It is known for its strong
consistency qualities as well as the ability to resist UV light. Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
(ABS plastic) is another material commonly used in 3D-printing (Kuneinen, n.d.).

The remaining 96 percent of respondents indicated second-hand knowledge of 3D-

printing in that they had all only seen and heard of 3D-printing via the electronic and
printed media. This is an indication that all besides one respondent had first-hand
knowledge or experience of the practical operation of the 3D-printer.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 25 | P a g e

3.2.4. General knowledge of 3D printing of houses

Section D of the questionnaire was based on the respondents’ knowledge of 3D-printing

of houses.

3.2.4.1. Knowledge and experience of 3D-printing of houses

100% 93%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% 4%
0%

Yes No

Figure 18: Knowledge and experience of 3D-printing of houses

The majority of respondents (93 percent) answered that they thought it was possible to
3D-print a house.

This is an indication that the respondents generally believed that it was possible to 3D-
print a house or, at least, segments of a house.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 26 | P a g e

3.2.4.2. 3D-printing house parts

15%
44% Foundation

63% Walls

Roof

89% Window frames and

doors
63% Other

Figure 19: 3D-printing house parts

This question had varied responses. Eighty nine percent of respondents believed that
walls could be completed through 3D-printing, and 63 percent said that window-frames,
doors and the roof could be completed through 3D-printing.

The remaining 37 percent that did not think windows-frames, doors and the roof could be
3D-printed believed that only the openings for these could be done while the walls were
being 3D-printed. The respondents believed that the actual doors and windows would
have to be manufactured and then slotted into the wall openings either during the 3D-
printing process or after the walls were printed. They also stated that the roof would have
to be manufactured after the 3D-printing process was completed.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 27 | P a g e

3.2.4.3. 3D-printing house shapes

100%
90%
80% 89% 89%

70% 78%

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
22%
10%
0%
Square Rectangular Round other

Figure 20: 3D-printing house shapes

A large number of respondents (89 percent) thought that a house could be 3D-printed in
a square and rectangular shape, and 78 percent of respondents thought a house could
be 3D-printed in a circular shape. The 22 percent that answered ‘other’ for the shape that
could be 3D-printed stated that any realistic and uncomplicated shape could be 3D-
printed.

Respondents viewed 3D-printing as providing varied products. Under Section A they had
believed it possible to 3D-print using a multiplicity of methods and materials. And, in this
Section they are generally of the view that virtually any shape of house could be 3D-
printed.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 28 | P a g e

3.2.4.4. 3D-printing house sizes

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% 56%
20% 44% 44%

10%
0%
50 square metres and Between 50 and 200 200 square metres
less square metres and more

Figure 21: 3D-printing house sizes

Fifty six percent of respondents stating that the biggest sized house that could be 3D-
printed was 200 square metres or more. Less than half of them (44 percent) stated that
the biggest sized house that could be 3D-printed was either “50 square metres or less”
or “between 50 and 200 square metres”.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 29 | P a g e

3.2.4.5. 3D-printing house types

100%
90%
80%
70%
60% 56%
48%
50%
40% 33%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Only single storey Up to many storeys Only up to double storey

Figure 22: 3D-printing house types

Forty eight percent of respondents thought that a multi-storeyed house could be 3D-
printed.

The rest of the data could not be interpreted intelligently as despite directions not to do
so, most of the respondents had ticked more than one box.

3.2.4.6. Benefit of Simplicity: 3D-Printed House vs. Conventionally Built House

Seventy five percent of respondents thought that it would be easier to produce a house
through 3D-printing because it is an automated process. They reasoned that the work
completed by a machine was easier than work completed by human beings. Some of the
respondents thought that there would be fewer mistakes if a house was 3D-printed using
a machine or computer.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 30 | P a g e

3.2.4.7. Benefit of Speed: 3D-Printed House vs. Conventionally Built House

This question had the second highest positive response rate compared to the other
questions related to easier, cheaper, better and safer at 85 percent where respondents
thought that 3D printing of houses would go faster than conventionally built houses.

The respondents asked to clarify this statement said that with the knowledge they have
of 3D printing, 3D printing would be faster than conventional built houses because of the
human factor involved.

3.2.4.8. Benefit of Cost: 3D-Printed House vs. Conventionally Built House

Fifty six percent of the respondents thought that 3D-printed houses would be cheaper
than conventionally built houses. When asked why they thought that this was the case,
they indicated that although 3D-printing set-up costs could be more production would still
be faster. Also, the need for less labour on site could add to reducing cost.

A University of Johannesburg Quantity Surveyor did a cost analysis, and the typical costs
associated with conventional building and 3D printing using a gantry system is presented
in the table below.

Table 2: Cost analysis of conventional construction versus 3D printing

Cost of construction Conventional Gantry % Savings

Foundations R30,129.58 R30,129.58 0.00%
Wall Plates/ Block-work R23,414.03 R16,000.00 31.66%
Roofing R15,951.01 R15,951.01 0.00%
Finishes R21,934.64 R21,934.64 0.00%
Electrical R4,666.26 R4,666.26 0.00%
VIP Toilet R7,938.23 R7,938.23 0.00%
Tank stand & Rain water
goods R4,973.17 R4,973.17 0.00%
Sub-Total R109,006.92 R101,592.89 6.80%

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 31 | P a g e

3.2.4.9. Benefit of Physical Improvement: 3D-Printed House vs. Conventionally
Built House

Fifty six percent of respondents thought that 3D-printed houses would be better than
conventionally built houses. These respondents stated that there would be less mistakes
made with 3D-printing. Some respondents also stated that the material used to 3D-print
the house would be consistent throughout the production process. The house could be
designed according to the homeowner’s preferences (any shape and size) and be
implemented in a short time span. This would then result in each house being unique.

The 41 percent of respondents who believed that 3D-printed houses would not be better
stated that the technology was too new and they, therefore, were not certain about a 3D-
printed house. These respondents also stated that they would need some form of
assurance that 3D-printed houses would be as structurally sound and secure as
conventionally built houses.

3.2.4.10. Benefit of safety: 3D Printed House vs. Conventionally Built House

Of the five questions related to 3D printing being easier, faster, better and cheaper than
conventionally built houses, the question on whether or not respondents thought it would
be safe to live in a 3D-printed house had the highest positive response rate (89 percent).

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 32 | P a g e

 100%
89%
90% 85%
80% 74%
70%
60% 56% 56%

50%
41% 41%
40%
30% 26%

20% 15%
11%
10%
0%
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Easier Faster Cheaper Better Safe

Figure 23: 3D-printed houses versus conventionally produced houses

In summary, there is consensus among the respondents that a 3D-printed house was
better than conventionally built houses with regard to: ease; speed of building; cost;
environmental benefits; and, safety.

3.2.5. Potential impact of 3D-printing of houses

Section E of the questionnaire considered other facets of 3D-printing such as which

occupational groups would be affected.

3.2.5.1. Professionals and artisans affected by 3D-printing of houses

According to figure 18, 85 percent of respondents assumed bricklayers would be

adversely affected by 3D-printing of houses. Respondents stated that a bricklayer would
become obsolete because bricks would no longer be used. Some respondents suggested
that bricklayers could be re-skilled in other aspects of the construction process.

A majority of respondents (63 percent) indicated that plasterers would also be rendered
superfluous with houses being 3D-printed. They stated that depending on the finishes of

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 33 | P a g e

a 3D-printed house, the plasterer might still be required to give the house a smoother
finish.

Fifty six percent of respondents indicated that structural engineers and architects would
be negatively affected by 3D-printing of houses. They indicated that while architects and
structural engineers would still be required at the commencement of a project, they would
not be required once the designs have been approved and the structural analyses
completed.

About a third of the respondents (30 percent) thought that carpenters, roof installers,
electricians and plumbers would be affected by 3D-printing of houses. The roof installer
would be affected because it is also possible to 3D-print the roof. And, although the
carpenter would not need to erect wooden structures, he would still likely be required to
install doors and window frames as well as shelves and cabinets.

Many respondents believed that electricians and plumbers would still need to install and
sign off on electrical cabling and pipes. But they also acknowledged that conduit and pipe
openings could also be provided for by the 3D-printing process.

Less than half of the respondents (44 percent) stated that developers and contractors
would be affected by 3D-printing of houses because they are accustomed to working with
bricks-and-mortar through a conventional process. And, 3D-printing implies a “business
unusual” situation which necessitates them, at best, developing new skills and knowledge
that relate to 3D-printing.

Homebuyers would be affected because ultimately they would need to feel confident that
their 3D-printed house is at least the same standard as a conventionally built house.

Some of the respondents were concerned about job losses that would likely occur as 3D-
printing of houses takes root. But, re-skilling remains a viable option. Every industrial
revolution has changed the way business takes place, and the standard of living for the

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 34 | P a g e

majority of people around the globe has improved greatly as a result (Xu, et al., 2018).
As part of the fourth industrial revolution inventory, 3D-printing will have a significant
impact on people. This potential impact must be embraced as an opportunity to be seized
on. Better understanding of it will ensure that jobs are preserved or created.

100%
90% 11%
80% 37%
41% 41%
70% 44% 48% 48%
60% 63% 59% 63% 63% 67% 67%
59% 56%
74%
50%
40% 85%
30% 63%
56% 56% No
48% 44% 44%
20%
30% 33% 30% 30% 26% 26%
33% 33% Yes
10% 19%
0%
Carpenter

Glazier

Painter

Developer/contractor

Home buyer
Plumber

Mortgagor
Electriccian

Tiler

Structure insurer
Architect

Civil Engineer

Plasterer
Brick layer
Structutal Engineer

Roof installer

Figure 24: Professionals and artisans affected by 3D-printing houses

In summary, respondents were of the view that job losses will occur, with bricklayers
potentially the worst affected. However, technicians such as electricians, glaziers,
plumbers and carpenter will be less affected because of the ongoing need for their
services, most of which cannot be replaced by a 3D-printer.

Besides bricklayers, respondents also felt that architects, structural engineers and civil
engineers would be especially adversely affected.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 35 | P a g e

3.2.5.2. Mortgage approval for 3D-printed houses

100%

90%

80%

70% 67%

60%
Yes
50%
No
40% 33%
30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 25: Mortgage approval of 3D-printed houses

Sixty seven percent of the respondents believed that banks would agree to finance 3D-
printed houses “if the durability could be proven”. A few respondents believed that banks
were inflexible and would not finance 3D-printed houses. They also stated that this
technology has not yet been proven in South Africa as another reason why banks would
be hesitant to finance 3D-printed houses.

Following confirmation of the viability of 3D-printed houses, additional research should be

done to determine the acceptance levels of 3D-printed houses by other stakeholders such
as municipal house inspectors and the NHBRC.

3.2.5.3. Municipal approval for 3D-printed houses

Fifty six percent of respondents stated that municipalities would approve 3D-printed
houses. Some respondents believed that 3D-printed houses would necessitate
amendments to the current municipal by-laws and building codes. For example, detailed
guidelines will have to be provided for how the electrical and plumbing sections ought to

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 36 | P a g e

be placed within the 3D-printed house. Municipal approval might also include an
assessment on environmental and structural impact of 3D-printed houses.

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% 56%
Yes
50% 44%
No
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 26: Municipal approval for 3D-printed houses

Indications are that changes will have to be made to building codes and municipal
requirements. Regulatory aspects that will potentially be affected by 3D-printing of houses
needs to be further researched.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 37 | P a g e

3.2.5.4. Living in 3D-printed houses

100%

90%

80%

70% 67%

60%
Yes
50%
No
40% 33%
30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 27: Living in 3D-printed houses

Sixty seven percent of the respondents agreed that they would be happy to live in a 3D-
printed house. They found the idea exciting and technologically advanced. They stated
that this new technology could mean fewer defects and better insulation, which could
save money on repairs and heating or cooling. A small number of respondents was
sceptical about the durability of a 3D-printed house and they stated that they would first
need to research it better before considering living in one.

4. CONCLUSION

In South Africa, 3D-printing of houses is still in its infancy stage of development and
understanding. Most of the respondents had some rudimentary understanding of 3D-
printing. This was through social media and television. Houses that are 3D-printed seem
to excite respondents. Their interest is perked by the technology’s many possibilities.

More than 78 percent of respondents indicated that square, rectangular and circular
shapes are acceptable as 3D-printed houses. The majority of them also stated that 3D-

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 38 | P a g e

printed houses would be easier, cheaper, faster, better and safer than conventionally built
houses. As reasons, they cited less human error, the building materials used would be of
the same standard throughout the projects and that it would much faster to 3D-print a
house. Sixty-seven percent of the respondents agreed that they would be happy to live in
a 3D-printed house. However, a fair number of them said that they would need assurance
that a 3D-printed house is as structurally sound and durable as a conventionally built
house before they would agree to live in it.

Many respondents stated that professionals and artisans that could be affected by 3D-
printing of houses included bricklayers and plasterers (because they would not be needed
on site), as well as structural engineers and architects (because they might only be
needed in the beginning of a project).

Respondents were generally concerned that job losses will occur with the advent of 3D-
printed houses, with bricklayers potentially the worst affected group. Furthermore, some
of them questioned the durability and viability of 3D-printed houses. Municipal approval
of 3D-printed houses was also a worry as it was felt that by-laws, procedures and building
codes have to first be amended.

Some respondents require more research and demonstration to be done before they
would be completely satisfied about the efficacy of 3D-printed houses. Still, they did
consider this technology exciting and are looking forward to experiencing it themselves.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 39 | P a g e

5. REFERENCES

(WEF), W. E. F., 2016. WEF (World Economic Forum) Industry Agenda: Shaping the
Future of Construction, A Breakthrough in Mindset and Technology World Economic
Forum (with Boston Consulting Group), Geneva: s.n.
Brendan Grady, D. M. O. T., 2019. Alternative Building Technologies for LowIncome
Housing in Cape Town, South Africa, Cape Town: s.n.
Burgoyne, M. –. L., 2008. Factors affecting housing delivery in south africa: a case
study of the fisantekraal housing development project, Western Cape.
Burns, N. G. S., 1993. The Practice of Nursing Research. Sydney: Saunders.
Crump, S. S., 1996. United States, Patent No. 5,503,785.
Douglas Aghimien, C. A. L. A. D. T. a. L. N., 2019. Making a case for 3D printing for
housing delivery in South Africa. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis.
Franco, P. D. G. D., Camporesi, C., Galeazzi, F. & Kallmann, M., 2015. 3D Printing and
Immersive Visualization for Improved Perception of Ancient Artifacts. Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, pp. 243-264.
guidelines, P., n.d. POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES WITHIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SETTLEMENTS, Kwazulu Natal: s.n.
Hager, I., Golonka, A. & Putanowicz, R., 292 – 299. 3D printing of buildings and building
components as the future of sustainable construction?. Science Direct, p. 2016.
HOUSE, 3. P. C., 2016. [Online].
Jeffrey W.Stansburya & Idacavagec, M. J., 2016. 3D printing with polymers: Challenges
amongexpanding options and opportunities. Science Direct, pp. 54-64.
Kira, 2015. 3D printer and 3D printing news. [Online]
Available at: https://www.3ders.org/articles/20150118-winsun-builds-world-first-3d-
printed-villa-and-tallest-3d-printed-building-in-china.html
Kuneinen, E., n.d. 3D printing industry. [Online]
Available at: https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/review-of-materials-that-can-be-3d-
printed-at-home-4300/
N Kwak, B. R., 2002. A comparison between mail and web surveys: Response pattern,
respondent profile, and data quality. Journal of official statistics.
Ngoa, T. D. et al., 2018. Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials,
methods, applications and challenges. Elsivier, pp. 172-196.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 40 | P a g e

Ngoa, T. D. et al., 2018. Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials,
methods, applications and challenges. Composites Part B , pp. 172-196.
Polansky, N., 1995. Methods for the helping professions. London: University of Chicago
press.
Polansky, N., 1995. Methods for the helping professions. London: The University of
Chicago Press.
SABS, 2010. SANS 10400-A (2010) (English): The application of the National Building
Regulations Part A: General principles and requirements, Pretoria: s.n.
Sakin, M. & Kiroglu, Y. C., 2017. 3D Printing of Buildings: Construction of the
Sustainable Houses of the Future by BIM. ScienceDirect, p. 702–711.
Wang1, X. et al., 2018. Tumor-like lung cancer model based on 3D bioprinting. Biotech
8.
Xu, M., David, J. M. & Kim, S. H., 2018. The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Opportunities
and Challenges. International Journal of Financial Research , pp. 90-95.

Pre-production Phase Survey Report: 3D-Printed Homes Pilot Project 41 | P a g e