The components were printed off-site and then assembled on-site.
While I like the structure a lot, I think it could benefit safety-wise from a proper floor layer, as the small ridges could cause someone to stumble, specially running kids.
I wonder, if there were no small ridges, how the water would behave during rain. Do the small ridges break it up so that it's not a complete sheet of easy-to-slip-on-it water? (or ice) (well, I don't know that Phoenix has that much ice)
Phoenix is the name of the bridge, not where it has been installed. Also not an architect, but I suspect this wouldn't get installed in Phoenix as shown, I don't think it meets US ADA accessibility requirements: the slope looks a bit high, there's no level landing at the top, and the concave surface of the ramp seems problematic as well.
Provided there are enough other crossings of those paths, does it have to meet ADA requirements? It's not really providing any function besides connecting paths, and if the same function is also provided a stone's throw away this structure isn't a big bother.
Not that we should dot our landscape with such things
For new construction, the standard is roughly "In new construction, all areas must be fully accessible, including multiple spaces of the same type, unless otherwise specified." [1]
I don't think a useless bridge on a roughly flat site (as depicted in the installation images) qualifies for exceptions, IMHO. There's no reason it would be impractical to make it accessible, so it must be made accessible.
Between the wooden framework and the crane needed to lift the segments into position, it just sounds like a more complicated way to do precast construction.
They note that 3d printing means the segments can have voids in them, but Spancrete has been selling hollowcore concrete panels for 70 years.
Neat design. More than one tiny photo would have been nice!
I guess the difficulty with 3D printed concrete is adding reinforcement, and it sounds from this like they haven't solved that, they've just used a geometry that is entirely in compression?
Looks like it's circular as in "circular economics". But that's a pretty tenuous claim -- it also looks like there is no re-use, which seems like it should be an important part of the concept.
Presumably they're just latching onto the buzzword to get some grant funding or qualify for some project requirements or something?
Traditional masonry, but instead of subtractively carving precision stone shapes from larger units of source material they create custom shapes in an additive process. Given the reactions here I'm not sure that a "bright to nowhere" was a good idea as a demonstration project, but I guess their target audience are architecture professionals who will easily see the process begins the demo.
I wonder how much of the recycled material really is concrete: the writing seems to carefully tread around any specifics, trying to distract with absolute quantities. Could it be that this "concrete ink" is basically a composite of recycled plastic and ground concrete? I'd imagine that this could achieve limestone-like performance while pretend-solving disposal.
The structure is purely a demonstration. It appears to be built on the company's ground, so there's a lot less red tape and they can show it off to potential buyers easily. Also the area is flat and has no natural obstacles like a river, with a low population density (it's actually near Lyon's main airport) so it's less likely that vandalism or accidents could cause damage to the structure.
And the nonsensical "organic" bridge shape actually does serve a function, demonstrating how different the elements are shaped. If expect trained architects to understand without much explanation.
I'm almost through playing The Talos Principle 2. It has an element I so adore in Sci-Fi: The "Could we do this?" thought. And... in this particular case, I am quite interested in automatically and cheaply creating concrete structures of semi-arbitrary designs. (And, I concur: GO to qwertox's link; not the one in the article)
The segmented construction of this design is very interesting; build the pieces separately using a smaller print area, then assemble using a crane etc.
The problem with truly “semi-arbitrary” designs is not the ability to build them cheaply or easily. It’s the ability to ensure that they are safe, sturdy, durable and low-impact.
Dr. Seuss can draw crazy bridges with a stroke of the pen…while I love the visual interest and creativity they represent, practical structures tend to look “normal” because of practical reasons. Yes, there are zoning codes, traditions, regulations, etc., but that’s not why we don’t have 30 foot concrete arches over suburban homes.
I do think this could provide cheaper ways to create small variations in design, and those small variations are crucial to making a built landscape look human.
According to the article "circular" references the way the concrete blocks fit together like a mansonry arch. This allows for much less reinforcement that way a typical concrete bridge requires.
All these comments about bridges being a "solved problem" or having "negative practical value" or how it doesn't cross anything...
It's a tech proof of concept. That's what it is. It says what they're testing right there in the article:
- improvements in the robustness of the digital design tools,
- closer alignment with the numerous structural design and circularity-related improvements,
- tighter integration with robotic concrete printing parameters
- extensive calibration to improve efficiency of production of almost double the number of blocks in less printing time
- after two years and in its second iteration, Phoenix adds a largely reduced carbon footprint and permanence according to building codes along with many other further improvements
So, to put it in tech terms, this is the second iteration of a prototype technology, that is now safe enough to be released as an alpha build (in the form of a small public work of art in a kids' playground). They will now iterate again and in the future try for something bigger, presumably. Not everything can be on a grand scale from the get go, more so unproved new infrastructure technology. Like, you wouldn't have used Docker ver 0.1 alpha in production, right?
Me personally? I don't have an opinion, but I guess concrete production represents 4-8% of global co2 emissions. Not sure where "little" is coming from. Concrete is ubiquitous. If a more resource-efficient process is available, it might be often applicable.
I understand that this is more of a proof of concept than a bridge built to solve a practical problem ... but it feels like this structure was engineered NOT to solve a problem.
Normally bridges allow you to cross over something that you could not otherwise easily cross, such as a stream, a gully, or a competing transport path.
But this bridge basically sits over some flat paths that are easy to traverse as-is, and it makes them harder to traverse, because now you need to go up and down the bridge.
Indeed, because of the bumpiness of the structure, I would not be surprised if it is inaccessible for wheelchairs and bicycles, where a flat path would have been adequate.
So as a technical feat, I guess it achieves its desired purpose, but it has negative practical value.
The bridge is just a demo piece for the manufacturing technology.
I can’t believe this has to be said, but they’re not trying to invent bridges that go over flat land. It’s a demo piece.
This is like when someone gets a 3D printer and prints a 3D Benchy boat. Making toy boats is a solved problem, but that’s not the point of the 3D printer.
I mean, that was an airplane that flew. This is a bridge that doesn't cross anything, and we already have a ton of bridges that cross things. At best this is an art installation, but we already have a ton of 3D printed art. So the novelty factor just isn't the same.
At the end of the day, I'd be interested in what engineering challenges are being solved here. Does this no-tension-members design scale up to let vehicles pass over a river? If so, this is interesting.
> but it feels like this structure was engineered NOT to solve a problem.
The problem they are trying to solve is how to quickly and efficiently build bridges. They built something to facilitate learning how to do that in the most practical means for them.
I agree. It may be primarily about integrating the new construction process and a proof of concept for more ambitious projects, but my overall impression is definitely that this is a poor showcase for the technology: it feels sort of embarrassingly academic.
Researchers create many “toy” demos. There is often a progression of stages to a full “proof of concept”.
Where is the downside to an intermediate research artifact that demos their current tech level — Which also happens to be a whimsical functional sculpture, adding interest to a grassy area?
And very successfully creating awareness of their efforts?
Nothing remotely “embarrassing” (or “academic”, in the negative use of that word) here.
Likely only viable for novelty structures carrying light loads.
If you look at this from a strict engineering perspective, a set of steps resting on the hill in the background could have achieved the same result at a fraction of the cost.
Depends on how close "concrete ink" made from random torn down buildings comes to the performance characteristics of concrete from well known sources that is cast in place. Even that has a super wide range of performance characteristics. Chances are the printed blocks are much weaker, perhaps like particle board vs proper wood.
https://www.designboom.com/technology/holcim-3d-prints-phoen...
The components were printed off-site and then assembled on-site.
While I like the structure a lot, I think it could benefit safety-wise from a proper floor layer, as the small ridges could cause someone to stumble, specially running kids.