Nah, expose cinder blocks deteriorate fast.

It was an art piece, not a load-bearing building. It is in a garden for decorative purposes(children's fort). It is impressive it lasted this long given it how thin the walls are.

Made of the same stuff it will break down about the same, but structurally it is superior to cinderblocks since they are all square. Right angles are really bad for any structure, and especially with brittle ones since they have to flex to deal with it, and they're nearly all going into 90° angles unless you stack them in a way which they aren't exactly designed for, and they still are made of right angles so they aren't going to be as sturdy as they could be, and you can easily have a sealing problem if you decide to fill it with cement. The only big changes from laying down flexible layers are having to build the whole structure at once, and nearly any shape is possible, if you have the whole house planned it's just fine, and you can use computer modeling to find a much stronger shape which can't be made easily with cinderblocks. Without changing as much as you would for brocks or cinderblocks you could make domes, or long arches for structures set in the ground for temperature control or whatever, and it can make that stuff a decent bit cheaper. This and similar methods are really how we should have built things all along, rather than the wooden boxes that are hard to insulate and seal properly. They're easy to build, don't require that you lift big and heavy blocks, and need less maintaining. They're not conducive to rodents and black mold, and they'd be more energy efficient as far as heating and cooling goes.

Id like to see you test a structure with multiple decades of wear in 10 years then

It isn't a standard architecture. It is a children's fort in a garden. It held up well given its extremely thin structure and minimal weather proofing. With thicker walls and weather proofing, a similar construct should be able several generations(100+ years) assuming no major structural faults.

@@carlosandleon a simple brick structure would easily last that long. Stone cottages, pueblos.... There are plenty of structures that have lasted hundreds of years. I'm not saying it's not a cool little thing he made, it's just weird that the bragging point is that it can last a whole 10 years.

​@@danemoriconi3588 Bricks aren't structural. They still need someone to support them

@@chrisgriffin4012 I mean, that is objectively not true. People have been building walls out of nothing more than stone and mortar for thousands of years.

105? I lived there for 18 years and I never saw anything above 90. Eden prairie wasn't that warm idk where you were but it never was above 100 I can garuntee that

This

Not sure what the PSI on this was but I can assure you many of your concerns are more damaging to a traditional home's integrity. The concrete walls are well beyond the strength of a traditionally built home. 3D printed concrete is often double the psi of block or CMU construction and would have no problem dealing with anything you mentioned...

Did you watch the first 5 seconds of the video lol, he answers your question. "Unfortunately most of them haven't been around that long but this is the oldest example available".

@@LeeGaudi-vb9evyou have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. What do you mean “the psi”? Are you talking about compressive strength of the material? Tensile strength? The pressure differential inside/outside? I’m assuming that like most other 3d printed house enthusiasts who cite “strength” as though it’s meaningful without any context, you mean compressive strength of the material itself. That’s neat, but as long as this structure isn’t having trucks driven on the roof any time soon it means nothing in response to any of the valid points that the above commenter brought up. You could have the “strongest” house in the world, but if it’s unable to allow moisture out, or if thermal expansion pops your windows out of their frames, or any number of defects like those, it’s going to be a horrible place to actually live.

I agree that it really hasn't been tested properly in this case to actual matter as an example of integrity over time. However, we can't ignore that stick framing does not last as long as methods like timber framing and brick/mortar. It was never meant to. If done right, these concrete buildings may actually last longer than stick framing

I don't think its a true size of a house either.

Why are you you upset about it? It's not dishonest of he's literally showing and saying what happened, and that is impressive since a similar structure built with brick to have similarly thick walls by somebody with the same experience would not hold up as well with wind and ice.

@@thetobyntr9540 I AM NOT NEARLY AS UPSET AS YOU THINK I AM. I JUST LIKE PEOPLE TO CALL THINGS WHAT THEY ARE NOT WHAT THEY WANT THEM TO BE

This was done for a test not to live in

It's still a valid test... no windows and roofs make the structure more vulnerable ..it's a good small scale test... new tech takes time.. be patient 🙏

Same, he needs to stop gatekeeping lmao

@@Ibomb936well it might be on private property, and also people on the internet like to just go to places and destroy them. So it’s understandable that he’d be hesitant to reveal where it is.

@@bustermcthundernut exactly true. So it makes sense to not broadcast the address all over

10 years ago, all of this should have been done. It wasn't. I don't think the purpose of this project was to test all of that (Obviously). So much more data needs to be collected.

Roman concrete was a much much dryer mixture. This stuff has to be more hydrated to allow piping out like frosting.

@@dutchrussellroman concrete also had lime and salt water instead of normal water which made it "regenerate" itself when it cracked, when it rained the water seeped into the cracks and reacted with the lime making it bond together again at least thats what i remember dont qoute me on that tho

No it wont, Roman concrete has lime chunks resting in the mix when water gets in the lime seals the crack preventing it from expanding due to temperature. Modern concrete is not that resilient compared to Roman concrete. But there are companies that are thinking about putting line chunks back into the concrete and there are people using carbon nanotubes to increase strength. But the line chunks seem like a lot easier and low-tech solution not to mention cheaper.

​@@anarex0929 There are many varying degrees of concrete. And of course we judge things by the survivors, because the low quality or wrongly concocted don't survive. If I remember the Romans would have pumice in their concrete which was much more jagged than sand and often lighter. What I really liked was that they placed amphora into the upper tiers of the concrete in the Pantheon's dome to reduce weight creating structurally strong structures to accommodate voids.

Lots of power washing

@@firehazardfox159 not even. Rain and wind will keep it clean enough. It's not exactly a high quality video so we aren't really able to see just how grimey it is.

Well it doesn't have rebar, and nobody has built a hoise with cheap wood and plastic? Wtf house are you talking about? What building code is that

@@trainwreck420ish if you watch the videos they drop in rebar

@@trainwreck420ish and all new houses are built like shit in mass production stupid

It's in the shape of a castle. It's a castle.

@@cowbatboots282Looks like a small duck, walks like a small duck, sounds like a small duck it’s still a duck.

It is a playground / kids sized Toy castle / cathedral thingy

For what reason?

It’s among my all time favorite site visits, Andrey is on the MT Rushmore of 3dcp for sure!

@@automateconstruction hell yeah man. I'm hesitantly optimistic about the future of 3D printed structures. I subbed just because of this Short haha.

Fascinating point I didn’t think of that luckily real homes would have much more effective insulation

A proper structure would have a roof to protect it from water, which is one of the bigger hazards related to freezing and thawing.

@@danb4275 bro... Water is what freezes and thaws? I had no idea 🤣

They absolutely matter! Why do you think sidewalks and roads crack apart? In a real home there would be a temperature differential but it's usually over a decent gap so the stress of freezing still is mostly on the outer materials. I would say a heated interior is better than this for longevity. This thing gets frozen ice expanding on both sides of its walls and it's infill in some places!

The point of this project was not to mimic that of a real home. simply seeing what can be printed. No intent to make it livable or see how long it lasts. Not sure why so many people want to tear down this decade old printed experiment as if it was meant to be a case study for 3D printed concrete as a solution to builders problems...

It proves how well nature can grow onto it 😅

Your mom is just a pile of concrete

@@automateconstruction What has to happen for this system to be better than a standard timber frame? It's a $million machine squirting 50 tons of concrete, it would want to be miles better but it seems worse in every way so far.

I can’t find any older but time will tell

It’s quite different from a normal concrete mix

I don't think it has gravel in it. So just cement mortar than concrete.

@@effingcool1780 For the printed part thats right, between the printed layers there is normal concrete with gravel.

i will do you one better. its not about the method, its about the material

A real house would be built much stronger

It’s all the time any of the printed buildings have been standing so it’s the best we got right now

@@automateconstruction sure but that doesn't make it an impressive achievement