Daniela Mitterberger1

Soil 3D Printing MAEID / University of Innsbruck2

Tiziano Derme1
MAEID / University of Innsbruck

Combining Robotic Binder-Jetting Processes

with Organic Composites 1
shared first authorship
For Biodegradable Soil Structures 2
current affiliation: ETH Zurich

ABSTR ACT
Despite, the innovation of additive manufacturing (AM) technology, and in spite of the exis- 1 Soil 3D printed prototype
close-up, post-processing
tence of natural bio-materials offering notable mechanical properties, materials used for
AM are not necessarily more sustainable than materials used in traditional manufacturing.
Furthermore, potential material savings may be partially overshadowed by the relative
toxicity of the material and binders used for AM during fabrication and post-fabrication
processes, as well as the energy usage necessary for the production and processing
workflow. Soil as a building material offers a cheap, sustainable alternative to non-bio-
degradable material systems, and new developments in earth construction show how
earthen buildings can create light, progressive, and sustainable structures. Nevertheless,
existing large-scale earthen construction methods can only produce highly simplified
shapes with rough detailing. This research proposes to use robotic additive manufacturing
processes to overcome current limitations of constructing with earth, supporting complex
three-dimensional geometries, and the creation of novel organic composites. More specif-
ically the research focuses on robotic binder-jetting with granular bio-composites and
non-toxic binding agents such as hydrogels. This paper is divided into two main sections: (1)
biodegradable material system, and (2) multi-move robotic process, and describes the most
crucial fabrication parameters such as compaction pressure, density of binders, deposi-
tion strategies and toolpath planning as well as identifying the architectural implications of
using this novel biodegradable fabrication process. The combination of soil and hydrogel as
building material shows the potential of a fully reversible construction process for archi-
tectural components and foresees its potential full-scale architectural implementations.

586
INTRODUCTION
Soil as a building material offers a cheap, sustainable
alternative to fuel-based material systems. Throughout
history, people have demonstrated how to build in sustain-
able ways using earth as a raw construction material,
and as a result, nearly every single continent (Beckett
and Thomas 2011) possesses a rich heritage of earthen
buildings. Nonetheless, current developments of digital
fabrication and additive manufacturing technologies over-
look the potential for low-grade organic materials such
as soil. Recent advancements in additive manufacturing
show the capacity to print highly complex large-scale
geometries; however, due to limited range of commercially
available bio-material systems, it often constitutes in an
unsustainable and expensive process (Ford and Despeisse
2016). This research investigates novel techniques in the
field of robotic additive manufacturing and necessary tools
for 3D printed soil structures. As a possible approach for
sustainable additive manufacturing, this method integrates
an alternative building process to standard construction
methods, biodegradability, novel aesthetic definitions, as
well as renewable energy sources (Figure 1). New develop-
2
ments of earth construction show how earthen buildings
can create light and progressive structures and fabrication
methods, such as the Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks
(CSEB) technology, and the project “Mud Shell” by Stephanie
Chaltiel (Chaltiel et al. 2018) that uses drones to pour and
spray earth on a supporting structure. Nevertheless, these
existing large-scale earthen construction methods can
only produce highly simplified shapes with rough detailing.
Robotic additive manufacturing offers the possibility to
overcome current limitations of constructing with earth,
supporting complex three-dimensional geometries and the
creation of novel organic composites.

Additive manufacturing for soil requires the establish-

ment of novel biodegradable binders, more specifically the
usage of hydrogels in combination with soil for compact
material deposition. The system provides the potential to
create through robotically enabled additive manufacturing
fully biodegradable and waste-free architectural struc-
tures. These building-scale and load-bearing free-form
prototypes use only fully compostable building materials.
The drive behind this research is to investigate fabrication
techniques for large-scale earth structures using inno-
vative robotic fabrication technology, and therefore, aims
3
to define an automated system that operates and predicts
outcomes within a range of potential results. As soil is
a granular material, the research intends to find medi- 2 Soil 3D printed large scale 3 Detail: Soil 3D printed large
installation, Ars Electronica scale installation, Ars
ated forms of manufacturing and computing that takes
2018, Linz. FrAgile VI, Electronica 2018, Linz. FrAgile
into account the imprecision of the material (system) in "Pahohoehoe Beauty" VI, "Pahohoehoe Beauty"
comparison to the rigid order of computational control.

587
This computational process includes material volition and
dynamics in the discourse of design modeling to allow
undetermined material properties to become part of an
architectural design and construction. This approach might
allow architecture to be represented as matter rather than
form (Thomas 2006). As Tim Ingold (2007) suggests, matter
in contrast to materiality does not deal with precision, simi-
larity, and repetition, but with emergence and difference.
As a build case study, the paper presents the research for
a large-scale wall prototype built with the soil-3D method
for the Ars Electronica Festival in 2018, the first immersive
space solely created out of 3D printed soil. This wall-like
structure is entirely constructed out of 40 tons and 28 m3
of robotically 3D printed soil. This paper intends to address
the following questions:

• What organic composite material system is used

4
in the process of soil 3D printing, and how can we
enhance its chemical and mechanical properties to
fabricate load bearing structural systems? (Research
Components and Experimentation, Organic composite
characterization)
• How can we automate soil-3D printing with a robotic
binder-jetting system, and what are the crucial
parameters for fabrication and post-fabrication?
(Robotic Set up, Post-Fabrication)
• What are the key challenges and potentials of soil-3D
5 6
printing for the construction of fully biodegradable
architectural components? (Conclusion)
4 Mugsum Mud Huts in Cameroon:
Domestic homes created from compressed sun-dried mud
BACKGROUND
Earth in Construction and Organic Materials 5 Ait-Ben-Haddou in southern Morocco:
Group of earthen buildings traditional pre-Sahran Habitat
Throughout history earthen granular materials have been
used extensively as the main building block for construc- 6 Cliff of Bandiagara in Mali: Religious structures entirely made of earth
and wood and associated with the ritual of rain making
tion. Examples such as the settlement of Ait-Ben-Haddou
in southern Morocco (Figure 5), the Mugsum Mud Huts
in Cameroon (Figure 4) and the Cliff of Bandiagara in Mali application, taking into account its mechanical and phys-
(Figure 6) are great case studies to investigate the archi- ical properties related to granular size and composition.
tectural and spatial potentials of soil structures such as Stabilizers might be added to strengthen the mechan-
their inexpensiveness, abundance, availability on site and ical properties of soil, depending on soil quality, type of
their minimal environmental impact (Akadiri et al. 2012). chosen building technique, and local conditions. Natural
Furthermore, soil as a building material offers diversity or synthetic fibers and natural products such as straw,
in appearance, structural makeup, and environmental fur, or latex can be used for such construction methods,
behavior. In contrast to other materials such as concrete which are in need of a high amount of water (for instance
or steel, organic aggregates are in constant dialogue with adobe, wattle and daub, and cob). Cement and ash are more
the surrounding environment. Furthermore, earth struc- commonly suitable for compressed stabilized earth bricks
tures adapt in response to temperature, humidity, and or rammed earth. Although soil has a prominent place
seasonal change. Current studies name three main building throughout architectural history (Augarde 2015) and offers
techniques for soil construction: abode walls, techniques a multitude of positive qualities ranging from its biodegrad-
using rammed earth, or compressed earth blocks. The ability to cost effectiveness, it has been widely discarded
type of chosen soil mixture depends highly on the area of within contemporary manufacturing processes.

588 Soil 3D Printing Mitterberger, Derme

Additive Manufacturing and Binder-jetting production(Malda J. et al. 2013).Despite their mechanical
This paper aims to translate earthen construction methods capability and their abundance, the applications of hydro-
into contemporary digital fabrication processes, main- gels and biopolymers on a large scale have been widely
taining its positive aspects and expanding it by automated disregarded. Previous papers such as “Growth Based
additive manufacturing techniques (AM). More specifically Fabrication Techniques for Bacterial Cellulose” (Derme et
the research focuses on robotic binder-jetting processes al. 2016, 488-49) emphasize the development of three-di-
with granular bio-composites and biodegradable binders mensionally grown bacterial cellulose (BC) membranes
for architectural elements. Binder jetting is an AM process, for large-scale applications and introduce new manufac-
where a liquid binding agent is deposited onto a powder turing technologies that combine the fields of bio-materials
bed to form part cross sections (Gibson et al. 2014). science, digital fabrication, and material-informed compu-
Binder-jetting is currently used for 3D printing of a variety tational modeling. Similarly, in “Water-based robotic
of materials including metals, sands, ceramics and has the fabrication” biodegradable composites architectural
potential to print very large objects, complex geometries, elements are robotically manufactured incorporating mate-
allowing the implementation of graded properties into the rial-property gradients (Soldevila et al. 2014, 141–151).
material deposition. Figures such as Enrico Dini with the Projects such as “Aguahoja I + II” from MIT, The Mediated
D-shape 3D printer by Monolite Ltd., and companies like Matter group envision an architecture composed of
Voxeljet and Concr3D, already use binder-jetting tech- bio-composites, constructed with varying degrees of stiff-
nology for manufacturing with custom material mixtures ness, flexibility, and opacity acting as facade or ‘structural
and room size printers. Projects such as Digital Grotesque skin’. Both papers and projects prove the importance of the
by Hansmeyer and Dillenburger demonstrate the poten- usage of regenerated bio-materials in opposition to unsus-
tials and geometrical precision of sand-binder jetting by tainable, non-degenerative materials such as concrete. This
fabricating complex large scale architectural elements. research focuses on using natural linear polysaccharide
These printed sandstone elements do not require any agarose and agaropectin as stabilizer for organic granular
additional support material as the loose sand fulfills this
role and is simply vacuumed off at the end of the printing
process (Hansmeyer and Dillenburger 2012). Despite the
innovation of AM technology, and in spite the existence of
natural bio-materials offering notable mechanical prop-
erties, materials used for AM are not necessarily more
sustainable than materials used in traditional manufac-
turing (Ford and Despeisse 2016). Furthermore, potential
material savings may be partially overshadowed by the
relative toxicity of the material and the binders used for
AM during the fabrication and post fabrication process, as
well as the energy usage necessary for the production and
processing workflow (Faludi et al. 2015). This research
expands common scenarios and applications for large
scale binder-jetting technologies with robotic arms to allow
for in situ fabrication and proposes novel ways of sustain-
able manufacturing processes considering water-based
binders and low-grade aggregates.

Towards Biodegradable Material Systems

One of the key aspects of this research is maintaining
biodegradability throughout all manufacturing cycles,
using Hydrogels as binding and post-treatment agents.
Nature provides us with a wide range of renewable bio-
materials instead of human-made synthetic polymers.
Over the past years applications of water-based materials
and bio-polymers such as hydrogels, microbial cellulose, 7 Soil 3D printed prototype;
textural qualities and complex
and chitin have become a widespread technology for fields
geometry test
such as tissue engineering and biocompatible scaffolds

589
8 9
aggregates such as soil. The binder-jetting system involves
an extrusion on command on a layer-by-layer sequence
coupled with the deposition of the binding agent and manual
deposition of the soil. This research focuses on the usage of
hydrogels such as polysaccharide agarose combined with
agaropectin as binding agents. Traditionally, water-based
polysaccharides have been widely used at micro-scale
engineering for tissue and bioprinting of scaffolding
(Esam et al. 2011); this is the first time that such biocompat-
ible and biodegradable materials are used as binders for
granular structures at an architectural scale. A funda-
mental goal of this research is to foster the creation of
fully biodegradable load-bearing granular structures with
highly complex geometry (Figure 7). By differing binding
agent concentrations, it was possible to adjust and addi-
tively manufacture functional gradients into biodegradable
composite objects.
RESE ARCH COMPONENTS AND
E XPERIMENTATION
Research on robotic binder-jetting of granular soil mate-
rial is based on two main components: (1) biodegradable
material systems and (2) multi-move robotic process. The
key feature of this research is to introduce biodegrad-
able material system in a robotic binder jetting process.
Important parameters range from hydraulic mechan-
ical behavior of soils, to hydrogel composition, robotic
fabrication, end effector design, and biodegradable
post-fabrication process. Soil 3D Printing is based on an
additive manufacturing processes similar to binder-jetting
(Gibson et al. 2015), where the deposition is achieved by
590
the process of chemical binding (Bogue and Robert 2013).
First, the loose organic granular material (soil) is pressed
into a thin layer, contained into a predefined boundary
condition, and subsequently the binding agent (hydrogel)
is deposited following the predefined data path (Figures 8,
9). Next, a thin layer of loose soil is distributed within the
boundary condition and compacted to allow the soil-layers
to adhere. Adjacently, a second layer is placed and depos-
ited, and the process is repeated until the structure is
completed. A specific post-fabrication process is necessary
to excavate the printed structure, stabilize the superficial
behavior of overall structure, and strengthen its capac-
ities to function under tension and not just compression.
As proof of concept, a large 40 ton fully biodegradable
immersive architectural structure is printed for the 2018
Ars Electronica Festival in Linz (Figures 2, 3). The installa-
tion, printed off-site and excavated live during the festival,
showed the potential to achieve highly complex geometries.
Table 1 Soil 3D Printing, Material characterization
Soil 3D Printing Mitterberger, Derme

10
Soil 3D printing requires a unique combination of organic
granular materials, robotic fabrication, and computation.
The key features of this approach can be summarized into
three main areas of material characterization: a) mechan-
ical, b) physical, c) chemical (Table 1). These three focus
areas need to be adapted to be able to use soil as a func-
tioning building material, taking in consideration the natural
tendency of soil as a granular material, its sensitivity
to geotechnical properties such as density, compaction,
permeability, as well as its ability to pack into a dense
structure (Avei 2012):
• Mechanical: levels of compactness influence the
mechanical properties of soil
• Physical: sieving or mixing of soil types can change
its physical parameters
• Chemical: addition of chemical compounds, such as
binding agents, can be used to change soil qualities
Organic Composite Characterization
Addressing material characterization of novel organic
composites under a mechanical, physical, and chemical
perspective led to various empirical experiments. Starting
with a wide range of different organic soil and hydrogel
ratios, several different methods of additive manufacturing
are manually investigated. This research used common
filtered soil (a mixture of sand, silt, and clay) as organic
soil material. The first experimental set up considered
a bounding box of 1200x800 mm with stackable units of
200 mm, manual deposition, manual soil compaction, and
11
12
8 Multi-move robotic setup, collaborative process of soil compaction
and binder deposition
9 Binder refilling operations: Once a layer is completed the robot
goes into start position and refills the barrel for the subsequent layer
10 Analog setup A: distribution of the aggregate and compaction operations
B: binder deposition following the contour lines projected onto the layer
11 Analog setup A: after depositing the soil layer, the aggregate is distrib-
uted evenly over the surface.
12 Analog setup B: manual deposition of the binder following the contour
lines indicated by the projector.
Table 2: Bench mark soil printability
a soft feedback system to evaluate the process (Figure
10). Firstly, loose aggregate is placed within the boundary
condition and subsequently the material is uniformly
compacted with a pressure ranging from 40kg/m2 to
100 kg/m2 (Figure 11). Next, the hydrogel is deposited
creating a uniform infill (Figure 12). The completion and
the information of each layer is regulated by a projective
system as each layer is projected onto the aggregate
within a specific time-frame. The current Z-axis distance
is evaluated with a laser distance pointer. If the height of
591

13
the prototype is not corresponding to the digital model, a
compensation pressure value is applied to the next layer.
Afterward, the completion of all the layers the structure is
allowed to settle for a 12 hour time period necessary for
curing. Finally, the bounding frames are released and the
3D structure is excavated. These early exploratory exper-
iments indicated that the compaction of the aggregate, the
particle size, the time of deposition, and concentration of
the hydrogels are fundamental factors in determining the
hydraulic conductivity between each layer, its shrinkage
factor post-fabrication, the structure´s overall stability,
and its behavior for an upscaling to an architectural scale
(Table 2). The following results were found considering a
constant ratio of hydrogel (40gr/l) during deposition with
different compression rates of same soil mixtures (filtered
potting soil):
14
592
13 Robotic setup A, Human oper-
ator for soil deposition and first
layer homogenous distribution
of the aggregate; B, Soil compac-
tion C, Binder deposition
14 Path optimization in relation to
Robot speed: gradient related to
the amount of binder deposited;
slower speed corresponds to
higher quantities and vice versa.
15 Robotic arm C, Binder continuous
deposition
16 Different Agar Concentrations/
ratios and jellification time (a)
10gr/l, 10min (b) 20gr/l, 6min
(c) 40gr/l, 4min d) 60gr/l, 3min)
17 Excavation process of one 3d
printed component; "Pahoehoe
Beauty Ars Electronica 2018
18 Post Fabrication treatment
and stabilization of the
surface (agarose with high
concentration)
• Loose aggregate (Pressure: 40kg/m2) corresponds to
a higher hydraulic conductivity and layer adhesion but
with a consistent loss of resolution and a higher mate-
rial shrinkage during post-production.
• Conversely, in the case of very compressed soil
(Pressure: 100 kg/m2), the overall behavior is contrary
to the previous test, leading to a lower hydraulic
conductivity and layer adhesion but with higher
resolution.
• Finally, the research showed that it is possible to reach
a high-resolution geometry by introducing the new
variable “wetting rate of aggregate” into the fabrication
process. This factor increased the overall mechanical
behavior of the structure, layer adhesion, and minimized
shrinkage in post-fabrication.
15
Soil 3D Printing Mitterberger, Derme
Furthermore, the manual experimental setup is translated
into an automated setup to increase speed, accuracy of
the aggregate distribution and layer height, as well as
precision during the layer deposition. Different ratios of
the material. After a curing period of 24 hours, the stack-
able box-elements of the printing area could be dismantled,
and the surrounding loose aggregate could be easily
removed. This loose soil stabilized the structure during
fabrication and curing time.

Critical factors for the success of a soil 3D printed struc-

ture are the deposition patterns in relation to the time of
deposition and overall morphology as well as the ratio of
pressure. Deposition patterns were explored at first by
16
contouring the 3D model, then using the planar boundaries
hydrogels are deposited to increase the mechanical as condition to plan the infill patterns. Infill patterns were
properties of the granular composite, leading to the successful when deposited uniformly across the layer and
following conclusions: a higher concentration of hydrogels completed prior to the state of jellification of the desired
corresponds with a higher mechanical capability, but a very hydrogel concentration. Based on this result, specific
fast jellification rate in the end-effector. Contrary, a lower patterns were investigated, minimizing the bridges, travel
concentration caused the opposite behavior (Figure 16).
Those experiments showed that hydrogels are suitable
for the binding process as they allow for graded material
properties and a temperature, humidity, and time-sensitive
type of deposition. After refining the ratios of soil and agar
for robotic fabrication, a controlled muti-move AM system
was developed.

Robotic Setup
The multi-move robotic set up was composed of two six
axis robotic arms: Robot A equipped with a plate for soil
compaction, and Robot B provided with extrusion binder-
jet nozzle (Figure 13). The custom-built binder jet nozzle
was attached to the end-effector of the master robotic arm
of Robot B and autonomously refilled itself periodi-
cally (Figure 9). The robot tool-paths processed to the
robotic arm via a sensor socket optimized to reduce
17
bridges between and to favor a continuous deposition
without sharp changes in direction (Figure 14). A stepper
motor, which received data from a computer, activated a
controlled and variable extrusion system and refilled the
nozzle-based system. Slave-robot B was equipped with a
pressing plate with a spring system to maximize the pres-
sure load per centimeter squared.

For every layer, predefined amounts of soil were distrib-

uted in the bounding box. The repetitive refilling of the
soil layers was still done manually and is open for future
improvements of the system. Thereafter, Robot B pressed
the loose organic granular material into a thin layer, and
subsequently robot A deposited the hydrogel following a
predefined data path (Figure 15). Different densities and
patterns of algorithmic filling paths were tested to find
an ideal combination of minimal printing time and high
precision, taking into consideration the thickness of the
18
extrusion nozzle and the expansion of the binding agent on

593
19 Pahoehoe beauty FrAgile VI, Ars Electronica 2018, installation
paths and enabling a graded deposition depending of the
robot´s speed. This condition gave flexibility and accuracy
to the process for infill patterns of complex geometries
(Figure 14).
Post Fabrication
The consolidation and stabilization of the soil structure was
obtained through a drying process. Environmental agents
such as wind and high temperatures favor the evaporation
of the water content of the hydrogel binder, stabilizing the
overall mechanical behavior of the structure. After the
completion of the additive manufacturing process, two key
post production processes followed: (1) excavation in which
the 3D printed parts were cleaned from the remaining not
bonded aggregate (Figure 17), and (2) a superficial stabi-
lization process in which a higher concentration of binder
(50 gr/l) was vaporized uniformly onto the overall surface
of the printed building parts (Figure 18). The superficial
stabilization allowed the creation of a tensional continuity
of the topology and enabled the 3D printed building part
to remain fully biodegradable also after post-fabrication
operations.
CONCLUSION
This paper outlines a novel, robotic construction method to
create an entirely biodegradable 3D printed soil structure
(Figure 19). The integration of computational and robotic
fabrication enables the design of complex 3D geometries
printed on site, supporting the idea of a fully reversible
and biodegradable architecture. The paper identifies the
594
architectural implications of using soil 3D printing as novel
biodegradable fabrication process. Soil printing requires
a rigorous fabrication protocol that includes crucial
parameters such as: (1) soil quality (filtered/unfiltered) (2)
compaction pressure of soil per m2, (3) density of hydrogel,
and (4) deposition strategies for non-toxic binding agents
to enhance chemical and structural properties. A key
challenge is the outdoor construction in a wet or humid
surrounding which would weaken the currently-inves-
tigated structural stability of the structure. To allow for
soil 3D printing to become a competitive additive manu-
facturing process, environmental stabilization automation
of the robotic fabrication process in regard to speed and
robustness and further mechanical testing are necessary.
Additionally, the robotic system is limited to the size of the
constrained bounding box. Switching the process from a
multi-move robotic arm system to a binder jet set up, or
mobile robots, would allow for more rapid fabrication due
to the possibility to distribute the binder from a multi-nozzle
axis. The combination of soil and hydrogel as a building
material indicates the potentials of a fully reversible
construction process for architectural components and
foresees a potential full-scale architectural implementation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper and research would have not been possible without the
collaboration with Marjan Colletti and the support of the University
of Innsbruck (Faculty of Architecture, Institut für experimentelle
Architektur, REX|LAB) and UCL (The Bartlett School of Architecture).
A special acknowledgment goes to Dr. Aurelien Forget for his tech-
nical advice, and to our E3 students and the team who helped along
Soil 3D Printing Mitterberger, Derme
this process (in alphabetical order): Jan Contala, Jonathan Raphael
Hanny, Georg Grasser, Moritz Riedl, Philipp Schwaderer and Lukas
Vorreiter.
NOTES
1. These authors contributed equally to this work
2. Current affiliation: Gramazio Kohler Research, Department of
Architecture, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
REFERENCES
Akadiri, P.O., E.A. Chinyio, and P.O. Olomolaiye. 2012. "Design of A
Sustainable Building: A Conceptual Framework for Implementing
Sustainability in the Building Sector." Buildings 2(2): 126-152.
Augarde, C.E. 2015. "Earthen Construction: A Geotechnical
Engineering Perspective." In Rammed Earth Construction: Cutting-
Edge Research on Traditional and Modern Rammed Earth, edited by
D. Ciancio and C. Beckett. Leiden, Netherlands: CRC Press LLC.
Auroville Earth Institute. 2012. "Raw Material, Introduction."
Accessed August 23, 2019. http://www.earth-auroville.com/
raw_material_introduction_en.php.
Beckett, Christopher and Thomas Stone. 2011. "The Role of
Material Structure in Compacted Earthen Building Materials:
Implications for Design and Construction." PhD thesis, Durham
University.
Bogue and Robert. 2013. “3D Printing: The Dawn of a New Era in
Manufacturing?” Assembly Automation 33(4): 307-311.
Chaltiel, S., M. Bravo, A. Ibrahim. 2018. “Adaptive Strategies
for Mud Shell Robotic Fabrication.” International Journal of
Environmental Science & Sustainable Development 3(2): 64-74.
https://press.ierek.com/index.php/ESSD/article/view/382.
Derme, T., D. Mitterberger, and U. Di Tanna. 2016. "Growth Based
Fabrication Techniques for Bacterial Cellulose." In ACADIA 2016,
Posthuman Frontiers, Data, Designers, and Cognitive Machines;
Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Association for
Computer Aided Design in Architecture, 488-49.
Esam, A.E., M.M. Nasef, and A.H. Yahaya. 2012. “Preparation and
Characterization of Chitosan/Agar Blended Films: Part 1. Chemical
Structure and Morphology.” E-Journal of Chemistry 9(3): 1431-
1439. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/781206.
Faludi, J., C. Bayley, S. Bhogal, and M. Iribarne. 2015. “Comparing
environmental impacts of additive manufacturing vs traditional
machining via life-cycle assessment.” Rapid Prototyping Journal
21(1): 14-33.
Ford, S. and M. Despeisse. 2016. “Additive manufacturing and
sustainability: An exploratory study of the advantages and chal-
lenges.” Journal of Cleaner Production 137: 1573-1587.
Gibson, I., D.W. Rosen, and B. Stucker. 2014. "Development of
Additive Manufacturing Technology." Additive Manufacturing
Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital
Manufacturing, 19-42. New York/Heidelberg/Dordrecht/London:
Springer.
Hansmeyer, M. and B. Dillenburger. 2012. “Digital Grotesque:
Towards a Micro-tectonic Architecture.” SAJ, Serbain Architectural
Journal 5(2): 194-201.
Ingold, Tim. 2007. "Materials against materiality." Archaeological
Dialogues 14(1): 1-16. Published online by Cambridge University
Press, April 4, 2007. doi.org/10.1017/S1380203807002127.
Malda, J., J. Visser, F.P. Melchels, T. Jüngst, W.M. Hennink,
W.J.A. Dhert, J. Groll, and D.W. Hutmacher. 2013. “Review: 25th
Anniversary Article: Engineering Hydrogels for Biofabrication.”
Advanced Materials 25(36): 5011-5028.
Mogan-Soldevila, L., J. Duro-Royo, and N. Oxman. 2014 “Water-
Based Robotic Fabrication: Large-Scale Additive Manufacturing
of Functionally Graded Hydrogel Composites via Multichamber
Extrusion.” 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing 1(3): 141-151.
Shotton, Elizabeth. 2006. "Material Imprecision." In Material
Matters: Architecture and Material Practice, Material Imprecision,
edited by K. Lloyd Thomas, 91-102. Taylor & Francis e-library.
IMAGE CREDITS
Figure 4: © CRATerre, ENSAG
Figure 5: © Yvon Fruneau
Figure 6: © World Monuments Fund
Figure 12: © Aurelien Forget, University of Freiburg
All other drawings and images by the authors
Daniela Mitterberger is an architect and researcher with a strong
interest in new media, and the relationship between Human/Body,
Digital Fabrication, and Emerging Technologies. Currently, she is a
A&T PhD Fellow at the Chair of Architecture and Digital Fabrication
(Prof. Fabio Gramazio, Prof. Matthias Kohler) focusing on intuition
in digital design and robotic fabrication.
.
Tiziano Derme is an architect, researcher, and media artist inter-
ested into the relationship between, materials, and performativity.
Currently he is Assistant Professor and PhD Fellow at University
of Innsbruck, Chair of Institute für experimentelle architektur
(Prof. Marjan Colletti), focusing on bio-fabrication and responsive
materials.
595