4.7 Article

A process classification framework for defining and describing Digital Fabrication with Concrete

期刊

CEMENT AND CONCRETE RESEARCH
卷 134, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106068

关键词

Classification; Concrete printing; Digital fabrication; RILEM; Standards; TC276

资金

  1. UK Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund: Transforming Construction initiative (EPSRC) [EP/S031405/1]
  2. EPSRC [EP/P031420/1]
  3. I-Site Future initiative, through the DiXite project in Paris, France
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation, National Centre for Competence in Research: Digital Fabrication in Architecture
  5. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [[10]387152958, SPP 2005]
  6. Innovation Fund Denmark [8055-00030B]
  7. Gerhard and Karin Matthai Foundation
  8. Ministry for Science and Culture (MWK) of Lower Saxony
  9. DFG
  10. EPSRC [EP/P031420/1, EP/S031405/1, EP/S019618/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Digital Fabrication with Concrete (DFC) encompasses 3D Concrete Printing (3DCP) and many other methods of production. DFC is emerging from an era of invention and demonstration to one where the merits of one principle over another needs to be quantified systematically. DFC technologies vary in characteristics, complexity and maturity which hampers the synthesis of research and comparisons of performance. The interdependence of design geometry, material properties and process characteristics is well recognised. Materials research has made significant progress in recent years and there have been many applications with varying design geometries demonstrated. Far less has been done to guide the definition and description of the processes used. This work takes a step forward by presenting classification and process description guidance for DFC. The approach was developed by engaging a broad cross-section of the international community through the activities of the RILEM Technical Committee 276 between 2016 and 2020.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据