3D printing - brickwork

[Quarryscapes]

I've put my development of larger 3D printed brick structures on hold until the production costs drop dramatically. I'm sure they will eventually.

 

625x465_3002472_8780692_1429740463.jpg

 

This OO scale terraced house (based on Scalescenes) I modelled, could be made available on Shapeways. It's uploaded there, but is flagged as not for sale. At 335 Euros, before I even add any margin for me, I didn't think there would be any takers.

 

Peter

 

If you were to remove the roof, windows, doors and hollow out the wall I be it would come down a hell of a lot. My signal box above is £19.62 at current rates, using hollowed out walls and only an external layer on the ground floor (since you won't be able to see into the ground floor). I uploaded a full size model of Pwllheli station with rood and that was £150ish. I need to revisit that model now that I've honed my brickwork, chop out the windows, doors etc. I reckon it'll come down to about £50. Making it flat packed would save money too. 

[rue_d_etropal]

The more I find out about brickwork, the more I think there is a need for an article. I had not realised cavity walls came in at start of 20th century. It does explain why I have seen a number of local houses , which date to early 20th century, and use NORI brick with stretcher bond. Most of the bigger buildings have headers showing, but as NORI brick only came in at end of 19th century, there is only a very short period before cavity walls were introduced.

From a modelling point of view, it does allow simpler model building, but if modelling a specific area it may be worth finding out what was being used locally.

 

As for 3D printing complete buildings, I am not convinced prices will come down much, although printers for home use will improve, and therefore costs could go down. I have been thinking about designing some buildings, partly to see how much cost can be brought down, by thinning down thicknesses of plastic as much as possible. Possibly not worth it for simple buildings, but for ones with a lot of intricate detail, it may be worth it. I remember seeing here, someone doing fronts of old buildings which used to stand in Leeds.

[Quarryscapes]

Some cruel close ups of the Printes Signal Box:

 

Bricks 2.8x1.3x0.8mm with a 0.2mm mortar course making some nice round measurements! 

 

 

 

Need to acquire some more shades of brick now for painting! 

[rovex]

Looks good. I use about the same dimensions for my brickwork. A problem I have however (and it might be shapeways or it might by Sketchup, or it might be me) is that sometimes the brickwork is not very defined when printed.

 

One reason I think might be is that when creating the model, using Sketchup, the programme can sometimes make the bricks separate boxes that sit on the surface - I think this causes the problem. So I have started checking to make sure that the back of the brick is open to the wall behind. 

 

tell me if that doesn't make sense. 

 

As for cost. it certainly isn't cheap and I wouldn't intend using it for all my buildings. But there is a timesaving and where a lot of identical items need to be created and your moulding and casting skills aren't up to it. It can be a sensible alternative.

 

Dean

[St. Simon]

Looks good. I use about the same dimensions for my brickwork. A problem I have however (and it might be shapeways or it might by Sketchup, or it might be me) is that sometimes the brickwork is not very defined when printed.

 

One reason I think might be is that when creating the model, using Sketchup, the programme can sometimes make the bricks separate boxes that sit on the surface - I think this causes the problem. So I have started checking to make sure that the back of the brick is open to the wall behind. 

 

tell me if that doesn't make sense. 

Hi,

 

It's more likely the printer, it'll be less defined with the WSF material, I find to get good definition of groves like brickwork it's best to make the depth over scale on the file, this will account for printing problems and surface finishing to make something near scale, just don't go over the top with it.

 

Simon

[rue_d_etropal]

I have had mixed(but mainly good) results with WSF for brick and stonework. There are tolerances, and making gaps bigger between bricks/stones does help. There has been some discussion concerning orientation, and I have found on occasions one surface well defined, but the opposite one less defined, despite the designs being set up correctly(they do print OK most of the time ).

I think the problem may be related more to position within the printer(no control there), and if near the side walls, for some reason the laser guidance is not as accurate. I have found that thinner detail sometimes copes better, but it might be chance. My brickwork designs work on a very thin thickness, and i have had on one or two occasions , brickwork with even less detail. Only way is to maybe increase thickness, but then most of the time the printed bricks look too heavy.

Chances are,I am completely wrong, but I have found that increasing gap between stones and brick does reduce chances of mis-printing. I have had to settle with a bit of a compromise, but that is best I can do, and overall it seems to work, and is easier to fix , should there be a problem.

Not sure about how different 3D CAD programs handle this, but the one I use, Alibre, is very maths based, so you can tweak the decimal places.

 

It is not just depth, as I have found bricks and stones merging even with deeper gaps. even trial and error can not prove what will work every time. For WSF , anything less than 0.5mm can have a problem. That might even vary on each layer, so might explain why some of my thinner bricks (0.3mm) actually come out better, most of the time.

[rue_d_etropal]

One of the things I have found is that it is often possible to remove a lot from a design without affecting the overall look. I was thinking about 3D printed buildings, and found a drawing, then designed a very basic version. Simple the overall shape, then shelled, so walls are minimal thickness. I tend to use a minimum of 0.9mm for walls. The building is 12 cm by 11cm, and to top of pitched roof 10cm.

On uploading this to Shapeways, it would cost me just over £40. Adding extra detail such as brickwork,slates,windows and door, should not add too much cost, but the main object of the test was to get a base price to start with.

It helps having a simple shape, with , I think, space for other items to print inside, so it does not waste too much space. Might actually find a smaller building costs more.

[nigelb]

I think you may find the RAKED  garden wall bond refers to the mortar and how its dealt with raked meaning it is not flush with the surface of the bricks but cut back  raked)

[rue_d_etropal]

Inspired by the free Metcalf kit with Railway Modeller, I wondered if I could design something similar for 3D printing. All those bricks, and I knew my computer would object, so I split it into 3 sections. I am now thinking of a modular building system.Still need some work on roof tiles(they are tricky to line up), and finish off the drain pipes.

Price wise, it wasn't actually too bad, but I kept plastic thickness to absolute minimum. Still need to get it printed out

[rue_d_etropal]

first sample received. just a couple of improvements to make. Nothing wrong with design, just that by seeing how it actually prints shows where it can be changed.

[rovex]

How do you propose to hide the joints between the various modules? Might I suggest a projecting string course, I've always found that when you can't hide something make a feature of it, usually works

 

Good work, be interesting to see what it prices out at.

 

Dean

[rue_d_etropal]

I have been messing around with software, so I can modularise and build up designs easier. Not so easy to go back to older designs, but the buildings are new, as are my brick panels, although would still have to think about orientation in designs.

Making a feature of unavoidable joints is best idea, and if frontages are long enough then drainpipes would be one way.

Currently need to do mods to make it easier to fit window glass(something I am also working on for coaches), and making windows and doors separate components.

 

I tend to switch between design projects, as it can be a bit monotonous working on just one range. That nice splits between buildings,track and trains. Other projects also on the go.

 

I have also considered flatpacking, but the cost saved compared to time to build might not make it worth while( I thought about this with my large scale wagons, but thought that once something cost a certain amount, the extra was worth spending to get a complete model, which is not far off being r2r)).

I would rather do the 'building' on the computer. Complete buildings, only needing painting, with an ability to modify would nicely fit in between r2p and kitbuild. Big advantage over the r2p resin buildings is the weight or lack of it. An important consideration for portable layouts, or ones which might have to be moved in the future.

[rue_d_etropal]

Burnt a lot of midnight oil. This is very addictive, and should come with a health warning!

 

Instead of making modules to be asssembled9still can ), I have modularised the design. This means I can add and take away items, and more important for me, it seems to be quicker on my computer.

Here is my single and double shop.

Megabyte wise, the double shop is near limit, although reducing number of floors should allow more units to be added. I should be able to swap brick with stone, and this will use less space. The roof can be changed. Shop names can be changed.

Getting the design in best assembling sequence meant a lot of u turns , but got there in the end. The complexity of the design, in terms of number of instructions, means that I still sometimes have to reboot the software, sometimes the computer to get it to work. When it works properly, the different sections of the building can be swapped.

[rue_d_etropal]

just a quick question. I realised after reading article in current RM, that bond on chimneys should be simple stretcher bond. This is simple if chimney in middle of roof, but if side of chimney is in same plane as a wall, how does the non stretcher bond change to stretcher bond. Is is just a simple change from one row to next, in which case which row . I suspect some bonds on chimneys are 'fake' to match other brickwork, but can't find any info or pictures to answer question.

[rue_d_etropal]

I have managed to get back working on the building modules. Actually determining correct brickwork slowed things down.

Currently have up and running the ground floor shop units , with various sides, brick and stone.then a middle floor(brick only so far) and a roof with/without chimneys. All either come with side walls(one or two) or none so you can create a terrace.

Lining up bricks on a terrace might be tricky, but am sure any line can be hidden. Going up is easy, just sticking one on top of each other, may some extra strengthening with thin card superglued to inside. I have done some complete buildings in N scale, with stone effect, mainly to show potential, especially as I am at Derby this weekend. I may do some complete buildings in bigger scales, if someone asks, even with option of a shop name added(not possible though with N scale as writing is too small to 3D print)

One thing I have noticed is how the price varies, and the open low relief buildings are relatively cheap compared to a 4 wall building. The extra inside bits in the shop unit almost double the price compared to other simple floor sections. Sometimes I have noticed that a model with all parts combined costs more than one composed of separate parts. Not much, and it does depend on overall size. That semi detached pair of houses shown , as 4 separate sections would cost a lot less than the amount for the whole unit in one piece. Even splitting into 2 might actually reduce cost. This is assuming inside of building is empty.

As soon as I have finished on shop module I ill get back to the terrace house, then there is a warehouse design, not forgetting a double length shop and house unit with only 3 windows and central door. I am trying to finish each step before starting next, although i have been playing round with other designs, mainly to make sure everything will match.

[runs as required]

just a quick question. I realised after reading article in current RM, that bond on chimneys should be simple stretcher bond. This is simple if chimney in middle of roof, but if side of chimney is in same plane as a wall, how does the non stretcher bond change to stretcher bond. Is is just a simple change from one row to next, in which case which row . I suspect some bonds on chimneys are 'fake' to match other brickwork, but can't find any info or pictures to answer question.

Funnily enough I was pondering that very point looking out of son's terrace house in Heaton Newcastle today while child minding.

It is probably stretcher only because of the (usually) 9"x9" flue - though there may be cut half bricks or less to make up the overall dimension of the muti flue stack across the ridge.

The return end of that chimney I'd expect to be 2 x 9" (two bricks) for one row of pots..

 

The chimney of the house opposite my son's was one stretcher plus one header (as whole brick corner quoin) alternating at each course. Which could only mean a 4 1/2" (half brick) wide flue.

Even a nest of jackdaws would deem that overcrowding!

 

dh

[rue_d_etropal]

round here, brick replaced stone at same time as stretcher bond came in. looking at some older houses and the chimneys are not at end, but are slightly inset, so there is no join on the wall end. For my design using Flemish bond on building, I introduced a row that fitted in with both Flemish and stretcher bond. Possibly not accurate but it looks plausible. I am also doing a stretcher bond version of walls so it won't be a problem.

In fact only problem has been making sure I have the two rows same way round so they always match up! I have had to reverse them several times, but fingers crossed , it is correct now. Just don't look too closely at corners, especially windows as there are some odd lengths of bricks. At least the bricks do appear to go round corner, unlike many models where the corner edges don't match up properly(I have been guilty of that in the past!).

 

Quite often first thing I look at at exhibition layouts is the brickwork. Sad , but visually it stands out more to me that wrong gauge, sleepers or even rivets! Also sad to see too many layouts looking the same, using the same kits all built to same instructions. When new models are introduced, they are 'different' until everyone uses them,, so hopefully I ill keep one step ahead, and once my initial range is completed, will introduce variations. I already have far too many ideas.