Discussion (2021-04)¶

The commentary by Mullett and Ghaffar (2018) suggests that three-dimensional (3D) printing will change the way structures and buildings are constructed and goes on to describe a ‘concrete’ example as being the most relevant for large-scale construction. The approach would also be applicable for steel castings, undertaken by specialist subcontractors within the construction industry, with the same aim of incorporating geometric complexity within the overall structure of the structural scheme. Using such digital engineering to deliver design quicker, safer and more effectively assumes that the construction will flow! In 2001–2002, Robert Benaim and Associates was appointed as structural engineer for the refurbishment of a department store at 103–113 Regent Street, London, originally completed in 1926 to designs by architects P. J. Westwood & Emberton with Sir Reginald Blomfield as architect for the external elevations (Paterson and Perry, 2002). The scheme included the feasibility, detailed design and construction support for the installation of ‘scenic’ lifts in the new ‘opened-up’ floors within the building. The contributor’s range of structural solutions for the lift scheme included steel castings to act as diaphragms between the vertical members of the lift structure. This was eventually chosen as the scheme to be designed and constructed (Figure 1). The steel casting was procured using a particular specification and engineer’s design intent detailed sketch. Clearly, the availability of 3D printing at that time would have assisted in the scheme development, detailed design and the steel casting process, especially with trials of various shapes and improvement in the casting process. Looking back on the lessons learnt then and applying them to the suggestions given in the commentary, the contributor would suggest that, in order to assist 3D printing being more commonplace in the industry, there ought to be: