3D Concrete Printing for Sustainable Construction
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.2. Test Methods
2.2.1. Workability
2.2.2. Compressive Strength of Concrete
2.2.3. Compressive Strength of the Mix in the Printing Simulation Test (Squeezing Test)
2.2.4. Compressive Strength of Mix during the Printing Process
2.2.5. Compressive Strength of the Printed Column
3. Test Results
3.1. Workability of Mixes
3.2. Compressive Strength of Concrete
3.3. Properties of Fresh Mix in the Printing Simulation Test (Squeezing Test)
3.4. Evaluation of Load-Bearing Capacity during the Printing Process
- (1)
- ; ;
- (2)
- ; ;
- (3)
- ;
3.5. Compressive Strength of Printed Columns
4. Environmental and Economic Aspects
4.1. Environmental Impact of Concrete
4.2. Economic Analysis
5. Discussion
- (1)
- Strength evaluation of mixes - ,
- (2)
- Strength evaluation of concretes - ,
- (3)
- Environmental impact - ,
- (4)
- Cost analysis - .
6. Conclusions
- The results of compressive strength determination after 28 days have shown that mixes with a higher binder amount (840 kg/m3) have better results than mixes with a lower binder amount (640 kg/m3). The study has shown that reactive mineral additives (silica fume (SF), fly ash (FA)) improve the compressive strength of designed mixes.
- The proposed coefficient was used to compare the compressive strength of designed mixes. The value of the coefficient allows for quickly determining which mixes have higher than average compressive strength. The same formula can be used to determine different mechanical parameters of concrete.
- The conducted printing simulation test (squeezing test) allows for determining the development of compressive strength of fresh mix. The study has shown a change in mix stiffness at strain level of 0.04. This level of strain was assumed as a limit value, for which the stresses were determined . This assumption allowed for preparing the stress–strain curves for designed mixes. The tests were conducted for two different time factors. The time was the time from a cement–water contact until the test. The time was the time reflecting the time of consecutive layers being printed (cycle time). Based on the proposed test, the printing parameters can be set (nozzle speed, pump performance, and mixer performance) to incorporate the mechanical properties of the mix. It can be also used another way around to determine if the mix is feasible for printing at assumed parameters. The main outcomes from the tests:
- ○
- Replacing the cement with silica fume (SF) and fly ash (FA) increased the compressive strength only in the group of mixes with higher binder content.
- ○
- It was observed that the addition of only limestone powder as an inert microfiller significantly improved mechanical performance of fresh concrete regardless of binder amount.
- ○
- The increase in mix strength is the higher the later the printing starts () and the higher the cycle time .
- ○
- In the majority of the mixes, the increase of compressive strength between the two lowest cycle times is linear regardless of printing time . In the case of , it was noticed that, for mixes modified with limestone powder, both with low and high binder content, the increase in compressive strength between the printing times is exponential.
- ○
- ○
- The lowest strength increase was exhibited by mixes without limestone powder and low binder amount (CI/SP640, CI/SP640/SF/FA).
- ○
- The highest strength increase was observed for low-binder mixes modified with limestone powder (CI/SP640/LP, CI/SP640/SF/FA/LP) and high-binder mixes (CI/SP840, CI/SP840/LP, CI/SP840/SF/FA/LP, CI/SP840/SF/FA).
- Based on the performed test of the compressive strength of the mix during the printing process, the stresses at the moment of failure of the structure during the printing process were calculated. The stresses were then compared with the limit stresses obtained in the squeezing test. The method allows for transferring the squeezing test results for practical use. The main outcomes from the test were:
- ○
- The stresses are lower than . It was determined that the value of was on average 1.77. The result allows for evaluating the stresses at failure and limit stresses.
- ○
- The presented study has proven that the squeezing test, which simulates the printing process, can successfully be used to initially determine the properties of the mix, which later can be verified during printing.
- The main outcomes of the compressive strength test of printed columns after 10 h of water contact were:
- ○
- The strength of the printed structure () was compared to the strength of standard samples (). The proposed coefficient had an average value of 1.87. Standard samples exhibit higher compressive strength. This is due to their compaction while casting, while printed samples cannot be prepared this way and have more air voids [23,24]. The results of the test allow for determining the strength of the printed structure based on the results of standard samples.
- ○
- The test can used as a supplementation of the standard compressive strength test and squeezing test. The results reflect how quickly the printed structure can be loaded with structural elements such as lintels, beams, and slabs. The limitation to the test is that it was conducted only at a single time point. Further studies need to be performed for different times between 10 h and 24 h.
- Conducted quantitative analysis of the environmental impact of mixes allowed for determining the indicator. The lower the value of , the less harmful the mix is for the environment. Mixes with a lower amount of binder achieved better results for the . The difference between low- and high-binder mixes in the study was about 25 percentage points. Mixes with reactive mineral additives have lower by 5% for high-binder mixes (840 kg/m3), and 4% for low-binder mixes (640 kg/m3) than mixes without reactive mineral additives. Even though mixes with reactive mineral additives are more carcinogenic and have higher ecotoxicity, their overall environmental impact is lower.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Khoshnevis, B.; Hwang, D.; Yao, K.-T.; Zhenghao, Y. Mega-scale fabrication by contour crafting. Int. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 2006, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khoshnevis, B. Automated construction by contour crafting—Related robotics and information technologies. Autom. Constr. 2004, 13, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bos, F.; Wolfs, R.; Ahmed, Z.; Salet, T. Additive manufacturing of concrete in construction: Potentials and challenges of 3D concrete printing. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2016, 11, 209–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wangler, T.; Lloret, E.; Reiter, L.; Hack, N.; Gramazio, F.; Kohler, M.; Bernhard, M.; Dillenburger, B.; Buchli, J.; Roussel, N.; et al. Digital Concrete: Opportunities and Challenges. RILEM Lett. 2016, 1, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khoshnevis, B.; Hwang, D. Contour Crafting. In Rapid Prototyping: Theory and Practice; Kamrani, A., Nasr, E.A., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2006; pp. 221–251. ISBN 978-0-387-23291-1. [Google Scholar]
- Khoshnevis, B.; Bukkapatnam, S.; Kwon, H.; Saito, J. Experimental investigation of contour crafting using ceramic materials. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2001, 7, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, T.T.; Austin, S.A.; Lim, S.; Buswell, R.A.; Gibb, A.G.F.; Thorpe, T. Mix design and fresh properties for high-performance. Mater. Struct. 2012, 45, 1221–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Le, T.T.; Austin, S.A.; Lim, S.; Buswell, R.A.; Law, R.; Gibb, A.; Thorpe, T. Hardened properties of high-performance printing concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2012, 42, 558–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lim, S.; Buswell, R.A.; Le, T.T.; Austin, S.A.; Gibb, A.G.F.; Thorpe, T. Developments in construction-scale additive manufacturing processes. Autom. Constr. 2012, 21, 262–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cesaretti, G.; Dini, E.; Kestelier, X.D.; Colla, V.; Pambaguian, L. Building components for an outpost on the Lunar soil by means of a novel 3D printing technology. Acta Astronaut. 2014, 93, 430–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazemian, A.; Yuan, X.; Cochran, E.; Khoshnevis, B. Cementitious materials for construction-scale 3D printing: Laboratory testing of fresh printing mixture. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 145, 639–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Secrieru, E.; Fataei, S.; Schröfl, C.; Mechtcherine, V. Study on concrete pumpability combining different laboratory tools and linkage to rheology. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 144, 451–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Federowicz, K.; Kaszyńska, M.; Zieliński, A.; Hoffmann, M. Effect of Curing Methods on Shrinkage Development in 3D-Printed Concrete. Materials 2020, 13, 2590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaszynska, M.; Olczyk, N.; Techman, M.; Skibicki, S.; Zielinski, A.; Filipowicz, K.; Wróblewski, T.; Hoffmann, M. Thermal-humidity parameters of 3D printed wall. IOP Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 471, 082018. [Google Scholar]
- Panda, B.; Noor Mohamed, N.A.; Paul, S.C.; Bhagath Singh, G.V.; Tan, M.J.; Šavija, B. The Effect of Material Fresh Properties and Process Parameters on Buildability and Interlayer Adhesion of 3D Printed Concrete. Materials 2019, 12, 2149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jones, S.Z.; Bentz, D.P.; Martys, N.S.; George, W.L.; Thomas, A. Rheological Control of 3D Printable Cement Paste and Mortars. In First RILEM International Conference on Concrete and Digital Fabrication—Digital Concrete 2018; Wangler, T., Flatt, R., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; ISBN 3319995189. [Google Scholar]
- Perrot, A.; Rangeard, D.; Pierre, A. Structural built-up of cement-based materials used for 3D-printing extrusion techniques. Mater. Struct. 2016, 49, 1213–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roussel, N.; Cussigh, F. Distinct-layer casting of SCC: The mechanical consequences of thixotropy. Cem. Concr. Res. 2008, 38, 624–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, S.C.; Tay, Y.W.D.; Panda, B.; Tan, M.J. Fresh and hardened properties of 3D printable cementitious materials for building and construction. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2018, 18, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roussel, N.; Lanos, C. Plastic Fluid Flow Parameters Identification Using a Simple Squeezing Test. Appl. Rheol. 2003, 13, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivanova, I.; Mechtcherine, V. Possibilities and challenges of constant shear rate test for evaluation of structural build-up rate of cementitious materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 2020, 130, 105974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roussel, N. Rheological requirements for printable concretes. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 112, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shakor, P.; Nejadi, S.; Paul, G. A Study into the Effect of Different Nozzles Shapes and Fibre-Reinforcement in 3D Printed Mortar. Materials 2019, 12, 1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shakor, P.; Nejadi, S.; Sutjipto, S.; Paul, G.; Gowripalan, N. Effects of deposition velocity in the presence/absence of E6-glass fibre on extrusion-based 3D printed mortar. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 32, 101069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shakor, P.; Renneberg, J.; Nejadi, S.; Paul, G. Optimisation of Different Concrete Mix Designs for 3D Printing by Utilizing 6DOF Industrial Robot. In Proceedings of the 34th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Taipei, Taiwan, 28 June–1 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kaszynska, M.; Hoffmann, M.; Skibicki, S.; Zielinski, A.; Techman, M.; Olczyk, N.; Wróblewski, T. Evaluation of suitability for 3D printing of high performance concretes. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 163, 1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenhill, A.G. Determination of the greatest height consistent with stability that a vertical pole or mast can be made, and the greatest height to which a tree of given proportions can grow. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 1881, 4, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suiker, A. Mechanical performance of wall structures in 3D printing processes: Theory, design tools and experiments. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2018, 137, 145–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wolfs, R.J.M.; Suiker, A.S.J. Structural failure during extrusion-based 3D printing processes. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 104, 565–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wolfs, R.; Bos, F.P.; Salet, T. Early age mechanical behaviour of 3D printed concrete: Numerical modelling and experimental testing. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 106, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hüsken, G.; Brouwers, H. On the early-age behavior of zero-slump concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2012, 42, 501–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alexandridis, A.; Gardner, N.J. Mechanical behaviour of fresh concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 1981, 11, 323–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Carlo, T. Experimental and Numerical Techniques to Characterize Structural Properties of Fresh Concrete Relevant to Contour Crafting. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univeristy of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Casagrande, L.; Esposito, L.; Menna, C.; Asprone, D.; Auricchio, F. Effect of testing procedures on buildability properties of 3D-printable concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 245, 118286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, G.; Li, Z.; Wang, L. Printable properties of cementitious material containing copper tailings for extrusion based 3D printing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 162, 613–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malaeb, Z.; Hachem, H.; Tourbah, A.; Maalouf, T.; El Zarwi, N.; Hamzeh, F. 3d concrete printing: Machine and mix design. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2015, 6, 14–22. [Google Scholar]
- Nerella, V.N.; Krause, M.; Näther, M.; Mechtcherine, V. Studying printability of fresh concrete for formwork free Concrete on-site 3D Printing technology (CONPrint3D). In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Rheology of Building Materials, Regensburg, Germany, 2–3 March 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Skibicki, S.; Kaszyńska, M.; Techman, M. Maturity testing of 3D printing concrete with inert microfiller. MATEC Web. Conf. 2018, 219, 3008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Hou, Z.; Chen, C.; Zhang, Y.; Mechtcherine, V.; Sun, Z. Design of 3D printable concrete based on the relationship between flowability of cement paste and optimum aggregate content. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2019, 104, 103406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Austin, S.A.; Robins, P.J.; Goodier, C.I. The rheological performance of wet-process sprayed mortars. Mag. Concr. Res. 1999, 51, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buswell, R.A.; Leal de Silva, W.R.; Jones, S.Z.; Dirrenberger, J. 3D printing using concrete extrusion: A roadmap for research. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 112, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duballet, R.; Baverel, O.; Dirrenberger, J. Classification of building systems for concrete 3D printing. Autom. Constr. 2017, 83, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wangler, T.; Roussel, N.; Bos, F.P.; Salet, T.A.; Flatt, R.J. Digital Concrete: A Review. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 123, 105780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lafhaj, Z.; Rabenantoandro, A.Z.; el Moussaoui, S.; Dakhli, Z.; Youssef, N. Experimental Approach for Printability Assessment: Toward a Practical Decision-Making Framework of Printability for Cementitious Materials. Buildings 2019, 9, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tay, Y.W.D.; Qian, Y.; Tan, M.J. Printability region for 3D concrete printing using slump and slump flow test. Compos. B Eng. 2019, 174, 106968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASTM. Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic Cement; Technical Report No. C230; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Czarnecki, L.; Gemert, D. Innovation in construction materials engineering versus sustainable development. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Tech. Sci. 2017, 65, 765–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Szewczak, E.; Winkler-Skalna, A.; Czarnecki, L. Sustainable Test Methods for Construction Materials and Elements. Materials 2020, 13, 606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ma, G.; Wang, L.; Ju, Y. State-of-the-art of 3D printing technology of cementitious material—An emerging technique for construction. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2018, 61, 475–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yossef, M.; Chen, A. Applicability and Limitations of 3D Printing for Civil Structures. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Autonomous and Robotic Construction of Infrastructure, Ames, IA, USA, 2–3 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, H.; Chung, J.K.H.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y. The cost calculation method of construction 3D printing aligned with internet of things. J. Wirel. Commun. Netw. 2018, 2018, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Panda, B.; Paul, S.C.; Mohamed, N.A.N.; Tay, Y.W.D.; Tan, M.J. Measurement of tensile bond strength of 3D printed geopolymer mortar. Measurement 2018, 113, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowke, D.; Dini, E.; Perrot, A.; Weger, D.; Gehlen, C.; Dillenburger, B. Particle-bed 3D printing in concrete construction—Possibilities and challenges. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 112, 50–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, D.; Veenendaal, D.; Akbarzadeh, M.; Block, P. Prototype of an ultra-thin, concrete vaulted floor system. In Proceedings of the IASS 2014 Brasilia Symposium: Shells, Membranes and Spatial Structures: Footprints—Structural Morphology 2: Methods for Thin Shells, Brasilia, Brazil, 15–19 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Siddika, A.; Mamun, M.A.A.; Ferdous, W.; Saha, A.K.; Alyousef, R. 3D-printed concrete: Applications, performance, and challenges. J. Sustain. Cem.-Based Mater. 2019, 24, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buswell, R.A.; Soar, R.C.; Gibb, A.; Thorpe, A. Freeform Construction: Mega-scale Rapid Manufacturing for construction. Autom. Constr. 2007, 16, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, J.; Wang, J.; Dong, S.; Yu, X.; Han, B. A review of the current progress and application of 3D printed concrete. Compos Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2019, 125, 105533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jha, K.N. Formwork for Concrete Structures; Tata McGraw Hill Education Private Limited: New Delhi, IN, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-25-900733-0. [Google Scholar]
- Paul, S.C.; van Zijl, G.P.; Tan, M.J.; Gibson, I.; Campbell, R.I. A review of 3D concrete printing systems and materials properties: Current status and future research prospects. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2018, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Skibicki, S. Optimization of Cost of Building with Concrete Slabs Based on the Maturity Method. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245, 22061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hager, I.; Golonka, A.; Putanowicz, R. 3D Printing of Buildings and Building Components as the Future of Sustainable Construction? Procedia Eng. 2016, 151, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Diggs-McGee, B.N.; Kreiger, E.L.; Kreiger, M.A.; Case, M.P. Print time vs. elapsed time: A temporal analysis of a continuous printing operation for additive constructed concrete. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 28, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malaeb, Z.; AlSakka, F.; Hamzeh, F. 3D Concrete Printing. In 3D Concrete Printing Technology; Sanjayan, J., Nazari, A., Nematollahi, B., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 115–136. ISBN 9780128154816. [Google Scholar]
- Sanjayan, J.; Nazari, A.; Nematollahi, B. 3D Concrete Printing Technology; Sanjayan, J., Nazari, A., Nematollahi, B., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2019; ISBN 9780128154816. [Google Scholar]
- Marchment, T.; Sanjayan, J.G.; Nematollahi, B.; Xia, M. Interlayer Strength of 3D Printed Concrete. In 3D Concrete Printing Technology; Sanjayan, J., Nazari, A., Nematollahi, B., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 241–264. ISBN 9780128154816. [Google Scholar]
- Wolfs, R. 3D Printind of Concrete Structures. Graduation Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Labonnote, N.; Rønnquist, A.; Manum, B.; Rüther, P. Additive construction: State-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities. Autom. Constr. 2016, 72, 347–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agustí-Juan, I.; Müller, F.; Hack, N.; Wangler, T.; Habert, G. Potential benefits of digital fabrication for complex structures: Environmental assessment of a robotically fabricated concrete wall. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 154, 330–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agustí-Juan, I.; Habert, G. Environmental design guidelines for digital fabrication. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2780–2791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hoffmann, M.; Skibicki, S.; Pankratow, P.; Zieliński, A.; Pajor, M.; Techman, M. Automation in the Construction of a 3D-Printed Concrete Wall with the Use of a Lintel Gripper. Materials 2020, 13, 1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaszynska, M.; Skibicki, S. Influence of Eco-Friendly Mineral Additives on Early Age Compressive Strength and Temperature Development of High-Performance Concrete. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2017, 95, 42060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, B.; Weng, Y.; Li, M.; Qian, Y.; Leong, K.F.; Tan, M.J.; Qian, S. A systematical review of 3D printable cementitious materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 207, 477–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sikora, P.; Cendrowski, K.; Abd Elrahman, M.; Chung, S.-Y.; Mijowska, E.; Stephan, D. The effects of seawater on the hydration, microstructure and strength development of Portland cement pastes incorporating colloidal silica. Appl. Nanosci. 2019, 3, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zdeb, T.; Sliwinski, J. The Influence of Selected Material and Technological Factors on Mechanical Properties and Microstructure of Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC)/Wpływ Wybranych Czynników Materiałowych I Technologicznych Na Własciwosci Mechaniczne I Mikrostrukture Betonów Z Proszków Reaktywnych (BPR). Arch. Civ. Eng. 2011, 57, 227–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zieliński, A.; Federowicz, K.; Kaszyńska, M.; Urbańska-Galewska, E. Comparison of calculation models’ estimates with actual measured autogenous shrinkage in High-Performance Cement Composites. MATEC Web. Conf. 2018, 219, 3009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bong, S.H.; Nematollahi, B.; Nazari, A.; Ming, X.; Sanjayan, J.G. Fresh and Hardened Properties of 3D Printable Geopolymer Cured in Ambient Temperature. In First RILEM International Conference on Concrete and Digital Fabrication—Digital Concrete 2018; Wangler, T., Flatt, R., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; ISBN 3319995189. [Google Scholar]
- CEN. Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry—Part 3: Determination of Consistence of Fresh Mortar (by Flow Table); Technical Report No. CEN-EN 1015-3; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- CEN. Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry—Part 11: Determination of Flexural and Compressive Strength of Hardened Mortar; Technical Report No. CEN-EN 1015-11; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Toutou, Z.; Roussel, N.; Lanos, C. The squeezing test: A tool to identify firm cement-based material’s rheological behaviour and evaluate their extrusion ability. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 1891–1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skibicki, S.; Kaszyńska, M.; Wahib, N.; Techman, M.; Federowicz, K.; Zieliński, A.; Wróblewski, T.; Olczyk, N.; Hoffmann, M. Properties of Composite Modified with Limestone Powder for 3D Concrete Printing. In Second RILEM International Conference on Concrete and Digital Fabrication; Bos, F.P., Lucas, S.S., Wolfs, R.J., Salet, T.A., Eds.; Springe: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 125–134. ISBN 978-3-030-49916-7. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, S.; Kruger, J.; Bester, F.; van den Heever, M.; van Rooyen, A.; van Zijl, G. A Compendious Rheo-Mechanical Test for Printability Assessment of 3D Printable Concrete. In Second RILEM International Conference on Concrete and Digital Fabrication; Bos, F.P., Lucas, S.S., Wolfs, R.J., Salet, T.A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 196–205. ISBN 978-3-030-49916-7. [Google Scholar]
- CEN. Testing Fresh Concrete. Slump Test; Technical Report No. CEN-EN 12350-2; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Mechtcherine, V.; Bos, F.P.; Perrot, A.; da Silva, W.L.; Nerella, V.N.; Fataei, S.; Wolfs, R.; Sonebi, M.; Roussel, N. Extrusion-based additive manufacturing with cement-based materials—Production steps, processes, and their underlying physics: A review. Cem. Concr. Res. 2020, 132, 106037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duballet, R.; Gosselin, C.; Roux, P. Additive Manufacturing and Multi-Objective Optimization of Graded Polystyrene Aggregate Concrete Structures. In Modelling Behaviour; Thomsen, M., Tamke, M., Gengnagel, C., Faircloth, B., Scheurer, F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Li, Z.; Figueiredo, S.C.; Çopuroğlu, O.; Veer, F.; Schlangen, E. Limestone and Calcined Clay-Based Sustainable Cementitious Materials for 3D Concrete Printing: A Fundamental Study of Extrudability and Early-Age Strength Development. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tao, Y.; Lesage, K.; van Tittelboom, K.; Yuan, Y.; Schutter, G.D. Effect of Limestone Powder Substitution on Fresh and Hardened Properties of 3D Printable Mortar. In Second RILEM International Conference on Concrete and Digital Fabrication; Bos, F.P., Lucas, S.S., Wolfs, R.J., Salet, T.A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 135–143. ISBN 978-3-030-49916-7. [Google Scholar]
- Matthäus, C.; Back, D.; Weger, D.; Kränkel, T.; Scheydt, J.; Gehlen, C. Effect of Cement Type and Limestone Powder Content on Extrudability of Lightweight Concrete. In Second RILEM International Conference on Concrete and Digital Fabrication; Bos, F.P., Lucas, S.S., Wolfs, R.J., Salet, T.A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 312–322. ISBN 978-3-030-49916-7. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.; Habert, G.; Bouzidi, Y.; Jullien, A.; Ventura, A. LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: An application to mineral additions in concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 1231–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van den Heeden, P.; Maes, M.; De Belie, N. Influence of active crack width control on the chloride penetration resistance and global warming potential of slabs made with fly ash + silica fume concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 67, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ACI. EcoConcrete Calculation Tool; ACI: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2018; Available online: https://www.concrete.org/students/studentcompetitions/ecoconcretecompetition.aspx (accessed on 10 December 2019).
- Bistyp. Informative Price List of Building Materials. In Estimated Labor and Equipment Rental Rates; 1st Quarter of the Year; Wolters Kluwer: Warsaw, Poland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- eBistyp On-Line. Informative Price List of Building Materials. Estimated Labor and Equipment Rental Rates. Available online: borg.wolterskluwer.pl (accessed on 5 April 2020).
- Narodowy Bank Polski (The Central Bank of the Republic of Poland)—Official Website. Available online: https://www.nbp.pl/homen.aspx?f=/kursy/ratesa.html (accessed on 30 June 2020).
Concrete | CEM I 52.5R (kg/m3) | SCM (kg/m3) | Water (kg/m3) | SP (kg/m3) | LP (kg/m3) | Fine Aggregate (kg/m3) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fly Ash | Silica Fume | ||||||
B840/SF/FA/LP | 588 | 168 | 84 | 232 | 2.0 | 247 | 989 |
B840/SF/FA | 588 | 168 | 84 | 232 | 1.6 | – | 1233 |
B840/LP | 840 | – | – | 232 | 1.8 | 262 | 1047 |
B840 | 840 | – | – | 232 | 0.5 | – | 1304 |
B640/SF/FA/LP | 448 | 128 | 64 | 179.2 | 2.2 | 315 | 1258 |
B640/SF/FA | 448 | 128 | 64 | 179.2 | 3.0 | – | 1568 |
B640/LP | 640 | – | – | 179.2 | 2.1 | 325 | 1302 |
B640 | 640 | – | – | 179.2 | 1.8 | – | 1623 |
Chemical Composition, % | CEM I 52,5 R | Fly Ash | Limestone Powder | Silica Fume |
---|---|---|---|---|
SiO2 | 19.70 | 54.00 | – | 94.00 |
Al2O3 | 4.93 | 28.40 | – | – |
Fe2O3 | 2.54 | 7.30 | 0.80 | – |
CaO | 64.23 | 3.10 | – | 0.30 |
CaCo3 | – | – | 97.5 | – |
MgO | 1.32 | 2.40 | 0.90 | – |
SO3 | 2.91 | 0.40 | – | 1.90 |
Na2O | 0.12 | 1.10 | – | – |
K2O | 0.76 | 2.90 | – | – |
Cl- | 0.07 | 0.01 | – | 0.10 |
H2O | – | – | – | 0.70 |
Na20eq | 0.63 | – | – | – |
LOI | – | – | – | 3.00 |
Mieszanka | 10 h | 24 h | 72 h | 168 h | 672 h | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
fc,i,j (MPa) | CoV (%) | fc,i,j (MPa) | CoV (%) | fc,i,j (MPa) | CoV (%) | fc,i,j (MPa) | CoV (%) | fc,i,j (MPa) | CoV (%) | |
B840/SF/FA/LP | 13.37 | 3.0 | 43.72 | 7.8 | 64.26 | 4.6 | 76.10 | 5.6 | 100.85 | 4.5 |
B840/LP | 10.90 | 6.8 | 37.41 | 5.7 | 52.59 | 2.1 | 70.00 | 2.0 | 95.94 | 6.6 |
B840/SF/FA | 11.84 | 8.0 | 52.63 | 6.1 | 73.94 | 4.5 | 87.89 | 3.2 | 102.29 | 4.7 |
B840 | 10.53 | 7.2 | 36.83 | 5.8 | 63.01 | 7.5 | 76.10 | 5.5 | 91.14 | 5.1 |
B640/SF/FA/LP | 7.28 | 8.5 | 35.45 | 6.1 | 48.45 | 4.6 | 59.44 | 4.5 | 80.50 | 6.7 |
B640/LP | 7.63 | 7.2 | 28.91 | 7.3 | 43.84 | 7.7 | 57.13 | 5.4 | 63.98 | 3.9 |
B640/SF/FA | 5.98 | 3.8 | 32.55 | 5.7 | 43.85 | 6.6 | 55.70 | 4.6 | 75.45 | 2.4 |
B640 | 6.44 | 5.0 | 36.66 | 5.9 | 44.42 | 3.7 | 52.80 | 3.5 | 58.60 | 6.6 |
Time [h] | Parameter | Mix | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B840/SF/FA/LP | B840/LP | B840/SF/FA | B840 | B640/SF/FA/LP | B640/LP | B640/SF/FA | B640 | ||
10 | fc,i,j (MPa) | 13.37 | 6.64 | 9.84 | 6.82 | 10.29 | 7.63 | 5.69 | 6.44 |
fc,i,j/fc,mean (-) | 0.27 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.14 | 0.20 | 0.15 | 0.11 | 0.13 | |
24 | fc,i,j [MPa] | 43.72 | 37.41 | 52.63 | 36.83 | 35.45 | 28.91 | 32.55 | 36.66 |
fc,i,j/fc,mean (-) | 0.87 | 0.74 | 1.04 | 0.73 | 0.70 | 0.57 | 0.65 | 0.73 | |
72 | fc,i,j [MPa] | 64.26 | 52.59 | 73.94 | 63.01 | 48.45 | 43.84 | 48.85 | 44.42 |
fc,i,j/fc,mean (-) | 1.27 | 1.04 | 1.47 | 1.25 | 0.96 | 0.87 | 0.97 | 0.88 | |
168 | fc,i,j (MPa) | 76.10 | 70.00 | 87.89 | 76.10 | 59.44 | 57.13 | 55.70 | 52.80 |
fc,i,j/fc,mean (-) | 1.51 | 1.39 | 1.74 | 1.51 | 1.18 | 1.13 | 1.11 | 1.05 | |
672 | fc,i,j (MPa] | 100.85 | 95.94 | 102.29 | 91.14 | 82.50 | 63.98 | 75.45 | 58.60 |
fc,i,j/fc,mean (-) | 2.00 | 1.90 | 2.03 | 1.81 | 1.64 | 1.27 | 1.50 | 1.16 | |
CSEi (-) | 1.18 | 1.04 | 1.30 | 1.09 | 0.94 | 0.80 | 0.87 | 0.79 |
Time | Parameter | Mix | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B840/SF/FA/LP | B840/LP | B840/SF/FA | B840 | B640/SF/FA/LP | B640/LP | B640/SF/FA | B640 | |||
= 15 min | = 10 s | 0.04,i,j (kPa) | 11.27 | 9.98 | 7.64 | 5.02 | 6.15 | 5.14 | 2.23 | 2.47 |
0.04,i,j/mean (-) | 1.23 | 1.09 | 0.83 | 0.55 | 0.67 | 0.56 | 0.24 | 0.27 | ||
= 15 s | 0.04,i,j (kPa) | 11.84 | 11.07 | 8.34 | 5.59 | 6.15 | 6.03 | 2.61 | 2.58 | |
0.04,i,j/mean (-) | 1.29 | 1.21 | 0.91 | 0.61 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.28 | 0.28 | ||
= 20 s | 0.04,i,j (kPa) | 14.22 | 14.01 | 11.08 | 8.84 | 8.64 | 9.59 | 3.71 | 3.60 | |
0.04,i,j/mean (-) | 1.55 | 1.53 | 1.21 | 0.96 | 0.94 | 1.05 | 0.40 | 0.39 | ||
= 30 min | = 10 s | 0.04,i,j (kPa) | 13.25 | 12.45 | 8.43 | 5.93 | 6.75 | 6.44 | 2.72 | 2.37 |
0.04,i,j/mean (-) | 1.44 | 1.36 | 0.92 | 0.65 | 0.74 | 0.70 | 0.30 | 0.26 | ||
= 15 s | 0.04,i,j (kPa) | 14.86 | 13.06 | 9.73 | 7.58 | 8.45 | 7.87 | 3.66 | 3.40 | |
0.04,i,j/mean (-) | 1.62 | 1.42 | 1.06 | 0.83 | 0.92 | 0.86 | 0.40 | 0.37 | ||
= 20 s | 0.04,i,j (kPa) | 16.98 | 15.14 | 13.14 | 10.28 | 10.76 | 10.85 | 4.31 | 3.93 | |
0.04,i,j/mean (-) | 1.85 | 1.65 | 1.43 | 1.12 | 1.17 | 1.18 | 0.47 | 0.43 | ||
= 45 min | = 10 s | 0.04,i,j (kPa) | 16.44 | 14.10 | 10.24 | 7.01 | 10.08 | 9.43 | 3.05 | 3.17 |
0.04,i,j/mean (-) | 1.79 | 1.54 | 1.12 | 0.76 | 1.10 | 1.03 | 0.33 | 0.35 | ||
= 15 s | 0.04,i,j (kPa) | 18.25 | 16.47 | 12.77 | 8.95 | 11.46 | 11.32 | 3.66 | 4.15 | |
0.04,i,j/mean (-) | 1.99 | 1.80 | 1.39 | 0.98 | 1.25 | 1.23 | 0.40 | 0.45 | ||
= 20 s | 0.04,i,j (kPa) | 23.37 | 21.62 | 15.78 | 11.29 | 14.20 | 14.49 | 4.44 | 4.63 | |
0.04,i,j/mean (-) | 2.55 | 2.36 | 1.72 | 1.23 | 1.55 | 1.58 | 0.48 | 0.50 | ||
MSEi(-) | 1.70 | 1.55 | 1.18 | 0.85 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.37 | 0.37 |
Mix | Results of Printed Column | Results of Squeezing Test of Small Specimen (h = 35 mm, d = 60 mm) | σsr,0.04 / σsr,kol | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
σsr,kol (kPa) | CoV (-) | σsr,0.04 (kPa) | CoV (-) | ||||
B840/SF/FA/LP | 15 | 10 | 6.60 | 0.063 | 11.27 | 0.002 | 1.71 |
30 | 15 | 8.27 | 0.038 | 14.86 | 0.045 | 1.80 | |
45 | 20 | 12.64 | 0.033 | 23.37 | 0.023 | 1.85 | |
B640/SF/FA/LP | 15 | 10 | 3.12 | 0.091 | 6.15 | 0.019 | 1.97 |
30 | 15 | 4.51 | 0.063 | 8.44 | 0.026 | 1.87 | |
45 | 20 | 8.21 | 0.053 | 14.20 | 0.018 | 1.73 | |
B640/SF/FA | 15 | 10 | 1.51 | 0.255 | 2.23 | 0.088 | 1.48 |
30 | 15 | 2.01 | 0.136 | 3.66 | 0.008 | 1.82 | |
45 | 20 | 2.62 | 0.109 | 4.44 | 0.048 | 1.70 |
Mix | Global Warming (kg CO2eq) | EIEi,j = 2 (-) | Carcinogenic (CTUh) | EIEi,j = 4 (-) | Ozone Depletion (kg CFC-11eq) | EIEi,j = 6 (-) | Ecotoxicity (CTUe) | EIEi,j = 8 (-) | Fossil Fuel Depletion (MJ) | EIEi,j = 10 (-) | EIEmean,i |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B840/SF/FA/LP | 604.07 | 1.00 | 1.19 × 10−5 | 1.27 | 2.61 × 10−5 | 1.03 | 1264.97 | 1.22 | 231.18 | 1.01 | 1.10 |
B840/SF/FA | 604.04 | 1.00 | 1.19 × 10−5 | 1.27 | 2.61 × 10−5 | 1.03 | 1264.74 | 1.22 | 231.07 | 1.01 | 1.10 |
B840/LP | 761.10 | 1.26 | 9.22 × 10−6 | 0.98 | 3.10 × 10−5 | 1.22 | 1068.57 | 1.03 | 286.72 | 1.25 | 1.15 |
B840 | 761.72 | 1.26 | 9.29 × 10−6 | 0.99 | 3.12 × 10−5 | 1.23 | 1075.34 | 1.04 | 287.81 | 1.25 | 1.15 |
B640/SF/FA/LP | 461.75 | 0.77 | 9.25 × 10−6 | 0.98 | 2.03 × 10−5 | 0.80 | 980.55 | 0.95 | 178.81 | 0.78 | 0.85 |
B640/SF/FA | 461.71 | 0.77 | 9.24 × 10−6 | 0.98 | 2.03 × 10−5 | 0.80 | 980.17 | 0.94 | 178.66 | 0.78 | 0.85 |
B640/LP | 581.09 | 0.96 | 7.16 × 10−6 | 0.76 | 2.40 × 10−5 | 0.94 | 827.60 | 0.80 | 220.56 | 0.96 | 0.89 |
B640 | 581.85 | 0.97 | 7.25 × 10−6 | 0.77 | 2.42 × 10−5 | 0.95 | 835.89 | 0.81 | 221.89 | 0.97 | 0.89 |
EImean,j | 602.17 | - | 9.41 × 10−6 | - | 2.54 × 10−5 | - | 1037.23 | - | 229.59 | - | - |
Material | Global Warming (kg CO2eq/kg) | Carcinogenic (CTUh/kg) | Ozone Depletion (kg CFC-11eq/kg) | Ecotoxicity (CTUe/kg) | Fossil Fuel Depletion (MJ/kg) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEM I 52.5R | 0.903 | 1.06 × 10−8 | 3.61 × 10−8 | 1.19 | 0.336 |
Water | 0.0002 | 1.35 × 10−10 | 2.04 × 10−11 | 0.179 | 0.0002 |
Fine Aggregate | 0.0024 | 2.73 × 10−10 | 6.63 × 10−10 | 0.026 | 0.0042 |
Fly ash | 0.15 | 8.87 × 10−9 | 4.25 × 10−9 | 0.764 | 0.0291 |
Silica Fume | 0.534 | 4.54 × 10−8 | 4.00 × 10−8 | 4.32 | 0.278 |
Limestone powder | 0.002448 | 3.00 × 10−10 | 6.9615 × 10−10 | 0.02652 | 0.004578 |
Mix | Cost (€/m3) | CEi (-) |
---|---|---|
B840/SF/FA/LP | 99.34 | 1.10 |
B840/SF/FA | 93.95 | 1.04 |
B840/LP | 103.52 | 1.15 |
B840 | 95.54 | 1.06 |
B640/SF/FA/LP | 83.17 | 0.92 |
B640/SF/FA | 79.73 | 0.88 |
B640/LP | 86.33 | 0.96 |
B640 | 79.97 | 0.89 |
Cmean | 90.19 | – |
Material | Cost (€/kg) | Source | Price Date |
---|---|---|---|
CEM I 52,5 R | 0.103 | price lists [91] | 04.2020 |
Superplasticizer | 2.697 | manufacturers’ prices [92] | 04.2020 |
Silica Fume | 0.207 | manufacturers’ prices [92] | 04.2020 |
Fly Ash | 0.027 | manufacturers’ prices [92] | 04.2020 |
Fine aggregate | 0.005 | manufacturers’ prices [92] | 04.2020 |
Limestone Powder | 0.022 | manufacturers’ prices [92] | 04.2020 |
Water | 0.001 | price lists [91] | 04.2020 |
Parameter | Description | Mix | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B840/SF/FA/LP | B840/LP | B840/SF/FA | B840 | B640/SF/FA/LP | B640/LP | B640/SF/FA | B640 | ||
(EIEmean,i)−1 | environmental impact | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 1.17 | 1.17 | 1.13 | 1.12 |
(CEi)−1 | cost analysis | 0.91 | 0.96 | 0.87 | 0.94 | 1.08 | 1.13 | 1.04 | 1.13 |
MSEi | strength evaluation of mixes | 1.70 | 1.55 | 1.18 | 0.85 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.37 | 0.37 |
CSEi | strength evaluation of concretes | 1.18 | 1.04 | 1.30 | 1.09 | 0.94 | 0.80 | 0.87 | 0.79 |
FEi (final evaluation) | 1.17 | 1.11 | 1.05 | 0.94 | 1.05 | 1.02 | 0.85 | 0.85 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kaszyńska, M.; Skibicki, S.; Hoffmann, M. 3D Concrete Printing for Sustainable Construction. Energies 2020, 13, 6351. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13236351
Kaszyńska M, Skibicki S, Hoffmann M. 3D Concrete Printing for Sustainable Construction. Energies. 2020; 13(23):6351. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13236351
Chicago/Turabian StyleKaszyńska, Maria, Szymon Skibicki, and Marcin Hoffmann. 2020. "3D Concrete Printing for Sustainable Construction" Energies 13, no. 23: 6351. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13236351