3.5.1. Height Variations
In 3DCP, three distinct approaches have been reported. The infinite brick extrusion uses high-yield-stress and low-thixotropy materials to create rectangular layers, simplifying layer geometry control but limiting design freedom to conform to the nozzle’s dimensions. The free-flow deposition strategy relies on low-yield-stress materials and the final geometry is influenced by the interplay between gravity and yield stress, offering limited control over object shape. The layer pressing strategy employs an often circular nozzle and fluid material, providing greater design freedom and compensating for deformation. It allows precise control and self-correction, with the layer width adjustable by varying flow rate, nozzle velocity, or height. However, careful parameter adjustment is essential for optimal results [
3,
27,
28,
29].
As previously stated, to accurately measure the height deformation of the printed layers during the 3DCP process, a specific boundary condition was established. The first recorded height value for each layer was considered only after the next layer had been deposited on top of it. This approach ensured accurate measurements by eliminating potential inconsistencies in the height values caused by inaccuracies inherent to the setup and explained above (see
Section 2.6). In other terms, the height of the first layer was recorded only after the deposition of the second layer. Consequently, in the case of samples with 10 layers, only nine height values are presented, while samples with 9 layers exhibit eight presented values.
When employing an 8 mm offset, the different mix designs exhibited varying behaviors. The SLAG mixture displayed a significant height variation, with the top layer measuring 6.42 mm and the bottom layer measuring 8.77 mm, resulting in a difference of 27%. This deformation indicated that the pressing force exerted by the nozzle on the layer was higher than the insufficient internal structure strength to resist deformation.
Similarly, the NC mixture also exhibited a 27% difference between its top and bottom layers, with the top layer measuring 11.3 mm. As depicted in
Figure 8, NC consistently exhibited larger layer sizes compared to the other mixtures, indicating a higher flow rate. Consequently, a greater amount of material was extruded from the nozzle, resulting in the observed larger layer height. Among all the mixtures tested, only the NC mixture exceeded the intended 8 mm offset in the average layer height.
In contrast, the CSA mixture, which has been extensively proven to have high structural build-up properties, exhibited a more stable average height of 7.9 mm for all layers. The difference between the top and bottom layers was only 3.5%, and the final height of the printed element was 63.7 mm, very close to the expected height of 64 mm. Huang et al. [
16] found that incorporating CSA in mixtures had minimal impact on initial penetration resistance but significantly enhanced its growth as time progressed. This demonstrated that CSA moderately affected extrudability and provided a notable stiffening effect on PC mortar mixtures, enhancing also buildability.
Moving on to the 10 mm offset, similar analyses can be drawn. Despite the reduced layer pressing compared to the 8 mm offset, the nozzle still exerted some pressing force on the layers. The CSA mixture showed consistent layer sizes with a small difference (1%) between the top and bottom layers. The NIT and NC mixtures had average layer heights closer to the target but exhibited larger differences between the top and bottom layers. Hence, while the layer pressing strategy successfully addressed and controlled the final height difference, it resulted in a lack of control over the single-layer height.
Implementing the layer pressing strategy in 3D concrete printing proves to be an effective solution to rectify potential errors in the vertical position of the printed structure. This self-corrective approach compensates for deformations or creeping of deposited sublayers. The material’s low initial yield stress enables greater flexibility during extrusion, enhancing printing conformability. Additionally, the flow rate can be adjusted to compensate for height variation, ensuring that the final height of the printed object remains within a reasonable margin of the projected value [
3].
In the case of the 15 mm offset, all mixtures exhibited smaller deformations due to less layer pressing, as the targeted height was closer to the nozzle diameter. The CSA, SLAG, and NC mixtures demonstrated greater uniformity, while the NIT mixture exhibited the largest deformations and the greatest deviation from the desired final height of the printed element. The differences between the top and bottom layers, as well as the deviations from the target height, were 11% and 8% for SLAG, 2.5% and 4% for CSA, 10% and 5% for NC, and 15.5% and 17.5% for NIT, respectively.
It is worth emphasizing that the custom-made small-scale printing setup featured a mortar gun that moved upwards via a screw-rotor-type mechanism, which occasionally resulted in slight deviations in the axis of layer placement The absence of a suitable substrate to support the layer caused the material to flow out of the bottom layer. This flow disruption can be considered as a variation in layer height. Since the captured images were taken laterally, the boundary line between layers became distorted and less straight (
Figure 9b). Additionally, the detection of layer boundaries can be further complicated by imperfections or cracks in the layers’ surfaces, caused by rapid stiffening or high printing speed. These surface irregularities appeared as peaks, which might have contributed to the larger error margins (
Figure 9a).
3.5.2. Width Variation
Although the layer pressing strategy provides benefits, it introduces additional complexity in parameter selection and affects layer geometry. The strategy imposes temporary stress on sub-layers when they are pressed between the nozzle and previous layers. This stress can lead to significant deformation, variations in layer width, potential cracks, and ultimately to structural failure [
3]. This failure can occur through elastic buckling, which is a stability mechanism, or plastic collapse, which is a strength mechanism [
4].
Suiker et al. [
4] in their study revealed that the contact conditions between the wall bottom and the support structure are typically close to fully sticking, which restricts displacements in all directions. As the vertical wall length increases, the normal stress in the wall’s height direction rapidly diminishes due to stress-free boundary conditions and limited wall thickness. The first layer experiences a kinematic constraint from sticking contact, resulting in limited plastic deformations and reduced effective shear stress. In contrast, the second layer from the bottom reaches the yield strength, defining the critical moment of collapse. By testing a small square wall layout, Suiker et al. [
4] found that the second layer showed the largest plastic deformations in the wall’s width direction, while the first layer experienced limited plastic broadening due to its kinematic constraint.
Some distinct tendencies were observed when evaluating the three selected scenarios of this study. If the ratio between the layer offset and the nozzle diameter was close to 1, the nozzle applied minimal pressure to the layer during deposition. Consequently, little to no deformation was observed, and the width of the layer at the moment of deposition matched the final size after the completion of the printing element.
However, as this ratio diminished, the nozzle began to apply pressure on the layer generating additional stresses. This pressure exceeded the yield stress of the material at that specific time, resulting in a width broadening, but with reminiscent control of overall structure height.
The layer width then became larger as the material continued to deform due to the combination of the weight of the subsequently deposited layers, nozzle pressure, and gravity-induced stresses. Small layer heights can subject the first sublayer to pressing forces up to 100 times the material weight, inducing significant but localized deformations that jeopardize structural integrity [
3]. It is worth noting, however, that there is a maximum limit to this deformation, dictated by the structuring characteristics of the printable mixture.
The final layer width of each layer was measured with the aid of a digital caliper in the cross-section of the samples, cut in the fresh state. The resulting layer variation and the final cross-section shape are depicted in
Figure 10.
This study focused on investigating the behavior of small-scale samples that were not prone to failure. However, an interesting observation was made when the printing was carried out with an 8 mm layer offset; all the mixtures exhibited a larger width for the second layer compared to the bottom layer. As mentioned earlier, the smaller the ratio between layer offset and nozzle diameter, the greater the pressure exerted by the nozzle on the layer. This indicates that if a large-scale print was conducted, the pressing force would lead to the collapse of the second layer.
It is worth noting that, despite the mixtures having similar initial yield stress and all the printing parameters being kept constant in the experiments, there were relative differences in the average layer width among them (see
Table 6), confirming their distinct time evolutions based on their rheological parameters. For the 8 mm offset, the samples had an average layer width of 55 mm, while the 10 mm offset resulted in 45 mm, and the 15 mm offset yielded 35 mm. These findings support the fact that the nozzle offset can indeed be used to tailor the final dimensions of the printed layer.
Upon examining the final layer width, it became evident that the SLAG mixture exhibited the highest variation from the average values, indicating variability in layer width throughout the element height, and it had a significantly larger bottom layer width. This occurred because, when there is pressing, the layer height is mainly determined by the position of the printing nozzle, while various printing parameters, such as robot velocity, material flow rate, and nozzle deposition height, influence the layer’s width.
On the other hand, the NC mixture had the smallest layer width, pointing to the enhanced thixotropic effect of the nano clay, which improved structural stability. The CSA mixture had the smallest standard error of the mean, suggesting a uniform overall layer width.
For the 15 mm offset, where the ratio between layer offset and nozzle diameter was closer to 1, the average final width of all mixtures approached the nozzle diameter size. In this case, the NC mixture had the smallest final width, but notably the largest final width was observed in the NIT mixture, while the SLAG mixture still presented the largest standard error of the mean and thus the greatest difference between the dimensions of the top and bottom layer.
In terms of shape retention, the NC mixture exhibited better behavior as it consistently presented the smallest average of the final layer width across all tested offsets. The CSA mixture demonstrated superior geometric conformability, characterized by a more constant layer width throughout the sample.
3.5.3. Relation between Layer Deformation and Structural Build-Up
During the printing experiments, each layer took approximately 10 s to be printed, with a 15 s interval between successive layers. Consequently, the total printing time for the objects was around 4 min. The slugs test, performed at the nozzle level, resulted in the initial yield stress values presented in
Table 5, and the structural build-up rates were determined based on the values in
Table 4.
The CSA material demonstrated rapid structuring characteristics, ensuring excellent load-bearing capacity and resulting in objects with consistent layer sizes and minimal deformation along their entire length. The final dimensions were achieved with remarkable precision. However, despite these strengths, the surface appearance of the printed layers could leave much to be desired. Some layers exhibited several tearing defects, which worsened as the printing process progressed. This was likely due to extrusion issues caused by the high stiffness of the rapidly structuring CSA material.
The severity of this problem varied based on the offset used during printing. In the case of an 8 mm offset, the tearing defects were more pronounced, while in the case of a 15 mm offset, they were nonexistent. This difference suggests that the pressing force exerted by the nozzle contributes to surface cracking.
Moreover, the specific geometry of the filament used in 3D printing not only impacts the aesthetics of the final printed object but also plays a crucial role in its structural integrity and long-term durability. The filament’s shape influences bond strength and its ability to prevent the ingress of harmful substances, affecting the overall performance and lifespan of the printed object. The size of the object itself also comes into play. For large objects with longer layer interval times, the print material has a greater opportunity for strength development as each layer solidifies before the next is added. This enables a more substantial build-up of the element, reducing the risk of collapse during the printing process [
7,
8].
As the CSA material becomes stiffer and no changes are made to the printing parameters during the process, the flow rate decreases as the object is built up. Consequently, the nozzle velocity becomes much higher than the flow velocity, exceeding the nominal speed and leading to tearing. The occurrence of tearing is more likely with an increment in material stiffness or a reduction in the material’s critical strain [
8].
The SLAG mixture exhibited the most intriguing behavior among all the studied mixtures. Despite being expected to perform poorly in various aspects, it surprisingly presented the best aesthetic appearance. The layers were uniform, and no significant cracks or tearing were observed during the building process, indicating overall stability. However, it is essential for readers to understand a crucial caveat: this positive observation holds only if one chooses to ignore the initial design specifications. As mentioned earlier, the SLAG mixture deviated the most from the intended geometric features.
Regarding layer height, the layer pressing strategy effectively addressed and controlled the final height difference, ensuring the desired overall height of the printed object. However, this strategy led to a lack of control over the single-layer height, resulting in a deviation of approximately 15% from the target for the SLAG mixture.
In contrast, the NIT and CSA samples demonstrated better uniformity in layer dimensions. Even for the 15 mm offset, the SLAG mixture still exhibited the largest standard error of the mean, indicating the greatest difference between the dimensions of the top and bottom layers. This underscored the importance of considering both material and process parameters when designing 3DCP structures.