Next Article in Journal
An Ultra-Wideband Frequency Selective Rasorber with Low Infrared Emissivity
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancing the Flexural Strength of AlN with an Additional Cross-Linking Mechanism in the Aqueous Isobam Gelling System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 17
Issue 14
10.3390/ma17143413
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influence of Three-Dimensionally Printed Polymer Materials as Trusses and Shell Structures on the Mechanical Properties and Load-Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Concrete

by
Mohammad Hematibahar
1,*,
Ali Hasanzadeh
2,
Makhmud Kharun
1,
Alexey N. Beskopylny
3,*,
Sergey A. Stel’makh
4 and
Evgenii M. Shcherban’
5
1
Department of Reinforced Concrete and Stone Structures, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering, 26 Yaroslavskoye Highway, 129337 Moscow, Russia
2
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, P.O. Box 484, Babol 4714871167, Iran
3
Department of Transport Systems, Faculty of Roads and Transport Systems, Don State Technical University, 344003 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
4
Department of Unique Buildings and Constructions Engineering, Don State Technical University, 344003 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
5
Department of Engineering Geometry and Computer Graphics, Don State Technical University, 344003 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2024, 17(14), 3413; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17143413
Submission received: 26 May 2024 / Revised: 20 June 2024 / Accepted: 5 July 2024 / Published: 10 July 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Three-dimensional printing technology (3D printing) is becoming a more and more popular technology for aerospace, biology, medicine, mechanics, civil and other engineering fields. In civil engineering, researchers and engineers attempt to print construction materials such as concrete using 3D-printing technology. This study aims to investigate the reinforcement of concrete beams with 3D printing. To achieve this, fused deposition modeling (FDM) technology as a printing method and polylactic acid (PLA) as a material were selected. Two types of geometries were chosen to find the optimal mechanical behavior of concrete: high-performance concrete (HPC) reinforced with four types of trusses (Pratt, Howe, Warren, and Warren with vertical) and ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) reinforced with a hyperboloid shell structure. The compressive and tensile strengths of reinforced UHPC were examined by a three-point bending test, and reinforced HPC was examined by a four-point bending test. The results of the experiments show that hyperboloid shell structures can absorb energy, although the strength of reinforced UHPC is reduced. For example, there was a decrease of over 20% in the compressive strength and 41% in the flexural strength, but the ductility was raised. Adding the hyperboloid shell structure improved the deformability of the UHPC. When Warren and Howe trusses were added to the HPC as reinforcements, the flexural strength improved by over 26% and 4.3%, respectively. The overall results of this study show that the concrete reinforced with 3D-printed trusses was better than that with a hyperboloid shell structure.

1. Introduction

Many researchers have attempted numerous studies to improve the mechanical properties of concrete and cement matrixes with reinforcements using 3D-printing technology [1,2,3]. Therefore, additive manufacturing to strengthen cementitious materials has become an important topic in civil and materials engineering. Researchers try to improve the mechanical properties and bearing capacity via different geometries of 3D-printed structures. For example, Zou et al. [4] offered cementitious tailings backfill (CBT) reinforced with 3D-printed polymers. According to their report, the flexural strength of CBT reinforced with 3D-printed polymers was improved by more than 409%. In another example, when a 3D-printed polymer in the form of a cross was added to CBT, the tensile strength improved by more than 31.6% [5].
Additive manufacturing has many beneficial effects on reinforced concrete and cement mortar. For example, Hack et al. [6] used glass fiber fabricated via three-dimensional printing to make fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) to reinforce the concrete and cement mortar. Another example is the use of a 3D-printed fiber and PLA as reinforcing materials for concrete and cement mortar due to its improved acoustic properties. According to the results, PLA cannot absorb a high amount of sound compared to cotton fiber [7]. Farina et al. [8] added 3D-printed PLA to cement mortar to reinforce a cementitious beam. Their results showed that when a 3D-printed rebar was used with a smooth surface, the load–deflection behavior displayed strain softening, while when 3D-printed rebar was used with a lateral surface, the load–deflection behavior changed to displaying strain hardening.
According to the literature, different studies have analyzed different 3D-printed materials. Tzortzinis et al. [9] studied the effect of a geometrically printed hexagon auxetic lattice reinforced with steel materials. They found that the compressive strength of the reinforced material improved by over 140% and the compressive strain increased by over 20%. Another study used two different patterns (honeycomb and triangle) of reinforced cementitious materials through fused deposition modeling (FDM) with polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG), PLA, and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) as the printing materials. According to their results, when the honeycomb pattern was used as a reinforcement in a cement material, the flexural strength and capacity of deflection increased by over 46.8% and 251.85%, respectively. In addition, unlike using the triangle pattern, adding honeycomb as a reinforcement pattern to cementitious materials can change the strain softening of the cement material beam to strain hardening [10]. Katzer and Szatkiewicz [11] analyzed similar research to investigate strain hardening. They reinforced a cement mortar 3D-printing-reinforced beam (160 × 40 × 40 mm3) to achieve strain hardening. To achieve this, they printed geometric honeycomb cells with different thicknesses. They found that the best thickness for improving the strain hardening was 20 mm.
In another method of using 3D-printing technology to improve the mechanical properties of cement material and concrete, Xu et al. [12] used a cellular mold with an auxetic geometry to cast the cementitious material and investigated it under cyclic loading. They reported that 2.5% reversible deformation was obtained when the cycle loading reached 25,000. In another experiment, Aghdasi et al. [13] used a polymer thermoplastic to print a geometric octet truss shape and filled the inside with ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC). According to their analysis, the octet truss’s flexural strength was more than that of a conventional beam. Auxetic materials are known as negative Poisson ratio materials [14]. The first negative Poisson ratio material made, in 1987 by Lakes, was an auxetic foam structure [15,16,17]. A negative Poisson ratio provides favorable mechanical properties such as impact resistance, ultra-high stiffness, zero shear modulus, and fracture toughness because of the geometrical shape patterns of acoustic structures [18,19]. At present, cellular structures display behavior like that of a honeycomb structure with a negative Poisson ratio [20]. Nowadays, many researchers are attempting to study the effect of auxetic materials on cement and concrete. For example, Fan et al. [21] added auxetic foams as fibers to a cementitious matrix at different volume fractions (0.5–2%). Their results demonstrate that the addition of auxetic foam fibers decreases the mechanical properties of the cementitious material but enhances the toughness of the mortar. Askarinejad et al. [22] investigated the tensile strength of mortar with different auxetic geometries. The authors found that the best tensile strength results were for the super wave auxetic geometry, with an increase of over 42%. In another example, Xu et al. [23] analyzed a cement material reinforced with an auxetic hyper-elastic frame. They attempted to analyze this auxetic hyper-elastic frame under cyclic loading. According to their results, the strain of this reinforcement type increased by over 40%, and deformability improved by over 10%. In another example, Xu and Savija [24] analyzed the effect of a different pattern of an auxetic 3D-printing-reinforced cement material. Results of 3D-printed re-entrant (RE) auxetic material to reinforce the cement matrix were 853% and 708% for ductility and energy absorption, respectively. Although some studies reach the optimal flexural strength of a reinforced concrete beam through 3D-printing-reinforced technology and find the strain-hardening of the concrete beam, there is no simple design or method for strengthening through 3D-printing technology. Three-dimensional printing-reinforced cement is a wide area for improving civil and material engineering.
Many studies understand the positive effect of 3D-printing reinforcement on cement mortar such as ductility and high displacement. In addition, three-dimensional printing reinforcement has a negative effect too. To highlight the positive effects of incorporating 3D printing into cement mortar, Xu et al. provided an example [23] that used auxetic cementitious composite (ACC). It shows that the strain hardening improved by over 40%. Moreover, they understood that the auxetic structure can improve stiffness/strength and energy dissipation plateau under cyclic loading. In another example, when different types of ACC were added to cement mortar, the mechanical properties were improved. For example, when re-entrant (RE) was added to cement, the ductility was improved by over 853%, and energy absorption was increased by over 703%, while rotating squares (RSs) increased compressive strength by over 18% [24]. A negative effect of adding 3D-printed elements to cement mortar is the deterioration of deformation characteristics. For example, Xu et al. [2] studied a 3D-printed polymer grating in cement slurry. The authors showed that when lattice trusses are added to the cement mortar, the deformation behavior changes to soften the deformation. Thus, it can be seen that adding 3D-printed elements to cement mortar has both positive and negative effects.
The analysis of literature sources shows a gap in the scientific field regarding the optimal form and application of polymer reinforcement. This study mainly focused on the influence of four types of polymer trusses (Pratt, Howe, Warren and Warren with vertical) and hyperboloid shell structure to find the best concrete performance enhancer. In this study, reinforcements were printed using FDM technology with PLA as the printing material. The trusses used were made of HPC and a hyperboloid shell structure reinforced with UHPC.

2. Materials and Methods

The results of our previous extensive studies and the experiments by Hematibahar et al. [25] and Chiadighikaobi et al. [26] formed the basis for the present study. Therefore, the application of a hyperboloid and four types of trusses was investigated to understand the differences between the mechanical properties of 3D-printing-reinforced concrete beams. Figure 1 shows the similarities and differences between 3D-printed hyperboloid- and truss-reinforced concrete.
In the first experiment, high-performance concrete reinforced with truss structures was investigated, and in the second experiment, ultra-high-performance concrete reinforced with hyperboloid structures was studied.
It should be noted that the trusses and hyperboloid structures reinforced HPC and UHPC beams, respectively.

2.1. Three-Dimensional Printing Materials and Fabrication

Both 3D-printed structures were made from PLA materials. Table 1 shows details of the production differences between the hyperboloid and trusses. The trusses and hyperboloid structures were produced by 3D printing with the same layer thickness of 20 μm, printing speed of 50 mm/s, extruder temperature of 190 °C and layer temperature of 60 °C. According to Table 1, the 3D-printed trusses and the 3D-printed hyperboloid structure were 45% and 30% filled, respectively. Although infill percentages were different, geometry is more important than the infill percentage.
PLA was obtained from (C3H4O2)n as the backbone formula that includes lactic acid with water loss. PLA is an environmentally friendly material used in different industries with many printable properties [27,28].
Lactic acid (LA) was discovered as an essential process of the glycolytic energy cycle of living organisms in 1881 through the extraction of fermented milk [29,30]. The synthesis of PLA is a multistep process that starts with the production of LA and ends with polymerization when lactide formation acts as an intermediate step [31]. Finally, the PLA chemical component chain is prepared for Figure 2. Recently, many studies have investigated the combination of PLA and PLA products to find optimal materials for 3D-printed filaments [32,33].
The fabrication process was based on the FDM method. In this method, the filament was dissolved by the hot end of the FDM printer and extruded through the nozzle. Both 3D-printed forms were fabricated by Direct Drive, extruding the fabrication method. In to this method, a motor and gears push filaments towards hot blocks, and the nozzle extrudes the dissolved filaments. Studies show that most fabrication methods are based on direct drive. There are two common three-dimensional printing fabrication methods (Cartesian and Delta). Cartesian printers can move its joints and arms, while Delta printers can move in a special triangular shape in XYZ direction. Another advantage of the Cartesian model is the ability to print in XY (flat), XZ (edge), and YZ (straight) directions [34,35,36]. Both investigations used a Cartesian 3D-printer model to print reinforcements for concrete beams. Figure 3 illustrates the direct drive, nozzle and hot end of both 3D printers.
To determine the reinforced concrete mechanical properties with a hyperboloid structure, 3D-printer-fabricated hyperboloids were prepared as follows: a 100 mm × 100 mm × 100 mm compression cube, 100 mm diameter and 200 mm height tensile cylinder, and 600 mm × 100 mm × 100 mm flexural prism. Figure 4 illustrates the 3D-printing dimension, fabrication and complete printing of the hyperboloid structures.
The hyperboloid structures included two double curvatures with opposite directions and high resistance to buckling. Hyperboloid structures provide many mechanical properties with fewer materials and are very economical [37]. This type of structure can improve load-carrying capacity to change the fracture structure mode [38,39]. Hexagonal honeycomb has higher stiffness impact resistance and higher energy-absorbent capacity [40,41,42,43,44]. In addition, honeycomb structures are lightweight and have the best performance. According to the investigation, the thickness of a layer of honeycomb structure isrelated to the mechanical properties of the structure [45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. This investigation used hyperboloid structures with honeycomb cells to find the best performance and identify the maximum absorbent energy of reinforced concrete.
Another structure used to reinforce concrete is trusses. Four types of trusses wereadded to concrete to find the best truss type. In this investigation, Pratt, Howe, Warren, and Warren with vertical trusses were added as reinforcements to concrete.
Pratt trusses comprise triangular membranes and diagonal elements. Research has proven that diagonal elements are under tension and vertical elements are under compression during loading [52]. Howe trusses are similar to Pratt trusses, with diagonal elements that slope towards into center [53]. Warren trusses consist of equilateral triangles and diagonal members, while Warren trusses with vertical are similar to Warren trusses but with vertical members added.
Figure 5 shows the four types of trusses used as three-dimensional-printed reinforcements for concrete. Figure 6 illustrates the dimensions, fabrication and complete 3D printing of four types of trusses.
The PLA material parameters are shown in Table 2. According to Table 2, the ultimate tensile strength was over 57.16 MPa, the yielding strength was over 52.47 MPa, and the maximum strain was over 2.35%.

2.2. Concrete Materials

Two types of concrete were selected for reinforcement with three-dimensionally printed PLA materials: HPC concrete reinforced using four types of 3D-printed trusses, and UHPC concrete reinforced using a 3D-printed hyperboloid shell.
The HPC design used a mixture of ordinary Portland cement (OPC), sand (as fine aggregates), gravel (as coarse aggregates), tap water, super-plasticizer and silica fume. The chemical compositions of OPC and silica fume are shown in Table 3. It should be noted that the silica fume was produced from silicon and ferrosilicon. In this process, amorphous silicon (SiO2) with a diameter of 30 nm and 300 nm was separated from gaseous silicon oxide (SiO) when the silicon and ferrosilicon of electric arc furnaces were immersed. In general, the diameter of silica soot is not more than 100 nm. One of the important features of silica fume is its reaction with calcium hydroxide and the formation of calcium hydro silicate, which is called (C-S-H), during hydration [55,56,57]. Figure 7 illustrates amorphous silica fume in a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Table 4 demonstrates the mixture composition of HPC. According to the HPC mixture composition, the water to cement ratio was 0.375, water to super-plasticizer ratio was 0.06, and minimum and maximum aggregate size of sand and gravel were 0.2 and 2 mm to 7 to 20 mm, respectively. The grain size distributions for fine and coarse aggregates are shown in Figure 8.
UHPC concrete reinforced with a hyperboloid shell structure was designed with cement, water, superplasticizer, sand, gravel and silica fume. The mixture design of UHPC is shown in Table 5. The water–cement ratio was 0.25, and the water to super-plasticizer ratio was 0.06. As shown in Figure 9, the maximum fine aggregate dimension was 2.36 mm, and the minimum was 0.075 mm.

2.3. Experimental Method

2.3.1. HPC Reinforced with Trusses

First, HPC was mixed in a concrete pan mixer; second, a three-dimensional form was placed in the mold, and then the concrete mixture was poured into the mold (Figure 10). The HPC reinforced with 3D-printed trusses was examined by a flexural prism for reinforced concrete (four-point bending test), compressive cube, and tensile cylinder. Figure 11 illustrates the scheme of the four-point bending test.

2.3.2. UHPC Reinforced with Hyperboloid

The cubes for compression test, cylindrical samples for tension, and prism for flexural test were reinforced with a hyperboloid shell. Figure 12 shows the flexural test scheme, which follows the three-point bending method. According to the process, first, UHPC concrete was mixed in a pan mixer, and a hyperboloid shell was placed into the mold. Next, the concrete samples were installed in formworks (Figure 13).
Based on GOST 10180 and ASTM C109 [60,61], a compressive strength test was conducted. Tensile strength was determined under ASTM C496 [62]. The flexural strengths determined in four-point bending and three point bending tests were based on ASTM C1609 and ASTM C293 [63,64].

3. Results

3.1. HPC Reinforced with Trusses

The compressive strength of HPC material was over 87.6 ± 1.75 for three replication samples. Figure 14 illustrates the stress–strain curve of the compressive strength of HPC. Figure 14 shows that the ultimate deformation of the structure varied, although the compressive strength was almost constant. The dissimilarity arises from the application of disparate reinforcement strategies.
Four-point bending testing of truss-reinforced HPC produced mixed results. The flexural strength results for each HPC-strengthened truss were checked one by one.
For the first sample, 3D-printed Pratt-reinforced HPC (P-HPC) was analyzed to find the best reinforced shape. Figure 15 shows a load–deflection diagram and failure of 3D-printed Pratt-reinforced HPC. Once the flexural load reached 15.9 kN and the deflection reached 3.04 mm, the first crack appeared. The cracking progress is shown in Figure 15a. The failure of the specimen occurred gradually as the cracking progress advanced. It is important to mention that the failure process was not sudden or severe. Table 6 illustrates the results of the load–deflection diagram results for each specimen.
3D-printed Howe-reinforced HPC (H-HPC) failure results and load–deflection diagram are depicted in Figure 16. According to the load–deflection diagram and failure, the cracking progress started when the flexural strength was 25.5 kN and deflection was 3.19 mm. According to Figure 16a,b, the cracking progress was not sudden or harsh. Table 7 shows the details of the flexural strength results.
Failure and load–deflection diagram of 3D-printed Warren-reinforced HPC (W-HPC) are shown in Figure 17. Like other types of 3D-printing-reinforced concrete, adding a Warren truss to reinforce HPC had a similar effect of improving the maximum load of the HPC. The crack progression of W-HPC exhibited sudden cracking, slow crack propagation, and eventual specimen failure. Figure 17a illustrates the cracking process of the W-HPC sample. Table 8 shows the load–deflection results.
The failure and load–deflection curve of W-HPC are shown in Figure 17. Like other types of 3D-printing-reinforced concrete, the application of a Warren truss to reinforce HPC had a similar effect of improving the maximum load capacity of the HPC. Cracking in the W-HPC was revealed suddenly. The crack grew and progressed slowly, eventually leading to the failure of the specimen. Figure 17a illustrates the cracking process of the W-HPC sample. Table 8 shows the load–deflection results.
The specimens of concrete reinforced with Warren trusses with vertical racks demonstrated the results shown in Figure 15, and Figure 18a illustrates the failure process of the beam. Like with the failure process of WV-HPC, the cracking progress showed slow cracking and failure of the sample after 16 kN. After that, the concrete beam failed suddenly. Table 9 illustrates the details of load–deflection results.
The results of the load–deflection diagram of the control sample are illustrated in Figure 19. According to Figure 19, the failure of the control sample was sudden and harsh. The load–deflection diagram is illustrated in Figure 19b. Table 10 shows the details of the flexural strength results of the control samples.

3.2. UHPC Reinforced with Hyperboloid Shell

3.2.1. Compressive Strength Results

Two types of compressive cube were examined: one type was reinforced, and one type was the control sample. Figure 20 illustrates the compressive cube failure and the compressive stress–strain curve. Table 11 shows the compressive strength of all samples. According to Table 11, the average ultimate compressive strength was over 114 MPa for unreinforced concrete and 91 MPa for reinforced concrete. Based on the results, the strength of the reinforced concrete decreased by over 80% compared to unreinforced concrete.

3.2.2. Tensile Strength Results

The tensile strength of the cylindrical sample demonstrates that the use of a hyperboloid shell structure in 3D-printing-reinforced concrete resulted in a partial failure of the sample, whereas the control sample completely broke under the applied load. Figure 21 illustrates the tensile stress–strain and failure of a cylindrical sample. Table 12 illustrates the tensile strength of reinforced and unreinforced UHPC.

3.2.3. Three-Point Bending Test Results

Failure results and the stress–strain curve of unreinforced and reinforced UHPC in a three-point bending test are shown in Figure 22 and Figure 23, respectively. When subjected to a load of 247 kN (Figure 22), the unreinforced UHPC specimen exhibited a rapid and abrupt failure, while the reinforced UHPC did not fail after loading, as shown in Figure 23a. The first crack appeared when the specimen was loaded to 116 kN, and the crack progressed up to a loading force of 145 kN. Table 13 illustrates details of flexural strength.

4. Discussion

4.1. Differences between Two Types of Reinforcements

Based on the test results of HPC reinforced with trusses, it was found that the flexural strength increased by 26% compared to the control sample. The flexural strength of the Pratt-reinforced concrete, which was 3D-printed, decreased by over 34% compared to the control sample. According to research, the angle of inclination of the trusses exerts the strongest influence on their mechanical properties. For example, the optimal angles of inclination of truss elements for 3D printing are 50° and 60° [65]. Many investigations have been carried out on 3D-printed pyramidal trusses, concluding that an inclination angle of 65° demonstrates the maximum load capacity and the most favorable mechanical characteristics [66]. These results are similar to Warren’s truss inclination angle. Thus, the load capacity of W-HPC is greater than that of other samples.
According to the data presented in Table 14, the utilization of a hyperboloid shell structure as reinforcement for UHPC resulted in a decrease of over 41% in the flexural strength of the concrete, accompanied by an increase of over 45% in the maximum deflection. Therefore, hyperboloid shell structures can improve the deformation and ductility of UHPC samples under heavy loads.
The results of reinforced UHPC compressive tests show that when hyperboloid shell structures are used as a reinforcing structure, the sample did not fail completely, while the compressive strength decreased by more than 20% (Table 11, Figure 19). The tensile strength test results indicate that reinforcing the hyperboloid UHPC shell structure prevented specimen failure, although it resulted in a decrease in tensile strength (Table 12, Figure 20).
By comparing two 3D-printed samples, it was observed that the trusses produced by 3D printing were more useful and had more capability in bending loading than the hyperboloid shell structure. Importantly, when the hyperboloid shell structure was used as the reinforced shell structure, the maximum deflection was improved by as much as with the Warren truss. Hyperboloid shell structures can reinforce cubes to absorb energy; according to observations, the energy absorption of hyperboloid shell structure reinforcements under compressive strength is remarkable [67,68].

4.2. Differences between Current Study and Other Studies

Several studies have proved that when concrete is reinforced with 3D-printed structures, the strength of concrete is reduced. For example, Le et al. understood that when concrete was reinforced with 3D-printed PLA materials, the compressive and flexural strength reduced by over 17% and 45%, respectively [69]. Unlike other types of 3D-printed reinforcement, both types of 3D printing improved the ductility of the reinforced concrete beam, while in other studies, 3D-printed rebar decreased the deformation and displacement capacity of concrete [70,71]. Farina et al. [8] analyzed the reinforced concrete with 3D-printed rebar. According to their results, when concrete was reinforced with 3D-printed rebar, the behavior of flexural strength showed strain-softening. Additionally, the utilization of 3D-printing technology for rebars resulted in a decline in flexural strength and increased the fragility of the concrete. In contrast to the analysis conducted by Xu and Savija [72], it has been observed that the reinforcement of concrete with 3D-printed polymers can cause an increased deformation of concrete beams. Furthermore, Xu et al. [2] conducted an analysis of polymeric octet lattice structures in a 3D-printing-reinforced cement matrix. The findings indicate that the incorporation of 3D-printed polymer materials strengthened the cement matrix.
Many studies have understood that when 3D-printed reinforcements are added to concrete and cementitious materials, the mechanical properties improve. For example, Hao et al. [73] studied reinforced concrete with a 3D-printed polymer lattice, and the compressive strength increased by over 71%. In another example, when Chen et al. [74] reinforced UHPC with 3D-printed PLA, the compressive strength improved by over 8%. Rosewitz et al. [75] investigated the reinforced cement mortar beam with a different pattern of 3D-printed PLA material. In their results, the flexural strength improved when a special pattern was used to reinforce the cement matrix.
According to our results, when 3D-printed structures are added to a cement matrix or concrete, the mechanical properties of concrete can improve or decrease; the results of different studies illustrate that when 3D-printed elements with different geometries are added to cement matrix or concrete, the mechanical properties can improve. Therefore, the most important factor in the improvement of mechanical properties of concrete is the geometry of three-dimensional printing as a reinforcement. For example, auxetic materials are an effective structure to improve the mechanical properties of cement and concrete materials. Thus, when 3D-printed elements are added as reinforcements to cementitious materials, the mechanical behavior of concrete can be improved [76].

5. Conclusions

Three-dimensional printing technology can be used to reinforce concrete and cement materials. In this study, two types of 3D-printed geometries were selected to find the best structure for modifying cementitious structures. The current study was focused on HPC concrete reinforced with three-dimensionally printed trusses and UHPC concrete reinforced with a 3D-printed hyperboloid shell. Although the infill percentage of the spatial shell hyperboloid structure was 30 and the infill percentage of the 3D trusses was 45, the patterns are more important than the infill percentage. According to the results, HPC reinforced with trusses had better flexural strength than UHPC reinforced with a hyperboloid shell structure. In the results, the UHPC reinforced with the hyperboloid shell structure was capable of absorbing energy under compression loading. The current study concludes the following:
I.
Hyperboloid shells and honeycomb structures can improve the energy absorption of reinforced concrete, although hyperboloid shell structures cannot improve the flexural strength of UHPC.
II.
Warren and Howe types of trusses can increase the flexural strength of HPC as 3D-printed reinforcements. Adding these two types of 3D-printed reinforcements can improve the flexural strength by over 12% and 4.4%, respectively.
III.
Research and studies show that the inclination angle of trusses is an important factor in increasing the mechanical properties and flexural strength. According to the results, the maximum mechanical properties of trusses are related to the inclination angle of 3D printing: 50° and 60°.
IV.
The results of this study show that the main factor in improving the ductility and mechanical properties of concrete is related to the geometry of 3D-printed shapes.
V.
This study suggests that further research into different types of hyperboloid shell structures to reinforce cementitious materials should be undertaken to find the positive or negative effect of hyperboloid geometry.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H., A.H. and M.K.; methodology, M.H., A.H. and M.K.; software, M.H.; validation, M.H., A.H. and M.K.; formal analysis, M.H., A.H. and M.K.; investigation, M.H., A.H., M.K., S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.N.B.; resources, M.H., A.H. and M.K.; data curation, S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.N.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.H., S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.N.B.; writing—review and editing, M.H., S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.N.B.; visualization, M.H., S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.N.B.; supervision, A.H. and A.N.B.; project administration A.N.B.; funding acquisition, S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.N.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the administration of the Moscow State University of Civil Engineering and Don State Technical University for their resources and financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Xu, Y.; Savija, B.; Schlangen, E. Compression Behaviors of Cementitious Cellular Composites with Negative Poisson’s Ratio. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete, Bayonne, France, 23–26 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Xu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Gan, Y.; Šavija, B. Cementitious Composites Reinforced with 3D Printed Functionally Gradedpolymeric Lattice Structures: Experiments and Modelling. Addit. Manuf. 2021, 39, 101887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. He, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Zhou, H. Energy-Saving Potential of 3D Printed Concrete Building with Integrated Living Wall. Energy Build. 2020, 222, 110110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zou, S.; Cao, S.; Yilmaz, E. Enhancing Flexural Property and Mesoscopic Mechanism of Cementitious Tailings Backfill Fabricated with 3D-Printed Polymers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 414, 135009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhang, H.; Cao, S.; Yilmaz, E. Influence of 3D-Printed Polymer Structures on Dynamic Splitting and Crack Propagation Behavior of Cementitious Tailings Backfill. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 343, 128137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hack, N.; Bahar, M.; Hühne, C.; Lopez, W.; Gantner, S.; Khader, N.; Rothe, T. Development of A Robot-Based Multi-Directional Dynamic Fiber Winding Process for Additive Manufacturing Using Shotcrete 3D Printing. Fibers 2021, 9, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rezaieyan, E.; Taban, E.; Berardi, U.; Mortazavi, S.B.; Faridan, M.; Mahmoudi, E. Acoustic Properties of Natural Fiber Reinforced Composite Micro-Perforated Panel (NFRC-MPP) Made from Cork Fiber and Polylactic Acid (PLA) Using 3D Printing. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 84, 108491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Farina, I.; Fabbrocino, F.; Carpentieri, G.; Modano, M.; Amendola, A.; Goodall, R.; Feo, L.; Fraternali, F. On the Reinforcement of Cement Mortars through 3D Printed Polymeric and Metallic Fibers. Compos. Part B 2016, 90, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tzortzinis, G.; Gross, A.; Gerasimidis, S. Auxetic Boosting of Confinement in Mortar by 3D Reentrant Truss Lattices for next Generation Steel Reinforced Concrete Members. Extrem. Mech. Lett. 2022, 52, 101681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gödek, E.; Evik, S.; Özdilli, O. Pattern and Filament Optimization for 3D-Printed Reinforcements to Enhance the Flexural Behavior of Cement-Based Composites. J. Sustain. Constr. Mater. Technol. 2023, 8, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Katzer, J.; Szatkiewicz, T. Effect of 3D Printed Spatial Reinforcement onFlexural Characteristics of Conventional Mortar. Materials 2020, 13, 3133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Xu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Schlangen, E.; Lukovic, M.; Savija, B. Cementitious Cellular Composites with Auxetic Behavior. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 111, 103624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Aghdasi, P.; Williams, I.D.; Salazar, B.; Panditi, N.; Taylor, H.K.; Ostertag, C.P. An Octet-Truss Engineered Concrete (OTEC) for Lightweight Structures. Compos. Struct. 2018, 207, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Smith, C.W.; Grima, J.N.; Evans, K.E. A Novel Mechanism for Generating Auxetic Behaviour in Reticulated Foams: Missing Rib Foam Model. Acta Mater. 2000, 48, 4349–4356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Su, W.; Wu, X.; Shi, J. A Novel 3D Printable Multimaterial Auxetic Metamaterial with Reinforced Structure: Improved Stiffness and Retained Auxetic Behavior. Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 2022, 29, 408–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Novak, K.; Hokamoto, K.; Vesenjak, M.; Ren, Z. Mechanical Behaviour of Auxetic Cellular Structures Built from Inverted Tetrapods at High Strain Rates. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2018, 122, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lakes, R. Foam Structures with a Negative Poisson’s Ratio. Science 1987, 235, 1038–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Greaves, G.N.; Greer, A.L.; Lakes, R.S.; Lakes, R.S.; Rouxel, T. Poisson’s Ratio and Modern Materials. Nat. Mater. 2011, 10, 823–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Oladipo, B.; Matos, H.; Krishnan, N.M.A.; Das, S. Integrating Experiments, Finite Element Analysis, and Interpretable Machine Learning to Evaluate the Auxetic Response of 3D Printed Re-Entrant Metamaterials. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 25, 1612–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhou, J.; Liu, H.; Dear, J.P.; Falzon, B.G.; Kazancı, Z. Comparison of Different Quasi-Static Loading Conditions of Additively Manufactured Composite Hexagonal and Auxetic Cellular Structures. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2023, 244, 108054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fan, G.Z.; Ren, X.; Wang, S.L.; Luo, C.; Xie, Y.M. A Novel Cement-Based Auxetic Foam Composite: Experimental Study. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Askarinejad, S.; Ashouri Choshali, H.; Flavin, C.; Rahbar, R. Effects of Tablet Waviness on the Mechanical Response of Architected Multilayered Materials: Modeling and Experiment. Compos. Struct. 2018, 195, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xu, Y.; Meng, Z.; Bol, R.J.M.; Savija, B. Spring-like Behavior of Cementitious Composite Enabled by Auxetic Hyperelastic Frame. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2024, 275, 109364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Xu, Y.; Savija, B. Auxetic Cementitious Composites (ACCs) with Excellent Compressive Ductility: Experiments and Modeling. Mater. Des. 2024, 237, 112572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hematibahar, M.; Hasanzadeh, A.; Ivanovich Vatin, N.; Kharun, M.; Shooshpasha, I. Influence of 3D-Printed Reinforcement on the Mechanical and Fracture Characteristics of Ultra High Performance Concrete. Results Eng. 2023, 19, 101365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chiadighikaobi, P.C.; Hasanzadeh, A.; Hematibahar, M.; Kharun, M.; Mousavi, M.S.; Stashevskaya, N.A.; Adedapo Adegoke, M. Evaluation of the Mechanical Behavior of High-Performance Concrete (HPC) Reinforced with 3D-Printed Trusses. Results Eng. 2024, 22, 102058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Khan, A.; Ahmed, N.; Elaissari, A. Optimize PLA/EVA Polymers Blend Compositional Coating for next Generation Biodegradable Drug-Eluting Stents. Polymers 2022, 14, 3547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Liu, S.; Li, Y.; Li, N. A Novel Free-Hanging 3D Printing Method for Continuous Carbon Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastic Lattice Truss Core Structures. Mater. Des. 2018, 137, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Castillo Martinez, F.A.; Balciunas, E.M.; Salgado, J.M.; Domínguez González, J.M.; Converti, A.; de Souza Oliveira, R.P. Lactic Acid Properties, Applications and Production: A Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 30, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Juturu, V.; Wu, J.C. Microbial Production of Lactic Acid: The Latest Development. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2016, 36, 967–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Ahmad, A.; Othman, I.; Rambabu, K.; Bharath, G.; Taher, H.; Hasan, S.W.; Banat, F. Banat, Polymerization of Lactic Acid Produced from Food Waste by Metal Oxide-Assisted Dark Fermentation. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 24, 101862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wu, R.D.; Shen, Y.; Liu, J.H.; Cheng, L.N.; Zhang, G.T.; Zhang, Y.Y. Effect of Iron Tailings and Slag Powders on Workability and Mechanical Properties of Concrete. Front. Mater. 2021, 8, 723119. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hu, Z.; Gu, X.; Liu, J.; Ge, X.; Wang, S.; Yin, S. Mechanical Properties and Hydration Mechanism of Iron Tailings–Cement-Based Supplementary Cementitious Materials. Buildings 2024, 14, 1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bhagia, S.; Bornani, K.; Agrawal, R.; Satlewal, A.; Durkovič, J.; Lagana, R.; Bhagia, M.; Geun Yoo, C.; Zhao, X.; Kunc, V.; et al. Critical Review of FDM 3D Printing of PLA Biocomposites Filled with Biomass Resources, Characterization, Biodegradability, Upcycling and Opportunities for Biorefineries. Appl. Mater. Today 2021, 24, 101078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ishak, I.B.; Fleming, D.; Larochelle, P. Multiplane Fused Deposition Modeling: A Study of Tensile Strength. Mech. Based Des. Struct. Mach. 2019, 47, 583–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fernandez-Vicente, M.; Calle, W.; Ferrandiz, S.; Conejero, A. Effect of Infill Parameters on Tensile Mechanical Behavior in Desktop 3D Printing, 3D Print. Addit. Manuf. 2016, 3, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bektas, S. Design of Hyperboloid Structures. MOJ Civ. Eng. 2017, 3, 414–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Guo, Y.L.; Zhu, B.L.; Zhou, P.; Zhang, Y.H.; Pi, Y.L. Experimental and Numerical Investigation into the Load Resistance and Hysteretic Response of Rhombic Grid Hyperboloid-Latticed Shells. Eng. Struct. 2017, 153, 700–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Guo, Y.L.; Zhang, Y.H.; Zhu, B.L.; Zhou, P.; Pi, Y.L. Experimental and Numerical Studies of Instability Mechanism and Load Resistance of Rhombic Grid Hyperboloid-Latticed Shells under Vertical Load. Eng. Struct. 2018, 166, 167–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Deng, Z.H.; Guo, R.; Zhou, H.; Tang, S.Y. Simulation of Hypervelocity Impact Characteristics of Gradient Corrugated-Core Sandwich Plates. Spacecr. Environ. Eng. 2018, 35, 7–13. [Google Scholar]
  41. Qi, C.; Yang, L.J.; Yang, S. Simulation and Optimization for Blast-Resistant Performances of a Graded Aluminum Foam Sandwich Structure. J. Vib. Shock. 2013, 32, 70–75. [Google Scholar]
  42. Li, W.C.; Xu, L.Y.; Zhang, X. Investigating the Effect of Honeycomb Structure Composite on Microwave Absorption Properties–ScienceDirect. Compos. Commun. 2020, 19, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Beskopylny, A.N.; Mailyan, L.R.; Veremeenko, A.; Shilov, A.V.; Ananova, O.; Karalar, M.; Aksoylu, C.; Onuralp Özkılıç, Y. Modeling and Calculation of Improved Centrifuged Reinforced Concrete Columns with Variotropic Structure. Buildings 2023, 13, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Beskopylny, A.N.; Meskhi, B.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Mailyan, L.R.; Veremeenko, A.; Akopyan, V.; Shilov, A.V.; Chernil’nik, A.; Beskopylny, N. Numerical Simulation of the Bearing Capacity of Variotropic Short Concrete Beams Reinforced with Polymer Composite Reinforcing Bars. Polymers 2022, 14, 3051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Meskhi, B.; Beskopylny, A.N.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Mailyan, L.R.; Beskopylny, N.; Dotsenko, N. Theoretical and Experimental Substantiation of the Efficiency of Combined-Reinforced Glass Fiber Polymer Composite Concrete Elements in Bending. Polymers 2022, 14, 2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Beskopylny, A.; Mailyan, L.R.; Meskhi, B.; Dotsenko, N. Enchainment of the Coefficient of Structural Quality of Elements in Compression and Bending by Combined Reinforcement of Concrete with Polymer Composite Bars and Dispersed Fiber. Polymers 2021, 13, 4347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Beskopylny, A.N.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Mailyan, L.R.; Meskhi, B.; Efremenko, I.; Varavka, V.; Beskopylny, N.; Dotsenko, N. Modeling and Experimental Verification of the Performance of Polymer Composite Reinforcing Bars of Different Types in Concrete of Different Density. Polymers 2022, 14, 1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Shcherban’, E.M.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Mailyan, L.R.; Beskopylny, A.N.; Smolyanichenko, A.S.; Chernil’nik, A.; Elshaeva, D.; Beskopylny, N. Influence of Polymer Fibers on the Structure and Properties of Modified Variatropic Vibrocentrifuged Concrete. Polymers 2024, 16, 642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Beskopylny, A.; Mailyan, L.R.; Meskhi, B.; Varavka, V. Quantitative and Qualitative Aspects of Composite Action of Concrete and Dispersion-Reinforcing Fiber. Polymers 2022, 14, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Jiang, W.; Ma, H.; Wang, J.; Feng, M.; Qu, S. Mechanical Metamaterial with Negative Poisson’s Ratio Based on Circular Honeycomb Core. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2016, 61, 1421–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lin, K.; Gu, D.; Hu, K.; Yang, J.; Wang, H.; Yuan, L.; Shi, X.; Meng, L. Laser Powder Bed Fusion of Bio-Inspired Honeycomb Structures: Effect of Twist Angle on Compressive Behaviors. Thin-Walled Struct. 2021, 159, 107252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Widjajakusuma, J.; Wijaya, H. Effect of Geometries on the Natural Frequencies of Pratt Truss Bridges. Procedia Eng. 2015, 125, 1149–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cywiliski, Z.; Jasina, J.; Niewitecki, S. Howe Truss Behavior Interpreted by Deflections. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 1992, 6, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wittbrodt, B.; Pearce, J. The Effects of PLA Color on Material Properties of 3-D Printed Components. Addit. Manuf. 2015, 8, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Neville, A.M. Properties of Concrete, 5th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ghavami, S.; Naseri, H.; Jahanbakhsh, H.; Moghadas Nejad, F. The Impacts of Nano-SiO2 and Silica Fume on Cement Kiln Dust Treated Soil as a Sustainable Cement Free Stabilizer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 285, 122918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hasanzadeh, A.; Shooshpasha, I. Influences of Silica Fume Particles and Polyethylene Terephthalate Fibers on the Mechanical Characteristics of Cement-Treated Sandy Soil Using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity. Bull. Eng. Geol. Env. 2022, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hasanzadeh, A.; Ivanovich Vatin, N.; Hematibahar, M.; Kharun, M.; Shooshpasha, I. Prediction of the Mechanical Properties of Basalt Fiber Reinforced High-Performance Concrete Using Machine Learning Techniques. Materials 2022, 15, 7165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Hematibahar, M.; Ivanovich Vatin, N.; Alaraza, H.A.; Khalilavi, H.; Kharun, M. The Prediction of Compressive Strength and Compressive Stress-Strain of Basalt Fiber Reinforced High-Performance Concrete Using Classical Programming and Logistic Map Algorithm. Materials 2022, 15, 6975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. GOST 10180; Betony. Metody Opredeleniya Prochnosti Po Kontrolnym Obraztsam [Concretes. Methods for Determination of Strength by Control Samples]. Standartinform: Moscow, Russia, 2018.
  61. ASTM C109; Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-Mm] Cube Specimens). ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017. [CrossRef]
  62. ASTM C496/C496M-17; Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  63. ASTM C293/C293M-16; Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Center-Point Loading). ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
  64. ASTM C1609/C1609M; Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third-Point Loading). ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012; pp. 1–9.
  65. Wang, Z.; Luan, C.; Liao, G.; Yao, X.; Fu, J. Mechanical and Self-Monitoring Behaviors of 3D Printing Smart Continuous Carbon Fiber-Thermoplastic Lattice Truss Sandwich Structure. Compos. B Eng. 2019, 176, 107215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhang, D.; Tian, X.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, Q.; Yan, W.; Akmal Zia, A.; Wu, L.; Li, D. Spatial 3D Printing of Continuous Fiber-Reinforced Composite Multilayer Truss Structures with Controllable Structural Performance. Polymers 2023, 15, 4333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tyurikov, E.V. On the Construction of Mathematical Models of the Membrane Theory of Convex Shells. Adv. Eng. Res. 2023, 23, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ismayilova, J.J. Analysis of Stress-Strain State of a Cylinder with Variable Elasticity Moduli Based on Three-Dimensional Equations of Elasticity Theory. Adv. Eng. Res. 2023, 23, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Le, T.T.; Austin, S.A.; Lim, S.; Buswell, R.A.; Law, R.; Gibb, A.G.F.; Thorpe, T. Hardened Properties of High-Performance Printing Concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2012, 42, 558–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mechtcherine, V.; Grafe, J.; Nerella, V.N.; Spaniol, E.; Hertel, M.; Füssel, U. 3D-Printed Steel Reinforcement for Digital Concrete Construction–Manufacture, Mechanical Properties and Bond Behaviour. Construct. Build. Mater. 2018, 179, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Salazar, B.; Aghdasi, P.; Williams, I.D.; Ostertag, C.P.; Taylor, H.K. Polymer Lattice-Reinforcement for Enhancing Ductility of Concrete. Mater. Des. 2020, 196, 109184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Xu, Y.; Šavija, B. Development of Strain Hardening Cementitious Composite (SHCC) Reinforced with 3D Printed Polymeric Reinforcement: Mechanical Properties. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 174, 107011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hao, W.; Liu, J.; Kanwal, H. Compressive Properties of Cementitious Composites Reinforced by 3D Printed PA 6 Lattice. Polym. Test. 2023, 117, 107811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chen, M.; Chen, Z.; Xuan, Y.; Zhang, T.; Zhang, M. Static and Dynamic Compressive Behaviour of 3D Printed Auxetic Lattice Reinforced Ultra-High Performance Concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2023, 139, 105046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rosewitz, J.A.; Ashouri Choshali, H.; Rahbar, R. Bioinspired Design of Architected Cement-Polymer Composites. Bioinspired Des. Archit. Cem.-Polym. Compos. 2019, 96, 252–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Momoh, E.O.; Jayasinghe, A.; Hajsadeghi, M.; Vinai, R.; Evans, K.E.; Kripakaran, P.; Orr, J. A State-of-the-Art Review on the Application of Auxetic Materials in Cementitious Composites. Thin-Walled Struct. 2024, 196, 111447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 17 03413 g001
Figure 1. The development of 3D-printing-reinforced concrete.
Figure 1. The development of 3D-printing-reinforced concrete.
Materials 17 03413 g001
Materials 17 03413 g002
Figure 2. Lattice and polylactic acid formula.
Figure 2. Lattice and polylactic acid formula.
Materials 17 03413 g002
Materials 17 03413 g003
Figure 3. The direct drive, hot end and nozzle: (a) UHPC reinforced with hyperboloid shell structure; (b) HPC reinforced with trusses.
Figure 3. The direct drive, hot end and nozzle: (a) UHPC reinforced with hyperboloid shell structure; (b) HPC reinforced with trusses.
Materials 17 03413 g003
Materials 17 03413 g004aMaterials 17 03413 g004b
Figure 4. Computer modeling, fabrication and complete 3D printing: (a) hyperboloid forms, (b) 3D printing, (c) prototypes.
Figure 4. Computer modeling, fabrication and complete 3D printing: (a) hyperboloid forms, (b) 3D printing, (c) prototypes.
Materials 17 03413 g004aMaterials 17 03413 g004b
Materials 17 03413 g005aMaterials 17 03413 g005b
Figure 5. Computer modeling and complete 3D printing; (a) Pratt truss, (b) Pratt truss, (c) Warren truss, (d) Warren with vertical truss.
Figure 5. Computer modeling and complete 3D printing; (a) Pratt truss, (b) Pratt truss, (c) Warren truss, (d) Warren with vertical truss.
Materials 17 03413 g005aMaterials 17 03413 g005b
Materials 17 03413 g006
Figure 6. Fabrication method of trusses: (a) printing process; (b) truss cross-section.
Figure 6. Fabrication method of trusses: (a) printing process; (b) truss cross-section.
Materials 17 03413 g006
Materials 17 03413 g007
Figure 7. The amorphous shape of silica fume in scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Figure 7. The amorphous shape of silica fume in scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Materials 17 03413 g007
Materials 17 03413 g008
Figure 8. Gradation curves of sand and gravel used for HPC.
Figure 8. Gradation curves of sand and gravel used for HPC.
Materials 17 03413 g008
Materials 17 03413 g009
Figure 9. Gradation curves of fine aggregates for UHPC.
Figure 9. Gradation curves of fine aggregates for UHPC.
Materials 17 03413 g009
Materials 17 03413 g010
Figure 10. The cast of HPC: (a) pan mixer; (b) casting concrete in mold.
Figure 10. The cast of HPC: (a) pan mixer; (b) casting concrete in mold.
Materials 17 03413 g010
Materials 17 03413 g011
Figure 11. Scheme of the four-point bending test.
Figure 11. Scheme of the four-point bending test.
Materials 17 03413 g011
Materials 17 03413 g012
Figure 12. The scheme of the three-point bending test.
Figure 12. The scheme of the three-point bending test.
Materials 17 03413 g012
Materials 17 03413 g013
Figure 13. The cast of UHPC: (a) pan mixer; (b–d) casting concrete in molds.
Figure 13. The cast of UHPC: (a) pan mixer; (b–d) casting concrete in molds.
Materials 17 03413 g013
Materials 17 03413 g014
Figure 14. Compressive stress–strain diagram of HPC.
Figure 14. Compressive stress–strain diagram of HPC.
Materials 17 03413 g014
Materials 17 03413 g015
Figure 15. The load–deflection of (P-HPC): (a) initial sample of P-HPC prism; (b) crack; (c) failure; (d) load–deflection diagram.
Figure 15. The load–deflection of (P-HPC): (a) initial sample of P-HPC prism; (b) crack; (c) failure; (d) load–deflection diagram.
Materials 17 03413 g015
Materials 17 03413 g016
Figure 16. The load–deflection diagram of (H-HPC): (a) initial sample of H-HPC prism; (b) crack; (c) failure; (d) load–deflection diagram.
Figure 16. The load–deflection diagram of (H-HPC): (a) initial sample of H-HPC prism; (b) crack; (c) failure; (d) load–deflection diagram.
Materials 17 03413 g016
Materials 17 03413 g017
Figure 17. The load–deflection of W-HPC: (a) initial sample of W-HPC prism; (b) crack; (c) failure; (d) load–deflection diagram.
Figure 17. The load–deflection of W-HPC: (a) initial sample of W-HPC prism; (b) crack; (c) failure; (d) load–deflection diagram.
Materials 17 03413 g017
Materials 17 03413 g018
Figure 18. The load–deflection of WV-HPC: (a) initial sample of WV-HPC prism; (b) crack; (c) failure; (d) load–deflection diagram.
Figure 18. The load–deflection of WV-HPC: (a) initial sample of WV-HPC prism; (b) crack; (c) failure; (d) load–deflection diagram.
Materials 17 03413 g018
Materials 17 03413 g019
Figure 19. The load–deflection of HPC: (a) initial sample of HPC prism; (b) failure of HPC prism; (c) load–deflection diagram.
Figure 19. The load–deflection of HPC: (a) initial sample of HPC prism; (b) failure of HPC prism; (c) load–deflection diagram.
Materials 17 03413 g019
Materials 17 03413 g020
Figure 20. The compressive strength results of UHPC reinforced with hyperboloid shell: (a) unreinforced concrete sample; (b) reinforced concrete sample; (c) compressive load–deflection curves.
Figure 20. The compressive strength results of UHPC reinforced with hyperboloid shell: (a) unreinforced concrete sample; (b) reinforced concrete sample; (c) compressive load–deflection curves.
Materials 17 03413 g020
Materials 17 03413 g021
Figure 21. The tensile strength results of UHPC reinforced with hyperboloid shell: (a) unreinforced concrete sample; (b) reinforced concrete sample; (c) tensile load–deflection curves.
Figure 21. The tensile strength results of UHPC reinforced with hyperboloid shell: (a) unreinforced concrete sample; (b) reinforced concrete sample; (c) tensile load–deflection curves.
Materials 17 03413 g021
Materials 17 03413 g022
Figure 22. The flexural strength results of unreinforced UHPC: (a) initial UHPC sample; (b) failed sample; (c) load–deflection sample.
Figure 22. The flexural strength results of unreinforced UHPC: (a) initial UHPC sample; (b) failed sample; (c) load–deflection sample.
Materials 17 03413 g022
Materials 17 03413 g023
Figure 23. The flexural strength results of unreinforced UHPC: (a) initial crack; (b) crack in progress; (c) failed sample; (b) load–deflection sample.
Figure 23. The flexural strength results of unreinforced UHPC: (a) initial crack; (b) crack in progress; (c) failed sample; (b) load–deflection sample.
Materials 17 03413 g023
Table 1. Details of PLA fabrication of hyperboloid and trusses.
Table 1. Details of PLA fabrication of hyperboloid and trusses.
Details3D-Printed Trusses3D-Printed Hyperboloid
Layer thickness (mm)0.20.2
Printing speed (mm/s)5050
Infill percentage (%)4530
Extruder temperature (°C)190190
Bed temperature (°C)6060
Table 2. The properties of PLA materials [54].
Table 2. The properties of PLA materials [54].
MaterialUltimate Tensile Strength (MPa)Yield Strength (MPa)Maximum Strain (%)
PLA57.16 ± 0.3552.47 ± 0.352.35 ± 0.05
Table 3. Properties of silica fume [58,59].
Table 3. Properties of silica fume [58,59].
Chemical CompositionValue (%)
Silica FumeCement
SiO290–9219.52
Al2O30.684.81
Fe2O30.694.08
CaO1.5862.18
SO3-2.81
K2O-0.6
MgO1.01-
Na2O0.61-
K2O1.23-
C0.98-
S0.23-
L.O.I-1.67
Table 4. Mixture design of high-performance concrete.
Table 4. Mixture design of high-performance concrete.
MaterialCement (kg/m3)Water (kg/m3)Superplasticizer
(kg/m3)		Sand
(kg/m3)		Gravel
(kg/m3)		Silica Fume
(kg/m3)
HPC500187.512.55851005128
Table 5. Mixture design of ultra high-performance concrete.
Table 5. Mixture design of ultra high-performance concrete.
MaterialCement (kg/m3)Water
(kg/m3)		Superplasticizer
(kg/m3)		Fine Aggregate
(kg/m3)		Gravel
(kg/m3)		Silica Fume
(kg/m3)
UHPC42010512.694563565
Table 6. P-HPC load–deflection diagram results.
Table 6. P-HPC load–deflection diagram results.
SampleMaximum Load (kN)First Crack Deflection (mm)Maximum Deflection (mm)Deflection Recorded by Left LVDT (mm)Deflection Recorded by Right LVDT (mm)Weight
(kg)
P-HPC-115.93.045.032.684.0345.3
P-HPC-215.53.095.112.734.0945.1
P-HPC-3162.934.922.613.9645.3
Table 7. H-HPC load–deflection diagram results.
Table 7. H-HPC load–deflection diagram results.
SampleMaximum Load (kN)First Crack Deflection (mm)Maximum Deflection (mm)Deflection Recorded by Left LVDT (mm)Deflection Recorded by Right LVDT (mm)Weight
(kg)
H-HPC-125.53.194.610.781.2545.5
H-HPC-224.33.124.420.701.2145.3
H-HPC-326.23.284.780.781.3045.4
Table 8. W-HPC load–deflection diagram results.
Table 8. W-HPC load–deflection diagram results.
SampleMaximum Load (kN)First Crack Deflection (mm)Maximum Deflection (mm)Deflection Recorded by Left LVDT (mm)Deflection Recorded by Right LVDT (mm)Weight
(kg)
W-HPC-127.92.644.453.522.8544.6
W-HPC-227.62.864.583.633.0144.6
W-HPC-328.12.414.233.442.6344.5
Table 9. WV-HPC load–deflection diagram results.
Table 9. WV-HPC load–deflection diagram results.
SampleMaximum Load (kN)First Crack Deflection (mm)Maximum Deflection (mm)Deflection Recorded by Left LVDT (mm)Deflection Recorded by Right LVDT (mm)Weight
(kg)
WV-HPC-131.92.423.942.562.8843.5
WV-HPC-220.62.263.822.332.7543.8
WV-HPC-322.32.594.032.743.0243.6
Table 10. Control sample of HPC load–deflection diagram results.
Table 10. Control sample of HPC load–deflection diagram results.
SampleMaximum Load (kN)First Crack Deflection (mm)Deflection Recorded by Left LVDT (mm)Deflection Recorded by Right LVDT (mm)Weight
(kg)
HPC-124.42.210.250.2146
HPC-224.12.410.280.2645.8
HPC-324.62.100.220.1846.1
Table 11. Compressive strength of UHPC reinforced with hyperboloid shell.
Table 11. Compressive strength of UHPC reinforced with hyperboloid shell.
SamplesUnreinforcedReinforced
First SampleSecond SampleThird SampleFirst SampleSecond SampleThird Sample
Ultimate Strength (MPa)113117110998293
Average Ultimate Strength (MPa)11491
Table 12. Tensile strength of UHPC reinforced with hyperboloid shell.
Table 12. Tensile strength of UHPC reinforced with hyperboloid shell.
SamplesUnreinforcedReinforced
First SampleSecond SampleThird SampleFirst SampleSecond SampleThird Sample
Ultimate Strength (MPa)14.515.816.111.410.711.1
Average Ultimate Strength (MPa)15.411.1
Table 13. Flexural strength (three-point bending test) of UHPC reinforced with hyperboloid shell.
Table 13. Flexural strength (three-point bending test) of UHPC reinforced with hyperboloid shell.
SamplesUnreinforcedReinforced
First SampleSecond SampleThird SampleFirst SampleSecond SampleThird Sample
Flexural Strength (kN)38.140.542.633.135.238.8
Average Flexural Strength (kN)40.435.7
Table 14. Flexural strength of reinforced and unreinforced concrete.
Table 14. Flexural strength of reinforced and unreinforced concrete.
SampleMaximum Load (kN)First Crack Deformation (mm)Maximum Deflection (mm)
HPC24.4-0.25
P-HPC15.93.042.68
H-HPC25.53.190.74
W-HPC27.92.643.52
WV-HPC21.92.422.56
Unreinforced UHPC247.15-1.88
Reinforced UHPC145.20.623.42
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hematibahar, M.; Hasanzadeh, A.; Kharun, M.; Beskopylny, A.N.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban’, E.M. The Influence of Three-Dimensionally Printed Polymer Materials as Trusses and Shell Structures on the Mechanical Properties and Load-Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Concrete. Materials 2024, 17, 3413. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17143413

AMA Style

Hematibahar M, Hasanzadeh A, Kharun M, Beskopylny AN, Stel’makh SA, Shcherban’ EM. The Influence of Three-Dimensionally Printed Polymer Materials as Trusses and Shell Structures on the Mechanical Properties and Load-Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Concrete. Materials. 2024; 17(14):3413. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17143413

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hematibahar, Mohammad, Ali Hasanzadeh, Makhmud Kharun, Alexey N. Beskopylny, Sergey A. Stel’makh, and Evgenii M. Shcherban’. 2024. "The Influence of Three-Dimensionally Printed Polymer Materials as Trusses and Shell Structures on the Mechanical Properties and Load-Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Concrete" Materials 17, no. 14: 3413. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17143413

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop