Load carrying capacity and failure mode of 3D printing

mortar wall panel under axial compression loading

Patiphat Jiramarootapong1, Lapyote Prasittisopin1*, Chalermwut Snguanyat1, Ganchai
Tanapornraweekit2, Somnuk Tangtermsirikul3
1
SCG Cement Co. Ltd., Thailand
2Construction and Maintenance Technology Research Center, School of Civil Engineering and
Technology, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University
3 School of Civil Engineering and Technology, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technolo-

gy, Thammasat University

Lapyotep@scg.com

Abstract. A major portion of today’s construction cost is attributed from a la-

bor cost, and this labor cost tends to increase every year. Therefore, construc-
tion industries worldwide propose several modern solutions to cut back the la-
bor cost, which consequently lead to lower overall construction cost. A 3D
printing (3DP) technology using cement mortar can be one of such solutions
proposed to lower the labor cost. Many research programs determining the 3DP
concrete panel are being carried out. This study presents results from a scaled
test of a complex shaped 3D printed wall panel with the dimension of 1.3 m
height by 0.9 m width by 0.125 m thickness. The experiment aims to investigate
its load carrying capacity behavior and failure mode under an axial compression
loading. Test results indicate that the axial load capacity of the tested 3DP panel
is significantly lower than that calculated from the material compressive
strength. It is found that the geometry of the scaled panel plays an important
role in the hardened performance characteristics. The 3DP wall panel was failed
by the panel geometry, not by the maximum material performance due to the
delaminating behavior between the layers during loading. The results from this
study offers technical information used for a future optimized design of 3D
printed structures in terms of shape, amount of material used, load carrying ca-
pacity, and possible failure modes.

Keywords: 3D printing; Wall panel; Mortar; Structural response; Failure mode

1 Introduction

Nowadays, a 3D printing (3DP) technology with various material types becomes

ubiquitous in many industries such as 3DP medical implant applications and 3DP
mechanical parts [1,2]. However, one of the discrete examples of using 3DP that
could deliver a great contribution to our society is in construction industries. The
contribution of using 3DP for construction tends to be increasing in the future. This is
because one of the existing challenges in global construction industry is labor short-
age. This challenge is an outcome from two main reasons. First, countries with low
2

minimum wage labor affects the labor shortage problem. Meaningly, small number of
workers desires to work in the construction field when the wage is comparable low.
Second, a high minimum wage normally affects a higher cost of construction project.
For example, it is reported that the labor cost could be up to 60% of total construction
cost [3]. Even though the labor cost in Thailand was reported to be approximately
20% of total construction cost, research has shown that the ratio increased double in
the last 10 years [4,5]. Moreover, another benefit of 3DP technology is that it is able
to create members with complicated shape without constructing any formwork, so
that the 3DP technology can successfully achieve a need from an architect to produce
architectural members such as, fence, façade with various complex shapes. Without
formwork, the extra cost from making it is negligible. In addition to architectural
works implemented by the 3DP, structural works can also be produced by this tech-
nology. This study aims to investigate the structural behavior of 3DP wall panel. It is
known that the 3DP material is an anisotropic material resulted from extrusion of
material in layers; hence, material testing on different material axes should be con-
ducted. The key performance characteristics include compressive strength and flexur-
al strength, thereby these material testing programs together with axial load test of the
3DP wall were performed in this study. To perform any construction works, the per-
mission is essential for submitting to the local governor. In general, the permission
requires for the first submission of the design calculation. Pre-construction phase of
any construction project must be followed the standard design code such as ACI 318
[6]. Regarding the 3DP technology, however, the design procedure does not exist.
Therefore, there is a need to develop a standardized procedure or guideline for mak-
ing a 3DP project structurally safe. Prior to developing the 3DP design guideline, a
better comprehension on the structural behavior of 3DP structure is needed to be elu-
cidated.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Materials

The 3D extrusion printing mortar was reported to require performance characteristics

that are 1) pumpable, 2) printable, 3) buildable, and 4) suitable open time [7]. The 3D
printing extrusion material used in this study was formulated internally. It is reported
that the compositions consist of ordinary portland cement, rapid-set cement, silica
fume, pulverized fly ash, hybrid fibers, crushed limestone aggregate, and accelera-
tor/retarder admixtures. It should be noted here that the use of rapid-set cement and
fly ash is a key factor influencing the open time of the cementitious materials. [8, 9]
More detailed assessment of the properties can be found in Prasittisopin et al. [10].
3

2.2 Methods

2.2.1 Fabrication of specimens

The process begins with geometry modeling of the printed element, the model was
created by using a computer-aided design (CAD) software (Rhinoceros 3D version 5,
Robert McNeel & Associates). The solid model was transferred to the slicing software
in order to slice the model to be layerwised. The thickness of each layer can be con-
trolled as desired and the direction of printing path of the extruding nozzle is also
designed by the slicing software (Cura; Ultimaker Cura). After slicing process, the
sliced model was transferred into the controller of the 3DP machine and printing op-
eration began. The 3DP process was carried out by using a Delta customized machine
(WASP; Massa Lombarda). The printing area was approximately 2 m in diameter and
the height was roughly 2 m. A plastic nozzle with the diameter of about 5 cm was
attached to the printer. The printing process was continuous and discontinued when
the printing of each element was completed.

2.2.2 Preparation of specimens

Material scaled specimens. The 3DP specimens were produced by printing from
Delta 6-meter printer. After printed for 1 day, the mortar was cut to have the specific
dimension for material testing, i.e., compression and bending tests following the
ASTM standards. Therefore, the hardened performance characteristics of the printed
specimens were evaluated. The specimen series for testing of compressive and flexur-
al strengths are shown in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. Six series of tested spec-
imens for compression and bending having the dimensions of different widths and
layer thicknesses. The first columns of Table 1 and Table 2 represent a code of each
specimen series tested and indicate the length, width, layer thickness, and printing
direction (normal (N) or parallel (P)). Because the 3DP specimens behave as an aniso-
tropic material, the material behavior in different directions relative to the printing
direction should be investigated. The layerwise specimens tested in this study are
divided into two different printing directions. First, the P printing direction of tested
specimen and the N printing direction of tested specimen as shown in Fig. 1.

Table 1. Series of tested specimens for compressive strength.

Specimen series Length Width Layer thickness Printing Number of

(cm) (cm) (cm) direction samples
3cm-0.8cm-N 5 3 0.8 N 3
3cm-0.8cm-P 5 3 0.8 P 3
5cm-0.8cm-N 5 5 0.8 N 3
5cm-0.8cm-P 5 5 0.8 P 3
5cm-1.0cm-N 5 5 1.0 N 3
5cm-1.0cm-P 5 5 1.0 P 3
4

Table 2. Series of tested specimens for flexural strength.

Specimen series Length Width Layer thickness Printing Number of

(cm) (cm) (cm) direction samples
3cm-0.8cm-N 16 3 0.8 N 3
3cm-0.8cm-P 16 3 0.8 P 3
5cm-0.8cm-N 16 5 0.8 N 3
5cm-0.8cm-P 16 5 0.8 P 3
5cm-1.0cm-N 16 5 1.0 N 3
5cm-1.0cm-P 16 5 1.0 P 3

Compressive strength Flexural strength

specimens specimens

Parallel to
the printing
direction

Normal to
the printing
direction

Fig. 1 Specimens for compression (Left) and bending (Right) tests with the printing directions
of parallel (Top) and normal (Bottom).

3DP wall panel. The preparation process of the 3DP wall panel consists of 1) geome-
try design, 2) modelling, 3) slicing, and 4) printing.
(1) Geometry Design. Process of printing begins with designing the texture of the
3DP wall and the inspiration of geometric design concept of the wall in this study was
derived from Durian as shown in Fig. 2. (2) Modelling. Rhinoceros software is used to
design this model by first creating the module on the outer surface as shown in Fig.
3(a) and then each module is integrated into an outer panel surface as shown in Fig.
3(b). Another inner straight surface is created and attached with a specified distance
to the outer panel. The layer thickness of the panel is then input (i.e., 125 mm for the
tested wall), resulting in 3DP wall panel with a hollow section, as shown in Fig. 3(c).
(3) Slicing. After modelling, this model is still unable be used for controlling the ma-
chine movement. It is necessary to use the software to slice and convert the model
into the layerwise model as shown in Fig. 3(d). The layerwise model makes it possi-
ble to design the path or direction of the printing. The layerwise model is then con-
5

verted into the machine-controlling code (which is referred to as G-code). (4) Print-
ing. It begins with mixing 3DP cement with water in the mixer in order to have the
suitable workability printing material. The machine used to print the tested wall is
Delta printer. The proper mortar mixtures is delivered into the plastic hopper and
extruded from the extrusion nozzle. As aforementioned, the G-code of the model is
imported into the machine controller. The processing parameters controlled from the
machine controller are printing speed and extrusion rate. Finally, the 3DP wall panel
with the dimension of 1.3 m by 0.9 m by 0.125 m as shown in Fig. 3(e) is extruded for
45 minutes until completed.

Fig. 2 Design and modeling of the texture of the 3DP wall panel. (adapted from [11])

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

Fig. 3 (a) Module of outer panel surface; (b) outer panel surface; (c) fabrication of inner and
outer surfaces; (d) layerwise file of panel; and (e) extruded 3DP panel.

2.2.3 Test methods

6

Material scaled specimens. Test programs in laboratory were performed, including

compressive strength and flexural strength tests following the modified ASTM C109
[12] and ASTM C348 [13] standard methods, respectively. It should be noted that the
only modification from the ASTM standard method is using air-dried curing instead
of water curing. This is for correlating the strength results of the material testing with
the results of 3DP wall panel because the wall panel was also air-dried cured. Tripli-
cate specimens were assessed for each test.
3DP wall panel. The testing of axial compression loading of 3DP wall panel with the
dimension of 1.3 m x 0.9 m x 0.125 m was conducted to evaluate the load carrying
capacity and its failure behavior by using a 500-ton gravity loading machine. The rate
of loading was set at 4 ton/minute. Linear Variable Displacement Transducers
(LVDT) (SDP-50C; Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo; Tokyo) were used to measure the de-
formation in three different directions including horizontal axis (x-axis), out-of-plane
axis (y-axis), and vertical or in-plane axis (z-axis) as shown in Fig. 4. Three test pa-
rameters were assessed i.e. the maximum load capacity, deformation in X-, Y-, and Z-
axes and failure pattern.

LVDT for Y-axis

LVDT for Z-axis
LVDT for X-axis

Fig. 4 Positions of LVDTs on the tested 3DP wall panel.

3 Test results

3.1 Compressive strength of material scaled specimens

Fig. 5 shows the compressive strengths of the 3DP specimens with different extruded
widths and layer thicknesses, tested at the N and P directions to the printed layer. Test
results indicate that the 7-day compressive strengths of all samples are not significant-
ly different from the 28-day compressive strengths. As mentioned earlier, this is be-
cause air-dried curing was applied to all the tested specimens. The air-dried curing
instead of a proper curing such as water or moist curing was selected so that the spec-
7

imens can represent the 3DP structure in the real construction where improper or no
curing is provided. Comparing the 7-day compressive strengths of the 3DP specimens
tested in P and N directions, results indicate that the 5cm-1.0cm-N, the 5cm-0.8cm-N,
and the 3cm-0.8cm-N specimens have the compressive strength approximately 33%
higher than, similar to, and 45% higher than those of the 5cm-1.0cm-P, the 5cm-
0.8cm-P, and the 3cm-0.8cm-P, respectively. In addition, comparing the 28-day com-
pressive strengths of the 3DP specimens tested in P and N directions, results indicate
that the 5cm-1.0cm-N, the 5cm-0.8cm-N, and the 3cm-0.8cm-N specimens have the
compressive strength at 28 days approximately 40% higher than, similar to, and 33%
higher than the 5cm-1.0cm-P, the 5cm-0.8cm-P, and the 3cm-0.8cm-P, respectively.
Regarding test directions, the mortars tested in P-direction have lower compressive
strength than the mortars tested in N-direction. This is because cracks were formed
along the interface of each printed layer in the specimens tested in P-direction as
shown in Fig. 6(a). And the interface is a weak plane for the layered specimen. There-
fore, cracks can be initiated prematurely in these specimens. On the other hand,
cracks were formed across the interfaces (weak planes) of all printed layers in the
specimens tested in N-direction as shown in Fig. 6(b).
Furthermore, comparing the 7-day compressive strength of the specimens having
different layer thicknesses, results indicate that the 5cm-1.0cm-P specimen has the 7-
day compressive strength lower than the 5cm-0.8cm-P by about 30% and the 5cm-
1.0cm-N specimen has a compressive strength lower than the 5cm-0.8cm-N by 71%.
For the 28-day compressive strength of the specimens having different layer thick-
nesses, results indicate that the 5cm-1.0cm-P specimen has the 28-day compressive
strength 20% lower than the 5cm-0.8cm-P 20% and the 5cm-1.0cm-N specimen has
the compressive strength 67% lower than the 5cm-0.8cm-N. Reducing the layer
thickness of the 3DP specimens results in higher compressive strength. This is be-
cause when printing, the feeding rate of the fresh 3DP mortar is constant but the print-
ing volume is reduced when the layer thickness reduces. This is believed to make the
fresh mortar compressed and denser allowing its compressive strength to be higher.
Additionally, regarding the difference of the width of the 3DP specimens, results
indicate that similar and lower values of the 28-day compressive strength were ob-
served when comparing the 5cm-0.8cm-N specimen with the 3cm-0.8cm-N and the
5cm-0.8cm-P with the 3cm-0.8cm-P specimen. There is no significant difference
between the tested specimens having different widths in regard to their compressive
strengths.
8

Fig. 5 Compressive strengths of all the 3DP specimens

(a) Damage pattern of specimen tested in P- (b) Damage pattern of specimen tested in N-
direction direction
Fig. 6. Damage patterns of specimens under compression tests

3.2 Flexural strength of material scaled specimen

The flexural strengths of the 3DP specimens with different extruded widths and layer
thicknesses tested at N and P directions are shown in Fig. 7. Tested results indicate
that the 7-day flexural strengths of the 3DP specimens tend not to be significantly
different from the 28-day flexural strengths due to the air-dried curing. Comparing the
flexural strengths of the 3DP specimens tested at P and N directions, results indicate
that the 5cm-0.8cm-P, and the 3cm-0.8cm-P specimens has the 28-day flexural
strength 40% higher, and 30% higher than the 5cm-0.8cm-N, and the 3cm-0.8cm-N,
respectively. It is noted that the test results of 5cm-1.0cm-N and 5cm-1.0cm-P may
not be reasonable since the flexural strength at 7 days of 5cm-1.0cm-P is higher than
that of 5cm-1.0cm-N. However, the flexural strength at 28 days of 5cm-1.0cm-P is
lower than that of 5cm-1.0cm-N. The test results, apart from 5cm-1.0cm-N and 5cm-
1.0cm-P, show that the flexural strength of 3DP specimens tested in P-direction is
higher than the specimens tested in N-direction since the specimens in N-direction
9

possess a higher number of interfaces between each printed layer which result in weak
shear planes in the specimens. Last, regarding the flexural strength of 3DP specimens
having different widths, the tested results seem not to be significantly different when
the widths of specimens are varied.

Fig. 7 Flexural strengths of all the 3DP specimens.

3.3 Compression load test of 3DP wall panel

Figs. 8(a), (b), and (c) show the relationships of compressive force and deformation of
the tested wall panel in X-, Y-, and Z-axis, respectively. The deformation of the panel
in X-axis is almost zero. This means that only a small horizontal sliding is observed
from the test. The deformation in Y-axis is up to 9 mm whilst it is about 6 mm in Z-
axis where Z-axis is in the direction of the load applied. From these test results, the
tested wall showed larger lateral deflection than the deflection in the loading direc-
tion. The measured deformation in three axes (see Fig. 8) together with the observed
failure pattern (see Fig. 9) clearly show that the tested 3DP wall with the complex
shape failed by a buckling mode.

Fig. 8 Relationship between compressive force and deformation of the 3DP wall panel in
(a) X-, (b) Y-, and (c) Z-axis.
10

(a) at breaking of 3DP concrete shell (b) right after breaking of 3DP concrete shell
Fig. 9 The bulking failure mode of the 3DP wall panel at load of 115 tons.

4 Discussion

In this study, the load carrying capacity of the texture 3DP wall panel was tested. The
results exhibited that first crack was observed at the approximate loading value of 75
tons, locating at the outermost surface of the module, as shown in Fig. 3(a). Besides,
at the loading around 100 tons, delamination behavior between each layer of the 3DP
was then observed. Finally, at the 115-ton loading, the 3DP wall panel was failed. Its
failure apparently exhibited buckling behavior where the shape and texture of the thin
wall hollow panel governed the load carrying capacity of the wall..

The main aim is to evaluate the load carrying capacity of the texture 3DP wall panel
relating to the material properties of 3DP material scaled specimens. The compressive
strength of 5cm-1.0cm-N specimen, as illustrated in Fig. 5, was selected for this com-
parison because its layer thickness and loading direction are similar with the wall
panel. As shown in Table 2, the load capacity calculated from material compressive
strength multiplied with material area (excluding hollow area) in Fig. 3c) is about
317.7 tons compared to 115.0 tons obtained from the test. The difference in load car-
rying capacity is about 2.76 times. This significant difference results from buckling
failure mode of the tested wall where the shape and texture of the thin wall hollow
panel governs the load carrying capacity of the wall. It can be concluded that the 3DP
wall panel fails having the geometric control allowing the stress presenting in the
failed 3DP wall panel less than its material strength. From these results, finite element
(FE) models taking into account of the interface strength in each printed layer will be
developed in the future study in order to be able to predict the actual load carrying
capacities and the failure modes of any shape of 3DP wall panel.
11

Table 2 Load capacity of 3DP wall panel.

Calculated from fc’ × A Testing Difference

Load (tons) 317.7 115.0 2.76x

5 Conclusion

This paper presents information of compressive strength and flexural strength of 3DP
mortar fabricated material scaled specimens, and load carrying capacity and failure
mode of a 3DP wall panel under axial compression loading. The test results of the
material scaled specimens and the wall panel are as follows:

 For the 3DP material scaled specimens tested at different directions, the
compressive strength of the P direction was lower than that of the N di-
rection. In contrast, the flexural strength of the P direction was higher
than that from the N direction. The 3DP specimens having smaller layer
thickness showed higher compressive strength and flexural strength than
those with larger layer thickness higher.
 For the 3DP wall panel under vertical load, significant deformation in Y-
axis (lateral direction) was detected compared to that in Z-axis (loading
direction). This clearly shows that the complex geometry of the 3DP wall
panel, instead of the material strength, governs the load capacity and fail-
ure mode of the 3DP wall panel. The observed failure pattern and the de-
formation measurement of the tested wall in three axes indicate buckling
failure mode.

The actual load carrying capacity of the 3DP wall panel is significantly lower than
that calculated from the material compressive strength. In order to accurately predict
the actual performance of the 3DP wall panel with any shape and dimension, a so-
phisticated FE model of the 3DP wall panel will be established in the future study.

6 References
1. Serrano, C., Brink, H., Pineau, J., Prognon, P., and Martelli, N.: Benefits of 3D
print-ing applications in jaw reconstruction: A systematic review and
meta-analysis, J. Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 47(9), 1387-1397 (2019).
2. Goole, J., and Amighi, K.: 3D printing in pharmaceutics: a new tool for
designing customized drug delivery systems, Int. J. Pharm. 499(1–2), 376–394
(2016).
3. Mustapa, F. (Internet). Estimating the Cost of Labour, 2006 [cited 2019 Dec 7].
Available fromhttp://ocw.utm.my/pluginfile.php/2006/mod_resource/content/0/
OCW_SBQ_2423_Lecture_6.pdf.
12

4. Bulik, B. (Internet). Cost Structure, 2019 [cited 2019 Dec 7]. Available from
https://www.builk.com/th/
5. Trading economic. (Internet). Thailand minimum daily wage, 2019. [cited 2019
Dec 7]. Available from https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/minimum-wages.
6. American Concrete Institute: ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete, Farmington Hills, MI (2018).
7. S. Lim, R.A. Buswell, T.T. Le, S.A. Austin, A.G.F. Gibb, T. Thorpe: Develop-
ments in construction-scale additive manufacturing processes, Autom. Constr.
21, 262–268 (2012).
8. Prasittisopin, L., Sereewatthanawut, I.: Dissolution, nucleation, and crystal
growth mechanism of calcium aluminate cement, J. Sustain. Cem. Mater. 8(3),
180-197 (2019).
9. Prasittisopin, L., Trejo, D.: Effects of mixing and transportation on characteris-
tics of cementitious systems containing fly ash, World of Coal Ash Conf., MO
(2013).
10. Prasittisopin, L., Jiramarootapong, P., Pongpaisanseree, K., and Snguanyat, C:
Lean manufacturing and thermal enhancement of single-layer wall with an
additive manufacturing (AM) structure, ZKG Intern. 4, 64-74 (2019).
11. The Thaiger (Internet). Durian drives southern economy with new Chinese 700
million baht factory, 2019. [cited 2019 Dec 7]. Available from
https://thethaiger.com/news/business/durian-drives-southern-economy-with-
new-chinese-700-million-baht-factory.
12. ASTM International: ASTM C109 / C109M standard test method for compres-
sive strength of hydraulic cement mortars (using 2-in. or [50-mm] cube speci-
mens), West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania (2016).
13. ASTM International: ASTM C348 standard test method for flexural strength of
hydraulic-cement mortars, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania (2019).