materials

Article
Buildability and Mechanical Properties of 3D
Printed Concrete
Changbin Joh 1 , Jungwoo Lee 1 , The Quang Bui 2 , Jihun Park 2 and In-Hwan Yang 2, *
1 Department of Infrastructure Safety Research, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology,
Goyang, Gyeonggi 10223, Korea; cjoh@kict.re.kr (C.J.); duckhawk@kict.re.kr (J.L.)
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Kunsan National University, Kunsan, Jeonbuk 54150, Korea;
tqbui93@gmail.com (T.Q.B.); jhpark3@kunsan.ac.kr (J.P.)
* Correspondence: ihyang@kunsan.ac.kr




Received: 12 September 2020; Accepted: 27 October 2020; Published: 2 November 2020


Abstract: Recently, 3D concrete printing has progressed rapidly in the construction

industry. However, this technique still contains several factors that influence the buildability and
mechanical properties of the printed concrete. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of the
nozzle speed, the interlayer interval time, the rotations per minute (RPMs) of the screw in the 3D
printing device, and the presence of lateral supports on the buildability of 3D concrete printing.
In addition, this paper presents the results of the mechanical properties, including the compressive,
splitting tensile, and flexural tensile strengths of 3D printed concrete. The buildability of 3D printed
structures was improved with an extended interlayer interval time of up to 300 s. The printing
processes were interrupted because of tearing of concrete filaments, which was related to excessive
RPMs of the mixing screw. The test results also showed that a lateral support with a wide contact
surface could improve the resistance to buckling failure for 3D printed structures. The test results
of the mechanical properties of the 3D printed concrete specimens indicated that the compressive,
splitting tensile, and flexural tensile strengths significantly depended on the bonding behavior at the
interlayers of the printed specimens. In addition, although metal laths were expected to improve
the tensile strength of the printed specimens, they adversely affected the tensile performance due to
weak bonding between the reinforcements and concrete filaments.

Keywords: 3D concrete printing; buildability; interlayer interval time; lateral support;

mechanical properties

1. Introduction
The 3D printing technique has become promising for prefabricated structures because of its
outstanding flexibility in both architectural and structural designs [1]. Without the facilitation
of formwork, structures with various shapes can be built quickly by using this technique [2–4];
thus, 3D printing is being rapidly applied in the building industry [5–8]. In addition, the 3D printing
technique also reduces the cost and amount of materials for construction compared to those for
traditional on-site construction methods [9–12].
Although the 3D printing method is considered a promising technique, some factors still influence
the printing performance. For example, the printing performance is strongly dependent on the fresh
properties of concrete, such as its rheology and green strength [13–15], and the printing parameters, such
as the nozzle speed, nozzle height, interlayer interval time, and extrusion rate [16–19]. These factors
also influence the mechanical properties of 3D printed concrete in the hardened state. Therefore, it is
important to investigate the buildability for the printing of concrete structures and the mechanical
properties of hardened concrete.

Materials 2020, 13, 4919; doi:10.3390/ma13214919 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2020, 13, 4919 2 of 24

Panda et al. [18] investigated the effect of different nozzle speeds on the properties of fresh concrete
used for 3D printing. They pointed out that the optimum printing speed would ensure a constant
bead width of the layers throughout the printing process, and the bonding strengths of the printed
specimens slightly reduced with increasing nozzle speed. Kruger et al. [20] developed a design model
for 3D concrete printing and predicted the printing speed to prevent the failure of the structure under
the given conditions.
The effect of the interlayer interval time (delay time) during 3D concrete printing also has
a significant influence on the buildability as well as the interlayer bonding strength of filaments.
According to Le et al. [21] and Sanjayan et al. [22], the interlayer bonding strength decreased with
increasing interlayer interval time. In addition, they recommended that it was necessary to optimize
the interlayer interval time to develop the green strength of fresh filaments to prevent significant
deformation or collapse and ensure an acceptable bonding strength between printed layers.
Moreover, the printed structure may collapse suddenly by buckling during printing; the buckling
behavior depends on the geometry and support conditions of the structure. Thus, lateral support or
reinforcement is needed [23,24]. For example, steel wire mesh reinforcement improved the flexural
strength of printed specimens [25], although there were obvious limitations in the printing process and
the design of the nozzle for the reinforcement.
In addition, the anisotropic strength of 3D printed concrete is a concern because the printing
direction significantly affects the material properties of 3D printed concrete in the hardened
state [15,16,21,26–28]. Nerella et al. [16] investigated the compressive and flexural tensile strengths
of 3D printed specimens in three different directions. The layer directions slightly affected the
compressive strength but significantly influenced the flexural tensile strength of the printed specimens.
However, Wolfs et al. [27] reported that the effect of the layer directions on the mechanical properties of
3D printed concrete was insignificant based on the measurements of the compressive, splitting tensile,
and flexural strengths in three different directions for the printed specimens.
Based on previous studies, the aim of this study was to investigate the buildability of 3D printed
concrete during printing and the mechanical properties of the 3D printed concrete in a hardened
state. The effects of the nozzle speed, interlayer interval time, and presence of lateral support on the
buildability of the 3D concrete printing were investigated. To investigate the mechanical properties of
3D printed concrete, compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural tensile tests in three different loading
directions were carried out. Finally, the mechanical properties of the monolithic specimens and printed
specimens were compared.

2. Experimental Program

2.1. Printing Method

Currently, several printing techniques have been applied in building construction, such as
contour crafting [29], Apis-Cor [30], concrete printing [31], and D-shape [32], which are based on
additive manufacturing techniques. The concrete printing technique, which has outstanding control
of internal and external geometries, was applied in this study. This system consisted of four major
parts: a computer controller, a gantry system, a nozzle part, and a platform, as shown in Figure 1a.
The nozzle part was carried on by the gantry system on two parallel rails, so it could move in both the
x and y directions, as shown in Figure 1a. Additionally, the nozzle elevation could be adjusted in the z
direction during the printing process. A nozzle with a diameter of 40 mm was attached to a storage
bin with a volume capacity of 0.05 m3 , as shown in Figure 1b. A vertical screw rod rotating during the
printing process was equipped inside the storage bin to maintain the extrusion and workability of the
mortar filament.
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 3 of 24
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 26

(a) Gantry system.

(b) Storage bin and mixing screw.

Figure 1. 3D printing equipment.

2.2. Printed Structures

2.2. Printed Structures and
and Printing
Printing Process
Process
To
To investigate
investigate the
the buildability
buildability and
and mechanical
mechanical properties
properties of
of 3D
3D printed
printed concrete,
concrete, ten
ten concrete
concrete
structures
structures were printed, as listed in Table 1. All structures were printed into rectangular wall shapes
were printed, as listed in Table 1. All structures were printed into rectangular wall shapes
from
from the
the top
top view.
view. The
The dimensions
dimensions of of ten
ten structures
structures are
are also
also shown
shown inin Table
Table 1.
1. The
The ten
ten 3D
3D printed
printed
concrete
concrete structures
structures were
were categorized
categorized into
into three
three groups.
groups.
 Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 26
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 26
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 26
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 26
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 4 of 24
Table 1. Details of the printed structures.
Table 1. Details of the printed structures.
Table 1. Details of the printed structures.
Table 1. Details of the printed structures. RPMs
RPMs ofof
Structure Table 1. Details of Nozzle Interlayer
the printed structures.
Nozzle Interlayer RPMs
Mixing of
Number
Number of of Ultimate
Group Structure Dimensions Nozzle
Speed Interlayer
Interval Time Mixing
RPMs of Number of
Deposition Ultimate
Group Structure
Identification Dimensions Speed
Nozzle Interval Time
Interlayer Mixing
Screw Deposition
Number of Ultimate
State
Group Identification
Structure Dimensions Speed
(mm/s) Interval
(s) Time
Interlayer RPMs of MixingLayersNumber of State
Screw
Mixing Deposition Ultimate
Group Identification
Structure Dimensions (mm/s)
NozzleSpeed
Speed (s) Time
Interval Screw
(r/m) Layers
Deposition State Ultimate
Group Identification
Identification
Dimensions (mm/s)
(mm/s)
Interval
(s) Time (r/m) Screw
Screw LayersDeposition State State
(mm/s) (s) (s) (r/m) (r/m) Layers Layers
S1
S1 100
100 36
36 (r/m)
120
120 19
19 Buckling
Buckling
S1 100 36 120 19 Buckling
Group S1
S2 100
80 36
45 120 120
120 19
49 Buckling Buckling
Buckling
Group 11 S2 S1 100
80 45 36 120 49 19 Buckling
Group
Group 1 1 S2 80 45 120 49 Buckling
Tearing of
Group 1 S2
S3 80 45 120 49(1) Buckling
Tearing of Buckling
S3 S2 8080
80 45
45 45 140
140 120 29
29 (1) 49
Tearing
concreteof
S3 80 45 140 29 (1)
(1) concreteof
Tearing
S3 S3 8080 45 45 140 140 29 29 (1) concrete
Tearing of concrete
concrete

S4
S4 80
80 55
55 120
120 22
22 Buckling
Buckling
S4 S4 8080 55 55 120 120 22 22 Buckling Buckling
S4 80 55 120 22 Buckling

Group 2
Group
Group 22 Tearing
S5 Tearing of
of
8080 57 120 28 (1)
Group 2 S5 S5 80 57 57 120 120 28 (1) 28 (1) TearingTearing
of
concrete of concrete
Group 2 S5 80 57 120 28 (1)
(1) concreteof
Tearing
S5 80 57 120 28 concrete
concrete

S6
S6 S6 8080
80 30
30 30 100
100 100 33
33 33 Buckling
Buckling Buckling
S6 80 30 100 33 Buckling
S6 80 30 100 33 Buckling

Printing
Printing
Group
Group 33 S7
S7 50
50 300
300 120
120 52 (1)
52 (1) Printing
stopped
Group 3 S7 50 300 120 52 (1) stopped
Printing
Group 3 S7 50 300 120 52 (1) stopped
stopped
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 5 of 24

Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW Table 1. Cont. 5 of 26

Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 26

S7 50 300 120 52 (1) Printing stopped

Printing
S8 50 300 120 52 (1)
(1)
Printing
stopped
S8 50 300 120 52 (1)
stopped
S8 50 300 120 52 (1) Printing stopped

Group 3

Printing
S9 S9 5050 300300 120 120 52 (1)
(1) 52 (1) Printing stopped
Printing
stopped
S9 50 300 120 52 (1)
stopped

Printing
S10 (2)
(2) 50 300 120 52 (1)
(1)
Printing
stopped
S10 (2) S10 (2) 5050 300300 120 120 52 (1) 52 (1) Printing stopped
stopped

Note: (1) For the structure, printing stopped at the corresponding layers, and thus, the collapse of the structure was not observed. (2) The structure was reinforced by a
Note: (1)laths
metal
Note: ForFor
(1) the structure,
at the
the printing
interlayers.
structure, stopped
printing stoppedatatthe
thecorresponding
correspondinglayers,
layers,and
andthus,
thus,the
the collapse
collapse of
of the
the structure was not
structure was not observed.
observed.(2)
(2)The
Thestructure
structurewas
wasreinforced
reinforcedbybya a metal laths at
the interlayers.
metal laths at the interlayers.
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 6 of 24
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 26

Three structures,
Three structures, namely,
namely, S1,S1, S2,
S2, and
and S3S3 in
in Group
Group 1,1, were
were printed
printed to to investigate
investigate thethe effect of the
effect of the
interlayer interval time and rotations per minute (RPMs) of the mixing screw
interlayer interval time and rotations per minute (RPMs) of the mixing screw on the buildability of on the buildability of
the structures.
the structures. Accordingly,
Accordingly, thethe three
three structures
structures in in Group
Group 11 had
had the
the same
same shapes
shapes andand dimensions
dimensions but but
different interlayer interval times or RPMs of the mixing
different interlayer interval times or RPMs of the mixing screw. screw.
Three structures,
Three structures,namely,
namely,S4,S4, S5,S5,
andand
S6 S6 in Group
in Group 2, were
2, were printed
printed to investigate
to investigate the of
the effect effect of
lateral
lateral supports
supports insideon
inside walls walls
the on the buildability
buildability of the structures.
of the structures. Accordingly,
Accordingly, wall members
wall members of theof the
three
three structures were supported laterally by members with zigzag shapes inside
structures were supported laterally by members with zigzag shapes inside walls. Structures S4 and S5 walls. Structures S4
and S5
had thehad
same therectangular
same rectangular wall dimensions,
wall dimensions, but thebut the details
details of theof the connected
connected parts parts between
between the
the wall
wall and lateral supports were different from each other. For structure S4,
and lateral supports were different from each other. For structure S4, the wall and lateral supports the wall and lateral
supports
were were connected
connected to the walltoby
thepoint
wallcontact,
by pointascontact,
shown asin shown
Figure in2a,Figure
and for 2a,structure
and for structure
S5, the wallS5,and
the
wall and
lateral lateral were
supports supports were connected
connected in parallelinwithparallel with
a width ofa100
width
mm,ofas100 mm, in
shown as Figure
shown2b.in Figure
Details2b.
of
Details of the dimensions of structures S4 and S5 can be found in Table 1.
the dimensions of structures S4 and S5 can be found in Table 1. For structure S6, the wall andFor structure S6, the wall
lateral
and lateral
supports supports
were were alsoin
also connected connected in parallel
parallel with a widthwith a width
of 100 mm. of 100 mm.

(a) Structure S4. (b) Structure S5.

Figure 2. Printing of structures S4 and S5.

Four structures,
structures,namely,namely,S7S7through
through S10S10 in Group
in Group 3, were
3, were printedprinted to investigate
to investigate the of
the effect effect
the
of the interlayer
interlayer intervalinterval
time ontime the on the buildability
buildability of the of the structures
structures and mechanical
and mechanical propertiesproperties
in the
in the hardened
hardened state of state
the 3D of printed
the 3D concrete.
printed concrete.
Among these Among these fourstructures
four structures, structures,S7structures
and S8 were S7
and S8 were duplicates, and structures S9 and S10 were also duplicates
duplicates, and structures S9 and S10 were also duplicates except for the interlayer reinforcement. except for the interlayer
reinforcement.
The four structures The four
werestructures
printed with werethe printed
same with the same
printing process,printing
as shown process, as shown
in Figure in Figure 3.
3. Accordingly,
Accordingly, the interlayer interval time of the four structures in Group
the interlayer interval time of the four structures in Group 3 was 300 s, which was much greater 3 was 300 s, which was much
than
greater
those ofthan thosestructures
the other of the other structures
in Groups in Groups
1 and 1 and 2.toIn
2. In addition, addition,
study to study
the effect of thethe effect of the
reinforcement
reinforcement
between the layers between
on the thestrength
layers on ofthe
thestrength
3D printed of the 3D printed
concrete, metalconcrete,
laths were metalusedlaths were
as the used as
interlayer
the interlayer reinforcement. The metal lath reinforcement used in this
reinforcement. The metal lath reinforcement used in this study was made of aluminum. The nominal study was made of aluminum.
The nominal
yielding yielding
strength of the strength
metal of the was
laths metal270 laths
MPa,wasand 270the MPa, andhad
laths the thelaths had the
shape of an shape of an
extended
extended parallelogram,
parallelogram, as shown as in shown
Figure in 4a.Figure 4a. Theoflengths
The lengths the shortof the
andshort
longand long diagonal
diagonal distancesdistances
were 13
were
and 30 13mm,
and respectively,
30 mm, respectively, and the thickness
and the thickness was 2 mm. was A 2metal
mm. lathA metal lath wasto
was attached attached to the
the interfaces
interfaces
between the between
layers in thestructure
layers inS10,
structure
as shown S10,inasFigure
shown 4b.inNoFigure
special4b.surface
No special surface
treatment treatment
method was
method was used to increase the bonding strength between the printed
used to increase the bonding strength between the printed concrete and metal laths. The metal laths concrete and metal laths.
The
weremetal laths wereover
laid manually laid the
manually
printedover thethen,
layer; printed
a newlayer;
layerthen,
wasa repeatedly
new layer was repeatedly
printed over the printed
metal
over
laths the metalany
without lathsartificial
withoutinterlayer
any artificial interlayer
treatment. treatment.
Therefore, theTherefore,
metal laths the metal
were laths were
bonded betweenbonded
the
between the printed concrete by the self-weight of the metal laths and
printed concrete by the self-weight of the metal laths and printed concrete. After the buildability of printed concrete. After the
buildability of the four
the four structures structures
in Group 3 wasininvestigated,
Group 3 wasthe investigated,
walls of the the walls of the
hardened hardened
structures werestructures
cut into
were
cubiccut
andinto cubic and
prismatic prismaticfor
specimens specimens
compressive, for compressive, splitting
splitting tensile, and tensile,
flexuraland flexural
tensile tests.tensile tests.
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 26
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 7 of 24
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 26

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Simultaneous printing of
Simultaneous printing of structures
structures S7,
S7, S8,
S8, S9,
S9, and
and S10.
S10.
Figure 3. Simultaneous printing of structures S7, S8, S9, and S10.

(a) Metal lath reinforcement. (b) Interlayer reinforcement during printing.

(a) Metal lath reinforcement. (b) Interlayer reinforcement during printing.
Figure 4. Interlayer reinforcement from metal laths (Structure
(Structure S10).
S10).
Figure 4. Interlayer reinforcement from metal laths (Structure S10).
2.3. Mixture
2.3. Mixture
2.3. Mixture
The mixture usedusedfor forthe the3D3D printing process is given in Table 2. Ordinary
The mixture printing process is given in Table 2. Ordinary PortlandPortland
cement
cement (OPC, Asia cement, Seoul, Korea) with 3
(OPC,The
Asiamixture
cement, used
Seoul,forKorea)
the 3Dwith
printing ofa 3.14
process
a density density
g/cmof
is given 3.14
in
3 was g/cm
Table
used 2. was usedPortland
forOrdinary
the mixture.forAdditionally,
the mixture.
cement
Additionally,
(OPC,
two types two types
Asiaofcement, Seoul,
cementitious of Korea)
cementitious
materials, with amaterials,
density
namely, ofnamely,
silica 3.14
fume g/cm silica
(SF,
3 wasfume
Asia used (SF,
forAsia
cement, the cement,
mixture.
Seoul, Korea) Seoul, Korea)
Additionally,
and class C
and
two class
types C
of fly ash (FA,
cementitious Asia cement,
materials, Seoul,
namely, Korea),
silica fume were(SF, added
Asia to the
cement,
fly ash (FA, Asia cement, Seoul, Korea), were added to the mixture. To improve the extrusion and mixture.
Seoul, To
Korea) improve
and classthe
C
extrusion
fly ash (FA,
bonding and bonding
Asia
properties, SF properties,
cement, Seoul,
with SF with
Korea),
a SiO were a SiO
added
2 content of 91.3% 2 content the of
towas 91.3%
as awas
mixture.
used used as the
Tosupplementary
improve a supplementary
extrusion and
cementitious
cementitious material. Class C FA used in the mixture had a density of 2.26 g/cm 3 and a loss on ignition
bonding
material. properties,
Class C FA SF used with a SiO
in the 2 content of 91.3% was used as 3a supplementary cementitious
mixture had a density of 2.26 g/cm and a loss on ignition of 2.8%.
of
Sand with a size range from 0.16–0.2 mm wasmm
2.8%.
material. Sand
Class with
C FAa size
used range
in thefrom 0.16–0.2
mixture had was selected
aselected
density toofensure togood
2.26 g/cmensure
3 and good
a lossextrusion
extrusion on ignition
during during
the the
of 2.8%.
printing
printing
Sand withprocess.
a size To
rangeincrease
from the concrete
0.16–0.2 mm filament
was extrusion
selected to under
ensure the
good low water-binder
extrusion
process. To increase the concrete filament extrusion under the low water-binder ratio of 0.29, a high- during ratio
the of 0.29,
printing
aprocess.
high-performance
To increase
performance water-reducing
the
water-reducing concreteagent agentextrusion
filament
(HWRA, (HWRA,
Dongnam, Dongnam,
under the low
Seongnam, Seongnam,
water-binder
Korea) was Korea) was
ratio
added toadded
of 0.29, a to the
high-
the mixture.
mixture.
performanceFinally, the mixture
water-reducing included
agent a
(HWRA, viscosity
Dongnam,agent to prevent
Seongnam, segregation
Korea)
Finally, the mixture included a viscosity agent to prevent segregation of the materials and enhance was of
addedthetomaterials
the and
mixture.
enhance
Finally, the mixture
the
the viscosity viscosity of the mixture.
included
of the mixture. a viscosity agent to prevent segregation of the materials and enhance
the viscosity of the mixture.
Table 2. Mixture proportions.
Table 2. Mixture proportions.
W/B Unit Weight (kg/m3)
W/B
(%) Water OPC SF Unit
FA Weight
Sand (kg/m
HWRA
3)
Viscosity Agent
(%)
0.29 Water
240 OPC
576 SF
79 FA Sand
172 1154 HWRA8.27 Viscosity
1.65Agent
0.29 240 576 79 172 1154 8.27 1.65
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 8 of 24

Table 2. Mixture proportions.

Unit Weight (kg/m3 )

W/B
(%) Viscosity
Water OPC SF FA Sand HWRA
Agent
0.29 240 576 79 172 1154 8.27 1.65
OPC: Ordinary Portland cement, SF: silica fume, FA: fly ash, and HWRA: high-performance water-reducing agent.

2.4. Material Properties in the Fresh State

The repeatability of the process is a critical requirement for 3D printing technology. The width,
height, and material characteristics of the printed structures should remain almost the same for
each printing process. To achieve repeatable printing in this study, the nozzle height and speed,
concrete pumping rate, and RPMs of the mixing screw were controlled by an accurate printing
device. Moreover, the test structures were printed on a stable platform. A nozzle height of 10 mm
from the existing printed layer was maintained during the printing process. In addition, to control the
quality of the mixture, the properties of the materials in the fresh state were measured.
The rheological properties of printing concrete primarily affect extrusion. Therefore, the fluidity
and extrusion rate of concrete were measured before printing the structures. The fluidity of the concrete
filament was estimated by a flow table test according to ASTM C 230 [33]. The extrusion rate was
evaluated by measuring the weight of extruded concrete in one minute. The test results showed that the
diameter of the mortar on the flow table was 148 mm and the extrusion rate was 0.133 kg/s. In addition,
the rheological yield stress of the concrete was measured by using a rheometer (Brookfield DV-III).
The yield stress was approximately 413 Pa, and the plastic viscosity was 19.6 Pa-s.
The measurement of early-age mechanical strength is one of the possible ways to find the stiffness
of printing materials. Green strength measurement by a uniaxial unconfined compression test on
cylindrical samples has been found to be useful in concrete printing applications. Voigt et al. [34] found
that the green strength had a close relationship with the microstructure of the concrete. The test results
of Panda et al. [35] showed that green strength developed linearly with time for the initial 30–40 min
and then exponentially increased.
For green strength measurement, the specimen preparation and testing process should be
designed to minimize unintentional breakdown of the thixotropic behavior of the concrete [35].
Moreover, the vertical and lateral deformation of the sample should be measured using a special
device. However, in this study, the green strength at early ages was not measured because there were
some difficulties in securing a testing machine with a small loading rate and in capturing dynamic
measurements of the changing cross-section of concrete samples.

3. Buildability in the Fresh State

The critical criterion for fabricating concrete structures via 3D printing is the vertical deposition
of filament layers. The buildability is a significant parameter to evaluate the printable performance
of concrete filaments. The buildability refers to the resistance of the deposited fresh concrete to
deformation during construction and the ability of the concrete to retain its extruded shape [13]. The 3D
printability of concrete, especially the buildability, depends on material parameters (the rheology,
green strength, and stiffness of the fresh concrete) and printing parameters (the interlayer interval
time incorporated by the nozzle speed, nozzle height, RPMs of the screw, and structural stability
parameter) [35,36]. This study focused on the effect of the printing parameters and structural stability
parameter on the buildability of 3D printed concrete. The printing parameters included the interlayer
interval time and RPMs of the screw, and the structural stability parameter included the presence of
lateral supports.
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 9 of 24

3.1. Interlayer Interval Time

The buildability of 3D printed concrete structures was investigated based on the layer deposition
process. Among the six S1 through S6 structures, S1, S2, S4, and S6 collapsed suddenly, as shown in
Figure 5a,b,d,f, respectively. The collapse occurred at the wall members with the maximum length
between the supports where the lateral displacement was prevented. Moreover, structures S3 and S5
showed tearing of the concrete filaments at the uppermost layer, as shown in Figure 5c,e, respectively.
The printing of the structures was stopped when tearing of the concrete filaments was observed.
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 26

(a) Structure S1.

(b) Structure S2.

(c) Structure S3.

Figure 5. Cont.
 Materials 2020, 13, 4919 10 of 24
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 26

Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 o

(d) Structure S4.

(e) Structure S5. (f) Structure S6.

Figure
Figure 5. Ultimate state of structures 5. Ultimate
S1 through S6.state of structures S1 through S6.

To investigate the influence of the interlayer interval time on the buildability of the 3D print
To investigate the influence of the interlayer interval time on the buildability of the 3D printed
concrete, three different nozzle speeds of 50, 80, and 100 s and different structural shapes we
concrete, three different nozzle speeds of 50, 80, and 100 s and different structural shapes were applied
applied to print the concrete structures, as shown in Table 1.
to print the concrete structures, as shown in Table 1.
First, structures S1, S2, and S3 were printed with the same dimensions of 1500 mm × 300 m
First, structures S1, S2, and S3 along
weretheprinted with
centerline thewall
of the samebutdimensions
with differentof mm ×Due
1500speeds.
nozzle 300tommthe different nozzle speed
structure
along the centerline of the wall but with S1 wasnozzle
different printed speeds.
with an interlayer
Due to the interval time of
different 36 s, while
nozzle structures S2 and S3 we
speeds,
printed with an interlayer interval time of 45 s. The maximum number of printed layers in structur
structure S1 was printed with an interlayer interval time of 36 s, while structures S2 and S3 were printed
S1, S2, and S3 were 19, 49, and 29, respectively. The maximum number of printed layers upon t
with an interlayer interval time of 45collapse
s. Theofmaximum number of printed layers in structures S1, S2,
structure S1 was much lower than those of structures S2 and S3. Therefore, the test resu
and S3 were 19, 49, and 29, respectively. The maximum number
showed that the buildability of the of3D
printed
concretelayers
printedupon the collapse
structures increasedofas the interlayer interv
structure S1 was much lower than those of structures
time increased. S2 and
According S3. Therefore,
to previous the test results
studies [18,21,27,37–39], showed interlayer interval tim
an increased
couldprinted
that the buildability of the 3D concrete provide sufficient
structures timeincreased
for the earlyasstrength development
the interlayer of thetime
interval low layers in the 3D print
concrete
increased. According to previous studies structures and thus
[18,21,27,37–39], animprove
increasedthe buildability
interlayer of the structures.
interval On the other hand, extendi
time could
the interlayer interval time could reduce the bonding strength between the layers.
provide sufficient time for the early strength development of the low layers in the 3D printed concrete
Structures S2 and S3 were printed with the same interlayer interval time but with different RP
structures and thus improve the buildability
values of theof theinstructures.
screw the storage bin Onduring
the other hand,
printing of theextending theprinting of structure
structures. The
interlayer interval time could reducewasthestopped
bonding strength
when tearing between the layers.
of the filaments in the structure in the top layer was observed, as show
Structures S2 and S3 were printedin Figure
with 5c.
theWhen
sametearing of theinterval
interlayer filamentstime
in structure
but with S3 was observed,
different RPM the maximum number
values of the screw in the storage binprinted
duringlayers was 29,of
printing which is lower than The
the structures. that of structureofS2.
printing This was S3
structure because the RPM value
the screw during printing of structure S3 was higher than that of structure S2, as shown in Table
was stopped when tearing of the filaments in the structure in the top layer was observed, as shown
The high speed of the screw in the storage bin might have caused excessive friction heat between t
in Figure 5c. When tearing of the filaments in structure S3 was observed, the maximum number of
printed layers was 29, which is lower than that of structure S2. This was because the RPM value of
the screw during printing of structure S3 was higher than that of structure S2, as shown in Table 1.
The high speed of the screw in the storage bin might have caused excessive friction heat between the
screw and concrete filaments and thus decreased the fluidity of the concrete. Finally, excessive friction
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 11 of 24

heat affected the extrusion of the concrete, and thus, the printing process was stopped when concrete
filaments were torn. Therefore, the test results in this study indicated that the RPM value of the screw
could affect the buildability when the printing device in a storage bin containing a mixing screw is
used for 3D concrete printing.
The buildability of structures S5 and S7, which had similar geometries, was also compared to
investigate the buildability of 3D printed concrete at different interlayer interval times. Structure S7
with an interlayer interval time of 300 s was printed up to 52 layers, whereas structure S5 with an
interval time of 57 s was printed up to 28 layers. The comparison also showed that an increased
interlayer interval time favorably affected the buildability of the printed concrete.
The different interlayer interval times in structures S6 and S9 were compared because the two
structures had the same long wall length of 500 mm between lateral supports. Structure S6 was printed
with an interval time of 30 s, while the interlayer interval time of structure S9 was extended to ten times
that of structure S6. Structure S6 was stacked up to 33 layers and then collapsed by buckling along the
long wall. Moreover, structure S9 was printed up to 52 layers, and then printing of the structure was
stopped because it was to be used for investigating the mechanical properties of the concrete in the
hardened state.
Therefore, a comparison of printed structures with interlayer interval times ranging from 36
to 300 s showed that an increased interlayer interval time favorably affected the buildability of the
concrete. The interlayer interval time of the printing process influenced the green strength of the 3D
printed concrete. If the interlayer interval time was too short, the green strength of the 3D printed
concrete was not high enough to support the upper layers, which might lead to early collapse of the
structure, and vice versa.

3.2. Lateral Supports

The 3D printed concrete structures in Group 1 in this study failed by buckling, so it was important
for the 3D printed concrete structures to resist buckling. The lateral supports printed inside the structure
could enhance the resistance to buckling failure along the long wall of the structures. Two types of
zigzag lateral supports were printed inside structures S4 and S5, as presented in Figure 2.
Structure S4 contained lateral supports that were printed inside the structure and connected
to the long wall by a contacting point. Structure S5 contained lateral supports inside the structure,
the arrangement of which was similar to that in structure S4, but they were connected to the long wall
by a contact with a width of 100 mm.
The test results showed that structure S4 was printed up to 22 layers and then collapsed by
buckling failure along the long wall. Moreover, 28 layers were stacked in structure S5, and then the
printing process was interrupted because of the tearing of the concrete in the top layer, as shown in
Figure 5e. Both structures S4 and S5 were printed with the same nozzle speed and RPM value of the
mixing screw. This implied that the types of connections of the lateral supports to the wall affected the
buckling resistance and thus the buildability of the printed structures. By incorporating the lateral
supports inside the structure, the long wall of the printed structure could be divided into several spans
along the wall. Depending on the types of connections of the lateral supports to the wall, the long
wall of structure S4 was divided into two spans with lengths of approximately 500 mm, whereas
the long wall of structure S5 was divided into two spans with lengths of approximately 400 mm.
This difference in the span length might result in a higher resistance to buckling for structure S5 than
that for structure S4.
Similarly, structure S6 was printed with lateral supports that were connected to the long wall by
contact points with a width of 100 mm. Structure S6 was stacked up to 33 layers prior to collapse,
although it was printed with a shorter interlayer interval time of 30 s than that of 55 s for structure S4.
The number of printed layers in structure S6 was higher than that in structure S4.
Structure S6 failed due to buckling because this structure was printed with a short interlayer
interval time.
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 12 of 24

Therefore, the zigzag-shaped lateral supports printed inside the structure, especially with long
connecting widths, could increase the resistance to buckling failure in 3D printed concrete structures.
The test results in this study are in good agreement with those of a previous study [36], where 3D
printing reinforced by zigzag internal layers inside the structure improved not only the buildability of
the printed structure but also the resistance to buckling of the printed hardened structure.
A numerical model was developed to predict different failure modes based on the material
properties of the concrete in the fresh state and on the failure criterion by Wolfs et al. [40]. According to
their study, the failure of 3D printed concrete wall structures was categorized into elastic buckling and
plastic collapse. The parametric model used to predict the structural failure mode included the main
printing process parameters, which were the curing characteristics of the printing material, the printing
speed, the geometrical characteristics of the printed structure, its dead weight, its heterogeneous
strength and stiffness characteristics, and the presence of geometrical imperfections. Suiker et al. [36]
also demonstrated the practical applicability of the model for different wall structures fabricated by 3D
concrete printing.
This study originally focused on the experimental program and discussion of the test results in
terms of buildability. Prediction of the failure mode or numerical resistance for the structures printed
in this study could not be performed because the heterogeneous strength and stiffness characteristics
of the concrete used in this study, which are necessary to analyze the numerical resistance to failure,
could not be estimated from the green strength test. Therefore, numerical predictions of failure modes
based on the developed model should be investigated in a future study.

4. Mechanical Properties

4.1. Specimen Preparation and Testing Methods

In this study, after the printed structures were hardened, the walls of the 3D printed structure in
the hardened state from Group 3, as shown in Table 1, were cut into cubic and prismatic specimens
for compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural tensile tests. The printed structures were covered by
wet burlap until a curing age of 28 days after investigating the buildability of the 3D concrete printed
structures, and then they were cut into the cubic and prismatic specimens. Two methods to extract
the specimens from the 3D printed structures could be considered based on the time of extraction.
In the first method, the specimens are extracted by cutting the 3D printed structures at early ages in the
fresh state before the structures reach the final setting period of concrete. The specimens can be easily
extracted by cutting or sawing the structures in the early fresh state. However, extracting specimens at
early ages can cause hairline cracks in the specimens due to deformation and eventually affect the
stability of the specimen shape. In the worst case, the 3D printed structures may collapse when they
are cut in the fresh state. In the second method, the specimens are extracted by cutting the 3D printed
structures in the hardened state—e.g., by sawing. Sawing specimens in the hardened state can avoid
changes in specimen shape and accordingly the deformation of specimens. However, this approach
requires extensive skills of the experimental workers to secure the flatness of the cut surface on which
loading is applied for the strength test. This method was used in some previous studies [15,18,21,27]
and was also adopted in this study. The cut surfaces of some specimens was not sufficiently flat when
they were cut from the structures, and such specimens were excluded from the strength test.
A typical representation of specimens cut from a 3D printed concrete wall is shown in Figure 6a.
The cubic and prismatic specimens were extracted by saw-cutting three walls of structures S7 and S8
and four walls of structures S9 and S10, as presented in Figure 6b. For specimens cut out of the concrete
wall, the dimensions of 40 mm × 40 mm × 40 mm for the cube and 40 mm × 40 mm × 160 mm for the
prism were chosen because the bead width of the layers was approximately 40 mm. However, a surface
treatment was performed by using an accurate grinder to reduce the influence of the surface conditions
because the surface was uneven for the printed specimens. In addition, since the cross-sectional areas
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 13 of 24

Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 26

of the specimens were variable depending on the bead width and layer height of each specimen,
the cross-sectional area was actually calculated by measuring the length of each side of the specimens.

(a) Cutting method.

(b) Cut parts.

Figure
Figure6.6.Typical
Typicalrepresentation
representationof
ofspecimen
specimencutting
cuttingfrom
fromaa3D
3Dprinted
printedconcrete
concretewall.
wall.

In
Inaddition,
addition,the
themonolithic
monolithicspecimens
specimenswerewerecast
castin in dimensions
dimensions of of 50
50 mm
mm ××5050mm
mm××50 50mmmmfor for
the
thecubic
cubicspecimens
specimens andand 40
40 mm
mm ××40 40mm
mm××160160mm
mmfor forthe
theprismatic
prismaticspecimens,
specimens,as asproposed
proposedin inASTM
ASTM
C109/C
C109/C109M-07
109M-07andandC348-18
C348-18[41,42].
[41,42].The
Themonolithic
monolithicspecimens
specimenswereweremoisture-cured
moisture-curedfor for24
24hhafter
after
they
theywere
werecast
castand
andthen
then cured
cured in
in aa water
water tank
tank until
until aa curing
curing age
age of
of 28
28 days
days was
was reached.
reached.
Unlike
Unlikethe
themonolithic
monolithicspecimens,
specimens,the theprinted
printedspecimens
specimenshad hadanisotropic
anisotropicmechanical
mechanicalproperties
properties
that
thatdepended
dependedon onthe
thedifferent
different loading
loadingdirections;
directions;this
thisdependency
dependencywas wasbased
basedon
onthe
thelayer
layerstacking
stacking
directions the3D
directions of the 3Dprinted
printed concrete.
concrete. Accordingly,
Accordingly, the printed
the printed specimens
specimens were intested
were tested in three
three mutually
mutually perpendicular
perpendicular loading as
loading directions, directions,
shown inas shown
Figure in Figure
7. The 7. The
results from theresults
printedfrom the printed
specimens tested
specimens tested in the different loading directions were compared to those from the monolithic
specimens cast during the printing process of the structures.
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 14 of 24

in the different loading directions were compared to those from the monolithic specimens cast during
Materials
the printing2020,process
13, x FORof
PEER
theREVIEW
structures. 15 of 26

(1) Monolithic specimen. (2) Loading direction I. (3) Loading direction II. (4) Loading direction III.
(a) Compressive testing method.

(1) Monolithic specimen. (2) Loading direction I. (3) Loading direction II. (4) Loading direction III.
(b) Splitting tensile method.

(1) Monolithic specimen. (2) Loading direction I. (3) Loading direction II.
(c) Flexural tensile strength method.

Figure 7. Material
Materialtesting
testingmethods.
methods.

Thecompressive
The compressivestrength
strength test
test was performed
performed on onthe
thecubic
cubicspecimens.
specimens.BeforeBefore thethecompressive
compressive
strengthtesting
strength testingofofthe
themonolithic
monolithic and printed
printed specimens
specimenswas wasperformed,
performed, thethelengths
lengths of of
all all
sides of of
sides
the specimens were measured. The compressive strengths of the printed specimens
the specimens were measured. The compressive strengths of the printed specimens were measured were measured
inin threeloading
three loadingdirections,
directions, namely,
namely, I,
I, II,
II, and
and III.
III.However,
However,loading
loadingdirections
directions II and
II andIII III
werewereactually
actually
thesame,
the same,andandthus,
thus,the
the compressive
compressive tests
tests were
were performed
performedininloading
loadingdirections
directions I and
I and II. II.
ForFor
each
each
loading direction, five monolithic and printed specimens were tested for their compressive
loading direction, five monolithic and printed specimens were tested for their compressive strengths in strengths
in accordance
accordance withwith
ASTM ASTM C109/C
C109/C 109M-07
109M-07 [41]. [41]. The compressive
The compressive strengths
strengths of theofmonolithic
the monolithic and
and printed
printed specimens were calculated as follows:
specimens were calculated as follows:
ffc0 ' = PP
c = l×b (1) (1)
l ×b
where l is the length (mm), b is the width of the specimen (mm), and P is the maximum load (N).
where l is the length (mm), b is the width of the specimen (mm), and P is the maximum load (N).
The splitting tensile strength test was also determined for the cubic specimens. For the printed
The splitting tensile strength test was also determined for the cubic specimens. For the printed
specimens, splitting tensile tests were conducted in three loading directions, namely, I, II, and III.
specimens, splitting tensile tests were conducted in three loading directions, namely, I, II, and III. For
each loading direction, five monolithic and printed cubic specimens were tested for their splitting
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 15 of 24

For each loading direction, five monolithic and printed cubic specimens were tested for their splitting
tensile strengths in accordance with ASTM C 496/C 496M-04 [43]. The splitting tensile strengths were
calculated as follows:
2×P
ft = (2)
π×l×b
where l is the length of line contact of the load (mm), b is the nominal cross-sectional dimension (mm),
and P is the maximum load (N).
For the flexural tensile test, the test in loading direction III could not be performed because of
problems encountered while cutting the specimens out of the 3D printed structures. Five prismatic
specimens were used for the flexural tensile test in each loading direction (I and II) in accordance
with ASTM C348-18 [42]. The flexural tensile strengths of the prismatic specimens were calculated
as follows:
3×P×l
fr = (3)
2 × b3
where l is the distance between the supports (mm), b is the length of the squared section of the prism
specimen (mm), and P is the maximum load (N).
After five specimens were tested for each strength, the means and standard deviations of the test
results were calculated to estimate the strength properties of the monolithic and printed specimens.

4.2. Compressive Strength

Compressive strength tests were performed for both the monolithic and printed cube specimens.
The printed specimens were categorized into those without metal lath reinforcement and those
reinforced by metal lath reinforcement. The compressive test results are given in Table 3. A comparison
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 26
between the compressive strengths of the monolithic and printed specimens is also plotted in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Compressive test results.

Figure 8. Compressive test results.

The compressive strength of the monolithic specimen was 72.8 MPa, while those of the printed
specimens without metal lath reinforcement in loading directions I and II were 23.5 and 31.0 MPa,
respectively. For the printed specimens reinforced by the metal lath, the compressive strengths in
loading directions I and II were 24.6 and 24.0 MPa, respectively. The compressive strengths of the
printed cubic specimens ranged from approximately 32.3 to 42.6% lower than those of the monolithic
specimens.
For loading direction I, the compressive strengths of the printed specimens with and without
metal lath reinforcement showed similar values. The failure patterns were accompanied by the
propagation of vertical cracks over the height of the specimens, as shown in Figure 9. This failure
pattern implied that the layer reinforcement in the printed specimens did not affect their compressive
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 16 of 24

Table 3. Test results for the mechanical properties.

Printed Specimen
Monolithic Specimen
Loading Without Metal Laths With Metal Laths
Strength
Direction Number of Mean SD Number of Mean SD Number of Mean SD
Specimens (MPa) (MPa) Specimens (MPa) (MPa) Specimens (MPa) (MPa)
Loading
5 5 23.5 9.8 5 24.6 0.7
direction I
Compressive
72.8 9.0
strength ( fc0 ) Loading
direction II 5 5 31.0 8.3 5 24.0 3.5
(III)
Loading
5 5 4.5 0.3 5 4.4 0.8
Splitting direction I
tensile Loading 11.3 2.7
strength ( ft ) 5 5 3.2 1.0 5 3.3 0.3
direction II
Loading
5 5 1.8 1.2 5 1.2 0.4
direction III

Flexural Loading
5 5 6.5 0.8 5 18.5 4.0
tensile direction I
11.9 1.1
strength ( fr ) Loading
5 5 6.1 0.4 5 11.0 1.7
direction II
Note: SD refers to the standard deviation.
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 17 of 24
Figure 8. Compressive test results.

The compressive strength of the monolithic specimen was 72.8 MPa, while those of the printed
specimens without metal lath reinforcement
reinforcement in in loading
loading directions
directions II and
and IIII were 23.5 and 31.031.0 MPa,
MPa,
respectively. ForForthe
theprinted
printedspecimens
specimensreinforced
reinforcedbybythe themetal
metal lath,
lath, thethe compressive
compressive strengths
strengths in
in loading
loading directions
directions I and
I and II were
II were 24.6 24.6
and and
24.0 24.0
MPa,MPa, respectively.
respectively. The compressive
The compressive strengths
strengths of the
of the printed
printed cubic specimens
cubic specimens ranged fromranged from approximately
approximately 32.3 lower
32.3 to 42.6% to 42.6%thanlower
thosethan
of thethose of the
monolithic
monolithic
specimens. specimens.
For loading
loadingdirection
directionI, I,the compressive
the compressivestrengths of the
strengths of printed specimens
the printed with and
specimens withwithout metal
and without
lath
metalreinforcement showed showed
lath reinforcement similar values.
similarThe failure
values. patterns
The failurewere accompanied
patterns by the propagation
were accompanied by the
of vertical cracks
propagation over the
of vertical height
cracks of the
over thespecimens, as shown
height of the in Figure
specimens, 9. Thisinfailure
as shown Figurepattern
9. Thisimplied
failure
pattern
that theimplied that the layerin
layer reinforcement reinforcement in the printed
the printed specimens didspecimens
not affect did
theirnot affect their compressive
compressive strengths in
strengths
loading in loading
direction I. direction I.

Loading direction I Loading direction II

Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 26

(a) Printed specimen.

Materials 2020, 13, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

(b) Printed specimen reinforced by metal lath.

Figure 9. Compressive
Compressive failure of a printed
printed specimen
specimen with and without metal lath in loading
loading directions
directions
I and II.

For loading
For direction II
loading direction II (or
(or III),
III), the
the failure
failure of
of the
the printed
printed cubic
cubic specimens
specimens resulted
resulted from
from interface
interface
failures between the layers. The failure pattern also indicated that the compressive strengths
failures between the layers. The failure pattern also indicated that the compressive strengths were were highly
highly
dependent on
dependent on the
the bonding
bondingcapacity
capacityatatthe
theinterlayers
interlayersofofthe
theprinted
printedspecimens
specimens because
because thethe specimens
specimens in
in this loading direction were subjected to lateral deformation under vertical compressive
this loading direction were subjected to lateral deformation under vertical compressive loading. loading.
The compressive
The compressive strength
strength of of the
the printed
printed specimens
specimens without
without aa metal
metal lath was greater
lath was greater than
than that
that of
of
the specimens
the reinforced by
specimens reinforced by aa metal
metal lath. This implied
lath. This implied that
that the
the bonding
bonding performance
performance of of the
the printed
printed
specimens without a metal lath at the interlayers was higher than that of the printed specimens
reinforced by a metal lath at the interlayers. Metal lath reinforcements at the interlayers were
expected to improve the bonding and tensile performance of the 3D printed concrete. In contrast, the
metal lath reinforcement adversely affected the interlayer adhesion performance due to weak
bonding between the reinforcement and concrete filaments. The failure of the printed specimen
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 18 of 24

specimens without a metal lath at the interlayers was higher than that of the printed specimens
reinforced by a metal lath at the interlayers. Metal lath reinforcements at the interlayers were expected
to improve the bonding and tensile performance of the 3D printed concrete. In contrast, the metal lath
reinforcement adversely affected the interlayer adhesion performance due to weak bonding between
the reinforcement and concrete filaments. The failure of the printed specimen reinforced by the metal
lath shown in Figure 9b actually showed that the printed layer and metal lath reinforcement were
separated at the failure interface. This failure pattern shown in the figure supported the compressive
strength test results.

4.3. Splitting Tensile Strength

Splitting tensile testing was performed on both the monolithic and printed specimens in different
loading directions. A comparison of the splitting tensile strengths for the monolithic and printed
specimens is shown in Figure 10. The splitting tensile strength of the monolithic specimens was
11.2 MPa, while those of the printed specimens without metal lath reinforcement were 4.5, 3.2,
and 1.8 MPa in loading directions I, II, and III, respectively. The splitting tensile strengths of the
printed specimens reinforced by metal laths at the interlayers in loading directions I, II, and III were
4.4, 3.3, and 1.2 MPa, respectively. The test results show that the splitting tensile strength of the printed
specimens was 11.1~39.7% lower than that of the monolithic specimen. This was because the weak
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 26
bonding strength at the interlayers led to the low splitting tensile strength of the printed specimens.

Figure 10. Splitting tensile test results.

Figure 10. Splitting tensile test results.
The splitting tensile strengths in loading directions I and II of the printed specimens with and
The splitting
without metal tensile
laths werestrengths in loading
not significantly directions
different. I and II the
Therefore, of the printedreinforcement
interlayer specimens with and
hardly
without metal laths were not significantly different. Therefore, the interlayer reinforcement
affected the splitting tensile strength, although the metal lath reinforcement at the interlayers was hardly
affected
expectedthe splitting the
to improve tensile strength,
splitting although
tensile strengththe
of metal lath reinforcement
the printed specimens. The at failure
the interlayers
pattern ofwasthe
expected to improve the splitting tensile strength of the printed specimens. The failure
printed specimens in loading direction II is shown in Figure 11. The splitting tensile failure in loading pattern of the
printed specimens
direction in loading direction
II was accompanied II is shown
by debonding of theininterlayers
Figure 11. The splitting
in both tensilespecimen
the printed failure in loading
without
direction
metal lathII reinforcement
was accompanied and bythedebonding of the interlayers
printed specimen reinforcedinbyboth
metalthelaths.
printed specimen
This impliedwithout
that the
metal
adhesion between the concrete filaments and reinforcements played an important role and thatthe
lath reinforcement and the printed specimen reinforced by metal laths. This implied that the
adhesion between the concrete filaments and reinforcements played an important role and that the
imperfect adhesion could not enhance the splitting tensile strength of the printed specimen reinforced
by the metal laths compared to that of the printed specimen without the metal laths.

Loading direction II Loading direction III

without metal laths were not significantly different. Therefore, the interlayer reinforcement hardly
affected the splitting tensile strength, although the metal lath reinforcement at the interlayers was
expected to improve the splitting tensile strength of the printed specimens. The failure pattern of the
printed specimens in loading direction II is shown in Figure 11. The splitting tensile failure in loading
direction II was accompanied by debonding of the interlayers in both the printed specimen without
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 19 of 24
metal lath reinforcement and the printed specimen reinforced by metal laths. This implied that the
adhesion between the concrete filaments and reinforcements played an important role and that the
imperfect adhesion
adhesion could not enhance the splitting tensile strength of the printed specimen reinforced
by the metal laths compared to that
that of
of the
the printed
printed specimen
specimen without
without the
the metal
metal laths.
laths.

Loading direction II Loading direction III

Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 26

(a) Printed specimen.

(b) Printed specimen reinforced by metal laths.

Figure 11. Splitting

Splitting tensile
tensile failure
failure of
of aa printed
printed specimen
specimen with
with and without metal lath in loading
directions II and III.

The effect of the imperfect adhesion between the concrete filaments and reinforcements on the
tensile strength
strengthwas wasalso observed
also observed in the splitting
in the tensile
splitting strength
tensile in loading
strength direction
in loading III. The splitting
direction III. The
tensile strength
splitting tensile of the specimens
strength reinforcedreinforced
of the specimens by the metalby laths was lower
the metal thanlower
laths was that ofthan
the that
specimens
of the
without
specimens thewithout
metal thelaths.
metalThe test The
laths. results
test were
resultsdifferent from the
were different from expectation that the
the expectation thatmetal lath
the metal
reinforcement
lath at the at
reinforcement interlayer would increase
the interlayer the splitting
would increase thetensile strength
splitting of strength
tensile the printedof specimens
the printed in
this loading direction. The failure pattern of the printed specimens in loading direction
specimens in this loading direction. The failure pattern of the printed specimens in loading direction III is shown in
Figure
III 11. The
is shown splitting
in Figure 11.tensile failure in
The splitting loading
tensile direction
failure III was
in loading also accompanied
direction III was alsoby debonding
accompanied
of the
by printed of
debonding layers in bothlayers
the printed the printed
in bothspecimen
the printed without
specimen metal laths metal
without and the printed
laths and the specimen
printed
reinforced by metal laths, such as in loading direction
specimen reinforced by metal laths, such as in loading direction II. II.
Finally, the test results in thisthis study
study implied
implied that the bonding conditions between the concrete
filaments and
filaments andreinforcements
reinforcements at at
thethe
interlayers played
interlayers a significant
played role in role
a significant the splitting tensile behavior.
in the splitting tensile
behavior. Therefore, the adhesion between the concrete filaments and reinforcements should be
confirmed to improve the tensile behavior of 3D printed concrete structures.

4.4. Flexural Tensile Strength

The printed prismatic specimens with and without metal laths were tested in two different
 Materials 2020, 13, 4919 20 of 24

Therefore, the adhesion between the concrete filaments and reinforcements should be confirmed to
improve the tensile behavior of 3D printed concrete structures.

4.4. Flexural Tensile Strength

The printed prismatic specimens with and without metal laths were tested in two different loading
directions, namely, I and II. The flexural strength testing of specimens in loading direction III was not
performed because of difficulties in preparing those specimens. A comparison of the flexural22tensile
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 26
strength results for the monolithic and printed specimens is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Flexural tensile test results.

Figure 12. Flexural tensile test results.
The flexural tensile strength of the monolithic specimen was 11.9 MPa, while those of the printed
The
specimens flexural tensile
without strength
metal of the monolithic
lath reinforcement werespecimen
6.5 andwas 6.111.9
MPaMPa, while those
in loading of the printed
directions I and II,
specimens
respectively.without metal
The test lathshow
results reinforcement were tensile
that the flexural 6.5 andstrengths
6.1 MPaofinthe loading
printed directions
specimens I and II,
without
respectively.
reinforcement The test approximately
were results show that the
half flexural
that of thetensile strengths
monolithic of the printed specimens without
cast specimens.
reinforcement werethe
In addition, approximately
flexural tensilehalfstrengths
that of theofmonolithic
the printed cast specimens.
specimens reinforced by metal laths
wereIn18.5
addition, the MPa
and 11.0 flexural
fortensile
loadingstrengths
directionsof the printed
I and specimens reinforced
II, respectively. The flexural bytensile
metal laths wereof
strength
18.5
the and 11.0specimens
printed MPa for loading
withoutdirections
metal lathI and II, respectively.
reinforcement The flexural
was lower than that tensile strength
of printed of the
specimens
printed specimens
reinforced by metalwithout metal
laths. This waslath reinforcement
because metal lathwas lower than inthat
reinforcement the of printed
tensile zonespecimens
acted as a
reinforced by metal laths.
tensile reinforcement. This was the
Accordingly, because
metalmetal lath reinforcement
lath reinforcement in the
increased the tensile
flexuralzone acted
tensile as a
behavior
tensile reinforcement. Accordingly, the metal lath
of the 3D printed specimens in both loading directions I and II. reinforcement increased the flexural tensile
behavior of the 3Dthe
However, printed specimens
flexural tensile inbehavior
both loading directions
in loading I and II.II, as shown in Figure 13,
direction
wasHowever,
accompanied the byflexural tensilebetween
debonding behavior theinprinted
loading direction such
interlayers, II, asasshown in Figure
in the case of the13, was
splitting
accompanied by debonding between the printed interlayers, such as in the case of
tensile behavior described in the previous section. This result indicated that metal lath reinforcementthe splitting tensile
behavior described
with incomplete in the previous
interlayer adhesionsection.
did notThis result
increase theindicated that metal
flexural tensile lath reinforcement
strength with
as much as expected.
incomplete interlayer adhesion did not increase the flexural tensile strength as much as expected.
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 21 of 24
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 26

(a) Debonding of layers under loading.

(b) Failure with debonding at the interlayer.

13. Flexural tensile failure of printed specimens

Figure 13. specimens in
in loading
loading direction
direction II.
II.

5.
5. Conclusions
Conclusions
The
The buildability
buildabilityand
andmechanical
mechanicalproperties
propertiesof 3D printed
of 3D concrete
printed werewere
concrete investigated in thisin
investigated study.
this
Based on the extensive experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
study. Based on the extensive experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1.
1. The interlayer
The interlayerinterval
intervaltime
timesignificantly
significantly influenced
influenced thethe buildability
buildability of printed
of 3D 3D printed concrete.
concrete. The
The test results showed that an extended interlayer interval time of up to 300 s
test results showed that an extended interlayer interval time of up to 300 s contributed to the contributed
to the strength
green green strength of the
of the 3D 3D printed
printed concrete
concrete and thusand thus increased
increased the buildability
the buildability of the 3D of printed
the 3D
printed
concrete. concrete.
2.
2. printed concrete structures with lateral supports could increase the resistance
The 3D printed resistance to collapse
due to buckling failure. In In particular, a wide connecting width between the lateral support and
the structure wall improved the capacity of layer decomposition in the 3D printed printed concrete.
concrete.
3.
3. The compressive strengthsof
compressive strengths ofthe
the3D3Dprinted
printedcubic
cubicspecimens
specimens were
were 32.3~42.6%
32.3~42.6% lower
lower than
than those
those of
of
the the monolithic
monolithic specimens.
specimens. In addition,
In addition, the weakthe weakperformance
bonding bonding performance between the
between the reinforcement
reinforcement and concrete
and concrete filaments filaments
caused the caused the
low compressive low compressive
strength of the printedstrength
specimens ofinthe printed
direction II.
specimens in direction II.
4. The splitting tensile strength of the 3D printed concrete specimens was 11.1~39.7% lower than
that of the monolithic specimens, depending on the loading directions. The splitting tensile
failure was accompanied by debonding between the printed layers, which implied that the
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 22 of 24

4. The splitting tensile strength of the 3D printed concrete specimens was 11.1~39.7% lower than that
of the monolithic specimens, depending on the loading directions. The splitting tensile failure
was accompanied by debonding between the printed layers, which implied that the bonding
performance between the concrete filaments and reinforcements should be confirmed when
interlayer reinforcements are included.
5. The flexural tensile strengths of the 3D printed specimens without reinforcements at the interlayers
were approximately half that of the monolithic cast specimens. The flexural tensile strength
of the printed specimens was improved by the metal lath reinforcements. The failure pattern
also revealed that the bonding between the interlayers and reinforcements might influence the
flexural strength.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.J. and I.-H.Y.; methodology, C.J.; formal analysis, J.L.; investigation,
T.Q.B. and J.P.; resources, J.L.; data curation, J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, I.-H.Y.; writing—review and
editing, C.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is supported by a Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) grant
funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Grant 20AUDP-B121595-05).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data Availability: The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author
upon request.

References
1. Hull, C.W. Apparatus for Production of Three-Dimensional Objects by Stereolithography.
U.S. Patent 4,575,330, 11 March 1986.
2. Le, T.T.; Austin, S.A.; Lim, S.; Buswell, R.; Gibb, A.G.F.; Thorpe, T. Mix design and fresh properties for
high-performance printing concrete. Mater. Struct. 2012, 45, 1221–1232. [CrossRef]
3. Perkins, I.; Skitmore, M.; Skitmore, M. Three-dimensional printing in the construction industry: A review.
Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2015, 15, 1–9. [CrossRef]
4. Lim, S.; Le, T.; Webster, J.; Buswell, R.A.; Austin, S.; Gibb, A.; Thorpe, A. Fabricating construction components
using layer manufacturing technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Global Innovation
in Construction, Loughborough, UK, 13–16 September 2009; pp. 512–520.
5. Lim, S.; Buswell, R.; Le, T.T.; Austin, S.A.; Gibb, A.G.; Thorpe, T. Developments in construction-scale additive
manufacturing processes. Autom. Constr. 2012, 21, 262–268. [CrossRef]
6. Gosselin, C.; Duballet, R.; Roux, P.; Gaudillière, N.; Dirrenberger, J.; Morel, P. Large-scale 3D printing of
ultra-high performance concrete—A new processing route for architects and builders. Mater. Des. 2016, 100,
102–109. [CrossRef]
7. Labonnote, N.; Rønnquist, A.; Manum, B.; Rüther, P. Additive construction: State-of-the-art, challenges and
opportunities. Autom. Constr. 2016, 72, 347–366. [CrossRef]
8. Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Wang, X. A critical review of the use of 3-D printing in the construction industry.
Autom. Constr. 2016, 68, 21–31. [CrossRef]
9. Kidwell, J. Best Practices and Applications of 3D Printing in the Construction Industry; Construction Management:
San Luis Obispo, CA, USA, 2017.
10. Agustí-Juan, I.; Müller, F.; Hack, N.; Wangler, T.; Habert, G. Potential benefits of digital fabrication for
complex structures: Environmental assessment of a robotically fabricated concrete wall. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,
154, 330–340. [CrossRef]
11. Suhendro, B. Toward green concrete for better sustainable environment. Procedia Eng. 2014, 95, 305–320.
[CrossRef]
12. Agustí-Juan, I.; Habert, G. Environmental design guidelines for digital fabrication. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142,
2780–2791. [CrossRef]
13. Ma, G.; Li, Z.; Wang, L. Printable properties of cementitious material containing copper tailings for extrusion
based 3D printing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 162, 613–627. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, G.; Yang, Y.; Wu, M.; Pang, B. Fresh properties of a novel 3D printing concrete ink.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 174, 263–271. [CrossRef]
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 23 of 24

15. Paul, S.C.; Tay, Y.W.D.; Panda, B.; Tan, M.J. Fresh and hardened properties of 3D printable cementitious
materials for building and construction. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2018, 18, 311–319. [CrossRef]
16. Nerella, V.N.; Hempel, S.; Mechtcherine, V. Effects of layer-interface properties on mechanical performance
of concrete elements produced by extrusion-based 3D-printing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 205, 586–601.
[CrossRef]
17. Hambach, M.; Volkmer, D. Properties of 3D-printed fiber-reinforced Portland cement paste. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 2017, 79, 62–70. [CrossRef]
18. Panda, B.; Paul, S.C.; Mohamed, N.A.N.; Tay, Y.W.D.; Tan, M.J. Measurement of tensile bond strength of 3D
printed geopolymer mortar. Measurement 2018, 113, 108–116. [CrossRef]
19. Xu, J.; Ding, L.; Cai, L.; Zhang, L.; Luo, H.; Qin, W. Volume-forming 3D concrete printing using a variable-size
square nozzle. Autom. Constr. 2019, 104, 95–106. [CrossRef]
20. Kruger, J.; Cho, S.; Zeranka, S.; Viljoen, C.; Van Zijl, G. 3D concrete printer parameter optimisation for high
rate digital construction avoiding plastic collapse. Compos. Part B Eng. 2020, 183, 107660. [CrossRef]
21. Le, T.T.; Austin, S.A.; Lim, S.; Buswell, R.; Law, R.; Gibb, A.G.; Thorpe, T. Hardened properties of
high-performance printing concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2012, 42, 558–566. [CrossRef]
22. Sanjayan, J.G.; Nematollahi, B.; Xia, M.; Marchment, T. Effect of surface moisture on inter-layer strength of
3D printed concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 172, 468–475. [CrossRef]
23. Panda, B.; Paul, S.C.; Tan, M.J. Anisotropic mechanical performance of 3D printed fiber reinforced sustainable
construction material. Mater. Lett. 2017, 209, 146–149. [CrossRef]
24. Perrot, A.; Jacquet, Y.; Rangeard, D.; Courteille, E.; Sonebi, M. Nailing of layers: A promising way to reinforce
concrete 3D printing structures. Materials 2020, 13, 1518. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Marchment, T.; Sanjayan, J. Mesh reinforcing method for 3D Concrete Printing. Autom. Constr. 2020,
109, 102992. [CrossRef]
26. Gibson, I.; Rosen, D.; Stucker, B. Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D printing, rapid prototyping,
and direct digital manufacturing, second edition. Johns. Matthey Tech. Rev. 2015, 59, 193–198.
27. Wolfs, R.; Bos, F.; Salet, T. Hardened properties of 3D printed concrete: The influence of process parameters
on interlayer adhesion. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 119, 132–140. [CrossRef]
28. Zareiyan, B.; Khoshnevis, B. Interlayer adhesion and strength of structures in Contour Crafting—Effects of
aggregate size, extrusion rate, and layer thickness. Autom. Constr. 2017, 81, 112–121. [CrossRef]
29. Khoshnevis, B.; Hwang, D.; Yao, K.T.; Yeh, Z. Mega-scale fabrication by Contour Crafting. Int. J. Ind.
Syst. Eng. 2006, 1, 301. [CrossRef]
30. Nikita Chen-iun-tai. Apis-Cor. Available online: www.apis-cor.com (accessed on 15 March 2020).
31. Lim, S.; Buswell, R.; Le, T.; Wackrow, R.; Austin, S.; Gibb, A.; Thorpe, T. Development of a viable concrete
printing process. In Proceedings of the 28th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in
Construction (ISARC 2011), Seoul, Korea, 29 June–2 July 2011.
32. Enrico Dini. D-Shape. Available online: https://www.d-shape.com (accessed on 13 April 2020).
33. ASTM. Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic Cement; ASTM C 230/C230M;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
34. Voigt, T.; Malonn, T.; Shah, S.P. Green and early age compressive strength of extruded cement mortar
monitored with compression tests and ultrasonic techniques. Cem. Concr. Res. 2006, 36, 858–867. [CrossRef]
35. Panda, B.; Lim, J.H.; Tan, M.J. Mechanical properties and deformation behaviour of early age concrete in the
context of digital construction. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 165, 563–571. [CrossRef]
36. Suiker, A.S.; Wolfs, R.; Lucas, S.; Salet, T. Elastic buckling and plastic collapse during 3D concrete printing.
Cem. Concr. Res. 2020, 135, 106016. [CrossRef]
37. Roussel, N. Rheological requirements for printable concretes. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 112, 76–85. [CrossRef]
38. Panda, B.; Mohamed, N.A.N.; Paul, S.C.; Singh, G.B.; Tan, M.J.; Šavija, B. The effect of material fresh properties
and process parameters on Buildability and interlayer adhesion of 3D printed concrete. Materials 2019,
12, 2149. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Tay, Y.W.D.; Ting, G.H.A.; Qian, Y.; Panda, B.; He, L.; Qian, S. Time gap effect on bond strength of 3D-printed
concrete. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2018, 14, 104–113. [CrossRef]
40. Wolfs, R.; Bos, F.; Salet, T. Early age mechanical behaviour of 3D printed concrete: Numerical modelling and
experimental testing. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 106, 103–116. [CrossRef]
Materials 2020, 13, 4919 24 of 24

41. ASTM. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm] Cube
Specimens); ASTM C 109/C109M-07; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2008.
42. ASTM. Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars; ASTM C348-18;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019.
43. ASTM. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens; ASTM C 496/C
496M-04; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2004.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).