Cement and Concrete Composites 133 (2022) 104675

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement and Concrete Composites

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconcomp

How do the contact surface forces affect the interlayer bond strength of 3D
printed mortar?
Tinghong Pan a, Rongxin Guo a, *, Yaqing Jiang b, **, Xuping Ji c
a
Yunnan Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Kunming University of Science and Technology,
Kunming, 650500, China
b
College of Mechanics and Materials, Hohai University, Nanjing, 211100, China
c
State Key Laboratory of High Performance Civil Engineering Materials, Jiangsu Sobute New Materials Co. Ltd., Nanjing, 211103, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Depositing of printing layer on the previous printed structures leads to the formation of contact surface forces
3D printing cementitious material between two layers. However, it is not clear how do the contact surface forces affect the interlayer bond strength
Interlayer bond strength of 3D printed mortar? In order to answer the above-mentioned question, the contact surface forces and the
Contact surface forces
resulting interlayer bond strength of double− layer printed structures with different nozzle stand− off distance
Nozzle stand− off distance
Travel speed of the nozzle
and travel speed of the nozzle are analyzed in this paper. Results indicate that the outflow of the extrudate and
movement of the nozzle may strike and shear the previously deposited layer, resulting in a highest pressure
directly below the nozzle, which is several times larger than those caused by the self-weight of a single layer.
Increasing the nozzle stand− off distance would decrease contact surface forces, while increasing the travel speed
of the nozzle would increase contact surface forces. The contact surface forces between two layers directly affect
the interlayer bond strength of printed structures.

1. Introduction
Three-dimensional printing technology of cement-based materials
(3DPC) is an additive manufacturing (AM) method in construction in­
dustry, in which cement− based ink is extruded layer− by− layer by a
digitally controlled robot [1–4]. This technology has both environ­
mental benefits (as it reduces wastes and optimizes material use) and
economic benefits (as it speeds up the production process, reduces
formwork costs, reduces design time and execution period), and has
been rapidly developed and widely studied in the past decade [5–7].
However, due to the layer− by− layer printing process, the interlayer
structure of the layers is a potential weakness, which could lead to the
problem of anisotropy and affect the interlayer bond strength and
durability of printing element/structure [8–10]. This is one of the main
challenges that limit the development and application of 3DPC.
The development of interlayer bond strength in 3DPC can be
considered as a combination intimate contact followed by phys­
ical− chemical fusion. Intimate contact is the initial stage of interface
welding and the process of controlling the initial contact between
adjacent layers, which is driven by contact surface forces [11–14]. After
the contact between layers is formed through intimate contact, strength
increases through physical− chemical fusion [15–19]. In the previous
literature, the influence of physical− chemical fusion on the interlayer
bonding of printed structures has been widely concerned and deeply
studied.
From material point of view, thixotropy plays a dominant role in the
formation of weak links in 3D printed structures [6,20]. High thixotropy
leads to a rapid loss of workability and plasticity. It is recommended to
ensure the buildability and stability of printed structures, but it will
increase the difficulty of fusion between adjacent printed layers [6,10,
21–29]. From environment point of views, dehydration (or evaporation)
of the surface of the printing filament on which the new printing layer
should be deposited would increase the porosity at the interlayer zone
and reduce the interlayer bond strength [6,28,30–36]. From process
aspects, extending the time intervals may increase the chance of forming
pores in the interface area, and then reduce the interlayer bond strength
between layers [8,9,26,28,32,33,37–45]. Due to the inaccurate posi­
tioning of filaments, high nozzle standoff distances may lead to a large
scattering and low contact between adjacent layers [8,32,33,40,46,47].
High travel speed of the nozzle may reduce the surface roughness, and

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: guorx@kmust.edu.cn (R. Guo), yqjiang@hhu.edu.cn (Y. Jiang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104675
Received 28 December 2021; Received in revised form 3 July 2022; Accepted 8 July 2022
Available online 12 July 2022
0958-9465/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Pan et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 133 (2022) 104675

increase air void content and air void size in the printed structures, thus Table 2
reduce the interlayer bond strength [33,34,43,48,49]. Although many Proportion of 3D printable cement mortars.
material factors, environmental factors and process factors have been Material Cement Quartz sand Water Nc HPMC PCE
studied on the influence on interlayer bond strength, the effect of
Quantity(g) 1400 2100 460 11.2 3.5 4.2
force− driven intimate contact on the interlayer bond of 3D printed
structures has been ignored in previous literature, which may be
attributed to that the contact surface forces have never been measured the printhead to maintain the continuous extrusion–deposition process.
or characterized before. It is still unclear how the contact surface forces
affect the interlayer bonding of 3D printing structures. 2.2. Rheological properties characterization of cement–based materials
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) numerical simulation has
recently proven to be an important tool to improve the understanding of Rheological properties characterization is critical for 3D printable
extrusion− based 3D printing process. CFD method is usually used to cement–based materials, and it is also necessary for CFD numerical
study the flow of concrete in standardized tests [50–53] or when pouring simulation. Fresh cement− based materials can be regarded as Bingham
into a formwork [54–56], as well as to analyze the geometry and size of fluid, which can be well described by Bingham model [60,64,65]. Vis­
printed filament in 3DPC [48,57–62]. In addition, CFD numerical cosity and yield stress are the main rheological parameters of Bingham
simulation provides the possibility of quantitative visualization and fluid, which can be measured by BROOKFIELD RST− SST rheometer. A
determination the pressure (stress) distribution and forces on the contact controlled shear rate (CSR) protocol was used to obtain the rheological
surface in 3D printing process [57,63]. parameters of 3D printable cement–based materials. Firstly, the mixture
This paper attempts to visualize and characterize the pressure dis­ should be pre− sheared for 120 s by applying a constant shear rate of
tribution and contact surface forces through CFD numerical simulation, 100 s− 1 to homogenize the sample. Secondly, an increasing shear rate
and explores how these forces create overlapping and contact between ramp from 0 s− 1–100 s− 1 within 100 s was applied to obtain the
adjacent layers to achieve interlayer bonding of printed structures. up− curve of CSR test. Finally, a decreasing shear rate ramp from 100 s− 1
Various nozzle stand− off distance and travel speed of the nozzle are to 0 s− 1 with 100 s was applied to obtain the down− curve of the CSR
selected to generate different force feedback on the contact surface, test, as shown in Fig. 1. The value of viscosity and yield stress could be
because these two parameters are sensitive to the force behavior on the obtained by fitting the down− curve of CSR test ranged 20− 80 s− 1 with
contact surface [63]. Material, environment factors and other process Bingham model. The viscosity and yield stress of the cement mortar
parameters, such as time intervals and nozzle types, are kept constant. described in this paper were 5.38 Pa s and 1542 Pa, respectively.
Through experimental and numerical studies, the relationship of nozzle
stand− off distance (and travel speed of the nozzle), contact surface 2.3. Printing variables and strategy
forces and interlayer bond strength of printed structures is discussed.
The results from this study are expected to provide a new perspective for Self− made laboratory− level gantry 3D printer was used, and its
explaining the mechanism of interlayer bonding between adjacent forming space is 500 mm × 500 mm × 500 mm. A nozzle with circular
layers, and to facilitate the selection of process parameters in concrete inlet (inner diameter D = 35 mm) and rectangular outlet (L = 30 mm, W
3D printing. = 18 mm) was used to provide a specific cross− sectional shape to the
deposited layer. In the extrusion− deposition process, a cement mortar
2. Experimental setup and characteristics pump continuously transports cement mortar to the print nozzle through
pumping action, then the rotation of the screw rod in the print nozzle
2.1. Preparation of 3D printable cement–based materials ensures that the fresh cement mortar can be continuously and steadily
extruded by the nozzle, and the total mass flow rate of the extrudate is Q,
Portland cement (OPC, Type II, 52.5 grade, Nanjing Conch Cement as shown in Fig. 2. Adjusting the rotating speed of the screw rod would
Co. Ltd., Nanjing, China) was used as cementitious material for 3D result in various value of Q. For the ideal printing conditions, the total
printing, and its chemical composition was shown in Table 1. Ground
river− sand with fineness modulus of 2.3 and maximum particle size of 1
mm was used as fine aggregate. There was no coarse aggregate in the 3D
printing ink prepared in this paper. Three chemical (mineral) admix­
tures, self− synthesized polycarboxylate superplasticizer (PCE) with
effective solid content of 40% and water reducing rate of 30%, nano
attapulgite (Nc, Jiangsu Jiuchuan Nano–material Technology Co.Ltd.),
and hydroxy propyl methyl cellulose (HPMC, Renqiu Cheng Yi Chemical
Co.Ltd.), were used to control the rheological properties of fresh cement
mortars.
The mixture with mix–proportion reported in Table 2 was mixed by
mechanical stirring. Firstly, dry batches, including cement, fine sand,
nano attapulgite and HPMC, were weighed according to the proportion
and then placed into the JJ− 5 planetary cement mortar mixer to mix
evenly. Secondly, wet batches, including water and PCE, were poured
into the mixer. Both dry batches and wet batches were mechanically
Fig. 1. The test result of rheological properties and the fitted result by Bing­
mixed at a slow speed of 140 r/min for 60 s, and mixed at a high speed of
ham model.
285 r/min for 90 s to form uniform ink. Finally, this ink was poured into

Table 1
Chemical compositions of OPC (Type II) and Nc [wt.%].
Materials CaO SiO2 Al2O3 FeO3 Na2O MgO K2O SO3 TiO2 L.O.I

OPC 62.60 21.65 5.56 4.32 0.24 0.84 0.76 2.85 – 1.27
Nc 9.62 58.4 26.73 0.51 0.21 0.20 3.05 – 0.15 1.13

2
T. Pan et al.
Fig. 2. Pumping-extrusion process for 3D printing cement mortar.
mass flow rate Q should be properly matched with the travel speed of the
nozzle Vprint.
Q
Vprint = (1)
ρAlayer
where ρ is the density of extrudate, Alayer is the cross− sectional area of
an extruded filament. Assuming that the printing ink was not com­
pressed during deposition process, then the cross− sectional area of
deposited layer would obtain same value with the outlet area of nozzle,
i.e., Alayer = L × W, and the default height of printed filament is similar
with the width of nozzle outlet, i.e., Hlayer = W = 0.018 m.
In this paper, different values of nozzle stand− off distance Hnozzle and
travel speed of the nozzle Vprint were selected, as shown in Fig. 3, and
they influence on the interlayer bonding of printed structures were
mainly investigated. The main process parameters are shown in Table 3.
2.4. Tensile bond test
Tensile bond strength tests were carried out to determine the bond
strength of printed structures. Double− layer printed structures were
used for tensile bond strength test, and the test setups were described as
follows:
(1) Double− layer printed filament were prepared using nozzle with
circular inlet (inner diameter D = 0.045 m) and rectangular
outlet (L = 0.03 m, W = 0.018 m).
(2) After the double− layer printed filament was finished, it was cut
into small pieces with length of 30 mm via a row of strings, as
shown in Fig. 4.
(3) Then, all the small pieces were cured for 27 days under standard
condition (20 ± 1 ◦ C, over 95% RH).
(4) One day before the test, all small pieces were cut into regular
cubes (25 mm × 25 mm × 30 mm in size) to reduce the influence
of geometric characteristics on the mechanical properties test. A
Fig. 3. 3D printing variables and strategy.
3
Cement and Concrete Composites 133 (2022) 104675
Table 3
Values of the process parameters.
Parameters Symbols Numerical values
Total flow rate Q 0.0567 kg/s, 0.0794 kg/s, 0.1021 kg/s, 0.1247
kg/s, 0.1474 kg/s
Outlet area of nozzle Alayer 5.4 × 10− 4 m2
Length of nozzle L 0.03 m
outlet
Width of nozzle W 0.018 m
outlet
Nozzle stand− off Hnozzle 0.009 m, 0.0135 m, 0.018 m,
distance 0.0225 m, 0.027 m
Travel speed of the Vprint 0.05 m/s, 0.07 m/s, 0.09 m/s,
nozzle 0.11 m/s, 0.13 m/s
groove with a depth of 5 mm and a width of 3 mm between the
two layers of prints during the actual test was created, as shown
in Fig. 4, to ensure that the failure surface is at the layer-to-layer
interface. Two custom made mild steel plates were glued to both
sides of specimen using a rapid hardening adhesive.
(5) Tensile bond strength tests were carried out at a rate of 0.05 mm/
s. Each tensile bond test was repeated three times to avoid errors
induced by the testing. After each test, a new 3D printed sample
was used. The final tensile bond strength was the average value of
these three test values.
2.5. Measurement of the cross-sectional dimensions of the deposited
filament
In the extrusion and deposition process, different process may result
in various cross-sectional dimensions of the deposited filament.
Measuring the cross-sectional dimensions of the deposited filament in­
cludes three steps. Firstly, printing single-layer printed filaments with
various process parameters. Then, these samples were moisture cured
(20 ± 1 ◦ C, over 95% RH) till 28 days. Finally, each printed filament was
cut into three small pieces perpendicular to the moving direction of the
nozzle. The height (Hf) and the width (Wf) of the cross-section of three
small pieces were measured respectively, as shown as Fig. 5. The
average height value and average width value of three small pieces were
used to characterize the cross-sectional dimensions of the deposited
filament.
2.6. X–CT test
X− ray computed tomography (X–CT) is an important tool to obtain
the microstructure of 3D printed structures [66]. In order to compare the
microstructure of printed samples with various contact surface forces,
the printed samples with the maximum contact surface forces
(H-0.009m-v-0.09 m/s) and the minimum contact surface forces
(H-0.027m-v-0.09 m/s) were used for the X-CT tests in this paper.
Firstly, Double− layer printed filament (H-0.009m-v-0.09 m/s and
H-0.027m-v-0.09 m/s) were prepared. Then, these double− layer prin­
ted filament were cut into small pieces with length of 30 mm via a row of
strings. After curing for 28days under standard condition (20 ± 1 ◦ C,
over 95% RH), these small pieces were used for the X-CT tests. X-ray
microscope (Model: ZEISS Xradia 520 Versa) was used for the X-CT tests
in this paper, and the test resolution was set at 20 μm/px.
3. Numerical methods
3.1. Governing equations and numerical model
In the extrusion− deposition process, it is difficult to measure the
contact surface forces because of their continuously various value.
However, computational–fluid–dynamics (CFD) numerical simulation
can be used to visualize the force behaviour at any moment on the
T. Pan et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 133 (2022) 104675

Fig. 4. Measurement of tensile bond strength of printed structures.

previous research [72] also visualized the pressure and shear stress on
the contact surface via CFD numerical simulation, which provides a
clearer and intuitive understanding of the mechanism of the nozzle with
shaping–plate apparatus. In this paper, A single–phase computatio­
nal− fluid− dynamics (CFD) numerical simulation method was used to
visualize the pressure distribution in the material deposition process,
and calculate the contact surface forces. Volume of fluid (VOF) method
was adopted to track free interface. The extrusion− deposition process of
fresh cement mortar is governed by the continuity equation and the
momentum conservation equation for incompressible fluids:
Mass–conservation equation:
∇⋅u = 0 (2)
Momentum–conservation equation:
( )
∂u
ρ + u ⋅ ∇u = − ∇p + η∇2 u + ρg (3)
∂t
Fig. 5. Measurement of the cross-sectional dimensions of the depos­
ited filament. where u is the velocity vector field, ρ is the density of the fluid, p is the
pressure, η is the plastic viscosity of the fluid, g is the gravity accelera­
tion vector, and t is time. For cement–based materials, the density ρ was
set as a constant value of 2100 kg/m3. The plastic viscosity η and yield
stress σ were measured in section 2.2. Table 4 summarized all the ma­
terial parameters used in the CFD model.
Theoretically, a cuboid computational domain of 500 mm × 70 mm
× 200 mm should be used to contain all CFD components, in which the
extrusion–deposition process is carried out, as shown in Fig. 6. However,
due to the symmetric experimental layout in the extrusion–deposition
process, only half of the computational domain (500 mm × 35 mm ×
200 mm) needs to be calculated, which reduces the calculation time.
Therefore, a symmetric boundary condition is applied on the symmetric
plane. All other boundaries of the computational domain are set as
pressure outlets to facilitate the free outward flow of the cement mor­
tars. The whole computational domain is discretized into numerous
cubic grids with side length of 1 mm.
In CFD numerical simulation, all the printing variables and strategy

Table 4
Values of the material parameters of 3D printable cement mortars.
Fig. 6. Geometry and computational grid of the CFD model. Parameters Symbols Numerical values

Density ρ 2100 kg/m3

contact surface. Comminal et al. [59,60,67–71] visualized the pressure Yield stress σ 1542 Pa
distribution in the 3D printed structures via CFD numerical simulation, Plastic viscosity ηp 5.38 Pa s
and calculated the printing force on the contact surface. The author’s Elastic shear modulus (EVP model) G 200 kPa

4
T. Pan et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 133 (2022) 104675

are similar with experiments. A printhead− like “mass source” is used to
continuously supple cement mortar to the nozzle and ensure the
continuous printing process. Adherence, i.e., a no− slip condition, is
assumed to exist at the interface between the printing ink and extrusion
nozzle [73].
3.2. Experimental validation of the numerical model
The cross-sectional shape of the printed structures can serve as a
sound basis to validate numerical simulations. The cross-sectional shape
of the printed structures is obtained by slicing the numerical and
experimental printed geometries perpendicular to the printing direction.
In this section, the measured cross-sectional shape of the experimental
printed geometries under different printing conditions are compared
with the numerical simulation results, as shown in Fig. 7. A quantitative
comparison of the height (in the middle of the cross-section) and the
width of printed structures is reported in Fig. 8. It can be seen that the
numerical simulation results are in good qualitative and quantitative

Fig. 7. Comparison of the cross-sectional shapes from the simulations and experiments. (a. H-9mm-v-90 mm/s; b. H-13.5 mm-v-90 mm/s; c. H-18mm-v-50 mm/s; d.
H-18mm-v-70 mm/s; e. H-18mm-v-90 mm/s; f. H-18mm-v-110 mm/s; g. H-18mm-v-130 mm/s; h. H-22.5 mm-v-90 mm/s; i. H-27mm-v-90 mm/s).

5
T. Pan et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 133 (2022) 104675

Fig. 8. Comparison of the height and the width of printed structures from the simulations and experiments.

agreement with the experimental results, thus validating the CFD with the local pressure generated by self− weight of printed layer P0_X to
modelling approach. obtain the normalized local pressure P_X/P0_X. The normalized local
pressure P_X/P0_X distribution on the symmetry plane of printed struc­
tures and the contact surface along X− axis were shown in Fig. 9(a, b, c).
3.3. Measurement of contact surface forces Assuming that the pressure induced by self− weight of printed layer was
evenly distributed in X− axis direction, the normalized local pressure
Depositing of printing ink may result in the formation of contact P_X/P0_X can be calculated as follow:
surface forces, due to the squeezing action of extrudate and nozzle, and ∫ Ln×m
the self− weight of printed layer. In this paper, single–phase computa­ P X L×(m− 1) PdL
= n
m = 1, 2, …n − 1, n. (4)
tional− fluid− dynamics (CFD) numerical simulation was used to visu­ P0 X (m × g)/(S × n)
alize the pressure distribution and contact surface forces, as shown in
Fig. 9. Selecting a contact surface with length of L and dividing it into n where S is the area of contact surface, g is the acceleration of gravity, m is
small areas along the X− axis direction, as shown in Fig. 9(b). Then the the quality of the printed layer.
local average pressure P_X was obtained by calculating the average value The contact surface forces F corresponds to the integral of the pres­
of pressure in each area. The local average pressure P_X was normalized sure field over the contact surface:

Fig. 9. The normalized local pressure P_X/P0_X distribution on the symmetry plane of printed structures (a), on the contact surface (b) and its variation along
X− axis (c).

6
T. Pan et al.
∫ ∑
n to the formation of contact surface forces. These forces may promote the
F= PdS = S × P X
1
S
The gravity F0 of printed layer can be calculated as follow.
F0 = m × g = S × n × P 0 X (6)
The value of the contact surface forces F is normalized by the gravity
F0 of printed layer:
∫ ∑n )/
n (
F PdS 1P X
∑ P X
= S = = n (7)
F0 m × g n × P0 X 1
P0 X
The influence of nozzle stand− off distance and travel speed of the
nozzle on the normalized forces F/F0 were investigated in this paper.
4. Results
4.1. Interlayer bond strength
The interlayer bond strength of printed structures created at different
nozzle stand− off distance and travel speed of the nozzle were shown in
Fig. 10(a). The nozzle stand− off distance has significant influence on the
interlayer bond strength. With the increase of nozzle stand− off distance,
the interlayer bond strength of printed structures gradually decreases.
When the nozzle stand− off distance is equal to 0.018 m (i.e., Hnozzle =
Hlayer), the interlayer bond strength is 2.57 Mpa. When the nozzle
stand− off distance is reduced from 0.018 m to 0.0135 m (i.e., Hnozzle =
0.75 Hlayer) and 0.009 m (i.e., Hnozzle = 0.5 Hlayer), the interlayer bond
strength of printed structures is increased by 40.5% and 158.4%
respectively. When the nozzle stand− off distance is increased from
0.018 m to 0.0225 m (i.e., Hnozzle = 1.25 Hlayer) and 0.027 m (i.e., Hnozzle
= 1.5 Hlayer), the interlayer bond strength of printed structures is
reduced by 6.2% and 12.1% respectively.
Furthermore, increasing the moving speed of the nozzle, that is, the
travel speed of the nozzle, leads to an increase in the interlayer bond
strength, except for the case that travel speed of the nozzle is 0.13 m/s.
As shown in Fig. 10(b), the mixture with travel speed of the nozzle of
0.05 m/s obtains the lowest interlayer bond strength, while the mixture
with travel speed of the nozzle of 0.11 m/s gains the largest interlayer
bond strength. The interlayer bond strength of printed structures with
travel speed of the nozzle of 0.07 m/s, 0.09 m/s, 0.11 m/s and 0.13 m/s
are 1.2%, 3.6%, 4.0% and 3.2% higher than that with travel speed of the
nozzle of 0.05 m/s, respectively.
4.2. Force on the contact surface
Depositing of printing layer on the previous printed structures leads
Fig. 10. The tensile bond strength of printed structures varies with nozzle stand− off distance (a) and travel speed of the nozzle (b).
Cement and Concrete Composites 133 (2022) 104675
(5) contact between adjacent printed layers. In this paper, the pressure
distribution and contact surface forces were characterized via single­
–phase computational− fluid− dynamics (CFD) numerical simulation
method. The normalized local pressure distribution along X− axis P_X/
P0_X is uneven, as shown in Fig. 11(a and b). At the position where X is
close to 0 m, i.e., below the nozzle, higher value of P_X/P0_X and pressure
concentration appear. Then, as the value of X decreases, i.e., away from
the nozzle position, the value of P_X/P0_X gradually decreases. It is almost
constant of 1 at a distance of >5 cm (roughly) from the position below
the nozzle. This phenomenon illustrates that more pressures were
applied on the contact surface below the nozzle, such as the pressure
from the impact of the nozzle and extrudate, while the contact surface
far away from the nozzle only suffer from the gravity of the printing
layer itself.
The normalized forces F/F0 on the contact surface were calculated
and shown in Fig. 11(c and d). With the increase of nozzle stand− off
distance, the value of F/F0 decreases gradually. The mixtures created at
nozzle stand− off distance of 0.009 m obtains the largest value of F/F0.
The value of F/F0 with nozzle stand− off distance of 0.0135 m, 0.018 m,
0.0225 m and 0.027 m are lower of 38.2%, 49.0%, 50.9% and 52.0%
than that with nozzle stand− off distance of 0.009 m, respectively. This is
similar to the variation of interlayer bond strength with nozzle
stand− off distance. Thus, it is inferred that there may be some corre­
lation between the contact surface forces and interlayer bond strength.
With the increase of travel speed of the nozzle, the value of F/F0 increase
gradually, which is different from the variation of interlayer bond
strength with travel speed of the nozzle, especially for the printed
structures with travel speed of the nozzle of 0.13 m/s. The mixture with
the travel speed of the nozzle of 0.13 m/s obtains higher value of F/F0
than that with the travel speed of the nozzle of 0.09 m/s, but the
interlayer bond strength of the former is lower than that of the latter.
This may be explained by that high extrusion speed results in
shear− induced particle migration and more lubricating layer forming
on the surface [30,74], which has a negative effect on the hydration
process on the contact surface and fusion between adjacent print layers.
5. Analysis
In extrusion− based 3D printing technology for cement− based ma­
terials, a nozzle moves layer− by− layer to extrude material on the
deposited layers to create a three− dimensional object. When the
extrudate touches the deposited layers, normal forces and tangential
forces will be generated on the contact surface. Understanding the force
originates and measuring the magnitude of these forces is beneficial to
optimize the nozzle geometry and process parameters to minimize the
part deformation and improve the interlayer bonding of 3DPC.
7
T. Pan et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 133 (2022) 104675

Fig. 11. The normalized local pressure P_X/P0_X distribution along X− axis varies (a, b) and the normalized contact surface forces varies with nozzle stand− off
distance (c) and travel speed of the nozzle (d).

Fig. 12. The free body diagrams of the extrusion–based 3D printing contact surface forces.

8
T. Pan et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 133 (2022) 104675

Key factors that affect the magnitude of contact surface forces

include the viscosity of 3D printing ink, total flow− rate, travel speed of
the nozzle, nozzle geometry, nozzle stand–off distance and so on. Fig. 12
shows the free body diagrams of the extrusion–based 3D printing contact
surface forces. It can be found that two fundamental force components
on the contact surface are Fnd − normal force caused by deposited fluid
decelerating and Fng – normal force caused by the weight of the printing
filament, as shown in Fig. 12(a).
In addition, when the nozzle is slightly pressed into the printed
filament (i.e., Hnozzle < Hlayer)), a normal force caused by the nozzle
interacting with the deposited layer Fnn and a tangential force caused by
the nozzle movement through the deposited layer Ftn occur, as shown in
Fig. 12(c). Furthermore, the tangential force caused by the nozzle as it
drags and stretches the printing filament on the deposit layer or build
plate Ftd cannot be ignored, if Vprint is not properly matched with the
velocity of the extrudate from the nozzle Vflow [1,48], as shown in Fig. 12
(d).
Fig. 14. The relationship between the contact surface forces and the interlayer
Generally, higher normal force and shear force on the contact surface
bond strength of printed structures.
are beneficial to the connect between two layers and increases the
interlayer bond strength of 3DPC [62,74]. As shown in Fig. 13(a), higher
normal force is beneficial, because it is more likely to strengthen the obvious difference in the contact surface forces and mechanical prop­
bulk layer and the interfaces. If enough force is applied between adja­ erties of layer interface. The mechanism of how these process parame­
cent layers, they can be forced into intimate contact, which results in a ters influence the contact surface forces and interlayer bond strength of
compacted interlayer bonding structure and reduced defects. Alterna­ printed structures will be discussed as follow.
tively, if little force is applied to the contact surface, a large number of
pores are retained in the printed structure, especially in the interlayer 6.1. Effect of nozzle stand− off distance
transition zone, as shown in Fig. 13(b).
Plotting in Fig. 14 the measured interlayer bond strength as a func­ Nozzle stand− off distance (position of nozzle above the build surface
tion of contact surface forces. It can be noted that there is a remarkable or previous layer, NSD) is a critical process parameter, which not only
linear correlation between the force on the contact surface and the affects the surface quality, but also affects the interlayer bonding of
interlayer bond strength of printed structures. With the increase of printed structures [5,42]. For the case of high NSD (i.e., Hnozzle > Hlayer),
contact surface forces, the value of interlayer bond strength gradually as shown in Fig. 12(a), there are only two fundamental force compo­
increases, as shown in Fig. 14. The determination coefficient (R2) is nents Fnd and Fng on the contact surface. In this case, the interface is
0.99, which indicates that the relationship between the force on the rather weak and a large number of pores are retained in the interlayer
contact surface and the interlayer bond strength of printed structures transition zone [57,63], as shown in Fig. 13(b).
can be well described by using the linear. Except for the contact surface If nozzle stand− off distance is considered equal to the height of layer
forces, other factors also significantly affect the interlayer bond strength (i.e., Hnozzle = Hlayer), the force components are similar with the case of
of printed structures, such as environmental factors, material factors, high NSD, as shown in Fig. 12(b). In this case, the extruded mortar
interface diffusion, etc [16,76–78]. Therefore, when predicting the filament is smoothly deposited, and the interaction between the nozzle
interlayer bond strength of printed structures in the actual printing and the printed layer is avoided [4,38]. This case is generally defaulted
process, the effects of various factors should be comprehensively during 3D printing process.
considered, which is an interesting yet challenging research topic. For the case of low NSD (i.e., Hnozzle < Hlayer), as shown in Fig. 12(c),
the nozzle is slightly pressed into the printed filament, and a force
6. Discussion components Fnn is generated. This force may be attributed to the com­
bination of Poiseuille and drag flows between the nozzle and the pre­
Experimental and simulation results clearly show that the nozzle vious deposited layer [79]. Normal force Fnn generated in the green
stand− off distance and travel speed of the nozzle will result in an printed structures below the nozzle may improve compaction and

Fig. 13. X-CT results of the samples (a) H-0.009m-v-0.09 m/s and (b) H-0.027m-v-0.09 m/s.

9
T. Pan et al.
interface adhesion, and thus improve the mechanical properties of the
printed structures [4]. This case is supported by Bos et al. [4] and Nair
et al. [75] to mitigate layer defects and ensure better interfacial
properties.
For the interlayer bond strength standpoint, low NSD is beneficial,
because the contact surface forces result in compacted layers and in­
terlayers. However, low NSD may affect the accuracy of printing ge­
ometry, and result in stability issues, which may in turn affect interlayer
bonding [33]. In addition, for the print structure with pre-determined
height, low NSD may result in low height of the single-layer filament
and long print pathways, which would result in longer printing time
when using the same travel speed of nozzle and decrease the construc­
tion productivity.
6.2. Effect of travel speed of the nozzle
Travel speed of the nozzle is an important process parameter of
3D− printing technology, which has a great influence on the surface
quality and interlayer bonding [5,76]. For extrusion− based 3D printing,
if Vprint is not properly matched with the velocity of the extrudate from
the nozzle Vflow, a force component Ftd will appear, because the printed
structures may be inconsistent (with excess or less material at different
areas in the structures), which may significantly affect the surface
quality and mechanical properties [1,48]. Rahul et al. [80] suggest that
Vprint should keep consistent with Vflow to maintain good filament ge­
ometry and shape stability. In this paper, the value of Vprint is consistent
with the value of Vflow.
As the flow rate increases with the increase travel speed of the
nozzle, the vertical force Fnd and the subsequent back force F’nd increase
to cope up with required material deposition [81], as reported in Fig. 12
(d). This force component Fnd caused by the extruded fluid decelerating
and re− orient by 90◦ as it impacts the build surface or previous layers
can be calculated:
1 ( )2
Fnd = ρ Vflow (8)
2
where Vflow is the velocity through the exit of the nozzle. As described in
Equation (8), high travel speed of the nozzle Vprint may increase the
value of Vflow, and thus increase the forces (Fnd) on the contact surface.
Higher contact surface forces result in the increase of the interlayer bond
strength. Thus, it can be inferred that increasing the travel speed of the
nozzle in a certain range can improve the interlayer bond strength of
printed structures. A similar trend was reported by He et al. [63].
However, a higher travel speed of the nozzle Vprint may generates micro
voids between two layers which sometimes affect interlayer bond
strength of the printed part, as reported by Van der Putten et al. [43] and
Panda et al. [33].
It is ideal to use a higher travel speed of the nozzle in the 3D printing
process, which will shorten the printing time, thus improving the con­
struction speed. However, for the high travel speed of the nozzle, many
other parameters, such as the extrudability and buildability, needs to be
considered for efficient 3D printing. For example, due to higher re­
quirements for flow rate, high travel speed of the nozzle leads to an
increase in the forces for extruding the paste. When these forces
approach or exceed the capacity of the printer, they may lead to
discontinuous flow (broken filaments) or the entire flow will cease [81,
82]. Furthermore, high travel speed of the nozzle exposes higher re­
quirements for the thixotropy (or structural build-up) of printable
cement-based materials. High travel speed of the nozzle requires the
printing ink to obtain sufficient strength quickly before the next layer is
deposited. However, high travel speed of the nozzle will increase the
shear rate applied on the extrudate, which may result in the weakening
of thixotropic behavior of cement− based materials, because the
high− rate shear results in a higher degree of flocculation structure
breakdown and reduces the interaction force between particles,
10
Cement and Concrete Composites 133 (2022) 104675
consequently weakening the thixotropic behavior [25].
7. Conclusions
In this paper, the contact surface forces between adjacent layers
during printing and deposition process were visualized and quantita­
tively characterized via single–phase computational− fluid− dynamics
(CFD) numerical simulation method. The effects of two process pa­
rameters (nozzle stand− off distance and travel speed of the nozzle) on
the contact surface forces and the resulting interlayer bond strength
were investigated, aiming to reveal the relationship between the contact
surface forces and the interlayer bond strength of printed structures.
This paper is expected to provide a new perspective for explaining the
mechanism of interlayer bonding between adjacent layers, and the se­
lection of process parameters in concrete 3D printing. The following
results have been obtained:
(1) In the extrusion-deposition process, the outflow of the extrudate
and movement of the nozzle may strike and shear the previously
deposited layer, resulting in a highest pressure directly below the
nozzle, which is several times larger than those caused by the self-
weight of a single layer.
(2) Both nozzle stand− off distance and printed speed have a signif­
icant effect on the contact surface forces and the interlayer bond
strength of printed structures. Reducing the nozzle stand− off
distance would lead to the increases of contact surface forces and
interlayer bond strength. In a certain range, increasing the travel
speed of the nozzle may improve the contact surface forces and
interlayer bond strength.
(3) For the low nozzle stand− off distance (NSD) case, the nozzle was
slightly pressed into the printed filament and resulted in a layer
pressing strategy. The normal force caused by the nozzle inter­
acting with the deposited layer would significantly increase the
contact surface forces.
(4) Force− driven intimate contact is the first stage of adhesion be­
tween adjacent layers. There is a significant linear relationship
between the contact surface forces and the interlayer bond
strength of printed structures. If enough force is applied on the
contact surface, the adjacent layers can be forced into intimate
contact, which results in compacted interlayer bonding structure
and reduced defects, and thus increases the interlayer bond
strength of printed structures.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tinghong Pan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Rongxin Guo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review &
editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Yaqing Jiang: Conceptuali­
zation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding
acquisition. Xuping Ji: Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors are unable or have chosen not to specify which data has
been used.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the projects “Study on the
T. Pan et al.
propagation mechanism of mechanical and pressure-sensitive properties
of graphene/cement composites after hygro-thermo-mechanical
coupling treatment (11962009)”. This project is supported by the Nat­
ural Science Foundation of China (NSFC).
References
[1] Y.W.D. Tay, B. Panda, S.C. Paul, N.A. Noor Mohamed, M.J. Tan, K.F. Leong, 3D
printing trends in building and construction industry: a review, Virtual Phys.
Prototyp. 12 (2017) 261–276.
[2] R.A. Buswell, W.L. De Silva, S.Z. Jones, J. Dirrenberger, 3D printing using concrete
extrusion: a roadmap for research, Cement Concr. Res. 112 (2018) 37–49.
[3] S.C. Paul, G.P. van Zijl, M.J. Tan, I. Gibson, A review of 3D concrete printing
systems and materials properties: current status and future research prospects,
Rapid Prototyp. J. (2018).
[4] F. Bos, R. Wolfs, Z. Ahmed, T. Salet, Additive manufacturing of concrete in
construction: potentials and challenges of 3D concrete printing, Virtual Phys.
Prototyp. 11 (2016) 209–225.
[5] F. Lyu, D. Zhao, X. Hou, L. Sun, Q. Zhang, Overview of the development of 3D-
printing concrete: a review, Appl. Sci. 11 (2021) 9822.
[6] N. Roussel, Rheological requirements for printable concretes, Cement Concr. Res.
112 (2018) 76–85.
[7] Y. Tay, B.N. Panda, G. Ting, N. Ahamed, M.J. Tan, C.K. Chua, 3D printing for
sustainable construction, in: Industry 4.0–Shaping the Future of the Digital World,
CRC Press, 2020, pp. 119–123.
[8] V.N. Nerella, S. Hempel, V. Mechtcherine, Effects of layer-interface properties on
mechanical performance of concrete elements produced by extrusion-based 3D-
printing, Construct. Build. Mater. 205 (2019) 586–601.
[9] T. Pan, Y. Jiang, X. Ji, Interlayer bonding investigation of 3D printing cementitious
materials with fluidity-retaining polycarboxylate superplasticizer and high-
dispersion polycarboxylate superplasticizer, Construct. Build. Mater. 330 (2022),
127151.
[10] A. Perrot, D. Rangeard, A. Pierre, Structural built-up of cement-based materials
used for 3D-printing extrusion techniques, Mater. Struct. 49 (2016) 1213–1220.
[11] T.J. Coogan, D.O. Kazmer, Bond and Part Strength in Fused Deposition Modeling,
Rapid Prototyping J, 2017.
[12] K.R. Hart, R.M. Dunn, J.M. Sietins, C.M.H. Mock, M.E. Mackay, E.D. Wetzel,
Increased fracture toughness of additively manufactured amorphous
thermoplastics via thermal annealing, Polymer 144 (2018) 192–204.
[13] T.J. Coogan, D.O. Kazmer, Modeling of interlayer contact and contact pressure
during fused filament fabrication, J. Rheol. 63 (2019) 655–672.
[14] S.A. Tronvoll, T. Welo, C.W. Elverum, The effects of voids on structural properties
of fused deposition modelled parts: a probabilistic approach, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 97 (2018) 3607–3618.
[15] J. Kruger, G. van Zijl, A compendious review on lack-of-fusion in digital concrete
fabrication, Addit. Manuf. 37 (2021), 101654.
[16] V. Mechtcherine, F.P. Bos, A. Perrot, W.L. Da Silva, V.N. Nerella, S. Fataei, R.
J. Wolfs, M. Sonebi, N. Roussel, Extrusion-based additive manufacturing with
cement-based materials – production steps, processes, and their underlying
physics: a review, Cement Concr. Res. 132 (2020), 106037.
[17] M.K. Mohan, A.V. Rahul, G. De Schutter, K. Van Tittelboom, Extrusion-based
concrete 3D printing from a material perspective: a state-of-the-art review, Cem.
Concr. Compos. 115 (2021), 103855.
[18] D. Lowke, D. Talke, I. Dressler, D. Weger, C. Gehlen, C. Ostertag, R. Rael, Particle
bed 3D printing by selective cement activation–Applications, material and process
technology, Cement Concr. Res. 134 (2020), 106077.
[19] I. Dressler, N. Freund, D. Lowke, The effect of accelerator dosage on fresh concrete
properties and on interlayer strength in shotcrete 3D printing, Materials 13 (2020)
374.
[20] G.H. Andrew Ting, T.K. Noel Quah, J.H. Lim, Y.W. Daniel Tay, M.J. Tan,
Extrudable region parametrical study of 3D printable concrete using recycled glass
concrete, J. Build. Eng. 50 (2022), 104091.
[21] T. Wangler, E. Lloret, L. Reiter, N. Hack, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, M. Bernhard,
B. Dillenburger, J. Buchli, N. Roussel, Digital concrete: opportunities and
challenges, Rilem. Tech. Lett. 1 (2016) 67–75.
[22] N. Roussel, F. Cussigh, Distinct-layer casting of SCC: the mechanical consequences
of thixotropy, Cement Concr. Res. 38 (2008) 624–632.
[23] T. Pan, Y. Jiang, H. He, Y. Wang, K. Yin, Effect of structural build-up on interlayer
bond strength of 3D printed cement mortars, Materials 14 (2021) 236.
[24] B. Zareiyan, B. Khoshnevis, Effects of interlocking on interlayer adhesion and
strength of structures in 3D printing of concrete, Autom. ConStruct. 83 (2017)
212–221.
[25] Y. Weng, M. Li, D. Zhang, M.J. Tan, S. Qian, Investigation of interlayer adhesion of
3D printable cementitious material from the aspect of printing process, Cement
Concr. Res. 143 (2021), 106386.
[26] B. Panda, N.A. Noor Mohamed, S.C. Paul, G. Bhagath Singh, M.J. Tan, B. Šavija,
The effect of material fresh properties and process parameters on buildability and
interlayer adhesion of 3D printed concrete, Materials 12 (2019) 2149.
[27] N. Roussel, G. Ovarlez, S. Garrault, C. Brumaud, The origins of thixotropy of fresh
cement pastes, Cement Concr. Res. 42 (2012) 148–157.
[28] E. Keita, H. Bessaies-Bey, W. Zuo, P. Belin, N. Roussel, Weak bond strength
between successive layers in extrusion-based additive manufacturing:
measurement and physical origin, Cement Concr. Res. 123 (2019), 105787.
11
Cement and Concrete Composites 133 (2022) 104675
[29] G.H.A. Ting, Y.W.D. Tay, M.J. Tan, Experimental measurement on the effects of
recycled glass cullets as aggregates for construction 3D printing, J. Clean. Prod.
300 (2021), 126919.
[30] J.G. Sanjayan, B. Nematollahi, M. Xia, T. Marchment, Effect of surface moisture on
inter-layer strength of 3D printed concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 172 (2018)
468–475.
[31] S. Christ, M. Schnabel, E. Vorndran, J. Groll, U. Gbureck, Fiber reinforcement
during 3D printing, Mater. Lett. 139 (2015) 165–168.
[32] R. Wolfs, F.P. Bos, T. Salet, Hardened properties of 3D printed concrete: the
influence of process parameters on interlayer adhesion, Cement Concr. Res. 119
(2019) 132–140.
[33] B. Panda, S.C. Paul, N.A.N. Mohamed, Y.W.D. Tay, M.J. Tan, Measurement of
tensile bond strength of 3D printed geopolymer mortar, Measurement 113 (2018)
108–116.
[34] T.T. Le, S.A. Austin, S. Lim, R.A. Buswell, A.G. Gibb, T. Thorpe, Mix design and
fresh properties for high-performance printing concrete, Mater. Struct. 45 (2012)
1221–1232.
[35] S. Austin, P. Robins, Y. Pan, Shear bond testing of concrete repairs, Cement Concr.
Res. 29 (1999) 1067–1076.
[36] J. Van Der Putten, G. De Schutter, K. Van Tittelboom, Surface modification as a
technique to improve inter-layer bonding strength in 3D printed cementitious
materials, Rilem. Tech. Lett. 4 (2019) 33–38.
[37] B. Panda, N.A.N. Mohamed, Y.W.D. Tay, M.J. Tan, Bond strength in 3D printed
geopolymer mortar, in: RILEM International Conference on Concrete and Digital
Fabrication, Springer, 2018, pp. 200–206.
[38] R.J. Wolfs, F.P. Bos, T. Salet, Early age mechanical behaviour of 3D printed
concrete: numerical modelling and experimental testing, Cement Concr. Res. 106
(2018) 103–116.
[39] T. Marchment, M. Xia, E. Dodd, J. Sanjayan, B. Nematollahi, Effect of delay time on
the mechanical properties of extrusion-based 3D printed concrete, in: ISARC.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in
Construction, IAARC Publications, 2017.
[40] Y. Chen, K. Jansen, H. Zhang, C.R. Rodriguez, Y. Gan, O. Çopuroğlu, E. Schlangen,
Effect of printing parameters on interlayer bond strength of 3D printed limestone-
calcined clay-based cementitious materials: an experimental and numerical study,
Construct. Build. Mater. 262 (2020), 120094.
[41] R.J.M. Wolfs, Experimental Characterization and Numerical Modelling of 3D
Printed Concrete: Controlling Structural Behaviour in the Fresh and Hardened
State, 2019.
[42] T. Marchment, J. Sanjayan, M. Xia, Method of enhancing interlayer bond strength
in construction scale 3D printing with mortar by effective bond area amplification,
Mater. Des. 169 (2019), 107684.
[43] J. Van Der Putten, G. De Schutter, K. Van Tittelboom, The effect of print
parameters on the (micro) structure of 3D printed cementitious materials, in:
RILEM International Conference on Concrete and Digital Fabrication, Springer,
2018, pp. 234–244.
[44] Y.W.D. Tay, G.H.A. Ting, Y. Qian, B. Panda, L. He, M.J. Tan, Time gap effect on
bond strength of 3D-printed concrete, Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 14 (2019) 104–113.
[45] Y.W.D. Tay, J.H. Lim, M. Li, M.J. Tan, Creating functionally graded concrete
materials with varying 3D printing parameters, Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 17 (2022)
662–681.
[46] T. Ding, J. Xiao, S. Zou, Y. Wang, Hardened properties of layered 3D printed
concrete with recycled sand, Cem. Concr. Compos. 113 (2020), 103724.
[47] B. Panda, S. Ruan, C. Unluer, M.J. Tan, Improving the 3D printability of high
volume fly ash mixtures via the use of nano attapulgite clay, Compos. B Eng. 165
(2019) 75–83.
[48] R.J. Wolfs, T.A. Salet, N. Roussel, Filament geometry control in extrusion-based
additive manufacturing of concrete: the good, the bad and the ugly, Cement Concr.
Res. 150 (2021), 106615.
[49] L. Wang, Z. Tian, G. Ma, M. Zhang, Interlayer bonding improvement of 3D printed
concrete with polymer modified mortar: experiments and molecular dynamics
studies, Cem. Concr. Compos. 110 (2020), 103571.
[50] N. Roussel, M.R. Geiker, F. Dufour, L.N. Thrane, P. Szabo, Computational modeling
of concrete flow: general overview, Cement Concr. Res. 37 (2007) 1298–1307.
[51] N. Roussel, Correlation between yield stress and slump: comparison between
numerical simulations and concrete rheometers results, Mater. Struct. 39 (2006)
501–509.
[52] N. Roussel, A. Gram, M. Cremonesi, L. Ferrara, K. Krenzer, V. Mechtcherine,
S. Shyshko, J. Skocec, J. Spangenberg, O. Svec, Numerical simulations of concrete
flow: a benchmark comparison, Cement Concr. Res. 79 (2016) 265–271.
[53] L.N. Thrane, P. Szabo, M. Geiker, M. Glavind, H. Stang, Simulation and verification
of flow in SCC test methods, in: Proc. Of the 4th Int. RILEM Symp. on SCC, Hanley
Wood Chicago, 2005.
[54] J.E. Wallevik, W. Mansour, O.H. Wallevik, Computational segregation analysis
during casting of SCC, in: Rheology and Processing of Construction Materials,
Springer, 2019, pp. 652–659.
[55] J. Spangenberg, N. Roussel, J.H. Hattel, H. Stang, J. Skocek, M.R. Geiker, Flow
induced particle migration in fresh concrete: theoretical frame, numerical
simulations and experimental results on model fluids, Cement Concr. Res. 42
(2012) 633–641.
[56] K. Vasilic, W. Schmidt, N. Roussel, Flow of fresh concrete through reinforced
elements: experimental validation of the porous analogy numerical method, Cem,
Concr. Res. 88 (2016) 1–6.
[57] L. He, J.Z.M. Tan, W.T. Chow, H. Li, J. Pan, Design of novel nozzles for higher
interlayer strength of 3D printed cement paste, Addit. Manuf. (2021), 102452.
T. Pan et al.
[58] A. Perrot, A. Pierre, V.N. Nerella, R. Wolfs, E. Keita, S. Nair, N. Neithalath,
N. Roussel, V. Mechtcherine, From analytical methods to numerical simulations: a
process engineering toolbox for 3D concrete printing, Cem. Concr. Compos. (2021),
104164.
[59] R. Comminal, W.R.L. Da Silva, T.J. Andersen, H. Stang, J. Spangenberg, Influence
of processing parameters on the layer geometry in 3D concrete printing:
experiments and modelling, in: RILEM International Conference on Concrete and
Digital Fabrication, Springer, 2020, pp. 852–862.
[60] R. Comminal, W.R.L. Da Silva, T.J. Andersen, H. Stang, J. Spangenberg, Modelling
of 3D concrete printing based on computational fluid dynamics, Cement Concr.
Res. 138 (2020), 106256.
[61] N. Roussel, J. Spangenberg, J. Wallevik, R. Wolfs, Numerical simulations of
concrete processing: from standard formative casting to additive manufacturing,
Cement Concr. Res. 135 (2020), 106075.
[62] Z. Liu, M. Li, Y.W.D. Tay, Y. Weng, T.N. Wong, M.J. Tan, Rotation nozzle and
numerical simulation of mass distribution at corners in 3D cementitious material
printing, Addit. Manuf. 34 (2020), 101190.
[63] L. He, W.T. Chow, H. Li, Effects of interlayer notch and shear stress on interlayer
strength of 3D printed cement paste, Addit. Manuf. 36 (2020), 101390.
[64] K. Manikandan, K. Wi, X. Zhang, K. Wang, H. Qin, Characterizing cement mixtures
for concrete 3D printing, Mater. Lett. 24 (2020) 33–37.
[65] R.S. Campos, G.F. Maciel, Test protocol and rheological model influence on
determining the rheological properties of cement pastes, J. Build. Eng. 44 (2021),
103206.
[66] J. Kruger, A. du Plessis, G. van Zijl, An investigation into the porosity of extrusion-
based 3D printed concrete, Addit. Manuf. 37 (2021), 101740.
[67] R. Comminal, S. Jafarzadeh, M. Serdeczny, J. Spangenberg, Estimations of
interlayer contacts in extrusion additive manufacturing using a CFD model, in:
International Conference on Additive Manufacturing in Products and Applications,
Springer, 2020, pp. 241–250.
[68] R. Comminal, M.P. Serdeczny, N. Ranjbar, M. Mehrali, D.B. Pedersen, H. Stang,
J. Spangenberg, Modelling of material deposition in big area additive
manufacturing and 3D concrete printing, in: Joint Special Interest Group Meeting
between Euspen and ASPE–Advancing Precision in Additive Manufacturing, 2019.
[69] R. Comminal, M.P. Serdeczny, D.B. Pedersen, J. Spangenberg, Numerical modeling
of the strand deposition flow in extrusion-based additive manufacturing, Addit.
Manuf. 20 (2018) 68–76.
12
Cement and Concrete Composites 133 (2022) 104675
[70] R. Comminal, M.P. Serdeczny, D.B. Pedersen, J. Spangenberg, Numerical
simulation of extrusion-based additive manufacturing-Effect of the nozzle
geometry on the strand cross-section, in: 18th International Conference of the
European Society for Precision Engineering and Nanotechnology (Euspen 18), The
European Society for Precision Engineering and Nanotechnology, 2018,
pp. 285–286.
[71] M.T. Mollah, R. Comminal, M.P. Serdeczny, D.B. Pedersen, J. Spangenberg,
Stability and deformations of deposited layers in material extrusion additive
manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 46 (2021), 102193.
[72] T. Pan, H. Teng, H. Liao, Y. Jiang, C. Qian, Y. Wang, Effect of shaping plate
apparatus on mechanical properties of 3D printed cement-based materials:
experimental and numerical studies, Cement Concr. Res. 155 (2022), 106785.
[73] J.W. Jaworski, Fluid Dynamics: Part 1: Classical Fluid Dynamics, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2015.
[74] R.D. Browne, P.B. Bamforth, Tests to establish concrete pumpability, Journal
Proceedings (1977) 193–203.
[75] S.A. Nair, A. Tripathi, N. Neithalath, Examining layer height effects on the flexural
and fracture response of plain and fiber-reinforced 3D-printed beams, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 124 (2021), 104254.
[76] A.J. Babafemi, J.T. Kolawole, M.J. Miah, S.C. Paul, B. Panda, A concise review on
interlayer bond strength in 3D concrete printing, Sustainability-Basel 13 (2021)
7137.
[77] L. Ma, Q. Zhang, Z. Jia, C. Liu, Z. Deng, Y. Zhang, Effect of drying environment on
mechanical properties, internal RH and pore structure of 3D printed concrete,
Construct. Build. Mater. (2021), 125731.
[78] G.M. Moelich, J. Kruger, R. Combrinck, Modelling the interlayer bond strength of
3D printed concrete with surface moisture, Cement Concr. Res. 150 (2021),
106559.
[79] T.J. Coogan, D.O. Kazmer, Prediction of interlayer strength in material extrusion
additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 35 (2020), 101368.
[80] A.V. Rahul, M. Santhanam, H. Meena, Z. Ghani, 3D printable concrete: mixture
design and test methods, Cem. Concr. Compos. 97 (2019) 13–23.
[81] S. Nair, S. Panda, A. Tripathi, N. Neithalath, Relating print velocity and extrusion
characteristics of 3D-printable cementitious binders: implications towards testing
methods, Addit, Man 46 (2021), 102127.
[82] S.A.O. Nair, S. Panda, M. Santhanam, G. Sant, N. Neithalath, A critical examination
of the influence of material characteristics and extruder geometry on 3D printing of
cementitious binders, Cem. Concr. Compos. 112 (2020), 103671.