Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Review

3D printing with cementitious materials: Challenges and opportunities for

the construction sector
Rafael Robayo-Salazar, Ruby Mejía de Gutiérrez *, Mónica A. Villaquirán-Caicedo,
Silvio Delvasto Arjona
Composite Materials Group (CENM), School of Materials Engineering, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia

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

Keywords: This review article includes a description of additive manufacturing from its advantages and opportunities for the
Additive manufacturing construction sector, highlighting the definition of a design methodology for cementitious material mixes suitable
3D concrete printing for 3D printing and the properties required of them. Included among the materials analyzed are conventional
3D printers
ones based on Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and non-conventional ones, with alkali-activated materials
Building materials
Cementitious materials
(geopolymers) to the fore. In United States, Europe and Asia this technology has interesting construction projects,
Alkali-activated materials however, in Latin America, 3D printing is still in the experimental phase, so it can be considered as a technology
Geopolymers that is in the process of being adopted. The results obtained in the development and research phase in different
countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Peru, among others, are promising and it is
projected as an industrial reality in the near future. This paper presents the main challenges and opportunities in
implementing additive manufacturing.

1. Introduction and bibliometric analysis
Additive manufacturing, as defined by ASTM Committee F42 [1], is
the layer-by-layer fabrication of an element or piece from a 3D
computer-aided design (CAD). Application of this concept in the con­
struction sector is considered an innovative and revolutionary solution
to the current challenges of the industry [2]. It enables printing parts
with a complex geometry - without using molds and with minimum
labor - while reducing both construction times and waste generation,
among other advantages. Additive manufacturing is assured a promising
future and will undoubtedly be employed widely by the construction
sector for the 3D printing of housing, sustainably and at a more
affordable cost. This possibility has resulted in a growing interest in the
scientific community worldwide, becoming one of the lines of research
with the greatest projection and potential for technology transfer at an
industrial level. In Latin American, implementation of additive
manufacturing in constructing housing and civil infrastructure is still in
the experimental phase. However, the technology is acknowledged as
the construction method of the future.
Given the above, initially a bibliometric analysis was carried out to
analyze the behavior of scientific production and the international
interest in 3D printing of cementitious material. The analysis was based
on the results of an advanced search conducted in Elsevier’s Scopus
database, using the TITLE-ABS-KEY formula: 3d AND printing OR printed
AND concrete. The results obtained correspond to those reported up to
October 2022, the date on which the query was last updated. From the
bibliometric data extracted, a mapping of the co-occurrences of the
keywords (text mining) was carried out using VOSviewer free software.
The search returned a total of 1657 documents published between 1998
and 2022 (October) (Fig. 1). In general, the results show a trend of
exponential growth in the number of publications related to the key­
words, especially from the year 2015, soaring from just 11 documents
reported that year to 377 by 2021. China reports the most publications
to date, with 302 documents, followed by the United States with 227,
Germany with 172 and Australia with 153 publications. The author with
the most publications related to this search is Jay G. Sanjayan from the
Swinburne University of Technology (Melbourne, Australia) with 59 doc­
uments, followed by Viktor Mechtcherine from the Technishe Universität
Dresden (Dresden, Germany) with 58 and Ming J. Tan of the Singapore
Center for 3D Printing (Singapore City, Singapore) with 39 publications.
Meanwhile, the distribution of publications by areas of knowledge
yielded Engineering as the first result with 45.5% (1358 documents),

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rafael.robayo@correounivalle.edu.co (R. Robayo-Salazar), ruby.mejia@correounivalle.edu.co (R. Mejía de Gutiérrez), monica.villaquiran@
correounivalle.edu.co (M.A. Villaquirán-Caicedo), silvio.delvasto@correounivalle.edu.co (S. Delvasto Arjona).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104693
Received 29 September 2022; Received in revised form 14 November 2022; Accepted 26 November 2022
Available online 5 December 2022
0926-5805/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R. Robayo-Salazar et al. Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693

Fig. 1. Trend of the number of publications related to the search (TITLE-ABS-

KEY): 3d AND printing OR printed AND concrete. Information collected from the
Fig. 3. Mapping of the density of co-occurrences related to the keywords (“3d”
Scopus database.
AND “printing” OR “printed” AND “concrete”). Analysis performed in the VOS­
viewer software.
followed by Materials Science with 24.9% (744 documents).
The analysis of co-occurrences of the keywords reported in the bib­
(yellow). Among the results, co-occurrences predominate related to the
liometric analysis can be seen in Fig. 2 (clusters) and Fig. 3 (mapping the
word “geopolymers”, also known as alkali-activated materials. This type
density of the co-occurrences). As can be seen, there are four clusters,
of non-conventional cementitious material is one of the options with the
related to the following keywords: 1) “3d printers” (red); 2) “cementitious
greatest potential for implementation in 3D technology, as will be
materials” (green); 3) “geopolymers” (blue) and 4) “3d concrete printing”

Fig. 2. Analysis carried out in the VOSviewer software of the main clusters identified in text mining (co-occurrences) applied to the combination TITLE-ABS-KEY (3d
AND printing OR printed AND concrete) (search carried out in Scopus). Cluster 1 (red): 3D printers; Cluster 2 (green): cementitious materials; Cluster 3 (blue): geo­
polymers; Cluster 4 (yellow) 3D concrete printing. Analysis performed in the VOSviewer software. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

2
R. Robayo-Salazar et al.
emphasized later in Section 4.2.
The bibliometric analysis identified the topics of interest to the sci­
entific community and thus defined the topics addressed in this study.
Based on this analysis, this article presents the challenges and op­
portunities for academia and the industry of the construction sector,
especially in those countries where the technology is still in the initial
phase of development. Additionally, a methodology to be followed for
the design and characterization of cement mixes suitable for 3D printing
is proposed. Based on this methodology, the additive manufacturing of
both conventional OPC-based and non-conventional cementitious ma­
terials is analyzed, placing emphasis on geopolymers or alkali-activated
materials. Finally, the main challenges for the construction sector to
implement large format 3D printing are highlighted specifically in those
countries where it is still in the experimental phase.
2. Additive manufacturing: Advantages and opportunities in the
construction sector
3D printing is an automated process of fabrication of products layer
by layer. As a result, the technology acquires the name of “additive
manufacturing” and is considered one of the pillars of the fourth in­
dustrial revolution or “Industries 4.0”. In recent years, the construction
industry has come to consider the use of 3D technology due to the ad­
vantages it offers compared to conventional construction methods [3].
Although the term additive manufacturing has become very popular in
the last decade, application of this concept in the construction sector is
not new, since, for example, the use of slip forming techniques or
shotcrete technology has been widely used and numerous structures
have been built in sectors where traditional construction is not feasible,
or would have been too complex, making the execution time of the work
unfeasible [4].
Among the most outstanding advantages of 3D printing compared
with traditional construction methods are those listed in Fig. 4.
In general, the higher productivity of 3D printing technology is due
to faster construction processes and reduced labor demand [5]. It is
estimated that the 3D construction process takes a quarter of the time to
build a structure compared to conventional methods [6,7]. This
advantage can take on greater importance in the case of natural disasters
(hurricanes, earthquakes, or others) or armed conflicts, where 3D
Fig. 4. Advantages of 3D printing (additive manufacturing) in the construc­
tion sector.
3
Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693
technology would allow the restoration, in a short time, of the infra­
structure and housing that have been affected. Likewise, the application
of this technology can reduce the volume of construction waste to almost
zero values (zero waste manufacturing). Another extremely important
advantage for ensuring the sustainability of the construction sector is the
possibility of reducing the demand for materials compared to conven­
tional (subtractive) construction methods, thus reducing the environ­
mental impact. This is achieved through the integration of the concept of
typological optimization in 3D printing, which in turn allows structural
lightening while maintaining the mechanical functionalities of the
target component and reducing the weight loads of buildings.
Additionally, 3D printing can reduce the cost of structures compared
to conventional methods, since in the latter, labor can represent >50%
of the total cost, and materials and equipment could represent as much
as an additional 20%. In the case of 3D printed structures, although the
cost of the material may be higher, the cost of labor and occupational
accidents are significantly reduced [8]. In this regard, Ma & Wang [9]
present a comparative analysis of the construction of a low wall from
two methods; the traditional based on conventional concrete and 3D
printing. The authors consider the costs associated with the material,
pumping, labor and the use of forms, reporting that with 3D printing
technology, and applying the methods currently developed, the cost
reduction is 78%. The authors point out that, in the future, with new
developments in materials and equipment for 3D printing, the per­
centage of cost reduction may increase. Thus, at the beginning of the
construction of housing by 3D printing, it was estimated that the costs of
a habitable house were reduced by 20%. Currently with new techno­
logical developments it is estimated that savings of up to 50% can be
achieved. Additionally, some authors [10] highlight that the use of 3D
printing can promote greater thermal insulation of the building and
reduce energy consumption achieving structures with greater thermal
comfort. This is possible printing of geometries designed for a higher
level of thermal insulation (cellular or lattice structures) or modifying
the mix to print, by incorporating air bubbles or aerogels [10].
As shown in Fig. 5, 3D printing allows greater design freedom and
the manufacture of elements with complex geometries that adapt to the
futuristic vision of modern architecture [11]. This technology likewise
facilitates the design of functional buildings and favors modular con­
struction from large-format prefabricated elements. These innovative
systems not only contribute to the efficiency of the construction pro­
cesses, but also of the deconstruction processes. In other words, a
modular construction based on 3D printed elements would facilitate the
selective demolition of buildings and therefore reduce the waste
generated. Together, these techniques point to the construction sector
adapting to the concept of the Circular Economy and at the same time
projecting itself towards a “zero waste” industry, according to the Sus­
tainable Development Goals (SDG) established by Agenda 2030 [12].
Indeed, the need to comply with the principles of sustainability in
construction processes requires the use of innovative methods that allow
the negative environmental impacts generated by the construction
sector to be mitigated, at least partially [7]. Taking into account that the
construction sector has been considered responsible for a high impact
due to high energy consumption (40%), generation of solid waste (40%),
CO2 emissions (38%) and water consumption (68%) [8], 3D printing
technology is promoted as an alternative option to conventional con­
struction processes. However, among the recommendations for the use
of 3D printing technology, it is stated that the raw materials used must
be local to ensure their technical, economic, and environmental sus­
tainability. With this purpose in mind, local printing reduces costs, de­
lays and the ecological footprint associated with the transportation of
the various materials and tools necessary to carry out the construction
project. It means then that 3D printing should preferably use local or
recycled (waste) materials, applying the concepts of the Circular
Economy.
To evaluate that a construction process is sustainable, a Life Cycle
Analysis (LCA) must be conducted. Alhumayani et al. [14] researched
R. Robayo-Salazar et al.
Fig. 5. Some applications of additive manufacturing of cementitious materials. Source: the authors from [13].
the environmental impacts of large-scale 3D printing compared to
conventional construction methods, using two different types of build­
ing materials: concrete and adobe. The results obtained showed that
adobe-based methods generate lower environmental impacts, that is, a
lower global warming potential (GWP) than concrete-based methods,
which is attributable to the OPC content. However, they highlight that,
even so, the use of OPC concrete in 3D printing is less polluting (50%)
than the use of the same material by conventional methods.
4
Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693
Elsewhere, Weng et al. [15] compared the economic costs, envi­
ronmental impacts and productivity associated with an element pre­
fabricated with the conventional system versus the implementation of
3D printing. In this case, they analyzed the consumption of material,
electrical expenditure, labor, and productivity. The results showed a
25.4% reduction in total cost, 85% less CO2 emissions and 87.1% less
energy consumption. Overall, productivity was improved by 48% with
the use of additive manufacturing technology.
R. Robayo-Salazar et al.
Although successful cases have been reported using cementitious
materials, such as those presented in Fig. 5, there are still issues that
have not been fully resolved in order to take advantage of the full po­
tential of 3D structural printing. These limitations include the following:
i) the modification of the properties in the fresh and hardened state of
the cementitious materials through the use of additions and special
additives, ii) the 3D printing of fiber reinforced concretes, iii) the
addition of reinforcement during the 3D printing process iv) the dura­
bility of the structures printed in concrete, and v) the inclusion of 3D
technology in construction codes and standards. These are some of the
current challenges that should be the object of research both at an ac­
ademic and industrial level [16].
3. Cementitious material mix design methodology and
properties required for 3D printing
Selection of the material to be printed must take account of the
material’s own parameters (properties in the fresh and hardened state)
as well as the printing parameters (nozzle size, extrusion pressure,
printing speed, size, and shape of element, etc.). In general, cementitious
material suitable for 3D printing must have adequate extrusion capacity
(moldable and extrudable material), be fluid, be buildable, have an
adequate setting time, dimensional stability (low shrinkage) and possess
a certain level of mechanical strength (structural applications).
A methodology for the optimization of cementitious material based
on the properties and variables of the additive manufacturing process is
Fig. 6. Methodology for the design and optimization of cementitious material for 3D printing.
5
Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693
proposed in Fig. 6. Among the most important parameters to take into
account for the design of the 3D printing cementitious materials are the
following:
• Extrudability: cementitious materials used in 3D printing must have
an acceptable degree of extrusion. This parameter is related to the
ability of the material to be supplied continuously through the
extrusion system and the pipes that transport it to the printing
nozzle. Evaluation of this capacity must be carried out by adjusting
extrusion pressure and nozzle design, since these process parameters
directly influence it.
• Flowability: this is considered a key parameter for assessing the
printing performance of a cement mix. The printing process requires
the printable mix to flow through the pipes, pass through the nozzle
and be deposited layer by layer on the printing surface. One of the
design parameters that control the fluidity of mixes is the water/
cement ratio. Likewise, the use of superplasticizer admixtures has a
significant effect on this property, with the type and dose of
admixture being the most influential parameters. For their part, the
size distribution, morphology, and absorption capacity of the parti­
cles are factors that govern the rheological properties and therefore
the fluidity in the fresh state of cementitious materials. Through an
adequate dosage of the mix. Fillers densify the microstructure by
filling the voids between particles (greater packing) and exert a
lubricating effect to prevent the cement particles from flocculating
together, thus improving the fluidity of the mix in the fresh state.
R. Robayo-Salazar et al.
• Buildability: this refers to the ability of the material to retain its
extruded shape under the action of its own weight and the pressure of
the upper layers. The rheological properties of the cementitious
material must ensure accurate deposition and maintain shape just
after deposition, being strong enough to support the weight of sub­
sequent layers without collapsing and still be able to bond with
adjacent layers. Buildability of cementitious materials can be
controlled by viscosity modifying agents and optimization of the mix
setting time. Design aspects (geometry and/or number of layers
(height)) of the element can affect the buildability of a cementitious
material and as a result must be taken into account in assessing a mix.
• Setting time: this must be long enough to ensure a continuous supply
of material through the pipes while ensuring rapid modeling of the
piece. However, once deposited in its place, the material requires a
short setting time to achieve sufficient strength to support the upper
layers. Adjustment of mix setting time is based on the size of the
element to be printed and the inter-layer time. A short setting time
could affect the adhesion between layers and therefore the me­
chanical strength of the element. A very long setting time meanwhile
would affect the buildability of the material, causing the piece to slip
and collapse during printing. In order to accelerate or prolong the
setting time of cement mixes, accelerating or retarding admixtures
are used, respectively. Some authors call “open time” the work in­
terval that each cementitious material has before its properties in the
fresh state are altered over time. This open time is less than the initial
setting time of the mixes, for which it is important to find its corre­
lation through experimental tests.
• Shrinkage: cementitious materials are susceptible to phenomena of
contraction or shrinkage due to drying, which generates the
appearance of fissures and cracks that affect the appearance and
mechanical performance of the element. Shrinkage can also affect
the bond (interface) between the printed layers, causing them to
detach. The content of mineral additions in the mix is one of the most
feasible ways to control shrinkage. A low water/cement ratio can
reduce the deformation caused during the drying of the part. Also,
the higher the amount of fine aggregate, the lower the shrinkage of
the composite material. Additionally, the incorporation of short
reinforcing fibers has been shown to control levels of drying
shrinkage, being effective for its implementation in 3D technology.
• Strength: the mechanical properties of 3D printed cementitious
materials have shown anisotropic behavior - their strength is
dependent on the direction of deposition of each layer. Indeed, the
best mechanical properties are obtained in the direction parallel to
the printing direction (longitudinal). In contrast, the properties
measured in the direction perpendicular (90◦ ) to the printing di­
rection are lower. In this regard, the addition of randomly dispersed
short fibers is considered the most effective method to reduce the
anisotropic behavior of the printed elements.
As highlighted by Ma et al. [6], the optimization of a cementitious
material based on these parameters is a complex task, since there are two
dilemmas in the mix design process with respect to meeting simulta­
neously the specifications of flowability, buildability and mechanical
strength, thereby representing a challenge for the science and engi­
neering of the materials. The first conflict stems from the need to obtain
a fluid mix, which requires a high content of mixing water (high water/
cement ratio). However, at the same time, a mix with good buildability
and adequate mechanical strength is required, properties that are pro­
moted by low water/cement ratios. The second conflict stems from the
setting time. In other words, adequate fluidity requires a sufficient open
time to maintain the consistency of the mix during the process and avoid
possible blockages in the pipes and nozzle of the printer. On the other
hand, obtaining a mix with sufficient buildability is related to fast setting
times that ensure the buildability and the necessary support to advance
with the upper layers. Consequently, these contradictions must be
balanced, together, with the adjustment of the water/cement ratio, the
6
Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693
use of superplasticizer admixtures and the incorporation of setting
accelerator or retarder admixtures.
In relation to the methodology proposed in Fig. 6, some authors
report the use of alternative techniques that are easy to implement for
assessing the extrudability, flowability and buildability of cementitious
materials for 3D printing [17].
Indeed, using the flow table test (Fig. 7) (ASTM C1437) it is possible
to determine the flowability index of the mixes. The change in height
recorded immediately after lifting the truncated cone (mold) is known as
the mini slump or settlement. The diameter of the mix, recorded after
applying 25 drops on the flow table is used to calculate the flowability
index, applying Eq. 1:
d1 + d2 /2
Iflowability = (1)
d0
where, d0 is the lower diameter of the truncated cone mold (100 mm), d1
is the maximum diameter of the mix in direction 1 and d2 is the diameter
perpendicular to d1 (Fig. 7).
As regards the flowability index, it is possible to determine it
immediately after finishing the mixing process (t = 0) and after 10, 20,
30, 45 and 60 min to evaluate the loss of workability over time. Indeed,
the working interval (open time) of a cementitious material could be
directly related to the setting time of the mix. However, as mentioned,
the open time is usually less than the initial setting time, the important
consideration being its correlation with the loss of flowability.
For the case of the evaluation of buildability (layer-by-layer shape
retention capacity), the truncated cone mold has been used, modifying
the mini slump test (ASTM C1437) (Fig. 8) [18]. The mix is poured onto
the mold, which is subsequently removed, and a plate of glass (or
another non-absorbent material) is placed on top of the mix to ensure a
homogeneous distribution of the load. Next, a controlled weight (for
example 800 g including the plate) is placed on the plate and the
deformation (collapse) of the mix is determined by means of the height
difference (slump). Thus, mixes with a low slump level are characterized
by a high buildability factor.
The buildability of the mix, determined by this procedure, can be
calculated as a percentage value according to Eq. 2:
( )
Buildability of the mix (%) = 1 −
hi − hf
× 100 (2)
hi
where, hi corresponds to the height of the truncated cone mold (50 mm)
and hf is the final height of the mix in relation to the base.
Indeed, buildability is important in the parameterization of the
element to be printed because the layers will undergo a level of settle­
ment that can affect the final height of the element compared to the
initial model design. As such, the equation can be applied to determine
the level of deformation (collapse) of the printed element with a certain
number of layers, in order to make the necessary height adjustments
both in the computerized design (CAD) and in the parameterization of
the part in the printer (G-code).
Extrudability (continuity of deposition) can be evaluated by means
of random extrusion processes, directly - using the 3D printer - or via
alternative assemblies such as that shown in Fig. 9 on a press or uni­
versal testing machine. Some authors [18] have applied criteria for the
indirect determination of yield stress in correlation with this method,
taking into account that it is possible to determine the load necessary for
the mix to start flowing through the nozzle. In fact, it is possible to
correlate extrusion speed and pressure, depending on the diameter of the
nozzle, and find the optimal variable configuration that ensures conti­
nuity of printing, before scaling the process to a real printer. Likewise,
this alternative method can be used to assess, through visual inspection,
the effect of the height between the nozzle and the printing surface,
avoiding the appearance of discontinuities (ruptures) generated by
stresses during the deposition of the mix.
Complementary to the fresh state properties (extrudability,
R. Robayo-Salazar et al.
Fig. 7. Graphic representation of the flow table test adapted for the determination of the flowability index in cementitious mixtures for 3D printing.
Fig. 8. Graphic representation of the test applied to determine the buildability of cementitious mixtures for 3D printing.
flowability, buildability and setting time), the study of rheological
characteristics such as viscosity, yield stress and thixotropy are
extremely important in the cementitious material for 3D printing. In a
cement mix, the particles have some physical-chemical interaction with
each other, for which a certain amount of shear stress is required to
break this structure. As the structure “breaks”, the particles flow in a
suspension under viscous forces. When the shear stress is removed, the
particles re-associate. One of the rheological models that best describes
the behavior of cementitious mixes is recognized as the “Bingham fluid”
(Eq. 3).
This describes materials that behave like a solid when subjected to
low shear stresses, but flow like a viscous fluid at higher shear stresses, a
behavior typical of a thixotropic material. Indeed, Fig. 10 represents the
behavior of a Bingham fluid as a function of shear stress (Ƭ) (vertical
axis) and shear velocity (ɣ) (horizontal axis). In the graph (a typical
7
Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693
hysteresis curve), two parameters are identified - the “elastic limit”
(yield stress (Ƭ0)) and the “plastic viscosity” (ɳ) known as the slope of
the line. The plastic viscosity of the mix is a property that defines the
suitability of the material to be used in 3D printing and measures the
resistance to flow when a force is applied to it. For yield stress, two types
are recognized in 3D printing: static yield stress (SYS) and dynamic yield
stress (DYS). SYS represents the force required for the material to flow
initially and DYS represents the force required to maintain the flow of
the mix after the rupture of the thixotropic structure during the extru­
sion and 3D printing process. As such, the support capacity between
layers depends on the SYS, for which a relatively high SYS value is
desirable. The extrusion capacity and workability of the mix during
printing meanwhile depend mainly on the DYS, and it is desirable for the
material to have a low DYS for 3D printing [20–25].
τ = τ0 + η • γ (3)
R. Robayo-Salazar et al. Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693

4. Cementitious materials used in 3D printing

4.1. Additive manufacturing of conventional OPC-based cementitious

materials

The 3D printing process can consider the use of conventional OPC-

based cementitious materials, which, in turn, can be modified with the
use of different raw materials, including supplementary cementitious
materials (SCM) (of natural or artificial origin), admixtures (super­
plasticizers, viscosity modifiers, accelerators or retarders), natural or
recycled fine aggregates, fillers and fibers.
The following are prominent among SCM commonly used in 3D
printing [27]:

• Fly ash (FA): this is one of the most common by-products in the
national industry, since many companies still use coal to generate
energy for their processes. FA in cementitious mixes has a close
relationship with the rheological properties of the material. In most
mixes, yield stress (Ƭ0) and plastic viscosity (ɳ) increase with the
addition of FA [28]. However, some authors report opposite effects
[29], which depend on the class of FA, its particle size distribution
and morphology.
• Ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GBFS): A by-product in steel
manufacture, it can be used as a partial substitute for OPC for the
preparation of high-performance mixes. When added finely ground,
it has a high reactivity. In general, the use of GBFS in cement mixes
reduces the plastic viscosity (ɳ) in the fresh state [22,29].
• Silica fume or microsilica (MS): its main characteristic is the high
Fig. 9. Graphic representation of the extrudability test applied to cementitious content of amorphous SiO2 and its fineness [9]. MS is one of the most
mixtures for 3D printing. Source: [19]. commonly used SCMs in this technology, because in addition to
improving cohesion of the concrete in the fresh state, it improves the
mechanical properties and impermeability in the hardened state
[30]. Moreover, MS contributes to the lubrication effect, which is
important for the pumping of the cementitious material through the
pipes [28]. Regarding its effect on yield stress (Ƭ0) and plastic vis­
cosity (ɳ), various authors report an increase in Ƭ0 and a reduction in
ɳ with the addition of MS [22,23,29].
• Metakaolin (MK): this is obtained by calcination of a kaolinitic clay,
making it a thermally activated aluminosilicate. It is characterized by
its amorphous nature and high content of reactive alumina, pro­
moting the development of mechanical strength and reduction of
permeability. In general, the use of MK increases the yield stress (Ƭ0)
and the plastic viscosity (ɳ) of cementitious materials, aspects that
are necessary to achieve adequate buildability of 3D cementitious
mixes.

Other materials commonly used as property modifiers in cement

mixes, particularly in the fresh state, are as follows:

• Limestone (CaCO3): a mineral normally used as a filler in OPC-based

Fig. 10. Typical hysteresis curve of a thixotropic material. Source: adapted by
the authors from [21].
A review of the various test methods used to characterize the prop­
erties of 3D printed concrete in the fresh state (flowability, extrudability,
buildability, open time), and hardened (density, compressive, flexure
and tensile strength, and durability), is presented by [26]. The authors
highlight the importance of investigating the long-term durability
properties, including the performance of the printed concrete exposed to
chlorides, carbonation, freeze-thaw cycle, and fire [26].
In the following sections, the general aspects for the use of conven­
tional and non-conventional cements in additive manufacturing (3D
printing) are listed.
cement mixes. Finely ground limestone can modify the packing
density of cement particles and improve the workability of the mixes
[9].
• Superplasticizer (SP) admixtures: these are admixtures used in the
preparation of OPC-based materials to increase the flowability of the
mixes without increasing the water content. Another option is using
SP to reduce the water requirement while maintaining constant
workability, thus promoting increased mechanical strength since it
admits lower water/cement ratios. SPs disperse cement particles by
means of repulsive (electrostatic) forces, releasing trapped water by
flocculation, thus improving the flow characteristics of the mix [9].
Superplasticizers thus manage to reduce the yield stress (Ƭ0) and the
plastic viscosity (ɳ) of the mixes [22].
• Accelerator admixtures: OPC-based materials for 3D printing require
a short setting time to give the material sufficient early strength right
after it is deposited by the nozzle. Setting accelerators are a class of

8
R. Robayo-Salazar et al. Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693

admixtures commonly used to obtain rapid setting, since they modify
the kinetics of the hydration reactions of the Clinker phases in the
OPC. Among the most common accelerators are those based on cal­
cium chloride (CaCl2).
• Retarded admixtures: these are the opposite of accelerating admix­
tures and are used to extend the setting time of the mixes. In general,
the admixture is absorbed on the surface of the cement particles to
form an insoluble layer, which delays the hydration process of the
Clinker phases. The use of retarding admixtures prolongs the open
time of the mixes for 3D printing.
• Viscosity modifying admixtures: these are water-soluble polymers
that control the flow characteristics and rheological performance of
the cementitious materials. A small dose of these admixtures can
improve the dimensional stability of the materials and provide an
increase in the plastic viscosity (ɳ) of the mix. However, it should be
noted that when using pumped 3D printer mixes, mixes with higher
viscosity may require higher placement pressure. An example of a
commonly used viscosity modifying admixture is hydroxypropyl
methylcellulose (HPMC).
• Fibers: cementitious materials for 3D printing can be reinforced by
incorporating short fibers such as fiberglass, carbon, polypropylene
(PP), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), steel, basalt, natural fiber, etc. to
improve the flexural-tensile properties and post-fracture toughness
of the printed structures. The fibers also contribute to the control of
the appearance and propagation of fissures and cracks caused by
phenomena of contraction or shrinkage due to drying, a pathology
that can affect 3D printed structures. Likewise, short fibers have
turned out to be an effective solution for mitigating the phenomenon
of anisotropy present in 3D printed elements [16,31,32].
• Aggregates: The use of aggregates provides dimensional stability
both in the fresh and hardened states and therefore can contribute to
the control of the phenomena of contraction or shrinkage due to
drying of the mixes. The type of aggregate is mainly limited by the
size of the nozzle, feeding pipes and the extrusion or pumping sys­
tem. A particle size of <2 mm is generally used. Therefore, 3D
printing cementitious materials are usually mortars, rather than
concretes [22]. However, some authors have reported satisfactory
results at the micro-concrete level, using coarse aggregates with
particle sizes of up to 10 mm [33]. The use of recycled aggregates
meanwhile from the crushing of construction and demolition waste
[34], brick waste [35] and/or glass waste [36,37] has shown promise
in 3D printing of mortars and/or micro-concrete, thus allowing the
production of more sustainable cementitious materials from an
environmental point of view (Circular Economy). According to Zou
et al. [38] and Wu et al. [39], the use of recycled aggregates can
increase yield strength (Ƭ0) and plastic viscosity (ɳ) of the mixes -
favoring buildability and thixotropy, but at the same time affecting
extrusion capacity (extrudability), for which a balance of all prop­
erties must be found with the use of admixtures (SP).
Table 1 below summarizes the main parameters that have been taken
into account for the design of conventional OPC-based cement mixes and
their 3D printing.
SCM: supplementary cementitious materials, HPMC:
hydroxypropylmethylcellulose.
4.2. Additive manufacturing of non-conventional cementitious materials:
geopolymers
Most designs of cementitious mixes for 3D printing employ OPC as
the main material, although as mentioned above, the use of SCMs such
as FA, GBFS, MS and MK as a partial replacement for OPC has been
evaluated (Table 1). Given that the production of OPC is associated with
a high consumption of natural resources and high CO2 emissions (≈0.8
ton of CO2/ton of OPC), other alternative materials that incorporate
high proportions (≥70%) of SCM have been proposed for some appli­
cations. Among these are geopolymers (inorganic polymers) and alkali
activated materials (AAM), considered mostly as low carbon footprint
materials as they are commonly based on locally available minerals and/
or industrial by-products (wastes) and produced at relatively low tem­
peratures (25–90 ◦ C) compared to those reached during the clinkeriza­
tion process (≈1450 ◦ C) of OPC. In this regard, geopolymerization is a

Table 1
Summary of the main design parameters of conventional OPC-based cement mixtures for 3D printing. Source: the authors.
MCS Admixtures Fibers a/c ratio Aggregates Printing parameters Ref.

0–40% MK Nozzle = 15 mm, 40 ×

SP (2%)
20–60% – 0.30 Sand (ratio 1:1.5) 13.5 mm Chen et al. [40]
HPMC (0.24%)
CaCO3 Velocity = 35–100 mm/s
Nozzle = 40 × 100 mm
16.6% FA SP (0.1%) Sand (≤4.75 mm)
– 0.36 Layer height = 40 mm Ji et al. [33]
7.1% MS HPMC (0.2%) Gravel (≤10 mm)
Velocity = 13 mm/s
60% FA
Nozzle = 50 mm
3% MS SP (1%) PP (6 mm) (1.4–5.4%) 0.22–0.30 Sand (≤2 mm) (ratio 1:1/1:1.6) Tran et al. [31]
Velocidad = 60 mm/s
8% CaCO3
SP (0.95%)
15% FA Nozzle = 10–20 mm
CaSO4 (3%) PP (12 mm) (0.09%) 0.30 Sand (≤0.85 mm) (ratio 1:1) Huang et al. [41]
6% MS Velocity = 13–40 mm/s
HPMC (0.02%)
10% MS SP Nozzle = 25.4 × 38.1
Kazemian et al.
0.3% Nano- (0.05–0.16%) PP (6 mm) (0.12%) 0.43 Sand (≤2.36 mm) (ratio 1:2.3) mm
[30]
clay CaCl2 (1–3%) Velocity = 60 mm/s
16.5% FA
SP (1%) Steel (6 mm, 10 mm) Nozzle = 15 mm
16.5% MS 0.15 Sand (ratio 1:1) Yang et al. [32]
HPMC (0.1%) (1% vol.) Velocity = 15 mm/s
2.4% CaCO3
25–30% FA Nozzle = 15 mm
SP – 0.33–0.35 Sand (21–26%) Lui et al. [28]
2–4% MS Velocity = 100 mm/s
Nozzle = 6 mm
1.8% SP de Matos et al.
10% MS – 0.30 Ground quartz (ratio 1:1) Layer height = 3.5 mm
1.5% TiO2 [42]
Velocity = 15 mm/s
21.1% FA SP (1%) 64% Recycled sand (brick residue) (≤4.75 mm) Christen et al.
PP (6 mm) (1% vol.) 0.45–0.58 Velocity = 60 mm/s
10.6% MS HPMC (0.3%) (ratio 1:1.6) [35]
20% FA 25, 50, 75 y 100% Recycled sand (glass residue)
– – 0.35 Nozzle = 10 mm Ting et al. [36]
10% MS (≤2 mm) (ratio 1:0.8)
SP (0.7%) Nozzle = 50 × 20 mm
50% GBFS – 0.35 30% recycled gravel (≤8 mm) (ratio 1:1.7) Rahul et al. [34]
HPMC (0.1%) Velocity = 100 mm/s

9
R. Robayo-Salazar et al. Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693

process from which aluminosilicate-type materials in the presence of an
alkaline medium (activator) give rise to a three-dimensional structure
that allows obtaining a strength and durable material, with similar or
even superior properties to those of traditional binder materials such as
OPC.
In addition to the possibility of obtaining more environmentally
friendly cements, geopolymers have some additional advantages such as
greater resistance to fire, chemical agents, aggressive environments
(durability) and a higher level of thermal insulation (low conductivity).
Additive manufacturing of geopolymers is thus considered a promising
technology to address current challenges of industry and offer new
design opportunities, understanding that conventional methods should
not necessarily be eliminated. There is thus a marked tendency towards
research on these types of non-conventional cements and their imple­
mentation in additive manufacturing processes, as can be seen in the
bibliometric analysis reported above. As previously noted, geopolymers
represent the third cluster in text mining (co-occurrences) applied to 3D
printing of concrete (Fig. 2). According to Raza et al. [20], applying
geopolymers in 3D printing was introduced in 2016 by Xia and Sanjayan
[43], this topic being very recent, innovative and interesting for research
groups from various universities and centers worldwide.
In general, geopolymeric precursors commonly used for 3D printing
include SCMs such as FA, GBFS, MS and MK. Other industrial residues or
by-products rich in silica (SiO2) and alumina (Al2O3) also have an op­
portunity to be used through alkaline activation technology and its
implementation in 3D printing [29,44]. Such is the case of construction
and demolition waste (CDW), especially concrete, ceramic and masonry
waste [45,46]. Among the alkaline activators used, hydroxides (ROH, R
(OH)2), weak acid salts (R2CO3), strong acid salts (Na2SO4,
CaSO4⋅2H2O), and siliceous salts R2O(n)SiO2 stand out, where R it is an
alkaline ion of the Na, K or Li type. Among these, mixes of sodium hy­
droxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) are recognized as the
most common alkaline activator. The use of anhydrous (solid) sodium
silicates stands out as an alternative for the synthesis of what are known
as “one-part” or “just add water” geopolymers [47]. Solid activators
meanwhile such as sodium sulfate (Na2SO4) and sodium carbonate
(Na2CO3) have been successfully used in the synthesis of hybrid ce­
ments, in which the geopolymeric precursor is mixed with additions
(≤30%) of materials rich in calcium, such as lime (Ca(OH)2) [19] or OPC
[48]. As such, the addition of secondary sources of calcium replaces the
thermal curing processes (60–90 ◦ C), which are necessary in precursors
with low calcium content, allowing the development of adequate
strength at room temperature (≈25 ◦ C). Naphthalene and
polycarboxylate-type superplasticizer admixtures have been used to
promote the workability of geopolymeric mixes. As in OPC-based sys­
tems, the use of CaCO3-type modifier materials has shown rheological
and mechanical benefits in 3D printing of geopolymers. Regarding the
incorporation of aggregates, the use of fine aggregates with cement:
aggregate ratios of <1:2 and particle sizes of up to 2 mm is reported. In
this regard, larger particle sizes can lead to blockages in the extrusion
nozzle or pipes. Among fibers used to reinforce geopolymeric mixes;
carbon, PP, PVA and glass fibers stand out [20,27,49–52].
Table 2 lists the main design conditions for geopolymeric and the
most important parameters for 3D printing.
Among the most interesting geopolymeric precursors today, CDW is
capturing the attention, largely due to its worldwide availability and the
environmental liability associated with its poor handling and manage­
ment, as is the case in some countries of Latin America such as Colombia
[58]. Şahin et al. [19] report promising results in this regard related to
the alkaline activation of ceramic and glass-type residues, using mixes of
NaOH, Ca(OH)2 and/or Na2SiO3. The RCD geopolymer activated with
NaOH (6.25 M) and 10%-Ca(OH)2 exhibited the best performance in
terms of rheology and compressive strength for use in 3D printing pro­
cesses [19]. The authors conclude that Ca(OH)2 increases the plastic
viscosity (ɳ) and the buildability of the mixes. They report meanwhile
that Na2SiO3 drastically decreases the plastic viscosity (ɳ) of the mixes,
increasing workability and therefore affecting buildability (adverse
consequence). Additionally, they affirm that Na2SiO3 accelerates the
setting of the mixes, reducing the open time necessary for 3D printing.
Regarding the environmental sustainability of these non-
conventional cements, Amran et al. [52] report that the use of geo­
polymers in 3D printing allows the reduction of the carbon footprint by
≈61% compared to conventional cementitious materials based on OPC
(3D geopolymer (0.114 kg•CO2/L) vs. 3D OPC (0.296 kg•CO2/L)).
Consistent with these results, Zhong and Zhang et al. [49] report 59%
reductions in CO2 emissions from a geopolymer for 3D printing based on
the combination of 50%FA + 50%GBFS in relation to conventional
cementitious materials based on OPC and SCM. The content and type of

Table 2
Summary of the main design conditions of geopolymeric and parameters for 3D printing. Source: the authors.
Precursor Alkaline activator Admixtures Aggregates Curing Printing parameters Ref.

Nozzle = 20 × 4
NaOH Powdered quartz (≤250 μm) (ratio
FA – – mm Ranjbar et al. [53]
Na2SiO3 1:1.5)
Velocity = 5 mm/s
90–100% FA
NaOH Nozzle = 10 mm
0–10% GBFS – Sand (ratio 1:1.5) 25 ◦ C Panda et al. [54]
Na2SiO3 Velocity = 80 mm/s
0–10% MS
Magnesium aluminum silicate
50% FA Anhydrous Fine steel (ratio 1:0.5) Nozzle = 30 mm Muthukrishnan et al.
(0.75%) 23 ◦ C
50% GBFS Na2SiO3 Gravel Coarse sand (ratio 1:1) Velocity = 10 mm/s [55]
Sucrose (retardant) (0.5–1.5%)
60–70% FA
15–35% NaOH 60 ◦ C (24 Nozzle = 20 mm
Graphite nanoparticles (0.1–1%) Sand (≤1 mm) (ratio 1:0.55) Chougan et al. [56]
GBFS Na2SiO3 h) Velocity = 20 mm/s
5–15% MS
50–85% FA
0–30% GBFS NaOH Nozzle = 4 mm, 6
0–30% OPC Na2SiO3 Powdered alumina (Al2O3) (1%) – – mm Alghamdi et al. [57]
15–30% Na2SO4 Velocity = 20 mm/s
CaCO3
Fine sand Nozzle = 30 mm
50% FA Anhydrous 60 ◦ C (24
– (≤840 μm) Layer height = 10 Bong et al. [47]
50% GBFS Na2SiO3 h)
(ratio 1:1.5) mm
NaOH Nozzle = 15 mm
CDW Ca(OH)2 – 23 ◦ C Şahin et al. [19]
Na2SiO3 Velocity = 16 mm/s
NaOH Nozzle = 20 mm
CDW Ca(OH)2 – 23 ◦ C Ilcan et al. [18]
Na2SiO3 Velocity = 60 mm/s

10
R. Robayo-Salazar et al.
alkaline activator plays a fundamental role in the level of reduction of
the carbon footprint of geopolymers, with Na2SO4 and Na2CO3 being the
most attractive from the environmental point of view [48].
Regarding the application of 3D printed geopolymers, like conven­
tional cementitious materials (OPC) these are related to the construction
sector. However, the intrinsic characteristics and/or properties of geo­
polymers also make them attractive for other industries, such as aero­
space. As mentioned by Lazorenko et al. [51], the use of geopolymers for
the 3D printing of infrastructure that needs to withstand high temper­
atures and/or chemically aggressive environments (durability) is
considered advantageous in relation to materials based on conventional
cements (OPC). Nodehi et al. [59] presented a critical review on the
durability properties of 3D printed concrete, including the different
variables related to the materials and the printing process, and states
that exposure to environmental conditions is a key variable in the ma­
terial performance because printed materials are generally used in the
same place where they are printed. For example, variables such as print
speed and pump pressure can have a significant influence on the
porosity of deposited layers. The author points out that, although the
durability of cementitious materials has been investigated for approxi­
mately a century and its results are well documented, 3D technology
applied to construction materials is relatively new and there are no
codes or standards that allow its evaluation, so which research on the
durability of structures once exposed to different aggressive environ­
ments should be studied [59].
Geopolymers have thus been proposed as a sustainable alternative
for 3D printing of extraterrestrial habitats that allow human presence in
future space missions. This is how the various space agencies, including
NASA, are studying the use of 3D geopolymer printing technology for
the construction of future human colonies on the Moon and/or Mars,
without the need to bring prefabricated materials or constructions from
Earth. In this regard, the feasibility of using the regolith of the Moon and
similar extraterrestrial surfaces as raw material for the synthesis of 3D
geopolymers is being studied in various research centers [60–62].
5. Challenges and opportunities in 3D printing in Latin America
In general, Latin America has been slower in adopting 3D technol­
ogies compared to European countries, probably because for companies
it involves a strong investment and at the same time there is a lack of
knowledge of the advantages and possibilities of additive manufacturing
compared to conventional construction technologies, all this coupled
with the lack of recognition of technology in construction codes and
standards. However, today, 3D technology is recognized as one of the
possible solutions to the global housing crisis. It should be added that, by
2030, the UN Habitat predicts that 3 billion people will live without a
safe haven, for which they will need access to housing, basic infra­
structure, and water and sanitation systems [59]. And considering that
Latin America represents about 10% of the world’s population, 3D
technology is considered an option to help reduce the deficit of social
interest housing at an affordable cost for a greater number of people.
For example, in Colombia, the National Quality of Life Survey carried
out in 2020 by National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE)
[63], with the support and observation of UN-Habitat, reported that the
housing deficit in the country was 31.4%. It should be clarified that the
housing deficit refers to families that live in homes with structural and
non-structural deficiencies and for which it is possible to make im­
provements or adjustments in order to achieve adequate habitability
conditions. On reviewing the survey results, it was observed that, in the
capitals, 21.6% of households were in housing deficit, while in popu­
lated and dispersed rural centers the proportion was 64.5% of house­
holds, rural areas being the most affected. As such, only Bogotá and 10 of
the 32 departments of the country reported a percentage of households
in housing deficit lower than the national total (31.4%). The compo­
nents of this indicator (housing deficit) were related to the structure of
the house and the material of the walls, aspects that might be mitigated
11
Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693
via the implementation of 3D printing technology. Regarding the con­
struction of new housing, the DANE reports a total of 32 million square
meters for housing in the first quarter of 2022, of which 88.5% were
apartments and the remaining 11.5% were houses. Likewise, of the total
census area for housing, 62% corresponded to housing other than social
interest housing and 38% to VIS [63]. This distribution reflects that
industrialized construction (apartments) predominates in the housing
sector, which is considered an advantage considering the introduction of
large-format additive manufacturing as a precursor for new housing
construction in the country.
In general, the 3D printing of cementitious materials in Latin
American is still in the experimental phase. However, progress has been
made in printing full-scale prototypes. In Tabasco, Mexico, a community
of houses has been built for the population living in extreme poverty, the
objective is that these can withstand a magnitude 7.4 earthquake and
tolerate extreme weather conditions. In Guatemala, a cement company
in association with a European company is investigating the application
of 3D printing to help reduce the housing deficit in the country. Uni­
versities in Chile at a laboratory scale have managed to develop micro-
concrete elements up to 1.50 m high by integrating the principles of
circular economy and reusing industrial wastes. In Peru, it is intended to
build houses using soil mixtures stabilized with organic additives and
Portland cement-based mortars. In Colombia, in 2017, the construction
company Conconcreto [64] developed a large-format 3D printer capable
of printing prefabricated parts and reinforced concrete elements. In as­
sociation with the Corona group, they developed different mixes that
have made it possible to materialize the first prototype of a habitable
module printed with 3D technology, called “Origami House” (Fig. 11).
This housing prototype has a functional area of 23.4 m2 and consists of a
set of 32 elements printed in 27 h and assembled in-situ [64]. Addi­
tionally, different elements of urban furniture have been produced
applying this technology. The projects are located in the facilities of the
School of Engineering of Antioquia in Medellín.
Regarding the study of conventional cementitious materials based on
OPC of Colombian origin, Vergara and Colorado [66] report promising
results in OPC mortars modified with kaolin (0–50%), calcium carbon­
ate (CaCO3) (0–20%) and superplasticizer (2%). To date, no studies
related to non-conventional cementitious materials have been reported,
which means a challenge or an opportunity for academia and industry.
Regarding the availability of alternative raw materials for 3D printing in
Colombia, several supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs, natural
and artificial) have been identified that could be used, not only as
modifiers of OPC-based cement mixes but as geopolymeric precursors.
Among these materials, the following stand out: natural pozzolan, MK,
FA, GBFS, glass waste and CDW (concrete waste, ceramics waste and/or
brick waste) [19,45,46,67,68], among others.
It should be added that the possibility of using locally available
materials for the in situ printing of housing is considered an alternative
even more sustainable, from the environmental and economic point of
view, than the additive manufacturing of conventional OPC-based
cementitious materials. However, according to Schuldt et al., [69],
one of the most relevant aspects to consider for on-site 3D printing from
locally available materials is the minimization of transport logistics, a
critical aspect in rural or remote areas with difficult access for 3D
printers and mixers. This means that, in some cases, transporting pre-
fabricated elements (3D printed modular components) and their sub­
sequent assembly in place (off-site 3D printing) may be more advanta­
geous versus on-site 3D printing of locally available materials.
In this regard, 3D printed construction aims to use locally sourced or
in situ materials when available and accessible [69], highlighting 3D
printing of soils and clays. According to that reported by Gomaa et al.
[70], earth-based construction materials (soils) are divided into sands,
clays, adobe (cob) and rammed earth. Among these, 3D printing of clays
has received the most attention from the construction sector, due to their
rheological properties and the high extrudability that characterizes
them. Moreover, the constructions designed from these materials are
R. Robayo-Salazar et al.
Fig. 11. a) “The Origami House”, a housing prototype by the Conconcreto construction company and b) urban furniture elements produced with 3D printing.
Source: [65].
characterized by their bioclimatic properties, maintaining a relatively
stable temperature inside, regardless of the heat or cold in the external
environment [70]. In Colombia, 3D printing of soils and clays could be
applied in remote (rural) areas where the transportation and acquisition
of raw materials is complex.
In light of the above, researchers from the University of Antioquia
reported promising results in the 3D printing of local materials such as
kaolinitic clays [71]. In their research, they adapted a syringe to a ro­
botic arm to extrude the material (direct printing technique), managing
to assess the effect of the water/solids ratio on the physical, mechanical
and microstructural properties of clays, which subsequently were sin­
tered at 1100 ◦ C. It should be noted that the dependence on high-
temperature sintering processes is considered a technological limita­
tion for in situ applications. Regarding the results, the authors showed
that the water content should be between 36 and 40% (by weight) to
achieve a good surface finish and adequate rheological behavior.
Additionally, they reported that the failure of the printed materials was
in the interface between the layers (beads), due to the presence of
cracking phenomena. In a subsequent study, members of the same group
evaluated the incorporation of additives such as sodium silicate and
sodium polyacrylate with the aim of improving the properties of the
material [72]. Likewise, the effect of incorporating industrial waste, in
this case electric arc slag (10–30%), on the 3D printing capacity of
kaolinitic clays was evaluated [73].
In general, advances in this line of research are very recent and few
publications have been reported to date in Latin American countries.
However, additive manufacturing technology applied to the construc­
tion sector is a potential sustainable solution for the current housing
deficit, a situation enhanced by the possibility of using locally available
raw materials (the use of waste and/or industrial by-products – and to
some degree a circular economy approach). This aspect is an opportu­
nity to promote the sustainability of the construction sector through the
implementation of alternative house-building methods to conventional
ones, which can also be implemented in many Latin American countries.
Indeed, since some countries with a high seismic hazard risk, it is
necessary to ensure that the constructions comply with the country’s
seismic design standards, an aspect that must be demonstrated through
trials and experimental tests.
The study of cementitious materials compatible with 3D technology,
as well as the development of technical standards and specifications for
the correct assessment of the mechanical behavior of the elements and
structures manufactured with these materials, requires the linking up of
various disciplines or fields of knowledge, such as Materials Science and
Engineering, Civil Engineering, Mechatronics Engineering, Robotics,
Design, and Architecture, among other disciplines. Currently, research
groups from the School of Materials Engineering in alliance with the
School of Civil Engineering of the Universidad del Valle, in Cali
(Colombia), supported by professionals from Mechanical Engineering
and Architecture, are researching 3D printing of conventional and non-
conventional cementitious materials for their application in sustainable
12
Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693
housing construction in rural areas.
6. Conclusions and limitations
• As has been shown in this study, technological advances related to
3D printing of cementitious materials are increasing. The numerous
advantages in economic and environmental terms (sustainability)
that the implementation of additive manufacturing has shown in the
construction sector has promoted the interest of the industry in this
technology and neither has the scientific community been indif­
ferent; on the contrary, 3D printing is positioned as one of the
strongest lines of research in the world, with an exponential trend
since 1998.
• The use of recycled and locally generated raw materials (waste and/
or industrial by-products) allows technological solutions with a
sustainable and environmentally friendly approach. 3D printing can
even use locally available materials, such as native clay or soil. This
approach also significantly reduces construction costs and moves
towards zero marginal cost. In addition, 3D printing should respect
the forms of nature and avoid forms imposed by traditional con­
struction materials, giving rise to architectural designs that enhance
the built environment.
• The development of new cementitious materials and dosages that
allow increasing the possibilities of applying additive manufacturing
in the construction of housing and civil infrastructure is one of the
greatest challenges for research groups and industry. Among the new
(non-conventional) cementitious materials used in 3D printing,
geopolymers stand out, these being one of the main clusters identi­
fied in the text mining (bibliometric analysis) carried out in this
study. The use of alkali-activated materials (geopolymers) as
cementitious material in 3D printing processes would indeed allow
the construction sector a higher level of incorporation of supple­
mentary cementitious materials (SCMs, natural and artificial), even
until achieving total substitution of OPC in some applications, which
is noteworthy from an environmental point of view. Among the
geopolymeric precursors, natural pozzolans, MK, FA, cane bagasse
ash, rice husk ash, GBFS and glass residues stand out due to their
availability, along with CDW (concrete waste, ceramics waste and/or
brick waste), among other aluminosilicate materials. It is highlighted
that the SCMs available are mostly waste or industrial by-products
that lack any added or commercial value, currently presenting low
levels of use and their final disposal being a real problem for those
generating large quantities. As such, the joint implementation of
alkaline activation (geopolymerization) and additive manufacturing
(3D) technologies is proposed as a sustainable solution to the housing
deficit, making use of locally available raw materials that are mostly
waste or industrial by-products.
• 3D printing being a relatively recent technology in the construction
industry, it requires innovation and progressive developments in
order to reap the technical, environmental and social benefits.
R. Robayo-Salazar et al.
Although successful cases using OPC-based materials have been re­
ported, there are still issues that have not been fully resolved in order
to harness the full potential of 3D structural printing. Among these,
modification of the fresh properties of mix, durability of printed
element, addition of reinforcement during the 3D printing process,
3D printing of fiber-reinforced concrete, and large-scale structures
are some of the future challenges in 3D structural printing of
cementitious materials and should be the subject of research both at
an academic and industrial level.
• Other process limitations are associated with the fact that 3D print­
ing is not currently recognized as a construction method by building
regulations and standards. The test methods and standards currently
used for the characterization of construction materials and conven­
tional structures are not suitable to be applied directly to cementi­
tious materials for 3D printing. Therefore, the development of new
theoretical and predictive models of the behavior of structures
printed from these materials is necessary. These must show that the
structures designed and printed with 3D technology have the load
capacity and durability necessary for their massive use in the con­
struction of housing and buildings. It is thus up to researchers,
technicians, builders, and companies to advance in studies and
demonstrate that structures built via additive manufacturing meet
requirements of functionality, habitability, safety, and sustainability.
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
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
The authors, members of the Composite Materials Group (CENM),
thank the project “Development of a 3D printing system of sustainable
non-conventional materials for the advancement of rural infrastructure
in the department of Cauca” of the Universidad del Valle, financed by
the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation (Minciencias)
through Funding Call 6 of the 2021-2022 biennium of the General
Royalties System (SGR) (BPIN 2020000100625).
References
[1] ASTM International, Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies. htt
ps://www.astm.org/, 2009 (Accessed October 2022).
[2] B. Xiao, C. Chen, X. Yin, Recent advancements of robotics in construction, Autom.
Constr. 144 (2022), 104591, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104591.
[3] M.S. Khan, F. Sanchez, H. Zhou, 3-D printing of concrete: beyond horizons, Cem.
Concr. Res. 133 (2020), 106070, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2020.106070.
[4] W. Li, X. Lin, D.W. Bao, Y. Min Xie, A review of formwork systems for modern
concrete construction, Structures 38 (2022) 52–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
istruc.2022.01.089.
[5] J. Zhang, J. Wang, S. Dong, X. Yu, B. Han, A review of the current progress and
application of 3D printed concrete, Composites Part A 125 (2019), 105533,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105533.
[6] G. Ma, L. Wang, Y. Ju, State-of-the-art of 3D printing technology of cementitious
material—an emerging technique for construction, SCIENCE CHINA Technol. Sci.
61 (2018) 475–495, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-016-9077-7.
[7] M. Batikha, R. Jotangia, M.Y. Baaj, I. Mousleh, 3D concrete printing for sustainable
and economical construction: a comparative study, Autom. Constr. 134 (2022),
104087, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.104087.
[8] G. De Schutter, K. Lesage, V. Mechtcherine, V.N. Nerella, G. Habert, I. Agusti-Juan,
Vision of 3D printing with concrete — technical, economic and environmental
potentials, Cem. Concr. Res. 112 (2018) 25–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2018.06.001.
[9] G. Ma, L. Wang, A critical review of preparation design and workability
measurement of concrete material for largescale 3D printing, Front. Struct. Civ.
Eng. 12 (2018) 382–400, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-017-0430-x.
13
Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693
[10] S. Pessoa, A.S. Guimarães, S.S. Lucas, N. Simões, 3D printing in the construction
industry - a systematic review of the thermal performance in buildings, Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 141 (2021), 110794, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2021.110794.
[11] J.G. Sanjayan, B. Nematollahi, Chapter 1 - 3D concrete printing for construction
applications, in: J.G. Sanjayan, A. Nazari, B. Nematollahi (Eds.), 3D Concrete
Printing Technology, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2019, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-815481-6.00001-4.
[12] United Nations (UN), 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United
Nations General Assembly. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/, 2015
(Accessed October 2022).
[13] 3Dnatives, El Sitio Web La Impresión 3D (The Website 3D Printing). https://www
.3dnatives.com/es/, 2022 (Accessed October 2022).
[14] H. Alhumayani, M. Gomaa, V. Soebarto, W. Jabi, Environmental assessment of
large-scale 3D printing in construction: a comparative study between cob and
concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 270 (2020), 122463, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.122463.
[15] Y. Weng, M. Li, S. Ruan, T.N. Wong, M.J. Tan, K.L. Ow Yeong, S. Qian,
Comparative economic, environmental and productivity assessment of a concrete
bathroom unit fabricated through 3D printing and a precast approach, J. Clean.
Prod. 261 (2020), 121245, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121245.
[16] F. Hamidi, F. Aslani, Additive manufacturing of cementitious composites:
materials, methods, potentials, and challenges, Constr. Build. Mater. 218 (2019)
582–609, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.140.
[17] Y.W.D. Tay, Y. Qian, M.J. Tan, Printability region for 3D concrete printing using
slump and slump flow test, Composites Part B 174 (2019), 106968, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.106968.
[18] H. Ilcan, O. Sahin, A. Kul, G. Yildirim, M. Sahmaran, Rheological properties and
compressive strength of construction and demolition waste-based geopolymer
mortars for 3D-printing, Constr. Build. Mater. 328 (2022), 127114, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127114.
[19] O. Şahin, H. İlcan, A.T. Ateşli, A. Kul, G. Yıldırım, M. Şahmaran, Construction and
demolition waste-based geopolymers suited for use in 3-dimensional additive
manufacturing, Cem. Concr. Compos. 121 (2021), 104088, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104088.
[20] M.H. Raza, R.Y. Zhong, M. Khan, Recent advances and productivity analysis of 3D
printed geopolymers, Add. Manufact. 52 (2022), 102685, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.addma.2022.102685.
[21] Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang, W. She, L. Yang, G. Liu, Y. Yang, Rheological and harden
properties of the high-thixotropy 3D printing concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 201
(2019) 278–285, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.061.
[22] B. Lu, Y. Weng, M. Li, Y. Qian, K.F. Leong, M.J. Tan, S. Qian, A systematical review
of 3D printable cementitious materials, Constr. Build. Mater. 207 (2019) 477–490,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.144.
[23] M.A. Khan, Mix suitable for concrete 3D printing: a review, Mater. Today: Proceed.
32 (2020) 831–837, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.825.
[24] V. Saruhan, M. Keskinateş, B. Felekoğlu, A comprehensive review on fresh state
rheological properties of extrusion mortars designed for 3D printing applications,
Constr. Build. Mater. 337 (2022), 127629, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2022.127629.
[25] K.-W. Lee, H.-J. Lee, M.-S. Choi, Correlation between thixotropic behavior and
buildability for 3D concrete printing, Constr. Build. Mater. 347 (2022), 128498,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128498.
[26] S.K. Kaliyavaradhan, P.S. Ambily, P.R. Prem, S.B. Ghodke, Test methods for 3D
printable concrete, Autom. Constr. 142 (2022), 104529, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.autcon.2022.104529.
[27] M. Nodehi, T. Ozbakkaloglu, A. Gholampour, Effect of supplementary cementitious
materials on properties of 3D printed conventional and alkali-activated concrete: a
review, Autom. Constr. 138 (2022), 104215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2022.104215.
[28] Z. Liu, M. Li, Y. Weng, T.N. Wong, M.J. Tan, Mixture design approach to optimize
the rheological properties of the material used in 3D cementitious material
printing, Constr. Build. Mater. 198 (2019) 245–255, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.11.252.
[29] D. Dey, D. Srinivas, B. Panda, P. Suraneni, T.G. Sitharam, Use of industrial waste
materials for 3D printing of sustainable concrete: a review, J. Clean. Prod. 340
(2022), 130749, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130749.
[30] A. Kazemian, X. Yuan, E. Cochran, B. Khoshnevis, Cementitious materials for
construction-scale 3D printing: laboratory testing of fresh printing mixture, Constr.
Build. Mater. 145 (2017) 639–647, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2017.04.015.
[31] M.V. Tran, Y.T.H. Cu, C.V.H. Le, Rheology and shrinkage of concrete using
polypropylene fiber for 3D concrete printing, J. Build. Eng. 44 (2021), 103400,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103400.
[32] Y. Yang, C. Wu, Z. Liu, H. Zhang, 3D-printing ultra-high performance fiber-
reinforced concrete under triaxial confining loads, Addi. Manufact. 50 (2022),
102568, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.102568.
[33] G. Ji, J. Xiao, P. Zhi, Y.-C. Wu, N. Han, Effects of extrusion parameters on
properties of 3D printing concrete with coarse aggregates, Constr. Build. Mater.
325 (2022), 126740, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126740.
[34] A.V. Rahul, M.K. Mohan, G. De Schutter, K. Van Tittelboom, 3D printable concrete
with natural and recycled coarse aggregates: rheological, mechanical and
shrinkage behaviour, Cem. Concr. Compos. 125 (2022), 104311, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104311.
R. Robayo-Salazar et al.
[35] H. Christen, G. van Zijl, W. de Villiers, The incorporation of recycled brick
aggregate in 3D printed concrete, Clean. Mater. 4 (2022), 100090, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.clema.2022.100090.
[36] 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, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126919.
[37] 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, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2022.104091.
[38] S. Zou, J. Xiao, Z. Duan, T. Ding, S. Hou, On rheology of mortar with recycled fine
aggregate for 3D printing, Constr. Build. Mater. 311 (2021), 125312, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125312.
[39] Y. Wu, C. Liu, H. Liu, Z. Zhang, C. He, S. Liu, R. Zhang, Y. Wang, G. Bai, Study on
the rheology and buildability of 3D printed concrete with recycled coarse
aggregates, J. Build. Eng. 42 (2021), 103030, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2021.103030.
[40] Y. Chen, C. Romero Rodriguez, Z. Li, B. Chen, O. Çopuroğlu, E. Schlangen, Effect of
different grade levels of calcined clays on fresh and hardened properties of ternary-
blended cementitious materials for 3D printing, Cem. Concr. Compos. 114 (2020),
103708, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103708.
[41] X. Huang, W. Yang, F. Song, J. Zou, Study on the mechanical properties of 3D
printing concrete layers and the mechanism of influence of printing parameters,
Constr. Build. Mater. 335 (2022), 127496, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2022.127496.
[42] P. de Matos, T. Zat, K. Corazza, E. Fensterseifer, R. Sakata, G. Mohamad,
E. Rodríguez, Effect of TiO2 nanoparticles on the fresh performance of 3D-printed
cementitious materials, Materials (Basel) 15 (2022) 3896, https://doi.org/
10.3390/ma15113896.
[43] M. Xia, J. Sanjayan, Method of formulating geopolymer for 3D printing for
construction applications, Mater. Des. 110 (2016) 382–390, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2016.07.136.
[44] S. Bhattacherjee, A.S. Basavaraj, A.V. Rahul, M. Santhanam, R. Gettu, B. Panda,
E. Schlangen, Y. Chen, O. Copuroglu, G. Ma, L. Wang, M.A. Basit Beigh,
V. Mechtcherine, Sustainable materials for 3D concrete printing, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 122 (2021), 104156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2021.104156.
[45] R. Robayo-Salazar, W. Valencia-Saavedra, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, Recycling of
concrete, ceramic, and masonry waste via alkaline activation: obtaining and
characterization of hybrid cements, J. Build. Eng. 46 (2022), 103698, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103698.
[46] R. Robayo-Salazar, W. Valencia-Saavedra, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, Reuse of powders
and recycled aggregates from mixed construction and demolition waste in alkali-
activated materials and precast concrete units, Sustainability. 14 (2022) 9685,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159685.
[47] S.H. Bong, M. Xia, B. Nematollahi, C. Shi, Ambient temperature cured “just-add-
water” geopolymer for 3D concrete printing applications, Cem. Concr. Compos.
121 (2021), 104060, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104060.
[48] W. Valencia-Saavedra, R. Robayo-Salazar, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, Alkali-activated
hybrid cements based on Fly ash and construction and demolition wastes using
sodium sulfate and sodium carbonate, Molecules. 26 (2021) 7572, https://doi.org/
10.3390/molecules26247572.
[49] H. Zhong, M. Zhang, 3D printing geopolymers: a review, Cem. Concr. Compos. 128
(2022), 104455, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104455.
[50] H.S. Gökçe, M. Tuyan, M.L. Nehdi, Alkali-activated and geopolymer materials
developed using innovative manufacturing techniques: a critical review, Constr.
Build. Mater. 303 (2021), 124483, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2021.124483.
[51] G. Lazorenko, A. Kasprzhitskii, Geopolymer additive manufacturing: a review,
Addi. Manufact. 55 (2022), 102782, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2022.102782.
[52] M. Amran, H.S. Abdelgader, A.M. Onaizi, R. Fediuk, T. Ozbakkaloglu, R.S.
M. Rashid, G. Murali, 3D-printable alkali-activated concretes for building
applications: a critical review, Constr. Build. Mater. 319 (2022), 126126, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.126126.
[53] N. Ranjbar, M. Mehrali, C. Kuenzel, C. Gundlach, D.B. Pedersen, A. Dolatshahi-
Pirouz, J. Spangenberg, Rheological characterization of 3D printable geopolymers,
Cem. Concr. Res. 147 (2021), 106498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2021.106498.
[54] B. Panda, C. Unluer, M.J. Tan, Investigation of the rheology and strength of
geopolymer mixtures for extrusion-based 3D printing, Cem. Concr. Compos. 94
(2018) 307–314, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.10.002.
14
Automation in Construction 146 (2023) 104693
[55] S. Muthukrishnan, S. Ramakrishnan, J. Sanjayan, Effect of alkali reactions on the
rheology of one-part 3D printable geopolymer concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 116
(2021), 103899, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103899.
[56] M. Chougan, S. Hamidreza Ghaffar, M. Jahanzat, A. Albar, N. Mujaddedi, R. Swash,
The influence of nano-additives in strengthening mechanical performance of 3D
printed multi-binder geopolymer composites, Constr. Build. Mater. 250 (2020),
118928, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118928.
[57] H. Alghamdi, S.A.O. Nair, N. Neithalath, Insights into material design, extrusion
rheology, and properties of 3D-printable alkali-activated fly ash-based binders,
Mater. Des. 167 (2019), 107634, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107634.
[58] MINAMBIENTE, Resolución No. 1257 de 2021, Por la Cual se modifica la
Resolución 0472 de 2017 Sobre la Gestión Integral de Residuos de Construcción y
Demolición – RCD y se adoptan otras Disposiciones (Resolution No. 1257 of 2021,
by which Resolution 0472 of 2017 on the integral management of Construction and
Demolition Waste - RCD is Modified and Other Provisions are Adopted). http
s://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Resolucion-1257-de
-2021-Anexos.pdf, 2021 (Accessed October 2022).
[59] M. Nodehi, F. Aguayo, S.E. Nodehi, A. Gholampour, T. Ozbakkaloglu, O. Gencel,
Durability properties of 3D printed concrete (3DPC), Autom. Constr. 142 (2022),
104479, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104479.
[60] P.J. Collins, J. Edmunson, M. Fiske, A. Radlińska, Materials characterization of
various lunar regolith simulants for use in geopolymer lunar concrete, Adv. Space
Res. 69 (2022) 3941–3951, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.03.012.
[61] M. Isachenkov, S. Chugunov, I. Akhatov, I. Shishkovsky, Regolith-based additive
manufacturing for sustainable development of lunar infrastructure – an overview,
Acta Astron. 180 (2021) 650–678, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
actaastro.2021.01.005.
[62] J.N. Mills, M. Katzarova, N.J. Wagner, Comparison of lunar and Martian regolith
simulant-based geopolymer cements formed by alkali-activation for in-situ
resource utilization, Adv. Space Res. 69 (2022) 761–777, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.asr.2021.10.045.
[63] DANE, Déficit Habitacional. Encuesta Nacional de Calidad de Vida (ECV 2020).,
Boletín Técnico Déficit Habitacional - 2020 (National Survey on Quality of Life
(ECV 2020)., Technical Bulletin on Housing Deficit - 2020). https://www.dane.
gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/demografia-y-poblacion/deficit-habitacio
nal, 2020 (Accessed October 2022).
[64] Constructora Conconcreto, Casa Origami: Primer Prototipo 3D de Vivienda en
Colombia (Origami House: First 3D Housing Prototype in Colombia). https://
conconcreto.com/impresora-3d/, 2017.
[65] 3Dnatives, ¿Cómo se está integrando la impresión 3D en el sector de la
construcción en Colombia?, El Sitio Web La Impresión 3D (¿How is 3D printing
being integrated into the construction sector in Colombia?, The 3D Printing
Website). https://www.3dnatives.com/es/impresion-3d-sector-construccion-
colombia-030520222/, 2022 (Accessed October 2022).
[66] L.A. Vergara, H.A. Colorado, Additive manufacturing of Portland cement pastes
with additions of kaolin, superplastificant and calcium carbonate, Constr. Build.
Mater. 248 (2020), 118669, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118669.
[67] O. Rojas-Duque, L.M. Espinosa, R.A. Robayo-Salazar, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, Alkali-
activated hybrid concrete based on Fly ash and its application in the production of
high-class structural blocks, Crystals 10 (2020) 946, https://doi.org/10.3390/
cryst10100946.
[68] S.A. Bernal, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, A.L. Pedraza, J.L. Provis, E.D. Rodriguez,
S. Delvasto, Effect of binder content on the performance of alkali-activated slag
concretes, Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (2011) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2010.08.017.
[69] S.J. Schuldt, J.A. Jagoda, A.J. Hoisington, J.D. Delorit, A systematic review and
analysis of the viability of 3D-printed construction in remote environments,
Autom. Constr. 125 (2021), 103642, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2021.103642.
[70] M. Gomaa, W. Jabi, V. Soebarto, Y.M. Xie, Digital manufacturing for earth
construction: a critical review, J. Clean. Prod. 338 (2022), 130630, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130630.
[71] C.F. Revelo, H.A. Colorado, 3D printing of kaolinite clay ceramics using the direct
ink writing (DIW) technique, Ceram. Int. 44 (2018) 5673–5682, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ceramint.2017.12.219.
[72] E. Ordoñez, J.M. Gallego, H.A. Colorado, 3D printing via the direct ink writing
technique of ceramic pastes from typical formulations used in traditional ceramics
industry, Appl. Clay Sci. 182 (2019), 105285, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
clay.2019.105285.
[73] E. Ordoñez, S. Neves Monteiro, H.A. Colorado, Valorization of a hazardous waste
with 3D-printing: combination of kaolin clay and electric arc furnace dust from the
steel making industry, Mater. Des. 217 (2022), 110617, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2022.110617.