Journal Pre-proof

Experimental Prediction of Material Deformation in

Large-Scale Additive Manufacturing of Concrete

Negar Ashrafi, Shadi Nazarian, Nicholas A.

Meisel, Jose Pinto Duarte

PII: S2214-8604(20)31028-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101656
Reference: ADDMA101656

To appear in: Additive Manufacturing

Received date: 10 June 2020
Revised date: 14 September 2020
Accepted date: 6 October 2020
Please cite this article as: Negar Ashrafi, Shadi Nazarian, Nicholas A. Meisel and
Jose Pinto Duarte, Experimental Prediction of Material Deformation in Large-
Scale Additive Manufacturing of Concrete, Additive Manufacturing, (2020)
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101656
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance,
such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability,
but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo
additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final
form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2020 Published by Elsevier.
Experimental Prediction of Material Deformation in Large-Scale Additive Manufacturing
of Concrete

Negar Ashrafia, Shadi Nazariana, Nicholas A. Meiselb, Jose Pinto Duartea (Corresponding author)
a
Stuckeman School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA 16802
b
School of Engineering Design, Technology and Professional Programs, The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA 16802

Abstract

f
Additive manufacturing (AM) of cementitious material has become a popular subject over the

oo
last decade. The multidisciplinary nature of this topic has led researchers from multiple areas of
expertise such as architecture, engineering, and materials science to collaborate to improve the
technology, which does not permit yet to print mixtures with coarse aggregates, but is often
referred to as AM of “concrete” or “concrete” printing. An important aspect of research in the

pr
area is finding a Portland cement-based mortar with adequate rheological, hardening and strength
properties for printing architectural structures. In addition, the properties of fresh and hardened
e-
mortar and its deformation behavior affect the shape accuracy of the printed geometries and
require designers to adjust the toolpaths and technology to account for issues in the printing. This
paper is aimed at studying the deformation of a printed concrete mix, which previous studies
Pr
have shown to be printable. It is focused on the effect of the number of layers, the number of
beads and time on layer height and width. It proceeds through a series of experimental tests and
it uses regression analysis to model material behavior. The resulting equations can be used in
toolpath design to compensate for such deformation and have more accurate printed geometries
al

subsequently. Future studies will be concerned with linking material properties with material
deformation and use results to develop a more generic toolpath generator.
n
ur

Keywords: Cementitious material, digital fabrication, additive manufacturing of concrete, 3d

printing,
Jo

1. Introduction and Motivation

Recently, using AM techniques in the building industry became more popular, as architects and
engineers attempt to use their potential to build free-form, unsupported structures automatically.
Even though AM technology in the building industry is in its early stage of adoption, it can be
cost effective and time efficient while improving accuracy in construction [1]. These potential
advantages have motivated many recent studies aimed at improving the technology, particularly,
applied to cementitious materials. Although, it does not permit to print ready-mixed concrete
with coarse aggregates, the printed material is often referred to as “concrete” and the technology
as “concrete” AM or printing in the literature on the topic, and so, this terminology is also used
in this study, where the term concrete refers to Portland cement-based mortar. Most of concrete
AM processes rely on material extrusion techniques [2] which deposit linear filaments or beads
of concrete through an extrusion print head along a programmed path.

1
The AM toolpath determines the trajectory for the extruder when depositing the material layer by
layer [3]. Since the design of toolpaths affects the geometric quality, strength and stiffness of the
model to be built, as well as the printing time, it is one of the crucial tasks in process planning.
Designing a toolpath is comprised of two main steps, including “interior filling” and “linking
sequence” [4]. Interior filling concerns the method according to which layers are filled up with
filaments, while linking sequence refers to the order in which each layers are printed without
interrupting the deposition process [5]. The main objectives of toolpath design for material
extrusion-based AM include: (1) obtain satisfactory extrusion quality; (2) increase printing
efficiency; and (3) decrease the number of sub-paths to reduce travel time used in linking the
paths [6].

Unlike plastic 3D-printing, one of the main challenges in AM of concrete is the deformable

f
characteristic of extruded fresh concrete. Fresh concrete used in AM should be “flowable” and

oo
“buildable” at the same time, which means it should be deformable enough to be extruded
through the nozzle but retain its shape during the building process, resisting deformation as much
as possible [7]. Generally, there are three main causes of deformation that affect extruded

pr
concrete layers including, self-weight, the weight of subsequent layer(s) printed on the top of it,
and extrusion pressure (Figure 1). No major self-weight deformation can be detected in a layer
when the quality of the printing material is adequate. However, the weight of subsequent layers
e-
and extrusion pressure may cause unwanted deformations once the next layer(s) are deposited
[7].
Pr
The printing time gap between consecutive layers is an important factor in predicting
deformation. The longer the time gap between two layers the harder the bottom layer can become
thus maintaining its shape with less deformation [7]. On the other hand, some studies [8, 9] have
shown that longer interlayer time gaps lead to lower bond strength, which negatively impacts the
al

structural properties of printed elements. In this regard, finding the interlayer time gap that can
results in minimum deformation without compromising structural properties is essential in
n

toolpath design. As such, considering the amount of material deformation in toolpath design can
lead to better shape quality and increased strength.
ur
Jo

Figure 1: Diagram illustrating material deformation of layers in concrete printing under the load
of subsequent layer(s)

Without considering the effect of time on material deformation, the number of beads and the
number of layers will have a cumulative effect on shape deformation due to the increasing loads
and extrusion pressure, as illustrated on Figure 2. In addition, studying the effect of the number

2
of beads and the number of layers on shape deformation and compensating for such an adverse
effect in the design of the toolpath can result in more accurate printed geometries, as shown in
Figure 3. The work presented in this paper is aimed at studying the combined effect of time, the
number of beads and the number of layers on material deformation and use this information to
improve shape quality through toolpath design. The term “beads” refers to the linear filaments
extruded by the nozzle, labelled B1, B2, and so on, in Figure 2a, and “layers” refers to collection
of adjacent filaments that are deposited on same level, labelled as L1, L2, and so on, in the same
figure.

f
oo
pr
Figure 2: Effect of the number of beads and layers on shape deformation: a) designed shape, and
b) deformed shape.
e-
Pr
n al
ur
Jo

Figure 3: Compensating for shape deformation through toolpath design: a) deformed shape, and
b) compensated shape

Section 2 summarizes the state of art in large scale additive manufacturing of concrete. Section 3
briefly describes the printing system and the properties of the concrete mix used in the study.
Section 4 describes three tests designed to determine: (1) the effect of the number of beads and

3
layers on layer width deformation, (2) the time interval until the printed concrete mix no longer
deforms, and (3) the effect of different interlayer time intervals on layer height deformation.
Section 5 summarizes the current study, presents the conclusions and identifies future work.

2. State of the art in Large-Scale Additive Manufacturing

In the architectural field of interest, AM has been used for concept modeling [10]. However,
scaling up AM techniques for full-scale automated building construction can have a strong
impact on the construction industry with increasing customization and design flexibility,
reducing construction time, and reducing manpower and construction cost [11]. Although the use
of AM for this purpose include experimentation with various materials such as plastic, metal, and
clay [12], the focus of this paper is on the use of AM with concrete mixtures as the most

f
common building material, particularly Portland cement-based ones.

oo
Lim et al. [13] claimed that construction-scale 3D-printing is currently performed by the use of
only three main processes in the public domain: D-shape, which has been invented by Enrico

pr
Dini in Italy, is a large binder-jet 3D-printer that utilizes materials such as sand, inorganic
seawater, and magnesium-based binder to form materials that are similar to stone in terms of
properties and appearance; Contour Crafting (CC), which was initiated by Behrokh Khoshnevis
e-
in the US, is a layered fabrication technology uses automation to mimic the conventional
construction process to build both whole structures and subcomponents for assembly [14]; and
Concrete Printing, developed at Loughborough University in the UK is a technique that uses a
Pr
3D-printer comprised of a frame and a nozzle mounted on a moving horizontal beam for
manufacturing full-scale construction and architectural components[13]. Recently, another
printing technique called Robotic Additive Manufacturing (RAM) has been introduced to the
field, gaining considerable attention. The term (RAM) refers to the process of layer by layer
al

material extrusion, leading to the creation of a solid product using industrial robots [15]. Table 1
presents a list of current case studies using Portland cement-based AM.
n

Table 1: List of case studies using cement-based AM, adapted from Kontovourkis et al., [15]
ur

Project Location Architects On Site / Material Printer Method

Prefab
Una Casa Tutta Di Milan Marco Ferreri On Site Inorganic binder Crane 3D Printer D-shape
Jo

Un Pezzo + sand
Radiolaria Pavilion Pontedera Andrea On Site Inorganic binder Crane 3D Printer D-shape
Morgante + sand
3DP Office Dubai Killa Design Prefab Cementitious N/A CC
10x 3DP House Shanghai Yingchuang Prefab Cementitious Crane 3D Printer CC
Stupino House Moscow Apis Cor & PIK On Site Cementitious Crane 3D Printer CC
3DP House Milan CLS Architect On Site Cementitious Robotic 3D Printer CC
& Arup
Vulcan House Austin ICON On Site Cementitious Crane 3D Printer CC
3DP House Valencia Be-More-3D On Site Cementitious Crane 3D Printer CC
Pennstate Den at Peoria PSU Team On Site Cementitious Robotic 3D Printer RAM
Mars [16]
3D Printed Tiny Mexico ICON On Site Cementitious Crane 3D Printer CC
Houses [17]

4
Since the properties of the material significantly affect printability and print quality, research on
the fresh and hardened properties of Portland cement-based mortar for additive manufacturing is
increasingly gaining more attention.

According to Buswell et al. [16], the most important rheological and physical parameters
concerning the fresh material) can be categorized into the following groups:
 open time, which is the time span after mixing during which the material can be pumped
and extruded, and it depends on the maintenance of the viscosity and yields stress of the
mixture; [17]
 setting time, which is the time required for the material to keep its shape before adding
successive layers;
 layer cycle-time, which is the time needed to build one layer and it will affect the

f
oo
building rate; [16]
 rheological properties and how they affect print qualities; [18,19, 20]
 structural build-up, which refers to the property of fresh concrete getting stronger with

pr
time because of chemical and/or physical reactions; [21, 22]
 interlayer adhesion, which refers to the bonding between extruded layers; [23, 18, 24, 20]
and, e-
 layer deformation, as consecutive layers are being added on top [16, 25].
In 2012, Le et al. [8] studied the mix design and fresh properties of high-performance, fiber-
Pr
reinforced, fine-grained aggregate concrete for 3D printing applications. The cementitious
mixture was comprised of sand, cement, fly ash, silica fume, and polypropylene fiber. The most
critical fresh properties of printing concrete were defined to be extrudability and buildability,
which are linked to workability and time. In their study, the final mixture was tested by
al

constructing a 2 m long concrete bench.

n

Extrudability refers to the ability of the concrete mixture to be extruded through a printing head
containing a nozzle to form a continuous and intact concrete bead [8, 26]. Although the essential
ur

flowability is a requirement for proper extrudability, it cannot guarantee the desired extrusion
through nozzles. If the geometry size of the printing hose is not consistent with the nozzle head
Jo

or if they have different cross-sections, such as the cases of conical or rectangular nozzles, it may
lead to the blocking of the nozzle head.

The material also needs to have sufficient buildability features to be able to be deposited
correctly, remain in position, and be stiff enough to support upper layers without collapsing [27,
8, 28]. In addition, the material should bond layers together well enough [23, 18, 24, 20].
Buildability also relies on the workability of the material mixture, which refers to the capacity of
concrete to be transported, placed, compacted, and finished without any segregation. Insufficient
buildability may result in deforming the extruded layer in horizontal and vertical directions and,
as a result, changing the geometry of the printed specimen or collapsing the structure [28].
Buildability failure can be caused by plastic collapse, when during the printing process the stress
that the bottom layer bears reaches the yield stress of the material. It can also cause by elastic
buckling which may occur due to progressive lateral deformations or unusual layer placement.
To guarantee a stable structure, the modulus of elasticity of the printed material needs to exceed

5
the critical value. Buildability failures were studied and modelled by several researchers [18, 29,
30, 31, 32].

In 2017, Kazemian et al. [7] presented a framework to test the performance of cement-based
mixtures in large-scale AM. Their research evaluated the workability of a fresh ‘‘printing
mixture” regarding quality of print, stability of shape, and printability. Print quality was
explained considering both surface and layer quality, and methods were provided to determine
them. Also, detailed information about the two testing procedures developed to assess stability,
i.e., “layer settlement” and “cylinder stability”, were presented. The proposed framework was
used for characterizing material deformation in their study.

Roussel [18] discussed the rheological requirements for printable concrete such as yield stress,

f
viscosity, elastic modulus, critical strain and building rate to prevent the critical deformation of

oo
layers and guarantee it could carry its own weight. He also studied the elastic behavior of the
extruding material to control the final geometrical dimensions of one layer.

pr
In 2015, Maleb et al. [33] studied the effect of superplasticizer on both flowability and
buildability of a cementitious mortar. It was claimed that in a mixture with a relatively lower
water to cement (W/C) ratio, the compressive strength and flowability of the mixture increased
e-
with the amount of superplasticizer. This would, however, negatively affect the buildability of
the material. The best W/C ratio was reported to be about 0.39 and the best amount of
superplasticizer was reported to be about 1.9%, respectively. A 10-cm height wall was
Pr
constructed using with a 2-cm diameter nozzle.

Throughout the layer-by-layer construction procedure, it is very important that previously-

deposited layers can withstand the load from the subsequent layers. In this regard, Perrot et al.
al

[34] attempted to optimize the building rate by proposing a theoretical framework based on the
rheological properties of Portland cement-based mixtures such that each layer could sustain the
n

weight of subsequent layers during the deposition processes. Reiter et al. [35] studied the role of
chemically controlling cement hydration by adding different type of admixtures to control the
ur

structural build-up.
Jo

Interlayer bonding is also another critical factor in AM of concrete. To have a homogenous

structure, all the successive layers must be bonded together perfectly and, since there is no
vibration or external force during the AM process, bonding must occur during fabrication. In this
regard, Zareiyan and Khoshnevis [23] studied the effect of extrusion rate, layer thickness, and
layer width on the bonding between layers. They concluded that decreasing the maximum
aggregate size and increasing the cement to aggregate ratio lead to a better interlayer adhesion
and as a result higher structural strength. They also realized that although the increasing layer
thickness resulted in better interlayer bonding, it reduced the overall compressive strength of the
printed specimen. Likewise, the shorter setting time increases the buildability of the material but
it may affect interlayer bonding negatively, as it may produce cold joints at layer interface.
Roussel [18] also discussed the necessity of the interlayer bonding and concluded that a long
time-interval between layers can cause drying of the upper surface of the layer and, as the result,
weaken the interlayer bonding. Keita et al. [24] showed that the tensile splitting strength in

6
uncovered specimens reduced up to 50% in comparison to samples that were protected from
drying.
Tay et al. [20] also investigated the effect of time interval on the bond strength at microscopic
scale. They concluded that the rheological properties of the initial layer increased the time
interval between layers and weakened interlayer bonding. Consequently, it negatively affected
the tensile strength of the printed specimen. Also, as the time interval increased, the voids
between filaments increased, which weakened the bond strength exponentially. Wolfs et al. [36]
studied the impacts of different process parameters on interlayer bonding strength and how it
affected the mechanical behavior of 3D printed concrete. It was reported that layer orientation
did not affect bonding strength except in cases in which the time-interval between layers was
very short. They also confirmed the fact that, an increase in time interval affected layer bonding
negatively. Also, unprotected (uncovered) surfaces during the time interval had weaker bonding

f
strength. They also did not find any significant relation between the height of the nozzle and

oo
bonding strength.

Some other studies attempted to manipulate the material mixture design to improve bonding.

pr
Panda et al. [37] developed a 3D printable geopolymer mortar as a reference material with high
yield stress and low viscosity properties by adding nano-clay. They then investigated the effect
of adding slag to the reference material to improve interlayer bonding. The results of this study
e-
indicated that, using slag reduced the workable time period and also adversely affected the
bonding strength as it caused the printed layer to lose moisture from its surface before deposition
of the next layer up.
Pr
During the deposition of each layer, a slight deformation of each layer helps the bonding to the
previous layer [2]. On the other hand, the overall deformation increases as the height of the
structure increases. Since it is common to have equal layer height during the printing process, the
al

designed distance between the nozzle and the previous layer increases and it causes deformation
of the printed filament, which can result in weakening the bonding between layers and, in some
n

cases, the collapse of the structure [38].To address this issue two approaches have been
proposed: Wolfs et al. [39] attempted to adjust the nozzle height dynamically during the printing
ur

process. While Wangler et al. [17] and Perrot et al [19] tried to control the buildup rate by
injecting additives to the material right before extrusion, to accelerate the hardening process so
Jo

that each layer could maintain its shape under the load of upper layers.

Most studies on material aspects of Portland cement-based mixtures for AM are focused on
eliminating the deformability of the fresh concrete as much as possible, while keeping
flowability and printability. However, despite this body of work, current mixes still deform
during printing. As such, instead of manipulating material properties to avoid deformation, this
study is aimed at studying concrete deformation during and after the printing process and using it
as a decisive factor in toolpath design. The deformation of each printed layer results from layer
height deformation and layer width deformation, which is also dependent on layer height
deformation. Ashrafi et al. [25] studied layer height deformation under the load of the subsequent
layers. By measuring layer height deformation of one printed bead in each layer, they designed a
new toolpath that compensated for the deformation to print layers of equal height. The current
study aims at modeling layer width deformation, not only for a different number of layers but
also for a different number of beads, under the load of upper layers. Since concrete deformation

7
depends on time, our study also attempted to determine the time interval after which deposited
concrete no longer deformed, model deformation during such interval, and then design toolpaths
to compensate for such deformation and print specimens with the desired shape.
3. Printing Material and Printing System

The material used in all the experiments described in this study was developed by Gulf Concrete
Technologies in cooperation with our research team. The mixture was a blend of Portland
cement, lime, pulverized limestone, specially graded masonry sand, fibers and admixtures (Table
2). The maximum particle size in GCT concrete was 1 mm.

Table 2: GCT material composition [40]

Components Chemical Name Content

f
Pulverized Limestone <2%-6%

oo
Lime 30%
Crystalline Silica <50%-70%
Portland Cement < 50%

pr
Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cement 5%-12%
Cellulose 0.2%-2%
Starch 0.2%-2%
e-
Mastersizer 3000 system, which applies laser diffraction technique was used to measure the
particle size and particle size distribution of the GCT material. The particle size distribution of
Pr
GCT material is illustrated in Error! Reference source not found.. The material shows a range
of particle size from 0.460 µm to 27.4 µm. D10: 0.930 µm (i.e., 10% of particles are smaller than
0.930 µm); D50: 3.07 µm (50% of particles are smaller than 3.07 µm); D90: 8.35 µm (90% of
particles are smaller than 8.35 µm). The specific surface area of GCT was determined to be 2805
al

m²/kg.
n
ur
Jo

Figure 4: Particle Size Distribution of GCT Material

8
 The compressive strength of the material was tested in accordance with ASTM C-109. Figure 5
presents the average compressive strengths measured at 3, 7, and 28 days with standard deviation
reported.

26
24 24.55

22
Strength (MPa)

20
18 17.95
16

f
14 15.12

oo
12
10
3 7 28

pr
Age (days)
Figure 5: Compressive strength test of GCT material
e-
The Vicat Needle test (ASTM C-191) was performed to measure the initial and final setting
times presented in Table 3. Two tests were conducted to evaluate the repeatability of the test
Pr
results. According to the ASTM C-191 test, the results of two properly conducted tests on a
similar batch of material by the same operator for initial setting time should not differ by more
than 34 min and for the final setting time should not vary by more than 56 min, and so the results
reported in Table are compliant.
al

Table 3: GCT Material setting time

n

Initial Set (min) Final Set (min)

Setting Time

ur

Values Ave Values Ave

Jo

75.3 143.0
80.7 143.0
86.0 143.0

A flow table test (ASTM C-1437) was conducted to evaluate the flowability of the mixture. The
value provided in Table 4 corresponds to the average obtained from four readings for each test
and their standard deviation. Two tests were conducted to guarantee the repeatability of the test
results, since according to the standard, the results of two properly conducted tests by the same
operator on the same batch of material, should not vary by more than 11 %.

9
 Table 4: GCT Material Flowability
Flow (cm)

Ave values for

Average of two

Flowability
each test/ (SD)
test

22.97/ (0.39)
23.25
23.5/( 0.24)

The AM system used in this study, diagrammed in Figure 6, consists of a mixer-pump (m-tec
Duomix 2000) for mixing and extruding the material, a silo that contains the dry mix and feeds

f
the pump, and an industrial 6-axis robotic arm (ABB IRB 6640). With this system, it was

oo
possible to control variables related to the pump and robotic arm, which depend on the properties
of the concrete mixture and can directly affect print quality. These variables included the dry mix
feed and water flow rates, which determine the proportion of water to dry mix, and together with

pr
the pump paddle rotation speed and the nozzle section determine the robotic arm speed. Gulf
Concrete Technology (GCT), the company that supplied the Duo-mix 2000, manufactured in
Germany by m-tec, disclosed basic information regarding the relationships between these
e-
variables, which served to determine adequate printing settings, including the pump flow rate
and the robot speed for a given nozzle size. The toolpaths were computed and generated using
Rhino and Grasshopper. The Grasshopper plugin HAL was used to convert the toolpaths to
Pr
RAPID, which is the high-level programming language for ABB industrial robots. ABB robots
have two operating modes: manual mode, in which mode the manipulator movement is under
manual control and the speed is reduced to a maximum 250 mm/s; and automatic mode, in which
the safety function of the three-position enabling switch (one of the two safety functions of ABB
al

robots) is bypassed so that the manipulator is allowed to move without human intervention and
the robot moves at full speed completely “autonomous”. In all the experiments described in this
n

study, the robot was used in automatic mode.

ur
Jo

10
 f
oo
pr
e-
Figure 6: 1. Computer for generating the toolpath and the RAPID code; 2. Robot Controller for
reading the RAPID code and controlling the robot; 3. Robot for moving the nozzle based along
Pr
the generated toolpath; 4. Silo for storing the dry mix, 5. Duomix 2000 pump for mixing the dry
mix with water and pumping the fresh material; 6. Nozzle for depositing the material; and 7.
Printed specimen
al

A 2-day compressive strength test was conducted on a 3D printed cylinder with dimensions of
150 mm diameter × 300 mm height in accordance with ASTM C39 (Figure 7). The specimen
n

was printed using the GCT material and a nozzle to printed layer distance of 15 mm, as in all the
tests included in this study. The results of the test (Table 5) demonstrated that the printing
ur

material and the printing system could be used to print structures with adequate strength.
Jo

11
 f
oo
pr
Figure 7: Compression test for 3D printed cylinder

Table 5: results of compression Test for 3D Printed Cylinder with GCT material
e-
Compression Test
Compressive Strength Maximum Load
[lb (kN)]
Pr
[psi (MPa)]
2,150 (14.82) 60,830 (270.58)

4. Experimental Setup and Methods

al

In this study three different set of experiment were conducted. Test 1 targeted the effect of the
n

number of adjacent beads and layers on layer width deformation, Test 2 was aimed at finding the
time interval after which the printed material stops deforming, and Test 3 studied the effect of
ur

different interlayer time intervals on layer height deformation.

Jo

4.1. Test 1- Effect of the number of beads and layers on layer width deformation

4.1.1. Experimental setup

The main goal of the undertaken series of tests was to study layer width deformation under the
load of upper layers for different numbers of layers and beads. In a previous study, Ashrafi et al.
[20] determined that the printing orientation along X and Y axes affected material deformation.
In the current study, it was realized that in manual mode, built-in limitations in the robot’s
movement along each axis caused it to move at slightly different speeds, depending on the
printing direction and orientation, whereas in automatic mode it always moved at the same
speed. Considering that the robotic arm speed affected material extrusion and, therefore, its
shape, it was decided to run the current tests in automatic mode. In addition, Test 1 was designed
in a way to verify whether robot speed remained the same in automatic mode and so printing
orientation did not affect material deposition and shape.

12
 For this purpose, one to five beads of material were printed in five layers along X and Y
orientations to determine the effect of orientation on layer width (Figure 8). The length of the
printed beads was 100 cm and they were connected to enable continuous printing (Figure 9a and
b). A 15 mm layer height was used in the toolpath design in all the experiments. Each specimen
was printed thrice to determine the mean ( and standard deviation ( ). The total layer width of
each layer for a different number of beads was measured after curing. For measuring the total
layer width, the hardened 100 cm beads were cut in ten equal 10 cm long segments (Figure 9a
and c) and the total layer width was measured for each segment (Figure 10). The average layer
width for each specimen was considered as the total layer width for that specimen. Four variables
(dependent and independent) were under consideration in this experiment: (1) layer width
(dependent), in which the deformation was measured based on the percent error of the printed
and the designed layer; (2) orientation (independent), which had two values, "X" and "Y"; (3)

f
number of beads (independent), which had five values, from 1 to 5; and (4) , number of layers

oo
(independent), which had five values, from 1 to 5.

Table 6 presents the values of the relevant variables of the printing system. Results show that the

pr
average percentage error of layer width decreases with increasing the number of layers and beads
in both X and Y orientations.

Pump Flow Rate Nozzle size

e-
Table 6: Values of printing variables in Test 1
Robot Speed Nozzle distance Lab Relative
Speed to the bed Temperature Humidity
Pr
(kg/h) (mm) (mm/sec) (mm) (C°) %
7 750 24.5 169 15 18.3 56
n al
ur
Jo

Figure 8: Diagram of the toolpath and printing setup in Test 1

13
 f
oo
Figure 9: Preparation of specimen to determine layer width deformation: a) the printing toolpath
and cutting points, b) the printed specimen, c) the cured specimen after cutting.

pr
e-
Pr
n al

Figure 10: Measuring the layer width of each segment

ur

4.1.2. Data analysis and discussion of Test 1 - Effect of the number of beads and layers on
layer width deformation
Jo

To verify whether the three independent variables affected layer height, a three-way ANOVA
analysis was used on the collected data. Results of the analysis are shown on Table 7. The "Sig."
column represents the statistical significance level (i.e., p-value) of the independent variables and
their three-way interaction. As can be seen, the p-value for the number of beads and the number
of layers is less than 0.05, which means that statistically they can significantly affect the layer
width. The p-value for printing orientation is larger than 0.05, which indicates that it does not
significantly affect layer width. Therefore, for further analysis, all values from x and y
orientations were combined to provide more statistically reliable results. The statistical
significance level of the three-way interaction term is 0.670, meaning that there is not a
statistically significant three-way interaction effect of triad orientation*number of beads*number
of the layers.

14
 Table 7. ANOVA analysis results, Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Source Type lll Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Orientation 2.884 1 2.884 0.319 0.574
Number of Beads 324662.564 4 81165.641 8964.749 0.000
Number of Layers 3010.788 4 752.697 83.135 0.000
Orientation*Number 117.527 16 7.34 0.811 0.670
of Beads*Number of
the Layers
R square: 0.997, Dependent variable: Layer width

Table 8 presents the average percentage error in each test. Results show that layer 5 with five

f
beads has the least percent error in all the variations. This can be explained by the fact that layer

oo
5 has the least amount of load on top, and the five number of beads will provide a longer
interlayer time interval for printing the following layer, meaning that the printed concrete has
more time to harden, and therefore deforms less.

pr
Table 8. Average percentage error in Test 1 - Effect of the number of beads and layers on layer
e-
width deformation
Number of layers
Pr
1 2 3 4 5
Number of beads 1 35.78 29.78 25.00 21.00 17.89
2 30.83 26.00 23.11 19.94 16.56
3 27.85 22.78 21.56 17.70 13.48
al

4 21.17 19.08 13.64 11.81 8.36

5 18.33 16.98 12.89 9.98 6.16
n

Figure 11 shows the percentage error in width for each set of beads. The trend lines show a linear
ur

relationship between the data points. As it can be observed, trend lines have a negative slope,
meaning that as the layer number increases, the percentage error in width decreases because the
layer bears a smaller load on top compared to the previous layer. Also, the slope of trend lines
Jo

decreases with the number of beads meaning that as the number of beads increase, the
deformation of the layers decreases.

15
 f
oo
pr
Figure 11. The % error in width for each set of beads

A linear regression analysis was conducted on the results to develop an equation that could
e-
predict layer width based on number of layers and number of beads. A regression analysis is a
statistical model for estimating the relationships between a dependent variable (layer width in
this case) and one or more independent variables (number of layers and number of beads). Based
Pr
on the result of the regression analysis (R2 = 0.99), Eq.1 was developed:

(
al

( (
n

where, WL= Layer width, NL = number of layers; and NB= Number of beads.
ur

The experimental results and the values estimated by Eq. 1 are compared in Table 9. This shows
that the obtained equation from regression analysis can predict the layer width for different
Jo

number of beads and number of layers with the average percentage error of 2.93.

Table 9. Comparison of the average layer width estimated by Eq. 2 and in Test 1 - Effect of the
number of beads and layers on layer width deformation
Number of Number of Observed LW in Test 1 Estimated LW by Eq. 2 %
layers beads error
1 1 40.73 46.15 13.31
2 1 38.93 43.13 10.78
3 1 37.50 40.11 6.96
4 1 36.30 37.09 2.17
5 1 35.37 34.07 3.67
1 2 78.50 78.86 0.46
2 2 75.60 75.84 0.32
3 2 73.87 72.82 1.42

16
 4 2 71.97 69.80 3.01
5 2 69.93 66.78 4.51
1 3 115.07 111.57 3.04
2 3 110.50 108.55 1.77
3 3 109.40 105.53 3.54
4 3 105.93 102.51 3.23
5 3 102.13 99.49 2.59
1 4 145.40 144.28 0.77
2 4 142.90 141.26 1.15
3 4 137.47 138.24 0.56
4 4 134.17 135.22 0.78

f
oo
5 4 130.03 132.19 1.66
1 5 177.50 176.99 0.29
2 5 175.47 173.97 0.85

pr
3 5 169.33 170.95 0.95
4 5 164.97 167.92 1.79
5 5 159.23
e- 164.90 3.56
Ave % error of Eq. 1 in comparison to value obtained from Test1 2.93
Pr
Since the deformation of concrete is time-dependent so that after a certain time concrete gets
hard enough that no deformation occurs, the next test was conducted to determine the time
interval within which Eq. 2 is valid.
al

4.2.Test 2 - Time interval for zero deformation

n

4.2.1. Experimental setup

ur

The objective of Test 2 was to establish the time interval needed to print the next layer with no
deformation of the layer underneath. For that, a 100 cm by 100 cm square was printed with 50
layers. This square geometry enabled a continuous toolpath while preventing printing on the top
Jo

of fresh material, right after extrusion. The intention was to measure layer height deformation
after printing each subsequent layer. For this purpose, one of the layers (layer 3) was selected.
The problem with measuring layer height from the elevation viewpoint is that the fresh concrete
may dip on the edges, making it impossible to accurately measure layer height (Figure 12a). To
overcome this difficulty, two thin plastic cards were placed during printing under and on the top
of layer 3 (Figure 12b). These cards were placed at three different points of the third layer to
determine and . Figure 13 shows the placement of the thin cards on layer 3. A video camera
was placed in front of the main front edge, and the video was captured while the layers were
deposited. The video was then used to extract a picture from each of the layers after it was
printed and before the next layer was deposited. These pictures were used for measuring the
layer height at the three selected points. Table 10 presents the values of relevant variables of the
printing system. Figure 14 shows the printed specimen after printing all the 50 layers.

17
 Figure 12: Diagram of Test 2 - Time interval for zero deformation, layer height measuring
strategy: a) deformation of layer edges by dipping, and b) measurement of layer height by
placing thin rigid cards in between layers during printing.

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr

Figure 13: The placement of thin rigid cards under and on the third layer at three different points
al

Table 10. Values of printing variables in Test 2 - Time interval for zero deformation
n

Pump Dial Flow Rate Nozzle size Robot Speed Nozzle distance Lab Relative
to the bed Temperature Humidity
ur

(kg/h) (mm) (mm/sec) (mm) (C°) %

7 850 24.5 118 15 19.4 28
Jo

Although the material used in Test 2 had the same mix design as the material used in Test 1, trial
tests showed a slight difference in behavior between the materials batches used in each test. The
two batches were prepared at a different times of the year with different relative humidity and
temperature, with the batch in Test 1 produced in winter and the one in Test 2 in summer. In
addition, the environmental conditions on the days of the two tests were also different. To
compensate for such different behavior, the values of variables of the printing system, namely
water flow rate and robot speed, were adjusted so that the printed beads had similar properties
(layer width and layer height) in comparison to the printed beads in Test 1. For this purpose, the
water flow rate was adjusted so the material was extrudable. Then a single bead was printed in
one layer with same nozzle distance to bed (15 mm). The layer width of the single bead was
measured and with changing the robot speed adjusted to have the same width as a single bead in
Test 1 (Figure 15).

18
 f
Figure 14: The printed specimen after printing all the 50 layers

oo
pr
e-
Pr
Figure 15: Adjusting the printed bead properties for the new batch of material

4.2.2. Data Analysis and Discussion of Test 2 - Time interval for zero deformation
al

In Test 2, the material deformation in one layer (layer 3) was measured to establish the time
interval needed to print the next layer to avoid deformation of the current layer. Table 11
n

presents the average layer height of layer 3 after printing the subsequent layers on top.
ur

Table 11. The average layer height of layer 3 after printing subsequent layers
Number of layers on top Time (sec) Ave layer height (mm) Deformation (mm)
Jo

0 0.00 15.0 0.0

1 33.90 14.9 0.1
2 67.80 14.9 0.1
3 101.69 14.9 0.1
4 135.60 14.9 0.1

The results show that, after printing the second layer on top of layer 3, the deformation remained
the same (0.1 mm) thereby indicating that after 33.9 ≈ 34 seconds the deformation of layer 3
stopped. This test was the preliminary test for conducting test 3.

19
 4.3.Test 3; Effect of different interlayer time intervals on layer height deformation
4.3.1. Experimental setup
After establishing a time interval after which deformation becomes zero, the next series of tests
were undertaken to study the effect of different interlayer time intervals on layer height
deformation under the weight of subsequent layer(s). For this purpose, 6 squares of different
sizes with 5 layers were printed (Table 12). The 6 squares represented 6 different interlayer time
intervals and the goal was to measure the nozzle distance to the previous printed layer (in short,
nozzle to previous layer distance) on one side of the square at multiple selected points (every 10
cm). Each of the 6 squares was printed at least 3 times to determine and . Table 13 shows the
values of relevant variables of the printing system in Test 3, which were adjusted following the
same procedure described for Test 1.

f
oo
Table 12. Printed samples specifications

pr
e-
Pr
Sample Name S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
Print Length (mm) 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
Printing Time (Sec) 12.74 15.29 17.83 20.38 22.93 25.48
n al

Table 13. Values of printing variables in Test 3 - Effect of interlayer time interval on layer
height deformation
ur

Pump Dial Flow Rate Nozzle size Robot Speed Nozzle distance Lab Relative
to the bed Temperature Humidity
(kg/h) (mm) (mm/sec) (mm) (C°) %
Jo

7 850 24.5 157 15 26.6 38

4.4. Data Analysis and Discussion of Test 3 - Effect of interlayer time interval on layer height
deformation

In Test 3, the nozzle distance to the previous printed layer was measured for each of the printed
specimens, which represent 6 different interlayer time intervals, to study its effect on layer height
deformation. As shown in Figure 16, maximum deformation occurred in sample 1 (S1) which is
the smallest sample and as a result has the minimum time interval between two consecutive
layers. Moreover, deformation decreases as the time interval increases, meaning that longer
interlayer time intervals result in smaller deformations.

20
 f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
n al
ur

Figure 16. The average layer height for different interlayer time intervals
Jo

A linear regression analysis was conducted on the results to develop an equation that could
predict the nozzle distance to previous layer (and layer height deformation) based on number of
layers and printing time. Using regression analysis, it was attempted to estimate the relationships
between a dependent variable (nozzle distance to previous layer in this case) and independent
variables (number of layers and printing time). Based on the result of the regression analysis (R2
= 0.87), Eq.2 was developed:
(

( (
where, DN = nozzle distance to previous layer; NL = number of layers; and t = time.

The experimental results and the values estimated by Eq. 2 are compared in Table 14. The results
indicated that Eq. 2 could predict the nozzle distance to previous layer for different number of
layers and time with the average percentage error of 1.23.

21
Table 14. Comparison between the average nozzle distances to previous layer estimated by Eq. 2
and in Test 3 - Effect of interlayer time interval on layer height deformation

NL Time Observed ND in Test 3 Estimated ND by Eq. 2 % error

1 12.74 15.00 15.30 1.97
2 12.74 15.47 15.73 1.72
3 12.74 16.17 16.18 0.11
4 12.74 17.03 16.65 2.27
5 12.74 17.93 17.12 4.51
1 15.29 15.00 15.12 0.83

f
2 15.29 15.30 15.56 1.68

oo
3 15.29 15.78 16.00 1.39
4 15.29 16.47 16.46 0.03
5 15.29 17.37 16.93 2.50

pr
1 17.83 15.00 14.96 0.30
2 17.83 15.17 15.38 1.43
3 17.83 15.68 e- 15.82 0.90
4 17.83 16.23 16.28 0.27
5 17.83 16.65 16.74 0.56
Pr
1 20.38 15.00 14.79 1.41
2 20.38 15.08 15.21 0.89
3 20.38 15.52 15.65 0.80
4 20.38 16.00 16.09 0.59
al

5 20.38 16.42 16.56 0.81

1 22.93 15.00 14.62 2.52
n

2 22.93 15.06 15.04 0.09

3 22.93 15.42 15.47 0.32
ur

4 22.93 15.88 15.91 0.22

5 22.93 16.25 16.37 0.74
1 25.48 15.00 14.46 3.61
Jo

2 25.48 15.02 14.87 0.99

3 25.48 15.30 15.30 0.01
4 25.48 15.56 15.74 1.17
5 25.48 15.83 16.19 2.24
Ave % error of Eq. 2 in comparison to value obtained from Test3 1.23

In the next step, the printing time needed to print each of the samples was divided by 34 sec,
which was shown to be a time interval after which deformation becomes zero. The outcome
indicated the number of layers needed for deformation to become zero in each sample. The
values were round up in order to have a full layer. As can be seen in Table 15, in all samples
after S2, deformation becomes zero after printing 2 layers. This means that for any given layer,
deformation is caused only by the next following layer, after which it stops.

22
 Table 15. The number of layers needed for deformation to become zero in each sample
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
Size 05*05 65*60 70*70 80*80 90*90 100*100
Printing time for one layer (Sec) 12.74 15.29 17.83 20.38 22.93 25.48
34/Printing time 2.66 2.22 1.90 1.66 1.48 1.33
Number of layers needed for 0
deformation 3 3 2 2 2 2

For instance, in sample 3, based on the results presented in Table 16, the average nozzle distance
to the previous layer is 15.1 mm for the second layer. This means there is a 0.1 mm deformation
in the first layer (Figure 17a). Since there is no more deformation after printing two layers, after
printing layer 3, the first layer will have no more deformation and will keep the height of 14.9
mm, but layer 2, which had 15.1 mm ND to previous layer after printing, will deform under the

f
load of layer 3 and become 15.0 mm with 0.1 mm deformation (Figure 17b). While printing

oo
layer 4, the deformation of layer 2 will become zero and layer 3 which was 15.1mm in the
beginning (because the ND was 15.1) will deform 0.1 mm, and this cycle will continue until all
the layers are printed (Figure 17c). It can be concluded that the deformation in the specimens

pr
larger than 70 x 70 cm is negligible. This also applies to any specimen in which each layers takes
more than ≈18 sec to print.

Layer Number
e-
Table 16. Average nozzle distance (ND) to the previous layer in sample 3
Average ND to the previous layer (mm)
S3
Pr
1 15
2 15.1
n al
ur
Jo

Figure 17. Diagram depicting layer by layer deformation

23
In order to validate this assumption, Test 2 was repeated for sample 3 (S3). For that, a 70 x 70
cm square was printed with multiple layers (Figure 18). After placing thin rigid cards under and
on top of the third layer, layer height was measured after printing each of the following layers.
As can be observed in Table 17, the deformation after printing the second layer on top remained
the same (0.2 mm) which confirms the hypothesis that 34 seconds after printing a given layer the
deformation of that layer is zero.

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
Figure 18: Still images from video of the layer by layer printing process of the specimen printed
to validate experimental results.

Table 17. The average layer height of layer 3 for the S3 sample
al

Number of layers on top Time (sec) Ave layer height (mm) Deformation of layer 3 (mm)
0 0.00 15.0 0.0
n

1 17.61 14.9 0.1

ur

2 35.22 14.8 0.2

3 52.83 14.8 0.2
4 70.44 14.8 0.2
Jo

5 88.05 14.8 0.2

6 105.66 14.8 0.2
7 123.27 14.8 0.2

The time interval of 33.9 seconds≈34 seconds is, thus, the time after which no deformation
occurs. Knowing this is quite helpful, as in the application of additive manufacturing of concrete
at construction scale large scale, most layers would take more than 34 seconds to print. However,
the exact time at which the deformation becomes zero might be less than 33.9 seconds. To obtain
a more precise value, Test 2 was repeated a specimen 5% smaller than S6. A 95 cm by 95 cm
square was thus printed with multiple layers (Figure 19). The average layer height of layer 3 was
measured after printing subsequent layers. As shown in Table 18, layer 3 still experienced
deformation after printing the subsequent layer, which took 24.2 seconds. Together the result of
this test and that of the previous test show that deformation must stop between 24.2 seconds and
33.9 seconds. It would be possible to carry our further tests with specimens with sides between

24
95 cm and 100 cm to zero in on the time interval at which deformation stops, but the uncertainty
acceptable as in most construction scale printing layers likely that take more than 34 seconds to
print.

f
Figure 19: Still images from video of the layer by layer printing process of a 95cm by 95 cm

oo
specimen

Table 18. The average layer height of layer 3 for 95cm by 95cm specimen

pr
Number of layers on top Time (sec) Ave layer height (mm) Deformation of layer 3 (mm)
0 0.00 15.00 0.00
1 24.20 e- 14.92 0.08
2 48.40 14.91 0.09
3 145.20 14.91 0.09
Pr
4 96.80 14.91 0.09

Conclusions and Future Work

al

This study is part of a larger study whose goal is to study and model material deformation in
construction scale additive manufacturing of concrete to compensate for such a deformation in
n

toolpath design. For this purpose, a printing system consisting of a robotic arm and an industrial
scale mixer and pump were used, together with a Portland cement-based concrete mix developed
ur

on purpose for 3D printing. Previous work addressed the effect of printing orientation and
direction and the number of layers on layer height [20]. The current study was focused on the
effect of the number of layers and beads on layer width and the effect of time on layer quality.
Jo

Three tests were undertaken. The goal of Test 1 was to model the effect of the number of beads
and layers on layer width deformation. Results showed they have a cumulative impact that can
be modeled by a linear equation. As concrete takes time to harden, the goal of Test 2 was to
determine the time interval after which deposited concrete no longer deforms. Results show this
time interval to be 33.9 seconds. The goal of Test 3 was then to determine the effect of different
interlayer time intervals on layer height deformation. Regression analysis was applied to model
the deformation and determine the adequate distance of the printing nozzle to previous layers as
a function of the number of layers and the layer printing time. A specimen was then produced
with several layers, with each two layers taking about 35 seconds to print. Results show that each
layer only deformed under the weight of the layer immediately on top and in the predicted way,
thereby validating the study. These results can be used as a decisive factor in toolpath design and
in the design of whole parts or structures. It can dictate the scale, wall thickness, infill pattern
and inevitable travel moves.

25
In cases in which the path length is such that the time travelled for the nozzle to reach a certain
point on the above layer is bigger than the time interval for zero deformation, there is no need for
deformation compensation. This is the case of toolpaths for printing large construction elements,
such as walls and pavements. If path length is shorter, then compensation is necessary. This is
the case of small building parts, such as wall sections between openings or construction details.
This aspect is important when designing the toolpath and it needs to be considered in the context
of other toolpath design features, such as travel moves, which may require the printing machine
to be equipped with a stop and go feature. Analyzing the tradeoffs between alternative toolpath
designs and its impact on printing accuracy and speed is of the utmost importance in designing
for the AM of concrete, as it interferes with the design of the structure and the strategy for
decomposing it into parts, layers, and beads for 3D printing,

f
The current work presents two main limitations. The first concerns the time for zero deformation.

oo
Our work showed that before 24.2 seconds deformation still occurs but after 33.9 seconds it
stops. It would be possible to carry our further tests to obtain a more precise value for the time
interval at which deformation stops, but the uncertainty is acceptable as most of construction

pr
scale printing will likely require layers that take longer than 34 seconds to print. The second
limitation is that the obtained time interval for zero deformation is valid for the material used,
with its specific mix design, or for materials with similar rheological and hardening properties.
e-
By studying the relationship between the rheological and strength properties of different
printable concrete mixtures and the corresponding material deformation over time, it will be
possible to develop a generic model to predict material deformation based on the rheological and
Pr
strength properties of fresh concrete and take it into account in toolpath design. Additionally, it
will be necessary to conduct the material rheological tests in a controlled lab environment to find
the effect of temperature and humidity on material behavior.
al

In summary, the work presented in this paper represents one step towards modeling the interplay
between different variables connected to materials, printing system and design in the AM of
n

concrete. It focused on the experimental prediction of material deformation for a given mixture
to guarantee shape accuracy (print quality) of the printed structures. Future research will be
ur

twofold. First, it will target the enlargement of this predictive model to encompass mixtures with
other rheological properties and the effect of environmental variables. Second, it will address the
Jo

study of the relationship between printing features and the strength of the printed structure. The
ultimate goal will be a model relating printing features to shape accuracy and structural strength,
so that printing variables can be manipulated to achieve desired levels of quality and strength.

Acknowledgements

This research was financially sponsored by The Raymond A. Bowers Program for Excellence in
Design and Construction of the Built Environment, The Pennsylvania State University,
Autodesk, Inc. ®, and Golf Concrete Technology (GCT). The authors express their gratitude to
Dr. Sven Bilén, Dr. Ali Memari, Dr. Aleksandra Radlińska, Mr. Jamie Heilman, Mr Zhanzhao
Li, and Mr. Nathan Watson, for their valuable insights and contributions to this research.

26
References
[1]. P. Carneau, R. Mesnil, N. Roussel, O. Baverel, An exploration of 3d printing design space
inspired by masonry, Proc. IASS Annu. Symp. (2019) 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3563672.
[2]. R.A. Buswell, W.R. Leal de Silva, S.Z. Jones, J. Dirrenberger, 3D printing using concrete
extrusion: A roadmap for research, Cem. Concr. Res. 112 (2018) 37–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.05.006.
[3]. D. Ding, Z. Pan, D. Cuiuri, H. Li, A practical path planning methodology for wire and arc
additive manufacturing of thin-walled structures, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 34 (2015) 8–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2015.01.003.
[4]. S.H. Choi, W.K. Zhu, A dynamic priority-based approach to concurrent toolpath planning for
multi-material layered manufacturing, CAD Comput. Aided Des. 42 (2010) 1095–1107.

f
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.07.004.

oo
[5]. Y. Jin, J. Du, Z. Ma, A. Liu, Y. He, An optimization approach for path planning of high-quality
and uniform additive manufacturing, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 92 (2017) 651–662.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0207-3.

pr
[6]. Y. an Jin, Y. He, J. zhong Fu, W. feng Gan, Z. wei Lin, Optimization of tool-path generation for
material extrusion-based additive manufacturing technology, Addit. Manuf. 1 (2014) 32–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2014.08.004.
e-
[7]. 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.
Pr
[8]. T.T. Le, S.A. Austin, S. Lim, R.A. Buswell, A.G.F. Gibb, T. Thorpe, Mix design and fresh
properties for high-performance printing concrete, Mater. Struct. Constr. 45 (2012) 1221–1232.
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9828-z.
[9]. T.T. Le, S.A. Austin, S. Lim, R.A. Buswell, R. Law, A.G.F. Gibb, T. Thorpe, Hardened
al

properties of high-performance printing concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 42 (2012) 558–566.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.12.003.
n

[10]. I. Gibson, T. Kvan, L.W. Ming, Rapid prototyping for architectural models, Rapid Prototyp. J. 8
(2002) 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540210420961.
ur

[11]. P. Wu, J. Wang, X. Wang, A critical review of the use of 3-D printing in the construction industry,
Autom. Constr. 68 (2016) 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.04.005.
[12]. Rael, R., & San Fratello, V. (2018). Printing architecture: Innovative recipes for 3D printing.
Jo

Chronicle Books.
[13]. S. Lim, T. Le, J. Webster, R. Buswell, S. Austin, A. Gibb, T. Thorpe, Fabricating Construction
Components, (2009).
[14]. B. Khoshnevis, Automated construction by contour crafting - Related robotics and information
technologies, Autom. Constr. 13 (2004) 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2003.08.012.
[15]. O. Kontovourkis, G. Tryfonos, C. Georgiou, Robotic additive manufacturing (RAM) with clay
using topology optimization principles for toolpath planning: the example of a building element,
Archit. Sci. Rev. 63 (2020) 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2019.1620170.
[16]. R.A. Buswell, W.R. Leal de Silva, S.Z. Jones, J. Dirrenberger, 3D printing using concrete
extrusion: A roadmap for research, Cem. Concr. Res. 112 (2018) 37–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.05.006.
[17]. T. Wangler, E. Lloret, L. Reiter, N. Hack, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, M. Bernhard, B. Dillenburger,
J. Buchli, N. Roussel, R. Flatt, Digital Concrete: Opportunities and Challenges, RILEM Tech. Lett. 1
(2016) 67. https://doi.org/10.21809/rilemtechlett.2016.16.

27
[18]. N. Roussel, Rheological requirements for printable concretes, Cem. Concr. Res. 112 (2018) 76–
85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.04.005.
[19]. Perrot, D. Rangeard, A. Pierre, Structural built-up of cement-based materials used for 3D-printing
extrusion techniques, Mater. Struct. Constr. 49 (2016) 1213–1220. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-
015-0571-0.
[20]. 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.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2018.1500420.
[21]. Q. Yuan, D. Zhou, B. Li, H. Huang, C. Shi, Effect of mineral admixtures on the structural build-up
of cement paste, Constr. Build. Mater. 160 (2018) 117–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.050.
[22]. V.N. Nerella, M.A.B. Beigh, S. Fataei, V. Mechtcherine, Strain-based approach for measuring

f
structural build-up of cement pastes in the context of digital construction, Cem. Concr. Res. 115

oo
(2019) 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.08.003.
[23]. B. Zareiyan, B. Khoshnevis, Interlayer adhesion and strength of structures in Contour Crafting -
Effects of aggregate size, extrusion rate, and layer thickness, Autom. Constr. 81 (2017) 112–121.

pr
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06.013.
[24]. 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, Cem. Concr.
e-
Res. 123 (2019) 105787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.105787.
[25]. N. Ashrafi, J.P. Duarte, S. Nazarian, N.A. Meisel, Evaluating the relationship between deposition
and layer quality in large-scale additive manufacturing of concrete, Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 14 (2019)
Pr
135–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2018.1532800.
[26]. Y.W. Tay, B. Panda, S.C. Paul, M.J. Tan, S.Z. Qian, K.F. Leong, C.K. Chua, Processing and
properties of construction materials for 3D printing, Mater. Sci. Forum. 861 (2016) 177–181.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.861.177.
al

[27]. S. Lim, R.A. Buswell, T.T. Le, S.A. Austin, A.G.F. Gibb, T. Thorpe, Developments in
construction-scale additive manufacturing processes, Autom. Constr. 21 (2012) 262–268.
n

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.010.
[28]. Z. Li, M. Hojati, Z. Wu, J. Piasente, N. Ashrafi, J.P. Duarte, S. Nazarian, S.G. Bilén, A.M.
ur

Memari, A. Radlińska, Fresh and hardened properties of extrusion-based 3D-printed cementitious

materials: A review, Sustain. 12 (2020) 1–33. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145628.
[29]. J. Kruger, S. Zeranka, G. van Zijl, 3D concrete printing: A lower bound analytical model for
Jo

buildability performance quantification, Autom. Constr. 106 (2019) 102904.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102904.
[30]. A.S.J. Suiker, Mechanical performance of wall structures in 3D printing processes: Theory, design
tools and experiments, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 137 (2018) 145–170.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.01.010.
[31]. R.J.M. Wolfs, F.P. Bos, T.A.M. Salet, Early age mechanical behaviour of 3D printed concrete:
Numerical modelling and experimental testing, Cem. Concr. Res. 106 (2018) 103–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.02.001.
[32]. R.J.M. Wolfs, A.S.J. Suiker, Structural failure during extrusion-based 3D printing processes, Int. J.
Adv. Manuf. Technol. 104 (2019) 565–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03844-6.
[33]. Z. Malaeb, H. Hachem, A. Tourbah, T. Maalouf, N. El Zarwi, F. Hamzeh, 3D Concrete Printing:
Machine and Mix Design, Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 6 (2015) 14–22.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Farook_Hamzeh/publication/280488795_3D_Concrete_Printing
_Machine_and_Mix_Design/links/55b608c308aec0e5f436d4a1.pdf.

28
 [34]. A. Perrot, D. Rangeard, A. Pierre, Structural built-up of cement-based materials used for 3D-
printing extrusion techniques, Mater. Struct. Constr. 49 (2016) 1213–1220.
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-0571-0.
[35]. L. Reiter, T. Wangler, N. Roussel, R.J. Flatt, The role of early age structural build-up in digital
fabrication with concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 112 (2018) 86–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.05.011.
[36]. R.J.M. Wolfs, F.P. Bos, T.A.M. Salet, Hardened properties of 3D printed concrete: The influence
of process parameters on interlayer adhesion, Cem. Concr. Res. 119 (2019) 132–140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.02.017.
[37]. B. Panda, N.A. Noor Mohamed, Y.W.D. Tay, L. He, M.J. Tan, Effects of slag addition on bond
strength of 3D printed geopolymer mortar: An experimental investigation, Proc. Int. Conf. Prog.
Addit. Manuf. 2018-May (2018) 62–67. https://doi.org/10.25341/D4QG6D.

f
[38]. B. Panda, S.C. Paul, N.A.N. Mohamed, Y.W.D. Tay, M.J. Tan, Measurement of tensile bond

oo
strength of 3D printed geopolymer mortar, Measurement 113 (2018) 108–116.
[39]. R.J.M. Wolfs, F.P. Bos, E.C.F. van Strien, T.A.M. Salet, A Real-Time Height Measurement and
Feedback System for 3D Concrete Printing, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018, pp.

pr
2474–2483, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 59471-2_282.
[40]. GCT Structural Mortal Mix 4000 PSI FS; Gulf Concrete Technology:
Long Beach, MS, November 2018.

Graphical abstract
e-
Pr
n al
ur
Jo

29
Credit author statement

The paper study the effect of time, the number of beads and the number of layers on deformation of a
printed concrete mix. Negar is the PhD student who carried out the research, advised by J. Duarte in design
computing, S. Nazarian in material matters, and N. Meisel in engineering design.

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
n al
ur
Jo

30
Declaration of interests

☒ 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.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
n al
ur
Jo

31
Highlights

 Following experimental testing, deformation of printed concrete is encoded into a mathematical

model that predicts layer width deformation based on the number of beads and number of layers.

 Deformation of a printed part in width increases with the number of layers and beads, but the
increment in deformation for each additional layer or bead decreases.

 Following experimental testing, deformation of printed concrete is encoded into a mathematical

model that predicts layer height deformation, and nozzle distance to previous layer, as a function
of the number of layers and printing time.

f
oo
 There is a time interval, 33.9 seconds, after which printed concrete deformation becomes zero,
meaning that if printing one layer takes less time, deformation will accrue during the printing
process, otherwise there will be no deformation.

pr
e-
Pr
n al
ur
Jo

32