Journal of Building Engineering

Journal of Building Engineering 52 (2022) 104456
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe
Life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmental sustainability of

cementitious materials for 3D concrete printing: A systematic
literature review
Matheus Pimentel Tinoco a, *, Érica Martinho de Mendonça a, Letícia Ikeda
Castrillon Fernandez a, Lucas Rosse Caldas a, b, Oscar Aurelio Mendoza Reales a,
Romildo Dias Toledo Filho a
a
Civil Engineering Program - COPPE, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, COPPE/UFRJ, Cidade Universitária, Ilha do Fundão, CEP 21941-
972, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
b
Architecture Graduate Program (PROARQ), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Cidade Universitária, Ilha do Fundão, CEP 21941-
901, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: This article presents a literature review on the use of cementitious materials for 3D printing
3D concrete printing applications in the context of environmental sustainability and the construction sector. In this
Sustainable materials study are presented materials currently used for 3D concrete printing. Structural and non-
Life cycle assessment structural applications are considered. New research regarding more durable and sustainable
Environmental impacts materials is discussed. Furthermore, recent contributions on the use of Life Cycle Assessment
Sustainable construction
(LCA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the concrete 3D printing technology are
summarized. A discussion on the current studies is conducted, and recommendations for the
environmental performance improvement of printed concrete are produced. The review showed
that there are few studies on the LCA of concrete for 3D printing and that the concrete employed
for this purpose generally uses large volume fractions of Portland cement in order to achieve
proper rheology. New studies, however, demonstrate that supplementary cementitious materials,
recycled wastes, and alternative matrices can be applied to reduce life cycle environmental im
pacts. Studies also show that the environmental performance of the printed structures can be
improved through functional hybridization, structural optimization, and increasing the energy
efficiency of the printing systems.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: matheus.tinoco@numats.coc.ufrj.br (M.P. Tinoco).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104456
Received 6 December 2021; Received in revised form 19 January 2022; Accepted 29 March 2022
Available online 13 April 2022
2352-7102/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.P. Tinoco et al. Journal of Building Engineering 52 (2022) 104456
Abbreviations
3DCP 3D Concrete Printing

3DGP 3D Geopolymer Printing
AP Acidification Potential
CDW Construction and Demolition Wastes
EI Environmental Impact
EP Eutrophication Potential
EXP Expanded Perlite
FFD Fossil Fuel Depletion
FT Freshwater Toxicity
GHG Green House Gases
GWP Global Warming Potential
HT Human Toxicity
LC3 limestone calcined clay cement
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
MCC Microcrystalline Cellulose
MD Metal Depletion
OD Ozone Depletion
PMF Part Matter Formation
SCM Supplementary Cementitious Materials
SFP Smog Formation Potential
SLR Systematic Literature Review
TA Terrestrial Acidification
TE Terrestrial Eutrophication
WD Water Depletion
1. Introduction
The development of new technologies in robotics, Big Data, and artificial intelligence are generating profound changes in many
industry sectors in a process known as the fourth industrial revolution or industry 4.0 [1]. Despite the advances in these areas, the civil
construction industry is still characterized by a small adoption of new technologies, which maintains an overall low efficiency for the
sector [2]. Traditional construction methods, such as cast-in-place concrete, timber, and masonry construction continue to be widely
used in many countries. These processes usually generate significant amounts of waste and are prone to quality control issues [3]. This
scenario highlights the need for innovations in all stages of the construction process.
3D concrete printing (3DCP) technology has been emerging as an alternative for automating construction processes, allowing fast
printing of real scale structures [4–6] while reducing the construction time and waste generation [7,8]. Furthermore, the use of
wooden molds for concrete casting is unnecessary, and manual activities are considerably reduced [9,10]. According to a report by
Markets and Markets [5,11], 3DCP can reduce up to 60% of waste production, 50–70% of construction time and 50–80% of labor costs.
Another study, by Tobi et al. [12], demonstrated that 3DCP can reduce construction costs up to 35% if compared to conventional
construction. In this sense, 3D printing has been widely studied as a promising innovation by many companies and research groups
worldwide [13–15].
However, many challenges must be addressed before 3DCP can be applied on a large scale. The first challenge is to adjust the
proportioning of raw materials used in the concrete production to achieve the printability requirements, such as extrudability and
buildability [16], which are affected by the shape retention and rheological properties of the mixture [17,18]. Extrudability can be
defined as the capacity of the material to be protruded through the nozzle as a continuous filament. Buildability refers to the ability of
the material to support the load of the superior layers and maintain the shape during the printing process [19].
Due to the challenging rheological requirements, large amounts of Portland cement and fine aggregates are often used in printable
concrete [20–25]. Cement, however, is associated with a polluting manufacturing process due to intensive energy consumption and
high amounts of CO2 emissions. In this sense, partial replacement of cement by pozzolanic materials, such as fly ash [26,27], calcined
clay [28–30], and rice husk ash [31], appears to be promising alternatives to obtain more sustainable concretes with adequate
rheological properties [9].
Long et al. [29] demonstrated that limestone calcined clay cements, produced with calcined clay, limestone powder, and silica
fume, can contribute to reducing the Portland cement content and lead to the development of more sustainable printable materials.
Reales et al. [32] showed that nanoparticles, such as nanoclays and nanosilica, can also be used to increase parameters associated with
2
the structural buildup of 3D printed mortars, such as the static yield stress and the rate of thixotropic buildup. Similar results were
found by Sikora et al. [33], which evaluated the effects of nanosilica on the fresh and hardened properties of 3D printable mortars.
Some authors also show that construction and demolition wastes (CDW) can be used as aggregates and fillers [34,35] to produce
more sustainable concretes for 3D printing. According to Zou et al. [34], the use of 100% recycled sand can reduce the printability
window, which is an unfavorable factor for 3D printing. This problem, however, can be solved by adding sodium gluconate to the
recycled mortar, which can increase both the printability window and the compressive strength at early ages.
Another way of producing greener printable concrete is to study its overall production process and find potential ways of reducing
its environmental impact. To this end, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology is a promising tool. In recent years, the use of LCA
to evaluate concrete has been studied by many authors [36–42].
Zhang et al. [36] and Vieira et al. [37] studied the LCA of recycled aggregate concrete. According to the authors, the transportation
distance from the waste processing plant and the functional unit are important parameters that may affect the LCA results when
comparing natural and recycled aggregates. The LCA of alkali-activated concretes was evaluated by Robayo-Salazar et al. [38]. The
authors showed that the production and transportation of alkaline activators are the main source of the CO2 emissions of these ma
terials. The use more sustainable activators, derived from less energy-intensive methods, would be an alternative to reduce their
environmental impacts.
Van den Heede and De Belie [39] and Manjunatha et al. [40] studied the LCA of traditional and sustainable concretes incorporating
wastes. According to the authors, supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) such as blast-furnace slag and fly ash are good al
ternatives to produce “greener” concretes, since their environmental impacts are considerably lower if compared to Portland cement.
Caldas et al. [41,42] used LCA to evaluate the life cycle GHG emissions of bio-concretes made of vegetal aggregates, such as bamboo
and wood shavings. The use of these materials resulted in reduction of GHG emissions due to the storage of carbon in biomasses.
There are, however, few studies that evaluate the environmental impact of 3DCP throughout its life cycle. Thus, a review on this
topic is important to establish an environmental baseline of 3DCP by comparing it with conventional construction. This baseline will
help define a sustainable agenda for the technology, envisioning design guidelines, trends, and future goals for reducing its envi
ronmental impacts.
In this sense, this article aims to present a systematic literature review on the current materials used for 3DCP and the use of LCA to
predict its environmental impacts. Printable concretes produced both with Portland cement and with non-conventional materials, such
as geopolymers, limestone calcined clay cements, and raw earth, are considered. Firstly, the methodology adopted for the Systematic
Fig. 1. Literature selection criteria used in the SLR.
3
Literature Review (SLR) is presented. Then, current studies on the use of LCA for cementitious materials for 3D printing are discussed
and compared with conventional concrete construction. Finally, the main challenges and research gaps are pointed, recommendations
for environmental performance improvement are produced, and suggestions for future research are presented.
2. Methodology of the investigation

The methodology adopted in the SLR started by defining a research question, which must be answered by the literature published in
chosen databases [43]. Next, keywords and exclusion criteria were established to filter the articles that answer this initial question
through meta-analysis. A snowball approach was applied by considering excluded articles with relevant information about the subject
in general. Citations, expert advice, and other pertinent literature were considered for qualitative analysis [43,44].
The research question was defined as “How has LCA been applied to cementitious materials used in 3D printing?”. The keyword
string (“LCA” OR “life cycle assessment” OR “life cycle analysis”) AND (3D) AND (print*) AND (“Concrete” OR “cement-based” OR
“cementitious” OR “geopolymer”) was chosen to cover most commonly keywords cited in articles. The investigation was carried out in
the Scopus and Web of Science databases, where some of the most relevant journals for analysis of environmental impacts and studies
of printing materials are indexed.
The SLR considered only peer-reviewed articles and conference proceedings, excluding dissertations, thesis, and book chapters. For
the selection of relevant articles, the following exclusion criteria were adopted, based on the paper of Saade et al. [43]: (i) the article
was not written in English; (ii) the title of the article did not indicate the research question; (iii) the article abstract did not indicate the
research question; (iv) the full article did not indicate the research question. Articles excluded by criterion (iv) were evaluated if they
presented relevant information on the environmental sustainability of 3D concrete printing (criterion v). Therefore, the articles
approved by the criteria of (i) to (iv) were added to the first category for analysis. Those approved by criterion (v) were added to the
second category for qualitative discussion (snowball approach) in addition to articles cited as relevant references in the selected
literature. A summary of the literature selection criteria, as well as the number of papers obtained after the application of each cri
terion, is presented in Fig. 1.
3. Systematic literature review

The search method adopted for the SLR returned twenty-two papers in total. Fifteen papers passed all the exclusion criteria and
were used for the meta-analysis. From the remaining material, two papers did not bring LCA results but discussed relevant environ
mental information. These papers were useful to comprehend the current trends regarding concrete 3D printing technology and were
used for qualitative discussion. Five articles were excluded from the list since they did not match the criteria and did not bring relevant
information on the LCA of cement-based materials.
Fig. 2 shows the number of papers on the environmental assessment of 3D concrete printing by year of publication. As can be
extracted from the graph, there is a reduced number of papers containing environmental information about 3DCP and all of them were
published in the last five years. This tendency highlights the initial stage where the research topic currently stands.
As presented by Saade et al. [43], 3D printing is a recent research field that gained special attention in the last two decades due to its
Fig. 2. Number of papers obtained from the literature selection criteria and sorted by publication year.
4
Fig. 3. Clustering map of the main authors and countries found in the SLR.
multiple advantages when compared to traditional prototyping methods. The use of cement-based or earth-based materials for 3D
printing civil structures is relatively recent and started to gain notoriety in the last ten years, as shown by Mechtcherine et al. [45].
Various startups and research groups are investing in making this technology more effective and reliable, as presented by De Schutter
et al. [46] and Yao et al. [47]. As the studies were published, the environmental impact of the printable concrete gained special
attention due to the high Portland cement consumption generally used to achieve the necessary rheological properties.
Within this line of thought, some authors began to study the manufacturing process of printable concrete through LCA to identify
potential ways to reduce their environmental impact. Fig. 3 was obtained from VOSviewer, a software tool for constructing and
visualizing bibliometric networks. This figure shows correlations between authors, main clusters of authors and countries found in the
SLR. The size of the nodes indicates the authors’ productivity and the colors of nodes show the clusters of authors which are part of the
same collaboration network. It is possible to notice that most of the clusters are small groups with no connecting lines between them,
except for the one formed by Dirrenberger [48], which has a collaboration network with more than one research group connected. It is
worth mentioning that the flags of the countries were inserted in an illustrative way in order to show in which countries this field of
research has already been studied.
As can be seen in Fig. 3, the most prominent group of authors comes from European countries, such as France and Germany, where
the research on 3D printing technology is also in an advanced stage. Other countries that bring significant contributions to this field are
China, which has two clusters of authors, and Switzerland, with authors with several publications in this area. Countries such as
Singapore, Netherlands, India, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, United States, and Qatar appear less prominently. The main
information on the papers used in the SLR is present in Table 1.
A map was created using the keywords from the selected papers to identify the terms most commonly used. It is presented in Fig. 4,
where the node size represents the occurrence of each keyword in the papers. Note that keywords such as “3D printing”, “concrete”,
“LCA”, “construction”, “digital fabrication”, and “sustainability” were the most commonly found in the reviewed literature. Other
words, such as “3D printer”, “environmental evaluation”, “rheology”, “silica fume”, and “geo-polymer”, were found with less fre
quency. These keywords suggest important topics regarding the sustainability of cementitious materials for 3D printing.
From the twenty-two papers obtained using the search protocol, fifteen papers were selected to perform a meta-analysis, since they
contain quantitative LCA results. These papers are summarized in Table 2. The papers were evaluated considering the main steps
adopted in the LCA, such as the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). Furthermore, information
about the scope of the method, such as functional unit, environmental impact categories, and sensibility analysis, was also
summarized.
For the papers used, the most common system boundaries were cradle-to-gate. No information was found on the end-of-life and
recycling of 3DCP. Different functional units were adopted by each paper, which difficulties the comparison between their results.
Mohammad et al. [49] used a concrete wall with a 1 m2 area and 20 mm thickness. A concrete cylindrical silo was used by Han et al.
[50], and a prefabricated bathroom unit was used by Weng et al. [53]. All the selected papers used the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044
standards as a guideline [60,61].
The most commonly studied material was ordinary concrete produced with Portland cement, water, fine aggregates, and additives
[52,53,56–58]. According to Alhumayani et al. [51], cement consumptions between 400 and 700 kg/m3 are usually adopted in 3DCP.
For the articles evaluated in this study, the cement content ranged between 418 kg/m3 [62] and 923 kg/m3 [55]. This cement content
5
Table 1
Overview of the articles used in the SLR.
Reference Year Journal/ Country University Aims and Scope Discussion and Conclusions
Conference
Proceedings
Mohammad, 2020 Buildings Qatar Hamad Bin Khalifa Investigate the environmental It was found that 3DCP was
Masad, University/Texas A&M impact tradeoff between able to significantly reduce
and Al- University at Qatar building an external environmental effects in
Ghamdi loadbearing wall via 3DCP and terms of GWP, AP, EP, SFP,
[49] using the conventional and FFD from conventional
construction methodology, construction methods
using LCA
Han et al. [50] 2021 Journal of Cleaner China Tongji University, Evaluate the environmental and Reducing the cement
Production Tsinghua University economic impact and of 3D content and increasing the
printed buildings produced with amount of recycled
recycled concrete using LCA aggregate can reduce
pollutant emissions
Alhumayani 2020 Journal of Cleaner UK, Cardiff University/ Compare the environmental EI, GWP: conventional cob
et al. [51] Production Australia, University of Adelaide/ impact of the 3D printing < 3DP cob < 3DP Concrete
Saudi Arabia Taibah University construction method with < Conventional concrete;
conventional construction Impact on marine
methods using two different eutrophication, land use,
types of construction material: and mineral resources
concrete and cob scarcity: 3DP Concrete <
3DP cob
Yao et al. [47] 2020 Journal of Netherlands, Leiden University/ Identify the environmental The most effective way to
Industrial Ecology China Chongqing University/ hotspots in the current 3D lower the environmental
Delft University of printing technology system impacts of 3D concrete is to
Technology according to specifications reduce silicate in the recipe
provided by the 3D company/ of the geopolymer
define the environmental
profiles of the 3DGP technology
on the commercial scale
Muñoz et al. 2020 International Denmark, ESTIA Institute of Evaluate the environmental 3D printing has a lower
[48] Journal of Spain, Technology/Fraunhofer impact of an impact than conventional
Advanced France, Institute for additive–subtractive concrete concrete when a single
Manufacturing Germany, Manufacturing 3D printing system using LCA column is produced. When
Technology Greece Engineering and the number of columns
Automation IPA/ increases, the impact is
University of Patras almost the same.
Long et al. [17] 2019 Journal of Cleaner China Shenzhen University Carbon emissions of a printed Results showed that the
Production residence were quantified by mortars produced with 1 wt
considering using building % MCC could reduce the
information modeling (BIM)- CO2 emissions by 6.82% if
enabled life cycle assessment compared to the
(LCA) modeling conventional ones
Agustí-Juan 2017 Journal of Cleaner Switzerland ETH Zürich The LCA method was applied to Digital fabrication has
et al. [52] Production compare the environmental environmental benefits if
impacts between digital compared to conventional
fabrication and conventional construction for complex
construction structures.
Weng et al. 2020 Journal of Cleaner Singapore Nanyang Technological Evaluate cost, environmental A bathroom fabricated by
[53] Production University impacts, energy consumption, 3DCP achieves a reduction
and productivity associated with in overall cost, CO2
manufacturing a prefabricated emission, and energy
bathroom unit using 3DCP and consumption if compared
conventional precast technique to the precast one
Yeon et al. [54] 2018 54th ASC Annual USA Texas A&M University Evaluate the feasibility of a The environmental impact
International repair method for pavement of the repair system
Conference with 3D printing using an produced by 3D printing is
Proceedings economic Input-Output LCA much lower when
compared to the
conventional system
Agustí-Juan 2017 Journal of Cleaner Switzerland ETH Zürich Three case studies of additive The environmental impact
and Habert Production fabrication were presented and of 3D printing technology is
[55] evaluated using the LCA method negligible. Digital
fabrication allows the
optimization of materials
and the integration of
additional functions to the
structure
(continued on next page)
6
Table 1 (continued )
Reference Year Journal/ Country University Aims and Scope Discussion and Conclusions
Conference
Proceedings
Agustí-Juan 2016 Proceedings of Switzerland ETH Zürich Two case studies of digitally 3D printing can bring
and Habert CAADRIA 2016 fabricated elements were environmental benefits
[56] studied using Life Cycle when integrated with
Assessment functional design
Long et al. [29] 2019 Construction and China Shenzhen University Development a limestone The use of LC3 could reduce
Building Materials calcined clay cement (LC3) greenhouse gases and
composite for 3D printing and energy consumption by
comparison with ordinary approximately 40%
Portland cement concrete
Muñiz et al. 2020 Procedia 8th CIRP Spain, UPC Catalunya, Evaluate the potential use of a Most of the impact on in the
[57] Germany, Fraunhofer Institute for concrete hybrid manufacturing materials and transport of
France, Manufacturing system based on a cable robot the finished piece. When
Greece, Engineering and comparing to traditional
Denmark, Automation IPA, construction, there is a
Norway Univ. Bordeaux, benefit if the molds are
University of Patras reused many times
Kuzmenko 2020 Proceedings of France Ecole des Ponts Environmental evaluation of a Material quantity and
et al. [58] DMSB 2019: ParisTech, generic building system industrial maturity are two
Impact: Design Arts et Métiers redesigned for mortar 3D equally sensible
With All Senses ParisTech Printing technology, using LCA parameters. Depending on
the accountment method of
the robotics’ outlay to the
reference process, its
contribution can go to 95%
within certain indicators.
Abdalla et al. 2021 Sustainability United Arab American University of Assess the eco-efficiency of 3D The conventional
[59] Emirates Sharjah and University printing compared to construction method had
of Sharjah conventional construction higher impacts when
methods in large-scale structural compared to the 3D
fabrication printing method in global
warming potential, non-
carcinogenic toxicity, and
water consumption
Fig. 4. Keyword map from the papers used in the SLR.
can be considered high when compared with conventional concrete and is related to the minimum rheological requirements necessary
to ensure the buildability and extrudability of the 3D printed material [63]. This leads to higher environmental impacts since most
impacts from concrete are associated with the cement industry [64]. In order to reduce the impacts caused by the Portland cement,
some authors have proposed the use of alternative materials, such as geopolymers [47,65], limestone calcined clay cements [29,66],
and cob [51], which is an earth-based material.
Regarding the LCI, the most common database choice was Ecoinvent, followed by the Gabi database [17,29,49], as presented in
Fig. 5a. Three papers used data from literature [17], and one used primary data obtained directly from the manufacturers [50].
Regarding the (LCIA), the most common LCIA method used was the Recipe Midpoint, which was used by six articles, as presented in
Fig. 5b. The CML (Midpoint) was used by Han et al. [50] and Yao et al. [47]. Other LCIA methods used were the Ecoindicator99
7
Table 2
M.P. Tinoco et al.

Review of life cycle assessment of 3D Printing.
Reference Functional Unit Life Cycle Life cycle Impact Sensitivity Analysis Material GWP EP OD HT TA TE WD MD FFD FT PMF Others
Inventory Assessment
Method
Long et al. One residence GaBi database, BIM-based data Amount of micro- Concrete •
[17] Ecoinvent extraction and crystalline cellulose
version 2.2, and process
literature values
Mohammad, 1m2 section of an GaBi database TRACI Energy source, Concrete masonry • • • • •
Masad, external load- (midpoint) printing speed, and block, reinforced
and Al- bearing wall with a cement grade concrete, and
Ghamdi 20 cm thickness alternative
[49] concrete mixture
Han et al. [50] Concrete Primary Data CML (midpoint) Sensitivity analysis Recycled • • • •
cylindrical silo and secondary for cement content Concrete
(concrete = 11.913 data from
m3) CNMLCA
database
Alhumayani section of an Ecoinvent v3.1 Recipe method % of steel Concrete and cob • • • • • •
et al. [51] external load (midpoint) reinforcement in
bearing wall in a conventional
one-storey house concrete; 3DP
(1 m2) concrete mix; Robotic
operation payload
and geographical
location
8
Long et al. 1 kg of concrete LCA Database Not specified No OPC and • •

[29] from GaBi limestone
software calcined clay
cement
Yao et al. [47] small 3DGP Ecoinvent CML-2001 raw materials Geopolymer and • • • • • • • •
concrete product of production, raw concrete
0.307 kg/30 panels: materials transport,
3.6 m (height) and 3DGP concrete
*2.07 m (length) manufacturing
*0.6 m (thickness)
Muñoz et al. 4-m height Secondary data Stepwise2006 Geographical 3D printing C30 • • • • • •

[48] structural pillar from EXIOBASE (midpoint and location and number concrete and
endpoint levels) of piles conventional C60
concrete
Agustí-Juan 1m2 of wall with a Ecoinvent v 3.1 Recipe Midpoint Thickness of the Concrete • • • • • • • • •
et al. [52] thickness of 20 cm (H) v1.12 impact digitally fabricated
method wall and steel
reinforcement
content
Weng et al. Prefabricated Ecoinvent and Eco-indicator99 The significance of Concrete • • • • • •
[53] bathroom unit (L: TH-SEU (midpoint and formworks re-usage
1620 mm; W:1500 databases endpoints in fabricating PBUs
mm; H: 2800 mm) indicators)
Yeon et al. Not specified No Concrete • • •
[54]
(continued on next page)
M.P. Tinoco et al.
Table 2 (continued )
Reference Functional Unit Life Cycle Life cycle Impact Sensitivity Analysis Material GWP EP OD HT TA TE WD MD FFD FT PMF Others
Inventory Assessment
Method
A repair patch with Building

not specified Construction
dimensions RSMeans 2011
Agustí-Juan 1m2 wall, 1m2 floor Ecoinvent Recipe Midpoint The use of extra brick Concrete and • • • • • • • • • •
and and 1m2 roof database v2.2 (H) V1.06 for shading and brick masonry
Habert different materials for
[55] the roof system was
evaluated.
Agustí-Juan 1m2 of Ecoinvent Recipe Midpoint No Concrete • • • • • •
and conventional and database v2.2 (H) V1.06
9
Habert sequential wall and

[56] roof
Muñiz et al. concrete silo EXIOBASE Not specified No Concrete •
[57] database
Kuzmenko 1m2 of sinusoidal Ecoinvent 3.2 Recipe Midpoint 3 outlays of printed Concrete • • • • • • • • • • • •
et al. [58] concrete wall (1 m (H) cell, considering
× 1 m x 0,15 m) different life spans
Abdalla et al. Single-storey Ecoinvent and Recipe 2016 Amount of cement Conventional • • • • • • • • • • •
[59] detached house literature V1.03 midpoint and coarse aggregates concrete and self-
with 90 m2 and (H) reinforced
height of 4.5 m printable mortar

Fig. 5. Results from the meta-analysis: (a) Life cycle inventory databases and (b) Life cycle impact assessment.
(midpoint and endpoint) [53] and the Stepwise 2006 [46].

Regarding the environmental impact categories, the most common impact evaluated was the Global Warming Potential, which was
studied by all papers with LCA results (100%), since it is one of the most important impacts in the global environmental agenda. Other
important environmental impacts were Eutrophication, Ozone Depletion, Human Toxicity and Acidification, Fossil and Water
Depletion, and Ecotoxicity, as shown in Fig. 6. Five papers (33.3%) also evaluated Freshwater Toxicity and Land Occupation, and four
papers (26.6%) evaluated the Metal Depletion and Particulate Matter Formation. Other impacts such as Respiratory Inorganics and
Radiation were also studied. Additional impacts such as abiotic resources depletion [47], carcinogens [48,53] and primary energy
demand [29] were considered in the “Others” category, as they were cited by few articles, making comparisons difficult.
As Global Warming Potential (GWP) is the most relevant environmental impact category related to cementitious materials and
consequently 3DCP, GWP values (kgCO2-eq) were extracted from the analyzed articles and used to plot Fig. 7, where the vertical axis is
displayed in logarithmic scale. The data was divided into material production and construction stages for conventional concrete
construction and 3DCP. Additionally, for conventional concrete construction, in the material production stage, an extra plot was also
made (Material production stage - no complex formwork), where data from papers that used formwork with high complexity were
disregarded, specifically the works of Muñoz et al. [48] and Agustí-Juan et al. [52], who used formworks of acrylonitrile butadiene
styrene and polystyrene block covered by epoxy resin, respectively. This disregard was made because these papers used single-use
formworks with shapes totally different from the conventional structures analyzed in the other papers.
A functional 1 m3 concrete unit was defined, and only articles using this functional unit, or enough information to transform the
functional unit into 1 m3, were used [29,47–49,52,55,62,67]. According to Dong et al. [68], the conversion factors in the global
warming category do not vary much when comparing different impact assessment methods, reaching ranges from 0.983 to 1.048.
Thus, the data compared in Fig. 7 were not modified by conversion factors.
It was found that the potential impact values for global warming are much higher in the material production stage for both
conventional concrete and 3DCP. In general, the two methods presented similar orders of magnitude in both stages. This can be
confirmed based on the medians of both methods, i.e., for 3DCP, and conventional construction in the construction stage, the medians
(kgCO2-eq/m3) are 9.9 and 7.3, respectively. In the material production stage, for 3DCP the median was 583.1 kgCO2-eq/m3, and for
Fig. 6. Number of papers that evaluated each environmental impact.
10
Fig. 7. Reported GWP in kg CO2eq/m3 (in logarithmic scale) from material production and construction stages for 3DCP and conventional concrete construc
tion methods.
conventional construction, 596.2 kgCO2-eq/m3. Finally, for the case of disregarding complex forms in conventional construction, a
median of 389.8 kgCO2-eq/m3 was found [51].
In relation to the material production stage for conventional construction, the maximum values of the box-chart plot correspond to
the works of Muñoz et al. [48] and Agustí-Juan et al. [52]. These authors used complex formworks as discussed previously in this
section. It is clear that the disregard of complex formworks leads to a decrease in the median value in conventional construction, which
becomes lower than that of 3DCP. This result reinforces the idea commonly raised about 3DCP producing environmental impacts
greater than those of conventional construction. However, it is noteworthy that the structural complexity generated by 3DCP is one of
the differentials of this method. Thus, the consideration of complex formworks in conventional construction to produce structures
similar to printed ones is also an important LCA methodological discussion. In addition, the number of reuses of the formworks is
another issue that can influence the final results when this material is considered in the modeling. Materials with high environmental
impacts, e.g., aluminum, normally tend to have a higher number of reuses, resulting in the abatement of the production impacts, and in
some cases, it enters as an infrastructure in the modeling. Therefore, the direct LCA comparison between 3DCP and conventional
construction should be taken carefully.
Concerning the material production stage for 3DCP, the maximum and minimum values of the box-chart plot seem to be related to
the ratio, in weight, between the consumption of cement and the total of binders (C/B). The lower GWP values refer to the works of
Long et al. [29] and Bhattacherjee et al. [67], which are around 300 kgCO2-eq/m3. Long et al. [29] used a concrete for 3DCP with a C/B
ratio of 0.45 and Bhattacherjee et al. [67] 0.40. The highest values, around 900 kgCO2-eq/m3, correspond to the works of Augustí-Juan
and Habert [55], Mohammad et al. [49] and Muñoz et al. [48]. Augustí-Juan and Habert [55] used a concrete for 3DCP with a C/B
ratio of 0.93. Mohammad et al. [49], on the other hand, used a lower C/B ratio of 0.70, however these authors analyzed a hybrid
structure produced with reinforced concrete and 3DCP, which may have been the cause of the high value of GWP found in this work.
Finally, Muñoz et al. [48] used a confidential concrete composition and, for this reason, it is not possible to make any consideration
about the value of GWP provided in this paper.
In the construction stage for both methods (orange boxes in Fig. 7), there are almost no data available, since several authors do not
take this stage into account as they consider that its influence on GWP is not relevant. Therefore, it should be noted that to reduce the
3DCP carbon footprint, the focus has been placed on the material production stage, as the associated impact is more pronounced.
Fig. 8. Alternative compositions and materials used for 3D printing: (a) foam concrete [62] and (b) raw earth materials (cob) [51]. Reproduced with permission
from Elsevier.
11
Fig. 9. Precast Bathroom Unit produced using: (a) metal formwork and (b) 3D printing [53]. Reproduced with permission from Elsevier.
Another observation made from Fig. 7 is that even considering the need for a high amount of equipment and robotic technologies, the
GWP impact of the 3D construction stage is much lower than the material production stage. This helps explain why in 3DCP studies, the
construction stage is usually not considered. The influence of electricity will change according to the country grid matrix, which can
have a cleaner share of renewables (i.e., hydraulic, biomass, wind and solar, etc.) or fossil fuels (i.e., coal and natural gas).
It is important to note that the discussions above were based on works that used Portland cement based materials, therefore, other
materials with lower environmental impacts, e.g., earthen materials such as cob, can occur as a trade-off, and the construction process
can present a higher contribution [51]. Another observation is the fact that the influence of electricity will change according to the
country grid matrix, which can have a cleaner share of renewables (i.e., hydraulic, biomass, wind and solar, etc.) or fossil fuels (i.e.,
coal and natural gas). The calculation of carbon and other environmental impacts benchmarks is essential to define low environmental
targets, especially for new materials and technologies, such as the 3DCP. Therefore, the values presented here can be used as reference
values for future studies regarding the GWP of 3DCP. The use of LCA during the development of 3DCP materials and mixtures should be
encouraged and not just at the end of the process when few changes could be made.
4. Discussion and recommendations

According to most of the selected papers, a significant portion of the environmental impacts of using conventional concrete
construction in all the categories stems from the use of cement and steel rebar. The main impacts associated with 3D printing are
related to cement consumption, raw materials transportation, and electricity consumption by the robotic arm [47,51,58]. As presented
by Agustí-Juan et al. [52], concrete production is responsible for up to 75% of the environmental impact of climate change due to the
energy-intensive clinker production and the CO2 released during the calcination process.
Han et al. [50] pointed that the environmental impacts from the materials-acquisition phase far exceed those from the construction
phase, which accounts for most of the building-life-cycle total impact. According to the authors, the higher cement content used in the
concrete for 3D printing is the main reason for its higher environmental impact. Some authors [49,51] have focused on the production
stage. Meanwhile, Yao et al. [47] performed a contribution analysis on three stages of the 3D printing geopolymer concrete system: raw
materials production, raw materials transport, and 3DGP concrete manufacturing. However, the paper has only considered 3DGP, and
no comparative study with 3DCP was performed.
The results presented by some papers [47,49,51] claimed better environmental performance for 3D printing technologies when
compared to conventional concrete construction. However, these papers pointed that cement still contributes significantly to GWP, AP,
and SFP, as cement production carries a large carbon footprint. According to Mohammad, Masad, and Al-Ghamdi [49], 3D printable
concrete mixtures generally use only fine aggregates due to issues with the printing. The amount of cement in 3DCP is greater than that
used in conventional concrete, which also increases the impacts.
In order to minimize the environmental impacts caused by 3D printing, the selected articles performed several studies to reduce the
consumption of cement and electricity associated with the 3D printing process. According to Han et al. [50], the cement content should
be reduced by at least 25% to make its environmental impact similar to conventional concrete for cast-in-situ construction technique.
However, this reduction must be carefully studied, since the authors pointed that it could demand more sand and affect the rheological
parameters, which could demand the use of additives.
Another advantage of using 3D printing is the potential to reduce waste production and save raw materials, which could also reduce
the environmental impacts during the construction phase, as presented by Muñoz et al. [48]. Based on the results from the systematic
literature review, seven different aspects of 3DCP were identified as key issues that should receive special attention in terms of the
environmental impacts of the technology.
12
4.1. Concrete compositions

To reduce the environmental impacts from the raw materials, Han et al. [50] proposed the use of recycled aggregates in the
concrete composition. The authors found that recycled aggregates can reduce the environmental impacts of the 3D printed concrete,
since their production phase is less pollutant, and their transport distance is much shorter when compared to natural aggregates. Costs
can also be reduced, since recycled aggregates are cheaper than natural ones. However, local conditions have a heavy impact on their
production costs.
Mohammad, Masad, and Al-Ghamdi [49] performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the effect of various cement grades on the
outcome of LCA for 3D printed concretes. In this study, two grades of ordinary cement type I (CEM I 32.5 and CEM I 52.5) were
compared to the reference cement (CEM I 42.5). As expected, varying the cement grade induced variations in several impact cate
gories, but these variations were not significant (±2%), since the same cement type was used. Further studies are needed to evaluate
the effect of using different cement types (CEM II, CEM III, CEM IV, and CEM V), as mineral additions could reduce the environmental
impacts.
According to Agustí-Juan et al. [52], the concrete used for 3D printing usually presents higher strength when compared to con
ventional concrete, due to its higher cement content. In this sense, this feature could be used to reduce the thickness of the printed
structures. The authors found that this change could reduce the CO2 emissions by 12% if compared to the conventional wall.
Alhumayani et al. [51] studied the changes in the environmental performance associated with variations on cement, fly ash, and
aggregate ratios. The paper concluded that reducing cement and fly ash in the mix does not necessarily guarantee an improvement in
the environmental performance of the 3DCP concrete since this reduction increases the aggregates, consumption; thus, maintaining the
overall quantities of material, and consequently, the environmental impacts of transportation. On the other hand, Alhumayani et al.
[51] and Nerella et al. [69] presented a 3DCP mix that had the lowest impact in almost all categories (ozone depletion, particle matter
formation, marine eutrophication, land use, and mineral resource scarcity) when compared to the other mixes and conventional
concrete, which is associated to partial replacement of cement by fly ash and silica fume in the concrete composition. This may be an
indicator that recently developed mixes can have the potential of performing better environmentally. Regarding the concrete com
positions, it could be seen that the concrete strength can be increased in order to reduce the structural sections and the thickness of the
printed layers and that natural and recycled fine aggregates can be used to reduce cement consumption and environmental impacts.
The use of coarse aggregates also emerges as an alternative to reduce sand and cement consumption, which could reduce the envi
ronmental impact and economic costs of 3DCP. In the last years, some innovations from industry point in this direction, such as the
robotic concrete spraying system, developed by Mobbot [70], which allows the use of bigger aggregates. Additional studies, however,
are needed to evaluate the environmental benefits of such aggregates in 3DCP using LCA.
4.2. Alternative materials

Studies using alternative 3D printing materials such as lightweight concrete [49], cob [51], and geopolymer [47] have been
performed. Mohammad, Masad, and Al-Ghamdi [49]developed an alternative lightweight concrete mixture, comparing two types of
concretes: high-performance concrete versus lightweight concrete. The river sand used in the high-performed concrete was replaced
with expanded perlite (EXP) with a maximum particle size of 4 mm. The use of EXP decreased the impacts from sand and reduced the
total GWP, AP, EP, SFP, and FFD emissions; nevertheless, the alternative concrete did not hold significant environmental improve
ments when evaluated from cradle-to-gate. However, because the material has good thermal properties, the lightweight printable
concrete environmental benefits are expected to be significant later down the life cycle, particularly in the operational phase by
reducing air conditioning consumption.
3D printing with foam concrete (Fig. 8a) was evaluated by Markin et al. [62]. In this study, concrete compositions with densities
varying from 800 kg/m3 to 1200 kg/m3 were produced. According to the authors, the high volume of cement (418–627 kg/m3) and the
use of water-reducing admixture increases the CO2 emissions in the construction phase. On the other hand, the material shows ad
vantages in terms of recyclability and can improve the thermal performance of the building.
According to Alhumayani et al. [51], 3D printed cob (Fig. 8b) achieved a better performance in global warming, ozone depletion,
and particulate matter formation. Meanwhile 3DP concrete performed better in marine eutrophication, land use, and mineral resources
scarcity. The electricity consumption to operate the robotic arm in 3DP cob contributes to 83% of its global warming impact, while
Fig. 10. Complexity-related material optimization using computational structural analysis [46]. Reproduced with permission from Elsevier.
13
straw content plays a major contribution in ozone depletion, marine eutrophication, and land use. Therefore, it was proven to have the
best overall environmental performance.
Long et al. [29] studied the printability of limestone calcined clay cement composites (LC3). An LCA was also performed to compare
the LC3 with a conventional concrete with equivalent rheology and strength. The results showed that the use of LC3 could reduce GHG
by 45% and energy consumption by 40% approximately. This reduction is associated with the production of the calcined clays, since
the calcination process demands lower temperature when compared to the clinkerization process of Portland cement [28].
Yao et al. [47] presented 3D printing geopolymer concrete as a solution to reduce the carbon footprint of concrete components.
However, depending on its recipe, geopolymer is likely to have higher environmental impacts than ordinary concrete, performing
worse on impact categories such as depletion of abiotic resources and stratospheric ozone depletion. Silicate and fly ash production,
sand and silicate transports, and electricity use from the 3D printer show significant contributions to environmental impacts. Ac
cording to the authors, a reduction in the silicate (alkaline activator) content is needed to reduce the environmental impacts of 3D
geopolymer printing (3DGP). Another strategy can be the use of alternative and lower environmental impacts alkaline activators, made
with wastes or co-products, such as rice husk ashes, that already have shown lower environmental impacts than a conventional one,
made of sodium silicate [71].
4.3. Impacts of the robotic 3D printer

The environmental impact caused by the printing system is mainly associated with the electricity consumed during the operation of
the printing system [47,51,53,58]. The impacts from electricity consumption, on the other hand, are directly related to the location
where the printing process occurs and to energy production (renewable or non-renewable sources) [47,48,51,55–58].
The electricity source used to model the electricity flow in Ref. [49] is based 100% on natural gas energy, while [51] presented a
sensitivity analysis altering the location from Saudi Arabia to South Australia, resulting in an environmental performance improve
ment by 52% overall and 36% in the global warming category, due the use of renewable energy sources. Muñoz et al. [48] compared
three different countries and presented that the 3D printing scenario consistently achieves a GHG reduction when compared to
conventional construction, namely, 37% in the United States, 48% in China, and 55% in Denmark.
According to Kuzmenko et al. [58], the contribution of the 3D printing system to the overall result is significant and can even exceed
the raw materials in some impact categories. When climate change is considered, for example, the main contributor is material
production. For some impact categories, however, such as eutrophication, marine ecotoxicity, metal depletion, and land occupation,
robotic technology is the major responsible factor for the impacts.
Although some authors argued that the robotic system impacts play an important role in the overall impact, 3D printer energy
consumption was neglected by the authors [48–50,55,57,72] as it causes lower impact when compared to the raw materials con
sumption and transportation. According to Muñoz et al. [48], the printing process is responsible for 10–12% of the total emissions and
has a low contribution on the life cycle impacts compared to concrete production. However, it should be noted, that Muñiz et al. [57]
only considered the GWP. When other impact categories are considered, the effect of the robotic device could be higher.
In this sense, more studies are needed to better understand the impact of robotic devices. In the environmental analysis, impacts
related to energy requirements and emissions associated with the human workforce were insignificant for conventional construction
and, therefore, neglected.
4.4. Printing parameters

Alhumayani et al. [51] considered the effect of the perimeter/path line length, which equals the perimeter of a single printed layer
multiplied by the total number of layers. Since the materials present different rheological properties, the printing layer height in the
3DP cob is 30 mm, while in the 3DP concrete, it is 10 mm, requiring more layers to achieve the same height wall. It means a longer total
path line, increasing electricity consumption, and the environmental impact.
Optimal printing speed that satisfies 3D printing requirements (pumpability, extrudability, and buildability) are between 200 mm/
s [49]and 250 mm/s [51] for concrete printing and 50 mm/s for cob printing [51]. Mohammad, Masad, and Al-Ghamdi [49] presented
a sensitivity analysis about the effect of various printing speeds (100, 300, and 400 mm/s) on the impact categories and concluded that
in general, there is a negligible effect of printing speed on most of the impact categories, except for Fossil Fuel Depletion, reducing the
printing speed from 200 mm/s (reference speed) to 100 mm/s increases the FFD by 16%.
The printing parameters are closely related to the rheological properties of the printed materials, and thus, to the materials’
compositions used. In this sense, supplementary cementitious materials, such as silica fume and fly ash, could be used to adjust the
rheology, and allow printing parameter optimization, reducing the environmental impacts.
4.5. Impacts of formwork

According to Han et al. [50], the formwork used in traditional construction demands large amounts of materials, labor, cost, and
assembly time. In this sense, the authors point that 3D printing could reduce the used formwork; however, the environmental benefits
caused by eliminating formwork are not sufficient to make for the higher Portland cement consumption of 3D printed concrete
compared to conventional concrete. On the other hand, Weng et al. [53] found that a 3D printed structure can produce up to 85.9% less
CO2 than a precast due to a considerable reduction in the use of formwork. In their study, fossil fuel depletion and respiratory in
organics were the main environmental impacts assessed associated with aluminum formwork use. Through a sensitivity analysis, the
authors demonstrate that when the formwork is reused more than 25 times, the precast construction impact equals that from 3D
printing. Fig. 9 shows a bathroom produced using metal formwork (Figure 9a) and 3DCP (Fig. 9b).
Muñoz et al. [48] also evaluated the formwork impact by studying the construction of a 4-m height structural pillar constructed
14
Table 3
Recommendations for the environmental performance improvement of 3DCP.
Items Recommendations
Concrete composition The use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) from industrial wastes tends to be the most suitable. However, more
studies about cement and concrete dosage for 3DCP are necessary to develop mixes that can have the potential of performing better
technically and environmentally.
The use of recycled aggregates in the concrete composition can also reduce the environmental impacts of the 3D printed concrete,
since conditions of the market and context where the recycled materials are produced are considered in the cost. They are
especially advantageous when locally available. Natural aggregates, due to the exhaustion process, become more and more distant.
Use of alternative materials The use of alternative 3DP materials such as lightweight concrete, raw earth-based matrices such as cob, geopolymers, and LC3 can
reduce CO2 emissions and electricity consumption, besides improving the rheological properties of the material.
Robotic 3D Printer In order to reduce the environmental impacts caused by electricity consumption of the robotic system, it is necessary to optimize
the efficiency of industrial 3D printing processes, as well as to define the optimal robot speed that satisfies the 3D-printing
parameters.
In addition, preference should be given to the use of renewable energy sources, if possible. Local electricity generated by
photovoltaic panels can be an option.
Printing parameters and SCM should be used to adjust the rheological properties of 3DCP instead of high cement consumption. They can also improve the
rheology cohesion of the composites and the shape retention of the printed structure to increase the layer height and reduce the total printed
length, reducing energy consumption.
Structure complexity Material consumption can be optimized by performing advanced computational design, structural analysis, and functional
hybridization. To this end, the design tools must be improved in terms of complexity modeling and include environmental metrics,
such as carbon and energy indicators.
using both concrete 3D printing and a conventional casting method. The results showed that 3D printing produced a lower envi
ronmental impact when one pillar was produced only. When the pillar was produced repeatedly, 3D printing and conventional
construction presented similar impacts if the formwork was reused.
Formwork was found to contribute significantly to approximately 20% of the total Eutrophication, according to Mohammad et al.
[49]. An interesting feature was identified in the GWP, where a negative CO2-eq was observed due to the use of plywood as a raw
material to produce formworks. Timber captures CO2, as it grows and outweighs the CO2 emissions from the machinery and equipment
used for harvesting and processing it. Although Yao et al. [47] did not present a specific analysis related to the use of molds for
conventional concrete, the paper concluded that 3D printing a geopolymer concrete panel has an environmental advantage over
conventional concrete panels since no mold is necessary for manufacturing.
4.6. Rheology and environmental assessment

Most papers identified in the SLR used pre-defined 3D printable concrete mixtures without discussing the relationship between the
obtained rheology and the proportioning of their components, mainly their cement consumption. One way of reducing cement con
sumption in 3D printed concretes is to use supplementary materials for adjusting their rheological properties. In the study of Long et al.
[17], the use of micro-crystalline cellulose (MCC) was proposed to increase yield stress and plastic viscosity while reducing the
environmental impacts associated with high cement consumption. The authors found that MCC can improve the cohesion of the
composites and lead to higher thixotropy, which improves the shape retention of the printed structure. The authors also concluded that
the mortars produced with 1 wt% MCC reduce CO2 emissions by 6.82% compared to conventional mortars, since their cement content
can be reduced without affecting their rheological parameters.
Rheology was also considered by Long et al. [29]. In the study, the authors varied the amounts of calcined clay, limestone powder,
Fig. 11. Flowchart for development of low environmental impacts 3DCP guided by LCA.
15
and silica fume and evaluated the rheological properties of the pastes (yield stress, plastic viscosity, and thixotropy) using a rotational
rheometer. All the parameters were also improved by the use of limestone calcined clay cements, associated with the material’s ability
to absorb a large amount of free water in the mortar and to induce flocculation. In this case, the CO2 emissions were reduced by up to
50.2% and the energy consumption, by up to 45.2%, which is associated with the partial replacement of ordinary Portland cement by
the supplementary materials.
4.7. Structure complexity, multifunctionality, and dematerialization

Most authors [49,51,58] have presented a 3D printed wall as a functional unit with internal voids. As discussed by Kuzmenko et al.
[58], the internal voids can be rearranged according to various requirements and serve as reservoirs for cast concrete, wiring, pipes,
ventilation systems, or insulation. According to Agustí-Juan et al. [52], the environmental impacts of conventional construction in
crease with the complexity of the structure, since more complex and stronger formwork is progressively needed. On the other hand, the
impacts of 3D printed structures are almost the same regardless of the structural complexity.
Agustí-Juan and Habert [55,56] also found that computational design can be used to make materials consumption more efficient.
Through structural optimization, 3D printing can reduce the amount of steel and concrete necessary, which brings some environmental
benefits. According to De Schutter et al. [46], 3D printing also facilitates the production of multifunctional structures in terms of
mechanical, thermal, and acoustic properties. In this sense, material optimization through structural analysis and functional hy
bridization could also be another promising way to reduce environmental impacts, as presented in Fig. 10.
In the work of Han et al. [50], a comparison between geometrically regular and irregular structures was also performed. The
authors found a slight difference between the environmental impacts of the two types of structures since the main impacts did not come
from the construction phase but the high cement content used in the 3D-printed concrete.
Kuzmenko et al. [58] studied dematerialization by altering the amount of material in the functional unit (1 m2 of sinusoidal
concrete wall) and evaluating its relevance to the overall environmental impact. In this study, the amount of material in the wall
system was a very sensitive parameter. The paper concluded that 15% of the GWP could be avoided by optimizing the material
distribution in the building element.
4.8. Research outlook and recommendations

The papers analyzed show that 3D concrete printing is a promising technology that can positively impact the construction industry
in the coming years. The possibility of reducing formwork use and waste production are some of the advantages of this new method
that could lead to more sustainable constructions.
In the material level evaluation, the Portland cement content tends to be the main reason of the higher impact of 3DCP. On the other
hand, at the product level (e.g., a structure, a wall, etc.), when the construction process is taken into account, other variables can
influence the overall impacts. For example, a concrete that consumes more cement can have a better rheological behavior, which can
lead to a more efficient construction process with less material consumption (dematerialization), resulting in a mitigation of envi
ronmental impacts [64]. Nevertheless, at the present state of the art is not possible to perform a deep discussion on this issue, since a lot
of papers are restricted the material level and do not evaluate the influence of the materials formulation in the 3DCP construction
process and vice versa. Therefore, further research should be carried out, considering the global analysis for LCA.
The durability of 3D printed structures may also be lower when compared to traditional concrete structures due to the presence of
interfaces between concrete layers [50]. Degradation and long-term performance of these structures, however, are still little under
stood, and more studies are needed to quantify their influence on the entire life cycle impact.
According to some authors [52], 3D printing technology is extremely competitive for high complexity structures and allows the
integration of additional functions to the structure, which could increase the architectural value, promote materials savings, or
compensate for higher material consumption [55]. For low complexity structures, however, optimization is still needed to improve its
feasibility. In this sense, the use of fiber-reinforced concrete associated with structural optimization methods also emerges as a
promising alternative for reducing the environmental impacts of the 3D printing technology [55]. Based on the reviewed literature,
some recommendations for the environmental performance improvement of 3DCP are proposed in Table 3.
Finally, a flowchart linking the evaluated strategies and recommendations with a hierarchy, based on the use of LCA, according
with the reviewed papers, to archive low environmental impacts 3DCP is proposed in Fig. 11.
Firstly, the design guided by structural optimization and functional hybridization can be used to reduce the consumption of ma
terials. The second action concerns the materials selection to achieve proper rheology and strength. The rheological properties may
affect printing parameters, such as printing speed and layer height, which can affect the energy consumption by the robotic 3D printer.
Finally, renewable energy can be used to reduce the environmental impacts of the 3D printing device. In all steps, the use LCA to
compare alternatives can help in the decision-making process and should be taken into account.
It is important to say that this is a first tentative of a process that was based on the available data. When the use of LCA applied to
3DCP becomes more widespread, with more available quantitative data, especially in terms of the global impacts of 3DCP (beyond
material level), this flowchart can be improved.
5. Conclusions
3D concrete printing emerges as a promising construction method for increasing the productivity and efficiency of the building
process. When LCA is used to assess the environmental impact of this technology, the following conclusions can be drawn by
comparing it with conventional construction methods:
16
1. Environmental impacts of concrete used in 3D printing are concentrated on cement (due to the high amount of cement in concrete
mixtures) and reinforcing steel.
2. Using 3D printing and alternative materials, such limestone calcined clay cements, and the partial replacement of cement by
supplementary cementitious materials, such as fly ash and silica fume, can decrease environmental impacts and must be
encouraged.
3. Earth-based materials, such as cob, emerge as promising alternatives to reduce the environmental impacts of 3D printed con
structions, since they do not use substantial amounts of chemical binders. However, the viability of these materials for large-scale
applications should be better evaluated.
4. 3D printing allows the construction of more complex and multifunctional structures, which tends to benefit its environmental
performance compared to conventional construction methods.
5. There is still no consensus on the actual impacts of robots and equipment used in the 3D printing process. The type of energy source
is expected to have a significant influence.
6. All articles selected for the review used cradle-to-gate boundaries, and no studies were found on the degradation of the 3D printed
material and durability of the structures. This information is fundamental to predict service life and end-of-life of the printed
structures.
7. Recent papers about LCA for 3D printing use different size equipment and printing scales, which difficult the comparison between
studies. A common framework is needed for the comparison of different papers that studies the LCA of 3D building materials
printing.
Finally, for future LCA applied to 3DCP studies special attention should be given to: evaluation of other environmental impacts,
instead of just Global Warming Potential; study of broader scopes and scales, beyond the material level; understanding the relation
between the materials composition and the influence in the construction process and environmental impacts; understanding the in
fluence of formworks in the LCA modeling and the definition of some methodological rules, such as: definition of the functional unit,
system boundaries, choice of the LCIA method types of avoided impacts (when compared with conventional technologies), and others
that will emerge as 3DCP technology evolves and becomes more understood.
CRediT authorship contribution statement

Matheus Pimentel Tinoco: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Writing – original draft. Érica Martinho de Men
donça: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Writing – original draft. Letícia Ikeda Castrillon Fernandez: Conceptual
ization, Methodology, Data curation, Writing – original draft. Lucas Rosse Caldas: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision,
Writing – review & editing. Oscar Aurelio Mendoza Reales: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review &
editing. Romildo Dias Toledo Filho: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Brazilian funding agencies CNPq (Conselho Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior- Brasil (CAPES) - Finance
Code 001, and Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) through the Auxílio ao
Pesquisador Recém-contratado ARC Program, grant number 211.447/2019. We also would like to thank the reviews for their
constructive comments that helped to improve the quality of the paper. Finally, we would like to thank Katerina Dimitrova for the
language review.
References
[1] M. Beltrami, G. Orzes, J. Sarkis, M. Sartor, Industry 4.0 and sustainability: towards conceptualization and theory, J. Clean. Prod. 312 (2021) 127733, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127733.
[2] T. Wangler, N. Roussel, F.P. Bos, T.A.M. Salet, R.J. Flatt, Digital concrete: a review, Cement Concr. Res. 123 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2019.105780.
[3] D. Maia de Souza, M. Lafontaine, F. Charron-Doucet, B. Chappert, K. Kicak, F. Duarte, L. Lima, Comparative life cycle assessment of ceramic brick, concrete brick
and cast-in-place reinforced concrete exterior walls, J. Clean. Prod. 137 (2016) 70–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.069.
[4] T.D. Ngo, A. Kashani, G. Imbalzano, K.T.Q. Nguyen, D. Hui, Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges,
Compos. B Eng. 143 (2018) 172–196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012.
[5] J. Zhang, J. Wang, S. Dong, X. Yu, B. Han, A review of the current progress and application of 3D printed concrete, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 125 (2019)
105533, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105533.
[6] S.C. Paul, G.P.A.G. van Zijl, I. Gibson, A review of 3D concrete printing systems and materials properties: current status and future research prospects, Rapid
Prototyp. J. 24 (2018) 784–798, https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-09-2016-0154.
[7] V.C. Li, F.P. Bos, K. Yu, W. McGee, T.Y. Ng, S.C. Figueiredo, K. Nefs, V. Mechtcherine, V.N. Nerella, J. Pan, G.P.A.G. van Zijl, P.J. Kruger, On the emergence of
3D printable Engineered, strain hardening cementitious composites (ECC/SHCC), Cement Concr. Res. 132 (2020) 106038, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2020.106038.
[8] B. Lu, Y. Weng, M. Li, Y. Qian, K.F. Leong, M.J. Tan, S. Qian, A systematical review of 3D printable cementitious materials, Construct. Build. Mater. 207 (2019)
477–490, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.144.
17
[9] S.A. Khan, M. Koç, S.G. Al-Ghamdi, Sustainability assessment, potentials and challenges of 3D printed concrete structures: a systematic review for built
environmental applications, J. Clean. Prod. 303 (2021) 127027, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127027.
[10] M.A. Hossain, A. Zhumabekova, S.C. Paul, J.R. Kim, A review of 3D printing in construction and its impact on the labor market, Sustainability 12 (2020) 1–21,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208492.
[11] 3DPrintr.com, 3D concrete printing market to reach $ 56.4 million by 2021. https://www.3printr.com/3d-concrete-printing-market-reach-56-4-million-2021-
1239664/, 2016. (Accessed 8 January 2022).
[12] A.L.M. Tobi, S.A. Omar, Z. Yehia, S. Al-Ojaili, A. Hashim, O. Orhan, Cost viability of 3D printed house in UK, in: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering, Institute of Physics Publishing, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/319/1/012061.
[13] X. Zhang, M. Li, J.H. Lim, Y. Weng, Y.W.D. Tay, H. Pham, Q.C. Pham, Large-scale 3D printing by a team of mobile robots, Autom. ConStruct. 95 (2018) 98–106,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.08.004.
[14] D.G. Soltan, V.C. Li, A self-reinforced cementitious composite for building-scale 3D printing, Cement Concr. Compos. 90 (2018) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconcomp.2018.03.017.
[15] 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.
[16] N. Roussel, Rheological requirements for printable concretes, Cement Concr. Res. 112 (2018) 76–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.04.005.
[17] W.J. Long, J.L. Tao, C. Lin, Y. cun Gu, L. Mei, H.B. Duan, F. Xing, Rheology and buildability of sustainable cement-based composites containing micro-crystalline
cellulose for 3D-printing, J. Clean. Prod. 239 (2019) 118054, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118054.
[18] M. Chen, L. Li, Y. Zheng, P. Zhao, L. Lu, X. Cheng, Rheological and mechanical properties of admixtures modified 3D printing sulphoaluminate cementitious
materials, Construct. Build. Mater. 189 (2018) 601–611, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.037.
[19] G. Ma, Z. Li, L. Wang, Printable properties of cementitious material containing copper tailings for extrusion based 3D printing, Construct. Build. Mater. 162
(2018) 613–627, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.051.
[20] 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.
[21] 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.
[22] A. Kazemian, X. Yuan, E. Cochran, B. Khoshnevis, Cementitious materials for construction-scale 3D printing: laboratory testing of fresh printing mixture,
Construct. Build. Mater. 145 (2017) 639–647, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.015.
[23] M. Hambach, D. Volkmer, Properties of 3D-printed fiber-reinforced Portland cement paste, Cement Concr. Compos. 79 (2017) 62–70, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconcomp.2017.02.001.
[24] G.M. Moelich, J. Kruger, R. Combrinck, Plastic shrinkage cracking in 3D printed concrete, Compos. B Eng. 200 (2020) 108313, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compositesb.2020.108313.
[25] H. Ogura, V.N. Nerella, V. Mechtcherine, Developing and testing of strain-hardening cement-based composites (SHCC) in the context of 3D-printing, Materials
11 (2018) 1–18, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11081375.
[26] B. Panda, J.H. Lim, M.J. Tan, Mechanical properties and deformation behaviour of early age concrete in the context of digital construction, Compos. B Eng. 165
(2019) 563–571, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.02.040.
[27] 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, Construct. Build. Mater. 198 (2019) 245–255, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.252.
[28] Y. Chen, S. Chaves Figueiredo, Z. Li, Z. Chang, K. Jansen, O. Çopuroğlu, E. Schlangen, Improving printability of limestone-calcined clay-based cementitious
materials by using viscosity-modifying admixture, Cement Concr. Res. 132 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106040.
[29] W.J. Long, C. Lin, J.L. Tao, T.H. Ye, Y. Fang, Printability and particle packing of 3D-printable limestone calcined clay cement composites, Construct. Build.
Mater. 282 (2021) 122647, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122647.
[30] Y. Chen, K. Jansen, H. Zhang, C. Romero Rodriguez, Y. Gan, O. Çopuroğlu, E. Schlangen, Effect of printing parameters on interlayer bond strength of 3D printed
limestone-calcined clay-based cementitious materials: an experimental and numerical study, Construct. Build. Mater. 262 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.120094.
[31] S. Muthukrishnan, H.W. Kua, L.N. Yu, J.K.H. Chung, Fresh properties of cementitious materials containing rice husk ash for construction 3D printing, J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 32 (2020), 04020195, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0003230.
[32] O.A. Mendoza Reales, P. Duda, E.C.C.M. Silva, M.D.M. Paiva, R.D.T. Filho, Nanosilica particles as structural buildup agents for 3D printing with Portland cement
pastes, Construct. Build. Mater. 219 (2019) 91–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.174.
[33] P. Sikora, S.Y. Chung, M. Liard, D. Lootens, T. Dorn, P.H. Kamm, D. Stephan, M. Abd Elrahman, The effects of nanosilica on the fresh and hardened properties of
3D printable mortars, Construct. Build. Mater. 281 (2021) 122574, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122574.
[34] S. Zou, J. Xiao, T. Ding, Z. Duan, Q. Zhang, Printability and advantages of 3D printing mortar with 100% recycled sand, Construct. Build. Mater. 273 (2021)
121699, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121699.
[35] G. Bai, L. Wang, G. Ma, J. Sanjayan, M. Bai, 3D printing eco-friendly concrete containing under-utilised and waste solids as aggregates, Cement Concr. Compos.
120 (2021) 104037, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104037.
[36] Y. Zhang, W. Luo, J. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Xu, J. Xiao, A review of life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 209 (2019)
115–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.078.
[37] D.R. Vieira, J.L. Calmon, F.Z. Coelho, Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the manufacturing of common and ecological concrete: a review, Construct. Build.
Mater. 124 (2016) 656–666, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.125.
[38] R. Robayo-Salazar, J. Mejía-Arcila, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, E. Martínez, Life cycle assessment (LCA) of an alkali-activated binary concrete based on natural
volcanic pozzolan: a comparative analysis to OPC concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 176 (2018) 103–111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.017.
[39] P. Van Den Heede, N. De Belie, Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and “green” concretes: literature review and theoretical
calculations, Cement Concr. Compos. 34 (2012) 431–442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.01.004.
[40] M. Manjunatha, S. Preethi, Malingaraya, H.G. Mounika, K.N. Niveditha, Ravi, Life cycle assessment (LCA) of concrete prepared with sustainable cement-based
materials, Mater. Today Proc. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.248.
[41] L.R. Caldas, A.B. Saraiva, A.F.P. Lucena, M.Y. da Gloria, A.S. Santos, R.D.T. Filho, Building materials in a circular economy: the case of wood waste as CO2-sink
in bio concrete, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 166 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105346.
[42] L. Rosse Caldas, A. Bernstad Saraiva, V.M. Andreola, R. Dias Toledo Filho, Bamboo bio-concrete as an alternative for buildings’ climate change mitigation and
adaptation, Construct. Build. Mater. (2020) 263, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120652.
[43] M.R.M. Saade, A. Yahia, B. Amor, How has LCA been applied to 3D printing? A systematic literature review and recommendations for future studies, J. Clean.
Prod. 244 (2020) 118803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118803.
[44] C. Wohlin, Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering, ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser. (2014), https://
doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268.
[45] V. Mechtcherine, F.P. Bos, A. Perrot, W.R.L. da Silva, V.N. Nerella, S. Fataei, R.J.M. Wolfs, M. Sonebi, N. Roussel, Extrusion-based additive manufacturing with
cement-based materials – production steps, processes, and their underlying physics: a review, Cement Concr. Res. 132 (2020) 106037, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconres.2020.106037.
[46] 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, Cement Concr. Res. 112 (2018) 25–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.06.001.
[47] Y. Yao, M. Hu, F. Di Maio, S. Cucurachi, Life cycle assessment of 3D printing geo-polymer concrete: an ex-ante study, J. Ind. Ecol. 24 (2020) 116–127, https://
doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12930.
18
[48] I. Muñoz, J. Alonso-Madrid, M. Menéndez-Muñiz, M. Uhart, J. Canou, C. Martin, M. Fabritius, L. Calvo, L. Poudelet, R. Cardona, H. Lombois-Burger,
N. Vlasopoulos, C. Bouyssou, J. Dirrenberger, A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, Life cycle assessment of integrated additive–subtractive concrete 3D
printing, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2021) 2149–2159, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06487-0.
[49] M. Mohammad, E. Masad, S.G. Al-Ghamdi, 3D concrete printing sustainability: a comparative life cycle assessment of four construction method scenarios,
Buildings 10 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10120245.
[50] Y. Han, Z. Yang, T. Ding, J. Xiao, Environmental and economic assessment on 3D printed buildings with recycled concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 278 (2021) 123884,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123884.
[51] 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.
[52] I. Agustí-Juan, F. Müller, N. Hack, T. Wangler, G. Habert, Potential benefits of digital fabrication for complex structures: environmental assessment of a
robotically fabricated concrete wall, J. Clean. Prod. 154 (2017) 330–340, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.002.
[53] 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.
[54] J. Yeon, Y. Rew, J. Kang, K. Choi, Life cycle assessment-based feasibility study of spall damage rehabilitation using 3D printing technology, in: 54th Annual
International Conference Proceedings, 2018.
[55] I. Agustí-Juan, G. Habert, Environmental design guidelines for digital fabrication, J. Clean. Prod. 142 (2017) 2780–2791, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.10.190.
[56] I. Agustí-Juan, G. Habert, An environmental perspective on digital fabrication in architecture and construction, in: CAADRIA 2016, 21st Int. Conf. Comput.
Archit. Des. Res. Asia - Living Syst. Micro-utopias Towar. Contin. Des., 2016, pp. 797–806.
[57] M.M. Muñiz, M. Chantin, C.R. Vintila, M. Fabritius, C. Martin, L. Calvo, L. Poudelet, J. Canou, M. Uhart, A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, N.O.
E. Olsson, J.A. Tenorio, J.A. Madrid, J. Dirrenberger, I. Muñoz, Concrete hybrid manufacturing: a machine architecture, Procedia CIRP 97 (2020) 51–58,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.07.003.
[58] K. Kuzmenko, J. Dirrenberger, O. Baverel, Assessing the environmental viability of 3D concrete printing technology, impact des, With All Senses (2020), https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29829-6.
[59] H. Abdalla, K.P. Fattah, M. Abdallah, A.K. Tamimi, Environmental footprint and economics of a full-scale 3d-printed house, Sustainability 13 (2021), https://
doi.org/10.3390/su132111978.
[60] ISO 14040, Environmental management–life cycle assessment—principles and framework, Int. Organ. Stand. 3 (2006).
[61] ISO 14044, environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Requirements and guidelines, Int. Organ. Stand. 3 (2007).
[62] V. Markin, M. Krause, J. Otto, C. Schröfl, V. Mechtcherine, 3D-printing with foam concrete: from material design and testing to application and sustainability,
J. Build. Eng. 43 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102870.
[63] C. Zhang, V.N. Nerella, A. Krishna, S. Wang, Y. Zhang, V. Mechtcherine, N. Banthia, Mix design concepts for 3D printable concrete: a review, Cement Concr.
Compos. 122 (2021) 104155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104155.
[64] G. Habert, S.A. Miller, V.M. John, J.L. Provis, A. Favier, A. Horvath, K.L. Scrivener, Environmental impacts and decarbonization strategies in the cement and
concrete industries, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1 (2020) 559–573, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0093-3.
[65] J. Zhao, L. Tong, B. Li, T. Chen, C. Wang, G. Yang, Y. Zheng, Eco-friendly geopolymer materials: a review of performance improvement, potential application
and sustainability assessment, J. Clean. Prod. 307 (2021) 127085, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127085.
[66] 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, Cement Concr. Compos. 114 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103708.
[67] 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, Cement Concr. Compos. 122 (2021) 104156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2021.104156.
[68] Y. Dong, S.T. Ng, P. Liu, A comprehensive analysis towards benchmarking of life cycle assessment of buildings based on systematic review, Build. Environ. 204
(2021) 108162, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108162.
[69] V.N. Nerella, M. Krause, M. Näther, V. Mechtcherine, Studying printability of fresh concrete for formwork free Concrete on-site 3D Printing technology
technology (CONPrint3D), Rheol. Messungen an Baustoffen (2016) 236–246.
[70] Products Mobbot. https://en.themobbot.com/nosproduits, 2021. (Accessed 7 January 2022).
[71] A. Passuello, E.D. Rodríguez, E. Hirt, M. Longhi, S.A. Bernal, J.L. Provis, A.P. Kirchheim, Evaluation of the potential improvement in the environmental footprint
of geopolymers using waste-derived activators, J. Clean. Prod. 166 (2017) 680–689, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.007.
[72] I. Agustí-Juan, A. Hollberg, G. Habert, Early-design integration of environmental criteria for digital fabrication, in: Life-Cycle Anal. Assess. Civ. Eng. Towar. An
Integr. Vis. - Proc. 6th Int. Symp. Life-Cycle Civ. Eng, IALCCE, 2019, pp. 447–452, 2018.
19

Journal of Building Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Building Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Building Engineering 52 (2022) 104456

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect