Resources, Conservation & Recycling 181 (2022) 106255

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

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

Full length article

Performance criteria, environmental impact and cost assessment for 3D

printable concrete mixtures
Manu K. Mohan a, A.V. Rahul a, Benjamin van Dam b, Talina Zeidan b, Geert De Schutter a,
Kim Van Tittelboom a, *
a
Magnel-Vandepitte Laboratory, Department of Structural Engineering and Building Materials, Ghent University, Belgium
b
BESIX Engineering, Brussels, Belgium

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

Keywords: Extrusion-based concrete 3D printing is a promising technology and has the potential for being a sustainable
Sustainability construction solution by utilizing structural optimization and reduced material usage. However, studies focusing
Slag on the sustainability assessment of 3D printable concrete mixtures are not many. In the current study, a quan­
CSA cement
titative assessment of the environmental and economic impact of multiple 3D printable concrete mixtures for the
Global warming potential
Environmental cost indicator
production of one cubic meter volume is performed. 3D printable concrete mixtures made with (i) different
binder systems and (ii) increasing aggregate content and modified gradation of the aggregate skeleton by adding
natural and recycled coarse aggregates, satisfying a set of performance criteria, were evaluated. It was observed
that the use of calcium sulfoaluminate-limestone binder systems has significantly lower global warming po­
tential; however, the depletion of fossil resources indicator is much higher than compared to the Portland
cement-based mixtures. Increasing the aggregate content decreases environmental impact; however, incorpo­
rating recycled and coarse aggregates do not significantly decrease the environmental impact at a lower
replacement level. Also, it was found that the contribution of the chemical admixtures to the total material cost is
significantly higher in the case of 3D printbale concrete mixtures in comparison to the conventional mould cast
mixtures. The study provides insights into the environmental and economic impact of extrusion-based concrete
3D printing materials satisfying the same functional requirements.

1. Introduction precast construction method due to the absence of formwork (De

The constituents of concrete are non-renewable and finite; therefore,
it is imperative to look for sustainable solutions for the concreting
process and the constituents of concrete. However, sustainability is a
broader concept encompassing the environmental, social and economic
consequences of the construction materials and processes (Mindess,
2019). It is estimated that the construction industry will contribute 10%
of the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions and 40% of the greenhouse gas
emission by 2030 (Mindess, 2019, Scrivener et al., 2018, Damtoft et al.,
2008). Also, the construction industry produces 40% of the total solid
wastes produced today.
Extrusion-based concrete 3D printing (3DCP) is a novel construction
process in which the structure is fabricated by layer-wise deposition of a
cementitious mixture with the help of a predefined computer model. A
few studies reported that 3DCP could offer a significant reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption as compared to the
Schutter et al., 2018, Weng et al., 2020). Another critical aspect of
sustainability is economic viability. It was reported that more than 50%
of the construction cost is contributed by the formwork material and
labour cost (Jha, 2012, Paul et al., 2018, Paul et al., 2018). Also, con­
struction duration often gets significantly increased due to the prepa­
ration of the formwork, which could delay the project and thus, translate
into higher expenses. Case studies have shown that 3DCP has the po­
tential to reduce the overall cost of the project by up to 25%, and even
more, cost reduction is possible with more complex shapes (Weng et al.,
2020, García de Soto et al., 2018). Furthermore, an overall material cost
reduction is possible in 3DCP construction through improvement in the
material usage efficiency by topology optimization (Mohan et al., 2021).
Gosselin et al. (2016) reported that the geometric complexity associated
with 3DCP enables multifunctionality and multiscale architecturation.
Also, studies have shown that digital fabrication could help in reducing
the resources, energy consumption and improve the thermal comfort

* kim.vantittelboom@ugent.be
E-mail addresses: manukmohn@gmail.com (M.K. Mohan), kim.vantittelboom@ugent.be (K. Van Tittelboom).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106255
Received 3 November 2021; Received in revised form 17 January 2022; Accepted 18 February 2022
Available online 26 February 2022
0921-3449/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M.K. Mohan et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 181 (2022) 106255

due to this multifunctionality, structural hybridization and integration. 2. Materials and methods
(Yang et al., 2019, He et al., 2020, Agustí-Juan and Habert, 2017).
Despite the many positive effects of 3DCP on sustainability, one of its 2.1. Materials
major shortcomings is the higher binder content currently used in the
printable mixtures (Mohan et al., 2021, Mohan et al., 2020) Fig. 1. The binders and the supplementary cementitious materials used for
shows the relative percentage of the constituents of conventional mould the design of 3D printable mixtures include two types of Portland
cast concrete, self-compacting concrete and 3D printable mixtures re­ cement (CEM I 52.5 N and CEM I 52.5 R) conforming to EN 197-1 (EN
ported in the literature (Rehman and Kim, 2021). It can be seen that the 197-1, 2011), ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) conforming
binder content of the 3D printable mixtures is double that of the con­ to EN 15167-2 (EN 15167-2, 2018), calcium sulfoaluminate (CSA)
ventional mould cast concrete mixtures. Studies have shown that the cement, and limestone powder. Three different aggregate types were
global warming potential or CO2 emissions strongly correlate with the used: natural fine aggregate (0/2), natural coarse aggregates of two
cement content (Miller et al., 2016). As the binder is the most different particle size distributions (2/8 and 8/16), and recycled coarse
energy-intensive part, from a material point of view, 3D printable aggregate (2/16). The physical properties of the aggregates are listed in
mixtures are less eco-friendly than conventional mould cast concrete. Table 1, and the particle size distribution curve of binders and aggre­
The strategies to reduce the environmental and cost impact of 3D gates are shown in Fig. 2. The chemical admixtures used in the mixtures
printable concrete mixtures include reducing the binder content by include polycarboxylate ether-based superplasticizer, di-sodium tetra­
increasing the aggregate content, using more eco-friendly binder sys­ borate decahydrate (also known as borax, Na2B4O7•10H2O), and methyl
tems, changing the aggregate gradation by incorporating natural coarse cellulose-based viscosity modifying agent (denoted as VMA). Potable
aggregates and recycled concrete aggregates, etc. (Mohan et al., 2021, water was used for preparing all the mixtures.
Rahul et al., 2022, Mohan et al., 2021). In this regard, calcium sulfoa­
luminate cement-based mixtures (Mohan et al., 2021, Mohan et al.,
2.2. Mixtures
2021), alkali-activated concrete mixtures (Panda et al., 2019, Panda
et al., 2017), reactive magnesium oxide cement-based mixtures (Weng
A total of 11 different 3D printable mixtures have been developed at
et al., 2019), limestone calcined clay cement-based mixtures (Chen
the Ghent University by using alternate binder systems, varying the
et al., 2020, Rahul et al., 2020) etc. were used so far. To evaluate the
aggregate content and changing the aggregate gradation by adding
effect of these improvement strategies, a rigorous environmental and
natural and recycled coarse aggregates. The details of these 3D printable
economic impact study of these mixtures is required. Though the sus­ mixtures can be found in previous publications by the authors (Mohan
tainability assessment of conventional mould cast concrete mixtures has
et al., 2020, Mohan et al., 2021, Rahul et al., 2022, Mohan et al., 2021).
been studied extensively, such studies are not many in the case of 3D For the environmental and economic impact assessment, these 11 mix­
printable concrete mixtures. One of the main reasons for that is lack of
tures were categorized into two matrices (i) mixtures with different
understanding in making a proper choice of functional requirements for binder systems and (ii) mixtures with increasing aggregate-to-binder
3DCP; which is essential for the comparative evaluation of different
ratio (a/b) and different types and sizes of aggregates. For matrix 1,
concrete mixtures. In mould cast concrete, the functional requirements
can be chosen based on workability (e.g. slump value), compressive
Table 1
strength and durability indices (Celik et al., 2015, Van Den Heede and
Physical properties of the aggregates used in the study.
De Belie, 2012). However, in the case of 3DCP additional requirements
must be considered to meet the demands of printability. Property Fine Natural Natural Recycled
aggregate coarse coarse coarse
In the current study, a set of comprehensive criteria suitable to define (0/2) aggregate (2/ aggregate (8/ aggregate (2/
the performance of 3D printable concrete mixtures is identified. Then, a 8) 16) 8)
set of 3D printable mixtures developed, adopting sustainability-driven
Maximum 2 8 16 8
techniques and having similar values for these performance criteria particle size
are considered. The values of performance criteria for the different (mm)
mixtures are taken from the literature or measured in cases where the Water 0 0.1 0.1 4.4
data was not available from the literature. Then, a rigorous quantitative absorption
(%)
environmental and economic analysis was carried out for these mixtures Specific 2.65 2.55 2.55 2.39
with similar performance criteria. gravity at
SSD

SSD: Saturated surface dry condition

Fig. 1. Comparison of constituents (by volume) used in conventional concrete, self-compacting concrete and 3D printable concrete mixtures (adapted from Rehman
and Kim (Rehman and Kim, 2021))

2
M.K. Mohan et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 181 (2022) 106255

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution curves of binders and aggregates used in the 3D printable mixtures

the binder systems chosen were CEM I 52.5 N and CEM I 52.5 R, CEM I mixtures and having nominal workability of 100 mm slump was
52.5 N - GGBS blend (the mixture was designated as PC-GGBS) and designed following the design guidelines in EN 5328 (BS 5328 Part 2,
CSA-limestone powder blend. For the mixtures in the second matrix, the 1997). The compositions of the different mixtures are provided in
a/b of the PC-GGBS mixture was increased from 1.0 to 1.7, as 1.7 was Table 2 and Table 3. Also, a constant water-to-powder ratio of 0.35 was
found to be the practical limit for the a/b for the pumping system used for the preparation of all the mixtures,.
considered in the study. For obtaining mixtures with different aggregate
types, the aggregate skeleton of the PC-GGBS mixture was altered,
2.3. Methodology
introducing 30 vol% of either natural or recycled coarse aggregate. As
pointed out earlier, the binder content in 3D printable mixtures is much
2.3.1. Determination of performance indicators
higher than a similar grade mould cast concrete (Mohan et al., 2021,
In order to compare the environmental and economic impact of
Mohan et al., 2021). However, it must be noted that the comparison
concrete mixtures, it is necessary that the concrete mixtures under
between printed and mould cast concrete is challenging because for a
consideration fulfill the same functional requirements. This could be
same functional requirement as it is possible to save some materials
achieved by selecting a set of performance criteria and performance
using topology optimization in the case of 3D printed elements. Never­
indicators. The performance indicators selected include static and dy­
theless, an environmental and economic comparison for the production
namic yield stress, pumpability, extrudability, buildability, and open
of the same amount of 3D printed and mould cast concrete mixture could
time in the fresh state, and average compressive strength in three
give further insights into the sustainability of the 3D printable concrete
different loading directions and interlayer bond strength in the hardened
mixtures. For that, a mould cast concrete mixture with a similar
state. The rationale behind the choice of these performance criteria will
water-to-powder ratio (w/p) and binder type as that of the printable
be explained in detail in Section 3.1. Most of the performance indicator

Table 2
Composition of the printable mixtures with different binder systems.
Material Quantity (kg/m3)
PC only PC+SCM CSA+limestone
PC-R PC-N PC-GGBS CSA10LS CSA20LS CSA30LS

CEM I 52.5 N - 810.7 376.3 - - -

CEM I 52.5 R 802.6 - - - - -
GGBS - - 376.3 - - -
CSA cement - - - 726.6 643.2 560.5
Limestone powder - - - 80.7 160.8 240.2
Fine aggregate 1179.8 1216.1 1279.3 1211.0 1206.0 1201.0
Water 305.0 283.7 263.4 282.6 281.4 280.2
Borax - - - 4.84 4.84 4.84
Superplasticizer 6.4 5.3 5.3 3.6 3.2 2.9
Viscosity modifying agent 15.73 0.81 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.81
a/b 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5

SCM: supplementary cementitious material

3
M.K. Mohan et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 181 (2022) 106255

Table 3
Composition of the 3D printable PC-GGBS mixtures with increasing aggregate content, incorporating natural and recycled coarse aggregates by altering the grading
curve and mould cast concrete.
Material Quantity (kg/m3)
PC-1 PC-1.2 PC-1.4 PC-1.7 NCA RCA Mould cast

CEM I 52.5 N 469.6 438.5 411.3 365.9 374.2 370.4 223.4

GGBS 469.6 438.5 411.3 365.9 374.2 370.4 223.4
Fine aggregate (0/2) 939.3 1052.5 1151.7 1317.2 890.5 881.6 550.8
Natural coarse aggregate (2/8) - - - - 381.6 - 540.6
Natural coarse aggregate (8/16) - - - - - - 883.4
Recycled coarse aggregate (2/8) - - - - - 377.8 -
Water 328.7 307.0 287.9 256.1 261.9 259.3 156.4
Superplasticizer 3.76 4.39 4.94 5.49 2.99 2.96 2.2
Viscosity modifying agent 0.94 0.88 0.82 0.73 0.75 0.74 -
a/b 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.7 4.0

values were taken from the previous publications by the authors

(Mohan et al., 2021, Rahul et al., 2022, Mohan et al., 2021, Mohan et al.,
2021). However, the values of the static yield stress, compressive
strength, and interlayer bond strength were not available for all mix­
tures. Hence, these performance indicators were experimentally
measured.
The static yield stress was measured using the Anton Parr MCR 52
dynamic shear rheometer equipped with building material cell and 6-
blade vane geometry. The diameter of the building material cell was
36 mm, radius and height of the vane were 11 mm and 16 mm,
respectively. The stress growth experiment was carried out by following
the procedure mentioned in (Rahul et al., 2018), and the maximum
torque value was converted to yield stress by the equation proposed by
Dzuy and Boger (1983). The test was carried out twice with new samples
to ensure repeatability.
It is reported in the literature that there could be a reduction in
compressive strength due to the presence of interlayer in printed con­
crete elements compared to mould cast concrete (Rahul et al., 2019,
Batikha et al., 2022, Wolfs et al., 2019). Therefore, in the present study,
the average value of the compressive strength of all the three different
loading directions was taken as 60% of the compressive strength of
mould cast samples prepared with the same mixtures. A similar
approach was adopted by Batikha et al. (Batikha et al., 2022) in a recent
study. The average compressive strengths of mould cast samples were
determined by following the procedures in EN 197 (EN 197-1, 2011).
The interlayer bond strength of the 3D printed samples was evalu­
ated by pull-off tests. Two-layer wall elements with a width of 50 mm
and height of 20 mm were 3D printed without any interlayer time gap,
and after two days, 25 mm diameter and 20 mm long cylindrical samples
were drilled out. The drilled samples were glued to metal dollies with
epoxy, and at the age of 28 days, pull-off tests were performed with a
Macben Proceq machine at a loading rate of 50 N/s in load controlled
manner. The details of the test setup and sample preparation can be
found in the literature (Mohan et al., 2021, Van Der Putten et al., 2019).
The tests were carried out with six samples from each mixture, and the
average values were reported.
The environmental impact due to the production of the concrete
ingredients from raw materials, transportation of the materials and
finally, the production of 1 m3 of concrete mixtures was considered in
the environmental impact assessment. The construction of structures
using these mixtures, service phase and demolition phase are not
considered in the assessment. The environmental impact assessment is
carried out by following the general guidelines prescribed in ISO 14040
(E.I. 14040, 2006) and ISO 14044 (E.I. 14044, 2006). The environ­
mental impact indicators were chosen based on the recommendations
from CEN TC 350 (1) method as per EN 15804 standard (EN
15804:2012 + A2:2019, 2012) and are listed in columns 1 and 2 of
Table 4.
The global warming potential accounts for the total greenhouse gas
contribution to global warming, which originates from the increase in
Table 4
Overview of environmental impact indicators and overview of West-European
monetary values for the CEN indicators (De Nocker and Debacker, 2017).
Environmental indicator (CEN) Unit Cost /unit
(€)
Global warming potential (GWP) kg CO2 eqv. 0.05
Depletion of stratospheric ozone layer (ODP) kg CFC-11 eqv. 49.1
Acidification of land and water sources (AP) kg SO2 eqv. 0.43
Eutrophication potential (EP) kg (PO4)3− eqv. 20
Formation of tropospheric ozone photochemical kg etheen eqv. 0.48
oxidants (POCP)
Abiotic depletion of non-fossil resources (ADP- kg Sb eqv. 1.56
NF)
Abiotic depletion of fossil resources (ADP-F) MJ, net caloric 0
value
the concentration of the greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere and
leads to the rise in the global average temperature. Acidification results
from acidifying pollutants such as NOx, HCl, SO2, NH3 and CO2 and leads
to the toxicity of the soil. Photochemical oxidant smog gets generated
due to the NOx and volatile organic compounds under sunlight. Another
two main environmental impact indicators are the abiotic depletion of
fossil resources and non-fossil resources, such as minerals, clay, and peat
(Biron and EcoDesign, 2016, Ghosh et al., 2020).
2.3.2. Inventory data for impact assessment
2.3.2.1. Environmental impact assessment. One of the most important
steps in environmental impact assessment is collecting data for each unit
process regarding all relevant inputs and outputs of energy and mass
flow, as well as data on emissions to air, water and land. The inventory
data for binders, aggregates and chemical admixtures that are collected
from local suppliers and manufacturers is provided in Table 5. Emission
data for diesel production and transportation, natural gas distribution
and transport that could not be collected for local conditions were,
therefore, taken from the Simapro database (SimaPro - Sustainability,
2021) and listed in Table 6. Also, the distance for the transportation of
the concrete ingredients was taken as 100 km, and the mode of transport
was considered as truck transport, except for the CSA cement. The
transportation distance for the CSA cement was taken as 4200 km due to
the unavailability of CSA cement in Belgium and was procured from
Italy. Therefore, the mode of transport was chosen as ship due to
long-distance shipment. From the port to the construction site, the mode
of transportation was taken as the truck with a transport distance of 100
km. For the recycled coarse aggregates, the environmental impact of
transport to crusher and crushing processes are allocated to the previous
life cycle and not considered in the present analysis. The inventory data
of the chemical admixtures used for the preparation of the 3D printable
mixtures were collected from the documents published by the European
Federation of Concrete Admixture Associations [(E.F. of Concrete, 2015,
E.F. of Concrete, 2015, E.F. of Concrete, Admixtures Associations Ltd.

4
M.K. Mohan et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 181 (2022) 106255

Table 5
Impact assessment inventory data for the production of the binders, aggregates and chemical admixtures used to prepare 3D printable mixtures.
Material GWP kg ODP kg AP kg SO2 EP kg POCP kg ADP-NF kg ADP-F MJ, net Reference
CO2 eqv. CFC-11 eqv. eqv. (PO4)3− eqv. etheen eqv. Sb eqv. caloric value

CEM I 52.5 N 788 1.03 × 10− 8 0.997 0.182 0.0805 1.01 × 10− 7 2090 (MRPI, 2020)
CEM I 52.5 R 857 1.09 × 10− 8 1.1 0.316 0.0758 5.28 × 10− 7 3300 (MRPI, 2020)
GGBS 30.3 3.47 × 10− 9 0.117 0.0167 5.68 × 10− 6
3.9 × 10− 5 0.226 (MRPI, 2013)
CSA cement 599 4.8 × 10− 7 1.71 0.436 0.119 4.18 × 10− 7 4400 (Italcementi, 2021)
Limestone powder 18.4 3.1 × 10− 8 0.113 0.0173 0.0102 2.49 × 10− 8 0.117 (Ontwerptool Groen Beton v5.1,
2021)
6
Fine aggregate (0/2) 2.89 5.39 × 0.00721 0.00134 0 1.26 × 10− 34.3 (One Click LCA, 2021, 2021)
10− 12
9 − 7 − 8
Natural coarse 2.52 3.2 × 10− 0.0146 0.00271 4.46 × 10 1.1 × 10 39.1 (One Click LCA, 2021, 2021)
aggregate (2/8)
9 7 8
Natural coarse 2.52 3.2 × 10− 0.0146 0.00271 4.46 × 10− 1.1 × 10− 39.1 (One Click LCA, 2021, 2021)
aggregate (8/16)
Recycled coarse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
aggregate (2/8)
− 7 − 7 − 8
Water 0.128 1.62 × 2.06 × 1.17 × 10 1.8 × 10 1.84 × 10 1.65 (SimaPro - Sustainability, 2021)
10− 15 10− 7
9
Superplasticizer 1880 2.3 × 10− 2.92 1.03 0.312 0.0011 29100 (E.F. of Concrete, Admixtures
Associations Ltd. (EFCA), 2015)
9
Viscosity modifying 2670 4.26 × 10− 8.29 0.955 0.962 0.072 57000 (E.F. of Concrete, 2015)
agent
9
Borax 1310 4 × 10− 10.40 0.53 0.67 0.006 25100 (E.F. of Concrete, A.A.L. (EFCA)
2015)

Table 6
Impact assessment inventory data for the transport and production of the binders, aggregates and chemical admixtures used to prepare 3D printable mixtures.
Activity GWP kg CO2 ODP kg CFC-11 AP kg SO2 EP kg (PO4)3− POCP kg etheen ADP-NF kg Sb ADP-F MJ, net caloric Reference
eqv. eqv. eqv. eqv. eqv. eqv. value
8 7
Transport 0.131 2.44 × 10− 5.6 × 10− 1.14 × 106 7.75 × 10− 8
3.72 × 10− 10
9.77 × 10− 7
(SimaPro - Sustainability,
2021)
5 7 6
Production 0.141 6.55 2.69 × 10− 13.6 1.37 1.28 × 10− 3.63 × 10− (SGS, 2020)

(EFCA), 2015, E.F. of Concrete, 2015, E.F. of Concrete, (EFCA), 2015, E.
F. of Concrete, A.A.L. (EFCA), 2015)].
2.3.2.2. Environmental cost indicator. Given that the evaluation of the
environmental material performance of building elements should facil­
itate the identification and selection of environmentally friendly (pro­
cessed) materials, a unified decision model is necessary. A multitude of
individual impact scores seldom provides a good basis for making de­
cisions. As the European standards do not recommend an aggregation
method, a weighting is proposed via monetization to arrive at a ‘one-
point score’ or an Environmental Cost Indicator (ECI): the indicator is
multiplied by the monetization figure (e.g. X kg CO2 eqv. times Y €/kg
CO2 eqv.). These monetary values expressed due to the environmental
damage are not included in the material price but are passed on to so­
ciety through, for example, disease and damage to biodiversity (De
Nocker and Debacker, 2017). The environmental impact is taken as the
sum of the impact of raw materials used to produce the functional unit,
transport of the materials (considered as 100 km for the binders except
for the CSA cement, aggregates and admixtures and 0 km for the water)
and the production of one functional unit of the concrete. The moneti­
zation of the MMG method (Rahul et al., 2018) was chosen to give a
monetary indication of the environmental impact and then calculate the
ECI of the 3D printable mixtures. This approach involves assigning a
monetary value to different environmental impact indicator values
mentioned in EC 15804 (Rahul et al., 2018). The total ECI values are
calculated by multiplying the emission results by their corresponding
monetary values and summing up. The different monetization figures
that will be applied to the CEN (De Nocker and Debacker, 2017) envi­
ronmental indicators are presented in column 3 of Table 4.
2.3.2.3. Material cost. Cost analysis was carried out by collecting the
cost of individual ingredients present in the mixtures from the
manufacturers and calculating the cost for transportation. In the cost
analysis also, the economic burden during the construction, service
phase and demolition phase is excluded.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Performance evaluation criteria and performance indicators
Typically, 3D printable concrete mixtures must satisfy a set of per­
formance criteria to achieve desired properties. The acceptance range of
these performance criteria are dependent on the type of printer, pump
and desired application of the 3D printing process. As of now, there are
no standards to specify the performance criteria and range of acceptable
values for the performance indicators. Nevertheless, it is important to
compare the environmental and economic impact of the different 3D
printable concrete mixtures having similar values for the performance
indicators to yield reliable and representative results. Previous studies
on the sustainability assessment of 3D printable concrete mixtures have
used static yield stress or compressive strength as a performance indi­
cator for selecting concrete mixtures (Bhattacherjee et al., 2021, Han
et al., 2021). However, using only two performance indicators for the
selection of mixtures for the sustainability assessment may not be
adequate to characterize all the functional requirement aspects of
printable mixtures. For instance, mixtures with similar initial yield stress
do not necessarily ensure a similar open time or printability window.
This is true, especially in the case of fast hydrating binders like CSA
cement and alkali-activated binders (Mohan et al., 2021, Panda et al.,
2017, Panda et al., 2020). In the hardened state, interlayer bond
strength is one of the most important parameters to be considered
(Mohan et al., 2021, Mohan et al., 2021, Chen et al., 2020) Table 7. gives
an overview of the different performance indicators identified in the
fresh and hardened state and the measurement methods reported in the

5
M.K. Mohan et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 181 (2022) 106255

Table 7 3.2. Influence of binder type on sustainability

Set of performance indicators in the fresh and hardened state, measurement
method and range of values for the 3D printable mixtures considered in the
present study.
Performance indicator Measurement method
In fresh Static yield stress Stress growth experiment using
state (kPa) the dynamic shear rheometer (
Rahul et al., 2018, Le et al., 2012)
Dynamic yield Flow curve experiment using the
stress (kPa) dynamic shear rheometer (
Mohan et al., 2021, Mohan et al.,
2021)
Pumping pressure Measuring the pumping pressure
(bar) using a screw pump at a particular
discharge rate (Mohan et al.,
2021, Mohan et al., 2021)
Extrudability (-) Visual inspection by checking the
continuity of filament deposition
(Mohan et al., 2021)
Buildability (m) Critical height for collapse by
printing column elements (300
mm dia. columns in the present
study) (Mohan et al., 2021,
Rahul et al., 2022, Mohan et al.,
2021)
Open time (min) Checking if the pumping pressure
exceeds 80% of the pump
capacity (Mohan et al., 2021,
Mohan et al., 2021)
In hardened Compressive Compressive strength
state strength (MPa) measurements at three different
loading directions at a certain age
and the average strength of the
three loading directions are
reported (28 days in the present
study) (Rahul et al., 2022)
Interlayer bond Pull-off tests to check the bond
strength (MPa) strength between two layers at a
certain age (28 days in the present
study) (Mohan et al., 2021)
literature. This set of performance indicators were used in the present
study.
Table 8 lists the performance indicator values for the different mix­
tures in the fresh and hardened state. Further, the range of different
performance indicators for the different mixtures considered in this
study are shown in column 4 of Table 7. It can be seen that the range of
these performance criteria is narrow, or in other words, the values of a
given performance indicator do not vary significantly between the
different 3D printable mixtures. Therefore, an environmental and eco­
nomic comparison of these 3D printable mixtures would be reasonable
to assess mixtures having similar functional requirements.
As mentioned earlier, the binder is the most energy-intensive part of
the concrete mixture, and therefore, one of the best ways to decrease the
Range of environmental impact of the 3D printable concrete mixtures is by using
values alternate binder systems and replacing the Portland cement with sup­
1.19 – plementary cementitious materials. In this section, we compare the
1.60 environmental and economic impact of the 3D printable mixtures made
with different binder systems Fig. 3. shows the variation of the different
0.62 –
0.9
environmental impact indicators with different binder systems
normalized with the amount of binder content. Each environmental
indicator value is sub-divided into raw material extraction, transport of
7.3 – the materials and concrete production at the construction site/plant
11.5
Fig. 3. (a) represents one of the most critical and widely used environ­
mental impact indicators, global warming potential (GWP). It is evident
- that the GWP is significantly lower (about 50%) when the Portland
cement is partly replaced with GGBS and also when the CSA-limestone
system is used. Bhattacherjee et al. (2021). compared the CO2 emis­
0.4 - 0.5
sions of various 3D printable mixtures by considering the initial static
yield stress as a performance indicator. The authors also reported that
replacing the Portland cement with 50% of GGBS and the use of alter­
nate binder systems like limestone calcine clay cement reduces the CO2
emissions significantly. Authors also reported that the use of
90 – 115
alkali-activated 3D printable concrete mixtures shows the lowest CO2
emissions compared to other alternate binders and Portland cement and
GGBS blends. However, depending on the precursors and activators and
34 – 44 the alkali-activation method, the global warming potential of
alkali-activated concrete mixtures often becomes equal to the concrete
mixtures made with only Portland cement (Habert et al., 2011, Habert
and Ouellet-Plamondon, 2016, Yang et al., 2014, Jamieson et al., 2015).
Also, it was reported that even though the alkali-activated concrete
mixtures may have lower GWP value, in other environmental impact
1.8 – 2.2
categories, they have higher values than similar grade concrete mixtures
made from Portland cement (Habert et al., 2011). CSA-limestone mix­
tures showed the lowest GWP values, and this is because the kiln tem­
perature for the CSA production is lower than that for Portland cement
(Gartner, 2004, Sharp et al., 1999). Also, studies have shown that the
production of CSA clinker requires a much lower amount of limestone,
and the energy demand is lower irrespective of the sulfate source
(Hanein et al., 2018). Also, as expected, the mixtures with 100% CEM I
52.5 R and CEM I 52.5 N have the highest GWP among all the different
mixtures investigated.
Other environmental indicators such as ozone layer depletion,
acidification of land and water resources, eutrophication, and photo­
chemical oxidants formation are found to be lowest for the PC-GGBS
system and highest for the CSA-limestone system. This is due to two
reasons; firstly, the amount of sulfate content is higher in CSA cement
compared to Portland cement. As sulfate is one of the major contributing
components for the acidification potential, CSA cement-based systems

Table 8
Performance indicators of the 3D printable mixtures in the fresh state and hardened state.
Performance indicator PC only PC+GGBS CSA+limestone Reference
PC- PC- PC- PC- PC- PC- NCA RCA CSA CSA CSA
R N 1 1.2 1.4 1.7 10LS 20LS 30LS

In fresh state Static yield stress (kPa) 1.60 1.30 1.19 1.25 1.35 1.48 1.41 1.32 1.30 1.38 1.45 Measured
Dynamic yield stress 0.90 0.65 0.63 0.69 0.72 0.83 0.69 0.65 0.71 0.72 0.74 (Mohan et al., 2021)
(kPa)
Pumping pressure (bar) 9.5 10.7 7.3 8.3 9.4 10.5 11 10.5 11.5 11.3 10.6 (Mohan et al., 2021,
Mohan et al., 2021)
Extrudability (-) All the mixtures were extrudable (confirmed by visual inspection) (Mohan et al., 2021)
Buildability (m) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 (Mohan et al., 2021)
Open time (min) 90 110 115 110 104 95 100 100 90 105 105 (Mohan et al., 2021)
In hardened Compressive strength 42 38 34 35 37 36 34 32 44 41 40 (Rahul et al., 2022)
state (MPa)
Interlayer bond 1.90 1.85 1.80 2.0 1.95 1.90 2.10 2.20 2.10 2.90 2.20 Measured
strength (MPa)

6
M.K. Mohan et al.
Fig. 3. Comparison of different environmental impact indictors of mixtures
with different binder systems (a) global warming potential (b) depletion of
stratospheric ozone layer (c) acidification of land and water sources (d)
eutrophication potential (f) formation of tropospheric ozone photochemical
oxidants (g) abiotic depletion of non-fossil resources (g) abiotic depletion of
fossil resources
could exhibit higher acidification potential. Secondly, the transportation
distance of CSA cement considered in this study is significantly higher
than that of widely available Portland cement and GGBS. A higher
transport distance could also result in a higher environmental impact.
This trend is visible in the case of the other environmental impact in­
dicators; however, relative to the material production, some of them are
7
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 181 (2022) 106255
not apparent. In order to further understand the effect of binder systems
on different environmental impact indicators, the relative difference in
environmental indicators can be plotted for different binder systems
(Fig. 4). Fig. 4 shows the percentage differences in the environmental
impact indicators with respect to CEM I 52.5 N cement. It can be seen
that the GGBS has significantly lower values in every environmental
impact category except abiotic depletion of non-fossil resources. These
significantly higher values for ADP-NF of GGBS contributed to the
overall mixture, and therefore, the PC-GGBS mixture has significantly
higher ADP-NF values as observed from Fig. 3 (f).
From Fig. 3 (g), the 3D printable mixtures made from CSA-limestone
systems exhibit the highest ADP-F values. This is due to the use of
bauxite minerals as an aluminate supplement as a raw material for the
production of the CSA cement clinker. As the bauxite mineral is one of
the fast depleting minerals on earth and is available at very limited lo­
cations and this makes CSA cement a high energy demandable material
(Hanein et al., 2018, Juenger et al., 2011). However, the use of alternate
raw materials and by-products rich in aluminium oxides such as alumina
rich wastes from the aluminium industries and high-alumina clays could
substantially reduce the ADP-F values of the CSA cement (Hanein et al.,
2018, Hanein et al., 2016, Gartner and Hirao, 2015).
Table 9 enlists the environmental cost indicator (ECI) of the mixtures
with different binder systems. Material cost values are shown in Fig. 5
(a). As the ECI values reflect the environmental indicators, those are the
lowest for the PC-GGBS and CSA-limestone blend. In the case of a pure
PC binder system, the ECI is significantly higher. Also, it is interesting to
note that even though the transportation distance of the CSA cement is
significantly higher than that of the other mixtures, the total ECI value is
50% less compared to the PC-GGBS mixture. As the CSA cement is
shipped, the overall environmental impact is much lower than that of
the transport using trucks. On the other hand, the material cost was
found to be highest for the CSA cement-based mixture as the clinker
production is realized using the non-abundant bauxite mineral sources.
However, studies indicate that the optimization of the clinkering pro­
cesses and the use of cheap sources of aluminium oxide could signifi­
cantly bring down the cost of the CSA cement (Hanein et al., 2018,
Hanein et al., 2016, Hanein et al., 2021). Also, from Table 9, it is clear
that the material cost of PC-GGBS is the lowest among all mixtures as
Fig. 4. Percentage differences in the environmental impact of a mass of CEM I
52.5 R (1 kg), GGBS (1.12 kg), CSA cement (1.0 kg) and limestone powder
(1.16 kg) equivalent to the replacement of 1 kg of CEM I 52.5 N cement
M.K. Mohan et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 181 (2022) 106255

Table 9 and mould cast concrete mixtures. However, in the present study, this
Environmental cost indicator of the mixtures with different binder types. difference is higher than 20%. This could be attributed to the use of more
Mixtures with different Environmental cost indicator (euros/m3) comprehensive functional requirements for the 3D printable concrete
binder systems Materials Transport of Concrete Total mixtures and differences in the experimental conditions.
materials production Fig. 6 also shows the variation of other environmental impact in­
PC-R 42.7 5.9 0.29 48.9 dicators with increasing a/b and changing the gradation of the granular
PC-N 36.2 6.0 0.29 42.5 skeleton by incorporating natural and recycled coarse aggregates. As
PC-GGBS 18.1 6.0 0.29 24.4 expected, there is a systematic decrease in the impact indicators with
CSA10LS 29.9 7.2 0.29 37.4
CSA20LS 26.7 7.0 0.29 34.0
increasing aggregate content in the mixture. Also, compared to the 3D
CSA30LS 23.6 6.9 0.29 30.8 printable concrete mixtures, mould cast concrete showed significantly
lower environmental impact indicator values. There is not much liter­
ature comparing different environmental impact indicators for the 3D
GGBS is a by-product from the iron industry and does not contribute to printable concrete mixtures. Recently, Bhattacherjee et al. (Bhatta­
the cost significantly. cherjee et al., 2021) compared the embodied energy of various 3D
printable concrete formulations by considering initial static yield as a
performance criterion. The authors reported that the embodied energy
3.3. Influence of aggregate content and type on sustainability
of the similar mixture considered in the present study was about 4200
MJ/m3, which is significantly higher than the ADP-F values of the
Another method to improve the sustainability of concrete mixtures
mixtures presented in Fig. 6, as the authors calculate the embodied
often reported in the literature is by reducing the overall binder content
energy by considering the energy demand associated with electricity
by increasing the aggregate content. However, previous studies on the
usage and other operations (Bhattacherjee et al., 2021). The energy
influence of increasing aggregate content of the 3D printable concrete
associated with the depletion of the fossil resources for the production of
mixtures indicated that increasing the aggregate volume fraction
raw materials is only considered as the energy consumption in the
beyond a particular limit could significantly increase the pumping
present study. This is due to the fact that the material processing at the
pressure and could even damage the pumping system (Mohan et al.,
cement plant could be varying depending on the location.
2020, Mohan et al., 2021). Therefore, care must be taken to decide on
It is interesting to note that the replacement of the fine aggregate
the permissible limit of aggregate volume fraction possible with the
fraction with natural and recycled coarse aggregates does not have a
pumping system at the chosen water-to-cement ratio.
significant impact on the environmental impact indicators, as evident
Fig. 6 (a) shows the variation of GWP with increasing aggregate
from Fig. 6. This could be because the level of replacement of the
content. As expected, the GWP values reduce by about 20%; however,
recycled aggregates is not enough to make an apparent change in the
the replacement with natural and recycled coarse aggregates does not
impact indicators. The replacement level of the natural and recycled
significantly reduce the GWP values, as observed from Fig. 6 (a). On the
coarse aggregates was kept at a constant value of 30% as beyond 30%,
other hand, the GWP of the mould cast mixture is about 40% lower in
the pumping of the mixtures became extremely challenging. Also,
comparison with the lowest GWP value for the 3D printable mixtures
studies have reported that as the replacement of recycled aggregates
(RCA mixture). Therefore, staying within the range of the performance
increases beyond 50%, it could result in a reduction of the mechanical
criteria and the experimental limitations, 3D printable mixture which
properties (Silva et al., 2014). Also, it is interesting to note that the
has the lowest environmental impact is found to have a higher envi­
environmental impact indicators for both the NCA and RCA mixtures are
ronmental impact than that of a similar strength grade mould cast
quite similar. This could be due to the fact that the environmental
concrete. Similar trends in the GWP reduction with the blended binder
impact due to the transportation of RCA was taken as 100 km in the
systems and comparison with mould cast concrete are reported in the
calculations. However, often the transport distance of RCA will vary
literature (Bhattacherjee et al., 2021, Kaszyńska et al., 2020) Han et al.
depending on the location of the concrete demolition and recycling
(2021). reported a difference of 20% GWP values between 3D printed

Fig. 5. Material cost values of the mixtures (a) with different binder systems (b) with different aggregate-to-binder ratios and mould cast concrete

8
M.K. Mohan et al.
Fig. 6. Comparison of different environmental impact indictors with increasing
aggregate-to-binder ratio (a) global warming potential (b) depletion of strato­
spheric ozone layer (c) acidification of land and water sources (d) eutrophica­
tion potential (f) formation of tropospheric ozone photochemical oxidants (g)
abiotic depletion of non-fossil resources (g) abiotic depletion of fossil resources
centre. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the transport distance of
the RCA as a variable value. On the other hand, the distance from the
quarry and the concrete production plant/site generally remains the
same, and the transport distance of the NCA could be taken as constant.
Thus, considering the transport distance of the RCA mixture as a
9
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 181 (2022) 106255
variable, one can calculate the total GWP as follows (Zhang et al., 2019):
∑ ∑
GWPtot = Qi × RMi + Qi × Dji × TCij (1)
i i
where Qi is the amount of ith raw material (kg/m3), RMi is the GWP of ith
j
raw material (kg CO2 eqv.), Di is the transportation distance (j) of the ith
j
raw material (kg•km) and TCi
is the GWP of the material transportation
Fig. 7. shows the relationship between the GWP of the RCA mixture with
varying transportation distances plotted using Eq. (1). In the same plot,
the NCA mixture is also included by keeping the transportation distance
constant as 100 km and is represented by the horizontal line. From Fig. 7
(a), it can be seen that the GWP of the RCA is less than that of the NCA
mixture, and beyond a transport distance, the GWP value of the RCA
becomes higher than the NCA mixture. This transport distance could be
defined as critical transport distance (Dcr) and transporting the RCA
beyond the Dcr will increase the environmental impact of the RCA
mixtures. In the present study, the critical transport distance of the RCA
mixture is about 120 km. Also, the transport distance of recycled coarse
aggregates beyond which GWP become higher than that of FA mixture is
about 170 km. Therefore, in order to produce environmental friendly
RCA mixtures, it is important to do the optimal planning on choosing the
shortest possible transport distance and mode of transport together with
the selection of optimally located construction and demolition plants
(Zhang et al., 2019, Marinković et al., 2010, Marinković et al., 2014).
The environmental cost indicator values and total material costs are
given in Table 10 and Fig. 5 (b), respectively. As expected, the material
cost and ECI values per cubic meter of the mixture reduce with
increasing a/b. The material cost and ECI reduction is about 11% and
15%, respectively, when the a/b increases from 1.0 to 1.7. Also, it is
interesting to note that the ECI of the raw material production con­
tributes mostly to the overall ECI values while the ECI values of the
transportation phase and concrete production remain almost constant.
Similar to environmental impact indicators, there is no significant
change in ECI and material cost by replacing fine aggregate with NCA or
RCA. This could be because the level of replacement with NCA and RCA
is not that much to make a significant reduction in the ECI and material
cost. On the other hand, the ECI values due to the transportation of the
recycled aggregate could be interesting to look at. For that, a similar
approach as presented before could be used as follows:
∑ ∑
ECItot = Qi × RMi × M + Qi × Dji × TCij × M (2)
i i
where M is the monetization value (euro/unit), using the Eq (2), the
variation of the ECI values with the changes in transport distance is
plotted (Fig. 7 (b)). It can be seen that the ECI of the RCA mixture be­
comes equal to the ECI of NCA and PC-1.7 mixtures at a specific trans­
port distance of 100 km. Beyond this specific distance, using recycled
coarse aggregates will not reduce the ECI and overall material cost of the
mixtures.
Another important aspect is the contribution of the admixtures in the
material cost in the case of 3D printable concrete mixtures in compari­
son to the conventional mould cast concrete mixtures. From Fig. 5(a)
and (b), it can be seen that the chemical admixture contribute signifi­
cantly high share, even up to 55% of the total material cost of the 3D
printable mixtures. On the other hand, the cost of chemical admixtures is
much lower (lower than 10% of the total material cost) in the case of
mould cast concrete mixtures. This indicates cost effective chemical
admixtures are needed to further bring down the material cost of the 3D
printable mixtures. Advent of such coast effective chemical admixtures
could further lower down the material cost of the 3D printbale concrete
mixtures.
To summarise, the increasing aggregate content could be beneficial
from a sustainability point of view as the mixtures with higher a/b
possess environmental and economic advantages. In addition, previous
studies showed that increasing aggregate content could improve the
M.K. Mohan et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 181 (2022) 106255

Fig. 7. Relationship between transport distance of recycled aggregate mixture (a) GWP (b) ECI and comparisons with natural coarse aggregate and fine aggre­
gate mixtures

different stages, such as raw material extraction, transport of the ma­

Table 10
terials and concrete production, one could compute the overall envi­
Environmental cost indicator for the mixtures with different aggregate-to-binder
ronmental impact of the 3D printable concrete mixtures. Also, the
ratios and mould cast concrete.
environmental cost indicator gives a one point indicator value in terms
Mixture Environmental cost indicator (euros/m3)
of monetary figure for the environmental burden from the raw material
Materials Transport of materials Concrete production Total
to concrete production. The raw material production phase always
PC-1.0 22.2 5.6 0.29 28.1 contributes significantly more than the transport and concrete produc­
PC-1.2 20.8 5.7 0.29 26.8
tion phases, as clear from both the environmental impact assessments
PC-1.4 19.7 5.9 0.29 25.9
PC-1.7 17.6 6.1 0.29 24.0 and environmental cost indicator analysis.
NCA 17.8 6.0 0.29 24.1 The environmental impact of the 3D printable mixtures could be
RCA 17.5 5.9 0.29 23.7 decreased by using the binder systems such as CSA-limestone and
Mould cast 11.0 6.6 0.29 17.9
Portland cement-blast furnace slag. However, CSA-limestone systems
have higher abiotic depletion of fossil resources and material cost
buildability of the mixtures slightly. However, the use of higher a/b mainly due to the use of non-abundant bauxite minerals for CSA pro­
could result in higher plastic viscosity and yield stress and consequently duction. Alternate aluminate sources for CSA production could provide a
higher pumping pressures (Mohan et al., 2020, Mohan et al., 2021). lower environmental burden and economic competitiveness. Also, the
Also, replacing the fine aggregate fraction with either natural or recy­ environmental impact and material cost of the 3D printable mixtures
cled coarse aggregates does not seem to provide environmental and could be decreased by increasing the aggregate content and altering the
economic benefits at low replacement levels. However, a higher gradation of the aggregate skeleton by the addition of natural and
replacement level of recycled aggregate and selection of the construc­ recycled coarse aggregate. However, the influence of recycled aggregate
tion demolition/treatment plant within the critical transport distance substitution is not directly visible. On the one hand, the recycled
can help to achieve a reduction in environmental impact and overall aggregate substitution improves sustainability by reducing the envi­
cost. ronmental and economic burden; on the other hand, if the trans­
portation distance of the recycled aggregates exceeds a critical transport
distance, the benefits on the environmental impact will be lost.
5. Conclusions
A significantly higher portion of the material cost (even up to half of
the cost) is contributed by the chemical admixtures in the 3D printable
The main objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the
concrete mixtures; on the other hand, the cost contribution by the
environmental and economic impact of 3D printable concrete mixtures.
chemical admixtures is much lower in the case of conventional mould
The mixtures were developed with different sustainability-driven factors
cast concrete mixtures. Therefore, cost effective chemical admixtures
to meet a set of comprehensive functional requirements suitable to
are needed for reducing the cost of 3D printiable concrete mixtures.
assess 3D printable concrete mixtures. Unlike conventional mould cast
concrete mixtures, 3D printable concrete mixtures must satisfy an
CRediT authorship contribution statement
extensive set of performance indicators due to more complex processes
involved in the typical extrusion-based concrete 3D printing. The pre­
Manu K. Mohan: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
sent study put forward such a list of performance criteria and evaluates
Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization,
the environmental and economic impact of the 3D printable concrete
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. A.V. Rahul:
mixtures in view of the production of a cubic meter of concrete that
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
satisfies those criteria.
Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review
Environmental impact assessment coupled with cost analysis is a
& editing. Benjamin van Dam: Data curation, Investigation, Method­
powerful tool to compare the sustainability of the 3D printable concrete
ology, Writing – review & editing. Talina Zeidan: Data curation,
mixtures. Using the different environmental impact indicators at the

10
M.K. Mohan et al.
Investigation. Geert De Schutter: Conceptualization, Funding acquisi­
tion, Methodology, Supervision, Project administration, Resources,
Writing – review & editing. Kim Van Tittelboom: Conceptualization,
Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Project administration,
Resources, 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
This research work was carried out as a part of the 3D2BGreen
project (https://www.sim-flanders.be/project/3d2bgreen), funded by
SIM (Strategic Initiative Materials in Flanders) and VLAIO (Flanders
Innovation & Entrepreneurship). The authors would like to thank SIM
and VLAIO for their financial support. The authors also acknowledge the
companies BESIX, ResourceFull and Witteveen+Bos for being the part­
ners of the 3D2BGreen project. The authors thankfully acknowledge the
research fellows and technicians at the Magnel-Vandepitte Laboratory
for their help in this study. The authors also extend their gratitude to­
wards Ecocem Benelux B.V. and Italcementi for providing the GGBS and
CSA cement used within this study. Also, discussions with Dr. Philip Van
den Heede is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Agustí-Juan, I., Habert, G., 2017. Environmental design guidelines for digital fabrication.
J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2780–2791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.190.
Batikha, M., Jotangia, R., Baaj, M.Y., Mousleh, I., 2022. 3D concrete printing for
sustainable and economical construction: a comparative study. Autom. Constr. 134,
104087 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2021.104087.
Bhattacherjee, S., Basavaraj, A.S., Rahul, A.V., Santhanam, M., Gettu, R., Panda, B.,
Schlangen, E., Chen, Y., Copuroglu, O., Ma, G., Wang, L., Basit Beigh, M.A.,
Mechtcherine, V., 2021. Sustainable materials for 3D concrete printing. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 122, 104156 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEMCONCOMP.2021.104156.
M. Biron, EcoDesign, Mater. Sel. Thermoplast. Parts. (2016) 603–653. 10.1016/B978-0-
7020-6284-1.00015-5.
BS 5328 Part 2, Methods for Specifying Concrete Mixes, 1997.
Celik, K., Meral, C., Petek Gursel, A., Mehta, P.K., Horvath, A., Monteiro, P.J.M., 2015.
Mechanical properties, durability, and life-cycle assessment of self-consolidating
concrete mixtures made with blended portland cements containing fly ash and
limestone powder. Cem. Concr. Compos. 56, 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CEMCONCOMP.2014.11.003.
Chen, Y., Chaves Figueiredo, S., Li, Z., Chang, Z., Jansen, K., Çopuroğlu, O.,
Schlangen, E., 2020. Improving printability of limestone-calcined clay-based
cementitious materials by using viscosity-modifying admixture. Cem. Concr. Res.
132, 106040 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106040.
Chen, Y., Jansen, K., Zhang, H., Rodriguez, C.Romero, Gan, Y., Çopuroğlu, O.,
Schlangen, E., 2020. Effect of printing parameters on interlayer bond strength of 3D
printed limestone-calcined clay-based cementitious materials: an experimental and
numerical study. Constr. Build. Mater. 262, 120094 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.120094.
Damtoft, J.S., Lukasik, J., Herfort, D., Sorrentino, D., Gartner, E.M., 2008. Sustainable
development and climate change initiatives. Cem. Concr. Res. 38, 115–127. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.CEMCONRES.2007.09.008.
L. De Nocker, W. Debacker, Monetisation of the MMG method, 2017.
De Schutter, G., Lesage, K., Mechtcherine, V., Nerella, V.N., Habert, G., Agusti-Juan, I.,
2018. Vision of 3D printing with concrete — Technical, economic and environmental
potentials. Cem. Concr. Res. 112, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2018.06.001.
Dzuy, N.Q., Boger, D.V., 1983. Yield stress measurement for concentrated suspensions.
J. Rheol. (N. Y. N. Y). 27, 321–349. https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549709.
E.F. of Concrete, (EFCA), Concrete admixtures – Air entrainers, 2015.
E.F. of Concrete, A.A.L. (EFCA), Concrete admixtures - Retarders, 2015.
E.F. of Concrete, Admixtures Associations Ltd. (EFCA), Concrete admixtures - Plasticizers
and Superplastcizers, 2015.
E.F. of Concrete, A.A.L. (EFCA), Concrete admixtures – Hardening Accelerators, 2015.
E.F. of Concrete, (EFCA), Concrete admixtures – Water Resisting Admixtures, 2015.
E.F. of Concrete, A.A.L. (EFCA), Concrete admixtures – Set Accelerators, 2015.
E.I. 14040:2006 BS, Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles
and framework, 2006.
E.I. 14044:2006 BS, Environmental management — Life cycle assessment —
Requirements and guidelines, 2006.
11
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 181 (2022) 106255
EN 15167-2, Ground granulated blast furnace slag for use in concrete, mortar and grout -
Part 2: Conformity evaluation, 2018.
EN 15804:2012+A2:2019, Sustainability of construction works — Environmental
product declarations — Core rules for the product category of construction products,
2012.
EN 197-1, Composition, Specifications and Conformity Criteria for Common Cements,
2011.
García de Soto, B., Agustí-Juan, I., Hunhevicz, J., Joss, S., Graser, K., Habert, G., Adey, B.
T., 2018. Productivity of digital fabrication in construction: cost and time analysis of
a robotically built wall. Autom. Constr. 92, 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2018.04.004.
Gartner, E., 2004. Industrially interesting approaches to “low-CO2” cements. Cem. Concr.
Res. 34, 1489–1498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.01.021.
Gartner, E., Hirao, H., 2015. A review of alternative approaches to the reduction of CO2
emissions associated with the manufacture of the binder phase in concrete. Cem.
Concr. Res. 78, 126–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEMCONRES.2015.04.012.
Ghosh, P., Sengupta, S., Singh, L., Sahay, A., 2020. Life cycle assessment of waste-to-
bioenergy processes: a review. Bioreactors 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
0-12-821264-6.00008-5.
Gosselin, C., Duballet, R., Roux, P., Gaudillière, N., Dirrenberger, J., Morel, P., 2016.
Large-scale 3D printing of ultra-high performance concrete - a new processing route
for architects and builders. Mater. Des. 100, 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2016.03.097.
Habert, G., D’Espinose De Lacaillerie, J.B., Roussel, N., 2011. An environmental
evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research
trends. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1229–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2011.03.012.
Habert, G., Ouellet-Plamondon, C., 2016. Recent update on the environmental impact of
geopolymers. RILEM Tech. Lett. 1, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.21809/
RILEMTECHLETT.2016.6.
Han, Y., Yang, Z., Ding, T., Xiao, J., 2021. Environmental and economic assessment on
3D printed buildings with recycled concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 278, 123884 https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.123884.
T. Hanein, I. Galan, A. Elhoweris, S. Khare, S. Skalamprinos, G. Jen, M. Whittaker, M.S.
Imbabi, F.P. Glasser, M.N. Bannerman, Production of belite calcium sulfoaluminate
cement using sulfur as a fuel and as a source of clinker sulfur trioxide: pilot kiln trial,
Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1680/Jadcr.16.00018. 28 (2016) 643–653. 10.1680/
JADCR.16.00018.
Hanein, T., Galvez-Martos, J.L., Bannerman, M.N., 2018. Carbon footprint of calcium
sulfoaluminate clinker production. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 2278–2287. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.11.183.
T. Hanein, F. Glasser, M.N. Bannerman, M.S. Imbabi, F.P. Glasser, Lowering the carbon
footprint and energy consumption of cement production: A novel Calcium
SulfoAluminate cement production process, (n.d.). http://www.abdn.ac.uk/ccm-car
bon-xprizeisacurrentproject.Viewproject (accessed September 12, 2021).
He, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, C., Zhou, H., 2020. Energy-saving potential of 3D printed
concrete building with integrated living wall. Energy Build 222, 110110. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110110.
italcementi, i.tech ALI PRE GREEN-i.tech ALI CEM GREEN EPD-Environmental Product
Declaration, n.d. http://www.heidelbergcement.com/en (accessed September 10,
2021).
Jamieson, E., McLellan, B., Van Riessen, A., Nikraz, H., 2015. Comparison of embodied
energies of Ordinary Portland Cement with Bayer-derived geopolymer products.
J. Clean. Prod. 99, 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.03.008.
Jha, K.N., 2012. Formwork for Concrete Structures. Tata McGraw Hill Education Private
Limited, New Delhi.
Juenger, M.C.G., Winnefeld, F., Provis, J.L., Ideker, J.H., 2011. Advances in alternative
cementitious binders. Cem. Concr. Res. 41, 1232–1243. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CEMCONRES.2010.11.012.
M. Kaszyńska, S. Skibicki, M. Hoffmann, 3D Concrete Printing for Sustainable
Construction, Energies 2020, Vol. 13, Page 6351. 13 (2020) 6351. 10.3390/
EN13236351.
Le, T.T., Austin, S.A., Lim, S., Buswell, R.A., Gibb, A.G.F., Thorpe, T., 2012. Mix design
and fresh properties for high-performance printing concrete. Mater. Struct. Constr.
45, 1221–1232. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9828-z.
Marinković, S., Radonjanin, V., Malešev, M., Ignjatović, I., 2010. Comparative
environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. Waste Manag
30, 2255–2264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.012.
Marinković, S.B., Malešev, M., Ignjatović, I., 2014. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
concrete made using recycled concrete or natural aggregates, Eco-Efficient Constr.
Build. Mater. Life Cycle Assess. (LCA). Eco-Labelling Case Stud. 239–266. https://
doi.org/10.1533/9780857097729.2.239.
Miller, S.A., Monteiro, P.J.M., Ostertag, C.P., Horvath, A., 2016. Comparison indices for
design and proportioning of concrete mixtures taking environmental impacts into
account. Cem. Concr. Compos. 68, 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CEMCONCOMP.2016.02.002.
Mindess, S., 2019. Sustainability of concrete. Dev. Formul. Reinf. Concr. 3–17. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102616-8.00001-0.
Mohan, M.K., Rahul, A.V, De Schutter, G., 2021. Interlayer bond and porosity of 3D
printed concrete. RILEM Bookseries 1–10.
Mohan, M.K., Rahul, A.V., De Schutter, G., Van Tittelboom, K., 2021. Extrusion-based
concrete 3D printing from a material perspective: a state-of-the-art review. Cem.
Concr. Compos. 115, 103855 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103855.
Mohan, M.K., Rahul, A.V., Tao, Y., De Schutter, G., Van Tittelboom, K., 2021. Two stage
mixing strategy using borated CSA cement: An application to extrusion based
concrete 3D printing. Cem. Concr. Res. (under Rev. 3.
M.K. Mohan et al.
Mohan, M.K., Rahul, A.V., Van Tittelboom, K., De Schutter, G., 2020. Evaluating the
influence of aggregate content on pumpability of 3D printable concrete. RILEM
Bookseries. Springer, pp. 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49916-7_34.
Mohan, M.K., Rahul, A.V., De Schutter, G., Van Tittelboom, K., 2021. Early age
hydration, rheology and pumping characteristics of CSA cement-based 3D printable
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 275, 122136 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CONBUILDMAT.2020.122136.
Mohan, M.K., Rahul, A.V., Van Tittelboom, K., De Schutter, G., 2021. Rheological and
pumping behaviour of 3D printable cementitious materials with varying aggregate
content. Cem. Concr. Res. 139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106258.
MRPI, Environmental product decaration for ecocem GGBS, 2013. www.ecoreview.nl
(accessed September 10, 2021).
MRPI, Environmental Product Declaration for CEM I 52.5 R, 2020.
MRPI, Environmental Product Declaration for CEM I 42.5 R/52.5 N, 2020.
Panda, B., Paul, S.C., Hui, L.J., Tay, Y.W.D., Tan, M.J., 2017. Additive manufacturing of
geopolymer for sustainable built environment. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 281–288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.165.
Panda, B., Ruan, S., Unluer, C., Tan, M.J., 2020. Investigation of the properties of alkali-
activated slag mixes involving the use of nanoclay and nucleation seeds for 3D
printing. Compos. Part B Eng. 186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compositesb.2020.107826.
Panda, B., Singh, G.B., Unluer, C., Tan, M.J., 2019. Synthesis and characterization of one-
part geopolymers for extrusion based 3D concrete printing. J. Clean. Prod. 220,
610–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.185.
Paul, S.C., Tay, Y.W.D., Panda, B., Tan, M.J., 2018. Fresh and hardened properties of 3D
printable cementitious materials for building and construction. Arch. Civ. Mech.
Eng. 18, 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2017.02.008.
Paul, S.C., van Zijl, G.P.A.G., Gibson, I., 2018. A review of 3D concrete printing systems
and materials properties: current status and future research prospects. Rapid
Prototyp. J. 24, 784–798. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-09-2016-0154.
Rahul, A.V., Mohan, M.K., De Schutter, G., Van Tittelboom, K., 2022. 3D printable
concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregates: rheological, mechanical and
shrinkage behaviour. Cem. Concr. Compos. 125, 104311 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CEMCONCOMP.2021.104311.
Rahul, A.V., Santhanam, M., Meena, H., Ghani, Z., 2018. 3D printable concrete: mixture
design and test methods. Cem. Concr. Compos. 97, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconcomp.2018.12.014.
Rahul, A.V., Santhanam, M., Meena, H., Ghani, Z., 2019. Mechanical characterization of
3D printable concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.116710.
Rahul, A.V., Sharma, A., Santhanam, M., 2020. A desorptivity-based approach for the
assessment of phase separation during extrusion of cementitious materials. Cem.
Concr. Compos. 108, 103546 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103546.
Rehman, A.U., Kim, J.H., 2021. 3d concrete printing: a systematic review of rheology,
mix designs, mechanical, microstructural, and durability characteristics. Materials
(Basel) 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14143800.
12
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 181 (2022) 106255
Scrivener, K.L., John, V.M., Gartner, E.M., 2018. Eco-efficient cements: Potential
economically viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials industry. Cem.
Concr. Res. 114, 2–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEMCONRES.2018.03.015.
SGS, LCA report for concrete mortar, 2020.
Sharp, J.H., Lawrence, C.D., Yang, R., 1999. Calcium sulfoaluminate cements—low-
energy cements, special cements or what? Adv. Cem. Res. 11, 3–13. https://doi.org/
10.1680/adcr.1999.11.1.3.
EN 15643-1, Sustainability of construction works -Sustainability assessment of buildings
- Part 1 : General framework, 2010.
R.V. Silva, J. de Brito, R.K. Dhir, The influence of the use of recycled aggregates on the
compressive strength of concrete: a review, Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1080/
19648189.2014.974831. 19 (2014) 825–849. 10.1080/19648189.2014.974831.
SimaPro - Sustainability, (n.d.). https://pre-sustainability.com/solutions/tools/simapro/
(accessed September 20, 2021).
Start Ontwerptool Groen Beton v5.1, (n.d.). https://www.ontwerptoolgroenbeton.nl/en
/node/277 (accessed September 22, 2021).
Van Den Heede, P., De Belie, N., 2012. Environmental impact and life cycle assessment
(LCA) of traditional and ‘green’ concretes: Literature review and theoretical
calculations. Cem. Concr. Compos. 34, 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CEMCONCOMP.2012.01.004.
Van Der Putten, J., Deprez, M., Cnudde, V., De Schutter, G., Van Tittelboom, K., 2019.
Microstructural characterization of 3D printed cementitious materials. Materials
(Basel). 12, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12182993.
Weng, Y., Li, M., Ruan, S., Wong, T.N., Tan, M.J., Ow Yeong, K.L., Qian, S., 2020.
Comparative economic, environmental and productivity assessment of a concrete
bathroom unit fabricated through 3D printing and a precast approach. J. Clean.
Prod. 261, 121245 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.121245.
Weng, Y., Ruan, S., Li, M., Mo, L., Unluer, C., Tan, M.J., Qian, S., 2019. Feasibility study
on sustainable magnesium potassium phosphate cement paste for 3D printing.
Constr. Build. Mater. 221, 595–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.05.053.
Wolfs, R.J.M., Bos, F.P., Salet, T.A.M., 2019. Hardened properties of 3D printed concrete:
The influence of process parameters on interlayer adhesion. Cem. Concr. Res. 119,
132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.02.017.
World’s fastest Building Life Cycle Assessment software - One Click LCA, (n.d.).
https://www.oneclicklca.com/ (accessed September 22, 2021).
Yang, K.H., Lee, K.H., Song, J.K., Gong, M.H., 2014. Properties and sustainability of
alkali-activated slag foamed concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 68, 226–233. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2013.12.068.
Yang, S., Wi, S., Park, J.H., Cho, H.M., Kim, S., 2019. Novel proposal to overcome
insulation limitations due to nonlinear structures using 3D printing: Hybrid heat-
storage system. Energy Build 197, 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2019.05.048.
Zhang, Y., Luo, W., Wang, J., Wang, Y., Xu, Y., Xiao, J., 2019. A review of life cycle
assessment of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 209, 115–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2019.03.078.