Final BTP Report - CE19B089

A Project Report on
Potential SCM-Soil Mix for 3D Printing

Phase II
Submitted By
Sruthi Sreeram, CE19B089
As part of
CE4060: Undergraduate Project - I
Under the guidance of

Prof. Ramesh Kannan K
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS
CHENNAI - 600036, INDIA
November 2022
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to my research guide, Professor Ramesh Kannan K.

from the Geotechnical Division, for his patient guidance, enthusiastic encouragement,
and useful critiques of this research work. I would also like to thank Professor Piyush
Chaunsali from the Building Technology and Construction Management Division for his
invaluable input and direction.
I would also like to thank all the technicians and staff at the Main Geotechnical Lab and
the Casting Yard of the Civil Department, for providing me with the necessary resources
and tools to complete the necessary experiments, as well as for assisting me in
conducting tests in a correct and precise manner.
I would like to thank Jithin, Devapriya, and Parineet for their direction at a time when I
was still learning my way around the lab. I also greatly appreciate Vijay and Ahmed for
aiding me in completing experiments so that the results could be compiled in a timely and
organized fashion.
A big thank you to Mr. Shantanu and Ms. Smrati, who helped me transition from lab
experiments to printing trials, and gave the most valuable feedback. I would also like to
express my appreciation for the project staff at the imprint lab, Vignesh, Madhav,
Hariharan, Lawrence and Ajith for all their help with casting the samples during testing
the printability of the mixes.
Finally, I would like to thank Srivathsan, Divya, and Abhijit, who were always rooting
for me and gave me a ton of moral support. The biggest thank you to Ankit, Sadhvi, and
Shakti, who are the best parts of my day, and keep me going through everything.
2
ABSTRACT
Keywords: 3D Printing, Soil Construction, SCMs, Sustainability
The usage of 3D printing (3DP) in the construction industry is gaining momentum as a

method to speed up the construction process, construct complex geometries, and make it
more sustainable. 3DP of concrete is steadily becoming popular. However, there is a
constant lookout for other sustainable materials that can be used for 3DP. The subject
matter of this report concerns the potential of soil as a 3D printable material, used in
conjunction with supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) like ground granulated
blast furnace slag (GGBS) and metakaolin (MK).
Various tests have been carried out to determine a suitable mix design, keeping in mind
the properties of low setting time and high initial strength. The mixes considered have
varying proportions of GGBS and MK, while the soil proportion remains fixed at half of
the total mix weight. The results of the tests are studied to gauge which mixes will give
optimum workability, extrudability, open time, and buildability, and thereby which mix
will be best suited to be used for 3D printing.
The tests showed that higher proportions of GGBS yielded mixes that gain strength very
quickly but have higher flow for lower moisture contents. Printing was carried out with a
50-50 mix of GGBS and red soil at varying moisture contents to figure out the optimum
moisture content that would allow for greater buildability and open time. A moisture
content closer to the liquid limit of the mix showed the best results.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Potential SCM-Soil Mix for 3D Printing 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1
ABSTRACT 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS 4
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 6
ABBREVIATIONS 8
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO SOIL, SCMS, AND 3D
PRINTING 9
1.1 3D PRINTING 9
1.2 SCMS 9
1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW 10
1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT 11
CHAPTER 2
MATERIALS AND METHODS 12
2.1 METHODOLOGY 12
2.2 PHASE 1 12
2.2.1 SIEVE ANALYSIS 12
2.2.2 ATTERBERG LIMITS 12
Liquid Limit (Fall Cone Method) 12
Plastic Limit 13
Shrinkage Limit 13
2.2.3 OMC-MDD 13
2.2.4 SPECIFIC GRAVITY 14
2.2.5 SLUMP TEST 14
2.3 PHASE 2 14
2.3.2 FLOW TABLE 15
2.3.3 TIME-DEPENDANT SLUMP, FALL CONE, AND FLOW TABLE 15
2.4 PHASE 3 16
2.4.1 FLOW TABLE 16
2.4.2 BUILDABILITY 16
2.4.3 ONE-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 17
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 18
PHASE 1 18
PHASE 2 19
PHASE 3 23
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTION 29
4
FUTURE DIRECTION 29
CONCLUSIONS 29
CHAPTER 5
APPENDIX: DETAILED LABORATORY RESULTS 30
5.1 SIEVE ANALYSIS 30
5.2 ATTERBERG LIMITS 32
5.2.1 Liquid Limit 32
5.2.2 Plastic Limit 33
5.2.3 Shrinkage Limit 34
5.3 OMC-MDD 35
5.4 SPECIFIC GRAVITY 36
5.5 SLUMP TEST FOR SOILS 37
5.7 FLOW TABLE TEST 39
5.8 TIME-DEPENDANT FALL CONE TEST - SOIL-SCM MIX 41
5.9 TIME DEPENDANT SLUMP TEST 47
5.10 LIQUID LIMIT OF MIXES (FALL CONE METHOD) 50
5.11 TIME DEPENDENT FALL CONE FOR GM1.2 51
5.12 TIME DEPENDENT FLOW TABLE TEST 54
REFERENCES 57
5
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table Title Page
1.1 Composition of GGBS 11
1.2 Composition of Metakaolin 12
2 Mix compositions 17
3 Summary of Properties of SC and ML soil 20
4 Flow Table Values for Different Soil-SCM Mixes 22
5.1 Sieve analysis results for SC soil 32
5.2 Relevant Values and Inferences - SC 32
5.3 Sieve analysis results for ML Soil 33
5.4 Relevant values and inferences - ML 33
6 Results of fall cone test for Liquid Limit 34
7 Results of plastic limit test 36
8 Values assumed and calculations involved in shrinkage limit 36

test
9 Calculations involved in OMC-MDD test 37
10 Calculations involved in specific gravity test 38
11 Calculations involved in slump test for soils 39
12 Calculations involved in slump test of soil-SCM mixes 40
13 Calculations involved in flow table test 42
14.1 Important values in fall cone calculation 43
6
14.2 Calculations involved in time-dependent fall cone test 43
15 Calculations involved in time-dependent slump test 49
16 Calculations involved in liquid limit test for mixes 52
17 Liquid limit calculation for mixes 54
18 Calculations Involved in Time-Dependent Fall Cone for 54

GM1.2
19 Calculations Involved in Time-Dependent Flow Table for 57

GM1.2
20 Compressive Strength Values 60
Figure Title Page
1 Methods of Collapse 19
2 Relationship between change in height and moisture content 21

for soil
3 Relationship between change in height and moisture content 22

for SCM mixes
4 Strength Gain Characteristics over 1 Hour 23
5 Slump Behavior over 1 Hour 23
6 Variation of Dynamic Shear Strength with Time 24
7 Complete Representation of Variation of Dynamic Shear 24

Strength with Time
8 Variation of Flow with Time 25
7
9 Printing of Samples 26
10.1 Printed Sample after Undergoing Plastic Collapse 27
10.2 Printed Samples after Undergoing Elastic Buckling 27
11 Number of Layers Printed before Stages of Failure 28
12 Relation between Initial Flow Values and Amount of Time 28

that Workability is Retained
13 Comparison of One-Day Compressive Strength Between 29

Mixes
14.1 Initial Printed Samples before Mix Size and Printing Specifics 30
were Finalized
14.2 Initial Printed Samples before Mix Size and Printing Specifics 30
were Finalized
14.3 Final Printed Sample of P34 30
15 Sieve Analysis Results 34
16 Relationship between Penetration and Moisture Content 35
17 Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content 38
18 Slump Test for Soils 40
19 Flow Table Test for Soils 43
20 Time-dependent Penetration Depth for Different Soil-SCM 48

Mixes
21 Time-dependent Static Shear Strength for Different Soil-SCM 48

Mixes
8
22 Time-dependent Dynamic Shear Strength for Different 49
Soil-SCM Mixes
23 Time-dependent Slump for Different Soil-SCM Mixes 52
24 Liquid Limit Calculation for Soil-SCM Mixes 53
25 Time-dependent Penetration Depth for GM1.2 56
26 Time Dependent Dynamic Shear Strength for GM1.2 56
27 Time Dependent Dynamic Shear Strength for GM1.2 (Full) 57
28 Time-dependent Flow Table for GM1.2 59
9
ABBREVIATIONS
3DP 3D Printing
CAD Computer-Aided Design
GGBS Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
MK Metakaolin
OMC Optimum Moisture Content
MDD Maximum Dry Density
10
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO SOIL, SCMS, AND 3D
PRINTING
1.1 3D PRINTING
3D printing (3DP) involves the construction of a 3D object from a digital model through
the deposition of layers. It is also known as additive manufacturing and uses
Computer-Aided Design (CAD).
In construction, 3DP is used to fabricate construction elements using concrete, polymers,

metals, and other materials. It is a highly beneficial way of construction that cuts down
waste, speeds up construction, reduces human error, and allows a variety of customizable
designs.[1] Despite the challenges that lie in the initial costs, lack of skilled workers, and
regulations, 3DP is becoming a widely-accepted form of construction that is also more
sustainable.
1.2 SCMS
SCMs are defined as materials that possess hydraulic or pozzolanic activity in order to
enhance the properties of hardened concrete.[2] The two SCMs used in these experiments
are ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and metakaolin, the compositions of
which are given below (Tables 1.1 and 1.2).[4] Both of these SCMs require alkali
activation. The alkali activator used in the experiments is NaOH, used at a much lower
concentration (0.5 - 1 M) than most alkali activators use (10 - 12 M), in order to
minimize the environmental footprint of the mix.[3]
Table 1.1: Composition of GGBS
Element Percentage
CaO 35-45
SiO2 ~35
11
Al2O3 10-20
MgO 7-8
K2O, Na2O, MnO, SO3, 0-2

TiO2, P2O5, SrO
Table 1.2: Composition of Metakaolin
Element Percentage
SiO2 50-60
Al2O3 30-40
Fe2O3, MgO, CaO, TiO2, 0-5

CuO, ZrO2, K2O, MnO2,
P2O5, SO3, LOI
1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW

3DP with soil is an area that has not been extensively researched so far, as soil is a very
complex material that has significant technical limitations (settling, shrinkage, durability,
early strength gain, etc.) when it comes to working with it - though it has great potential.
With regard to SCMs, “Extrusion Based Three-Dimensional Printing Performance of
Alkali-Activated Binders” (Subramaniam et al, 2021) details studies on 3DP with fly
ash-slag mixtures.[5a]
Most of the literature with respect to 3DP in construction only pertains to concrete. “3D
printable concrete: Mixture design and test methods” (Rahul et al, 2019) analyzes the
required yield strength needed to achieve the necessary buildability and extrudability[5b].
The value should range between 1.5 and 2.5 kPa. “Sustainable materials for 3D concrete
12
printing” (Bhattacharjee et al, 2021) describes the influence of SCMs, aggregates, and
water-binder ratio on the sustainability of 3D printable mixes[5c].
1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The main properties of a mix that can be 3D printed are workability (ease of placement),
extrudability (the ability of the material to be extruded through a nozzle with minimum
energy), open time (period of time in which the material can be dispensed continuously)
and buildability (ability to maintain shape and not collapse once extruded). The purpose
of these experiments is to design a mix that matches the requirements of these mentioned
properties and to see how these properties can be optimized for a given proportion of
materials.
The critical component of the SCMs is calcium, which assists the aluminates with early
strength gain.[6] A higher calcium content means greater early strength, which is vital for
layers to be supported one on top of the other. GGBS has a lot of calcium unlike
metakaolin, but metakaolin helps achieve lesser flow and higher initial strength. These
are the reasons for picking these particular SCMs.
13
CHAPTER 2
MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 METHODOLOGY
Three phases of tests were conducted in order to determine the mix design. The first
phase involved the selection of soil type, based on which would have a higher proportion
of finer particles. The second phase involved the testing of mixes with different
proportions of SCMs, to see which mix would give better properties with respect to flow,
setting time, and strength gain. The final phase of this project involved the usage of the
mix selected from the second phase in printing, modifying the moisture content to see
which would give the most optimal buildability, extrudability, workability, and open time.
2.2 PHASE 1
Two soils were considered for these experiments, classified as SC and ML soils after
sieve analysis. The following tests were conducted to determine which soil should be
chosen to be mixed with SCMs, the primary deciding factor being the proportion of finer
particles.
2.2.1 SIEVE ANALYSIS

The soil is washed through a 75-micron sieve into a bucket, in order to separate the clay
fraction from the rest of the soil. This soil is then proceeded to be dried in the oven and
weighed after 24 hours. The soil remaining on the sieve is dried in a 1000 C oven for 24
hours, following which it is sieved through sieves sized 4.75 mm, 2.00 mm, 1.00 mm,
600-micron, 425-micron, 212-micron, 150-micron, and 75-micron. The soil remaining on
each sieve is weighed and recorded.[7] Results can be referred to in Tables 5.1-5.4 and
Fig. 15.
2.2.2 ATTERBERG LIMITS

Liquid Limit (Fall Cone Method)
The dried soil is sieved through a 600-micron sieve, 150 grams of which is mixed with
distilled water, and left under ambient conditions for a day to form a uniform paste. A
cone penetrometer is used for this experiment, an apparatus that consists of a steel cone
14
attached to the end of a steel plunger rod, suspended in a manner that it can slide
vertically when a button is pushed. The wet soil mass is placed in a cup of standard
dimensions below the cone, and the button is pressed to allow the cone to penetrate the
soil for 5 seconds. The depth of penetration is measured, and the same experiment is
repeated for different moisture contents. The moisture content that corresponds to 20 mm
penetration is taken as the liquid limit.[8] Results can be referred to in Table 6 and Fig. 16.
Plastic Limit
Dried soil is passed through a 600-micron sieve, 20 grams of which is mixed with
distilled water, and left overnight to form a uniform paste. The consistency should be
such that the soil should be plastic enough to form a ball between fingers. The soil is
taken on a glass plate and rolled out to form a thread of about 3 mm diameter, after which
the soil is kneaded into a uniform mass and rolled into a thread once again. This process
is repeated until the thread crumbles and the moisture content at this point is measured
and taken as the plastic limit.[8] Results can be referred to in Table 7.
Shrinkage Limit
Dried soil is passed through a 600-micron sieve and 30 grams of it is mixed with distilled
water. Measure the weight of the empty shrinkage dish and use mercury to determine the
volume, which will be the same volume as the wet soil pat. The shrinkage dish is greased
and the soil paste is added in three layers, tapping the dish to compact the layers. The soil
is dried in ambient conditions for two days, in a 500 oven for a day, and in a 1000 oven for
a day. The volume of the dry soil pat is measured by measuring the amount of mercury
displaced from a cup by the soil pat. The moisture content is calculated from this and is
taken as the shrinkage limit.[9] Results can be referred to in Table 8.
2.2.3 OMC-MDD
5 kg of dried soil passing through a 600-micron sieve is taken and mixed with a certain
amount of water. The empty mold is weighed. The soil is compacted into the mold in
three layers, with 25 blows each with a 2.6-kg hammer. The collar is removed and the
excess is struck off. The mold with soil is weighed. A sample is taken to determine the
moisture content. This process is repeated and the dry densities are calculated for each
15
trial. The values are graphed, and the optimum moisture content is taken to be the
moisture content corresponding to the peak of the graph, the maximum dry density.[10]
Results can be referred to in Table 9 and Fig. 17.
2.2.4 SPECIFIC GRAVITY

Density bottles are dried and 5-10 grams of the soil sample (sieved through a 425-micron
sieve) is taken in each density bottle. The empty bottle is weighed, as well as the bottle
with dry soil and stoppers. Air-free distilled water is added to the density bottles until
they are filled halfway and then they are placed in a vacuum desiccator without the
stoppers. After a few hours, the soil is stirred before the bottle is filled completely with
water and placed back in the desiccator. After the air has been removed from the sample
completely, the stoppers are added back and the bottles are weighed. The bottles are
washed and weighed after being filled with air-free water. These values are recorded and
used to calculate specific gravity.[11] Results can be referred to in Table 10.
2.2.5 SLUMP TEST

1 kg of the soil (sieved through a 1 mm sieve) is mixed with selected moisture content in
a soil mixer for 10 minutes. A cylinder, 12 cm in height and 5 cm in diameter is oiled and
filled with soil. The mold is lifted and the change in height and diameter is recorded.
Results can be referred to in Table 11 and Fig. 2 for the soil slump test and in Table 12
and Fig. 3 for the soil-SCM mix slump test.
2.3 PHASE 2
Plasticity was the parameter considered when selecting soil to proceed with the following
experiments. As it is very heavily dependent on the proportion of final particles, the ML
soil was chosen given that it had a higher proportion. The soil was mixed with different
fractions of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and metakaolin, combined with
different molarities of sodium hydroxide. There were six mixes chosen, the compositions
of which are given below:
Table 2: Mix compositions
Name of Mix Soil (%) GGBS (%) MK (%) NaOH (M)
16
GM1.1 50 50 0 0.5
GM1.2 50 50 0 1.0
GM2.1 50 40 10 0.5
GM2.2 50 40 10 1.0
GM3.1 50 30 20 0.5
GM3.2 50 30 20 1.0
*Note: Some tests were conducted using mixes that used 0.1 M NaOH, but were deemed
too weak to proceed further with.
2.3.2 FLOW TABLE

1000 grams of soil (sieved through a 1 mm sieve) that have been mixed in a soil mixer at
a chosen moisture content for 10 minutes is taken. The soil is placed in the mold in two
layers, tamping is done to remove voids after each layer, with the excess scraped off once
the mold is filled. The mold is removed and the table is dropped through a height of 12.5
mm, 25 times in 15 seconds. The diameter of the spread soil mass at the end is
measured.[13] Results can be referred to in Tables 4 and 13.
2.3.3 TIME-DEPENDANT SLUMP, FALL CONE, AND FLOW TABLE

In conjunction with the time-dependent slump and flow table test, a time-dependent
version of the fall cone was also conducted to determine the setting rate of different
mixes. In this test, the fall cone test, used previously for determining liquid limit, is
conducted in order to track the variation in penetration at uniform intervals over a
specified time period to see how fast the mix sets. This test also gives the undrained shear
strength through dynamic analysis. The flow table test is done at the same intervals to
give a similar idea of the setting properties.
The time-dependent slump and fall cone tests were conducted to distinguish between the
different soil-SCM mixes, and once the better mix was chosen, the time-dependent flow
17
table and fall cone tests were conducted at different moisture contents to study the flow
retention and strength gain behavior.
The values used in the calculation of shear strength are mentioned in Table 14.2. The
results of the time-dependent fall-cone test can be found in Table 14.2 and Fig. 20-22 for
the Soil-SCM mixes, the results from the time-dependent slump test in Table 15 and Fig.
23. The time-dependent fall cone tests that were conducted solely for GM1.2 are
mentioned in Table 18 and Fig. 25-27, and that of the time-dependent flow table in Table
19 and Fig. 28.
2.4 PHASE 3
Following the time-dependent tests, it can be seen that GM1 with 1 M NaOH had the
highest potential, with flowability achieved at lower moisture contents, a wide enough
window that guaranteed workability, and a much higher strength gain as compared to the
mixes with MK. GM1 with moisture contents of 34%, 36%, and 38% by weight of soil
and SCM (henceforth referred to as P34, P36, P38) was used to print and various
properties were measured. As the batches used in printing were larger than those used for
laboratory testing, the properties were subject to slight variations, so were measured
during printing.
2.4.1 FLOW TABLE

The flow table test (described in section 2.3.1) is conducted, with a minor change in the
mixing method, which is done for larger batches with a handheld agitator for 10 minutes.
The flow table test is conducted before the mix is fed into the printer. The results are
mentioned in Fig. 12.
2.4.2 BUILDABILITY
Buildability can be measured by how many layers can be successfully printed before the
printed sample undergoes some form of collapse, generally by elastic buckling or plastic
collapse, as depicted below in Fig. 1.
18
Fig 1. Methods of Collapse (Source: Suiker, A., et al, 2020)
In elastic buckling, the printed object experiences a loss in geometrical stability, whereas,
in plastic collapse, the maximum stress on the bottom layer of the printed object reaches
the yield strength of the material.[15] The results are shown in Fig. 11.
2.4.3 ONE-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

A compressive testing machine of a capacity of 250 MPa is used to determine the
one-day strength of 70 x 70 mm cubes. This value is compared across moisture contents.
The cubes are subjected to a compressive strength of 20 N/min/mm2. The results are
shown in Table 20 and Fig. 13.
19
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The soil samples of Phase 1 will be referred to as SC and ML, the SCM mixes of Phase 2
will be designated as GM1.1, GM1.2, and so on, and the printing mixes of Phase 3 will
be referred to as P34, P36, and P38 in this section. Detailed results are given in the
Appendix.
PHASE 1
Following the sieve analysis, we are able to classify the soil into SC and ML. The ML
soil had a much higher percentage of particles below the size of 75 microns (72%, in
comparison to 38.8% in the case of SC). Based on the uniformity coefficient and the
coefficient of curvature, both soils were found to be poorly graded.
Table 3: Summary of Properties of SC and ML Soil
Property SC ML
Liquid Limit (%) 40 41.3
Plastic Limit (%) 23.6 31.1
Shrinkage Limit (%) 22.7 29.1
Optimum Moisture Content 22.5 33.7

(%)
Maximum Dry Density 1.581 1.488

(g/cc)
Specific Density (g/cc) 2.609 2.559
Due to the finer nature of the particles in ML, the Atterberg limits are correspondingly
higher in comparison to SC.
The slump test was also conducted at different moisture contents, and it was found that
ML requires much lesser moisture to achieve the same slump.
20
Fig. 2: Relationship between change in height and moisture content for soil
Due to the presence of a higher proportion of finer particles as well as a lower moisture
requirement, ML is chosen for Phase 2.
PHASE 2
The two major properties that are assessed in this phase were flowability (and its
retention) and strength gain. The preliminary slump test showed that GM2 and GM3
needed higher moisture contents to achieve a certain slump. This makes GM1 more
desirable as it is better to try to minimize the moisture content that is necessary to achieve
a certain flowability.
21
Fig. 3: Relationship between change in height and moisture content for SCM mixes
A spread of 60-80%, denoted by the increase in diameter is required for a mix to be

printable. The flow table test was used to determine the moisture content at which this
condition is satisfied.
Table 4: Flow Table Values for Different Soil-SCM Mixes
Mix Moisture Content (%) Spread (%)
GM1, 0.5 M 34 69.66
GM1, 1 M 34 68.66
GM2, 0.5 M 39 64
GM2, 1 M 39 68.33
GM3, 0.5 M 45 67
GM3, 1 M 46 75.66
Following this experiment, these moisture content values were chosen to study the
time-dependent behaviors of the mixes. The following graphs are used to illustrate the
results.
22
Fig 4: Strength Gain Characteristics over 1 hour
Fig 5: Slump Behavior over 1 hour
From the graphs, it can be seen that the mixes using 0.5 M NaOH have low initial
strengths as well as low strength gain rates. The mixes with 1 M perform better in terms
of strength gain, but present conflicting results when it comes to slump, as the slump
seems to increase with the addition of MK. The mix that outperforms the others easily in
23
both is GM1 with 1 M NaOH, which is why it is chosen as the first mix to test for
printability.
The results from the time-dependent tests using different moisture content values show
that the mixes have a higher initial strength, as well as gain strength faster when the
moisture content is reduced.
Fig 6 : Variation of Dynamic Shear Strength with Time
24
Fig 7: Complete Representation of Variation of Dynamic Shear Strength with Time
Fig 8: Variation of Flow with Time
While P34 clearly outperforms the other two in terms of strength gain, the issue of
extrudability must also be considered, as wait times between mixing and printing, longer
printing periods, or other inconveniences could cause P34 to harden in the printer. The
actual use of these mixes to print will provide a clearer picture of their behavior when
subjected to printing conditions.
PHASE 3
Between P34, P36, and P38, the properties of buildability, extrudability, and workability
were tested, with 15 kg mixes of each type tested at the IMPRINT lab. The material was
first mixed in a drum with a handheld agitator, then transferred into a bond to incorporate
more of the bottom material, then added back to the drum and mixed with the handheld
agitator to ensure uniformity.
25
Fig 9: Printing of Samples
In terms of extrudability and open time, all three mixes were fluid enough to be extruded
through the printer, which continuously extruded the material until it ran out.
Extrudability and open time proved not to be issues for these mixes.
When it came to buildability, however, there was a marked difference between all the
mixes. Both methods of failure, plastic collapse as well as elastic buckling were
observed, with the former following the latter, a couple of layers afterward. The specimen
would undergo the complete compression of the bottom layer at one stage, and then the
printed sample would collapse in on itself a few layers after that.
26
Fig 10.1: Printed Sample after undergoing Plastic Collapse
Fig 10.2: Printed Sample after undergoing Elastic Buckling
27
Fig 11: Number of Layers Printed before Stages of Failure
As these graphs depict, P34 has the highest buildability, as it was still holding weight at
34 layers, and showed potential for a few more layers to be added.
28
Fig 12: Relation between Initial Flow Values and Amount of Time that Workability is
Retained
P38, though it stayed workable for close to three hours, barely held any weight and
gained strength extremely slowly. Although in terms of workability, P36 formed the
middle ground by remaining workable for approximately 90 minutes, which was much
better than the 42 minutes in the case of P34, but its buildability was nowhere near P34.
Fig 13: Comparison of One-Day Compressive Strength Between Mixes

The one-day compressive strength followed a nearly linear trend, with the strength
decreasing with increasing moisture content. While these strengths might not be enough
for structural applications, they can still be used for external walls and other
non-structural applications in their current form.
29
Fig 14.1, 14.2: Initial Printed Samples before Mix Size and printed Samples were
Finalized
Fig. 14.3: Final Printed Sample of P34
30
31
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTION
FUTURE DIRECTION
The research in this area has just begun, but the identification of potential in P34 provides
a starting point for this to continue, as it has good buildability, open time, and
extrudability for almost an hour after mixing. While the mix on its own cannot be used
for structural applications, it can be studied further with the addition of superplasticizers,
limestone calcined clay cement (LC3), or other SCMs in order to improve its properties.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of soil and SCMs in 3DP for construction is promising and shows potential for
becoming a relevant method of construction, even if it is still in its early stages. The use
of SCMs will help bring the carbon footprint down as it is not as environmentally
harmful as cement, and we can utilize waste products from different industries. The
combination of SCMs and soil makes for a compact mixture that can flow easily at the
right moisture content, which is good for printing. The presence of calcium and the
reaction with the alkali contribute to the rapid strength gain of the mix. The modification
of parameters like increasing the initial yield strength and the rate of strength gain will
bring this mix closer to being 3D printable on a larger scale.
32
CHAPTER 5
APPENDIX: DETAILED LABORATORY RESULTS
5.1 SIEVE ANALYSIS
SC Soil
Amount retained after washing through 75-micron sieve = 312 grams (62.4%)
Table 5.1: Sieve Analysis results for SC soil
Sieve Opening Cumulative Passing Percentage Passing
Sieve Size (mm) Weight (g) (g) (%)
4.75 mm 4.75 1 312 100
2.00 mm 2 18 294 94.23
1.00 mm 1 31 263 84.29
600 micron 0.6 25 238 76.28
425 micron 0.425 26 212 67.94
212 micron 0.212 85 127 40.7
150 micron 0.15 70 57 18.26
75 micron 0.075 53 4 1.28
PAN 0.01 3 0 0
Table 5.2: Relevant Values and Inferences - SC
Property Value Explanation
D60 0.362 mm 60% of particles are finer

than this size.

than this size.

than this size.
33
Cu 3.203 Uniformity coefficient,
should be close to 1 fo
Cc 0.809 Coefficient of curvature
Classification Poorly Graded
ML Soil
Amount remaining after washing through 75-micron sieve = 140 grams (28%)
Table 5.3: Sieve Analysis results for ML soil
Cumulative Average Percentage
Sieve Size Sieve Opening Weight (g) Passing Passing
4.75 mm 4.75 0 140 100
2.00 mm 2 2 138 98.57
1.00 mm 1 12 126 90
600 micron 0.6 18 108 77.14
425 micron 0.425 18 90 64.28
212 micron 0.212 32 58 41.42
150 micron 0.15 31 27 19.28
75 micron 0.075 26 1 0.71
PAN 0.01 1 0 0
Table 5.4: Relevant Values and Inferences - ML
Property Value Explanation

than this size.
34
than this size.

than this size.
Cu 3.437 Uniformity coefficient,

should be close to 1
Cc 0.751 Coefficient of curvature
Classification Poorly Graded
Fig. 15: Sieve Analysis results
5.2 ATTERBERG LIMITS

5.2.1 Liquid Limit
Table 6: Results of fall cone test for liquid limit
w1 (Cup w2 (Cup + w3 (Cup + Dry Moisture
Sampl Weight) Wet Sample) Dry Sample) Moistur Penetratio Soil Content
e (g) (g) (g) e (g) n (mm) Weight (%)
35
(g)
SC 25.9 50.9 44.17 6.73 11.5 18.27 36.83
19.58 57.33 46.71 10.62 16.6 27.13 39.14
18.7 61.43 48.98 12.45 27.8 30.28 41.11
21.16 82.19 62.31 19.88 38 41.15 48.31
ML 18.03 68.7 54.69 14.01 12.8 36.66 38.21
55.92 105.67 91.07 14.6 19.1 35.15 41.53
18.12 68.9 53.53 15.37 24.9 35.41 43.4
21.55 71.65 55.94 15.71 33.4 34.39 45.68
Fig. 16: Relationship between penetration and moisture content
Liquid Limit for SC sample = 40%

Liquid Limit for ML Sample = 41.3%
5.2.2 Plastic Limit

Table 7: Results of plastic limit test
36
w2 (Cup + w3 (Cup + Wet Soil
w1 (Cup Wet Sample) Dry Sample) Weight Dry Soil Moistur Plastic
Sample Weight) (g) (g) (g) Weight (g) e (g) Limit (%)
SC 17.01 22.35 21.33 5.34 4.32 1.02 23.61
ML 16.35 22.51 21.05 6.16 4.7 1.46 31.06
5.2.3 Shrinkage Limit

Table 8: Values assumed and calculations involved in shrinkage limit test
SC ML
Mass of empty mercury dish (g) 63.01 24.65
Mass of mercury dish, with mercury equal to volume of the shrinkage

dish (g) 386.44 348.58
Mass of mercury (g) 323.43 323.93
Volume of shrinkage dish V1 (cc) 23.78 23.82
Mass of shrinkage dish (g) 63.01 24.65
Mass of shrinkage dish + wet soil (g) 104.74 71.81
Mass of wet soil M1 (g) 41.73 47.16
Mass of shrinkage dish + dry soil (g) 92.88 58.67
Mass of dry soil Ms (g) 29.87 34.02
Mass of dish (g) 111.99
Mass of dish + mercury equal to in volume of dry pat (g) 366.36 391.7
Mass of mercury displaced by dry pat (g) 254.37 279.71
Volume of dry pat V2 (cc) 18.70 20.57
Shrinkage limit (%)
= 100((M1 - Ms) - (V1 - V2)pw)/Ms 22.71 29.07
37
Shrinkage ratio (Ms/pwV2) 1.59 1.65
Volumetric shrinkage ((V1 - V2)/V2)*100 27.15 15.81
5.3 OMC-MDD
Weight of mold = 4.134 kg
Volume of mold = 1000 cc
Table 9: Calculations involved in OMC-MDD test

w1 (Cup w2 (Cup + w3 (Cup Calculated Wt. of Wt. of Dry
Weight) Wet Soil) + Dry Moisture Mold + Soil Density Density
Sample (g) (g) Soil) (g) Content (%) Soil (kg) (kg) (g/cc) (g/cc)
SC 22.56 68.58 64.21 10.492 5.657 1.523 1.523 1.378
18.03 49.13 45.09 14.929 5.832 1.698 1.698 1.477
23.52 67.42 60.06 20.142 5.993 1.859 1.859 1.547
29.35 69.24 61.56 23.843 6.057 1.923 1.923 1.552
19.26 93.72 77.17 28.578 5.996 1.862 1.862 1.448
ML 15.88 44.68 38.92 25 5.695 1.561 1.561 1.248
17.33 39.63 34.72 28.234 5.83 1.696 1.696 1.322
55.85 87.22 79.59 32.139 6.094 1.96 1.96 1.483
14.82 51.98 42.38 34.833 6.146 2.012 2.012 1.492
56.29 199.81 160.49 37.735 6.087 1.953 1.953 1.417
38
Fig. 3: Relationship between dry density and moisture content
SC: OMC ~ 22.5%, MDD = 1.581 g/cc

ML: OMC ~ 33.7%, MDD = 1.488 g/cc
5.4 SPECIFIC GRAVITY

Table 10: Calculations involved in Specific Gravity test
Sample SC ML
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Mass of empty density

bottle (M1) 39.19 39.21 36.95 35.87 39.19 39.21 36.95 35.87
Mass of Mass of bottle

dry soil (M2) 47.03 46.4 43.63 41.87 45.01 44.88 42.47 41.54
Mass of bottle, soil and

water (M3) 93.51 93.66 92.47 90.2 92.15 92.69 91.91 89.9
Mass of bottle filled

with water (M4) 88.68 89.22 88.56 86.45 88.68 89.22 88.56 86.45
39
Specific gravity of 2.60465 2.61454 2.41155 2.66666 2.47659 2.57727 2.54377 2.55405
solids 1163 5455 2347 6667 5745 2727 8802 4054
Average specific
gravity (G) 2.609 2.558
5.5 SLUMP TEST FOR SOILS

Table 11: Calculations involved in slump test for soils
Moisture Diameter - Diameter - Height ΔD ΔH
Sample Content Top (mm) Bottom (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Slump
SC 22.5 50 50 120 0 0 0
26 50 50 120 0 0 0
29.5 50 50 120 0 0 0
33 50 50 120 0 0 0
36.5 50 50 120 0 0 0
40 49 50 119 -1, 0 1 0.008
43.5 47 57 108 -3, +7 12 0.1
47 49.5 54 106 -0.5, +4 14 0.117
50.5 47.5 57 97 -2.5, +7 23 0.192
Moisture Diameter - Diameter - Height ΔD ΔH Slump

Content Top (mm) Bottom (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (delH/H)
ML 36 49 51 114 -1, +1 6 0.05
39 50 52 105 0, +2 15 0.125
42 45 70 82 -5, +20 38 0.317
45 45 85 70 -5, +35 50 0.417
40
Fig. 18: Slump test for soils
5.6 SLUMP TESTS FOR SOIL-SCM MIXES
Table 12: Calculations involved in slump test of soil-SCM mixes

Diameter -
Moisture Diameter - Bottom Height ΔD ΔH Slump
GM1.1 Content Top (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (ΔH/H)
29 50 50 117 0, 0 3 0.025
30 50 51 116 0, +1 4 0.033
31 50 52 112 0, +2 8 0.066
32 50 54 110 0, +4 10 0.083
41
33 50 55 105 0, +5 15 0.125
GM2.1
29 50 50 120 0, 0 0 0
30 50 51 120 0, +1 0 0
31 50 51 119 0, +1 1 0.008
32 50 51 112 0, +1 8 0.066
33 50 52 111 0, +2 9 0.075
GM3.1
29 50 50 120 0, 0 0 0
30 50 50 120 0, 0 0 0
31 50 50 120 0, 0 0 0
32 50 50 120 0, 0 0 0
33 50 50 120 0, 0 0 0
34 50 50 120 0, 0 0 0
35 50 51 119 0, +1 1 0.008
36 50 52 113 0, +2 7 0.058
37 50 55 110 0, +5 10 0.083
5.7 FLOW TABLE TEST
Mold:
Top diameter = 7 cm
Bottom diameter = 10 cm
Target: 160-180 mm flow after mixing.

42
Table 13: Calculations involved in flow table test
GM1, 0.5 M, 34%

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average
Diameter (cm) 171 170 168 169.66
Flow (%) 71 70 68 69.66
GM1, 1M, 34%

Diameter (cm) 168 170 168 168.66
Flow (%) 68 70 68 68.66
GM2, 0.5 M, 39%

Diameter (cm) 162 164 166 164
Flow (%) 62 64 66 64
GM2, 1M, 39%

Diameter (cm) 168 168 169 168.33
Flow (%) 68 68 69 68.33
GM2, 0.5 M, 45%

Diameter (cm) 168 167 166 167
Flow (%) 68 67 66 67
GM2, 1M, 46%

Diameter (cm) 171 179 177 175.66
Flow (%) 71 79 77 75.66
43
Fig. 19: Flow Table Test for Soils
5.8 TIME-DEPENDANT FALL CONE TEST - SOIL-SCM MIX
Table 14.1: Important Values in Fall Cone Calculation

Q (weight dropped) 0.7845 N
θ (angle of cone) 15 degrees
Expression for plan area 0.226z*z
Expression for shear strength Q/1.69*z*z N/m2
Table 14.2: Calculations involved in time-dependant fall cone test
GM1.1,
34% 34
44
d_dyna
Initial Final Penetration mic Su d_static Su
Time Value Value depth (mm) Su (Pa) (kPa) (mm) Su (Pa) (kPa)
1052.6 3157.8
5 206 416 210 21.00 1 1.05 12.124 3 3.16
2984.8
15 196 412 216 21.60 994.94 0.99 12.471 3 2.98
1432.7 4298.1
25 195 375 180 18.00 2 1.43 10.392 6 4.30
1836.1 5508.5
35 195 354 159 15.90 7 1.84 9.180 0 5.51
1932.1 5796.4
45 195 350 155 15.50 6 1.93 8.949 8 5.80
2746.7 8240.2
60 195 325 130 13.00 5 2.75 7.506 6 8.24
GM1.2,
34% 34
d_dyna
Time Initial Final Penetration mic Su d_static Su
(mins) Value Value depth (mm) Su (Pa) (kPa) (mm) Su (Pa) (kPa)
1126.4 3379.3
5 207 410 203 20.30 6 1.13 11.72 7 3.38
1883.2 5649.7
15 195 352 157 15.70 5 1.88 9.06 4 5.65
2207.8 6623.5
25 205 350 145 14.50 5 2.21 8.37 6 6.62
45
2664.1 7992.4
35 205 337 132 13.20 5 2.66 7.62 4 7.99
2970.8 8912.6
45 205 330 125 12.50 9 2.97 7.22 6 8.91
9473.4 28420.
60 205 275 70 7.00 9 9.47 4.04 48 28.42
GM2.1,
39% 39
d_dyna
1032.8 3098.5
5 -2 210 212 21.20 4 1.03 12.240 3 3.10
2632.5
15 200 430 230 23.00 877.51 0.88 13.279 2 2.63
1160.5 3481.5
25 205 405 200 20.00 0 1.16 11.547 1 3.48
1233.4 3700.1
35 210 404 194 19.40 0 1.23 11.201 9 3.70
1606.2 4818.7
45 205 375 170 17.00 3 1.61 9.815 0 4.82
1705.0 5115.1
60 195 360 165 16.50 5 1.71 9.526 6 5.12
GM2.2,
39% 39
46
d_dyna
1013.6 3040.8
5 205 419 214 21.40 3 1.01 12.355 8 3.04
1184.0 3552.2
15 207 405 198 19.80 7 1.18 11.432 0 3.55
1705.0 5115.1
25 209 374 165 16.50 5 1.71 9.526 6 5.12
2063.1 6189.3
35 210 360 150 15.00 2 2.06 8.660 5 6.19
2437.5 7312.5
45 210 348 138 13.80 2 2.44 7.967 6 7.31
3907.0 11721.
60 210 319 109 10.90 9 3.91 6.293 27 11.72
GM3.1,
45% 45
d_dyna
2108.4
5 205 462 257 25.70 702.81 0.70 14.838 4 2.11
2339.0
15 205 449 244 24.40 779.70 0.78 14.087 9 2.34
2397.6
25 200 441 241 24.10 799.23 0.80 13.914 9 2.40
47
2587.3
35 193 425 232 23.20 862.44 0.86 13.395 3 2.59
2775.4
45 186 410 224 22.40 925.15 0.93 12.933 4 2.78
1052.6 3157.8
60 197 407 210 21.00 1 1.05 12.124 3 3.16
GM3.2,
46% 46
d_dyna
2957.3
5 207 424 217 21.70 985.80 0.99 12.529 9 2.96
1137.6 3412.9
15 198 400 202 20.20 4 1.14 11.662 1 3.41
1299.5 3898.5
25 200 389 189 18.90 2 1.30 10.912 6 3.90
1684.5 5053.7
35 199 365 166 16.60 7 1.68 9.584 2 5.05
2368.3 7105.1
45 207 347 140 14.00 7 2.37 8.083 2 7.11
3767.5 11302.
60 208 319 111 11.10 6 3.77 6.409 68 11.30
48
Fig 20: Time-dependent Penetration Depth for Different Soil-SCM Mixes
Fig 21: Time-dependent Static Undrained Shear Strength for Different Soil-SCM Mixes
49
Fig 22: Time-dependent Dynamic Undrained Shear Strength for Different Soil-SCM
Mixes
5.9 TIME DEPENDANT SLUMP TEST
Height of Packing = 120 mm
Table 15: Calculations involved in time-dependant slump test
GM1 0.5 M Moisture content = 34%

Change in height - Δh Slump
Time Height - h (mm) (mm) (Δh/H)
5 106 14 0.11
15 107 13 0.1
25 108 12 0.1
35 109 11 0.09
45 111 9 0.07
60 113 7 0.05
50
GM1 1M Moisture content = 34%
5 108 12 0.1
15 110 10 0.08
25 111 9 0.07
35 112 8 0.06
45 112 8 0.06
60 115 5 0.04

5 105 15 0.12
15 106 14 0.11
25 108 12 0.1
35 109 11 0.09
45 111 9 0.07
60 115 5 0.04

5 106 14 0.11
15 108 12 0.1
25 108 12 0.1
35 110 10 0.08
45 112 8 0.06
60 114 6 0.05
51
5 103 17 0.14
15 105 15 0.12
25 106 14 0.11
35 106 14 0.11
45 107 13 0.1
60 109 11 0.09

5 103 17 0.14
15 104 16 0.13
25 105 15 0.12
35 107 13 0.1
45 109 11 0.09
60 111 9 0.07
52
Fig 23: Time-dependent Slump for Different Soil-SCM Mixes
5.10 LIQUID LIMIT OF MIXES (FALL CONE METHOD)
Table 16: Calculations involved in liquid limit test for mixes

Penetration Moisture Content
Sample Initial Value Final Value (mm) (%)
GM1, 0.5M 28 62 34 25
16 119 103 30
28 237 209 35
20 396 376 40
Sample Initial Value Final Value Penetration (mm) Moisture Content (%)
GM1, 1M 21 64 43 25
15 131 116 30
18 227 209 34
53
25 390 365 40
GM2, 0.5M 28 64 36 32
31 139 108 37
0 295 295 42
20 394 374 47
GM2, 1M 31 58 27 32
23 141 118 37
12 304 292 44
11 398 387 47
Fig. 24: Liquid limit calculation for Soil-SCM mixes
54
Table 17: Liquid limit Values for mixes
Liquid Limit
Mix
(%)
GM1, 0.5M 33.3
GM1, 1M 33.1
GM2, 0.5M 39.3
GM2, 1M 39.8
5.11 TIME DEPENDENT FALL CONE FOR GM1.2
Table 18: Calculations Involved in Time-Dependent Fall Cone for GM1.2

34%
Fall Penet
d_dyna Su
Cone ratio d_static
Time mic Su (Pa) (kP Su (Pa) Su (kPa)
Avera Init Fina n (mm)
(mm) a)
ge ial l depth
5 162.3 22 232 210 21.00 1052.61 1.05 12.124 3157.83 3.16
15 160.6 4 197 193 19.30 1246.21 1.25 11.143 3738.63 3.74
30 159 11 172 161 16.10 1790.83 1.79 9.295 5372.49 5.37
60 150.3 12 111 99 9.90 4736.26 4.74 5.716 14208.79 14.21
12075.9 12.0
90 146.3 12 74 62 6.20 9 8 3.580 36227.98 36.23
18568.0 18.5
120 139.6 12 62 50 5.00 5 7 2.887 55704.14 55.70
95909.3 95.9 287728.0

180 130.3 11 33 22 2.20 4 1 1.270 1 287.73
36%
55
Fall Penet
d_dyna Su
Cone ratio d_static
(mm) a)
ge ial l depth
5 176 22 302 280 28.00 592.09 0.59 16.166 1776.28 1.78
15 175.3 11 281 270 27.00 636.76 0.64 15.588 1910.29 1.91
30 173 25 320 295 29.50 533.41 0.53 17.032 1600.23 1.60
60 172.3 16 261 245 24.50 773.35 0.77 14.145 2320.04 2.32
90 157.3 197 414 217 21.70 985.80 0.99 12.529 2957.39 2.96
120 150.6 26 192 166 16.60 1684.57 1.68 9.584 5053.72 5.05
180 141 14 132 118 11.80 3333.82 3.33 6.813 10001.46 10.00
38%
Fall Penet
d_dyna Su
Cone ratio d_static
(mm) a)
ge ial l depth
5 208.6 32 430 398 39.80 293.05 0.29 22.979 879.15 0.88
15 207.6 31 429 398 39.80 293.05 0.29 22.979 879.15 0.88
30 204 5 394 389 38.90 306.77 0.31 22.459 920.30 0.92
60 188 11 359 348 34.80 383.31 0.38 20.092 1149.92 1.15
90 175.3 26 331 305 30.50 499.01 0.50 17.609 1497.02 1.50
120 172 15 230 215 21.50 1004.22 1.00 12.413 3012.66 3.01
180 172 13 210 197 19.70 1196.12 1.20 11.374 3588.35 3.59
56
Fig 25: Time-dependent Penetration Depth for GM1.2
Fig 26: Time-dependent Dynamic Shear Strength for GM1.2
57
Fig 27: Time-dependent Dynamic Shear Strength for GM1.2 (Full)
5.12 TIME DEPENDENT FLOW TABLE TEST
Table 19: Calculations Involved in Time-Dependent Flow Table for GM1.2
34%
Flow Values
Time
#1 #2 #3 Average
5 163 162 162 162.3
15 160 161 161 160.6
30 159 158 160 159
60 150 149 152 150.3
90 145 146 148 146.3
120 139 140 140 139.6
180 132 130 129 130.3
36%
Flow Values
Time
58
#1 #2 #3 Average
5 175 177 176 176
15 177 174 175 175.3
30 171 173 175 173
60 172 172 173 172.3
90 157 155 160 157.3
120 149 151 152 150.6
180 142 141 140 141
38%
Flow Values
Time
#1 #2 #3 Average
5 209 208 209 208.6
15 207 208 208 207.6
30 203 204 205 204
60 186 188 190 188
90 174 174 178 175.3
120 172 170 174 172
180 172 170 174 172
59
Fig 28: Time-dependent Slump Test for GM1.2
5.13 ONE-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

Table 20: Values of One-Day Compressive Strength of 70 x 70 mm cubes
Mix Name Trial 1 (MPa) Trial 2 (MPa) Trial 3 (MPa) Average (MPa)
P34 9.72 8.76 8.18 8.886
P36 7.92 7.96 8.02 7.966
P38 7.42 7.39 7.1 7.303
60
REFERENCES
[1] The Welding Institute, “What are the Advantages and Disadvantages of 3D
Printing?”,
https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/what-is-3d-printing/pros-and-cons
[2] Supplementary Cementing Materials, Portland Cement Association -
https://www.cement.org/cement-concrete/concrete-materials/supplementary-cementing-m
aterials
[3] Thannimalay, Letchumi. (2013). Life Cycle Assessment of Sodium Hydroxide.
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences.
[4] (a) Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag - A Review -
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ground-granulated-blast-furnace-slag
(b) Thankam, G. & Renganathan, Neelakantan. (2020). Ideal supplementary cementing
material – Metakaolin: A review. International Review of Applied Sciences and
Engineering. 11. 10.1556/1848.2020.00008.
[5](a) Kondepudi, Kala, and Kolluru V. L. Subramaniam. “Formulation of
Alkali-activated Fly Ash-slag Binders for 3D Concrete Printing.” Cement and Concrete
Composites, vol. 119, Elsevier BV, May 2021, p. 103983. Crossref,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.103983.
(b) Rahul, A. V., et al. “3D Printable Concrete: Mixture Design and Test Methods.”
Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 97, Elsevier BV, Mar. 2019, pp. 13–23. Crossref,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.12.014.
(c) Bhattacherjee, Shantanu, et al. “Sustainable Materials for 3D Concrete Printing.”
Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 122, Elsevier BV, Sept. 2021, p. 104156.
Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104156.
[6] Chindaprasirt, Prinya, et al. “Effect of Calcium-rich Compounds on Setting Time and
Strength Development of Alkali-activated Fly Ash Cured at Ambient Temperature.” Case
Studies in Construction Materials, vol. 9, Elsevier BV, Dec. 2018, p. e00198. Crossref,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00198.
[7] IS:2720 (Part 4) - 1985
[8] IS:2720 (Part 5) - 1985
[9] IS : 2720 (Part 6) - 1972
[10] IS : 2720 (Part 7) - 1980
61
[11] IS:2720 (Part 3/Set 1) - 1980
[12] IS:11229-1985
[13] IS:4031(Part-7):1988
[14] Indian Compendium of Soil Standards
[15] Suiker, A., Wolfs, R., Lucas, S., & Salet, T. (2020). Elastic buckling and plastic
collapse during 3D concrete printing. Cement and Concrete Research, 135, 106016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106016
62

Final BTP Report - CE19B089

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Final BTP Report - CE19B089

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Project Report on

Potential SCM-Soil Mix for 3D Printing

Under the guidance of

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CHENNAI - 600036, INDIA

I would like to express my gratitude to my research guide, Professor Ramesh Kannan K.

Keywords: 3D Printing, Soil Construction, SCMs, Sustainability

The usage of 3D printing (3DP) in the construction industry is gaining momentum as a

1.1 Composition of GGBS 11

1.2 Composition of Metakaolin 12

3 Summary of Properties of SC and ML soil 20

4 Flow Table Values for Different Soil-SCM Mixes 22

5.1 Sieve analysis results for SC soil 32

5.2 Relevant Values and Inferences - SC 32

5.3 Sieve analysis results for ML Soil 33

5.4 Relevant values and inferences - ML 33

6 Results of fall cone test for Liquid Limit 34

7 Results of plastic limit test 36

8 Values assumed and calculations involved in shrinkage limit 36

9 Calculations involved in OMC-MDD test 37

10 Calculations involved in specific gravity test 38

11 Calculations involved in slump test for soils 39

12 Calculations involved in slump test of soil-SCM mixes 40

13 Calculations involved in flow table test 42

14.1 Important values in fall cone calculation 43

15 Calculations involved in time-dependent slump test 49

16 Calculations involved in liquid limit test for mixes 52

17 Liquid limit calculation for mixes 54

18 Calculations Involved in Time-Dependent Fall Cone for 54

19 Calculations Involved in Time-Dependent Flow Table for 57

20 Compressive Strength Values 60

Figure Title Page

2 Relationship between change in height and moisture content 21

3 Relationship between change in height and moisture content 22

4 Strength Gain Characteristics over 1 Hour 23

5 Slump Behavior over 1 Hour 23

6 Variation of Dynamic Shear Strength with Time 24

7 Complete Representation of Variation of Dynamic Shear 24

8 Variation of Flow with Time 25

10.1 Printed Sample after Undergoing Plastic Collapse 27

10.2 Printed Samples after Undergoing Elastic Buckling 27

11 Number of Layers Printed before Stages of Failure 28

12 Relation between Initial Flow Values and Amount of Time 28

13 Comparison of One-Day Compressive Strength Between 29

14.3 Final Printed Sample of P34 30

15 Sieve Analysis Results 34

16 Relationship between Penetration and Moisture Content 35

17 Relationship between Dry Density and Moisture Content 38

18 Slump Test for Soils 40

19 Flow Table Test for Soils 43

20 Time-dependent Penetration Depth for Different Soil-SCM 48

21 Time-dependent Static Shear Strength for Different Soil-SCM 48

23 Time-dependent Slump for Different Soil-SCM Mixes 52

24 Liquid Limit Calculation for Soil-SCM Mixes 53

25 Time-dependent Penetration Depth for GM1.2 56

26 Time Dependent Dynamic Shear Strength for GM1.2 56

27 Time Dependent Dynamic Shear Strength for GM1.2 (Full) 57

28 Time-dependent Flow Table for GM1.2 59

CAD Computer-Aided Design

GGBS Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag

OMC Optimum Moisture Content

MDD Maximum Dry Density