Feasibility of Using Low CO2 Concrete Alternatives in Extrusion-Based 3D Concrete Printing

  • Yu ChenEmail author
  • Fred Veer
  • Oguzhan Copuroglu
  • Erik Schlangen
Conference paper
Part of the RILEM Bookseries book series (RILEM, volume 19)


In conventional concrete, replacing high-volume (more than 45%) of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) by supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) is not a novel CO2 reduction method, whereas rarely in 3D printable concrete. This study attempts to explore the feasibility of using SCMs in 3D printable concrete. Initially, the existing binder mixes, required fresh properties and a research method of 3D printable concrete are investigated by reviewing the relevant papers. Additionally, the constraints and opportunities of using SCMs in 3D printable concrete are illustrated and summarized. Finally, it has been found that up to 45% of cement can be replaced by a blend of fly ash and silica fume. The essential fresh properties of 3D printable concrete include extrudability, workability, open time, buildability and structural build-up, which are influenced by the binder mix, particle size distribution, water to binder ratio, binder to aggregate ratio, admixture addition, the dosage of reinforced-fibers, etc. On the other hand, there are many limitations to develop SCMs-based 3D printable concrete, such as few relevant studies, a lack of the certificated standard, massive related-parameters and the shortage of common SCMs. For the first three problems, it can be solved with the development of 3D printable concrete. For the last one, calcined clay is one potential alternative for developing sustainable 3D printable concrete in the areas where are in short supply of fly ash and silica fume.


3D printable concrete Low CO2 Supplementary cementitious materials Fresh properties 


  1. 1.
    Lim, S., Le, T., Webster, J., Buswell, R., Austin, A., Gibb, A., Thorpe, T.: Fabricating construction components using layered manufacturing technology. In: Global Innovation in Construction Conference, pp. 512–520. Loughborough University, Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bos, F., Wolfs, R., Ahmed, Z., Salet, T.: Additive manufacturing of concrete in construction: potentials and challenges of 3D concrete printing. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 11(3), 209–225 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paul, S.C., Tay, Y.W.D., Panda, B., Tan, M.J.: Fresh and hardened properties of 3D printable cementitious materials for building and construction. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 18(1), 311–319 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lim, S., Buswell, R.A., Le, T.T., Austin, S.A., Gibb, A.G., Thorpe, T.: Developments in construction-scale additive manufacturing processes. Autom. Constr. 21, 262–268 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meyer, C.: The greening of the concrete industry. Cem. Concr. Compos. 31(8), 601–605 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kazemian, A., Yuan, X., Cochran, E., Khoshnevis, B.: Cementitious materials for construction-scale 3D printing: laboratory testing of fresh printing mixture. Constr. Build. Mater. 145, 639–647 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Le, T.T., Austin, S.A., Lim, S., Buswell, R.A., Gibb, A.G., Thorpe, T.: Mix design and fresh properties for high-performance printing concrete. Mater. Struct. 45(8), 1221–1232 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ma, G., Li, Z., Wang, L.: Printable properties of cementitious material containing copper tailings for extrusion based 3D printing. Constr. Build. Mater. 162, 613–627 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nerella, V.N., Krause, M., Näther, M., Mechtcherine, V.: Studying printability of fresh concrete for formwork free Concrete on-site 3D Printing technology (CONPrint3D). In: Proceeding of the 25th Conference on Rheology of Building Materials. Tredition GmbH, Hamburg (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gosselin, C., Duballet, R., Roux, P., Gaudillière, N., Dirrenberger, J., Morel, P.: Large-scale 3D printing of ultra-high performance concrete—a new processing route for architects and builders. Mater. Des. 100, 102–109 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weng, Y., Lu, B., Tan, M.J., Qian, S.: Rheology and printability of engineered cementitious composites—a literature review. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Progress in Additive Manufacturing (Pro-AM 2016), pp. 427–432. Research Publishing, Singapore (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mahoutian, M., Shekarchi, M.: Effect of inert and pozzolanic materials on flow and mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete. J. Mater. 2015, 1–11 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flatt, R.J., Larosa, D., Roussel, N.: Linking yield stress measurements: spread test versus Viskomat. Cem. Concr. Res. 36(1), 99–109 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perrot, A., Rangeard, D., Pierre, A.: Structural built-up of cement-based materials used for 3D-printing extrusion techniques. Mater. Struct. 49(4), 1213–1220 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weng, Y., Li, M., Tan, M.J., Qian, S.: Design 3D printing cementitious materials via Fuller Thompson theory and Marson-Percy model. Constr. Build. Mater. 163, 600–610 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yuan, Q., Zhou, D., Li, B., Huang, H., Shi, C.: Effect of mineral admixtures on the structural build-up of cement paste. Constr. Build. Mater. 160, 117–126 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Panda, B., Paul, S.C., Hui, L.J., Tay, Y.W.D., Tan, M.J.: Additive manufacturing of geopolymer for sustainable built environment. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 281–288 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glavind, M.: Sustainability of cement, concrete and cement replacement materials in construction. In: Khatib, J.M. (ed.) Sustainability of Construction Materials, pp. 120–147. Wood Head Publishing in Materials, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scrivener, K.L.: Options for the future of cement. Indian Concr. J. 88(7), 11–21 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Antoni, M., Rossen, J., Martirena, F., Scrivener, K.: Cement substitution by a combination of metakaolin and limestone. Cem. Concr. Res. 42(12), 1579–1589 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tironi, A., Scian, A.N., Irassar, E.F.: Ternary blended cement with limestone filler and kaolinitic calcined clay. In: Editor, S., Editor, F. (eds.) Calcined Clays for Sustainable Concrete 2015, vol. 10, pp. 195–201. Springer, Dordrecht (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berriel, S.S., Favier, A., Domínguez, E.R., Machado, I.S., Heierli, U., Scrivener, K., Hernandez, F.M., Habert, G.: Assessing the environmental and economic potential of Limestone Calcined Clay Cement in Cuba. J. Clean. Prod. 124, 361–369 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Avet, F., Snellings, R., Diaz, A.A., Haha, M.B., Scrivener, K.: Development of a new rapid, relevant and reliable (R3) test method to evaluate the pozzolanic reactivity of calcined kaolinitic clays. Cem. Concr. Res. 85, 1–11 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Avet, F.H.: Investigation of the grade of calcined clays used as clinker substitute in Limestone Calcined Clay Cement (LC3). Ph.D. Thesis, EPFL (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations