Review of Opportunities and Challenges for Additive Manufacturing of Steels in the Construction Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Additive manufacturing (AM), or 3-D printing, encompasses a range of technologies that “print” material layer by layer to create the final part. Though there is significant interest in the AM of concrete in the construction sector, opportunities for the AM of steel still need to be explored. This review focuses on the AM of low-alloy steels, stainless steels, duplex stainless steels (DSSs), precipitation-hardened (PH) stainless steels, and tool steels, highlighting the challenges and opportunities of employing AM technology for construction applications. Fusion-based AM technologies, such as wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM), laser powder bed fusion (LPBF), and laser-directed energy deposition (LDED), are the core technologies that have been tested in the industry so far. WAAM has seen the most exploration for construction applications because of its higher deposition rate, larger build volume, and lower cost than other AM technologies. The mechanical performance of low-alloy steel, stainless steel, and tool steel shows increased tensile strengths after AM processing compared with wrought counterparts. Although AM is not economical for geometrically simple metal components or geometries, there is potential for AM to fabricate unique structural connections or joints, optimized load-bearing columns, and even entire bridges, as highlighted in this paper. AM’s digital nature (i.e., using computer-aided design (CAD) to create G-code paths for printing) can increase structural efficiency if coupled with topology optimization methods and high-strength alloys. Currently, however, general applications of AM in the industry are limited because of barriers with structural codes and standards not incorporating AM parts and AM technology barriers (i.e., limited build volumes).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".