Testing prisms as a method for assessing compressive properties of 3D-printed structural members: Experimental and numerical studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3D printing in construction has emerged as a faster method that reduces labor, carbon footprint, and cost. Despite the rapid growth of this technology and its application in construction sector, there are still no established guidelines for determining the compressive strength of printed structural elements. The current method involves testing small cubic samples with one or two interlayer joints. However, this approach may not adequately represent the behavior of walls with numerous interlayer joints, which are prone to stress concentration at these interlayers. While testing full-scale wall specimens would provide more accurate data, such tests are time-consuming, expensive, and require specialized facilities. Testing prisms for determining the compressive strength of masonry buildings is an established method; however, this method has never been used for printed buildings. The objective of this study is to propose the method of testing prism as a practical and cost-effective approach to determine the compressive properties of 3D-printed structures. The research methodology includes testing 3D-printed prisms of two different dimensions, made from two different cementitious materials, alongside identical concrete masonry prisms as reference specimens. Furthermore, numerical analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of various material properties and the width of print layer. The key findings of this study reveal that 3D-printed prism tests made of mortar and concrete achieved strength-to-material ratios of 89 % and 86 %, respectively, comparable to the 88 % ratio observed in masonry prisms. The strain contour on the surface of the printed prisms displayed a strain pattern similar to that observed in a full-scale test, indicating that the method proposed in this paper reliably assesses the compressive properties of 3D-printed structures. • A new prism-based test method is developed and used for 3D printed members • Prisms made of mortar and concrete were tested and compared with masonry prisms • Both experimental and numerical methods are used in this study • 3D printed prisms revealed a notably higher compressive strength than masonry prisms • An empirical equation was developed to predict the prism strength
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".