MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411465316 · doi:10.1061/jsdccc.sceng-1636

3D Printing of Conventional and Geopolymer Concretes: Advancements, Challenges, Future Directions, and Cost Analysis

2025· article· en· W4411465316 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Karimipour, Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi, T. Y. Yang, Shaofan Li, Aso Hajirasouli, Amir Shirkhani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of structural design and construction practice. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopolymer3D printingGeopolymer cementProcess engineeringComputer scienceConstruction engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three-dimensional printing (3DP) concrete is revolutionizing the construction industry by significantly speeding up the building process, reducing labor costs, and minimizing material waste. This technology allows for the creation of complex and innovative architectural designs that are difficult to achieve with traditional methods. Additionally, it promotes sustainability by using eco-friendly materials and reducing the carbon footprint of construction projects. Therefore, 3DP concrete (3DP) can be a suitable solution for implementing special and complex design structures, and mass customization with the lowest cost, especially in labor cost reduction and the amount of waste materials. Considering the importance of using 3DP concrete and its increasing development, identifying all the positive and negative aspects of this technology will help researchers cover disadvantages by identifying the weak points and contribute to the development of this science. Therefore, in this paper, a comprehensive analysis of the primary 3DP procedures and their development in construction technology is performed. Additionally, two types of 3DP concrete technologies are studied in this paper ordinary portland cement-based concrete (OPCBC) and geopolymer-based concrete (GBC). In addition, the growth of material manufacturing and the pros and cons of using various cementitious materials in 3DP concrete are explored. The study also covers different 3DP concrete manufacturing methods and examines key properties such as environmental impact, compressive, tensile, and flexural strengths, density, porosity, elastic modulus, heat resistance, and creep. A comparison of the properties and benefits of OPCBC and GBC 3DP concrete is provided, followed by a cost analysis to assess the advantages of 3D-printed concrete construction. The results reveal that the 3DP process and material selection significantly impact pore development. Techniques that use layered materials, such as contour carving and fused deposition modeling (FDM), often exhibit a high prevalence of pores, which diminishes the mechanical properties of the concrete. These findings offer crucial insights for scholars and decision-makers by illuminating the latest advancements and gaps in the field. This deeper understanding helps refine research priorities, informs policy-making, and can direct resources more effectively. By grasping the current state of knowledge, stakeholders are better equipped to address challenges, capitalize on emerging opportunities, and drive innovation in the relevant domain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of structural design and construction practice.Same topicInnovations in Concrete and Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207