Structural and Building Envelope Performances of 3D Concrete Printed Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 3D concrete printing is an emerging technology with the potential to revolutionize construction by minimizing material waste, reducing labor demands, and accelerating project completion times. Despite its advantages, the structural and building envelope performance of 3D-printed walls requires further study to ensure real-world applicability. This research evaluates the performance of large-scale 3D-printed walls while proposing practical testing methods and design improvements. The objectives include assessing the compressive performance of full-scale 3D-printed walls, including the effects of vertical reinforcement and window openings; investigating prism testing as an alternative to full-scale compressive testing; evaluating water penetration resistance under wind-driven rain; and analyzing the thermal resistance of printed walls with different patterns and insulation configurations. The methodology involved experimental and numerical studies. Full-scale 3D-printed walls were tested under axial compression to determine the influence of reinforcement and openings. A new approach using 3D-printed prisms was introduced for compressive testing and compared with traditional concrete masonry prisms. Wind-driven rain penetration tests were conducted on large-scale printed walls, while thermal performance tests evaluated compliance with building code requirements. Numerical simulations assessed material properties and print geometry, and analytical analysis enhanced the understanding of thermal performance. Key findings highlight that reinforced walls exhibited up to 26% higher load-bearing capacity and three times greater energy absorption than unreinforced walls. Walls with a large window opening experienced about 80% of the load capacity of the walls without opening. Prism testing demonstrated a strain distribution comparable to full-scale walls, making it a more reliable method than small-scale evaluation. Water penetration tests revealed vulnerabilities in interlayer joints but demonstrated that an air cavity effectively prevented moisture infiltration. Thermal resistance analysis showed that insulated hollow section walls can meet Canadian building code requirements. The outcomes of this research improve the knowledge in 3D concrete printing by providing recommendations for structural design and construction techniques, supporting the development of technical guidelines for wider adoption.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".