Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Environmental evaluation of 3D printed concrete walls considering

the life cycle perspective in the context of social housing
Letícia Ikeda Castrillon Fernandez *, Lucas Rosse Caldas,
Oscar Aurelio Mendoza Reales
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Cidade Universitária, Ilha do Fundão, CEP 21941-972, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Wall construction is the most common application for 3D concrete printing (3DCP). This con-
3D concrete printing struction technique requires a printing material with specific rheological characteristics that are
Life cycle assessment usually achieved through high cement consumptions, reaching more than 1000 kg/m³. It is well
Sustainable construction known that large-scale cement consumption is a worldwide concern, mainly due to carbon diox-
Environmental impact
ide emissions. Thus, in the context of 3DCP structures, this environmental concern becomes even
Cement consumption
more relevant. Therefore, this work investigated the environmental performance, by means of the
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, evaluating 14 environmental impact categories of
3DCP walls, and comparing them with conventional construction techniques in a social housing
context of a Brazilian case study. The results confirmed that cement consumption provides the
greatest contribution to the impact potentials for most of the evaluated categories, reaching 93%
for climate change. So, materials that can be used to replace cement, such as supplementary ce-
mentitious materials (SCM), are important alternatives. In general, the comparative results
showed that 3DCP can have a similar environmental performance to conventional construction
techniques, when, instead of evaluating 1 m³ of concrete, the functional unit evaluated is 1 m2 of
wall. Sensitivity analysis carried out showed that the printing parameter variations that most af-
fect the consumption of concrete cause the greatest changes in potential environmental impacts,
while alterations in the energy consumption, almost do not influence the total values of the po-
tential impacts. Finally, this study presents a roadmap and a pathway for designers, developers,
builders and researchers of 3DCP to decrease the life cycle environmental impacts.

1. Introduction
When thinking about conventional civil construction, some of the images that come to mind are low levels of technification and
productivity and a high level of waste. However, these images have been changing in the last few years due to the transformation of
the civil construction industry towards the 4th industrial revolution, the so-called industry 4.0. In this context, additive manufactur-
ing, simply called 3D printing in this work, is one of the most promising construction techniques that is emerging in recent years
[1,2].
3D printing applied to civil construction involves different methods for manufacturing building components, mostly related to 3D
concrete printing (3DCP), such as material extrusion, material jetting, binder jetting, and powder bed fusion. Among these methods,
3DCP based on extrusion is the most widely researched at present days [1,3]. 3DCP based on extrusion demands concrete with contra-

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: leticia.fernandez@coc.ufrj.br (L.I.C. Fernandez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106915
Received 23 March 2023; Accepted 23 May 2023
Available online 24 May 2023
2352-7102/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

dictory characteristics, such as being sufficiently fluid to be mixed and pumped and consistent enough to maintain the intended shape
without the use of formworks. These requirements, together with limitations on the maximum size of aggregates that can be used in
the concrete, usually demand a high cement consumption, up to 1000 kg/m³ [3,4], against 350 kg/m³ commonly used in traditional
construction techniques [5].
The high level of cement consumption in 3DCP implies a worry for the construction sector since cement consumption in tradi-
tional construction techniques nowadays is already responsible for 6–8% of all CO2 emissions caused by human activities [6]. For this
reason, the seek for eco-friendly alternatives to the concrete mix designs in 3DCP, such as replacing cement with other binders, is im-
perative. In this sense, the use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCM), such as fly ash (FA), silica fume (SF), and granulated
blast furnace slag (GBFS), are viable options for Portland cement, due to the hydraulic and pozzolanic properties of these materials
and lower CO2 emissions associated to them [7].
The panorama described above exposes the need to investigate the environmental performance of 3DCP, including the use of SCM
as an eco-friendly alternative to cement consumption. In this context, the widest methodology applied in civil construction is Life Cy-
cle Assessment (LCA), which can be used to identify the environmental impacts of the materials and processes associated with 3DCP
constructions [8]. However, there are only a few works available in the literature concerning the LCA of 3DCP, making clear the lack
of this research field.
In fact, most of the available works investigated few environmental impact categories. Some of them [9–13] assessed up to 3 cate-
gories. Others assessed between 4 and 10 categories [3,14–23]. Finally, only Abdalla et al. [24], Kuzmenko et al. [25] and Muñoz et
al. [26] presented analyses considering more than 10 environmental impact categories. It is important to emphasize that global
warming potential was the only category common in all works [27].
Similar conclusions are reported by the authors. In general, they pointed out that the environmental impacts generated in the
phase of production and acquisition of materials are higher than those produced in the construction phase, independently of the con-
struction technique adopted [3,17]. Besides that, the contribution analysis reported shows that cement is by far the most detrimental
to the environment, in terms of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. The reported percentages vary in the range of 75–91% [3,12,17].
With respect to architectonic complexity, Agustí-Juan et al. [17] highlighted that 3DCP is more attractive in terms of environmen-
tal performance than traditional techniques, as the complexity and exclusivity of the printed structures increase. Han et al. [3], by
means of an economic comparative analysis, indicated that 3DCP presents advantages due to the disregard of formworks and the re-
duction of labor. In addition to the characteristics already mentioned, J. Zhang et al. [28] and Zhang et al. [16] highlighted the advan-
tages of high building efficiency and fewer construction wastes as a great potential for applications such as the construction of social
housing and construction in desert areas.
In summary, a critical analysis of the available literature in LCA of 3DCP points out some conclusions and reveals some research
gaps: (i) cement represents most of the potential environmental impacts, (ii) only a few concrete mixtures were investigated, prevent-
ing a broader analysis on the topic, (iii) most of the available works investigated few environmental impact categories, (iv) the com-
parison between 3DCP and different traditional construction techniques, within the scope of environmental performance, are still
scarce, and (v) the evaluation of simple designs, in the context of social housing, are also scarce.
Based on the above discussion, this work aims to identify the potential environmental impacts of 3DCP walls employing LCA, in-
cluding an extensive assessment of 14 environmental impact categories, evaluating of parameters of 3DCP that influence these im-
pacts and comparing the results obtained with this technique and conventionally constructed walls, considering the context of social
housing. For this, a case study of a Brazilian residential building design was used. Finally, strategies to improve the environmental re-
sponse of 3DCP walls are proposed.
As a scientific contribution of this work, based on the results and discussions reported, it seems fair to argue that it can serve as a
guideline for designers and researchers looking for environmentally viable solutions in the construction of 3DCP walls. In terms of so-
cial housing, this study can be adapted for other countries where a great housing deficit exists and will continue to increase in the
coming years.

2. Methodology
This section presents the methodology used to conduct a comparative assessment of the potential environmental impacts between
a 3DCP wall and walls built by means of the following conventional construction techniques: structural masonry, beam-column sys-
tem and cast-in-place concrete. The flowchart displayed in Fig. 1 was constructed to enable a quick visualization of the steps de-
scribed below.
• Auxiliary step 1: A bibliographic survey was carried out to gather concrete mixes data for 3DCP.
• Step 1: Based on the bibliographic survey, concrete mixes concerning 3DCP were chosen to be environmentally evaluated in this
study. Concrete mixtures related to the conventional construction techniques were also defined, providing the basis for comparing
the environmental performance of the same volume of concrete employed in each case.
• Auxiliary step 2a: Since a fixed volume of concrete is not sufficient to provide a fair comparison between the construction
techniques, a wall of a social housing plan floor was selected for an environmental performance evaluation.
• Auxiliary step 2 b: To determine the energy required to print the wall, 3DCP printing speeds were calculated. Note that the
printing speed depends on Step 1 and Auxiliary step 2a, as it is influenced by the rheological properties of the concretes and the
total perimeter of the house.
• Step 2: Definitions related to materials and energy demand for the construction of the walls are made for both 3DCP and
conventional construction techniques.

2
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the steps followed in the methodology.

• Step 3: Parallel to the above steps, the goal and scope of the LCA were defined.
• Auxiliary step 4: Transport distances for all materials needed to build the walls were estimated.
• Step 4: Life cycle inventory analysis was carried out.
• Step 5: With all the information gathered up to this point, the life cycle impact assessment is performed considering 14
environmental impact categories. Then, the LCA results concerning the functional units of 1 m³ of concrete and 1 m2 of wall are
found.
• Step 6: Next, a sensitivity analysis based on the functional unit of 1 m2 of wall was performed. This analysis makes it possible to
evaluate how variations in printing parameters, such as the height and width of the printed layer, affect the potential
environmental impacts of 3DCP walls.
Based on the sensitivity analysis and the LCA results (of the two functional units mentioned above), strategies to improve the envi-
ronmental performance of 3DCP walls were drawn.

3
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

2.1. Definition of the evaluated concretes (Auxiliary step 1 and step 1)

In order to investigate the environmental performance of the 3DCP constructive technique, nine concrete mix designs, available in
the literature, were selected and the data concerning material consumption are presented in Table 1. All these studies evaluated the
rheological properties of their respective concretes (also shown in Table 1), namely: initial yield stress (τ0,0), structural build-up rate
(Athix), and plastic viscosity (μp). These concrete mixtures have Portland cement as the main binder and additions of SCM in order to
reduce cement consumption while maintaining the characteristics demanded by 3DCP. The mixtures are organized in alphabetical or-
der (A to I) based on the increasing consumption of cement, covering values from approximately 250 to 1000 kg/m³ (see Fig. 2). It is
noteworthy that the types of cement used in the experimental studies were adapted to the Brazilian scenario, based on the clinker con-
tent (CP V-ARI has 90–100% of clinker and CP II-Z has 71–94% of clinker), see Table 1.
Regarding the conventional construction, for the beam-column (BC) system, a concrete consistent with this technique was
adopted, according to the Brazilian National System for Costs and Indexes for the Civil Construction SINAPI [29], in which the losses
inherent to the process are already considered and assuming production by concrete mixers at the construction site. As for the cast-in-
place concrete wall (CP) technique, an appropriate concrete was also selected for this case using information from a Brazilian associa-
tion of concrete wall producers [30], however, it was assumed that the mixing process is done in a concrete dosage plant. The con-

Table 1
Consumption of materials, rheological properties and types of cement used in the concrete mixtures selected for the study.

Constructive technique 3D concrete printing Conventional

Identification A B C D E F G H I BC CP

Reference Long et Bos et al. Figueiredo et Murcia et Kruger et Weng et Yuan et Xiao et C. Zhang SINAPI NPC
al. [11] [31] al. [32] al. [33] al. [34] al. [35] al. [36] al. [37] et al. [4] [29] [30]
Consumption of Cement 251.5 378.0 480.2 546.0 579.0 796.3 810.7 951.8 1032.0 364.9 349.0
materials (kg/ Fly ash – 206.0 567.6 156.0 165.0 796.3 – – – – –
m³) Silica fume 27.9 206.0 – 78.0 83.0 80.3 – – – – –
Nanoclay – – – – – – – 4.8 – – –
Calcined 186.3 – – – – – – – 31.0 – –
clay
Sand 1397.1 1312.0 480.3 1171.0 1167.0 401.5 1216.1 956.6 958.0 839.4 747.0
Limestone 93.1 – 109.1 – – – – – – – 249.0
filler
Gravel – – – – – – – – – 985.3 897.0
Plasticiser 2.2 10.3 – 8.2 12.2 1.3 0,0b 0.8 10.6 – 4.5
VMA – – 6.5 – 1.1 – – 1.2 – – –
Fibers – – 26.0 – – – – – – – 0.3
Water 270.1 134.3 324.8 218.4 261.0 234.2 283.7 334.8 308.3 204.4 188.5
Cement type CP V-ARI CP V- CP V-ARI CP V-ARI CP II-Z CP V- CP II-Z CP II-Z CP V-ARI CP II-Z CP V-
ARI ARI ARI
ρ (kg/m³) 2226 2236 1962 2169 2255 2309 2311 2248 2329 2373 2430
τ0,0 (Pa) 1490 630 2490 1765 2730 1874 530 1840 2750 – –
Athix (Pa/min) 62.7a 155.4 62.7a 53.9 64.8 62.7a 69.3 62.7a 62.7a – –
μp (Pa.s) 12.3 9.7a 9.7a 5.5 9.7a 17.0 8.4 9.7a 9.7a – –
a Properties not investigated, the mean values of the other studies were considered.
b Consumption not informed; VMA = Viscosity modifier additive; BC = Beam-column system; CP = Cast-in-place concrete wall.

Fig. 2. Consumption of cement and supplementary cementitious material (SCM) of the chosen mixtures for 3DCP in this study.

4
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

sumption of materials to produce concrete for both techniques presented above is also shown in Table 1. Regarding the structural ma-
sonry construction technique (SM), unlike those already mentioned, fresh concrete was not part of the modeling of the product sys-
tem, once the ready-to-use structural concrete blocks were considered.
To provide a more realistic comparison between constructive techniques, it is important to consider the waste rates associated
with each investigated technique. As already mentioned, the waste rates for the BC technique are variable depending on the material
and are incorporated in the consumption values presented in Table 1. As for the CP, in the life cycle modeling stage, a waste rate of
9% will be adopted – as suggested by the Brazilian market SINAPI [29]. Finally, a waste rate of 4% will be added to the concrete mixes
applied to 3DCP, since according to J. Zhang et al. [28] 3DCP can reduce up to 60% of the waste rate of conventional construction.

2.2. Definition of the evaluated walls (Auxiliary step 2a)

The definition of the analyzed wall, and consequently the consumption of materials and energy demanded, was based on a social
housing plan for low-income families, typical of public social programs in developing countries like Brazil. This choice was made be-
cause the 3DCP technique has characteristics that fit the context of social housing, since it allows the construction of a large number
of houses in a short period of time, given that the great housing deficit is an immediate concern.
The floor plan of social housing selected for this work is displayed in Fig. 3. This architectural plan has 37 m2 of built area and
38.2 m linear meters of walls. The wall chosen as the basis for comparison between the construction techniques has 3.3 m of length
and 2.6 m of height, without openings (windows and doors).

2.2.1. 3DCP wall (auxiliary step 2b and step 2)

The wall evaluated in the 3DCP technique is composed of printed filaments, where the external ones are straight, and the internal
ones with a sinusoidal shape. The main characteristics of this wall are shown in Fig. 4, where D is the total wall width, d and h are the
layer width and height, respectively, and λ is the wavelength of the stiffening sine curve. The total wall width and printed layer width
were defined based on the work by Daungwilailuk et al. [39], who performed uniaxial load tests on large-scale printed concrete walls.
Regarding the material acquisition phase of 3DCP, the only material considered was concrete, since there is no requirement for
formworks or steel reinforcements. This last assertion stems from the results reported by Daungwilailuk et al. [39], where it was
shown that printed walls, made only with concrete, were strong enough to be considered load-bearing structures, justifying the lack
of steel reinforcements. Thus, for 1 m2 of a wall with the geometry defined in Fig. 4, the total volume of concrete is 0.08 m³/m2.
As for the construction phase, the consumption of electricity for mixing and pumping the concrete and also for a robotic concrete
printing system was considered. The total energy consumed (EC) for printing a wall is given by multiplying the power demand Pd
(kW) of the equipment used and the total time t (in hours) of printing the wall. In this case, the Pd values were extracted from Moham-
mad et al. [21], who used the Putzmeister MP25 machine (Pd = 7.4 kW), to mix and pump the concrete, and the ABB-IRB6700 ro-
botic system (Pd = 3.4 kW) to extrude the layers.

Fig. 3. Architectural floor plan (dimensions in meters) of the selected social housing (adapted from CAIXA [38]).

5
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

Fig. 4. Geometry of the 3DCP wall.

The total time to print the wall was calculated based on the print speed and optimal layer height for each of the investigated con-
crete mixtures for 3DCP. Initially, the printing speeds were calculated based on the equations that describe the 3DCP process, as com-
piled by Reales et al. [40], in which the input data are densities and rheological properties of the evaluated concrete mixes (see Table
1), and the total perimeter of walls of the house under study (38.2 m) – since for continuous extrusion the speeds are dependent on
the total perimeter of the structure. Based on this information, maximum and minimum printing speeds (Vmax and Vmin, respectively)
as a function of layer height (h) were computed for each one of the concrete mixtures investigated (A to I).
The maximum printable layer heights (hmax) for each of the concrete mixtures are presented in Table 2. It is possible to observe
that the maximum heights varied between 2 and 3.5 cm for the analyzed concretes. According to Souza et al. [41], the 3DCP process
occurs more favorably when the height of the print nozzle is slightly smaller than the nozzle diameter, which implies layer heights
slightly smaller than the layer widths. Thus, considering all the concretes investigated, the height of the layers for this study was de-
fined as h = 2 cm, since the width of the layers was previously defined as d = 2.5 cm.
Therefore, the maximum, minimum and average extrusion speeds were calculated for a layer height equal to 2 cm. The wall print-
ing times, for each concrete, were calculated considering the average speeds and the total length of the filaments to produce a wall of
1 m2 (150.6 m). From the wall printing times and the power demand values of the aforementioned equipment, the energy consump-
tion of the 3DCP process was calculated. All these data are presented in Table 2.

2.2.2. Conventional construction walls (step 2)

As mentioned before, three conventional construction techniques were studied, namely structural masonry (SM) – Fig. 5(a), beam-
column system with ceramic blocks (BC) – Fig. 5(b), and cast-in-place concrete wall (CP) – Fig. 5(c). It is worth noting that, as it is a
single-family residence with a single floor, the design (i.e., dimensions, materials, structural reinforcement) for the aforementioned
construction techniques was defined according to the minimum structural performance requirements specified by the Brazilian Asso-
ciation of Technical Standards [42–46].

Table 2
Printing speeds (Vmax, Vmin, Vave), printing times and energy consumed for 1 m2 of printed wall.

Identification hmax (cm) Vmax (cm/s) Vmin (cm/s) Vave (cm/s) Printing time (h/m2) Energy consumed (MJ/m2) Concrete consumption (m³/m2)

A 2.8 47.7 30.4 39.0 0.11 4.2 0.08

B 3.5 117.6 54.6 86.1 0.05 1.9
C 2.8 54.1 34.3 44.2 0.09 3.7
D 2.0 42.0 40.6 41.3 0.10 3.9
E 2.6 48.6 34.6 41.6 0.10 3.9
F 3.0 46.0 26.1 36.0 0.12 4.5
G 2.5 50.8 38.3 44.5 0.09 3.6
H 2.6 47.2 34.0 40.6 0.10 4.0
I 2.5 45.6 33.9 39.7 0.11 4.1

6
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

Fig. 5. Conventional construction walls. (a) Structural masonry (SM), (b) beam-column system with ceramic block closure (BC), and (c) cast-in-place concrete wall
(CP).

Regarding the material acquisition phase of conventional construction, the quantities of materials used for the construction of the
walls, defined according to the technical specifications of SINAPI [29], are presented in Table 3, where the losses related to each ma-
terial are already taken into account. It is important to highlight that the reuses considered for the wooden and metallic formwork
were 2 and 400, respectively. As for the construction phase, the energy consumption demanded by the equipment used in the con-
struction of the walls is also presented in Tables 3 and is based on the SINAPI [29] service compositions. Note that for the CP tech-
nique, there are no energy consumption values in the construction phase since this data is being considered in the modeling of the
concrete dosage plant, which is part of the material acquisition phase.

2.3. Life Cycle Assessment

The LCA methodology based on ISO 14040 [47] and ISO 14044 [48] standards was used in this work. As for the specific scenario
of civil construction, the specifications of EN 15978 [49] and EN 15804 + A2 [50] were followed.

2.3.1. Goal and scope definition (step 3)

The LCA applied in this study aims to evaluate different concrete mix designs to be used in the 3DCP wall, in comparison with con-
ventional construction techniques of structural masonry (SM), beam-column system with ceramic blocks closure (BC) and cast-in-
place concrete wall (CP). In this sense, it is sought to identify ways to reduce the potential environmental impacts of the 3DCP tech-
nique by utilizing alternatives such as the use of SCM in substitution for cement.
The cradle-to-site system boundary is adopted, accounting for the following stages: raw materials production (A1), raw materials
transportation (A2), materials production (A3), materials transportation to building site (A4) and walls construction (A5), as divided
according to EN 15978 [49] and EN 15804 + A2 [50]. This kind of boundary is frequently used in other works (e.g. Refs.
[3,9,10,12,20]).

Table 3
Composition of materials and energy for conventional construction of 1 m2 of wall.

Conventional construction techniques SM BC CP

Materials Concrete (m³/m2) 0.005 0.03 0.11

Mortar (m³/m2) 0.06 0.05 –
Reinforcement steel (kg/m2) 0.13 2.59 1.17
Concrete bricks (kg/m2) 130.49 – –
Ceramic bricks (kg/m2) – 46.27 –
Wooden formwork (m³/m2) – 0.01 –
Metallic formwork (kg/m2) – – 0.05
Equipment Concrete mixer (MJ/m2) 0.03 0.22 –
Mortar mixer (MJ/m2) 0.32 0.25 –
Concrete vibrator (MJ/m2) – 0.11 –
Circular saw - wooden formwork (MJ/m2) – 0.27 –
SM = Structural masonry; BC = Beam-column system; CP = Cast-in-place concrete wall.

7
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

Fig. 6 shows the boundary for 3DCP and conventional construction techniques. In this figure, the processes highlighted in blue
are related to the 3DCP technique, which considers the obtaining of the component materials for the concrete, the transport to the
building site, the mixing process of the materials, and the 3DCP process. As for the conventional construction, the region high-
lighted in orange is considered: the obtaining of the component materials of the walls, the transport of these materials to the
building site, and the non-manual services involving the construction of the walls, such as the mixing of concrete and mortar ma-
terials, the densification of the concrete and the cutting of the wood to produce formworks. Note that, in Fig. 6, the red frame de-
limits the boundaries, where the dash-dot lines divide the stages between A1 and A5. The dotted line defines the inputs and out-
puts of nature, the dashed line symbolizes materials without associated environmental impacts, and the letter T – located between
the processes – represents the transport of materials.
Initially, the functional unit of 1 m³ of concrete was defined, in order to assess the potential environmental impacts related only to
the materials employed in the investigated concrete mixtures, both for 3DCP and for conventional construction techniques. Later, the
functional unit of 1 m2 of the wall was defined, aiming to obtain an environmental assessment of the techniques as a whole, covering
both the materials and the energy needed for the erection of the walls, and making it possible to compare the materials demands pro-

Fig. 6. Product system boundary to 3DCP and conventional construction techniques.

8
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

portionally to the shape of the structure and not just concerning a fixed volume of concrete (as done by Refs. [14,16,21]). It was con-
sidered that all the walls have a main service life of 40 years and no materials replacement occur during this period.

2.3.2. Life cycle inventory (step 4 and auxiliary step 4)

The life cycle modeling was conceived in SimaPro code version 9.2.0.2 [51], which accounts for a wide database. Among them,
Ecoinvent v.3.6 was adopted in this work since it contains data applied in the Brazilian context. In addition, some data available in
the literature were also used to build the life cycle inventory. Table 4 shows the process or reference used to model the product sys-
tems, using the “cut-off” approach, in SimaPro.
The transport distances of all materials used in this work are shown in Table 5. These distances were calculated based on the most
populated region of a developing country, in this case, Brazil. It is noteworthy that this context reaffirms the proposal of social hous-
ing since the demand for them is greater in the most populated areas of development centers.

2.3.3. Life cycle impact assessment (step 5)

The Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) method provided by EN 15804 + A2 [50], available in SimaPro, was employed. This
choice was made considering that the mentioned standard deals with LCA specifically in the civil construction field and it is one of the
latest methods. From the LCIA method mentioned above, a total of fourteen impact categories were selected, covering a wide range of
environmental impact categories to be analyzed. These categories are: (1) climate change, (2) ozone depletion, (3) ionising radiation,
(4) photochemical ozone formation, (5) particulate matter, (6) acidification, (7) eutrophication – aquatic freshwater, (8) eutrophica-
tion – aquatic marine, (9) eutrophication – terrestrial, (10) ecotoxicity – aquatic freshwater, (11) land use, (12) water use, (13) re-
source use – fossils, and (14) resource use – minerals and metals.

Table 4
Process or reference used to model the product systems in SimaPro.

SimaPro process or reference used

Materials Cement CP II-Z Cement, pozzolana and fly ash 6–14% {BR} cement production, pozzolana and fly ash 6–14%
Cement CP V-ARI Cement, Portland {BR} cement production, Portland
Calcined clay Calcined clay {BR} calcined clay production
Sand Sand {BR} sand quarry operation, extraction from river bed
Limestone filler Limestone, crushed, for mill {RoW} production
Gravel Gravel, crushed {BR} gravel production, crushed
SP/VMA Plasticiser, for concrete, based on sulfonated melamine formaldehyde {GLO} production
Energy Electricity Electricity, medium voltage {BR} market group for electricity, medium voltage
Diesel Diesel, burned in building machine {GLO} market for
Diesel generator Diesel, burned in diesel-electric generating set {GLO} market for
Additions for CC Concrete dosage plant Source: Souza et al. [52]
Aluminium formwork Aluminium, primary, cast alloy slab from continuous casting {RoW} production
Plywood formwork Plywood {RoW} plywood production
Clay brick Clay brick {RoW} production
Concrete block Concrete block {BR} concrete block production
Hydraulic lime Lime, hydraulic {RoW} lime production, hydraulic
Reinforcing steel Reinforcing steel {RoW} production
CC = Conventional construction; SP = Superplasticizer; VMA = Viscosity modifier additive.

Table 5
Transport distances of the materials.

Materials Distances (km) SimaPro process

Cement 300 Transport, freight, lorry >32 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
Fly ash 505 Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
Silica fume 495 Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
Calcined clay 245 Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
Sand 75 Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
Limestone filler 535 Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
Gravel 40 Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
SP/VMA 825 Transport, freight, lorry 7,5–16 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
Concrete dosage plant 25 Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
Aluminium formwork 1805 Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
Plywood formwork 990 Transport, freight, lorry 7,5–16 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
Clay brick 115 Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
Concrete block 75 Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
Hydraulic lime 300 Transport, freight, lorry >32 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
Reinforcing steel 125 Transport, freight, lorry 16–32 metric ton, euro3 {RoW} market for
SP = Superplasticizer; VMA = Viscosity modifier additive.

9
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

2.3.4. Sensitivity analysis (step 6)

The influence of 3DCP parameters on potential environmental impacts for LCA with the functional unit of 1 m2 of wall was as-
sessed in the sensitivity analysis. The evaluated varied parameters were: layer height (h), layer width (d), wall width (D), wavelength
(λ), and replacement of the electric energy source by a diesel generator. The variation of the last parameter was investigated in the
context that social housing is usually built in places away from city centers. So, there may be instability in the traditional electricity
system or even no supply of electricity during construction. Therefore, it was evaluated how the production of energy by diesel gener-
ator would interfere in the environmental performance of the life cycle. Table 6 shows the values of the parameters used in this work.
For this sensitivity analysis, the impact categories of climate change, land use, water use, and eutrophication – aquatic freshwater
were evaluated, the first two related to the highest relative contributions of concretes and the second two related to the highest values
of energy. These analyzes considered the mixes with the lowest and highest cement consumption, that is, the extremes A and I, and
the mix with intermediate consumption E. In addition, it is important to emphasize that the wall model of 3DCP initially defined in
this work, is taken as a reference for comparison with the other cases, appearing denoted by Reference in Table 6.

3. Results and discussions

This section presents the results of the LCA conducted for the two functional units studied in this work (1 m³ of concrete and 1 m2
of wall). For both functional units, 14 environmental impact categories were investigated. In addition, at the end of this section, a sen-
sitivity analysis is presented, which consists of varying the printing parameters and evaluating the changes in the LCA results for 4 en-
vironmental impact categories (climate change, eutrophication – aquatic freshwater, land use and water use). Based on the results re-
ported in this section, strategies to improve the environmental performance of 3DCP walls were outlined.

3.1. LCA results for a functional unit of 1 m³ of concrete

The LCA for this functional unit makes it possible to compare the contributions to the potential environmental impacts of the com-
ponent materials of 1 m³ of concrete used in 3DCP with the concretes normally used in BC and CP techniques. It should be noted that
this functional unit was not considered for SM technique since the modeling of this technique was carried out from ready-to-use con-
crete blocks and the production of the concrete for the blocks was not considered in the work methodology.
Fig. 7 shows the results obtained for each impact category investigated. Note that all the concrete mixes investigated for 3DCP (A
to I concrete mixes, detailed in Table 1 and Fig. 2) are presented and, as a basis for comparison, the total values of the potential im-
pacts for each category calculated for BC and CP techniques are presented as dashed reference lines.
Regarding the potential impact of climate change, it is clear that cement is, by far, the material with the greatest contribution to
the amount of kg CO2-eq/m³ in all 3DCP mixes analyzed, reaching contributions up to 93%. This finding is in line with the results of
several previous works in this field available in the literature [10,18,21]. In sequence, the second most relevant factor in relation to
climate change is the transport of materials, appearing with relative prominence – which was also verified in the work by Alhumayani
et al. [20]. It is worth noting that in mixture A the calcined clay also plays an important role in the final quantity of kg CO2-eq/m³,
which may be attributed to the calcination process. The remaining materials practically do not influence the climate change potential
impact.
Still about climate change, note that, as the mixes are organized in ascending order of cement consumption (from A to I, see Fig.
2), the intuitive interpretation would be that the impacts should also appear in ascending order. However, mixes E, G, and H em-
ployed the composite cement CPII-Z, which, has a lower potential environmental impact due to the lower presence of clinker in its
composition in comparison with the other mixes that used CPV-ARI, justifying this initial “non-expected” behavior. It is also notewor-
thy that the pattern presented by cement (i.e., the most relevant) for climate change is repeated, sometimes with greater or lesser im-
portance, for the other impact categories. This behavior is also observed for calcined clay, with less, but not neglected, relevance.
Besides cement, the second factor which generally appears with significant importance in the contributions of the impact cate-
gories is the transportation of materials. This process contributes a large part of the calculated values for: ozone depletion; resource
use – fossils, and minerals and metals; ionising radiation; particulate matter; and eutrophication – aquatic freshwater, aquatic marine,
and terrestrial. As for sand, its contribution in the land use category stands out significantly, being greater than the cement contribu-
tions, a result that does not happen for any other material in any other impact category. This is an important issue since in some places

Table 6
Variation of 3DCP parameters.

Family Case Vertex Layer height (cm) Layer width (cm) Wall width (cm) Wavelength (cm) Diesel generator (%)

Reference 0 all 2.0 2.5 12 100 0

A 1 h 1.5 2.5 12 100 0
2 d 2.0 3.0 12 100 0
3 D 2.0 2.5 20 100 0
4 λ 2.0 2.5 12 60 0
5 energy 2.0 2.5 12 100 50
B 6 h 1.0 2.5 12 100 0
7 d 2.0 3.5 12 100 0
8 D 2.0 2.5 40 100 0
9 λ 2.0 2.5 12 30 0
10 energy 2.0 2.5 12 100 100

10
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

Fig. 7. Potential environmental impacts for the life cycle of 1 m³ of concrete for 3DCP. The dashed lines represent the concrete used in conventional construction tech-
niques: (BC) beam-column system and (CP) cast-in-place concrete wall.

11
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

there is already a natural sand deficit, which may become a big future environmental concern, as it is a material consumed on a large
scale in construction. Another prominent point is that with the scarcity of natural aggregate, the natural sand needs to be transported
at longer distances, which negatively affects the second major contributing factor of the environmental impacts in the context of
3DCP. Both problems mentioned above can be minimized using recycled aggregates, so they must be considered mainly in natural ag-
gregate deficit locations.
In relation to admixtures, observe that they contribute significantly to impacts related to eutrophication – aquatic freshwater, wa-
ter use, and resource use – minerals and metals, similar to what was reported in the work by Mohammad et al. [21], appearing with
less pronounced importance in the other impact categories. Regarding limestone filler and water, note that the influence of these ma-
terials is practically imperceptible in view of the contributions of potential environmental impacts provided by the other materials
used in concrete production.
These results highlight the importance of evaluating other environmental impacts instead of only climate change or energy-
related impacts. Finally, the comparison between the concretes for 3DCP and those used in conventional construction techniques and
the comparison between the conventional techniques themselves led to the following findings.
i. The concrete mixes employed for CP presented greater potential environmental impacts than those used for BC in all impact
categories analyzed.
ii. In general terms, the production of 1 m³ of concrete for 3DCP led to greater environmental impacts than the same volume of
concrete for conventional construction (BC and CP) – the only exception is mixture A. It is noteworthy that this behavior stems
from the fact that mixture A is the only one with lower consumption of cement than the concretes of conventional construction,
despite its total consumption of binders being higher, highlighting again the direct influence of cement consumption on
potential environmental impacts.
iii. The ecotoxicity – aquatic freshwater impact category is the only one in which the results for conventional construction were not
in the same order of magnitude as for 3DCP, since the average of mixtures applied to 3DCP did not exceed the value of 5000
CTUe/m³, while concretes for conventional construction were above 12,500 CTUe/m³. This result is attributed to the use of
coarse aggregates in concretes used in conventional constructions (unlike 3DCP concretes) since this impact category is strongly
affected by the emissions of particles generated by explosives in the process of obtaining gravel [53].

3.2. LCA results for a functional unit of 1 m2 of wall

Although the outputs of the LCA conducted for 1 m³ of concrete as a functional unit provide important arguments for the discus-
sion related to potential impacts caused by the materials employed in the same consumption of concrete, different construction tech-
niques present different consumptions of concrete. For this reason, the LCA is carried out again based on the functional unit of 1 m2 of
wall, allowing to evaluate how much material each construction technique requires to build a similar wall (according to the minimum
structural performance requirements), in addition to the contributions of energy demanded to build each of them. It is worth men-
tioning that for these analyzes the concrete components are not discretized, since this discussion was carried out in the previous topic,
for UF of 1 m³ of concrete.
Fig. 8 shows the potential environmental impacts for the 14 impact categories assessed and the 9 mixes of concretes defined for
3DCP (detailed in Table 1 and Fig. 2). For comparison purposes, the total values of potential environmental impacts obtained for
conventional construction techniques (SM, BC and CP) are also displayed as reference dashed lines.
In general, the LCA outputs for 3DCP walls showed the same trend observed in the functional unit of 1 m³ of concrete, where con-
crete appears as the most relevant in the potential impacts categories, followed by the material transport process. It is still important
to note that the energy spent in the construction process has a small contribution compared to the other components evaluated.
A quick observation of the results presented in Fig. 8 makes it possible to note that 3DCP provides climate change potential im-
pacts with similar levels as those obtained for conventional construction techniques – note, for instance, that CP and BC techniques
exhibit values of approximately 50 kg CO2-eq/m2, which are higher than those calculated for 3D printed A-E mixes, comparable to
the G mixture, and lower than F, H and I mixtures. SM, on the other hand, presents the best performance in this category, around
30 kg CO2-eq/m2.
As verified by several authors (e.g. Refs. [18,21,26]), the environmental performance presented by 3DCP is substantially superior
to one or more of the conventional techniques in the impact categories of eutrophication and ecotoxicity – aquatic freshwater, land
and water use, and resource use – minerals and metals. For other impact categories, the same trend observed for climate change re-
peats, i.e., the 3DCP mixtures divide into better or worse environmental performance when compared to BC and CP techniques, and
the SM technique has mostly the best environmental performance.
It is noteworthy that, in the categories in which conventional construction presented values at levels substantially above its 3DCP
counterpart, these differences are due to the constituent materials of conventional construction that are not part of the 3DCP process,
as follows.
i. Regarding the eutrophication – aquatic freshwater, the observed differences stem from the use of steel reinforcement and
aluminum formworks, while in BC, the differences are caused by steel reinforcements, ceramic blocks, and wooden
formworks. In the work by Mohammad et al. [21], although the authors did not specifically assess freshwater
eutrophication, they present a similar conclusion to those obtained for BC for potential eutrophication impact – total.
ii. With respect to ecotoxicity – aquatic freshwater, as already discussed in the UF of 1 m³ of concrete, the main ones
responsible for the high values found in conventional construction are the coarse aggregates.

12
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

Fig. 8. Potential environmental impacts for the life cycle of 1 m2 of 3DCP walls. The dashed lines represent walls built using conventional construction techniques: (SM)
structural masonry; (BC) beam-column system and (CP) cast-in-place concrete wall.

13
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

iii. For the high potential impacts for land and water use obtained for BC, the material that stands out the most is wood, used to
make the formworks. Alhumayani et al. [20] presented the same conclusions regarding land use, but they did not assess the
water use impact category.
iv. For the potential impacts related to resource use – minerals and metals, the high value observed for BC comes from the use of
ceramic blocks.
Therefore, unlike the LCA conducted with a functional unit of 1 m³ of concrete, where only mixture A of 3DCP showed better envi-
ronmental performances than one or more of the conventional construction techniques, the analyses carried out with the functional
unit of 1 m2 of wall changes the scenario since most of the 3DCP mixtures resulted in superior environmental performance than at
least one of the analyzed conventional construction techniques.
It is also worth mentioning that some materials used specifically in conventional construction have an important participation in
certain impact categories, such as eutrophication and ecotoxicity – aquatic freshwater, land and water use, and resource use – miner-
als and metals, making their potential impact values much higher than those found for the 3DCP technique.

3.3. Sensitivity analysis

In this item, the results of the sensitivity analysis conducted to assess the influence of 3DCP parameters on potential environmen-
tal impacts for LCA with the functional unit of 1 m2 of wall are compiled into radar graphics as shown in Fig. 9, where each vertex rep-
resents an independent modification of a printing parameter, see Table 6. For example, Family A in vertex h (case 1) represents the
change in printing height from 2 cm (reference case) to 1.5 cm, while Family A in vertex d (case 2) signifies changing the print width
from 2.5 cm (reference case) to 3.0 cm. It should be noted that the percentages shown indicate how the potential environmental im-
pact felt the effects of each 3DCP parameter variation.
Based on the graphs presented in Fig. 9, it is remarkable that the variation of layer width (d) represents the greatest importance for
all the presented impact categories. This occurs because the increase in the width of the layer provides the greatest increase in the vol-
ume of concrete per m2 of wall among all parameters investigated. Therefore, case 2 (Family A in vertex d) causes the consumption of
concrete 20% higher than reference case (0.090 m³/m2 and 0.075 m³/m2, respectively) and 40% higher in case 7, Family B in vertex
d (0.105 m³/m2). As already identified, concrete consumption acts as the main contributor to the potential environmental impacts of
all categories. That is why the variation in the layer width increased the total potential up to 40% of the evaluated environmental im-
pacts.
On the other hand, the increase in the total width of the wall (D) or the decrease in the wavelength λ, have a lower relevance in the
concrete consumption when compared to the variation of layer widths. Indeed, varying D from 12 cm to 20 cm and 40 cm only causes
raisings of 1.37% and 8.07%, respectively, for all potential environmental impacts – note that this parameter is the second most im-
portant. The variation of λ appears in third place, raising 0.73% of cement consumption when the wavelength changes from 100 to
60 cm, and 3.59% when it changes from 100 to 30 cm.
The only parameters that influence energy consumption without changing the amount of concrete employed in the 3DCP wall are
the height of the printed layer h and the replacement of the energy source. However, as already mentioned, changes in energy con-
sumption are only slightly significant in terms of potential impacts, which explains why changes in these parameters were the least
relevant. Anyway, it is observed that variations in h and energy sources practically do not alter the potential impacts of climate
change and land use and appear with slightly greater importance in the impacts of eutrophication and water use.
In summary, this sensitivity analysis enables concluding that varying the parameters that affect the consumption of concrete (es-
pecially the width of the printing layer) cause the greatest changes in potential environmental impacts, while alterations in the con-
sumption of energy or energy sources, almost do not influence the total values of the potential impacts evaluated.

3.4. Strategies for improving the environmental performance of 3DCP walls

Based on the results and discussions presented in the previous items, it is possible to draw some strategies to improve the environ-
mental performance of 3DCP walls, including factors such as material substitutions and printing parameters, as compiled in Table 7.
Such proposals may serve as a starting point for studies on 3DCP with goals aimed at better environmental performance.

4. Conclusions
This work reported the results of a study to demonstrate that the environmental performance of the 3DCP technique, despite the
high consumption of cement, can be equivalent to conventional construction techniques. The methodology consisted in evaluating
not only functional units linked to a fixed consumption of concrete (1 m³) but also functional units such as the 1 m2 of a built wall. In
addition, the importance of using waste in concrete for 3DCP in the environmental scenario is confirmed, such as SCM that act di-
rectly in the reduction of cement consumption.
It is also attested that, among all the printing parameters, those that strongly affect concrete consumption, such as the width of the
printing layer, are the ones with the greatest contribution to the potential environmental impact. On the other hand, modifying en-
ergy consumption, relative to the construction phase, does not have great relevance in general.
The strategies proposed to improve the environmental performance of 3DCP can be used as a starting point for evaluating the per-
formance of other concretes with potential application in 3DCP walls, being an important scientific contribution to the civil construc-
tion sector.
It is necessary to point out two limitations of the study: some scenarios and processes used in the modeling were taken from other
countries, since some specific data from Brazil are not available in the Ecoinvent v.3.6 databases, and some processes were modeled

14
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

15
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis of the potential environmental impacts for the life cycle of 1 m2 of 3DCP walls involving mixtures A, E and I, considering variations in print-
ing parameters. Where energy source refers to the replacement of the electric energy source by a diesel generator; (h) is the height of the layers, (d) is the width of the
layers, (D) is the width of the wall and (λ) is the wavelength.
◀

Table 7
Proposed strategies for improving the environmental performance of 3DCP walls.

Influence factor Strategies for improving environmental performance

Consumption of Cement consumption demands extreme attention since it is the material with the greatest potential impact in practically all categories
cement and use analyzed. Therefore, replacing cement with SCM is an important alternative to reduce the potential environmental impact of 3DCP. It is
of SCM important to incentive the use of SCM from waste materials and they must be available.
Transport distance The transport of materials appears in second place with regard to the greatest contribution to environmental impacts. Therefore, materials
must be selected carefully to minimize the transport distances. Since sand has the highest mass participation in 3DCP mixtures, an effective
decrease in environmental impacts regarding material transport can be achieved by replacing natural sand with construction and demolition
waste (CDW), when there are CDW sources closer than river sand extraction deposits, for example.
Use of chemical The use of admixtures contributes significantly to the eutrophication of water, water use, and depletion of mineral and metal resources. Thus,
admixtures it is necessary to pay attention to the correct dosage of these components to achieve the required printing characteristics, in order to avoid
waste and reduce the associated impacts.
Printing As attested, the potential impacts of 3DCP can be mitigated by considering the specific consumption of material for the construction of a
parameters given element, as in the case of this work, a wall. Therefore, the element geometry must be defined based on a feasibility study that aims at
the minimum consumption of concrete, with attention to the parameters that significantly increase the consumption of concrete, such as the
width of the printed filaments (d), while guaranteeing the physical properties of concrete necessary for the printing operation and its future
structural capacity.

based on studies available in the literature, which may not include a more generic profile of cases. Nonetheless, these limitations do
not invalidate the results and conclusions obtained in the research. For future studies, is also important to evaluate other life cycle
stages, such as operational energy maintenance and end-of-life.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Brazilian institutions: CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal
de Nível Superior), FAPERJ (Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro) and CNPq (Conselho
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico).

References
[1] F. Craveiro, J. Pinto, H. Bartolo, P. Jorge, Automation in Construction Additive manufacturing as an enabling technology for digital construction : a
perspective on Construction 4 . 0, Autom. ConStruct. 103 (2019) 251–267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.03.011.
[2] H. Håkansson, M. Ingemansson, Industrial renewal within the construction network, Construct. Manag. Econ. (2013) 37–41, https://doi.org/10.1080/
01446193.2012.737470.
[3] Y. Han, Z. Yang, T. Ding, J. Xiao, Environmental and economic assessment on 3D printed buildings with recycled concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 278 (2021) 123884,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123884.
[4] C. Zhang, Z. Hou, C. Chen, Y. Zhang, V. Mechtcherine, Z. Sun, Design of 3D printable concrete based on the relationship between flowability of cement paste
and optimum aggregate content, Cem. Concr. Compos. 104 (2019) 103406, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.103406.
[5] P.K. Mehta, P.J. Monteiro, Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials, fourth ed., McGraw Hill, 2014.
[6] J.G.J. Oliver, G. Janssens-Maenhout, M. Muntean, J.A.H.W. Peters, Trends in Global CO2 Emissions: 2015 Report, 2015.
[7] P. Suraneni, A. Hajibabaee, S. Ramanathan, Y. Wang, J. Weiss, New insights from reactivity testing of supplementary cementitious materials, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 103 (2019) 331–338, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.05.017.
[8] D.R. Vieira, J.L. Calmon, F.Z. Coelho, Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the manufacturing of common and ecological concrete : a review, Construct.
Build. Mater. 124 (2016) 656–666, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.125.
[9] L. Abu-Ennab, M.K. Dixit, B. Birgisson, P. Pradeep Kumar, Comparative life cycle assessment of large-scale 3D printing utilizing kaolinite-based calcium
sulfoaluminate cement concrete and conventional construction, Clean. Environ. Syst. 5 (2022) 100078, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2022.100078.
[10] S. Bhattacherjee, A.S. Basavaraj, A.V. Rahul, M. Santhanam, R. Gettu, B. Panda, E. Schlangen, Y. Chen, O. Copuroglu, G. Ma, L. Wang, M.A. Basit Beigh, V.
Mechtcherine, Sustainable materials for 3D concrete printing, Cem. Concr. Compos. 122 (2021) 104156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104156.
[11] W.J. Long, C. Lin, J.L. Tao, T.H. Ye, Y. Fang, Printability and particle packing of 3D-printable limestone calcined clay cement composites, Construct. Build.
Mater. 282 (2021) 122647, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122647.
[12] W.J. Long, J.L. Tao, C. Lin, Y. cun Gu, L. Mei, H.B. Duan, F. Xing, Rheology and buildability of sustainable cement-based composites containing micro-
crystalline cellulose for 3D-printing, J. Clean. Prod. 239 (2019) 118054, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118054.
[13] M.M. Muñiz, M. Chantin, C.R. Vintila, M. Fabritius, C. Martin, L. Calvo, L. Poudelet, J. Canou, M. Uhart, A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, N.O.E.
Olsson, J.A. Tenorio, J.A. Madrid, J. Dirrenberger, I. Muñoz, Concrete hybrid manufacturing: a machine architecture, Procedia CIRP 97 (2020) 51–58, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.07.003.
[14] S. Liu, B. Lu, H. Li, Z. Pan, J. Jiang, S. Qian, A comparative study on environmental performance of 3D printing and conventional casting of concrete products
with industrial wastes, Chemosphere 298 (2022) 134310, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134310.

16
L.I.C. Fernandez et al. Journal of Building Engineering 74 (2023) 106915

[15] J. Yeon, Y. Rew, J. Kang, C. Kunhee, Life cycle assessment-based feasibility study of spall damage rehabilitation using 3D printing technology, 54th ASC, Annu.
Int. Conf. Proc. (2018) 406–413.
[16] R.C. Zhang, L. Wang, X. Xue, G.W. Ma, Environmental profile of 3D concrete printing technology in desert areas via life cycle assessment, J. Clean. Prod. 396
(2023) 136412, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136412.
[17] I. Agustí-Juan, F. Müller, N. Hack, T. Wangler, G. Habert, Potential benefits of digital fabrication for complex structures: environmental assessment of a
robotically fabricated concrete wall, J. Clean. Prod. 154 (2017) 330–340, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.002.
[18] I. Agustí-Juan, G. Habert, Environmental design guidelines for digital fabrication, J. Clean. Prod. 142 (2017) 2780–2791, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.10.190.
[19] I. Agustí-Juan, G. Habert, An environmental perspective on digital fabrication in architecture and construction, in: CAADRIA 2016, 21st Int. Conf. Comput.
Archit. Des. Res. Asia - Living Syst. Micro-utopias Towar. Contin. Des, 2016, pp. 797–806.
[20] H. Alhumayani, M. Gomaa, V. Soebarto, W. Jabi, Environmental assessment of large-scale 3D printing in construction: a comparative study between cob and
concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 270 (2020) 122463, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122463.
[21] M. Mohammad, E. Masad, S.G. Al-Ghamdi, 3D concrete printing sustainability : a comparative life cycle assessment of four construction method scenarios,
Buildings 10 (2020).
[22] Y. Weng, M. Li, S. Ruan, T.N. Wong, M.J. Tan, K.L. Ow Yeong, S. Qian, Comparative economic, environmental and productivity assessment of a concrete
bathroom unit fabricated through 3D printing and a precast approach, J. Clean. Prod. 261 (2020) 121245, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121245.
[23] Y. Yao, M. Hu, F. Di Maio, S. Cucurachi, Life cycle assessment of 3D printing geo-polymer concrete: an ex-ante study, J. Ind. Ecol. 24 (2020) 116–127, https://
doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12930.
[24] H. Abdalla, K.P. Fattah, M. Abdallah, A.K. Tamimi, Environmental footprint and economics of a full-scale 3d-printed house, Sustain. Times 13 (2021) 1–19,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111978.
[25] K. Kuzmenko, J. Dirrenberger, O. Baverel, Assessing the environmental viability of 3D concrete printing technology, in: Impact Des. With All Senses, 2020, pp.
517–528, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29829-6.
[26] I. Muñoz, J. Alonso-Madrid, M. Menéndez-Muñiz, M. Uhart, J. Canou, C. Martin, M. Fabritius, L. Calvo, L. Poudelet, R. Cardona, H. Lombois-Burger, N.
Vlasopoulos, C. Bouyssou, J. Dirrenberger, A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, Life cycle assessment of integrated additive–subtractive concrete 3D
printing, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2021) 2149–2159, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06487-0.
[27] M.P. Tinoco, É.M. de Mendonça, L.I.C. Fernandez, L.R. Caldas, O.A.M. Reales, R.D. Toledo Filho, Life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmental sustainability
of cementitious materials for 3D concrete printing: a systematic literature review, J. Build. Eng. 52 (2022) 104456, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104456.
[28] J. Zhang, J. Wang, S. Dong, X. Yu, B. Han, A review of the current progress and application of 3D printed concrete, Composer Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 125
(2019) 105533, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105533.
[29] SINAPI, Sistema Nacional de Preços e Índices para a Construção Civil, Available at: https://www.caixa.gov.br/poder-publico/modernizacao-gestao/sinapi/
Paginas/default.aspx, 2021.
[30] NPC, Núcleo Parede de Concreto -, A importância do concreto, Available at: https://nucleoparededeconcreto.com.br/a-importancia-do-concreto/, 2021.
[31] F.P. Bos, P.J. Kruger, S.S. Lucas, G.P.A.G. van Zijl, Juxtaposing fresh material characterisation methods for buildability assessment of 3D printable
cementitious mortars, Cem. Concr. Compos. 120 (2021) 104024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104024.
[32] S.C. Figueiredo, C. Romero Rodríguez, Z.Y. Ahmed, D.H. Bos, Y. Xu, T.M. Salet, O. Çopuroğlu, E. Schlangen, F.P. Bos, An approach to develop printable strain
hardening cementitious composites, Mater. Des. 169 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107651.
[33] D.H. Murcia, M. Genedy, M.M. Reda Taha, Examining the significance of infill printing pattern on the anisotropy of 3D printed concrete, Construct. Build.
Mater. 262 (2020) 120559, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120559.
[34] J. Kruger, S. Zeranka, G. van Zijl, An ab initio approach for thixotropy characterisation of (nanoparticle-infused) 3D printable concrete, Construct. Build.
Mater. 224 (2019) 372–386, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.078.
[35] Y. Weng, M. Li, M.J. Tan, S. Qian, Design 3D printing cementitious materials via Fuller Thompson theory and Marson-Percy model, Construct. Build. Mater.
163 (2018) 600–610, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.112.
[36] Q. Yuan, Z. Li, D. Zhou, T. Huang, H. Huang, D. Jiao, C. Shi, A feasible method for measuring the buildability of fresh 3D printing mortar, Construct. Build.
Mater. 227 (2019) 116600, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.326.
[37] J. Xiao, S. Zou, Y. Yu, Y. Wang, T. Ding, Y. Zhu, J. Yu, S. Li, Z. Duan, Y. Wu, L. Li, 3D recycled mortar printing: system development, process design, material
properties and on-site printing, J. Build. Eng. 32 (2020) 101779, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101779.
[38] Caixa, Cadernos CAIXA: projeto padrão – casas populares, Available at: https://www.caixa.gov.br/Downloads/banco-projetos-projetos-HIS/casa_37m2.pdf,
2006.
[39] T. Daungwilailuk, P. Pheinsusom, W. Pansuk, Uniaxial load testing of large-scale 3D-printed concrete wall and finite-element model analysis, Construct. Build.
Mater. 275 (2021) 122039, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.122039.
[40] O.A. Mendoza Reales, P. Duda, E.C.C.M. Silva, M.D.M. Paiva, R.D.T. Filho, Nanosilica particles as structural buildup agents for 3D printing with Portland
cement pastes, Construct. Build. Mater. 219 (2019) 91–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.174.
[41] M.T. Souza, I.M. Ferreira, E. Guzi de Moraes, L. Senff, A.P. Novaes de Oliveira, 3D printed concrete for large-scale buildings: an overview of rheology, printing
parameters, chemical admixtures, reinforcements, and economic and environmental prospects, J. Build. Eng. 32 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jobe.2020.101833.
[42] ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS, ABNT NBR 16868-1: Alvenaria Estrutural Parte 1, Projeto, Rio de Janeiro, 2020.
[43] ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS, ABNT NBR 6118, Projeto de estruturas de concreto - Procedimento, Rio de Janeiro, 2014.
[44] ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS, ABNT NBR 16055: Parede de concreto moldada no local para a construção de edificações - Requisitos e
procedimentos, 2012 Rio de Janeiro.
[45] ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS, ABNT NBR 7480: Aço destinado a armaduras para estruturas de concreto - Especificação, 2008 Rio de
Janeiro.
[46] ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS, ABNT NBR 7481: Tela de aço soldada - Armadura para concreto, 1991 Rio de Janeiro.
[47] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14040: Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and Framework, second ed.,
2006.
[48] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14044: Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements and Guidelines, first ed.,
2006.
[49] E.N. Cen, Sustainability of Construction Works - Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings - Calculation Method, 2011, 15978 Brussels (Belgium).
[50] E.N. Cen, 2012+A2: Sustainability of Construction Works - Environmental Product Declarations - Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction
Products, Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels (Belgium), 2019 15804.
[51] Pré Sustainability, SimaPro - LCA software for informed change-makers, Available at: https://pre-sustainability.com/solutions/tools/simapro/, 2021.
[52] D.M. de Souza, M. Lafontaine, F. Charron-Doucet, B. Chappert, K. Kicak, F. Duarte, L. Lima, Comparative life cycle assessment of ceramic brick, concrete brick
and cast-in-place reinforced concrete exterior walls, J. Clean. Prod. 137 (2016) 70–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.069.
[53] F.D. Berezuk, Avaliação do ciclo de vida do concreto convencional com cinza do bagaço de cana-de-açúcar em substituição parcial da areia, Thesis of master’s
degree, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, 2015, p. 133.

17