Experimental assessment of mechanical properties in 3D-printed mortars with natural additives, indicating potential eco-friendly construction applications.
Additive manufacturing (AM) has brought significant breakthroughs to the construction sector, such as the ability to fabricate complex geometries, enhance efficiency, and reduce both material usage and construction waste. However, several challenges must still be addressed to fully transition from conventional construction practices to innovative and sustainable green alternatives. This study investigates the use of non-cementitious traditional mixtures for green construction applications through 3D printing using Liquid Deposition Modeling (LDM) technology. To explore the development of mixtures with enhanced physical and mechanical properties, natural pine and cypress wood shavings were added in varying proportions (1%, 3%, and 5%) as sustainable additives. The aim of this study is twofold: first, to demonstrate the printability of these eco-friendly mortars that can be used for conservation purposes and overcome the challenges of incorporating bio-products in 3D printing; and second, to develop sustainable composites that align with the objectives of the European Green Deal, offering low-emission construction solutions. The proposed mortars use hydrated lime and natural pozzolan as binders, river sand as an aggregate, and a polycarboxylate superplasticizer. While most studies with bio-products focus on traditional methods, this research provides proof of concept for their use in 3D printing. The study results indicate that, at low percentages, both additives had minimal effect on the physical and mechanical properties of the tested mortars, whereas higher percentages led to progressively more significant deterioration. Additionally, compared to molded specimens, the 3D-printed mortars exhibited slightly reduced mechanical strength and increased porosity, attributable to insufficient compaction during the printing process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pemas et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: