Demonstrates seismic performance assessment in 3D-printed buildings, suggesting safer construction methods.
Over the past decade, building construction has undergone a notable transformation with the advent of additive manufacturing. Indeed, several companies are developing 3D printing systems and buildings worldwide. However, the current literature lacks comprehensive studies, and a significant gap remains in understanding the seismic behaviour of monolithic 3D-printed structures. This paper aims to address this shortcoming by presenting a systematic experimental campaign, beginning with the characterisation of printed materials and culminating in a shake table test on a full-scale 3D-printed housing unit (3m x 4m). To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first seismic shake table test conducted on a 3D-printed building unit. The work proposes a methodological approach developed through a five-step procedure: i) conducting mechanical characterization through a series of preliminary tests, such as diagonal shear tests in 3D printed walls; ii) calibrating a numerical model using preliminary experimental tests to simulate the seismic response of the 3D-printed building unit; iii) designing and dimensioning the 3D-printed building unit, along with its connection to the shake table and the sensor system; iv) implementing the full-scale shake table test on the housing unit, printed directly on the shake table at the SOFSI Lab, University of Bristol; v) refining the numerical model based on the outcomes of the final dynamic test. Preliminary results indicate the potential for establishing foundational design guidelines to support engineers and industry stakeholders adopting this emerging technology. Ultimately, this study enhances seismic risk mitigation strategies and promotes technologically advanced construction solutions. This paper is part of the dissemination activities of the SAFE 3D PRINTED-CS project, funded under HORIZON-INFRA-2021-SERV-01-07, transnational access call 1.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sangiorgio et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: