Systematic review identifies critical safety factors and risks in 3D-printing construction, suggesting a need for regulations.
Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology is rapidly transforming the construction industry by increasing automation and replacing traditional cast-in-place concrete methods. Currently, no widely adopted industry standards exist in 3D-printing construction (3DPC), and although efforts have been made to ensure the structural integrity of printed structures, worker safety and health have received limited attention. Given that human intervention remains necessary during the printing process and that traditional hazards (e.g., struck-by or fall) as well as novel hazards (e.g., cybersecurity, new materials, robot operator mental workload, and struck-by or crushed/pinned by robot printer) will be in play on 3DPC jobsites, a comprehensive consideration of worker safety in this evolving domain is necessary. Accordingly, this study examines critical safety factors in 3DPC—including existing regulations, safety considerations, and safe human–robot interaction—to delineate worker safety requirements specific to this emerging field. Through a systematic literature review of 89 academic research papers and 68 industry publications (e.g., standards and building codes) published in 2015–2025, potential hazards and sources of risks associated with 3D-printing technologies in construction were identified. Additionally, the authors present a novel conceptual map that considers eight human roles, seven levels of human–robot interaction, and five levels of robot autonomy for 3DPC, which can guide future safety regulations. This research highlights the importance of safety in 3DPC and provides a framework for identifying sources of risk, types of hazards, and how this technology mitigates existing risks while introducing new safety challenges. The proposed framework lays the foundation for future research and efforts to develop safety standards and guidelines that enhance occupational safety and health in automated construction environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rojas et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: