Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Conceptual study reveals a multi-tiered governance structure for 3D concrete printing, indicating actionable pathways to align technical monitoring with regulatory liability.
Three-dimensional concrete printing has gained attention in building construction due to advances in equipment and material systems and its potential to support more sustainable construction, yet its acceptance in real projects remains limited. A major reason relates to uncertainty around how quality is assured during the printing process and how such assurance fits within strict approval and liability systems. Existing studies mainly focus on sensing, monitoring, and technical control, while limited discussion is given to how monitoring data are formally assessed, governed, and accepted by authorities and project parties. This limitation creates difficulty in regions where construction approval is closely linked to legal responsibility and warranty conditions. This study aims to develop a conceptual governance framework for in-process quality assurance in three-dimensional concrete printing with a focus on the United Arab Emirates context. The research is motivated by the need to connect technical monitoring activities with decision-making structures that meet regulatory and institutional requirements. The study proposes a structured framework that defines roles, responsibilities, decision pathways, and documentation flows across regulatory, conformity, project, and operational levels. The importance of this research lies in providing a clear method for translating in-process observations into acceptance decisions that support compliance, accountability, and long-term responsibility, while also strengthening the institutional conditions needed for sustainable adoption of additive construction. The framework offers guidance for authorities, engineers, and contractors and supports future standard development for additive construction systems in regulated construction environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Al-Toubat et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: