Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Literature review demonstrates sustainable binders reduce carbon emissions in 3D concrete printing, highlighting alternative cement systems for eco-friendly construction.
This review examines the emerging role and future prospects of 3D concrete printing (3DCP) in advancing sustainable construction through improved resource efficiency, rapid construction, optimized design, and reduced material waste. Despite these advantages, 3DCP often requires high cement content and chemical admixtures to achieve adequate printability and interlayer bonding, resulting in increased greenhouse gas emissions and production costs. The review critically evaluates the use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), including fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, silica fume, and metakaolin, together with alternative binders such as alkali-activated materials, geopolymers, magnesium oxide cement, gypsum-based binders, and limestone calcined clay. Their effects on rheology, printability, pumpability, buildability, mechanical performance, interlayer bonding, curing behavior, and shrinkage are comprehensively assessed. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) findings indicate that these sustainable binder systems can significantly reduce the global warming potential of 3DCP, although challenges related to energy consumption and resource utilization remain. The review provides an integrated assessment linking binder composition, microstructural evolution, fresh- and hardened-state properties, environmental performance, and construction-scale applicability, offering valuable insights for the development of low-carbon, high-performance materials for additive manufacturing in construction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qureshi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: