See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351422519

Sustainable Materials for Additive Manufacturing: Earth-Based Concrete

Chapter · May 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-75315-3_75

CITATIONS READS

4 227

4 authors:

Yeşim Tarhan İsmail Hakkı Tarhan

Université Bretagne Sud University of Minho
13 PUBLICATIONS 33 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Flávio Craveiro Helena Galha Bártolo

Instituto Politécnico de Leiria Polyechnic Institut of Leiria
32 PUBLICATIONS 609 CITATIONS 48 PUBLICATIONS 680 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by İsmail Hakkı Tarhan on 21 March 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Sustainable Materials for Additive Manufacturing:
Earth-Based Concrete

Yeşim Tarhan1, İsmail Hakkı Tarhan2, Flávio Craveiro 3,4 and Helena Bártolo 3,4
1Engineering Faculty, Ardahan University, Ardahan, Turkey
2Engineering Faculty, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey
3 School of Technology and Management, Polytechnic of Leiria, Leiria, Portugal
4 CIAUD, Lisbon School of Architecture, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

Abstract. Earth-based materials have been used as a construction material since

ancient times, as it is an affordable and sustainable material, widely available and
recyclable. Additive manufacturing has become a promising production technol-
ogy for the construction industry, allowing to produce complex structures with
optimum material use, zero waste and a great design freedom. A brief review is
provided on the prospects and challenges introduced by the extrusion of earth-
based materials through additive manufacturing technologies. A numerical sim-
ulation was carried out replacing a 3D printed concrete sample by an earthen
based one, and its behavior compared with the behavior of the concrete study.
Results suggests that extruding earth-based materials can reach approximately
half of the number of layers of the ones using concrete materials.

Keywords: Additive Manufacturing, Earth-based materials, 3D printing, Finite

Element Analysis.

1 Introduction

Over the most recent years, earth was one of the most long-established structural mate-
rials, has been used as a construction material in the developed countries [1], as it is a
low cost and easily accessible material. Earthen buildings use 100% natural local re-
sources, have a very low carbon footprint, present great possibilities for indoor climate
and provide climatic control because of absorbed solar energy. Earth elements are en-
tirely breathable and have the ability to absorb toxins and smells from the indoor air
environment. Earth is fully recyclable, so creates zero waste and is very agreeable to
work with, offering a huge potential for personal creativity [2].
Earth construction is currently under strong development, likely due to its sustaina-
ble properties, though conventional earth construction techniques are time-consuming
and labor-intensive [3], which is a limitation. It also suffers from a poor image, does
not meet modern productivity standards, and has difficulty in overcoming some
strength and durability tests designed for construction [4]. Nevertheless, earthen mate-
rials have very important advantages in terms of sustainable development, so they must
be integrated with new construction techniques.
2

Additive manufacturing, a digitally fabrication technique, also called 3D printing, is

a new technology for the construction sector, enabling a fast production rate, improved
safety labor and providing architectural design freedom. Additive manufacturing al-
lows the design and fabrication of complex 3D objects, layer-by-layer, with a wide
range of materials. Recent developments in digitally based construction methods have
been introducing earth-based materials, mix-design, and processing methods for 3D
printing technology. However, there are very few 3D printing studies aiming at either
earth materials' printability or searching for printed earthen real properties.
Studies on 3D printed structural elements are increasing, though more effort, time
and resources are required until it reaches sufficient maturity. On the other hand, studies
on advancing knowledge on the subject through numerical simulations are very limited.
However, to make realistic numerical simulations on material characterization, there is
a need either to adapt existing numerical methods or to develop new methods. This
work was conducted as a brief review on the sustainability of buildings produced
through earth-based materials and the capabilities and shortcomings of the extrusion of
earth-based materials. A numerical simulation was used to investigate and compare the
mechanical behavior of a 3D printed element model using earth-based material instead
of concrete.

2 Historical earth building and new technologies

2.1 A Sustainable Material: Earth

Using earth as a construction material has a very low environmental impact on top of
being fully recyclable. Many historical buildings built using soil are still enduring,
which is the most important evidence that earth-based materials are sustainable. Earthen
structure designs date back to ancient times and this structural material is still utilized
in many environments (see Fig.1) and societies [5]. It is estimated that more than two
billion people are living in earthen buildings and about 10% of the world heritage prop-
erties incorporate earthen structures [6]. The earth materials are local, so with no trans-
portation costs. Raw earth is generally nontoxic and nonpolluting with a large adsorp-
tion capacity for volatile compounds, thanks to its clay content. Earth structures have a
good hygrothermal performance due to its relatively low thermal conductivity, large
thermal mass and strong breathing capability (easy water/vapor phase change and
transport, important for passive air conditioning) [7; 8]. When used for indoor surfaces,
earth plasters may show important advantages, in particular hygrothermal comfort, as
earth plasters can easily absorb water vapor in excess or release it when it is scarce [9;
10; 11]. Whenever environmental impacts of embodied energy need to be considered,
there is a need to include non-renewable resources [12]. The awareness that construc-
tion materials have a substantial role in environmental sustainability is gradually in-
creasing, especially when considering zero-energy buildings [13] or passive houses
[14] where energy consumption during the operational phase is reduced to negligible
amounts [15]. The most conventional construction materials, like cement, steel, alumi-
num, and concrete, all need a fairly large number of technological operations to be
 3

produced in an industrial scale. This requires large amounts of energy [16] and a non-
negligible consumption of fuel and non-renewable resources [17]. For this reason, the
concrete industry worldwide is facing growing challenges in conserving material and
energy resources, as well as reducing its CO2 emissions [18]. Considering all this, it
should be emphasized that, environmental effects of earthen materials are significantly
better than cementitious materials.

Fig. 1. a) Shibam Hadramawt is a mudbrick-made high-rise buildings town in Yemen [19], b)

Musgum mud huts units are traditional domestic structures built of mud, in Cameroon [20], c)
The Ksar of Ait- Ben-Haddou is a perfect synthesis of earthen architecture of the pre-Saharan
regions of Morocco [21], d) Arg-e Bam is the most representative example of a fortified medieval
town built in vernacular technique using mud layers [22].

2.2 Towards 3D printing earth concrete

There are different traditional earth building techniques as follows: cob [23; 24; 25],
masonry with adobe (mud bricks) [26], and rammed earth [27; 28]. Masonry with com-
pressed earth blocks was introduced in the middle of the 20th century. In this case, the
blocks are manufactured by pressing sieved soil into block molds with a manual, me-
chanical, or hydraulic press. Different stabilizers have been used, like clay, tree resins,
natural bitumen, gum, agave juice, cactus juice, cowpats, casein, to improve strength,
resistance to disaggregation and erosion, or to correct the mixture, to obtain a self-com-
pacting earth concrete, adding various additives used in ordinary Portland cement-
based concrete [5; 29, 30; 31]. The French laboratory CRATerre and the University of
Mokpo have made experimental tests with cast earth concrete by adding cement plasti-
cizers to reduce the yield stress, including around 8 to 10 wt.% of cement to allow the
setting [32]. Similarly, the mixture produced at ETH Zurich using the addition of 5%
calcium sulfoaluminate cement and polycarboxylate ether was called self-compacting
clay concrete. Moevus et al. [33] formulated a cement-free castable self-compacting
clay concrete by increasing the population of fine particles and using a clay dispersant.
The cement setting has been simulated by using biopolymers such as alginate or using
a combination of hydraulic binders. Different research groups are investigating the pro-
duction of a mixture design considering both fast casting and sufficient strength in the
dry state. Currently, novel processing methods like extrusion [34; 35; 1; 36; 37; 38; 39]
are being introduced adding concrete to raw earth and accelerating the building rate.
4

Figure 2 shows a small building sample produced by San Fratellon and Rael using 3D
printing techniques and earth-based materials [38], and a 3D earth-based concrete mix-
ture produced by Perrot et al. [1].

Fig 2. 3D printed earth concrete examples: a) The MUD Frontier large-scale structure and vessels
at the Rubin Center Gallery as part of the New Cities, Future Ruins Exhibit [38], b) 3D printing
of earth concrete [1].

It is an important challenge trying to combine the world oldest construction material

with the newest construction processing techniques [1]. Distinct research groups have
been investigating 3D printing construction techniques for cement-based materials [40;
41]. 3D printing technologies allow obtaining lightweight products and the design of
multifunction components, as well low material usage, reduced costs, increased func-
tionality, and more sustainability [42; 43], thus it is a promising technique that can
make huge changes in the construction industry. The success of this printing process
depends on the strength of the deposited layers, as the printed material must be hard
enough to support the increasing load induced by subsequently deposited layers. A
faster development of the so-called green strength of the material is required to ensure
fast production and structural stability [1].

2.3 Brief literature review

3D printing construction elements, quite new in the construction sector, are generally
focused on concrete. There are only a few 3D printing earth-based concrete studies in
the literature. Fratello and Real [38], used soil, salt and grape skins materials for 3D
printing, low-cost materials many in opposition to expensive patented powders and res-
ins, which makes 3D printing more accessible, less expensive, more ecological and
sustainable. Arrieta-Escobar et al. [39], made a literature review of recent applications
(2000 to 2019) of 3D printing with earth-based materials, identifying main challenges
and opportunities presented by using 3D printing with earth-based materials. According
to Arrieta-Escobar et al. [39], despite the remarkable and rapid progress made in the
development of 3D printing in recent years, this technology is still in its infancy. Perrot
et al. [1] showed that it is possible to print a structure with an earth-based material,
adding alginate seaweed biopolymers to raw earth to develop earth concrete's green
strength. Bajpayee et al. [36] discussed the development of a new palette of natural
construction materials, based on natural soils, by additive manufacturing, gathering
knowledge from soil chemistry and composite science, such as the modelling of
mesoscale phenomena, rheological studies of extrudable soil “inks,” generative design.
 5

On the other hand, numerical simulation studies on material characterization of 3D

printed concretes are still limited. In the research conducted by Wolfs et al. [44], a
numerical model based on a time dependent Mohr-Coulomb fracture criterion was de-
veloped to analyze the mechanical behavior of 3D-printed concrete in its fresh state.
The model developed in the Abaqus program, based on the finite element method
(FEM), has been validated by comparison with 3D printing experiment results. The
model was then used to simulate structural behavior during a real printing process. In
the study conducted by Wolfs et al. [45], the effect of concrete age on failure behavior
was experimentally tested and validated by numerical analysis of flat using the FEM.
The printing process was simulated by applying the model change function, in which
layers are added on top of each other step by step. After activation of a new layer, the
interface with the previous layer was defined by the constraints. In numerical simula-
tions using the properties obtained with a customized triaxial test procedure, each layer
was subjected to gravitational load. Wall samples were printed until failure, during the
printing trials, and the results were compared with numerical estimates. According to
this work, triaxial compression tests are a suitable method to characterize the structural
fresh properties of 3D printed concrete. The comparison between the numerical model
and the printing trials reinforces the need to characterize the material properties to be
printed as a function of additional state parameters such as temperature.
Along the printing process, layers are deposited on top of each other with no form-
work to stabilize the build. Thus, the fresh concrete mixture should be sufficiently
strong, stiff, and stable to carry its self-weight and the weight of the other layers above
it and limit deformations [44]. In this work, it was also numerically simulated the print-
ability of fresh earth concrete based on the development of mechanical properties of
fresh earth concrete over time. According to Wolfs et al [44], the circular geometry
model produced with concrete was redesigned using 3D printing earth-based materials
experimental data produced by Perrot et al. [1]. Thus, the load-bearing capacities of 3D
printable building elements composed by earth-based materials were evaluated.

3 Method

In this work, the buildability properties of earth-based materials for 3D printing were
investigated through a numerical analysis. A Grasshopper component library called
VoxelPrint developed by Vantyghem et al. [46] in C # using RhinoCommon SDK was
used for the numerical simulations. VoxelPrint, which uses a voxel-based numerical
approach, was used to simulate failure caused by elastic buckling and material yield.
Wolfs et al. [44] is the first work proposing a FEM approach to accurately predict
printed product quality (during and after printing) and avoid failures. In this study, it
was performed an experimentally modelling method of the 3D concrete printing pro-
cess to evaluate the printability of the time-dependent development of fresh concrete
during printing. Numerically simulated by Wolfs et al. [44], this model is used to sim-
ulate the structural behavior during an actual printing process, as well to study the fail-
ure-deformation mode. Vantyghem et al. [46] has numerically tested an axisymmetric
cylindrical model used by Wolfs et al. [44] to validate the VoxelPrint.
6

In this work, we used the same model used by Wolfs et al. [44] and validated by
Vantyghem et al. [46], to make a meaningful comparison between concrete and earth-
based materials. The model under consideration is a cylinder with 250 mm radius, 40
mm bed width and 10 mm sheet height. The printing speed was taken as 83.33 mm/s,
which is the same defined by Vantyghem et al. [46]. The earth material properties were
obtained from the work of Saleh et al. [47] regarding hardening soil model parameters
of marine clay. According to this work, the Poisson ratio is 0.2, the cohesion is 33 kPa,
the internal friction angle is 17.51° and the dilatation angle 1.6°. Perrot et al. [1] showed
that the earth material elasticity module does not show a time-dependent behavior in its
fresh state. Thus, the modulus of elasticity was considered as 0.025 N/mm2 and the
material density 1750 kg/m3, based on the work of Perrot et al. [1].

4 Results and Discussion

The resulting failure mechanism for the printing simulation is illustrated in Fig. 3. Ac-
cording to Wolfs et al (2019) and Vantygem et al (2021), the plastic yielding of the
bottom layers and elastic buckling are two of the most frequent failure mechanisms
reported in 3D concrete printing. In these two simulation works, both based on the as-
sumption that the printing process was perfect, the failure was triggered by a plastic
yielding in the bottom layers.
Conversely, in the present study, the model produced by 3D printing of the earth-
based materials was examined and it was defined that the failure occurred due to the
elastic buckling of the upper layers. In addition, the plastic deformation did not occur
as the yield limit of the material was not exceeded.
 7

Fig. 3. Results from the numerical analysis and different steps during the printing simulation: (a)
80 mm, (b) 130 mm, (c) 180 mm, (d) 220 mm buckling started (e-f-g) 220 mm buckling failure.

This study suggests that it might be possible to add more layers if sufficient stability
conditions are fulfilled. The model using concrete material properties failed at the 46th
layer, while the model using earth-based material properties was only able to arrive at
the 22th layer. As previously mentioned, the number of layers might be higher because
the problem is not resulting from the yielding of the material. Moreover, a comparison
cannot be made between concrete and earth-based materials without any strengthening.
On the other hand, material characterization studies requiring an accurate simulation
of the 3D printed concrete and earth-based materials are scarce, which makes it difficult
to perform an effective numerical simulation. It is also important to state that the prop-
erties of the earth-based 3D printable material simulated within the scope of this study
could only be partially obtained.

5 Conclusions

This study used a numerical analysis simulation to predict the buildability properties of
earth-based materials through 3D printing technologies. This simulation work was car-
ried out by using other studies and methods available in the literature. Buckling failure
can be minimized if the stability in earth-based materials is provided. For example, it
is possible to make 3D printed structures with earth-based materials making some im-
provements, either by increasing adhesion with various additives or providing support
during printing.
The time-dependent parameters to print earth-based materials must be accurately
determined and presented, especially to simulate its fresh properties. Further work will
include the experimental testing of these parameters and its numerical simulation.
Additive manufacturing technologies are being increasingly used in the construction
sector. They are of fundamental importance for a global sustainable development as
they enable saving raw materials, minimizing waste, and reducing costs. The applica-
tion of these technologies using highly sustainable materials, such as earth-based ma-
terials, will constitute a remarkable step forward the construction industry.

References
1. Perrot, A., Rangeard, D., & Courteille, E. (2018). 3D printing of earth-based materials: Pro-
cessing aspects. Construction and Building Materials, 172, 670-676.
2. Solid Earth Adobe Buildings Homepage, https://www.solidearth.co.nz/, last accessed
2021/02/18.
3. Parra-Saldivar, M. L., & Batty, W. (2006). Thermal behaviour of adobe constructions.
Building and environment, 41(12), 1892-1904.
4. Van Damme, H., & Houben, H. (2018). Earth concrete. Stabilization revisited. Cement and
Concrete Research, 114, 90-102.
5. Landrou, G., Brumaud, C., Winnefeld, F., Flatt, R. J., & Habert, G. (2016). Lime as an anti-
plasticizer for self-compacting clay concrete. Materials, 9(5), 330.
8

6. Eloundou, L., & Joffroy, T. (2013). Earthen architecture in today’s World. In Proceedings
of the UNESCO international colloquium on the conservation of world heritage earthen ar-
chitecture. UNESCO Publishing, Paris. www. whc. unesco. org/en/series/36.
7. Melià, P., Ruggieri, G., Sabbadini, S., & Dotelli, G. (2014). Environmental impacts of nat-
ural and conventional building materials: a case study on earth plasters. Journal of cleaner
production, 80, 179-186.
8. Hall, M., & Allinson, D. (2009). Analysis of the hygrothermal functional properties of sta-
bilised rammed earth materials. Building and Environment, 44(9), 1935-1942.
9. Reddi, S., Jain, A. K., Yun, H. B., & Reddi, L. N. (2012). Biomimetics of stabilized earth
construction: Challenges and opportunities. Energy and Buildings, 55, 452-458.
10. Liuzzi, S., Hall, M. R., Stefanizzi, P., & Casey, S. P. (2013). Hygrothermal behaviour and
relative humidity buffering of unfired and hydrated lime-stabilised clay composites in a
Mediterranean climate. Building and Environment, 61, 82-92.
11. Minke, G. (2012). Building with earth: design and technology of a sustainable architecture.
Walter de Gruyter.
12. Shukla, A., Tiwari, G. N., & Sodha, M. S. (2009). Embodied energy analysis of adobe house.
Renewable Energy, 34(3), 755-761.
13. Thiel, C. L., Campion, N., Landis, A. E., Jones, A. K., Schaefer, L. A., & Bilec, M. M.
(2013). A materials life cycle assessment of a net-zero energy building. Energies, 6(2), 1125-
1141.
14. Dahlstrøm, O., Sørnes, K., Eriksen, S. T., & Hertwich, E. G. (2012). Life cycle assessment
of a single-family residence built to either conventional-or passive house standard. Energy
and buildings, 54, 470-479.
15. Himpe, E., Trappers, L., Debacker, W., Delghust, M., Laverge, J., Janssens, A., ... & Van
Holm, M. (2013). Life cycle energy analysis of a zero-energy house. Building Research &
Information, 41(4), 435-449.
16. Wang, E., & Shen, Z. (2013). A hybrid Data Quality Indicator and statistical method for
improving uncertainty analysis in LCA of complex system–application to the whole-build-
ing embodied energy analysis. Journal of cleaner production, 43, 166-173.
17. Cabeza, L. F., Barreneche, C., Miró, L., Morera, J. M., Bartolí, E., & Fernández, A. I. (2013).
Low carbon and low embodied energy materials in buildings: A review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23, 536-542.
18. Schneider, M., Romer, M., Tschudin, M., & Bolio, H. (2011). Sustainable cement produc-
tion—present and future. Cement and concrete research, 41(7), 642-650.
19. Shibam Hadramawt is a town in Yemen, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibam_Hadramawt,
last accessed 2021/02/18.
20. Musgum mud huts are traditional domestic structures, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus-
gum_mud_huts, last accessed 2021/02/18.
21. The ksar, a group of earthen buildings, https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/444/, last accessed
2021/02/18.
22. Arg-e Bam is the most representative example vernacular using mud,
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1208, last accessed 2021/02/18.
23. Castrillo, M. C., Philokyprou, M., & Ioannou, I. (2017). Comparison of adobes from pre-
history to-date. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 12, 437-448.
24. Hamard, E., Cazacliu, B., Razakamanantsoa, A., & Morel, J. C. (2016). Cob, a vernacular
earth construction process in the context of modern sustainable building. Building and En-
vironment, 106, 103-119.
25. Phung, T. A., Le Guern, M., Boutouil, M., & Louahlia, H. (2017). Mechanical and thermal
performance of cob materials. Academic Journal of Civil Engineering, 35(2), 166-172.
 9

26. Illampas, R., Ioannou, I., & Charmpis, D. C. (2014). Adobe bricks under compression: ex-
perimental investigation and derivation of stress–strain equation. Construction and Building
Materials, 53, 83-90.
27. Easton, D., & Easton, T. (2012). Modern rammed earth construction techniques. In Modern
Earth Buildings (pp. 364-384). Woodhead Publishing.
28. Kebao, R., & Kagi, D. (2012). Integral admixtures and surface treatments for modern earth
buildings. In Modern Earth Buildings (pp. 256-281). Woodhead Publishing.
29. Ma, C., Chen, B., & Chen, L. (2016a). Effect of organic matter on strength development of
self-compacting earth-based construction stabilized with cement-based composites. Con-
struction and Building Materials, 123, 414-423.
30. Ma, C., Chen, L., & Chen, B. (2016b). Experimental study of effect of fly ash on self-com-
pacting rammed earth construction stabilized with cement-based composites. Journal of Ma-
terials in Civil Engineering, 28(7), 04016022.
31. Ouellet-Plamondon, C., & Habert, G. (2016). Self-compacted clay concrete: A concrete with
CSA and higher clay content. In 8th International RILEM Symposium on Self-Compacting
Concrete (SCC 2016) (pp. 37-47). RILEM Publications SARL.
32. Kang, N., & Hwang, H. (2011, October). Study on high strengthening of an earth wall using
earth and high performance lime. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Earth
Architecture in Asia, Mokpo, Korea (Vol. 1114).
33. Moevus, M., Jorand, Y., Olagnon, C., Maximilien, S., Anger, R., Fontaine, L., & Arnaud,
L. (2016). Earthen construction: an increase of the mechanical strength by optimizing the
dispersion of the binder phase. Materials and structures, 49(4), 1555-1568.
34. Khelifi, H., Perrot, A., Lecompte, T., & Ausias, G. (2013). Design of clay/cement mixtures
for extruded building products. Materials and structures, 46(6), 999-1010.
35. Maskell, D., Heath, A., & Walker, P. (2013). Laboratory scale testing of extruded earth ma-
sonry units. Materials & Design, 45, 359-364.
36. Bajpayee, A., Farahbakhsh, M., Zakira, U., Pandey, A., Ennab, L. A., Rybkowski, Z &
Banerjee, S. (2020). In situ resource utilization and reconfiguration of soils into construction
materials for the additive manufacturing of buildings. Frontiers in Materials, 7, 52.
37. Craveiro, F., Nazarian, S., Bartolo, H., Bartolo, P. J., & Duarte, J. P. (2020). An automated
system for 3D printing functionally graded concrete-based materials. Additive Manufactur-
ing, 33, 101146.
38. San Fratello, V., & Rael, R. (2020). Innovating materials for large scale additive manufac-
turing: Salt, soil, cement and chardonnay. Cement and Concrete Research, 134, 106097.
39. Arrieta-Escobar, J. A., Derrien, D., Ouvrard, S., Asadollahi-Yazdi, E., Hassan, A., Boly, V.,
... & Dignac, M. F. (2020). 3D printing: An emerging opportunity for soil science. Ge-
oderma, 378, 114588.
40. Craveiro, F, Duarte, J. P., Bártolo, H. & Bártolo, P. J. (2019). Additive manufacturing as an
enabling technology for digital construction: A perspective on Construction 4.0. Automation
in Construction 103, 251-267.
41. Van Damme, H. (2020). Challenges and Opportunities for Concrete in the Digital Era. In
Gulf Conference on Sustainable Built Environment (pp. 27-56). Springer, Cham.
42. Tarhan, Y., & Remzi, S. (2019). Developments of 3D concrete printing process. In Interna-
tional Civil Engineering and Architecture Conference.
43. Wangler, T., Roussel, N., Bos, F. P., Salet, T. A., & Flatt, R. J. (2019). Digital concrete: a
review. Cement and Concrete Research, 123, 105780.
44. Wolfs, R. J., Bos, F. P., & Salet, T. A. M. (2018). Early age mechanical behaviour of 3D
printed concrete: Numerical modelling and experimental testing. Cement and Concrete Re-
search, 106, 103-116.
 10

45. Wolfs, R. J. M., Bos, F. P., & Salet, T. A. M. (2019). Triaxial compression testing on early
age concrete for numerical analysis of 3D concrete printing. Cement and Concrete Compo-
sites, 104, 103344.
46. Vantyghem, G., Ooms, T., & De Corte, W. (2021). VoxelPrint: A Grasshopper plug-in for
voxel-based numerical simulation of concrete printing. Automation in Construction, 122,
103469.
47. Saleh, S., Yunus, N. Z. M., Ahmad, K., & Said, K. N. M. (2021). Numerical simulation with
hardening soil model parameters of marine clay obtained from conventional tests. SN Ap-
plied Sciences, 3(2), 1-13.

View publication stats