Abstract
This chapter presents a review of cementless materials for 3D printing, with a specific emphasis on the utilization of volcanic ash in the context of a case study for off-Earth construction. As a highly promising alternative to traditional concrete, selected binders are investigated in relation to volcanic ash for the creation of an alternative concrete. These offer a multitude of compelling advantages, including exceptional sustainability, local availability, and minimal energy use. By opting for volcanic ash-based materials, a significant reduction in resource consumption and pollution can be achieved. The review concludes with a set of considerations aimed at addressing various critical aspects related to volcanic ash-based materials. These considerations encompass vital areas such as binder selection, printability, structural behavior, production optimization, in-situ resource utilization, and sustainability. The goal is to establish a solid foundation for the widespread application of cementless concrete by understanding materials, particularly in the context of utilizing volcanic ash, and thereby fostering a paradigm shift toward more environmentally friendly and resource-efficient construction practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Link to Rhizome 1.0 project material studies documentation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11wwFsh6__r2Z_zzBL1I80MNLxNW2SjL7kuDADm8vAYg/edit.
- 2.
Ibid.
- 3.
Production of 1 ton of Portland cement is an energy-intensive process that generates about 1 ton of CO2 which represents about 5–7% of the global greenhouse gas produced annually (El-Dieb 2016).
- 4.
Link to Rhizome 1.0 and 2.0: http://cs.roboticbuilding.eu/index.php/Shared:RhizomeReview6 and http://cs.roboticbuilding.eu/index.php/Rhizome2.
References
Amran et al (2021) Long-term durability properties of geopolymer concrete: an in-depth review. Case Stud Constr Mater 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00661
Bhattacherjee et al (2021) Sustainable materials for 3D concrete printing. Cement Concr Compos 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104156
Bier H, Liu Cheng A, Mostafavi S, Anton A, Bodea S (2018) Robotic building as integration of design-to-robotic-production and-operation. Robot Building 97–120
Chen Y et al (2017) A critical review of 3D concrete printing as a low CO2 concrete approach. Heron 62:167–194. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145922661
Chen Y et al (2018) Feasibility of using low CO2 concrete alternatives in extrusion-based 3D concrete printing. First RILEM international conference on concrete and digital fabrication—digital concrete 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99519-9_25
Chen Y et al (2021) 3D printing of calcined clay-limestone-based cementitious materials. Cement Concr Res 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2021.106553
Coppola L et al (2018) Binders alternative to Portland cement and waste management for sustainable construction-part 1. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 16(3):186–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/2280800018782845. PMID: 29996741
Dada H et al (2021) Influence of temperature on the rheological behaviour of eco-mortar with binary and ternary cementitious blends of natural pozzolana and marble powder. Powder Technol 384:223–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2021.02.019
Davidovits J (2013) Geopolymer Cement a review. Geopolymer Sci Techn, Technical Paper #21, 2013, Geopolymer Institute Library. www.geopolymer.org
Djobo et al (2017) Volcanic ash-based geopolymer cements/concretes: the current state of the art and perspectives. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:4433–4446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-8230-8
El-Dieb A (2016) Cementless concrete for sustainable construction. MOJ Civil Eng 1(2):32. https://doi.org/10.15406/mojce.2016.01.00008
Flatt J et al (2022) On sustainability and digital fabrication with concrete. Cement Concr Res 158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.106837
Giavarini et al (2006) Mechanical behaviour and properties. In: Kourkoulis SK (eds) Fracture and failure of natural building stones. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5077-0_7
Khajavi et al (2021) Additive manufacturing in the construction industry: the comparative competitiveness of 3D concrete printing. Appl Sci 11(9):3865. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11093865
Khoshnevis B (2014) Automated construction by contour crafting—related robotics and information technologies. Autom Constr 13(1):5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2003.08.012
Low et al (2021) Composite materials: manufacturing, properties and applications:29. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2019-0-00666-8
Liu J et al (2022) In-situ resources for infrastructure construction on Mars: a review. Int J Transportation Science and Technology, Volume 11, Issue 1, 2022. Pages 1–16. ISSN 2046–0430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2021.02.001.
Malathy et al (2023) Lime based concrete and mortar enhanced with pozzolanic materials–State of art. Constr Build Mater 390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131415
Melichar J et al (2022) Study of the interaction of cement-based materials for 3D printing with fly ash and superabsorbent polymers. Buildings 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12112008.
Montes et al (2015) Evaluation of lunar regolith geopolymer binder as a radioactive shielding material for space exploration applications. Adv Space Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2015.05.044
Peng Y et al (2023) Development of alternative cementitious binders for 3D printing applications: a critical review of progress, advantages and challenges. Compos B Eng 252:110492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.110492
Planetary Science Institute. Mars—Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.psi.edu/epo/faq/mars.html. Accessed 17 July 2023
Putten D et al (2020) 3D printing of cementitious materials with superabsorbent polymers: a durable solution? In: 4th International RILEM conference on microstructure related durability of cementitious composites (Microdurability). http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:9d7c9a54-6f01-42ff-a510-1f57dbed537a
Revelo et al (2019) 3D printing of kaolinite clay with small additions of lime, fly ash and talc ceramic powders. Process Appl Ceram. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:210522500
Roman M et al (2020) 3D-printing lunar and martian habitats and the potential applications for additive construction. In: International conference on environmental systems. https://hdl.handle.net/2346/86486
Salunkhe et al (2023) Current trends of metal additive manufacturing in the defense, automobile, and aerospace industries. In: Advances in metal additive manufacturing. Woodhead Publishing, pp 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91230-3.00004-4
Samudrala et al (2023) 3D-printable concrete for energy-efficient buildings. Energies 16:4234. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16104234
Schiavone N et al (2021) Pozzolan based 3D printing composites: from the formulation till the final application in the precision irrigation field. Materials 14:43. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14010043
Scott A et al (2020) Magnesium_based cements for Martian construction. J Space Eng 33(4):04020019. https://doi.org/10.1061/%28ASCE%29AS.1943-5525.0001132
Seymour et al (2022) Reactive ceramic aggregates in mortars from ancient water infrastructure serving Rome and Pompeii. Cell Rep Phys Sci 3(9):101024, ISSN 2666–3864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2022.101024
Shen W et al (2016) Is magnesia cement low carbon? Life cycle carbon footprint comparing with Portland cement. J Clean Prod 131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.082
Sheoran et al (2020) Bio-medical applications of additive manufacturing: a review. Procedia Manuf 51:663–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.10.093
Tay et al (2017) 3D printing trends in building and construction industry: a review. Virtual Phys Prototyp 12(3):261–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2017.1326724
Theodordou et al (2022) New evidence of early use of artificial pozzolanic material in mortars. J Archaeol Sci 40(8):3263–3269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.03.027
Acknowledgements
This paper has profited from the contribution of students, researchers, and practitioners involved in the Rhizome 1.0 and 2.0 projects co-funded by ESA and Vertico as part of the co-funded research scheme of the ESA’s Discovery program, under contract ESA AO/2-1749/20/NL/GLC.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Calabrese, G., Hidding, A., Bier, H. (2024). Review of Cementless Materials for 3D Printing of On- and Off-Earth Habitats. In: Cervone, A., Bier, H., Makaya, A. (eds) Adaptive On- and Off-Earth Environments. Springer Series in Adaptive Environments. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50081-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50081-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-50080-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-50081-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)