Cost Analysis of Various Factors for Geopolymer 3D Printing of Construction Products in Factories and on Construction Sites

Abstract

The utilization of geopolymer 3D printing for construction products in recent years has been exceptionally substantial, owing to their low carbon dioxide emissions, high-performance properties such as durability, and good thermal and mechanical properties. This automated manufacturing process reduces the need for additional formworks, capital investments, and human resources. Geopolymer 3D printing development is emerging because of its advanced use in construction applications. However, high costs of the initial stages of geopolymer production and 3D printing has inhibited the development of this technology in many countries. This research presents a comprehensive economic evaluation of the investment for each principal stage that facilitates a better deployment of the resources. The study investigated all phases of geopolymer production, from the extraction of raw materials to printing. The cost for the four fundamental stages, namely raw material availability and transportation, pretreatments for raw materials, parameter selection and strength requirements, and printing in factories and on construction sites, were analyzed. The results show that 3D printing of a geopolymer on a construction site is economically more advantageous compared to printing in the factory. The study also verified that raw material transportation cost has the least effect on the finished product cost, whereas pretreatments of raw material and mixing parameters significantly influenced the ultimate cost of the product. Finally, research work suggested the need for future tasks to make geopolymer 3D printing a viable construction approach.

Special Issue “Feature Papers in Recycling 2021”

“…Construction efficiency can be reached also through automated manufacturing processes, such as geopolymer 3D printing. The research in [10] proposed an economic evaluation of each principal stage of geopolymer 3D printing, from the extraction of raw materials to printing. The required time, cost, and quality of a 50 m 2 geopolymer 3D-printed house in Finland was investigated.…”

Energy Efficiency in Additive Manufacturing: Condensed Review

“…Energy efficiency in AM is crucial for mitigating environmental impact, reducing carbon footprints, and promoting sustainable manufacturing practices [34]. By minimizing energy consumption and material waste, energy-efficient AM processes contribute to a more environmentally friendly and cost-effective approach to production [35].…”

Life Cycle Assessment of the Sustainability of Alkali-Activated Binders

“…Geopolymer concrete used to have a CO 2 emission that was almost 10% lower than comparable concrete with a 100% OPC binder [ 12 ]. A recent study evaluated the viability of employing industrial wastes for geopolymer 3D printing in factories and building sites to provide a deep understanding of the construction cost, time, and energy consumption [ 37 ]. The study revealed that the use of sustainable materials by dependable and inexpensive manufacturing procedures in the building sector cuts the construction time and lowers the energy demand by about 50% compared with traditional manufacturing techniques.…”

“…The cost of producing a 3D-printed house is around 32% lower than the cost of producing a building using OPC and traditional manufacturing methods. As a replacement for OPC concrete in the building sector, an AAB concrete makes a positive contribution toward reducing the CO 2 emissions and global warming [ 37 ].…”