Low-Carbon Construction through BIM-Based Design and 3D Printing with Waste-Derived Mortars

Year 2026, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 226 - 237, 15.01.2026

Oznur Kocaer

https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1818465

https://izlik.org/JA85EB36UT

Abstract

In the pursuit of low-carbon 3D-printed housing, this study investigates the environmental viability of 3D-printed housing made with alkali-activated binder (AAB) mortar, in comparison to conventional ordinary Portland cement (OPC) systems. A life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted using a BIM-integrated framework, evaluating both mortar-level (A1–A3) and full building-level (A1–A5) impacts across four categories: global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), and ozone depletion potential (ODP). At the material scale, the AAB mortar demonstrated around 77% lower GWP and significant reductions in AP and EP (by ~60% and ~66%, respectively) compared to OPC. These advantages are maintained and even amplified at the building scale. A 3D-printed AAB house showed a GWP of 6.52E+06 kg CO2-eq, significantly lower than the OPC house’s 2.85E+07 kg CO2-eq, while also cutting AP and EP by over 59% and 66%, respectively. These improvements stem from replacing clinker-based OPC with CDW-derived, low-carbon binders, significantly curbing emissions from production. However, the AAB system exhibited a higher ODP (0.749 kg CFC-11-eq), over four times that of the OPC house (0.166 kg CFC-11-eq), mainly due to sodium silicate and NaOH production. Contribution analysis confirmed that over 95% of all impacts stemmed from material production, affirming the critical role of binder formulation. This study confirms that AAB-integrated 3D printing can enable rapid, circular, and significantly decarbonized construction. Still, further optimization of activator chemistry is needed to fully align AAB systems with environmental sustainability targets.

Keywords

3D concrete printing (3DCP) , Building information modeling (BIM) , Life cycle assessment (LCA) , Waste management and valorization

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval was not required for this study because of there was no study on animals or humans.

References

• Abdalla, H., Fattah, K., Abdallah, M., & Tamimi, A. (2021). Environmental footprint and economics of a full-scale 3D-printed house. Sustainability, 13(21), 11978. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111978
• Adesanya, E., Perumal, P., Luukkonen, T., Yliniemi, J., Ohenoja, K., Kinnunen, P., & Illikainen, M. (2020). Opportunities to improve sustainability of alkali-activated materials: A review of side-stream based activators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 269, 125558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125558
• Akduman, Ş., Kocaer, O., Aldemir, A., Şahmaran, M., Yıldırım, G., Almahmood, H., & Ashour, A. (2021). Experimental investigations on the structural behaviour of reinforced geopolymer beams produced from recycled construction materials. Journal of Building Engineering, 41, 102776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102776
• Aldemir, A., Akduman, Ş., Kocaer, O., Aktepe, R., Şahmaran, M., Yıldırım, G., & Ashour, A. (2022). Shear behaviour of reinforced construction and demolition waste-based geopolymer concrete beams. Journal of Building Engineering, 47, 103861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103861
• Arash, M., Hasan, K. M. A., & Golam, K. (2025). Assessing the environmental impact of building houses in remote areas: 3D printing vs. traditional construction techniques. Journal of Building Engineering, 102, 111968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2025.111968
• Batikha, M., Jotangia, R., Baaj, M., & Mousleh, I. (2022). 3D concrete printing for sustainable and economical construction: A comparative study. Automation in Construction, 133, 104087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.104087
• Bhattacherjee, S., Basavaraj, A., Rahul, A., Santhanam, M., Gettu, R., Panda, B., Schlangen, E., Chen, Y., Çopuroğlu, O., , G., Wang, L., Beigh, M., & Mechtcherine, V. (2021). Sustainable materials for 3D concrete printing. Cement & Concrete Composites, 122, 104156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104156.
• Capeto, A., Jesus, M., Uribe, B., Guimarães, A., & Oliveira, A. (2024). Building a greener future: Advancing concrete production sustainability and the thermal properties of 3D-printed mortars. Buildings, 14(5), 1323. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051323
• Chryso. (2023). Environmental product declaration: Plasticisers and superplasticisers [EPD Report]. https://api.environdec.com/api/v1/EPDLibrary/Files/4f1803d8-bdd2-48c1-de85-08dbf085b35e/Data
• Cugla. (2021). EPD for plasticisers and superplasticisers [EPD Report]. https://www.cugla.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/20220208-EPD-Plastificeerders-en-Superplastificeerders.pdf
• European Union (EU). (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain directives. Official Journal of the European Union, L312, 3–30. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098
• Fernandez, L., Caldas, L., & Reales, O. (2023). Environmental evaluation of 3D-printed concrete walls considering the life-cycle perspective in the context of social housing. Journal of Building Engineering, 72, 106915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106915
• Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., & Frischknecht, R. (2021). Multifunctionality in life cycle inventory analysis: Approaches and solutions. In Life cycle inventory analysis: Methods and data (pp. 73–95). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62270-1_4
• Hollberg, A., Genova, G., & Habert, G. (2020). Evaluation of BIM-based LCA results for building design. Automation in Construction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102972.
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006a). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework (ISO Standard No. 14040:2006).
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006b). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines (ISO Standard No. 14044:2006).
• Karamara, M., Bogdanski, M. O., Zöller, R., Albrecht, S. V., Linner, T., Bock, T., & Braml, T. (2025). Increasing efficiency and sustainability: A comparative analysis of concrete 3D printing and traditional methods based on case studies. MATEC Web of Conferences, 409, 13005. EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202540913005
• Klyuev, S., Klyuev, A., Fediuk, R., Ageeva, M., Fomina, E., Amran, M., & Murali, G. (2022). Fresh and mechanical properties of low-cement mortars for 3D printing. Construction and Building Materials, 338, 127644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127644
• Kocaer, O., & Aldemir, A. (2023). Compressive stress–strain model for the estimation of the flexural capacity of reinforced geopolymer concrete members. Structural Concrete, 24(4), 5102–5121. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202200914
• Kocaer, O., & Aldemir, A. (2025). Confined compressive stress–strain model for rectangular geopolymer reinforced concrete members. Structural Concrete, 26(4), 4334–4347. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202300973
• Kordsa. (2021). EPD for synthetic fiber concrete reinforcement [EPD Report]. https://epdturkey.org/service/detail/s-p-03126
• Kul, A., Kocaer, O., Aldemir, A., Yıldırım, G., & Lucas, S. S. (2024). 3D printable one-part alkali-activated mortar derived from brick masonry wastes. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 21, e04081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e04081
• Kul, A., Ozel, B. F., Ozcelikci, E., Gunal, M. F., Ulugol, H., Yildirim, G., & Sahmaran, M. (2023). Characterization and life cycle assessment of geopolymer mortars with masonry units and recycled concrete aggregates assorted from construction and demolition waste. Journal of Building Engineering, 78, 107546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107546
• Lanjewar, B., Chippagiri, R., Dakwale, V., & Ralegaonkar, R. (2023). Application of alkali-activated sustainable materials: A step towards net zero binder. Energies, 16(2), 969. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16020969
• McNeil-Ayuk, N., & Jrade, A. (2025). Integrating Building Information Modeling and Life Cycle Assessment to enhance the decisions related to selecting construction methods at the conceptual design stage of buildings. Sustainability, 17(7), 2877. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072877
• Mohammad, M., Masad, E., & Al‐Ghamdi, S. (2020). 3D concrete printing sustainability: A comparative life cycle assessment of four construction method scenarios. Buildings, 10(12), 245. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10120245
• Motalebi, A., Khondoker, M. A. H., & Kabir, G. (2024). A systematic review of life-cycle assessments of 3D concrete printing. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 5, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2023.08.003
• Nasir, M., Mahmood, A., & Bahraq, A. (2024). History, recent progress, and future challenges of alkali-activated binders – An overview. Construction and Building Materials, 417, 136141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.136141
• Nassar, A., Kathirvel, P., Murali, G., Alqemlas, T., & Azab, M. (2024). Innovative one-part alkali activated binder from activator derived from agricultural waste: Synthesis and application for sustainable construction. Results in Engineering, 22, 101975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.101975
• Ouellet-Plamondon, C., & Habert, G. (2015). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of alkali-activated cements and concretes. In Handbook of alkali-activated cements, mortars and concretes (pp. 663–686). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781782422884.5.663
• Rezaei, F., Bulle, C., & Lesage, P. (2019). Integrating building information modeling and life cycle assessment in the early and detailed building design stages. Building and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.01.034.
• Salas, D. A., Ramirez, A. D., Ulloa, N., Baykara, H., & Boero, A. J. (2018). Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 190, 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.123
• Santos, R., Costa, A., Silvestre, J., & Pyl, L. (2020). Development of a BIM-based Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Assessment tool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 265, 121705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121705.
• Skibicki, S., Federowicz, K., Hoffmann, M., Chougan, M., Sibera, D., Cendrowski, K., Sikora, P. (2024). Potential of reusing 3D printed concrete (3DPC) fine recycled aggregates as a strategy towards decreasing cement content in 3DPC. Materials, 17(11), 2580. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17112580
• Sun, B., Zeng, Q., Wang, D., & Zhao, W. (2022). Sustainable 3D printed mortar with CO₂ pretreated recycled fine aggregates. Cement and Concrete Composites, 131, 104800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104800
• Tang, Y., Mak, K., & Zhao, Y. (2016). A framework to reduce product environmental impact through design optimization for additive manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 1560–1572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.037
• Yang, K., Song, J., & Song, K. (2013). Assessment of CO₂ reduction of alkali-activated concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39, 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.001
• Yao, T., Jian, X., He, J., & Meng, Q. (2025). Drone-3D printing linkage for rapid construction of sustainable post-disaster temporary shelters. Architecture, Building and Construction, https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202504.0621.v1
• Zhao, Z., Ji, C., Xiao, J., Yao, L., Lin, C., Ding, T., & Ye, T. (2023). A critical review on reducing the environmental impact of 3D printing concrete: Material preparation, construction process and structure level. Construction and Building Materials, 381, 133887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133887