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

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

References

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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.
8. 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

9. Chryso. (2023). Environmental product declaration: Plasticisers and superplasticisers [EPD Report]. https://api.environdec.com/api/v1/EPDLibrary/Files/4f1803d8-bdd2-48c1-de85-08dbf085b35e/Data
10. Cugla. (2021). EPD for plasticisers and superplasticisers [EPD Report]. https://www.cugla.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/20220208-EPD-Plastificeerders-en-Superplastificeerders.pdf
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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.
15. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006a). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework (ISO Standard No. 14040:2006).
16. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006b). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines (ISO Standard No. 14044:2006).
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. Kordsa. (2021). EPD for synthetic fiber concrete reinforcement [EPD Report]. https://epdturkey.org/service/detail/s-p-03126
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. 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
31. 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.
32. 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
33. 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.
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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