Life cycle assessment (LCA) and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) analysis to determine the performance of 3D printed cement mortars and geopolymers

Abstract

A comparison between low-clinker cement and geopolymer mortars for their application in 3 D printing is discussed in this paper. The mortars are composed of materials with low environmental impact, such as cements with low clinker content, by-products of the industry and recycled aggregates. The developed mortars were both mechanically and rheologically characterized. The environmental impact was studied by LCA. To select the most suitable dosages, MCDM analysis was applied based on cost of materials, printability and LCA. Compressive strength was considered as a normalizing parameter for both the LCA and cost. The mortars showed good printability and suitable mechanical strength, being higher in the cement mortars. The LCA showed that the geopolymer mortars have a higher environmental impact due to the use of sodium hydroxide. Likewise, MCDM revealed that low-clinker cement mortars are at the top of the ranking, due to a lower environmental impact and lower cost of materials.

Keywords:

• 3D printing
• sustainable mortars
• geopolymers
• recycle aggregates
• life cycle assessment (LCA)
• multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank the following companies for their contribution: Solvay, for supplying the fly ash and sodium hydroxide; BASF, for providing the additives used in the research; Abonomar S.L., for providing the baby clams sand; Reciclajes Camargo S.L., for supplying the CDW sand, FCC Ámbito, for providing the smashed recycled glass and Grupo Cementos Portland Valderribas (Mataporquera plant) for providing the cement.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work has been co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund through the Interreg Atlantic Area Programme, under the project 3DPARE (EAPA_174/2016). This work reflects the authors’ opinion, so the authorities of the programme are not responsible for the use of the information here included.