Next Article in Journal
Graphical Dependencies and Mechanical Unit Selection for Driving a Work Machine
Previous Article in Journal
Design of Pentagon-Shaped THz Photonic Crystal Fiber Biosensor for Early Detection of Crop Pathogens Using Decision Cascaded 3D Return Dilated Secretary-Bird Aligned Convolutional Transformer Network
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Engineering Proceedings
Volume 107
Issue 1
10.3390/engproc2025107093
engproc-logo
Submit to this Journal
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Systematic Literature Review: 3D Printing Technology for Sustainable Construction Innovation †

by
Sofa Lailatul Marifah
,
Utamy Sukmayu Saputri
* and
Dio Damas Permadi
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty Engineering, Computer and Design, Nusa Putra University, Sukabumi 43152, West Java, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Presented at the 7th International Global Conference Series on ICT Integration in Technical Education & Smart Society, Aizuwakamatsu City, Japan, 20–26 January 2025.
Eng. Proc. 2025, 107(1), 93; https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025107093
Published: 15 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Proceedings of The 7th International Global Conference Series on ICT Integration in Technical Education & Smart Society)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Using systematic literature observations, this study explains how 3D printing technology is being applied to innovative sustainable construction (Systematic Literature Review). Additive manufacturing, also referred to as 3D printing technology, has greatly increased productivity and adoption in the building sector. The utilization of eco-friendly materials, enhancing sustainable building practices, and the environmental impact of 3D printing technology in comparison to conventional techniques are the three primary areas of attention for this study. By reducing material waste through additive manufacturing methods, 3D printing technology may employ alternative resources like fly ash, geopolymers, and limestone calcined clay (LC3) cement, which lowers carbon emissions considerably, according to observation data. This technology also speeds up the construction process, saves costs, and enables complex architectural designs that are difficult to achieve with conventional methods. There are still a number of issues, though, such as the high upfront expenditures of supplies and equipment and the long-term robustness of the molded structures that are produced. Nevertheless, 3D printing has enormous potential to transform building methods into more effective and ecologically friendly ones as a result of technological advancements and growing knowledge of desirability. This research provides valuable insights for stakeholders in supporting wider application of this technology to achieve sustainable development goals.

1. Introduction

Three-dimensional printing technology, or additive manufacturing, is a process in which physical objects are built layer by layer based on digital models [1]. Since its introduction in the 1980s, this technology has experienced significant development [2], from use in prototyping to wider applications in industry, including construction [3]. In a construction context, 3D printing offers a faster and more efficient method for building structures [4,5,6,7] reducing material waste [8,9], and minimizing environmental impact [5,10,11,12].
As time goes by, 3D technological innovation in sustainable construction is becoming increasingly important as awareness of climate change and the need to reduce carbon footprints increases [13]. According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the building sector contributes around 39% of global CO2 emissions [14], so the adoption of new, more environmentally friendly technologies is very necessary [15,16]. Innovations such as 3D printing can not only reduce material waste but can also speed up the building process and increase energy efficiency [17,18,19,20,21,22]. For example, a 3D printing project in Dubai managed to complete a building in 17 days, compared to traditional methods, which could take months [23].
Three-dimensional printing has great potential to support sustainable construction [24,25,26,27] by integrating environmentally friendly materials and reducing resource use [28]. By enabling the use of substitute materials like biopolymers and environmentally friendly concrete, this technology can lessen the negative effects of construction on the environment [29,30]. According to a study, 3D printing with limestone calcined clay cement can boost durability and cut CO2 emissions by as much as 30% [31,32]. Additionally, 3D printing allows for more complex and efficient designs, which can reduce the need for additional materials and optimize space use [33,34,35].
This research has great significance in the context of the construction industry, especially in efforts to achieve sustainable development goals. By identifying best practices and innovations that have been implemented, this research can provide valuable insights for stakeholders, including contractors, architects, and policy makers. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the findings of this study would promote a broader use of 3D printing technology in building projects, potentially reducing waste and carbon emissions.
The scope of this research will be limited to the application of 3D printing technology in sustainable construction, with a focus on the materials used and the printing process, as well as the environmental impact of this technology.
The literature to be analyzed in this research will be selected based on certain criteria, including relevance to the topic, research quality, and publications in Scopus-indexed journals in the last five years [36,37]. This aims to ensure that the information used is up to date and has high credibility. Additionally, the research will include articles discussing various aspects of 3D printing technology, including materials, techniques, and case studies of field applications.
The research in this appendix has significant differences compared to previous research, especially in its methodological approach, sustainability focus, and practical contributions. Using the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) method based on PRISMA guidelines, this research systematically screens the latest literature in the last five years to ensure relevance and high quality. This study thoroughly examines how 3D printing technology supports ecologically friendly building practices and the use of sustainable materials, in contrast to earlier research that was frequently descriptive in nature. In addition, this article integrates the exploration of innovative materials, such as mycelium-based materials and waste-based materials, that support a circular economy. The research also explicitly compares 3D printing technology with traditional construction methods, demonstrating significant advantages such as time efficiency and reduced material waste. Not only that, this research provides strategic recommendations for stakeholders, making it practically relevant in supporting sustainable development goals.

Goal of the Review

This study uses a systematic approach to evaluate the relevant literature. This method seeks to offer a thorough grasp of how 3D printing technology is applied in a sustainable setting [38,39]. This research explores various key factors regarding 3D printing technology by formulating three research questions (RQs).
RQ 1:
How can 3D printing technology improve sustainable construction practices?
RQ 2:
What are the most widely used materials in 3D printing for sustainable construction?
RQ 3:
How does the environmental impact of using 3D printing technology compare to traditional construction methods?

2. Methodology

This study employed the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) method, which is intended to give a thorough grasp of the research topic by methodically finding, assessing, and synthesizing the pertinent literature. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards, which offer an open and organized approach for searching and evaluating the literature, were adhered to in this study’s SLR [40,41,42].

2.1. Systematic Approach in Literature Review

The author conducts the literature evaluation with rigor and method in order to give readers a comprehensive and in-depth grasp of the subject, with a particular emphasis on the use of 3D printing technology in sustainable construction [43]. This systematic method not only ensures a structured examination of existing studies but also facilitates the identification, critical evaluation, and synthesis of findings that align with contemporary advancements and trends in the field. Using this method, the author methodically develops research questions intended to tackle important issues, investigate new prospects, and evaluate the usefulness of 3D printing technology in the context of environmentally friendly building [44,45]. Such a thorough approach strengthens the review’s credibility and applicability, establishing it as a significant addition to the field’s practical implementation tactics as well as scholarly discourse.

2.2. Data Collection Process

The data collection process was conducted by the researcher through a systematic search of peer-reviewed journals indexed in Scopus, ensuring the inclusion of high-quality and credible sources [46]. The search strategy involved the use of well-defined keywords tailored to align closely with the research theme. Specifically, the keywords employed were variations of terms related to 3D printing technologies, including (“3D Printing” OR “3D-Printing” OR “3-D Printing” OR “3D printing Technology” OR “3D printing Innovation”) AND (“Sustainable Construction” OR “Sustainable Development”). This approach was designed to capture a comprehensive range of the literature at the intersection of advanced manufacturing technologies and sustainable practices in construction.

2.3. Selection of Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

A key factor in guaranteeing the quality and applicability of the papers examined in this study was the use of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles published in the last five years that specifically addressed 3D printing technology in the context of sustainable construction and showed a methodical and well-documented approach were required to meet the inclusion requirements. Conversely, articles that were not peer-reviewed, lacked relevance to the central theme, or were published before 2020 were excluded from consideration. By ensuring that the data extracted for the review was both high-quality and in line with recent developments, this stringent screening procedure was put in place to improve the validity and dependability of the results [47].
The article selection process followed a structured and multi-step approach. Initially, a broad search was conducted using predetermined keywords to gather a comprehensive pool of articles matching the inclusion criteria. Subsequently, a filtering process was applied, which involved a thorough review of keywords and abstracts to assess the relevance of each article to the research focus. Articles that passed this stage were then downloaded and subjected to in-depth analysis to extract key insights. To facilitate efficient organization and management of the selected literature, researchers utilized reference management software such as Mendeley, enabling systematic storage and easy retrieval of the articles. This meticulous process not only streamlined the analysis but also ensured that all relevant and high-quality studies were included for detailed examination, ultimately contributing to the robustness of the review [48].

2.4. Data Analysis

The author carried out in-depth data analysis to ensure relevance to the research theme raised. This process includes collecting and reviewing data from various identified sources. The data obtained was then classified into several main categories, namely, findings, methodology, dataset, and summary. This approach is designed systematically to ensure that each category is able to provide a direct contribution in answering the research questions that have been formulated. Thus, the analysis carried out is not only relevant but also provides a structured and comprehensive understanding of the research theme.
From the number of studies discovered in the first search to the final number of papers examined, the PRISMA flow diagram is utilized to explain the literature selection process. It looks like the following in Figure 1:

3. Result and Discussion

A comprehensive table that summarizes the main conclusions drawn from numerous academic publications on the use of 3D printing technology in the field of sustainable construction has been painstakingly put together as part of the study that was conducted. This table serves as a comprehensive synthesis, detailing the critical aspects of how this cutting-edge technology is being utilized to address pressing global challenges in construction practices. It highlights not only the innovative techniques applied and the advanced materials employed but also delves into the profound environmental impacts, resource efficiencies, and economic benefits associated with these advancements.
The results provide a thorough grasp of the revolutionary potential of 3D printing in reinventing traditional construction techniques thanks to this organized portrayal. By presenting a clear link between technology, material science, and environmental sustainability, the table serves as a foundation for thoughtful discussion and critical analysis. This analysis aims to uncover the potential advantages, explore the inherent challenges, and provide a roadmap for integrating 3D printing technology into sustainable development goals. The summarized data in the table below is thus not only informative but also instrumental in driving future research and practical applications in this innovative field. The following is a Table 1 of findings based on relevant research:

3.1. Three-Dimensional Printing Technology Improve Sustainable Construction Practices

By using its additive manufacturing process, which differs from conventional subtractive manufacturing techniques, 3D printing technology greatly improves sustainable construction practices [49,50]. This process minimizes material waste by only using the exact amount of material required for the specific design, reducing excess waste associated with cutting, shaping, and molding materials in conventional construction techniques [51]. Unlike traditional methods, which often generate substantial amounts of scrap materials, 3D printing ensures that all the material used is precisely placed where needed, thus minimizing waste. Furthermore, it avoids the loss of materials that occurs during the subtractive manufacturing process, making it inherently more efficient. This process minimizes material waste by only using the exact amount of material required for the specific design, reducing excess waste associated with cutting, shaping, and molding materials in conventional construction techniques. In contrast to conventional techniques, which frequently result in significant amounts of waste, 3D printing makes sure that every item is precisely where it is needed, reducing waste [52]. Furthermore, 3D printing allows for the creation of highly complex and intricate geometries that would be impossible or highly expensive to achieve with conventional construction methods [53,54]. These designs often enable better load distribution and reduce stress concentration, contributing to lighter structures that maintain or even enhance structural integrity. These designs often result in lighter structures that require fewer raw materials while maintaining or even enhancing structural integrity [55].
The technology’s ability to optimize material usage contributes to resource efficiency, as it minimizes overproduction and encourages the thoughtful use of resources [56,57]. Further encouraging cost-effective and time-efficient construction methods, the automation that comes with 3D printing also lowers human error, eliminates the need for on-site workers, and greatly accelerates the construction timeline. Additionally, 3D printing offers the potential to use alternative and sustainable materials, such as geopolymer-based materials, recycled aggregates, and even waste products from other industries, which reduces the demand for virgin natural resources [58]. This integration of local and alternative materials aligns well with the principles of a circular economy, where the emphasis is on reusing, recycling, and reducing the need for new raw materials [59]. Moreover, 3D printing can accelerate construction timelines, as it reduces the need for labor-intensive, time-consuming processes, while also decreasing the risk of on-site accidents due to fewer manual tasks [60]. Automated production capabilities also enable the efficient and precise fabrication of intricate architectural components, contributing to further optimization of construction time and costs. As a result, 3D printing not only reduces the environmental footprint but also promotes cost-effective and time-efficient construction practices [61].

3.2. The Used Materials in 3D Printing for Sustainable Construction

The primary criteria for choosing the materials used in 3D printing for sustainable building are their durability, environmental effect, and compatibility with sustainable design concepts. Because they directly address the difficulties of lowering the carbon footprint and guaranteeing the longevity of construction projects in accordance with sustainability goals, these criteria are very important. Alternative binders and cementitious composites are two of the most popular materials. Traditional Portland cement and other cement-based materials are frequently mixed with more environmentally friendly alternatives such as fly ash, silica fume, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), and limestone–calcined clay (LC3) [59]. These materials offer higher durability, which adds to the structure’s total longevity, while also lowering the carbon footprint associated with the production of cement. The environmental impact of building can be significantly reduced by substituting these alternative binders for a sizable amount of the cement [48].
Because of their superior mechanical qualities and low production carbon emissions, geopolymer binders—which are derived from industrial byproducts like fly ash, slag, or metakaolin—are being utilized in 3D printing more and more [48]. The use of recycled aggregates in combination with geopolymer binders further enhances sustainability by minimizing the need for newly mined raw materials and providing a valuable use for waste materials.
In addition to these conventional materials, there is growing interest in bio-based and innovative materials for 3D printing. For example, mycelium-based materials, derived from fungi, have been explored for their ability to create lightweight and biodegradable structures [62]. Biopolymers, made from renewable plant-based sources, are also being tested in 3D printing applications to reduce reliance on petroleum-based plastics [39]. Additionally, construction waste, such as crushed brick, glass, or plastic, can be repurposed into 3D printing materials, supporting waste reduction and circular economy goals [63]. These alternative materials offer significant potential to reduce environmental impact while providing sustainable solutions for the construction industry. In line with the current trend, the development of innovative materials that can be applied in the 3D printing process is gaining increasing attention, as illustrated in Figure 2.

3.3. The Environmental Impact of Using 3D Printing Technology Compared to Traditional Construction Methods

The environmental impact of using 3D printing technology in construction is considerably lower than that of traditional methods. The traditional construction industry is notorious for its high levels of waste, energy consumption, and raw material extraction. In contrast, 3D printing significantly reduces material waste through its additive manufacturing process, which uses only the precise amount of material required to construct each element. This is a significant benefit over conventional techniques, which frequently result in overordering of materials, the discarding of extra material, or significant material waste during cutting and shaping. Furthermore, 3D printing makes it possible to employ low-carbon substitute materials like recycled aggregates or geopolymer mixes, which significantly lowers the carbon footprint of building projects [58].
Numerous studies have demonstrated that using sustainable substitutes like geopolymer or LC3 mixes in place of traditional Portland cement can reduce carbon emissions by as much as 60–80% [58]. These reductions are primarily achieved because these materials either require less energy during production or involve chemical reactions that release lower levels of CO2 compared to traditional cement. These alternative materials are not only more environmentally friendly in terms of their production process but also offer superior performance, such as increased durability and resistance to environmental stress [32]. Moreover, the energy required for 3D printing is typically lower than that for traditional construction processes, as it eliminates the need for energy-intensive tasks such as formwork and material transportation [59].
Notwithstanding these advantages, 3D printing in the building industry has drawbacks. The long-term durability of printed buildings is one major issue, which can be impacted by the characteristics of the material, exposure to external conditions, and the absence of standardized testing protocols. Since more research and development is still needed to determine the long-term performance of 3D-printed materials, one issue is the longevity of printed structures [63]. The greater upfront costs of specialist materials and 3D printing technology present another difficulty and may prevent widespread use, particularly in underdeveloped nations [51]. But given the continuous improvements in 3D printing technology and the rising awareness of environmentally friendly building methods, it appears that these obstacles can be surmounted, eventually resulting in a more efficient and sustainable construction sector.

4. Conclusions

Based on a systematic analysis of the literature related to 3D printing technology in sustainable construction, it can be concluded that this technology has great potential to revolutionize construction practices towards sustainability. Three-dimensional printing technology enables significant efficiencies through an additive manufacturing approach that minimizes material waste by using only the amount of material required for a given design. This directly reduces the environmental impact that traditional construction methods typically produce, such as waste from material cutting and conventional molding.
In addition, 3D printing encourages the use of more ecologically acceptable substitute materials such as fly ash, slag, limestone calcined clay cement (LC3), and geopolymer binder. It has been demonstrated that using this material instead of traditional Portland cement can save carbon emissions by as much as 60–80%. This creative method also supports the circular economy by allowing the utilization of industrial waste, such as organic materials and recycled aggregates. In addition to enhancing sustainability, the combination of these materials results in constructions with superior mechanical performance and excellent durability.
High design freedom is another benefit of 3D printing technology, which makes it possible to create intricate, lightweight geometric shapes that are challenging to accomplish with conventional techniques. This advantage has a positive impact on time and cost efficiency, especially because the layer-by-layer printing process speeds up construction, reduces labor requirements, and eliminates the need for formwork. Case studies show that projects based on this technology can save construction time significantly, as seen in the building being completed in just 17 days compared to several months with conventional methods.
However, there are also issues with this technology’s adoption, such as the molded structure’s limited long-term durability and the comparatively expensive initial expenditures of specialized tools and materials. To promote broader use, standardized design standards and professional training are also required. But with the ongoing advancement of technology and growing recognition of the value of sustainability, 3D printing holds enormous promise as the primary means of establishing a more productive, ecologically responsible, and sustainable construction sector.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L.M. and U.S.S.; methodology, S.L.M.; formal analysis, S.L.M. and D.D.P.; investigation, S.L.M. and U.S.S.; data curation, S.L.M.; writing original draft preparation, S.L.M.; writing review and editing, U.S.S. and D.D.P.; visualization, D.D.P.; supervision, U.S.S. and D.D.P.; project administration, U.S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Nusa Putra University through the Nutral project.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Shahrubudin, N.; Lee, T.C.; Ramlan, R. An overview on 3D printing technology: Technological, materials, and applications. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 35, 1286–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Scott, J.A.; Weber, C.L.; Newsome, S.; Wohlers, T.T. Additive manufacturing: Status and Opportunities. 2012. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312153354 (accessed on 8 December 2024).
  3. Tay, Y.W.D.; Paul, S.C.; Mohamed, N.A.N.; Tan, M.J. 3D printing trends in building and construction industry: A review. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2017, 12, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ben Romdhane, L. 3D Printing in Construction: Benefits and Challenges. 2020. Available online: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:233255105 (accessed on 8 December 2024).
  5. Yin, H.; Qu, M.; Zhang, H.; Lim, Y. 3D printing and buildings: A technology review and future outlook. Technol. Archit. Des. 2018, 2, 94–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhao, Z.; Ji, C.; Xiao, J.; Yao, L.; Lin, C.; Ding, T.; Ye, T. A critical review on reducing the environmental impact of 3D printing concrete: Material preparation, construction process and structure level. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 409, 133887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jagoda, J.A.; Diggs-McGee, B.N.; Kreiger, M.A.; Schuldt, S. The viability and simplicity of 3D-printed construction: A military case study. Infrastructures 2020, 5, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Perkins, I.; Skitmore, M. Three-dimensional printing in the construction industry: A review. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2015, 15, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tabassum, T.; Mir, A.A. A review of 3D printing technology: The future of sustainable construction. In Materialstoday Proceedings, Proceedings of UKIERI Concrete Congress–‘Sustainable Concrete Infrastructure’, Jalandhar, India, 14–17 March 2023; Elsevier: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Khan, S.A.; Jassim, M.; Ilcan, H.; Şahin, O.; Bayer, I.R.; Sahmaran, M.; Koç, M. 3D printing of circular materials: Comparative environmental analysis of materials and construction techniques. CSCM 2023, 18, e02059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Guimarães, A.S.; Delgado, J.M.P.Q.; Lucas, S.S. Thermal and environmental benefits of 3D printing on building construction. Defect Diffus. Forum 2021, 412, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liu, S.; Lu, B.; Li, H.; Pan, Z.; Jiang, J.; Qian, S. A comparative study on environmental performance of 3D printing and conventional casting of concrete products with industrial wastes. Chemosphere 2022, 307, 134310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sizirici, B.; Fseha, Y.H.; Cho, C.-S.; Yildiz, I.; Byon, Y.-J. A review of carbon footprint reduction in construction industry, from design to operation. Materials 2021, 14, 6094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ürge-Vorsatz, D.; Khosla, R.; Bernhardt, R.; Chatterjee, S.; Daniel, N.; Dhakal, S.; Fishman, T.; Habert, G.; Lucon, O.; Pyke, C.; et al. Advances toward a net-zero global building sector. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2020, 45, 227–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kim, S. Technology and management for sustainable buildings and infrastructures. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ma, Z.; Awan, M.B.; Lu, M.; Li, S.; Aziz, M.S. An overview of emerging and sustainable technologies for increased energy efficiency and carbon emission mitigation in buildings. Buildings 2023, 13, 2658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Top, S.M.; Cudzik, J.; İlerisoy, Z.Y. A comprehensive review of life cycle assessment and energy efficiency in 3D printing for construction: Current state, benefits, limitations, and future outlook. J. Green Build. 2024, 19, 111–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ebrahimi, M.; Mohseni, M.; Aslani, A.; Zahedi, R.M. Investigation of thermal performance and life-cycle assessment of a 3D printed building. Energy Build. 2022, 271, 112341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lai, Z.; Chen, Y. From wreckage to resource: Advanced 3D printing materials from construction waste for energy infrastructure. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2024, 16, 026103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Raja, S.; Al-Tmimi, H.M.; Ghadir, G.K.; Mustafa, M.A.; Alani, Z.K.; Rusho, M.A.; Rajeswari, N. An analysis of polymer material selection and design optimization to improve structural integrity in 3D printed aerospace components. Appl. Chem. Eng. 2024, 7, 1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dikit, M.K. 3-D printing in building construction: A literature review of opportunities and challenges of reducing life cycle energy and carbon of buildings. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Proceedings of the Central Europe Towards Sustainable Building (CESB19), Prague, Czech, 2–4 July 2019; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Leong, W.Y.; Leong, Y.Z.; Leong, W.S. Accelerating the energy transition via 3D printing. In Proceedings of the 2023 Asia Meeting on Environment and Electrical Engineering (EEE-AM), Hanoi, Vietnam, 13–15 November 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alawneh, M. The World’s First 3D–Printed Office Building in Dubai. 2018. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/62935073/The_World_s_First_3D_PRINTED_Office_Building_in_Dubai (accessed on 9 December 2024).
  24. Tahmasebinia, F.; Sepasgozar, S.M.E.; Shirowzhan, S.; Niemela, M.; Tripp, A.; Nagabhyrava, S.; Mansuri, K.K.Z.; Alonso-Marroquin, F. Criteria development for sustainable construction manufacturing in Construction Industry 4.0: Theoretical and laboratory investigations. Construct. Innov. 2020, 20, 379–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nadagouda, M.N.; Ginn, M.; Rastogi, V. A review of 3D printing techniques for environmental applications. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2020, 28, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ibrahim, I.; Eltarabishi, F.; Abdalla, H.; Abdallah, M. 3D printing in sustainable buildings: Systematic review and applications in the United Arab Emirates. Buildings 2022, 12, 1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhuang, Z.; Xu, F.; Ye, J.; Hu, N.; Jiang, L.; Weng, Y. A comprehensive review of sustainable materials and toolpath optimization in 3D concrete printing. npj Mater. Sustain. 2024, 3, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Thajeel, M.M.; Balázs, G.L. 3D printing for earth construction—Review. Concr. Struct. 2022, 1, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tusnim, J.; Hoque, E.; Biswas, M.C. Biopolymers in building materials. In Biopolymers and Biotech Admixtures for Eco-Efficient Construction Materials; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 229–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khan, M.; McNally, C. Recent developments on low carbon 3D printing concrete: Revolutionizing construction through innovative technology. Clean. Mater. 2024, 12, 100251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Al-Noaimat, Y.A.; AbouRizk, S.M.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G.; Tayeh, B.A.; Abu-Dagga, A.H.; Al-Sakkaf, A.; Abu-Obeid, N. 3D printing of limestone–calcined clay cement: A review of its potential implementation in the construction industry. Results Eng. 2023, 19, 101115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ibrahim, K.A.; van Zijl, G.P.A.G.; Babafemi, A.J. Influence of limestone calcined clay cement on properties of 3D printed concrete for sustainable construction. SSRN 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rasulzade, J.; Maksum, Y.; Nogaibayeva, M.; Rustamov, S.; Akhmetov, B. Reduction of material usage in 3D printable structures using topology optimization accelerated with U-net convolutional neural network. Eurasian Chem. J. 2022, 24, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alimrani, N.; Thajeel, M.M.; Balázs, G.L. Structural aspects of topology optimization in 3D printing of concrete. Concr. Struct. 2022, 1, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jones, A.; Cameron, T.; Eichholz, B.; Eichers, M.; Kray, T.; Straub, J. Reducing space sensing and other mission cost with 3D printing infill optimization. In Proceedings of the SPIE Defense+Commercial Sensing 2019, Baltimore, MD, USA, 14–18 April 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pereira, G.R.; Gasi, F.; Lourenço, S.R. Review, analysis, and classification of 3D printing literature: Types of research and technology benefits. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Sci. 2019, 6, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wankhade, P.D.; Jawarkar, S.G.; Jadhao, D.M.P. A synopsis of 3D printing technology: Materials, applications and technology. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. 2024, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  38. Spicek, N.; Besklubova, S.; Skibniewski, M.J. Benchmarking critical success factors in construction projects utilizing 3D printing technology. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2023, 20, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Christ, J.; Leusink, S.; Koss, H. Multi-axial 3D printing of biopolymer-based concrete composites in construction. Mater. Des. 2023, 235, 112410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pati, D.; Lorusso, L.N. How to write a systematic review of the literature. HERD Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2018, 11, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hassan, F.; Othman, S.S.; Yusoff, S.H.; Ali, K.; Omar, S.Z.; Musaddad, M.A. A systematic literature review of knowledge and awareness on terrorism. Eur. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2022, 117, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ning, X.; Liu, T.; Wu, C.; Wang, C. 3D printing in construction: Current status, implementation hindrances, and development agenda. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 6665333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Žujović, M.; Obradović, R.; Rakonjac, I.; Milošević, J. 3D Printing Technologies in Architectural Design and Construction: A Systematic Literature Review. Buildings 2022, 12, 1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Varillas, C.J.N.; Espinoza, M.S.R.; Gamboa, A.C.G. 3D printing: An opportunity for the sustainable development of building construction. In Proceedings of the 40th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2023), Chennai, India, 3–6 July 2023; pp. 692–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Baas, J.; Schotten, M.; Plume, A.M.; Côté, G.; Karimi, R. Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2020, 1, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Brackett, A.; Batten, J. Ensuring the rigor in systematic reviews: Part 4, screening the results. Heart Lung J. Crit. Care 2021, 50, 182–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Youssef, M.A.; Abbas, L. Applying 3D printing technology in constructing sustainable houses. Archit. Plan. J. 2023, 29, 1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bhusal, S.; Kshirsagar, S.B. Comparison of construction with traditional method and 3D printing technology. IRE J. 2020, 3, 93–97. [Google Scholar]
  50. Babbar, A.; Rai, A.; Sharma, A. Latest trend in building construction: Three-dimensional printing. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1950, 012007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Oke, A.E.; Atofarati, J.O.; Folasade, S. Awareness of 3D Printing for Sustainable Construction in an Emerging Economy. Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build. 2022, 22, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ebadi-jamkhaneh, M.; Kontoni, D.N.; Ebrahimi, A.H. Three-Dimensional Printing of Structural Members with Shotcrete Technique: Design, Construction, and Future Directions. E3S Web Conf. 2023, 436, 08010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Flatt, R.J.; Wangler, T. On sustainability and digital fabrication with concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2022, 158, 106837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ambekar, R.S.; Kumar, S.; Park, J.; Kumar, A.; Kim, D.; Lee, H.; Kim, K.; Kang, M. Topologically engineered 3D printed architectures with superior mechanical strength. Mater. Today 2021, 48, 72–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Brüggemann, H.; Stempin, S.; Meier, J.-M. Consideration of digitalization for the purpose of resource efficiency in a learning factory. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 45, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nilimaa, J. Smart materials and technologies for sustainable concrete construction. Dev. Built Environ. 2023, 15, 100177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pasupathy, K.; Ramakrishnan, S.; Sanjayan, J. 3D concrete printing of eco-friendly geopolymer containing brick waste. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2023, 138, 104943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bhattacherjee, S.; Basavaraj, A.; Rahul, A.V.; Santehanam, M.; Gettu, R.; Panda, B.; Schlangen, E.; Chen, Y.; Cpuroglu, O.; Ma, G.; et al. Sustainable materials for 3D concrete printing. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2021, 122, 104156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Asensio, J.; Josa, I.; Monserrat, A.; De Fuente, A. 3D-printed concrete footbridges: An approach to assess the sustainability performance. Struct. Concr. 2023, 24, 7705–7725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Moscatelli, M. Preserving Tradition through Evolution: Critical Review of 3D Printing for Saudi Arabia’s Cultural Identity. Buildings 2024, 14, 697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Soh, E.; Heng, J.; Leong, B.; Xing, T.; Le, H. 3D printing of mycelium engineered living materials using a waste-based ink and non-sterile conditions. Mater. Des. 2023, 236, 112481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jano, L.C.; Obregon, P.P.; Lázaro, M.; Fernandez, E.B. Enhancing sustainability in polymer 3D printing via fusion filament fabrication through integration of by-products in powder form: Mechanical and thermal characterization. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2024, 133, 1251–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Biggerstaff, A.; Fuller, G.; Lepech, M.; Loftus, D. Determining the yield stress of a biopolymer-bound soil composite for extrusion-based 3D printing applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 305, 124730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Engproc 107 00093 g001
Figure 1. Prisma diagram.
Figure 1. Prisma diagram.
Engproc 107 00093 g001
Engproc 107 00093 g002
Figure 2. Trends material used in the 3D printing process.
Figure 2. Trends material used in the 3D printing process.
Engproc 107 00093 g002
Table 1. Result of findings.
Table 1. Result of findings.
TitleTechnology 3D Printing ApplicationMaterialImpact of 3D Printing
Awareness of 3D Printing for Sustainable Construction in an Emerging EconomyEnables layer-by-layer control, providing design flexibility, reducing waste, and speeding up the construction process in molding concrete elements, window frames, and plumbing fittings.Concrete, plastic, nylon, ceramic paste and photo-curative resinRemoves the need for formwork, which cuts down on construction time and expenses
Sustainable materials for 3D concrete printingPrinting concrete structures with special materials designed to meet the needs of extrudability, shape stability, and strengthGeopolymer, calcium sulfo-aluminate (CSA) cement, and reactive magnesium oxide cementReduced material waste, design flexibility for complex structures, energy efficiency, and costs
On sustainability and digital fabrication with concreteReduces the need for excess material through more efficient designs, such as complex geometric shapes and lightweight structures, and enables high-precision layer-by-layer printing to optimize materialsConcrete without coarse aggregate, fly ash, slag, and calcined clay, geopolymer, or calcium sulfo-aluminate-based mixturesReducing labor costs through automation and reducing construction time
3D concrete printing of eco-friendly geopolymer containing brick waste3D printing technology is applied by utilizing environmentally friendly geopolymer materials and creating layered structures without molding.Finely ground brick waste, geopolymer binder based on slag, fly ash, and sodium metasilicate, silica sand, nano clayEfficiency, speeding up the construction process, and reducing production time
Influence of limestone calcined clay cement on properties of 3D printed concrete for sustainable construction3D printing technology is applied using Limestone Calcined Clay Cement (LC3) to reduce carbon emissions, increase material efficiency, and minimize material use.Limestone Calcined Clay Cement (LC3)Reduced costs, more environmentally friendly, and construction time is also reduced
Smart materials and technologies for sustainable concrete constructionThis method allows reducing material waste, optimizing resources, and applying the concept of design for sustainability to concrete components with high precision and complex geometric shapes.Fly ash, silica fume, and ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), green concrete, geopolymer bindersReduce time and costs in production
3D-printed concrete footbridges: An approach to assess the sustainability performance3D printing technology is applied in the construction of footbridges based on 3D-printed concrete, and this application reduces carbon emissions by up to 40%.Cementitious composites, concrete mortar, polyethylene fiber, post-tensioned steel cables, and local aggregates to support sustainabilityReducing labor, reducing material costs
Multi-axial 3D printing of biopolymer-based concrete composites in constructionPrinting concrete components with free geometry.The hydrogel is based on mammalian gelatin, silica sand with a particle size of ≤0.18 mm, and waterCost and time efficiency
3D printing of mycelium engineered living materials using a waste-based ink and non-sterile conditionsMycelium proliferation to strengthen the structure and produce features such as self-healing and natural adhesive.Agar, coffee grounds, liquid mycelium (Pleurotus ostreatus), malt, and peptoneCost and time efficiency
Preserving Tradition through Evolution: Critical Review of 3D Printing for Saudi Arabia’s Cultural Identity3D printing technology is applied to create structures that combine traditional and innovative elements that can reduce carbon footprints, material efficiency, and complex architectural designs.Limestone and calcined clay, local clay, bioplastics or industrial waste (crushed glass and scrap metal), and fibers from local plants, such as mud and strawCost and time efficiency
An approach to develop set-on-demand 3D printable limestone–calcined clay-based cementitious materials using calcium nitrateExtrusion-based 3D concrete printing (3DCP) technology is applied using limestone–calcined clay cement (LC3)-based material, enabling efficient and sustainable layer-by-layer molding.Portland Cement (CEM I 52.5 R), limestone powder and calcined clay, calcium nitrate (Ca (NO3)2) solution, fine quartz aggregate, superplasticizer, and polycarboxylateCost efficiency, lower carbon footprint, time efficiency, and increase printing productivity without affecting structural stability
Fresh and strength properties of 3D printable concrete mixtures utilising a high volume of sustainable alternative bindersThree-dimensional printing technology is applied using extrusion-based concrete printing to produce concrete structures layer by layer without molds so as to reduce material consumption and carbon emissions.Fly ash, silica fume, ground granulated blast furnace slag, metakaolin, kaolinite, fine aggregate, superplasticizerCost and time efficiency
Enhancing sustainability in polymer 3D printing via fusion flament fabrication through integration of by-products in powder form: mechanical and thermal characterizationFused Filament Fabrication (FFF) technology combines shell powder, crushed car glass, and metal residue into plastic filament to reduce plastic consumption and create a more environmentally friendly filament material for 3D printing applications.Polylactic Acid, PETg (Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol-modified), seashells (calcium carbonate), crushed car glass, metal residueCost and time efficiency
Determining the yield stress of a Biopolymer-bound Soil Composite for extrusion-based 3D printing applicationsExtrusion-based 3D printing (E3DP) technology is applied using biopolymer-bound soil composite (BSC) to produce a stable and environmentally friendly structure.Bovine blood protein-based biopolymer, soil (lunar regolith simulant or JSC-1A), deionized waterCost and time efficiency
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marifah, S.L.; Saputri, U.S.; Permadi, D.D. Systematic Literature Review: 3D Printing Technology for Sustainable Construction Innovation. Eng. Proc. 2025, 107, 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025107093

AMA Style

Marifah SL, Saputri US, Permadi DD. Systematic Literature Review: 3D Printing Technology for Sustainable Construction Innovation. Engineering Proceedings. 2025; 107(1):93. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025107093

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marifah, Sofa Lailatul, Utamy Sukmayu Saputri, and Dio Damas Permadi. 2025. "Systematic Literature Review: 3D Printing Technology for Sustainable Construction Innovation" Engineering Proceedings 107, no. 1: 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025107093

APA Style

Marifah, S. L., Saputri, U. S., & Permadi, D. D. (2025). Systematic Literature Review: 3D Printing Technology for Sustainable Construction Innovation. Engineering Proceedings, 107(1), 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025107093

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop