The Structural Revolution: 3D-Printed Concrete From Architectural Features to Load-Bearing Components in 2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 2025—THE YEAR 3D-PRINTED CONCRETE BECAME STRUCTURAL

 

2025 is a definitive inflection point for construction. 

3D-Printed Concrete (3DCP) has moved beyond prototypes and non-structural uses to become a viable, scalable, and structural component. 

This transition stems not from one invention, but from three reinforcing developments this report will analyze..

First, the industry has begun to solve concrete’s inherent tensile weakness and the unique “anisotropic” challenges of layered printing. 

This is being achieved through a new generation of sophisticated material science and, crucially, novel reinforcement techniques.3 

Groundbreaking 2025 solutions, such as the Assembled Steel Cage (ASC) system for beams and automated helical reinforcement for complex geometries, are moving from academic papers to practical application, directly addressing the core structural deficits of earlier 3DCP methods.5

Second, these new technologies are being validated by a series of landmark, world-first projects that have moved from research to physical reality in 2024 and 2025. 

The completion of the 30-meter-tall, load-bearing “Tor Alva” tower in Switzerland and the launch of the multi-story “Project Milestone” homes in the Netherlands are providing the essential engineering blueprints and real-world data for structural, multi-story 3DCP.7 

These case studies demonstrate two divergent but equally viable paths—one “purist” structural approach and one “pragmatic” hybrid approach—that are defining the technology’s commercial rollout.

Third, and perhaps most significantly for mass adoption, is the codification of the entire process. 

The industry is witnessing a seismic shift en masse from the preliminary ICC-ES AC509 “Acceptance Criteria”—a case-by-case workaround—to the new, comprehensive ANSI standard ICC 1150.9 

This development, finalized in 2025, is the catalyst that transforms 3DCP from a proprietary, high-risk “method” into a codified, insurable, and scalable engineering discipline.12

This report deconstructs this revolution in three parts. 

It will provide a deep technical analysis of the material and reinforcement breakthroughs (Parts 2 & 3), examine the practical applications and landmark case studies that define the 2025 landscape (Parts 4 & 5), and analyze the commercial ecosystem and regulatory frameworks that are finally unlocking the structural potential of 3D-printed concrete (Parts 6 & 7).

 

PART 1: 

THE DIGITAL FRAMEWORK

1.1. From Digital Design to Physical Form: The Additive Process

Three-dimensional concrete printing (3DCP) is an innovative construction method that operates on the principles of additive manufacturing (AM).14 

It is a form of digital fabrication that builds structures layer by layer directly from a digital file, rather than using the traditional, subtractive, or formwork-based methods.15

CORE PRINCIPLES OF 3D CONCRETE PRINTING

The 3DCP process, while complex in its material science, follows a consistent and logical workflow:

1. Digital Model and Slicing: The process begins with a 3D digital model, typically created in Computer-Aided Design (CAD) or Building Information Modeling (BIM) software.17 This model is then processed by specialized software that “slices” the design into a series of thin, horizontal layers. This slicing software generates the specific toolpath—the machine instructions—that the printer will follow.18
2. Material Preparation: A specialized, high-performance concrete (or mortar) mix is prepared.18 This mix must possess unique rheological properties, a topic explored in Part 2. This material is then fed into a pump, which delivers it through a hose to the printhead.18
3. Layered Extrusion: The printhead, mounted on a large-scale robotic system, extrudes the concrete material in precise beads or filaments.18 The robot follows the digitally prescribed toolpath, depositing one layer on top of the previous one to build up the desired shape.19
4. Curing and Hardening: As the layers are deposited, the material begins to hydrate and harden, gaining strength through controlled drying and chemical reactions.18 This process allows the structure to become self-supporting without the use of traditional molds or formwork.15

The core value proposition of 3DCP is derived from this digital-to-physical process. 

The primary benefits include enhanced design flexibility, as the printer can create complex, non-standard, and organic geometries that are prohibitively expensive or impossible with traditional formwork.2 

It also dramatically reduces waste by eliminating formwork (a major source of construction waste) and optimizing material distribution, placing concrete only where it is structurally needed.15 

Finally, it offers the potential for accelerated project timelines by automating the slow, labor-intensive process of wall construction.14

 

1.2. The Machinery of Fabrication: Gantry Systems vs. Robotic Arms (The 2025 Debate)

As of 2025, the 3DCP hardware market is dominated by two competing philosophies: large-scale gantry systems and articulated robotic arms. 

The choice between them is not merely technical but reflective of a clear bifurcation in the industry’s business models.

Gantry Systems

Gantry-based printers are large, Cartesian robots that operate on a fixed coordinate system (X, Y, Z).2 The printhead moves along a rigid, overhead framework that spans the build area, making them conceptually similar to a massive desktop 3D printer.2

• Key Proponents: This approach is favored by the industry’s largest players, including COBOD (supplier for PERI), ICON (Vulcan printer), and Black Buffalo 3D (NEXCON printer).23
• Advantages: Gantry systems are exceptionally well-suited for large, rectilinear projects. Their expansive build area and stability are ideal for mass-producing the walls of houses and other large structures.19 They are the preferred system for industrialized, large-scale housing construction.
• Disadvantages: These systems are bulky, difficult to move, and have a high initial capital cost, often exceeding $200,000.19 Their primary limitation is geometric; they are largely restricted to printing straight, vertical layers, making complex curves and overhangs difficult.19

Robotic Arm Systems

This approach utilizes multi-axis (typically 6-axis) industrial robotic arms, commonly seen in automotive manufacturing, with a specialized printhead attached to the end.2

• Key Proponents: This method is championed by companies like Vertico and Constructions-3D, which focus on high-design applications.2
• Advantages: The primary benefit is unparalleled design flexibility. The 6-axis range of motion allows for the creation of complex, non-planar geometries, fine details, and dramatic overhangs—Vertico claims up to 60-degree overhangs with an accelerator printhead.2 These systems are also more mobile, have a lower initial cost, and can be scaled by adding more robots or placing them on tracks.19
• Disadvantages: A single robotic arm has a smaller build area than a typical gantry, though this can be mitigated.26

The 2025 market is not seeing one system defeat the other; it is seeing a strategic divergence. 

Gantry systems, championed by ICON and COBOD, are capturing the industrialized construction sector, partnering with large developers and construction firms to build housing communities at scale.19 

Robotic arms, championed by Vertico, are capturing the mass-customization sector, partnering directly with architects and designers to create high-value, parametric architectural elements, facades, and furniture.18 

This is not just a hardware choice; it is a fundamental business model choice that has bifurcated the industry. 

AI-driven robotics are only set to enhance the capabilities of both systems, optimizing toolpaths and enabling real-time quality control.27

 

PART 2: THE HEART OF 3DCP: MATERIAL SCIENCE AND THE “PRINTABLE” CONCRETE

The viability of 3DCP rests entirely on the material being extruded. 

“Printable concrete” is not simply concrete; it is a highly engineered material science solution designed to resolve a fundamental contradiction: the material must be both fluid and solid at virtually the same time.28

 

2.1. The Rheological “Tightrope”: Balancing Extrudability and Buildability

The central material challenge of 3DCP is managing its rheology, or flow properties.29 

The material must satisfy two opposing requirements 28:

1. Extrudability & Pumpability: The concrete mix must be fluid enough (low viscosity) to be pumped through hundreds of feet of hose and then extruded through a small nozzle without clogging or requiring excessive pressure.31
2. Buildability & Green Strength: The instant the material is deposited, it must become “solid” (high yield strength). It must retain its precise shape, support its own weight, and—critically—withstand the load of all subsequent layers without deforming or collapsing.28

This rheological tightrope is walked by leveraging two material properties: thixotropy and precise hydration control, both managed by a sophisticated cocktail of chemical admixtures.28

• Thixotropy: This is the property of a material to be “shear-thinning.” It is fluid when in motion (being pumped and extruded) but rapidly stiffens and gains high yield strength when at rest (deposited).28 This effect is often enhanced with viscosity-modifying admixtures (VMAs) such as nano-clays.28
• Chemical Admixtures: A precise mix of additives is used to control the material’s behavior 31:

• Superplasticizers: Used to reduce the water content while maintaining pumpability, making the mix fluid without sacrificing strength.28
• Retarders: These slow down the initial chemical reaction (hydration) of the cement, defining the “open time”.29 This is essential to prevent the concrete from hardening in the pump and hoses during the printing process.31
• Accelerators: These do the opposite, speeding up hydration to promote rapid stiffening and early strength gain.31

This material-hardware co-development has led to two distinct printing systems.

 A “1K” (one-component) system 18 uses a pre-mixed concrete that is a delicate compromise, designed to set on its own after a specific open time. 

This limits print speed and height.

The more advanced “2K” (two-component) system 18 decouples the problem. The concrete in the pump is heavily retarded to have a very long, stable open time.31 

Then, a liquid accelerator is added directly at the nozzle via a separate line.34 

This “set-on-demand” system 31 allows the material to be fluid until the moment of extrusion, whereupon it stiffens almost instantly. 

This 2K system, referenced by companies like Vertico, is what enables faster, taller prints and the execution of dramatic overhangs (up to 60°) that would be impossible with a standard 1K mix.18

 

2.2. Beyond Cement: Geopolymers, Recycled Aggregates, and the Sustainability Imperative

The 3DCP industry has faced significant environmental criticism. 

While it eliminates formwork waste, 3DCP mixes traditionally rely on a very high percentage of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) to achieve their rapid setting and high-strength properties.35 

The production of OPC is notoriously carbon-intensive, accounting for approximately 8% of all global CO2 emissions.37

By 2025, the industry’s large-scale adoption has become contingent on solving this sustainability problem. 

The focus has shifted to replacing high-cement binders and virgin aggregates with green alternatives.

3D-Printed Geopolymer Concrete (3DPGC): This is the leading, most promising solution.38 Geopolymer concrete is an alternative binder that completely eliminates OPC. 

It is formed by using an alkaline activator solution to react with aluminosilicate-rich industrial waste products.38

• Materials: The primary binders are industrial byproducts such as fly ash (FA) from coal plants and ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) from steel production.38
• Benefits: The environmental advantages are immense. Studies report geopolymer concrete can cut carbon emissions by up to 80% compared to OPC.39 A 2025-focused Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) directly comparing printed structures found that a geopolymer print had a global warming potential of 450 kg CO2-equivalent, compared to 710 kg for a traditional 3D-printed OPC structure.40

Recycled and Alternative Materials: A surge of research in 2024 and 2025 is focused on incorporating a wider array of waste materials into printable mixes.41 

This includes:

• Binders: Waste glass powder (WGP) and copper slag are being used as alternative pozzolanic binders.41 Limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) is also being used as a low-clinker alternative to pure OPC.35
• Aggregates: Recycled fine aggregates (RFA) from construction and demolition waste, as well as waste marble dust, are being successfully integrated into printable mixes, reducing the reliance on virgin sand.41

The industry now recognizes that its “green” claims of reduced waste were being hollowed out by its high-carbon material. 

The 2025 push into geopolymers and recycled aggregates is not just an academic exercise; it is an economic and environmental necessity for the technology’s long-term viability.36

 

2.3. The Anisotropic Hurdle: Why Interlayer Bonding is the Single Greatest Challenge

The layer-by-layer extrusion process creates the “Achilles’ heel” of 3D-printed concrete: anisotropy.29

A traditionally cast concrete structure is isotropic (or monolithic), meaning it has uniform strength in all directions. 

A 3D-printed structure is anisotropic: it is strong in compression along the printed layers, but its mechanical properties, particularly tensile and flexural strength, are significantly weaker across the layers.29

The weak link is the interlayer bond—the “cold joint” created between each successive layer.44 

This is the single greatest mechanical challenge that separates architectural features from true structural components. 

The quality of this bond is governed by three main factors:

1. Time Gap: The “printing open time” is critical.29 The longer a deposited layer sits and dries before the next layer is applied, the weaker the chemical and mechanical bond will be. Research shows that a time gap of just 30 to 40 minutes can reduce the final interlayer bond strength by a staggering 51% to 65.1%.33
2. Surface Moisture: A strong bond requires the surfaces to be chemically reactive, which means they must be moist. A mix with a low water/cement (w/c) ratio, while good for buildability, can form a dry surface too quickly, creating a weak bond zone.45 This is why admixtures like nano-clays are so valuable; they act as water-retaining agents, promoting “internal curing” that keeps the layer surface “tacky” and reactive for longer.33
3. Printing Parameters: The physical printing process itself impacts the bond. The height of the nozzle and the printing velocity (speed) affect the compaction of the new layer onto the old one, influencing the mechanical interlocking between them.29

This inherent weakness is the central problem of structural 3DCP. 

An unreinforced, 3D-printed element is brittle and will fail along these layer-to-layer “cold joints” when subjected to shear, flexural, or tensile forces.46 

An “architectural feature” like a park bench only needs to resist gravity (compression), which 3DCP is good at. 

A “structural component” like a beam or a shear wall must resist these other forces.

Therefore, the entire revolution in 3DCP reinforcement, detailed in the next section, is a direct response to solving this fundamental anisotropic weakness.

 

PART 3: THE REINFORCEMENT REVOLUTION: SOLVING CONCRETE’S TENSILE WEAKNESS

The transition from “features” to “structures” is impossible without solving two problems: concrete’s inherent weakness in tension (a problem for 100 years) 48 and 3DCP’s unique interlayer weakness (a problem for 10 years).29 

Reinforcement is the solution to both.

The primary challenge has been figuring out how to integrate reinforcement—which typically works in 3D cages—into a 2D layered extrusion process.3 

As of 2025, the solutions have matured and can be categorized into three main approaches: materials integrated in the mix, reinforcement integrated during printing (in-process), and reinforcement added after printing (post-installed).49

 

3.1. Method 1: Integrated Reinforcement (Fibers & Textiles)

 

This approach involves adding the reinforcement directly to the printable material.

• Fiber Reinforcement: This is the simplest and most common method. Short, discrete fibers (made of steel, glass, basalt, or polymer) are pre-mixed into the concrete before printing.51

• Pros: It is fully automated, as it requires no change to the printing process.54 Micro-fibers are excellent at minimizing plastic shrinkage cracks in the fresh state, while macro-fibers can add significant flexural strength and post-crack toughness to the hardened concrete.52
• Cons: This is not a substitute for structural rebar. A significant issue is fiber orientation; the extrusion process through the nozzle tends to align the fibers parallel to the printing direction.53 This enhances strength along the printed bead but does little to solve the primary vertical weakness between the layers.

• Textile & Mesh Reinforcement: This method involves laying in flexible, high-strength textiles or meshes during the printing process.51 These are often made of alkali-resistant (AR) glass or steel.50

• Pros: This approach provides continuous reinforcement, transforming the material’s failure mode from brittle to ductile (strain-hardening).57 One study noted that integrating steel mesh enhanced the flexural moment strength by an impressive 170% to 290%.50
• Cons: Automating the placement of textiles, especially around complex curves and corners, remains a significant challenge.

 

3.2. Method 2: In-Process Integration (Rebar & Novel Cages)

 

This is the “holy grail” of 3DCP: the automated integration of traditional, high-strength reinforcement during the printing process. 

This area has seen the most exciting breakthroughs in 2025.

• Manual In-Process Rebar: This is a common, semi-automated method where human operators manually place horizontal rebars into the fresh concrete layers as the printer pauses.58 It is a simple, effective, but labor-intensive solution used by companies like ICON.58
• 2025 Breakthrough: “Assembled Steel Cage” (ASC) System: A novel 2025 study proposes a solution for 3D printing structural beams.5

• The Problem: A concrete beam requires a full rebar cage, including vertical “stirrups” to resist shear forces. These are fundamentally incompatible with a layer-by-layer printing process.60
• The Solution: The ASC system “decomposes” the traditional stirrup into multiple, interlocking steel segments connected by “mortise-and-tenon” joints.5 A robot can place these segments horizontally onto a printed layer, and as subsequent segments are added, they interlock to build a full, spatially-interconnected rebar cage inside the printed element.5
• The Result: This is a transformative solution. A 3D-printed beam reinforced with the ASC system achieved 86% of the peak load capacity of a conventionally cast-and-reinforced beam.49

• 2025 Breakthrough: “Helical Reinforcement” (TU Eindhoven): A novel technique detailed in a January 2025 PhD thesis, this method is designed to place reinforcement in any direction.6

• The Technique: Instead of laying reinforcement horizontally, this method uses an “automated screwing motion” to insert a continuous, helical (spiral-shaped) steel reinforcement into the concrete after it has been printed but before it has set.6
• The Result: This breakthrough allows reinforcement to be placed vertically, diagonally, or in any orientation, independent of the printing layers. This directly solves the anisotropy problem. The technique’s viability was demonstrated by successfully reinforcing a full-scale spiral staircase.6

 

3.3. Method 3: Post-Printing Solutions (Grouted Voids & Post-Tensioning)

 

This is currently the most mature and widely adopted method for creating structural, code-compliant 3D-printed buildings in 2025.

• Grouted Voids (The “CMU” Method): This is the most common approach for 3D-printed homes.

• The Technique: The 3D printer is used to print the shells of a wall, creating two parallel beads connected by a zigzag pattern, leaving hollow cavities (voids) inside.62 After the printer finishes, workers manually insert traditional vertical and horizontal steel rebar into these cavities, much like in a standard concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall.59 The cavities are then filled with grout or standard concrete.62
• The Reality: As analyzed in Part 4, this method means the 3D printer is not printing the structure itself; it is printing a highly efficient, custom, permanent formwork.62 This is a pragmatic, hybrid approach that is easy to get approved by building inspectors because it conforms to existing, well-understood structural principles.63

• Post-Tensioning: This is a highly advanced method used for high-performance structural elements like bridges and beams.

• The Technique: The digital design incorporates ducts (hollow channels) that run through the printed concrete segments.51 After printing, high-strength steel cables (tendons) are threaded through these ducts.51 Hydraulic jacks are then used to “tension” (pull) the cables, placing the entire concrete element under high compression.65
• Benefits: This “pre-compression” makes the concrete element incredibly strong in tension and flexure (bending), allowing for longer spans, thinner elements, and highly efficient modular designs.65 This technique was used in early 3D-printed bridges 51 and in the 2024 “Diamanti” structural canopy in Venice.65

 

TABLE 1: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF 3DCP REINFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES (2025)

 

The following table synthesizes the primary reinforcement methods available in 2025, comparing their mechanics, automation level, structural benefits, and ideal applications.

 

Reinforcement Method	Technique Summary	Primary Structural Benefit	Automation Level	Best Application (2025)
Fiber-Reinforced Mix	Fibers (steel, glass, polymer) are pre-mixed into the concrete.[53]	Reduces plastic shrinkage, provides limited flexural toughness, and controls cracking.[55, 56]	Fully Automated (in-mix).	Non-structural elements, architectural facades, reducing surface shrinkage.
Textile/Mesh	AR-glass or steel mesh is laid horizontally between printed layers.50	High flexural strength, transforms brittle failure to a ductile one.50	Semi-Automated (requires robotic placement or process-pausing).	Thin-shell structures, structural facade panels, floor slabs.
Grouted Vids (CMU)	Printing hollow wall shells; manually adding rebar & filling with grout.62	Full, code-compliant structural capacity (shear, flexural, axial).63	Manual (High labor).	Single-story & multi-story housing (e.g., ICON’s method).68
Post-Tensioning	Ducts are printed within segments; steel cables are tensioned after curing.65	Superior flexural/tensile strength for long spans; modular construction.[51]	Semi-Automated (printing is automated; cable-running is manual).	Bridges, beams, long-span canopies, and segmental structures.[65, 66, 67]
Helical Reinforcement	(Novel 2025) “Screwing” a continuous helical rebar into fresh, wet concrete.6	Solves anisotropy by placing reinforcement in any direction (vertical, diagonal).6	Automated (In-Process).	Complex geometries, spiral staircases, non-planar structural walls.
ASC (Assembled Cage)	(Novel 2025) Assembling an interlocking rebar cage using “mortise-and-tenon” joints.5	Enables the 3D printing of true, spatially-reinforced beams and headers.49	Automated (In-Process).	Structural beams, lintels, and slabs (emerging technology).

 

PART 4: FROM NOVELTY TO NECESSITY: A DECADE OF APPLICATION EVOLUTION

The journey of 3DCP from “architectural features” to “structural components” has been a logical and necessary progression. 

The industry spent a decade mastering its materials and processes on low-risk, high-visibility applications before it could responsibly begin to build load-bearing structures.

 

4.1. Phase 1: Architectural Features & Non-Load-Bearing Elements (The “Novelty” Era)

 

The first phase of 3DCP’s adoption (pre-2020s) was dominated by applications where form, not structural function, was the primary driver. 

This phase was critical, as it allowed companies to refine their rheological formulas (Part 2) and printing hardware (Part 1) in a low-stakes environment.

• Urban Furniture: This was an ideal starting point. Park benches, planters, and street furniture are non-structural and benefit enormously from the design freedom of 3DCP.21 Companies like Vertico and Benkert Bänke demonstrated the ability to create organic, hollow forms that reduced material use by up to 75% compared to a solid cast.69
• Interior Walls & Art Installations: 3DCP was quickly adopted for non-load-bearing interior partition walls 23 and complex art installations. These applications showcased the technology’s aesthetic potential, creating “out of the box” geometries 17, such as the ornamental colonnades for the “Tor Alva” tower (which are separate from its structural columns) 71 and custom-designed acoustic walls.72
• Complex Facades: The technology is increasingly used to create intricate, high-performance facade panels.2 These panels are non-load-bearing and are attached to a building’s primary structure. The design freedom of 3DCP allows for the creation of unique, biomimetic, or lattice structures that can be optimized for thermal insulation and shading, which would be impossible to fabricate with conventional molds.2

 

4.2. Phase 2: The First Wave of Structural Pilots (Bridges and Single-Story Homes)

This transition phase saw the first attempts to create structures that had to withstand real-world loads, moving the technology from the lab to the field.

• Bridges: The 3D-printed bicycle and pedestrian bridges built in the Netherlands 67 and Venice 2 were major global milestones. These projects were successful because they were (often) structurally-efficient, compression-dominated arches 2 or were built using advanced techniques like post-tensioning, which provided the necessary tensile strength.51
• The “First” 3D-Printed Houses: This category, which includes early projects from companies like Winsun (2014) 1, ICON’s first Austin homes 72, and the first “Project Milestone” house in the Netherlands 64, represents the most significant step toward structural application.

However, a critical analysis of this phase reveals a crucial distinction. 

Structural engineers and building inspectors immediately asked the key question: “how is it even legal to build with” unreinforced, layered concrete?.62

The answer, in most cases, was that these houses were not structurally 3D-printed in the way the public imagined. 

They were, in fact, a brilliant hybrid solution. As detailed in Part 3.3, most of these projects used the “CMU Method”.62 

The 3D printer was a sophisticated robotic tool used to rapidly create the permanent formwork (or “lost formwork”) of the walls.62 

The actual structural work—the load-bearing rebar and grouted concrete core—was then added manually inside the printed shells.63

This “lost formwork” approach was the key pragmatic solution that allowed the industry to build, get permits, and prove its speed benefits, all while “hiding” a conventional, code-compliant structure within the 3D-printed form. 

This hybrid model defined the first wave of “structural” 3DCP and set the stage for the truly 3D-printed structural breakthroughs of 2025.

 

PART 5: LANDMARKS OF 2025: IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL BREAKTHROUGHS

The projects coming to fruition in 2024 and 2025 represent the next evolutionary step, moving beyond the “lost formwork” model to create truly 3D-printed load-bearing components. 

 

These landmark case studies demonstrate new, validated methods for building structurally, at scale, and in multiple stories.

 

5.1. Case Study 1: ETH Zurich’s “Tor Alva” Tower (The Multi-Story Blueprint)

Project: The “Tor Alva” (White Tower) is a 30-meter-tall, multi-story tower in the Swiss Alps village of Mulegns, completed in May 2025.7 

It is, by a large margin, the world’s tallest 3D-printed structure.

The Structural Leap: This is the first multi-story building to feature fully 3D-printed, load-bearing columns, moving far beyond the “lost formwork” method.7 

The 3D-printed concrete itself, along with its integrated reinforcement, is carrying the structure’s load.

The Reinforcement Method: Developed by researchers at ETH Zurich, the project relies on a novel “hybrid reinforcement system” 75:

1. Horizontal: Steel rings are automatically embedded during the printing process. This was accomplished using a second, coordinated robot that placed the reinforcement between layers.75
2. Vertical: The digital design of the columns included pre-designed vertical channels. After printing, vertical steel rods were inserted into these ducts.7
3. Bonding & Locking: These channels were then grouted with a self-compacting mortar, which hardens to lock the vertical rebar and horizontal rings together, creating a unified reinforcement system.7
4. Pre-stressing: In the tower’s upper sections, these vertical rods were prestressed to enhance crack resistance and structural integrity.75

The “True” Breakthrough: A New Verification Standard:

The tower itself is impressive, but the process developed to validate it is the real, lasting innovation.7 No building codes existed for this type of construction.7 

Professor Walter Kaufmann’s team at ETH had to invent a new test procedure to verify the structural safety. 

They established a “modified slant shear test,” a simple, reliable method to apply compression to a sample until it shears.7 

By testing this at different angles, they were able to precisely measure the mechanical impact and weakness of the interlayer joints.7

The “key breakthrough” 7 was the discovery that the data from this simple test allowed them to map the performance of 3D-printed concrete onto existing, well-understood concrete models with only minor adaptations. 

This demystified the material. 

ETH Zurich didn’t just build a tower; they built a scalable, bankable workflow that any structural engineering firm can now use to design, test, and verify load-bearing 3D-printed structures, paving the way for regulatory adoption.7

 

5.2. Case Study 2: TU Eindhoven’s “Project Milestone” (The Residential Model)

Project: Following the success of the first inhabited 3D-printed house in Europe, “Project Milestone” is now entering its next phase. Construction is beginning in the first quarter of 2025 on four new, improved, and multi-story owner-occupied homes (scaling up to two and three floors) in Eindhoven, Netherlands.8

The Structural Leap: This project represents a major strategic pivot based on lessons learned from the first monolithic house. The new 2025 homes demonstrate a highly pragmatic, hybrid approach to multi-story residential construction.

The 2025 Method: Instead of printing a single, monolithic, load-bearing wall, the new multi-story design decouples the facade from the structure 8:

1. A traditional load-bearing inner wall is constructed.
2. A layer of insulation material is placed.
3. The 3D printer is then used to print a “loose outer wall” (the facade), which is structurally separate.

A Pragmatic (and Surprising) Pivot to Hybrid Construction:

This development is profoundly important. 

It shows the leaders at TU/e, pioneers of 3DCP, making a deliberate choice not to print the load-bearing walls for their multi-story homes. 

The reason, as stated in their announcements, is that this hybrid method is “a lot easier” to implement, makes the entire structure more “circular” (the printed facade elements can be reused), and “allows designers to use the printed concrete separately in the future, in combination with other building materials”.8

This stands in direct contrast to the “purist” structural approach of Tor Alva. 

Project Milestone’s 2025 phase suggests that the most commercially optimal path for multi-story residential construction may not be a “fully printed” structure at all. 

It is a hybrid model that uses 3DCP for its primary strength (rapid, cost-effective creation of complex, custom facades) while relying on traditional, proven, and easily insurable methods for the load-bearing core.

 

5.3. Case Study 3: PERI’s “Heidelberg Wave House” (The Commercial Scale-Up)

Project: Inaugurated in February 2024, the “Wave House” in Heidelberg, Germany, is the largest 3D-printed structure in Europe. 

It is a 600 m² (54-meter long) commercial building designed to be a data center.77

The Structural Leap: The Wave House is the definitive proof of 3DCP’s scale and speed in a commercial (non-residential) context. 

Printed by PERI 3D Construction using a COBOD gantry printer, the structure’s massive “wave-designed walls” were printed in just 140 hours.24

Architectural Complexity as a Free Byproduct:

The building’s design, by SSV and Mense Korte, was intentionally complex. 

 

Instead of a typical, windowless data center box, they designed aesthetically appealing, curved, “wave-designed walls”.77 

 

In traditional construction, building a 54-meter-long, non-rectilinear wall would be exponentially more expensive and time-consuming than building a straight one, requiring complex, custom-built formwork.

 

The Wave House proves that with 3DCP, the economic penalty for geometric complexity is eliminated. 

The gantry printer follows a digital toolpath; it costs no more time or money to print a complex curve than a straight line.17 

This project is the 2025 proof-of-concept that architects are no longer bound by the rectilinear “kit of parts” of mass-produced materials.78 

They can now design complex, organic, and more efficient forms at no extra construction cost, a paradigm shift that will define the next decade of architecture.68

 

5.4. Case Study 4: Next-Generation Engineering (The 2025 PhD-Level Tech)

The structural innovations of 2025 are not limited to large-scale buildings. 

The academic research being published now, specifically the “Assembled Steel Cage” (ASC) 5 and “Helical Reinforcement” 6 methods detailed in Part 3, represent the next frontier. 

While Tor Alva proved a multi-story structure can be built, these novel in-process reinforcement techniques are the key to automating the process fully. 

They show a clear path toward a future where a robot can print a structural beam (ASC) or reinforce a complex column in any direction (Helical) without any of the manual intervention that is still required on today’s most advanced projects.

 

PART 6: THE MARKET AND THE LEADERS: THE 2025 COMMERCIAL ECOSYSTEM

The technological breakthroughs of 2024-2025 are being met with an explosive, triple-digit growth trajectory as the market moves from speculative R&D to commercial deployment.

 

6.1. Market Analysis: Deconstructing the 111.3% CAGR

The global 3D printing construction market is at a clear inflection point, with market reports from 2024 and 2025 forecasting unprecedented growth.

• Market Size & Growth: The market was estimated at a nascent USD $53.9 million in 2024. It is now projected to skyrocket to USD $4.18 billion by 2030.79
• Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR): This exponential leap represents a staggering CAGR of 111.3% for the forecast period of 2025 to 2030.79 Other market reports corroborate this, with BCC Research projecting a 95.5% CAGR from 2025 to 2030.81
• Primary Drivers: This explosive growth is not based on hype. It is being fueled by a “perfect storm” of global pressures:

1. Housing & Labor Crises: A global, structural need for affordable housing 82 is colliding with a critical, ongoing shortage of skilled construction labor.81 3DCP is seen as a direct solution to both, building faster with fewer workers.
2. Sustainability & Waste Reduction: The industry’s push for “green building” aligns perfectly with 3DCP’s ability to eliminate formwork waste and optimize material use.15
3. Technological Maturity: As Parts 3 and 5 demonstrated, the reinforcement and regulatory hurdles that previously blocked adoption are finally being solved.

• Market Dominance: Analysis of the 2024 market segmentation shows a clear picture: by method, extrusion is the dominant technology (62% share); by material, concrete is the dominant material (34.8% share); and by end-use, buildings are the dominant application (72.1% share).79

 

6.2. Key 3DCP Company Profiles (2025)

The 2025 ecosystem is not a monolith. It is defined by a handful of key players who are pursuing distinct, and often competing, business models to capture this 111.3% CAGR. 

Market reports consistently identify the same set of leaders.23

 

TABLE 2: THE 3DCP COMMERCIAL ECOSYSTEM 2025

The following table analyzes the dominant companies in the 3DCP space, their core technology, and their competing business models.

 

Company	Core Technology	Business Model	Key 2025 Milestone / Focus
COBOD Int’l (Denmark)	Gantry (BOD2 Printer) [90]	Printer Sales & Tech Provider: Sells its BOD2 printer to a global network of partners (e.g., PERI, 3DCP GROUP).[23, 83]	Widely considered the world’s most-used gantry printer.[23, 89] Developing multifunctional construction robots.[91, 92]
ICON (USA)	Gantry (Vulcan Printer) [25]	Turnkey Contractor: Does not sell its printers. Acts as a full-service builder and technology partner for large-scale projects.23	“Phoenix” multi-story printer [25]; Wolf Ranch (world’s largest 3D-printed community) 72; AC509-certified wall system.23
Apis Cor (USA)	Robotic Arm (Polar) 23	Printer Sales / Leasing: Sells and leases its patented “Frank” polar printer, a mobile, robotic arm system.[93]	Directly challenging gantry dominance with a focus on mobile, rapidly-deployable robots for affordable housing.[23, 93]
PERI 3D Construction	Gantry (uses COBOD) [90]	Construction Contractor: A traditional construction giant that has adopted 3DCP as a service and implementation partner.[24]	Heidelberg “Wave House” 77 and the Heidelberg multi-story buildings [24], proving commercial/residential viability in Europe.
Black Buffalo 3D (USA)	Gantry (NEXCON Printer) 23	Printer & Materials Sales: Sells its NEXCON printers and its own proprietary, ICC-ES AC509-approved “ink” (printable mortar).23	First company to receive an Evaluation Service Report (ESR) for AC509, validating its material and wall system for code compliance.23
Vertico B.V. (Netherlands)	Robotic Arm 19	Specialized Fabricator: A “design-to-fabrication” firm that partners directly with architects to produce complex, high-design projects.19	Market leader in non-planar, parametric design; advanced 2K printhead allows for 60° overhangs, targeting high-margin architectural features.18

 

PART 7: THE 2025 TIPPING POINT: HOW REGULATION IS FINALLY UNLOCKING STRUCTURAL 3DCP

For years, the primary barrier to 3DCP adoption has not been technology, but trust. 

Without standardized building codes, no structural engineer can sign off on a design, no building official can issue a permit, and no insurer will cover the asset.74 

The year 2025 is the tipping point because this regulatory barrier is finally being dismantled.

 

7.1. The Old Guard: The Limitations of ICC-ES AC509

The first major step toward regulatory acceptance in the United States was the Acceptance Criteria 509 (AC509), “3D Automated Construction Technology for 3D Concrete Walls”.68

• What it is: AC509 is not a building code. It is an “Acceptance Criteria” developed by the International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES). It is a guideline for how to evaluate a 3DCP wall system that is not covered by existing codes.96
• What it does: It establishes a rigorous testing protocol. A 3DCP company must submit its proprietary printer, proprietary concrete mix, and proprietary wall design for a battery of tests, including material properties, durability, structural performance, and fire-resistance.96
• Impact: This was a critical “workaround.” It allowed companies like Black Buffalo 3D and ICON to obtain Evaluation Service Reports (ESR).23 This ESR is a document they can take to a building official to prove that their specific, proprietary system has been tested and found to be compliant with the intent of the building code.98 This was a slow, expensive, and case-by-case process.

 

7.2. The Game-Changer: The New ICC 1150 Standard (2025)

The 2025 landscape is being completely redefined by the finalization of ICC 1150, the “Standard for 3D Automated Construction Technology for 3D Concrete Walls”.9

• What it is: This is the first-ever comprehensive, consensus-based, ANSI-accredited standard for 3D-printed concrete. It is explicitly designed to “expand and update” AC509 and serve as its “adoptable successor”.10
• Timeline: The development of this standard has been the key event of the past 18 months. The public comment draft was released for ANSI public review from December 13, 2024, to January 27, 2025.9 The committee meetings to review these public comments and move toward finalization took place in February and September 2025.9 This standard is being born right now.

The Difference is Everything (AC509 vs. ICC 1150):

The shift from AC509 to ICC 1150 is the most significant event in 3DCP history.

• An Acceptance Criteria (AC509) is a test for a proprietary product. It forces a company to prove its “secret sauce” is safe, on a case-by-case basis.
• A Standard (ICC 1150) is a set of public, universal rules for the process itself.

The implication of this shift is profound. An engineer will no longer have to rely on a single manufacturer’s proprietary ESR. 

They will be able to design a 3D-printed concrete wall per ICC 1150—specifying material strengths, reinforcement, and connection details—and have it accepted by any jurisdiction that adopts the standard, just as they currently design traditional concrete per ACI 318.

This single development unlocks the entire industry. 

It moves 3D-printed concrete out of the “R&D” phase and into the realm of a codified, commoditized, and insurable engineering discipline.13

 

PART 8: A REALISTIC APPRAISAL: COSTS, CHALLENGES, AND FUTURE BOTTLENECKS

Despite the exponential growth and regulatory breakthroughs, a pragmatic, 2025 appraisal must acknowledge the significant costs and challenges that remain. 

The adoption of 3DCP is not a panacea, and its economic benefits are more complex than often reported.

 

8.1. The Cost Fallacy: Is 3DCP Really Cheaper? (A 2025 Analysis)

The Myth: 3DCP is often marketed with claims of 35%, 50%, or even 80% cost savings.100

The Reality: These savings claims are misleading as they typically apply only to the cost of the wall-framing and the associated manual labor.102 

The wall, however, is often one of the fastest and cheapest parts of a traditional build.102 

A 2025 analysis shows that many hidden costs offset these initial savings 102:

• Finishing Costs: 3D-printed walls are not smooth; they are rough, ribbed, and porous.104 They still require significant post-processing, such as plastering, rendering, or painting, to be made watertight and aesthetically finished. This adds significant labor and material costs back into the project.104
• Foundations, Roofs, & MEP: 3D printers do not (yet) build foundations or roofs.103 A 3D-printed home still requires a traditional concrete slab foundation 63 and a traditional timber-framed 106 or truss-based roof, installed by traditional laborers. All plumbing and electrical (MEP) work must also be installed manually.103
• High-Tech Labor: The 3DCP process saves on low-cost manual labor (masons, framers) but introduces new, high-cost technical labor.102 It requires robotic technicians, material scientists, and digital designers to operate, maintain, and prep the equipment.102
• Capital Expenditure (CAPEX): The printers themselves are a massive upfront investment. While smaller printers exist, large-scale construction printers from companies like Black Buffalo can cost up to $800,000.102
• Material Costs: The high-performance, thixotropic, and chemically-complex “printable concrete” is significantly more expensive per cubic yard than a standard concrete mix.107

In 2025, the true economic benefit of 3DCP is not a lower sticker price. The value is found in speed-to-market and design freedom. 

As the Wave House demonstrated, printing walls in 140 hours 77 shaves months off a commercial construction schedule. 

This reduction in project timelines, financing costs, and labor-risk exposure is where the real, complex economic value lies.

 

8.2. The Unseen Hurdles: MEP Integration and the New Skills Gap

Beyond cost, two significant bottlenecks remain unsolved in 2025.

1. MEP Integration:

A major, unresolved challenge is the integration of Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) systems.108 In traditional construction, this is done in an open, wood-framed wall. In a solid 3D-printed concrete wall, the process is much harder.103

• The Challenge: Current methods involve printing voids or channels into the wall for conduits and pipes.110 However, this requires meticulous pre-planning. Any on-site changes are difficult, and repairs are a major concern.110 Furthermore, traditional electricians and plumbers are unfamiliar with these new methods, creating on-site friction and new training requirements.102

2. The New Skills Gap:

3DCP is often framed as the solution to the skilled construction labor shortage.81 This is only half-true.

3DCP does not eliminate the labor shortage; it transforms it.112 

The industry is trading a shortage of manual labor (masons, framers) for a new, and arguably more acute, shortage of technical labor.102 

The new bottleneck for scaling the industry is finding, training, and retaining the robotics operators, material specialists, and digital designers required to make this high-tech equipment run.102

 

CONCLUSION: THE STRUCTURAL FUTURE OF ADDITIVE CONSTRUCTION

The narrative “From Architectural Features to Structural Components” is, as of 2025, complete. 

The journey, however, has been one of pragmatic evolution, not overnight disruption.

• Phase 1 (Features): The industry successfully proved its technology and refined its complex material science on low-risk, high-visibility applications like urban furniture and building facades.18
• Phase 2 (Transition): The industry then entered a “hybrid” era, where 3D printers were brilliantly deployed as high-tech, robotic formwork systems. This “lost formwork” approach 62 allowed companies to build code-compliant single-story homes by hiding a traditional rebar-and-grout structure within a 3D-printed shell.63
• Phase 3 (2025 – Structural): We are now firmly in the true structural era, which is being defined by two distinct, parallel paths:

1. The “Purist” Structural Path: Championed by projects like ETH Zurich’s “Tor Alva” 7 and new technologies like Assembled Steel Cages 5 and Helical Reinforcement.6 This path is proving that fully 3D-printed, load-bearing components are not only possible but verifiable, backed by new, scalable testing protocols.7
2. The “Pragmatic” Hybrid Path: Championed by projects like the 2025 phase of “Project Milestone”.8 This path embraces a hybrid model, using 3DCP for what it does best (creating geometrically complex, fast-printed facades) while relying on traditional, proven methods for the load-bearing core.

The definitive catalyst for both paths is regulation. The 2025 finalization of the ICC 1150 standard 9 is the “starting gun.” 

It provides the universal, public set of rules that gives engineers, investors, and insurers the legal and financial confidence to adopt and scale the technology.

The future of construction is not fully 3D-printed; it is intelligently 3D-printed. 

The challenges of MEP integration 110, the realities of cost 102, and the new technical skills gap 102 are all significant hurdles. 

However, the path to a codified, structurally-sound, and commercially-scalable additive construction industry is, for the first time, clear.

Works cited

1. 3D Printing in Architecture: From Models to Full-Scale Structures — Fixie – Architects’ Assistant, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.fixie3d.com/fixie-blog/3d-printing-in-architecture-from-models-to-full-scale-structures
2. Layer by layer: How 3D concrete is reshaping construction, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.constructionspecifier.com/layer-by-layer-how-3d-concrete-is-reshaping-construction/
3. Advancing Structural Reinforcement in 3D-Printed Concrete: Current Methods, Challenges, and Innovations – MDPI, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/18/2/252
4. Advancing Structural Reinforcement in 3D-Printed Concrete: Current Methods, Challenges, and Innovations – PubMed, accessed November 6, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39859723/
5. (PDF) A novel in-process rebar integration method for 3D printing …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393953844_A_novel_in-process_rebar_integration_method_for_3D_printing_reinforced_concrete_beams_and_performance_evaluation
6. Novel helical reinforcement technique in 3D printed concrete, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.tue.nl/en/news-and-events/news-overview/27-01-2025-novel-helical-reinforcement-technique-in-3d-printed-concrete
7. Setting new standards for 3D-printed concrete construction – Dept …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://baug.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/news/2025/04/setting-new-standards-for-3d-printed-concrete-construction.html
8. First 3D printed multi-story houses ready by 2025, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.tue.nl/en/news-and-events/news-overview/13-06-2024-first-3d-printed-multi-story-houses-ready-by-2025
9. ICC releases ICC 1150 standard for 3D printed concrete walls | VoxelMatters, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.voxelmatters.com/icc-releases-icc-1150-standard-for-3d-printed-concrete-walls/
10. 202X ICC® Standard for Automated Construction Technology for 3D Printing Walls (ICC 1500-202X) – International Code Council, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/is_3dact/ICC-1150-DRAFT-11-26-24.pdf
11. 202X ICC® Standard for Automated Construction Technology for 3D Printing Walls (ICC 1150-202X) – International Code Council, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/is_3dact/ICC-1150-THIRD-DRAFT-09-05-25.pdf
12. Additive Construction 2025: How and Why Companies are 3D Printing Buildings – AMFG, accessed November 6, 2025, https://amfg.ai/2025/05/23/additive-construction-2025-how-and-why-companies-are-3d-printing-buildings/
13. ICC’s 3D Printing Codes: A Game Changer for Construction World – MY-Equipment Blog, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.my-equipment.com/blog/2025/03/iccs-3d-printing-codes-a-game-changer-for-construction-world/
14. 3D Concrete Printing: Revolutionizing Modern Construction – Giatec Scientific Inc., accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.giatecscientific.com/education/3d-concrete-printing-in-modern-construction/
15. Research on Mechanical Properties of a 3D Concrete Printing Component-Optimized Path by Multimodal Analysis – MDPI, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9388
16. Injection 3D Concrete Printing (I3DCP): Basic Principles and Case Studies – PMC, accessed November 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7084790/
17. How Can Engineers Apply Their Skills in 3D Construction Printing? – COBOD, accessed November 6, 2025, https://cobod.com/architecture-and-engineering-in-3d-construction-printing/
18. What is 3D Concrete Printing? Definition, Process & Benefits – Vertico, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.vertico.com/3d-concrete-printing
19. Robotic Arms vs. Gantry Systems: Choosing the Best 3D Concrete Printing Method – Vertico, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.vertico.com/wiki/robotic-arms-vs-gantry-systems-3d-concrete-printing
20. Infographic: The Evolution of 3D Printing in Architecture, Since 1939 | ArchDaily, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.archdaily.com/1005043/infographic-the-evolution-of-3d-printing-in-architecture-since-1939
21. 3D concrete printing – Wikipedia, accessed November 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_concrete_printing
22. Everything to Know About Concrete 3D Printing | Blog – Constructions-3D, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.constructions-3d.com/en/blog/everything-to-know-about-concrete-3-d-printing
23. 3D Concrete Printed Construction Systems Part 2: An Overview of 3DCP Construction Practices – HUD User, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/3D-Concrete-Printed-Construction-Systems-Part-2.pdf
24. PERI 3D Construction, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.peri3dconstruction.com/en
25. ICON Unveils New Construction Technologies for Lowest Cost, Fastest, and Most Sustainable Way to Build at Scale, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.iconbuild.com/newsroom/icon-unveils-new-construction-technologies-for-lowest-cost-fastest-and-most-sustainable-way-to-build-at-scale
26. Exploring Architectural Units Through Robotic 3D Concrete Printing of Space-Filling Geometries – MDPI, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/15/1/60
27. Digital Fabrication 2025: How AI and Robotics Are Revolutionizing Manufacturing, accessed November 6, 2025, https://neuroject.com/digital-fabrication-2025/
28. The Effect of Material Fresh Properties and Process Parameters on Buildability and Interlayer Adhesion of 3D Printed Concrete – NIH, accessed November 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6651485/
29. 3D Concrete Printing: A Systematic Review of Rheology, Mix Designs, Mechanical, Microstructural, and Durability Characteristics – NIH, accessed November 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8304820/
30. Synthesis of Hybridized Rheological Modifiers for 3D Concrete Printing – OUCI, accessed November 6, 2025, https://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/4YBwQk3l/
31. Role of chemical admixtures on 3D printed Portland cement: Assessing rheology and buildability – Bohrium, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.bohrium.com/paper-details/role-of-chemical-admixtures-on-3d-printed-portland-cement-assessing-rheology-and-buildability/813229711453847553-3842
32. Full article: Comparative analysis of structural build-up in one-component stiff and two-component shotcrete-accelerated set-on-demand mixtures for 3D concrete printing – Taylor & Francis Online, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17452759.2024.2359625
33. Effect of Structural Build-Up on Interlayer Bond Strength of 3D Printed Cement Mortars – NIH, accessed November 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7824854/
34. DIAMANTI 3D-PRINTED, POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE CANOPY – Polyhedral Structures Laboratory, accessed November 6, 2025, https://psl.design.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PSL-Fabricate-2024.pdf
35. Advancement in Sustainable 3D Concrete Printing: A Review on Materials, Challenges, and Current Progress in Australia – MDPI, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/14/2/494
36. (PDF) Integrating Recycled and Alternative Materials in 3D Concrete Printing for Sustainable Development – ResearchGate, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386279437_Integrating_Recycled_and_Alternative_Materials_in_3D_Concrete_Printing_for_Sustainable_Development
37. Additive Construction of Low Embodied Carbon Concrete: Geopolymer Concrete, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.concrete.org/portals/0/files/pdf/webinars/ws_S25_AnthonyMackin.pdf
38. A Comprehensive Review on Effects of Material Composition, Mix …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://openconstructionbuildingtechnologyjournal.com/VOLUME/18/ELOCATOR/e18748368292859/
39. How could 3D-printed geopolymer concrete transform construction in Europe? – PBC Today, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/mmc-news/how-3d-printed-geopolymer-concrete-transform-construction-europe/153535/
40. (PDF) Analysis of the Use of Geopolymer Concrete as a Replacement for OPC in 3D Printing in Construction – ResearchGate, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395008997_Analysis_of_the_Use_of_Geopolymer_Concrete_as_a_Replacement_for_OPC_in_3D_Printing_in_Construction
41. An investigation of rheological properties and sustainability of …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-investigation-of-rheological-properties-and-of-Over-Ozbakan/9abb6c7a3391a8c75e3a877ffa2f743cee1c8713
42. 3D printing of recycled materials for sustainable construction: A comprehensive economic and life cycle assessment – IDEAS/RePEc, accessed November 6, 2025, https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v223y2025ics1364032125007324.html
43. Recycled Components in 3D Concrete Printing Mixes: A Review – PMC, accessed November 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12525600/
44. A Concise Review on Interlayer Bond Strength in 3D Concrete Printing – ResearchGate, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352738946_A_Concise_Review_on_Interlayer_Bond_Strength_in_3D_Concrete_Printing
45. A Concise Review on Interlayer Bond Strength in 3D Concrete Printing – MDPI, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7137
46. Interlayer Bond Strength of 3D Printed Concrete Members with Ultra High Performance Concrete (UHPC) Mix – MDPI, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/14/7/2060
47. Interlayer Strength of 3D-Printed Mortar Reinforced by Postinstalled Reinforcement – NIH, accessed November 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8586979/
48. Design for 3D Concrete Printing – kth .diva, accessed November 6, 2025, https://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1814422/SUMMARY01.pdf
49. Full article: A novel in-process rebar integration method for 3D …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17452759.2025.2536556
50. Zigzag Reinforcement Method for 3D Concrete Printing – MDPI, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/15/10/1721
51. Reinforcement in concrete 3D printing – Wikipedia, accessed November 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_in_concrete_3D_printing
52. State of the Art Review of Reinforcement Strategies and Technologies for 3D Printing of Concrete – MDPI, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/1/360
53. An overview of recent advancements in fibre-reinforced 3D printing concrete – Frontiers, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/materials/articles/10.3389/fmats.2023.1289340/full
54. Fiber Reinforcement for 3-D Printed Cementitious Systems – YouTube, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOdWS71Z1NE
55. Studying Steel Fiber Reinforcement for 3D Printed Elements and Structures – ASCE Library, accessed November 6, 2025, https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784484609.032
56. Full article: Ductility of 3D printed concrete reinforced with short straight steel fibers, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17452759.2018.1548069
57. A textile reinforcement method for 3D printed concrete – MATEC Web of Conferences, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2022/11/matecconf_iccrrr22_05015.pdf
58. Existing Reinforcement Concepts for 3D Printed Concrete | Encyclopedia MDPI, accessed November 6, 2025, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/18955
59. Advanced Methodologies to Insert Vertical And Horizontal Rebars in 3d Printed Concrete Structures – Knowledge Center – Slabs Engineering, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.slabsc.com/knowledgecenter/advanced-methodologies-to-insert-vertical-and-horizontal-rebars-in-3d-printed-concrete-structures/
60. (a) The applied 3D printing system; (b) Printing process of the steel cable reinforced 3DCP formwork – ResearchGate, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-The-applied-3D-printing-system-b-Printing-process-of-the-steel-cable-reinforced_fig2_382596277
61. ‪Lauri Hass‬ – ‪Google Scholar‬, accessed November 6, 2025, https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PeWntxoAAAAJ&hl=en
62. Does 3D printed concrete contain reinforcing, and if not, how is it even legal to build with?, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/StructuralEngineering/comments/1ine4fy/does_3d_printed_concrete_contain_reinforcing_and/
63. Seismic Design Methodology for 3D Printed Concrete Buildings – HUD User, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscape/vol25num1/ch9.pdf
64. Lessons learned of project Milestone: The first 3D printed concrete house in the Netherlands | Request PDF – ResearchGate, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371836640_Lessons_learned_of_project_Milestone_The_first_3D_printed_concrete_house_in_the_Netherlands
65. Diamanti: 3D Printed Concrete Canopy with Post-Tensioning and Sustainable Design, accessed November 6, 2025, https://materialdistrict.com/article/diamanti-3d-printed-concrete-canopy-with-post-tensioning-and-sustainable-design/
66. 3D Concrete Printing of Post-tensioned elements – YouTube, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3umwj2kqc4
67. 6 Facts About 3D Concrete Printing – American Rock Products, accessed November 6, 2025, https://americanrockproducts.com/insights/6-facts-about-3d-concrete-printing/
68. 3D Concrete Printing in Construction (2025 Guide) – – The Birmingham Group, accessed November 6, 2025, https://thebirmgroup.com/3d-concrete-printing-in-construction-2025-guide/
69. 3D Printed Urban Furniture: Customization, Sustainability, and Color Gradient In – Vertico, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.vertico.com/wiki/3d-printed-urban-furniture-customization-and-sustainability-in-public-spaces
70. Transforming urban furniture with industrial 3D printing and Polymaker’s materials – CEAD | Large Scale Additive Manufacturing, accessed November 6, 2025, https://ceadgroup.com/resources/blog/transforming-urban-furniture-with-industrial-3d-printing-and-polymakers-materials/
71. 3D Concrete Printed Buildings Get Bigger, Taller and Modular – ConstructConnect, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.constructconnect.com/construction-economic-news/3d-concrete-printed-buildings-get-bigger-taller-and-modular
72. Additive Construction 2025: 10 Exciting Examples of 3D Printed Buildings – AMFG, accessed November 6, 2025, https://amfg.ai/2025/05/29/additive-construction-2025-10-exciting-examples-of-3d-printed-buildings/
73. Smart 3D-printed facades: a review of innovations, materials, and sustainable performance, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-cities/articles/10.3389/frsc.2025.1610729/full
74. 3D Printing Construction Market Size, Share & Forecast Report 2025-2030, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/3d-printing-construction-market
75. ETH Zurich Unveils Tor Alva: World’s Tallest 3D Printed Concrete …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/eth-zurich-unveils-tor-alva-worlds-tallest-3d-printed-concrete-tower-showcasing-sustainable-construction-239848/
76. Project – Research Program – 3dprintedhouse, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.3dprintedhouse.nl/en/project-info/research-program/
77. Heidelberg, Germany: the largest 3D-printed structure in Europe …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.thestructuralengineer.info/news/heidelberg-germany-the-largest-3d-printed-structure-in-europe-was-delivered
78. 3D Printing: Revolutionizing Architecture As We Know It! – Born to Engineer, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.borntoengineer.com/3d-printing-transforming-architecture
79. 3D Printing Construction Market Size & Share Report, 2030, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/3d-printing-constructions-market
80. 11 Construction Industry Trends to Watch (2025-2028) – Exploding Topics, accessed November 6, 2025, https://explodingtopics.com/blog/construction-industry-trends
81. 3D Printing Reshapes Construction Industry with Projected 95.5% CAGR Growth by 2030, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/10/09/3164156/0/en/3D-Printing-Reshapes-Construction-Industry-with-Projected-95-5-CAGR-Growth-by-2030.html
82. Printing the Future: 5 Key Factors Driving 3D Printing in Construction – 3DPrint.com | Additive Manufacturing Business, accessed November 6, 2025, https://3dprint.com/302913/printing-the-future-5-key-factors-driving-3d-printing-in-construction/
83. 3D CONSTRUCTION PRINTING SOLUTIONS – COBOD, accessed November 6, 2025, https://cobod.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/cobod-a4-brochure-annual-report-2022-online-version.pdf
84. 3D Printing Reshapes Construction Industry with Projected 95.5% CAGR Growth by 2030, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.bccresearch.com/pressroom/avm/3d-printing-reshapes-construction-industry-with-projected-955
85. 3D Printing of Conventional and Geopolymer Concretes: Advancements, Challenges, Future Directions, and Cost Analysis | Journal of Structural Design and Construction Practice | Vol 30, No 4 – ASCE Library, accessed November 6, 2025, https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/JSDCCC.SCENG-1636
86. 3D Concrete Printing Market Size | Industry Report, 2030 – Grand View Research, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/3d-concrete-printing-market-report
87. Global 3D Concrete Printing Market Size And Growth | Industry Report by 2033, accessed November 6, 2025, https://straitsresearch.com/report/3d-concrete-printing-market
88. 22 Leading 3D Printing in Construction Companies Shaping the Sector’s Future (2025–2030) – Research and Markets, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchandmarkets.com/articles/key-companies-in-3d-printing-in-construction
89. Top 10 3D Construction Printing Companies in 2025 – Vertico, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.vertico.com/wiki/top-10-3d-construction-printing-companies-in-2025
90. How is 3D printing affecting the construction industry? – YHB CPAs & Consultants, accessed November 6, 2025, https://yhbcpa.com/construction/how-is-3d-printing-affecting-the-construction-industry/
91. European Construction Sector Observatory – Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, accessed November 6, 2025, https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/1e6c3d76-947b-4f52-97b5-569bc12bcd63_en
92. 3D Printing – ICC Evaluation Service, LLC (ICC-ES), accessed November 6, 2025, https://icc-es.org/3d-printing/
93. ICC Evaluation Service is primed for 3D printing – International Code Council, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.iccsafe.org/building-safety-journal/bsj-technical/icc-evaluation-service-embraces-construction-3d-printing-technology/
94. Understanding ICC-ES AC509 for 3D Construction Printing Codes – and What is Next for 3DCP Materials – YouTube, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfwKzdaVec4
95. 3D Automated Construction Technology for 3D Concrete Walls Consensus Committee (IS-3DACT) – ICC – International Code Council, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.iccsafe.org/products-and-services/i-codes/code-development/cs/3dact_consensus_committee/
96. The cost of 3D printing a house in 2025 – Under the Hard Hat, accessed November 6, 2025, https://underthehardhat.org/cost-of-3d-printing-a-house/
97. 3D Printed House Benefits and Challenges Explained – SOVOL, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.sovol3d.com/blogs/news/3d-printed-house-benefits-challenges
98. How Viable and Cost-Effective Are 3D-Printed Homes? | Texas Real …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://trerc.tamu.edu/blog/how-viable-and-cost-effective-are-3d-printed-homes/
99. 3D-Printed Homes in 2025: How $400,000 Houses Are Disrupting …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://medium.com/illumination/3d-printed-homes-in-2025-how-400-000-houses-are-disrupting-the-construction-industry-497e2f57a047
100. 3DCP Wall Finishing Options – 3D Printed House, accessed November 6, 2025, https://printerra.ca/3dcp-wall-finishing-options/
101. A Case Study in Concrete 3D Printing as an Architectural Pedagogy, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.acsa-arch.org/proceedings/Annual%20Meeting%20Proceedings/ACSA.AM.109/ACSA.AM.109.28.pdf
102. Icon builds affordable 3D-printed homes in Austin, Texas – New Atlas, accessed November 6, 2025, https://newatlas.com/architecture/icon-mueller-3d-printed-affordable/
103. 3D Printed Houses: Real Construction Costs Revealed in 2024 – Industrial Build News, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.build-news.com/advanced-construction-methods/3d-printed-houses-real-construction-costs-revealed-in-2024/
104. Future of building construction: 3D printing & modular technologies – Nexans, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.nexans.com/perspective/future-of-building-construction-3d-printing-modular-technologies/
105. (PDF) 3D printing for remote housing: Benefits and challenges – ResearchGate, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369697573_3D_printing_for_remote_housing_Benefits_and_challenges
106. How Are Electricity and Plumbing Installed Into 3d Printed Houses? – Printable Concrete, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.printableconcrete.com/electricity-and-plumbing-installation/
107. Is 3d printing buildings really the future? : r/Architects – Reddit, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Architects/comments/1i3m8br/is_3d_printing_buildings_really_the_future/

A Review of 3D Printing in Construction and its Impact on the Labor Market – ResearchGate, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344664926_A_Review_of_3D_Printing_in_Construction_and_its_Impact_on_the_Labor_Market