ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Interface-Controlled Structural Behaviour of 3D Printed Concrete: Lessons from Masonry for Anisotropy, Print-Path Design and Standardisation.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The structural application of 3D printed concrete (3DPC) is still constrained by the difficulty of qualifying a layered, process-dependent material using standards developed mainly for cast concrete and conventional masonry. This review examines 3DPC through masonry construction to clarify how interface-controlled behaviour should be interpreted, tested and standardised. The comparison is not based on material similarity, but on the shared structural role of joints, interfaces and assemblage-level load transfer. Most previous reviews mainly discuss printability, mixture design, material development or general mechanical performance. This review instead places the printed interface at the centre of structural qualification, using masonry only as a reference for interpreting joint-controlled load transfer. The review shows that compressive strength alone is insufficient for structural qualification, since printed elements may fail through interlayer debonding, direction-dependent cracking, filament instability, reinforcement discontinuity or connection weakness. Flexural, shear, cyclic and seismic responses are particularly sensitive to interlayer quality, loading orientation and print-path geometry. Existing concrete, mortar and masonry standards remain useful references, but require 3DPC-specific reporting and testing. Accordingly, a tiered qualification route is proposed, progressing from fresh-state characterisation to interface-dominated testing and structural-scale validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.