| Literature DB >> 29617285 |
Sivakumar Gowthaman1, Kazunori Nakashima2, Satoru Kawasaki3.
Abstract
Incorporating sustainable materials into geotechnical applications increases day by day due to the consideration of impacts on healthy geo-environment and future generations. The environmental issues associated with conventional synthetic materials such as cement, plastic-composites, steel and ashes necessitate alternative approaches in geotechnical engineering. Recently, natural fiber materials in place of synthetic material have gained momentum as an emulating soil-reinforcement technique in sustainable geotechnics. However, the natural fibers are innately different from such synthetic material whereas behavior of fiber-reinforced soil is influenced not only by physical-mechanical properties but also by biochemical properties. In the present review, the applicability of natural plant fibers as oriented distributed fiber-reinforced soil (ODFS) and randomly distributed fiber-reinforced soil (RDFS) are extensively discussed and emphasized the inspiration of RDFS based on the emerging trend. Review also attempts to explore the importance of biochemical composition of natural-fibers on the performance in subsoil reinforced conditions. The treatment methods which enhances the behavior and lifetime of fibers, are also presented. While outlining the current potential of fiber reinforcement technology, some key research gaps have been highlighted at their importance. Finally, the review briefly documents the future direction of the fiber reinforcement technology by associating bio-mediated technological line.Entities:
Keywords: biochemical properties; natural fibers; oriented distributed fiber-reinforced soil (ODFS); randomly distributed fiber-reinforced soil (RDFS); sustainable geotechnics; synthetic material
Year: 2018 PMID: 29617285 PMCID: PMC5951437 DOI: 10.3390/ma11040553
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Comparison of specific properties and cost of conventional synthetic fiber and natural plant fiber materials.
| Fiber Material | Cost (USD/Ton) | Energy Content (GJ/Ton) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Fiber | Conventional synthetic Fibers | 12,500 | 130 |
| Kevlar Fiber | 75,000 | 25 | |
| Glass Fiber | 1200–1800 | 30 | |
| Plant Fiber | Sustainable Alternation | 200–1000 | 4 |
Figure 1Schematic outline to understand the association between fiber properties and role of soil in fiber-soil reinforcement technology.
Figure 2Schematic illustration for categorization of natural fiber incorporated in soil reinforcement.
Figure 3Fibril matrix structure of plant fiber and the chemical composition of (a) Cellulose; (b) Hemicellulose; and (c) Lignin.
Biochemical compositions of plant fibers with respect to their species and origins.
| Source of Fiber | Species | Fiber Origin | Cellulose (%) | Hemicellulose (%) | Lignin (%) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bamboo | (>1250 species) | Culm | 40–55 | 18–20.8 | 15–32.2 | [ |
| Jute | Stem | 56–71 | 29–35 | 11–14 | [ | |
| Coir | Fruit | 32–43 | 21 | 40–45 | [ | |
| Palm | Fruit | 32–35.8 | 24.1–28.1 | 26.5–28.9 | [ | |
| Sugarcane Bagasse | Stem | 32–44 | 25 | 19–24 | [ | |
| Water hyacinth | Stem | 43.58–47.38 | 19.77–22.23 | 9.52–13.08 | [ | |
| Rice | Husk | 59.9 | 20.6 | [ | ||
| Sisal | Leaf | 57–71 | 16 | 11–12 | [ | |
| Flax | Stem | 62–72 | 18.6–20.6 | 2–5 | [ | |
| Banana | Leaf | 60–65 | 25 | 5–10 | [ | |
| Hemp | Stem | 67–78.3 | 5.5–16.1 | 2.9–3.7 | [ | |
| Kenaf | Stem | 70 | 3 | 19 | [ | |
| Pine | Straw | 67.29 | 11.57 | [ | ||
| Barely | Straw | 33–40 | 20–35 | 8–17 | [ | |
| Wheat | Straw | 30 | 50 | 15 | [ | |
Physical and Mechanical Properties of potential plant fibers in reinforcing the soil.
| Fiber | Density (kg/m3) | Young’s Modulus (GPa) | Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa) | Elongation at Break (%) | Moisture Absorption (%) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bamboo | 715–1225 | 33–40 | 400–1000 | - | 40–52.45 | [ |
| Jute | 1300–1450 | 10–30 | 393–860 | 1.5–1.8 | 12 | [ |
| Coir | 1390–1520 | 3–6 | 100–225 | 12–51.4 | 130–180 | [ |
| Palm | 463 | 26–32 | 100–400 | 19 | 1–10 | [ |
| Sugarcane Bagasse | 1250 | 15–19 | 66.29–290 | 1.1 | - | [ |
| Water hyacinth | 800 | - | 295.5–329.5 | 13.6 | 32 | [ |
| Rice Husk | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Sisal | 700–1330 | 9–20 | 400–700 | 3.64–13 | 56–230 | [ |
| Flax | 1500 | 27.6–80 | 345–1500 | 1.2–2.7 | 7 | [ |
| Banana | 1350 | 27–32 | 711–779 | 2.5–3.7 | - | [ |
| Hemp | 1140–1470 | 30–70 | 690–920 | 16 | 8–9 | [ |
| Kenaf | 1040 | 136 | 1000 | - | 307 | [ |
| Pine | 813 | - | 61.65 | 10.68 | - | [ |
| Barley | 870 | - | - | - | 400 | [ |
| Wheat | 868 | - | - | - | 280–350 | [ |
Comparison of specific properties between conventional synthetic fibers and plant fibers.
| Fiber Material | Fiber Type | Density (kg/m3) | Young’s Modulus (GPa) | Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Fiber | Conventional synthetic Fibers | 1800 | 130 | 1710 | [ |
| Kevlar Fiber | 1400 | 90 | 2710 | ||
| Glass Fiber | 2600 | 30 | 1350 | ||
| Plant Fiber | Natural Fiber | Up to 1500 | Up to 130 | Up to 1500 | Refer |
Figure 4Classification and illustration of Fiber reinforcement mechanism of soil.
Figure 5Schematic representation of a randomly distributed fiber unit at: (a) initial stage and (b) deformation stage due to loading, where the effect of interlocking, friction and interface bonding induces mobilization of the tensile stress on the fiber unit.
Figure 6Comparison of bearing pressure-settlement curves of different bamboo oriented distributed fiber-reinforced soil (ODFS) reinforcement techniques (data sourced from reference [65]).
Figure 7Schematic illustration of the shrink-swell cycles of fiber at subsoil condition and formation of infiltration path along interface voids.
Figure 8Effect of compaction on infiltration characteristic of fiber reinforced soil: comparison between different fiber-soil composites (data sourced from reference [16]).
Summary of recommended treatments to natural fibers prior to soil reinforcing.
| Fiber | Recommended Prior Treatments | Prime Targets | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bamboo | Heat treatment (in Oil at 150 °C for 4 h) | Enhance thermal stability, weather resistance | [ |
| Coating of bitumen or water-based paints | Prevention of water ingress, prevention of microbial degradation | ||
| Application of two-component epoxy resin (Enamel, ExaPhen) | Enhancement of composite bonding | ||
| Hot press | Densifying, strengthening | ||
| Jute | 4 h of alkali treatment in 5% NaOH and reinforcement using vinylester resin matrix at 30 °C | Increase surface roughness of fiber | [ |
| Reinforcement with polyester resin and Nano-clay | Increase strength, decrease water absorption | ||
| Coatings of bitumen or antimicrobial benzothiazole chemicals | Prevention of water ingress, prevention of microbial degradation | ||
| Coir | Treatment with H2O2 | Increase thermal stability, removal of waxes and fatty acids | [ |
| Treatment with phenol and bitumen | Enhancement of durability | ||
| Treatment using NaOCl/NaOH for the exposition of cellulose and hemicellulose | Reduction of water absorption | ||
| Treatment using CCl4 | Prevention of microbial degradation | ||
| Palm | Coating with acrylic butadiene styrene (ABS) thermoplastic to protect from biodegradation and to increase the friction with soil particles | Prevention of biodegradation, increase surface friction | [ |
| Sisal | Acetylation by acetic anhydride | Modification of fiber cell wall as hydrophobic, increase rigidity and roughness of fiber | [ |
| Permanganate treatment | Reduce hydrophilic tendency | ||
| Flax, hemp | Ultrasonic impact can be applicable | Increase durability | [ |