| Literature DB >> 35466256 |
Eda Özdemir1, Nazanin Saeidi2, Alireza Javadian2, Andrea Rossi1, Nadja Nolte1, Shibo Ren3, Albert Dwan3, Ivan Acosta3, Dirk E Hebel2, Jan Wurm3,4, Philipp Eversmann1.
Abstract
The demand for building materials has been constantly increasing, which leads to excessive energy consumption for their provision. The looming environmental consequences have triggered the search for sustainable alternatives. Mycelium, as a rapidly renewable, low-carbon natural material that can withstand compressive forces and has inherent acoustic and fire-resistance properties, could be a potential solution to this problem. However, due to its low tensile, flexural and shear strength, mycelium is not currently widely used commercially in the construction industry. Therefore, this research focuses on improving the structural performance of mycelium composites for interior use through custom robotic additive manufacturing processes that integrate continuous wood fibers into the mycelial matrix as reinforcement. This creates a novel, 100% bio-based, wood-veneer-reinforced mycelium composite. As base materials, Ganoderma lucidum and hemp hurds for mycelium growth and maple veneer for reinforcement were pre-selected for this study. Compression, pull-out, and three-point bending tests comparing the unreinforced samples to the veneer-reinforced samples were performed, revealing improvements on the bending resistance of the reinforced samples. Additionally, the tensile strength of the reinforcement joints was examined and proved to be stronger than the material itself. The paper presents preliminary experiment results showing the effect of veneer reinforcements on increasing bending resistance, discusses the potential benefits of combining wood veneer and mycelium's distinct material properties, and highlights methods for the design and production of architectural components.Entities:
Keywords: additive manufacturing; bio-composites; bio-fabrication; circular construction; digital fabrication; mycelium; reinforced composites; robotic fabrication; ultrasonic welding; wood printing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35466256 PMCID: PMC9036262 DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics7020039
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomimetics (Basel) ISSN: 2313-7673
Figure 1Robotic fiber laying process with processed willow strips from the research project TETHOK—Textile Tectonics for Wood Construction, University of Kassel.
Figure 2Robotic fiber laying process: (a) Fiber laying in direction one; (b) Fiber laying in direction two; (c) Completed 2D lattice.
Figure 3Veneer lattices produced: (a) Low-density lattice; (b) High-density lattice (dimensions in mm).
Figure 4(a) Robotic welding process; (b) Welded intersection point close-up.
Figure 5Mycelium composite samples’ production process: (a) Compressive strength test cube; (b) One-side single veneer pull-out test cube; (c) Two-side, middle overlapped veneer with and without welding reinforced cube; (d) Lightweight block with and without low- and high-density lattices; (e) Pressed board with and without low- and high-density lattices.
Figure 6Tensile strength tests: (a) Comparison graph of maple veneer’s tensile strength to welded joints’ tensile strength; (b) Tested welded veneer samples.
Summary table for physical and mechanical properties of mycelium-based composites with and without veneer lattices.
| Test | Sample | Density (kg/m3) | Strength (MPa) | Elastic Modulus (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compressive strength | Cube | 145 ± 14 | 1.2 ± 0.12 | 4.10 ± 0.67 |
| Pull-out strength | Cube + one-side veneer | 0.34 ± 0.04 | NA | |
| Cube + two-side of unwelded veneer | 0.36 ± 0.1 | NA | ||
| Tensile strength | Cube + two-side of welded veneer | 30.6 ± 3.6 | NA | |
| Flexural strength lightweight | Block | 140 ± 8 | 0.17 ± 0.04 | 1.31 ± 0.33 |
| Block + low-density lattice | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 1.32 ± 0.29 | ||
| Block + high-density lattice * | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 1.29 ± 0.16 | ||
| Block + 2 layers of low-density lattice * | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.89 ± 0.24 | ||
| Flexural strength dense | Board | 1180 ± 75 | 10.2 ± 1.73 | 2390.95 ± 444.91 |
| Board + low-density lattice | 21.99 ± 2.01 | 6236.22 ± 322.2 | ||
| Board + high-density lattice | 10.81 ± 3.18 | 3900.2 ± 1621.9 |
* Flexural failure was not observed for these samples; the failure mode was shear as explained in the text.
Figure 7Samples during testing and after failure: (a) Compressive strength test; (b) One-side veneer pull-out test; (c) Two-side unwelded veneer pull-out test; (d) Two-side welded veneer tensile test.
Figure 8Samples during testing and after failure: (a) lightweight block under 3-point flexural test; (b) Block without or with low-density lattice in the middle; (c) Block with high-density lattice in the middle (shear failure); (d) Block with two layers of low-density lattices close to the top and bottom of the block; (e) Dense board under 3-point flexural test; (f) Dense board after failure without lattice reinforcement.
Figure 9Flexural properties, including strength and elastic modulus: (a) Flexural strength of lightweight blocks; (b) Elastic modulus in flexure of lightweight blocks; (c) Flexural strength of dense boards; (d) Elastic modulus in flexure of dense boards. * Shear failure was observed, further explanation is given in the text.
Figure 103D lattice layout studies (dimensions in mm).