| Literature DB >> 35744318 |
Md Azree Othuman Mydin1, Mohd Nasrun Mohd Nawi2, Ruba A Odeh3, Anas A Salameh4.
Abstract
Worldwide concern and ascendancy of emissions and carbon footprints have propelled a substantial number of explorations into green concrete technology. Furthermore, construction material costs have increased along with their gradual impact on the environment, which has led researchers to recognize the importance of natural fibers in improving the durability and mechanical properties of concrete. Natural fibers are abundantly available making them relatively relevant as a reinforcing material in concrete. Presently, it should be recognized that most construction products are manufactured using resources that demand a high quantity of energy and are not sustainable, which may lead to a global crisis. Consequently, the use of plant fibers in lightweight foamed concrete (LFC) is deemed a practical possibility for making concrete a sustainable material that responds to this dilemma. The main objective of this study is to investigate the effect of the addition of lignocellulosic fibers on the performance of LFC. In this investigation, four different types of lignocellulosic plant fibers were considered which were kenaf, ramie, hemp and jute fibers. A total of ten mixes were made and tested in this study. LFC samples with a density of 700 kg/m3 and 1400 kg/m3 were fabricated. The weight fraction for the lignocellulosic plant fibers was kept at 0.45%. The durability parameters assessed were flowability, water absorption capability, porosity and ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV). The results revealed that the presence of cellulosic plant fibers in LFC plays an important role in enhancing all the durability parameters considered in this study. For workability, the addition of ramie fiber led to the lowest slump while the inclusion of kenaf fiber provided optimum UPV. For porosity and water absorption, the addition of jute fiber led to the best results.Entities:
Keywords: durability properties; jute; lightweight foamed concrete; lignocellulosic plant fibers; ramie; water absorption
Year: 2022 PMID: 35744318 PMCID: PMC9230715 DOI: 10.3390/ma15124259
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1Fine sand grading curve.
The physical properties of OPC and fine sand.
| Materials | Density (kg/m3) | Specific Surface Area (m2/kg) | Specific Gravity |
|---|---|---|---|
| OPC | 3.15 | 300 | 3.16 |
| Fine Sand | 2.11 | 450 | 2.61 |
Chemical composition of OPC.
| Oxide Components | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|
| Silicon | 20.18 |
| Aluminium | 4.65 |
| Ferrous | 3.59 |
| Calcium | 62.59 |
| Magnesium | 1.56 |
| Sulphur | 2.67 |
| Sodium | 0.23 |
| Potassium | 0.74 |
| Chloride | 0.03 |
| Free calcium | 1.21 |
| Loss of ignition | 1.23 |
| Insoluble residue | 1.32 |
Chemical composition of natural lignocellulosic fibers.
| Composition | Kenaf | Hemp | Jute | Ramie |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cellulose (%) | 63.5 | 65.1 | 47.8 | 70.1 |
| Hemicellulose (%) | 14.2 | 8.2 | 23.5 | 10.2 |
| Lignin (%) | 11.3 | 14.7 | 17.8 | 9.3 |
| Ash (%) | 4.7 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 2.1 |
| Pectin (%) | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 1.1 |
| Wax (%) | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
| Moisture (%) | 6.2 | 8.0 | 10.1 | 6.9 |
Figure 2SEM micrograph of lignocellulosic plant fibers. (a) kenaf fiber; (b) hemp fiber; (c) ramie fiber; (d) jute fiber.
Physical properties of natural lignocellulosic fibers.
| Physical Properties | Kenaf | Hemp | Jute | Ramie |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diameter (µm) | 198 | 75 | 121 | 155 |
| Fiber length (mm) | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 |
| Density (kg/m3) | 1550 | 920 | 1380 | 1470 |
| Micro-fibrillar angle (°) | 7.0 | 3.5 | 8.0 | 7.5 |
Mechanical properties of natural lignocellulosic fibers.
| Mechanical Properties | Kenaf | Hemp | Jute | Ramie |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tensile strength (MPa) | 297.8 | 192.4 | 121.8 | 321.5 |
| Young’s modulus (GPa) | 19.8 | 14.5 | 12.23 | 16.7 |
| Torsional Rigidity (10−9 N/m2) | 1.56 | 1.19 | 0.82 | 1.35 |
| Elongation at break (%) | 6.56 | 9.96 | 11.45 | 8.95 |
| Poisson’s ratio (v) | 0.40 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.45 |
Mix proportions of LFC.
| Dry Density | Fiber | Mix Ratio | Fiber | Cement | Fine Sand | Water |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 700 | - | 1:1.5:0.45 | 0.00 | 26.63 | 39.95 | 11.99 |
| 700 | Jute | 1:1.5:0.45 | 0.37 | 26.63 | 39.95 | 11.99 |
| 700 | Kenaf | 1:1.5:0.45 | 0.37 | 26.63 | 39.95 | 11.99 |
| 700 | Hemp | 1:1.5:0.45 | 0.37 | 26.63 | 39.95 | 11.99 |
| 700 | Ramie | 1:1.5:0.45 | 0.37 | 26.63 | 39.95 | 11.99 |
| 1400 | - | 1:1.5:0.45 | 0.00 | 51.91 | 77.87 | 23.36 |
| 1400 | Jute | 1:1.5:0.45 | 0.68 | 51.91 | 77.87 | 23.36 |
| 1400 | Kenaf | 1:1.5:0.45 | 0.68 | 51.91 | 77.87 | 23.36 |
| 1400 | Hemp | 1:1.5:0.45 | 0.68 | 51.91 | 77.87 | 23.36 |
| 1400 | Ramie | 1:1.5:0.45 | 0.68 | 51.91 | 77.87 | 23.36 |
Figure 3Slump test of fresh LFC.
Figure 4Ultrasonic pulse velocity test of LFC specimen.
Figure 5Porosity test via vacuum saturation method.
Figure 6Water absorption test.
Figure 7Influence of different types of fiber on the workability of fresh LFC mixes.
Figure 8Effect of different types of fiber on ultrasonic pulse velocity of LFC.
Figure 9SEM images of LFC. (a) control LFC (no fiber inclusion); (b) LFC with the inclusion of kenaf fiber.
Figure 10Effect of different types of fiber on LFC water absorption.
Figure 11Effect of different types of fiber on porosity of LFC.
Figure 12Correlation between the water absorption and porosity of LFC.
Figure 13Correlation between the ultrasonic pulse velocity and porosity of LFC.