4.6 Article

Mechanical Properties of Mortars Reinforced with Amazon Rainforest Natural Fibers

Journal

MATERIALS
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14010155

Keywords

amazon rainforest natural fibers; fiber reinforced cement mortars; mechanical properties; physical-chemical treatments

Funding

  1. CNPq
  2. CAPES

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study analyzed the feasibility of using various natural fibers from the Amazon rainforest as reinforcement in construction materials, finding that fibers can improve the flexural strength of mortars while preventing sudden sample rupture. Autoclave curing increased the compressive strength of samples with specific fiber contents.
The addition of natural fibers used as reinforcement has great appeal in the construction materials industry since natural fibers are cheaper, biodegradable, and easily available. In this work, we analyzed the feasibility of using the fibers of piassava, tucum palm, razor grass, and jute from the Amazon rainforest as reinforcement in mortars, exploiting the mechanical properties of compressive and flexural strength of samples with 1.5%, 3.0%, and 4.5% mass addition of the composite binder (50% Portland cement + 40% metakaolin + 10% fly ash). The mortars were reinforced with untreated (natural) and treated (hot water treatment, hornification, 8% NaOH solution, and hybridization) fibers, submitted to two types of curing (submerged in water, and inflated with CO2 in a pressurized autoclave) for 28 days. Mortars without fibers were used as a reference. For the durability study, the samples were submitted to 20 drying/wetting cycles. The fibers improved the flexural strength of the mortars and prevented the abrupt rupture of the samples, in contrast to the fragile behavior of the reference samples. The autoclave cure increased the compressive strength of the piassava and tucum palm samples with 4.5% of fibers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available