3.8 Proceedings Paper

Effect of the Formulation on the Hydric and Mechanical Properties of Flax Concrete: Comparison with Hemp Concrete

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 75TH RILEM ANNUAL WEEK 2021
Volume 40, Issue -, Pages 30-37

Publisher

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-21735-7_4

Keywords

Bio-based materials; Flax concrete; Microstructure; Moisture buffer value

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The incorporation of waste plant particles in a cementitious matrix has resulted in high-performance materials with economic and ecological benefits. This study characterizes the hydric and mechanical properties of a new material composed of flax shives, and compares it with hemp concrete. The results show that the flax concrete has good hydric behavior and similar properties to standardized hemp concrete.
The incorporation of waste plant particles in a cementitious matrix has led to obtain high-performance materials with good economic and ecological benefits. In this paper, a characterization of the main hydric and mechanical properties of a new material composed by flax shives was performed. The aim is to study the impact of the flax shives content on its hydric and mechanical behavior. Moreover, a comparison between the behavior of this material and those of hemp concrete was carried out. This allows, on the one hand, to apprehend better the hydric behavior of the different applications of this material, and on the other hand, to promote new economic perspectives for these products. The results showed that this material has a good hydric behavior. The formulation with a high flax shives content showed a moisture buffer value (MBV index) of 2.80, which allowed it to be classified as an excellent moisture regulator. The comparison of the properties of flax concrete with those of standardized hemp concrete showed that both materials are relatively identical with advantageous and satisfactory properties.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available