4.7 Article

Innovative sandwich panels made of wood bio-concrete and sisal fiber reinforced cement composites

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 272, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121636

关键词

Wood shavings; Cement; Wood bio-concretes; Sisal fibers; Sandwich panels

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientlfico e Tecnologico -Brasil (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of innovative sandwich panels made by combining wood bio-concretes and long sisal fibers reinforced composites showed that WBC2.5 was more effective in promoting compressive strength, shear transfer capacity and allowing a pure bending failure.
This paper presents the results of the development of innovative sandwich panels made by combining wood bio-concretes and long sisal fibers reinforced composites. An experimental study of the wood bio-concretes (WBC) was carried out by producing several cement-to-wood ratios (0.5, 1, 2, 2.5 and 3) in order to allow the development of panels of different density. Before producing the WBC, the influence of hot water washings of the wood shavings on the cement hydration was investigated. The effect of the cement-to-wood ratios on the density, thermal conductivity, compressive strength and elastic modulus of the WBC were also investigated. Lightweight bio-concretes were obtained with densities ranging between 700 and 1250 kg/m(3) and compressive strengths within 0.44-16 MPa, after 28 days cure. The lighter and denser bio-concretes were used as cores in sandwich system with faces made of cement composites reinforced with 6% of long sisal fibers distributed in three layers. The results of compressive and flexural tests performed on the sandwich specimens revealed that the WBC2.5 were more effective in terms of promoting compressive strength, shear transfer capacity and allowing a pure bending failure, while WBC0.5 promoted core shear cracks and the inferior face crush. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据