4.6 Article

Effect of the incorporation of NaOH-treated wood aggregates on thermal and mechanical properties of plaster mortar

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WOOD AND WOOD PRODUCTS
卷 81, 期 2, 页码 411-420

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00107-022-01877-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recycling potential of wood aggregates in building insulation has been investigated. The use of untreated wood aggregates improves thermal insulation but decreases mechanical strength, while optimal chemical treatment enhances mechanical properties and reduces water uptake. The research confirms the possibility of reusing wood aggregates in new mortars for insulation and building applications.
Presently, the recycling potential of wood aggregates (WA) is limited. However, their utilization appears to be a viable alternative for building insulation. Recycled wood aggregates in composite materials are usually used in cement as a matrix. The present research focuses on the possibilities of their recycling in the plaster matrix. Wood aggregates/plaster (WAP) composites are prepared with varying WA densities (0; 5; 10; 15; 20 by volume). Four sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution concentrations (1, 2, 6, and 10%) are used to treat WA at 80 degrees C for 2 h. Thermal and mechanical properties of newly treated bio-aggregates composites were investigated. Results show that the use of untreated WA makes the composite lightweight and enhances the thermal insulating performances of plaster paste but negatively affects its mechanical strengths. An optimal chemical surface modification of WA improves the flexural and compressive strengths and decreases the water uptake of resulting composites. The adequate treatment process (2% NaOH concentration at 80 degrees C during 2 h) of wood aggregates was proven when comparing treated and untreated fibers' morphology as well as their crystallinity index. Experimental results confirm the possibility to reuse the wood aggregates in new mortars for insulating and building applications.

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

4.6
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