4.7 Article

Mechanical strength, shrinkage, and porosity of mortar reinforced with areca nut husk fibers

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 363, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129688

关键词

Areca nut husk fiber; Mortar; Mechanical strength; Shrinkage; Porosity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cement-based materials have poor tension performance, but adding Areca nut husk fiber (AHF) can enhance mechanical strength and reduce shrinkage. The study investigated the effect of different AHF proportions on mortar properties and found that 0.5% AHF showed the best performance. This research provides important insights for the sustainable use of AHF in cement-based materials.
Cement-based materials perform well in compression but poorly in tension due to their brittleness. They also exhibit shrinkage cracking over time, which can be mitigated by incorporating fibers. Areca nut husk fiber (AHF) is agricultural waste, which is eco-friendly, light in weight, renewable, offers higher corrosion protection, and is a sustainable construction material. A novel application of AHF in a cement-based material has been undertaken. The effect of incorporating AHF (0%, 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75%, and 1.0% by volume of mortar) on the properties of mortar was investigated. Workability, mechanical strength (compressive, tensile, and flexural), shrinkage, and porosity tests were performed. The results were compared to those obtained with jute and coir fiber mortars, as no data on mortar/concrete containing AHF have been reported. The mechanical strength of the mortar was increased at an AHF content of 0.5%. Beyond this level, the strength declined but was not lower than that of the control mix (0% AHF). Furthermore, significant shrinkage mitigation was observed with an increase in the AHF percentage. The porosity of the mortar increased with an increase in the content of AHF. This study reveals that 0.5% AHF can be used in mortar, given its excellent performance among all mixes.

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