Next Article in Journal
The Impact of the Digital Economy on Low-Carbon, Inclusive Growth: Promoting or Restraining
Next Article in Special Issue
Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Construction Products Selection in SMEs
Previous Article in Journal
Developing an Objective Framework to Evaluate Street Functions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Estimation of Traffic Delay Due to U-Turns at Uncontrolled Medians: Case Study in Phnom Penh, Cambodia
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Potential of Biomass Frond Fiber on Mechanical Properties of Green Foamed Concrete

1
Building Surveying Department, School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia
2
Disaster Management Institute (DMI), School of Technology Management and Logistics, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok 06010, Malaysia
3
Department of Allied Engineering Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, The Hashemite University, Zarqa 13133, Jordan
4
Department of Management Information Systems, College of Business Administration, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(12), 7185; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127185
Submission received: 6 May 2022 / Revised: 9 June 2022 / Accepted: 10 June 2022 / Published: 12 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Towards Sustainable Built Environment: Trending Methods and Practices)

Abstract

:
Currently, the cost of construction rises along with the ongoing impact on the environment, and it has led the researchers to the acceptance of biomass natural fibers, such as biomass frond fiber (BFF), for the improvement of the mechanical properties of cement-based materials. BFF is abundantly accessible, making it relatively pertinent as a reinforcing material in foamed concrete (FC). In addition, natural fiber-reinforced concrete has been progressively employed in construction for several decades to reduce the crack growth under the static load. This paper intends to experimentally investigate the effectiveness of the addition of BFF to FC to improve its mechanical properties. The FC samples were strengthened with BFF at the weight fractions of 0.12%, 0.24%, 0.36%, 0.48%, and 0.60%. This study used three FC densities: 600 kg/m3, 800 kg/m3, and 1000 kg/m3, with fixed constitutions with 0.45 and 1:1.5 cement-to-water and cement-to-sand ratios, respectively. The evaluated strength characteristics included bending, splitting tensile, and compressive strengths. The experimental outcomes indicated that adding 0.36% BFF to FC facilitates optimal splitting tensile, compressive, and bending strength results. BFF enhances material strength by filling the spaces, microcracks, and gaps inside the FC structure. The BFF helped to reduce crack spreading when the plastic state of the FC cementitious matrix was loaded. Furthermore, the optimum level of BFF inclusion and the accumulation and the non-uniform distribution of BFF were detected, which caused the lowering of the strengths of the FC significantly. Beyond the optimum level of BFF, the agglomeration and the non-uniform dispersion of the BFF were seen, which resulted in a drop in mechanical properties. The output from this research will give a better insight into the potential utilization of plant fiber in FC. It is of profound significance to guide the sustainable development and application of FC material and infrastructures.

1. Introduction

There is a need for green and cost-effective construction and housing for urban and rural populations. Malaysia and several developing nations have considered suggestions on ways to reduce the cost of traditional building materials. Moreover, several global foresight associations have recognized the importance of durable, lightweight, easy-to-use, cost-effective, and environmentally sustainable building materials [1]. Gathering, building, and using non-traditional alternative local materials, including the use of agricultural residue, is at the forefront of the non-conventional construction material domain [2]. It is possible to gather cheaper and less energy-intensive natural strengthening materials using local technology and labor. Less developed areas are particularly interested in using natural fibers to strengthen concrete because traditional materials might be costly and might have restricted supply [3].
Civil engineering projects typically employ foamed concrete (FC) as a filler [4]. However, FC offers superior value in construction projects because of its desirable fire resistance and thermal characteristics [5]. It must be noted that ordinary Portland cement (OPC)-based FC has appreciable compressive characteristics; however, it is brittle and has low tension-bearing ability [6,7]. The tension characteristics can be enhanced by using adequate volumes of specific fibers or traditional steel bar strengthening techniques [8]. Including fibers with the base material also changes the fiber-matrix composite characteristics when cracks develop; hence, the toughness is enhanced [9]. FC is a material low in mechanical properties compared to contemporary concrete of normal weight. It is described as a cementitious substance comprising a mechanically trained moisture volume of 20% or more in the mortar mixture, where air bubbles are set in the matrix using a specific foam [10]. It is feasible to produce FC by mixing a foaming substance and a cement mortar. The foam forms when the foaming substance is given gentle but thorough mixing. However, foaming substance aeration is also feasible before the mixing of all the substances [11].
FC is not a novel construction material. The first patent was obtained in 1923 [11] and limited-scale production was started. FC use was meagre until the late 1970s; it gained momentum when the Netherlands started using it for ground engineering and hole-filling material [12]. In 1987, the United Kingdom conducted a comprehensive analysis concerning FC use for trench reinstatement. The trial was successful, and FC was extensively used for reconstructing trenches, leading to additional uses [13]. FC has since gained extensive acceptance with enhanced production and numerous applications [14]. In the last two decades, FC has seen global use for many applications: bulk filler, backfill for wall retention, trench reinstatement, building supports, tiles, insulators, soundproofing material, tunnel grouting substance, inner filler for precast projects, pipeline filler, and FC soil used specifically to construct embankment slopes [15]. The last few years have drawn attention to FC applications for semi- and non-structural applications in construction works because they are lightweight and have superior insulation characteristics [16].
FC is relatively brittle at everyday stress or impact loadings. It has a tensile strength of about 10% of the compressive strength [17]. Consequently, FC entities must be strengthened using continuous reinforcement beams to better bear the stress and offset the effects of low strength and ductility. Moreover, steel-based strengthening is used to enhance the tensile and shear stress handling capacity for critical points on the FC entity [18]. Steel-based FC reinforcement substantially increases strength; however, it is critical to control microcrack formation to produce concrete with homogenous tensile characteristics. Hence, fibers are introduced to produce FC with a higher tensile and flexural strength. The fibers are fundamentally different binders that help Portland cement bond with the matrices. Typically, the fibers are discontinuous and arbitrarily spread across the cement matrices. Fiber addition to FC helps to regulate and reduce the likelihood of crack formation in the formed composite. Therefore, the fibers help regulate and slow crack growth in a more controlled manner than the inherently unstable propagation characteristics. Fibers prevent premature cracking due to shear and flexural stress; they offer significant post-crack characteristics and notably increase composite material ductility [19].
Malaysia has an extensive palm oil trade in the agricultural regions; this trade has helped the Malaysian economy grow. Palm oil factories produce lignocellulosic biomass residue, containing lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose, which are typically considered as plant biomass. This category comprises palm fronds, pressed fiber, palm mill residue, shells, and plucked fruit branches. The extensive presence of the palm oil industry causes significant dumping problems. Hence, biomass waste disposal creates challenges that might be mitigated by using palm oil by-products as filler material for FC and enhancing its characteristics. The resulting cellular cemented substance is called FC when the preformed foam is introduced to the cement matrix. The material combination creates air voids within the material structure [20]. Such natural fibers are increasingly being used as substitutes for conventional additives such as glass fiber and steel. The trend is changing because natural fibers create better value for such materials, particularly from a sustainability perspective. A cementitious composite comprising FC and natural fiber has superior bonding characteristics [21]. By adding small weight fractions of short natural fibers, the impact of the early age reduction in the FC’s mechanical properties may be reduced [22]. It might reduce crack formation under loaded conditions. FC strengthened using natural fiber has several advantages, such as light cost-effectiveness, superior rigidity and durability, and less weight.
The incorporation of natural fibers into FC enhances its mechanical properties. It has been confirmed that a low volumetric of the short natural fibers (19 mm–30 mm) reduces the effect of early age on the strength properties of FC. It is vital to distinguish the number of fibers and the amount of filler, cement, water, and surfactant in the mixture. There have been some attempts by several researchers to establish the mechanical properties of FC reinforced by natural fibers. Liu et al. [23] discovered that adding a 0.75% volume fraction of sisal fiber into FC improved its drying shrinkage and mechanical properties. Nensok Hassan et al. [24] utilized natural banana fiber in FC. They discovered that banana fiber behaved well in the FC cementitious matrix and improved the bond between the FC’s cement matrix and the fiber, thus improving the mechanical and durability properties of the composite. Flores-Johnson et al. [25] reported an improvement in the mechanical properties of FC with densities of 800 kg/m3 and 900 kg/m3 with the addition of henequen fibers. Amarnath and Ramachandrudu [26] stated that the utilization of sisal fiber as a reinforcement in FC, with a density of 1200 kg/m3, increased the compressive and tensile strengths. Raj et al. [27] evaluated the engineering properties of FC strengthened with coconut fiber and polyvinyl alcohol fiber. They found that FC strengthened with coconut fiber performed better than it did with polyvinyl alcohol fiber. From the above review, the influence of BFF inclusion in FC for mechanical property enhancement is not well studied and understood. Therefore, this study focuses on determining the mechanical properties of FC reinforced with BFF oil palm by-products.

2. Methodology

2.1. Materials Preparation

Type 1 Portland cement (CEM1) fabrication primarily requires water, ordinary Portland cement OPC), preformed surfactant, and filler material (fine sand). The process adhered to the British Standard BS12 [28] recommendations. The fine filler (sand) was utilized and obtained from a local distributor. Fine sand particles with 1.18 mm sizes were separated using a sieve, as per the BS882 [29] recommendations. The assessment used clean water free of organic substances or debris. The water–cement ratio was fixed at 0.45. In addition, the foaming agent used, Noraite PA-1, was protein-based. The foaming agent was diluted with water at a ratio of 1:35 (foaming agent: water) by volume. After which, a foam generator was used, with the aid of an air compressor, to produce air bubbles (foams). The foam generator used in this research was the Porta-foam PM 1. The air pressure supplied by the air compressor was kept between 450–500 kPa, which was used to produce a dry foam with a foam density in the range of 65 to 85 g/L. The air bubbles formed by the Noraite PA-1 protein foaming agent were bubbles which were about 1mm, spherical, closed, isolated, and stable.
The biomass frond fiber (BFF) utilized in this research was collected from a local farm in Seberang Jaya, Penang (Figure 1) and taken through a mechanical refinement process to produce BFF of 17 mm in length. The weight fractions of the BFF used were 0.12%, 0.24%, 0.36%, 0.48%, and 0.60% of the total weight mix weight. The physical property observations and measurements of the BFF cell elements were conducted with the aid of the Olympus SZX9 optical microscope with an Olympus IMS DPS25 digital camera. The measurements were taken by the Image-Pro Plus 2D Image Analysis Software. In the microscopic descriptions, a magnification of 40× was used. The determination of the BFF dimensions was derived from the semi-permanent slides, where 25 fibers were measured with 4× magnification for the length and width of the BFF and 100× to measure the lumen diameter, fibril angle, and Runkel ratio. The thickness of the cell wall was determined by the difference between the lumen diameter and the fiber diameter. Next, the chemical composition of BFF was determined using the deconstruction technique. FTIR was conducted to determine the functional organic compounds of the BFF and to distinguish the homogeneity analysis of the BFF. Next, XRD was commenced to ascertain the type of mineral, the quantity of the minerals, and the degree of crystallinity or amorphousness. Finally, the mechanical properties of BFF fiber were determined using a single-fiber line mechanical tester micro-S500. During the test, the mechanical testing machine was set at an effective length of 30 ± 5 mm, while 10 mm at both ends was employed as the support gauge length. The average readings for the three parameters were recorded as the tensile strength, the Young’s modulus, and the elongation at the break. Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 list the physical, chemical, and mechanical characteristics of BFF. Next, Figure 2, Table 4, and Figure 3 show the FITR spectrum for the BFF and FTIR peaks of BFF and the X-ray diffraction patterns for BFF, respectively. It can be seen that the raw BFF used for this research had diffraction patterns at around 2θ = 26 and 2θ = 31, which signified the crystalline and amorphous areas, respectively.

2.2. Mix Design

For this research, five mixes were prepared. The densities chosen were 600 kg/m3, 800 kg/m3, and 1000 kg/m3. The weight fractions of BFF were 0.12%, 0.24%, 0.36%, 0.48%, and 0.60%. The sand–cement and water–cement ratios of 1:1.15 and 0.45 were maintained for all the FC samples. Table 5 demonstrates the mix proportion considered in this study. A total of 18 mixes were prepared for this test. For each type of test and testing age, 3 replicate samples were tested. As the final result, the average of these 3 replicate samples was considered.

2.3. Test Methods

Three types of mechanical property tests were conducted to accomplish the objectives of this study. Compressive, flexural, and splitting tensile strength tests were performed on days 7, 28, and 56.

2.3.1. Compression Test

The compression assessment adhered to the BS12390-3 standard [30]; the GoTech GT-7001-BS300 Universal Testing Machine was used. The sample size was a 100 mm × 100 mm × 100 mm cube. The maximum load and compressive strength were recorded. As the final result, the average compressive strength of these three replicate samples was considered. Figure 4 shows the setup for the compression test.

2.3.2. Flexural Test

The three-point bending test was selected, following the BS EN 12390-5standard [31]. The sample size was a 100 mm × 100 mm × 500 mm prism, using the GoTech GT-7001-C10 Universal Testing Machine to determine the bending stress. The average flexural strength of these three replicate specimens was taken as a final result. Figure 5 demonstrates the setup for the flexural test.

2.3.3. Splitting Tensile Test

The GoTech GT-7001-BS300 Universal Testing Machine was used to evaluate the FC splitting tensile strength. The BS EN 12390-6 standard [32] was followed to record the peak splitting tensile strength and the load values. The specimen size was a cylinder of 100 mm in diameter × 200 mm in height. The average splitting tensile strength of these three replicate FC samples was taken as the final result. Figure 6 shows the setup for the splitting tensile test.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Compressive Strength

Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the experimental results of the compressive strengths for all three densities considered in this study. It can be seen from these figures that adding BFF into FC improved the compressive strengths (of all weight fractions tested in this study). The compressive strengths of the 7-day, 28-day, and 56-day cured specimens exceeded the control sample strength, irrespective of density. The optimum weight fraction of BFF was 0.36%. The highest compressive strengths achieved at day 56 were 1.68 N/mm2, 2.81 N/mm2, and 4.08 N/mm2, with the inclusion of a 0.36% weight fraction of BFF for the 600 kg/m3, 800 kg/m3, and 1000 kg/m3 densities, correspondingly, compared to the control sample, which only had compressive strengths of 1.23 N/mm2 (600 kg/m3), 2.14 N/mm2 (800 kg/m3), and 3.22 N/mm2 (1000 kg/m3). Beyond the optimum level of BFF, the agglomeration and the non-uniformity dispersion of BFF were seen, which resulted in a drop in the compressive strength (at 0.48% weight fraction of BFF) [33]. The high amount of BFF in FC will retard the process of hydration and hence lead to low compressive strength [34]. Considering that the FC matrix has numerous voids of varying size and shape and the presence of microcracks at the transition area between matrices, using BFF fiber facilitates the regulation of the failure characteristics when subjected to compressive loads [35].

3.2. Flexural Strength

The BFF addition to FC increased its flexural strength for all density values, regardless of the BFF weight fraction used for the FC mixtures. Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the results of the flexural strengths achieved for the 600 kg/m3, 800 kg/m3, and 1000 kg/m3 densities, respectively. The control sample achieved the lowest flexural strength, showing insignificant growth along with the testing age. However, the FC samples with the inclusion of BFF demonstrated substantial growth in bending strength by age. At day 28, the flexural strengths of the control FC were 0.23 N/mm2, 0.45 N/mm2, and 0.57 N/mm2 for the 600 kg/m3, 800 kg/m3, and 1000 kg/m3 densities, in that order. The optimum weight fraction of BFF that gave the greatest results for flexural strength was 0.36%. The highest flexural strengths achieved at day 56 were 0.50 N/mm2, 0.78 N/mm2, and 1.20 N/mm2, with the presence of the 0.36% weight fraction of BFF for the 600 kg/m3, 800 kg/m3, and 1000 kg/m3 densities, respectively. The inclusion of BFF in FC plays an important role in reinforcing the FC matrix and altering the material characteristics from the brittle to the ductile state. BFF promotes the enhancing of the flexural strength of FC for all densities [36]. Nevertheless, disproportionate FBB fiber addition, causing the weight fractions to exceed 0.36%, led to lower cohesion between the fibers and matrix [37]. A BFF weight fraction of 0.36% is ideal for FC because the flexural and compressive strengths are more desirable. The FC porosity reduction was responsible for the enhanced flexural strength. Figure 13 shows a SEM micrograph of a 1000 kg/m3 density FC reinforced with 0.36% BFF. From Figure 13, no visible scaly lines were detected, indicating appropriate interfacial bonding between the C-S-H gel matrix and the surfaces of the BFF. This excellent interfacial bonding is further augmented by various tiny microfibrils.

3.3. Splitting Tensile Strength

Figure 14, Figure 15 and Figure 16 demonstrate the experimental results of the splitting tensile strength for all three of the densities considered in this study. The same trend was found as that in which the 0.36% weight fraction of the BFF addition led to the greatest results of the splitting tensile strength. The highest splitting tensile strengths achieved at day 56 were 0.37 N/mm2, 0.56 N/mm2, and 0.85 N/mm2, with the inclusion of the 0.36% weight fraction of BFF for the 600 kg/m3, 800 kg/m3, and 1000 kg/m3 densities, correspondingly, compared to the control sample, which only accomplished the tensile strengths of 0.19 N/mm2 (600 kg/m3), 0.32 N/mm2 (800 kg/m3), and 0.48 N/mm2 (1000 kg/m3). Furthermore, the optimum level of BFF inclusion and the accumulation and the non-regular spreading of BFF were then detected, which resulted in the decline of the tensile strength (starting from the 0.48% weight fraction of BFF). The splitting tensile strength improved because of the higher FC robustness facilitated by the BFF. Adding 0.36% fiber enhances the FC tensile strength by enhancing the ideal pozzolanic interactions with cement, producing high-density FC. This implies that the inclusion of BFF improves the splitting tensile strength of FC (of all the weight fractions tested in this study). The elongation at the break of a single BFF was considered minimal, resulting in an exceptional splitting tensile strength when added into FC [38].

3.4. Correlation between Compressive and Flexural Strengths

Figure 17, Figure 18 and Figure 19 show the results of the correlation between the compressive strengths and the flexural strengths for the 600 kg/m3, 800 kg/m3, and 1000 kg/m3 densities, respectively. From these three figures, a linear relationship exists between the compressive and the flexural strengths. The straight line simply indicates that as the compressive strength rises, the flexural strength also grows. The R-squared values of 0.9493 (600 kg/m3), 0.9347 (800 kg/m3), and 0.9323 (1000 kg/m3) mean that there is a strong linear relation between the compressive and the flexural strength. For the control mix (no BFF addition) the flexural strength was about 22% of the compressive strength of the FC for all three of the densities considered in this exploration. With the inclusion of an optimum weight fraction of 0.36% BFF in the FC, the flexural strength increased up to an average of 28% of the compressive strength for all three of the densities.

4. Conclusions

This experimental study aimed at investigating the influence of the addition of BFF on the mechanical properties of FC. The FC specimens were reinforced with BFF at weight fractions of 0.12%, 0.24%, 0.36%, 0.48%, and 0.60%. The three densities of 600 kg/m3, 800 kg/m3, and 1000 kg/m3 were cast and tested. The mechanical properties, such as compressive strength, flexural strength, and tensile strength were evaluated. Based on the analysis accomplished, the following conclusions can be drawn.
  • Adding BFF into FC enhanced the compressive strength for all of the weight fractions used in this study when compared to the control FC specimen. The optimal result for compressive strength was attained with the inclusion of a 0.36% weight fraction of BFF. Beyond the optimal weight fraction of BFF, the accumulation and the non-homogeneous distribution of BFF were found, which resulted in a drop in compressive strength.
  • The inclusion of BFF into FC enhanced its flexural strength for all the densities, irrespective of the BFF weight fraction used for the FC mixtures. The control FC specimen attained the lowest flexural strength, showing insignificant growth along with the testing age. The optimal weight fraction of BFF that gave the best results for the flexural strength was 0.36%. The presence of BFF in FC plays an important role in strengthening the FC cementitious matrix and modifying the material characteristics from the brittle to the ductile state.
  • For the tensile strength, the same trend was found as that in which the addition of a 0.36% weight fraction of BFF led to the greatest results. The tensile strength was improved because of the higher FC robustness facilitated by BFF. Additionally, the presence of BFF enhances the ideal pozzolanic interactions with the cement, producing high-density FC. Beyond the optimal weight fraction of the BFF addition, accretion and the non-regular spreading of BFF were discovered, which resulted in a decrease in the tensile strength.
  • This preliminary investigation will support future works on the development of more innovative, lighter-weight, low-cost, and environmentally friendly cement-based materials with the addition of natural biomass fibers in the building and construction sectors. The research on BFF-reinforced FC can be further expanded to assess the long-term durability properties, the engineering properties, and the thermal performance.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the paper evenly. Conceptualization, M.N.M.N. and R.A.O.; methodology, M.A.O.M. and A.A.S.; laboratory, M.A.O.M.; formal analysis, M.A.O.M., M.N.M.N., R.A.O. and A.A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.O.M., M.N.M.N., R.A.O. and A.A.S.; writing—review and editing, M.A.O.M., M.N.M.N., R.A.O. and A.A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The first author would like to acknowledge the technical support received from Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Arrigoni, A.; Panesar, D.K.; Duhamel, M.; Opher, T.; Saxe, S.; Posen, I.D.; MacLean, H.L. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of concrete containing supplementary cementitious materials: Cut-off vs. substitution. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhao, X.; Hwang, B.G.; Lim, J. Job satisfaction of project managers in green construction projects: Constituents, barriers, and improvement strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 246, 118968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mydin, M.A.O. The effect of raw mesocarp fibre inclusion on the durability properties of lightweight foamed concrete. ASEAN J. Sci. Technol. Dev. 2021, 38, 59–66. [Google Scholar]
  4. Raj, A.; Sathyan, D.; Mini, K.M. Physical and functional characteristics of foam concrete: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 221, 787–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mohamad, N.; Iman, M.A.; Mydin, M.A.O.; Samad, A.A.A.; Rosli, J.A.; Noorwirdawati, A. Mechanical properties and flexure behaviour of lightweight foamed concrete incorporating coir fibre. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 140, 012140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gencel, O.; Benli, A.; Bayraktar, O.Y.; Kaplan, G.; Sutcu, M.; Elabade, W.A.T. Effect of waste marble powder and rice husk ash on the microstructural, physicomechanical and transport properties of foam concrete exposed to high temperatures and freeze-thaw cycles. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 291, 123374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mydin, M.A.O.; Musa, M.; Ghani, A.N.A. Fiber glass strip laminates strengthened lightweight foamed concrete: Performance index, failure modes and microscopy analysis. AIP Conf. Proc. 2018, 2016, 020111. [Google Scholar]
  8. Serri, E.; Othuman Mydin, M.A.; Suleiman, M.Z. Thermal properties of Oil Palm Shell lightweight concrete with different mix designs. J. Teknol. 2014, 70, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, Z.; Provis, J.L.; Reid, A.; Wang, H. Geopolymer foam concrete: An emerging material for sustainable construction. Constr Build Mater. 2014, 56, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mohd Zamzani, N.; Othuman Mydin, M.A.; Abdul Ghani, A.N. Mathematical regression models for prediction of durability properties of foamed concrete with the inclusion of coir fibre. Int. J. Eng. Adv. 2019, 8, 3353–3358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jones, M.R.; Zheng, L.; Ozlutas, K. Stability and instability of foamed concrete. Mag. Concr. Res. 2016, 68, 542–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mydin, M.A.O. Preliminary studies on the development of lime-based mortar with added egg white. Int. J. Technol. 2017, 8, 800–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Norgaard, J.; Othuman Mydin, M.A. Drywall thermal properties exposed to high temperatures and fire condition. J. Teknol. 2013, 62, 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  14. Nensok, M.H.; Mydin, M.A.O.; Awang, H. Investigation of Thermal, Mechanical and Transport Properties of Ultra Lightweight Foamed Concrete (ULFC) Strengthened with Alkali Treated Banana Fibre. J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sci. 2021, 86, 123–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Serudin, A.M.; Othuman, M.A.M.; Ghani, A.N.A. Effect of lightweight foamed concrete confinement with woven fiberglass mesh on its drying shrinkage. Rev. Ing. Constr. 2021, 36, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Serudin, A.M.; Mydin, M.A.O.; Ghani, A.N.A. Influence of Fibreglass Mesh on Physical Properties of Lightweight Foamcrete. IIUM Eng. J. 2021, 22, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dhasindrakrishna, K.; Pasupathy, K.; Ramakrishnan, S.; Sanjayan, J. Effect of yield stress development on the foam-stability of aerated geopolymer concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2020, 138, 106233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bediako, M.; Adobor, C.D.; Amankwah, E.O.; Nyako, K.; Kankam, C.K. Maximizing the sustainability of cement utilization in building projects through the use of greener materials. J. Eng. 2016, 2016, 1375493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mydin, M.A.O.; Nawi, M.N.M.; Munaaim, M.A.C.; Mohamed, O. A Study on the Influence of Oil Palm Trunk Fiber on Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) and Shrinkage of Foamcrete. J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sci. 2020, 76, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mohd Zamzani, N.; Othuman Mydin, M.A.; Abdul Ghani, A.N. Influence of ‘Cocos Nucifera Linn’ fiber volume fraction on water absorption and porosity of foamed concrete. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 2019, 8, 3428–3435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Musa, M.; Othuman Mydin, M.A.; Abdul Ghani, A.N. Influence of oil palm empty fruit bunch (EFB) fibre on drying shrinkage in restrained lightweight foamed mortar. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Exp. Eng. 2019, 8, 4533–4538. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kamaruddin, S.; Goh, W.I.; Jhatial, A.A.; Lakhiar, M.T. Chemical and fresh state properties of foamed concrete incorporating palm oil fuel ash and eggshell ash as cement replacement. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 7, 350–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Fan, Z.; Gu, J. Study on properties of sisal fiber modified foamed concrete. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 744, 012042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nensok Hassan, M.; Othuman Mydin, M.A.; Awang, H. Fresh state and mechanical properties of ultra-lightweight foamed concrete incorporating alkali treated banana fibre. J. Teknol. 2022, 84, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Flores-Johnson, E.A.; Yan, Y.Z.; Carrillo, J.G.; González-Chi, P.I.; Herrera-Franco, P.J.; Li, Q.M. Mechanical Characterization of Foamed Concrete Reinforced with Natural Fibre. Mater. Res. Proc. 2018, 7, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  26. Amarnath, Y.; Ramachandrudu, C. Properties of Foamed Concrete with Sisal Fibre. In Proceedings of the 9th International Concrete Conference 2016: Environment, Efficiency and Economic Challenges for Concrete, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK, 4–6 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  27. Raj, B.; Dhanya, S.; Mini, K.M.; Amritha, R. Mechanical and durability properties of hybrid fiber reinforced foam concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 245, 118373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. BS 12; Specification for Portland Cement. British Standards Institute: London, UK, 1996.
  29. BS 882; Specification for Aggregates from Natural Sources for Concrete. British Standards Institute: London, UK, 1992.
  30. BS 12390-3; Testing Hardened Concrete. Compressive Strength of Test Specimens. British Standards Institute: London, UK, 2011.
  31. BS EN 12390-5; Testing Hardened Concrete. Flexural Strength of Test Specimens. British Standards Institute: London, UK, 2019.
  32. BS EN 12390-6; Testing Hardened Concrete. Tensile Splitting Strength of Test Specimens. British Standards Institute: London, UK, 2009.
  33. Zamzani, N.M.; Mydin, M.A.O.; Ghani, A.N.A. Effectiveness of ‘cocos nucifera linn’ fibre reinforcement on the drying shrinkage of lightweight foamed concrete. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2019, 14, 3932–3937. [Google Scholar]
  34. Suhaili, S.S.; Mydin, M.A.O.; Awang, H. Influence of Mesocarp Fibre Inclusion on Thermal Properties of Foamed Concrete. J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sci. 2021, 87, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Elrahman, M.A.; El Madawy, M.E.; Chung, S.Y.; Sikora, P.; Stephan, D. Preparation and characterization of ultra-lightweight foamed concrete incorporating lightweight aggregates. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mydin, M.A.O.; Ganesan, S.; Yunos, M.Y.M.; Utaberta, N.; Ismail, N.A. Structural behaviour of coir fibre-reinforced foamed concrete wall panel system. J. Teknol. 2016, 78, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ferreira, S.R.; De Andrade, S.F.; Lima, P.R.L.; Filho, R.D.T. Effect of hornification on the structure, tensile behavior and fiber matrix bond of sisal, jute and curaua´ fiber cement based composite systems. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 139, 551–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kochova, K.; Gauvin, F.; Schollbach, K.; Brouwers, H. Using alternative waste coir fibres as a reinforcement in cement fibre composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 231, 117121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (a) Raw BFF collected from a local farm; (b) SEM micrograph of a cross-section of BFF.
Figure 1. (a) Raw BFF collected from a local farm; (b) SEM micrograph of a cross-section of BFF.
Sustainability 14 07185 g001
Figure 2. FITR spectrum of BFF.
Figure 2. FITR spectrum of BFF.
Sustainability 14 07185 g002
Figure 3. X-ray diffraction patterns of BFF.
Figure 3. X-ray diffraction patterns of BFF.
Sustainability 14 07185 g003
Figure 4. Setup for compression test.
Figure 4. Setup for compression test.
Sustainability 14 07185 g004
Figure 5. Setup for flexural test.
Figure 5. Setup for flexural test.
Sustainability 14 07185 g005
Figure 6. Setup for splitting tensile test.
Figure 6. Setup for splitting tensile test.
Sustainability 14 07185 g006
Figure 7. FC compressive strength as a function of BFF weight fractions for 600 kg/m3 density.
Figure 7. FC compressive strength as a function of BFF weight fractions for 600 kg/m3 density.
Sustainability 14 07185 g007
Figure 8. Compressive strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 800 kg/m3 density.
Figure 8. Compressive strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 800 kg/m3 density.
Sustainability 14 07185 g008
Figure 9. Compressive strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 1000 kg/m3 density.
Figure 9. Compressive strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 1000 kg/m3 density.
Sustainability 14 07185 g009
Figure 10. Flexural strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 600 kg/m3 density.
Figure 10. Flexural strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 600 kg/m3 density.
Sustainability 14 07185 g010
Figure 11. Flexural strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 800 kg/m3 density.
Figure 11. Flexural strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 800 kg/m3 density.
Sustainability 14 07185 g011
Figure 12. Flexural strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 1000 kg/m3 density.
Figure 12. Flexural strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 1000 kg/m3 density.
Sustainability 14 07185 g012
Figure 13. SEM micrograph of 1000 kg/m3 density FC reinforced with 0.36% BFF.
Figure 13. SEM micrograph of 1000 kg/m3 density FC reinforced with 0.36% BFF.
Sustainability 14 07185 g013
Figure 14. Tensile strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 600 kg/m3 density.
Figure 14. Tensile strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 600 kg/m3 density.
Sustainability 14 07185 g014
Figure 15. Tensile strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 800 kg/m3 density.
Figure 15. Tensile strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 800 kg/m3 density.
Sustainability 14 07185 g015
Figure 16. Tensile strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 1000 kg/m3 density.
Figure 16. Tensile strength of FC with different weight fractions of BFF for 1000 kg/m3 density.
Sustainability 14 07185 g016
Figure 17. Correlation between the compressive strength and flexural strength of 600 kg/m3 density FC reinforced with BFF.
Figure 17. Correlation between the compressive strength and flexural strength of 600 kg/m3 density FC reinforced with BFF.
Sustainability 14 07185 g017
Figure 18. Correlation between the compressive strength and splitting tensile strength of 800 kg/m3 density FC reinforced with BFF.
Figure 18. Correlation between the compressive strength and splitting tensile strength of 800 kg/m3 density FC reinforced with BFF.
Sustainability 14 07185 g018
Figure 19. Correlation between the flexural strength and flexural strength of 1000 kg/m3 density FC reinforced with BFF.
Figure 19. Correlation between the flexural strength and flexural strength of 1000 kg/m3 density FC reinforced with BFF.
Sustainability 14 07185 g019
Table 1. Physical properties of BFF.
Table 1. Physical properties of BFF.
ElementProperties
Length18 mm
Diameter28.9 um
Runkel Ratio0.26
Lumen Width16.1 um
Fibril Angle (°)44
Density0.76 g/cm3
Table 2. Chemical composition of BFF.
Table 2. Chemical composition of BFF.
Composition%, Dry Weight
Cellulose25.7
Hemicellulose16.8
Lignin24.7
Xylose10.3
Glucose20.9
Ash1.6
Table 3. Mechanical properties of BFF.
Table 3. Mechanical properties of BFF.
ElementProperties
Tensile strength80.8 MPa
Modulus of elasticity5.63 GPa
Elongation at break14.34%
Table 4. FTIR peaks of BFF.
Table 4. FTIR peaks of BFF.
Bond TypeWavenumber (cm−1)Remarks
O-H stretching3435.7Stretching of hydrogen bond of hemicellulose and fats
C-H vibration2949.5Modes of methyl and methylene groups
C=O stretching1660.4Stretching of the acetyl group of hemicellulose
C-H deformation1325.8Cellulose and hemicellulose deformation
Si-O stretching1071.5Cellulose and lignin deformation
O-H stretching651.2Lignin deformation
Table 5. Mix proportions.
Table 5. Mix proportions.
SpecimenMix Density (kg/m3)Mix Ratio
(s:c:w)
Cement (kg)Fine Sand (kg)Water (kg)BFF
(kg)
0.00% BFF6001:1.5:0.4546.0569.0720.720.000
0.12% BFF6001:1.5:0.4546.0569.0720.720.173
0.24% BFF6001:1.5:0.4546.0569.0720.720.347
0.36% BFF6001:1.5:0.4546.0569.0720.720.520
0.48% BFF6001:1.5:0.4546.0569.0720.720.693
0.60% BFF6001:1.5:0.4546.0569.0720.720.867
0.00% BFF8001:1.5:0.4560.4990.7427.220.000
0.12% BFF8001:1.5:0.4560.4990.7427.220.223
0.24% BFF8001:1.5:0.4560.4990.7427.220.446
0.36% BFF8001:1.5:0.4560.4990.7427.220.669
0.48% BFF8001:1.5:0.4560.4990.7427.220.892
0.60% BFF8001:1.5:0.4560.4990.7427.221.115
0.00% BFF10001:1.5:0.4574.94112.4033.720.000
0.12% BFF10001:1.5:0.4574.94112.4033.720.273
0.24% BFF10001:1.5:0.4574.94112.4033.720.545
0.36% BFF10001:1.5:0.4574.94112.4033.720.818
0.48% BFF10001:1.5:0.4574.94112.4033.721.091
0.60% BFF10001:1.5:0.4574.94112.4033.721.363
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Othuman Mydin, M.A.; Nawi, M.N.M.; Odeh, R.A.; Salameh, A.A. Potential of Biomass Frond Fiber on Mechanical Properties of Green Foamed Concrete. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127185

AMA Style

Othuman Mydin MA, Nawi MNM, Odeh RA, Salameh AA. Potential of Biomass Frond Fiber on Mechanical Properties of Green Foamed Concrete. Sustainability. 2022; 14(12):7185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127185

Chicago/Turabian Style

Othuman Mydin, Md Azree, Mohd Nasrun Mohd Nawi, Ruba A. Odeh, and Anas A. Salameh. 2022. "Potential of Biomass Frond Fiber on Mechanical Properties of Green Foamed Concrete" Sustainability 14, no. 12: 7185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127185

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop