Interfacial bonding properties of the eco-friendly geopolymer-wood composites: influences of embedded wood depth, wood surface roughness, and moisture conditions
Source abstract
Abstract
With environmental friendliness, the sustainability of natural resources, and sustainable utilization of geopolymers considered in the building industry, interfacial bonding strength of geopolymer-wood composites was enhanced environmental-friendly by increasing embedded depth of wood, sanding wood surface, and controlling moisture conditions during curing process. Beech and spruce were compared as different wood species. Pullout test was modified by using a wood veneer to determine the interfacial bonding strength of geopolymer-wood composites. It was found that geopolymer exhibited higher interfacial bonding strength with spruce rather than with beech. Interfacial bonding strength increased with an increase in the embedded depth of the wood veneer, but reaching a plateau when the depth exceeded 25 mm. A higher interfacial bonding strength caused by strong mechanical interlocking at the interface was successfully created by improving the wood surface roughness via sanding with 60-grit sandpaper. Interfacial bonding strength was higher by curing under wet conditions comparing to dry conditions. However, the influence of initial wood moisture content on the interfacial bonding strength can be ignored. The results of this study serve as the basis for better preparation of geopolymer-wood composites and a diverse application of environmentally friendly building materials.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · Concrete and Cement Materials Research · Innovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (61)
Show source-provided references
1. Li M, Khelifa M, Khennane A, El Ganaoui M (2019) Structural response of cement-bonded wood composite panels as permanent formwork. Compos Struct 209:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.10.07910.1016/j.compstruct.2018.10.079 ↗
2. Kochova K, Caprai V, Gauvin F, Schollbach K, Brouwers H (2020) Investigation of local degradation in wood stands and its effect on cement wood composites. Constr Build Mater 231:117201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.11720110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117201 ↗
3. Zhang S, Xiang A, Tian H, Rajulu AV (2018) Water-blown castor oil-based polyurethane foams with soy protein as a reactive reinforcing filler. J Polym Environ 26(1):15–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-016-0914-010.1007/s10924-016-0914-0 ↗
4. Furtos G, Silaghi-Dumitrescu L, Pascuta P, Sarosi C, Korniejenko K (2019) Mechanical properties of wood fiber reinforced geopolymer composites with sand addition. J Nat Fibers 06:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2019.162179210.1080/15440478.2019.1621792 ↗
5. Quiroga A, Marzocchi V, Rintoul I (2016) Influence of wood treatments on mechanical properties of wood–cement composites and of Populus Euroamericana wood fibers. Compos B Eng 84:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.08.06910.1016/j.compositesb.2015.08.069 ↗
6. Wang L, Chen SS, Tsang DC, Poon C-S, Shih K (2016) Recycling contaminated wood into eco-friendly particleboard using green cement and carbon dioxide curing. J Clean Prod 137:861–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.18010.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.180 ↗
7. Karade S (2010) Cement-bonded composites from lignocellulosic wastes. Constr Build Mater 24(8):1323–1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.02.00310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.02.003 ↗
8. Wei YM, Tomita B (2001) Effects of five additive materials on mechanical and dimensional properties of wood cement-bonded boards. J Wood Sci 47(6):437–44410.1007/BF00767895 ↗
9. de la Gree GD, Yu Q, Brouwers H (2014) Wood-wool cement board: optimized inorganic coating. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Inorganic-Bonded Fiber Composites Conference (IIBCC). Da Nang, Vietnam, September, pp 15–19.
10. Li Z, Zhang S, Zuo Y, Chen W, Ye G (2019) Chemical deformation of metakaolin based geopolymer. Cement Concrete Res 120:108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.03.01710.1016/j.cemconres.2019.03.017 ↗
11. Singh NB (2018) Fly ash-based geopolymer binder: a future construction material. Minerals 8(7):299. https://doi.org/10.3390/min807029910.3390/min8070299 ↗
12. Aly AM, El-Feky M, Kohail M, Nasr E-SA (2019) Performance of geopolymer concrete containing recycled rubber. Constr Build Mater 207:136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.12110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.121 ↗
13. Hassan A, Arif M, Shariq M (2019) Use of geopolymer concrete for a cleaner and sustainable environment—a review of mechanical properties and microstructure. J Clean Prod 223:704–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.05110.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.051 ↗
14. Singh N, Middendorf B (2020) Geopolymers as an alternative to Portland cement: an overview. Constr Build Mater 237:117455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.11745510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117455 ↗
15. Medri V, Papa E, Lizion J, Landi E (2020) Metakaolin-based geopolymer beads: production methods and characterization. J Clean Prod 244:118844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.11884410.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118844 ↗
16. Nie Q, Hu W, Huang B, Shu X, He Q (2019) Synergistic utilization of red mud for flue-gas desulfurization and fly ash-based geopolymer preparation. J Hazard Mater 369:503–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.02.05910.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.02.059 ↗
17. Li Y, Min X, Ke Y, Liu D, Tang C (2019) Preparation of red mud-based geopolymer materials from MSWI fly ash and red mud by mechanical activation. Waste Manage 83:202–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.01910.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.019 ↗
18. Dassekpo J-BM, Ning J, Zha X (2018) Potential solidification/stabilization of clay-waste using green geopolymer remediation technologies. Process Saf Environ 117:684–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.06.01310.1016/j.psep.2018.06.013 ↗
19. Gunasekara C, Law D, Bhuiyan S, Setunge S, Ward L (2019) Chloride induced corrosion in different fly ash based geopolymer concretes. Constr Build Mater 200:502–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.16810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.168 ↗
20. Shang J, Dai J-G, Zhao T-J, Guo S-Y, Zhang P, Mu B (2018) Alternation of traditional cement mortars using fly ash-based geopolymer mortars modified by slag. J Clean Prod 203:746–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.25510.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.255 ↗
21. Zhu W, Rao XH, Liu Y, Yang E-H (2018) Lightweight aerated metakaolin-based geopolymer incorporating municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash as gas-forming agent. J Clean Prod 177:775–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.26710.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.267 ↗
22. Leiva C, Luna-Galiano Y, Arenas C, Alonso-Fariñas B, Fernández-Pereira C (2019) A porous geopolymer based on aluminum-waste with acoustic properties. Waste Manage 95:504–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.06.04210.1016/j.wasman.2019.06.042 ↗
23. Kürklü G, Görhan G (2019) Investigation of usability of quarry dust waste in fly ash-based geopolymer adhesive mortar production. Constr Build Mater 217:498–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.10410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.104 ↗
24. Bouaissi A, Li L-y, Abdullah MMAB, Bui Q-B (2019) Mechanical properties and microstructure analysis of FA-GGBS-HMNS based geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 210:198–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.20210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.202 ↗
25. Hu Y, Tang Z, Li W, Li Y, Tam VW (2019) Physical-mechanical properties of fly ash/GGBFS geopolymer composites with recycled aggregates. Constr Build Mater 226:139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.21110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.211 ↗
26. Phummiphan I, Horpibulsuk S, Rachan R, Arulrajah A, Shen S-L, Chindaprasirt P (2018) High calcium fly ash geopolymer stabilized lateritic soil and granulated blast furnace slag blends as a pavement base material. J Hazard Mater 341:257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.07.06710.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.07.067 ↗
27. Abdulkareem OA, Ramli M, Matthews JC (2019) Production of geopolymer mortar system containing high calcium biomass wood ash as a partial substitution to fly ash: an early age evaluation. Compos Part B: Eng 174:106941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.10694110.1016/j.compositesb.2019.106941 ↗
28. Hassan HS, Abdel-Gawwad H, García SV, Israde-Alcántara I (2018) Fabrication and characterization of thermally-insulating coconut ash-based geopolymer foam. Waste Manage 80:235–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.09.02210.1016/j.wasman.2018.09.022 ↗
29. Kaur K, Singh J, Kaur M (2018) Compressive strength of rice husk ash based geopolymer: the effect of alkaline activator. Constr Build Mater 169:188–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.20010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.200 ↗
30. Liu S, Rawat P, Chen Z, Guo S, Shi C, Zhu D (2020) Pullout behaviors of single yarn and textile in cement matrix at elevated temperatures with varying loading speeds. Compos Part B: Eng 108251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.10825110.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108251 ↗
31. Korniejenko K, Łach M, Dogan-Saglamtimur N, Furtos G, Mikuła J (2020) The overview of mechanical properties of short natural fiber reinforced geopolymer composites. Environ Res Technol 3(1): 28–39. https://doi.org/10.35208/ert.67171310.35208/ert.671713 ↗
32. Ribeiro RAS, Ribeiro MGS, Sankar K, Kriven WM (2016) Geopolymer-bamboo composite—a novel sustainable construction material. Constr Build Mater 123:501–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.03710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.037 ↗
33. Alshaaer M, Mallouh SA, Al-Faiyz Y, Fahmy T, Kallel A, Rocha F (2017) Fabrication, microstructural and mechanical characterization of Luffa Cylindrical Fibre-Reinforced geopolymer composite. Appl Clay Sci 143:125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2017.03.03010.1016/j.clay.2017.03.030 ↗
34. Wongsa A, Kunthawatwong R, Naenudon S, Sata V, Chindaprasirt P (2020) Natural fiber reinforced high calcium fly ash geopolymer mortar. Constr Build Mater 241:118143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11814310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118143 ↗
35. Bahrami M, Shalbafan A, Welling J (2019) Development of plywood using geopolymer as binder: effect of silica fume on the plywood and binder characteristics. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 77(6):981–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-019-01462-310.1007/s00107-019-01462-3 ↗
36. Shalbafan A, Thoemen H (2020) Geopolymer-bonded laminated veneer lumber as environmentally friendly and formaldehyde-free product: Effect of various additives on geopolymer binder features. Appl Sci 10(2):593. https://doi.org/10.3390/app1002059310.3390/app10020593 ↗
37. Berzins A, Morozovs A, Van den Bulcke J, Van Acker J (2017) Softwood surface compatibility with inorganic geopolymer. Adv Mater Proc, 793–798. https://doi.org/10.5185/amp.2017/91310.5185/amp.2017/913 ↗
38. Ye H, Pan D, Tian Z, Zhang Y, Yu Z, Mu J (2020) Preparation and properties of geopolymer/soy protein isolate composites by in situ organic-inorganic hybridization: a potential green binder for the wood industry. J Clean Prod, 123363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12336310.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123363 ↗
39. Ye H, Zhang Y, Yu Z (2018) Wood flour’s effect on the properties of geopolymer-based composites at different curing times. BioResources 13(2):2499–2514. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.13.2.2499-251410.15376/biores.13.2.2499-2514 ↗
40. Piggott M (1993) The single-fibre pull-out method: its advantages, interpretation and experimental realization. Compos Interface 1(3):211–223. https://doi.org/10.1163/156855493X0008610.1163/156855493X00086 ↗
41. Revol BP, Thomassey M, Ruch F, Bouquey M, Nardin M (2017) Single fibre model composite: Interfacial shear strength measurements between reactive polyamide-6 and cellulosic or glass fibres by microdroplet pullout test. Compos Sci Technol 148:9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2017.05.01810.1016/j.compscitech.2017.05.018 ↗
42. Monteiro SN, Satyanarayana KG, Margem FM et al (2011) Interfacial shear strength in lignocellulosic fibers incorporated polymeric composites, In: Kalia S, Kaith BS, Kaur I (eds) Cellulose fibers: bio-and nano-polymer composites. Springer, Berlin, pp 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17370-7_910.1007/978-3-642-17370-7_9 ↗
43. Sydenstricker TH, Mochnaz S, Amico SC (2003) Pull-out and other evaluations in sisal-reinforced polyester biocomposites. Polym Test 22(4):375–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9418(02)00116-210.1016/S0142-9418(02)00116-2 ↗
44. Ye H, Zhang Y, Yu Z, Mu J (2018) Effects of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin on the morphology and mechanical properties of metakaolin-based geopolymer. Constr Build Mater 173:10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.02810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.028 ↗
45. ISO E 4287 (1997) Geometrical product specifications (GPS). Surface texture. Profile method. Terms, definitions and surface texture parameters. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
46. Bekhta P, Sedliačik J, Jones D (2018) Effect of short-term thermomechanical densification of wood veneers on the properties of birch plywood. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 76(2):549–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-017-1233-410.1007/s00107-017-1233-4 ↗
47. Budakçı M, İlçe AC, Korkut DS, Gurleyen T (2011) Evaluating the surface roughness of heat-treated wood cut with different circular saws. BioResources 6(4):4247–425810.15376/biores.6.4.4247-4258 ↗
48. Park P, El-Tawil S, Naaman AE (2017) Pull-out behavior of straight steel fibers from asphalt binder. Constr Build Mater 144:125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.15910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.159 ↗
49. Frybort S, Mauritz R, Teischinger A, Müller U (2012) Investigation of the mechanical interactions at the interface of wood-cement composites by means of electronic speckle pattern interferometry. BioResources 7(2):2483–249510.15376/biores.7.2.2483-2495 ↗
50. Kabir MR, Islam MM (2014) Bond stress behavior between concrete and steel rebar: critical investigation of pull-out test via finite element modeling. Int J Civ Struct Eng 5(1):80–90. https://doi.org/10.6088/ijcser.201405000810.6088/ijcser.2014050008 ↗
51. Xie J, Kayali O (2014) Effect of initial water content and curing moisture conditions on the development of fly ash-based geopolymers in heat and ambient temperature. Constr Build Mater 67:20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.04710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.047 ↗
52. Zuhua Z, Xiao Y, Huajun Z, Yue C (2009) Role of water in the synthesis of calcined kaolin-based geopolymer. Appl Clay Sci 43(2):218–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2008.09.00310.1016/j.clay.2008.09.003 ↗
53. Corder SE, Atherton GH (1963) Effect of peeling temperatures on Douglas fir veneer. Oregon State University Information circular 18.
54. Papp EA, Csiha C (2017) Contact angle as function of surface roughness of different wood species. Surf Interfaces 8:54–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2017.04.00910.1016/j.surfin.2017.04.009 ↗
55. Kminiak R, Gaff M (2015) Roughness of surface created by transversal sawing of spruce, beech, and oak wood. BioResources 10(2):2873–2887. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.10.2.2873-288710.15376/biores.10.2.2873-2887 ↗
56. Alzeer M, MacKenzie KJ (2012) Synthesis and mechanical properties of new fibre-reinforced composites of inorganic polymers with natural wool fibres. J Mater Sci 47(19):6958–6965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-012-6644-310.1007/s10853-012-6644-3 ↗
57. Telkki V-V, Yliniemi M, Jokisaari J (2013) Moisture in softwoods: fiber saturation point, hydroxyl site content, and the amount of micropores as determined from NMR relaxation time distributions. Holzforschung 67(3):291–300. https://doi.org/10.1515/hf-2012-005710.1515/hf-2012-0057 ↗
58. Reeb JE (1995) Wood and moisture relationships. Oregon State University. Oregon.
59. Park S, Pour-Ghaz M (2018) What is the role of water in the geopolymerization of Metakaolin? Constr Build Mater 182:360–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.07310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.073 ↗
60. Pouhet R, Cyr M, Bucher R (2019) Influence of the initial water content in flash calcined metakaolin-based geopolymer. Constr Build Mater 201:421–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.20110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.201 ↗
61. Kuenzel C, Vandeperre LJ, Donatello S, Boccaccini AR, Cheeseman C (2012) Ambient temperature drying shrinkage and cracking in metakaolin-based geopolymers. J Am Ceram Soc 95(10):3270–3277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2012.05380.x10.1111/j.1551-2916.2012.05380.x ↗