A Sustainable Revolution in Sisal Fiber with Enhanced Mechanical Properties of Concrete

Vijayan Selvam, Tholkapiyan Muniyandi, R. Jaya
{"title":"A Sustainable Revolution in Sisal Fiber with Enhanced Mechanical Properties of Concrete","authors":"Vijayan Selvam, Tholkapiyan Muniyandi, R. Jaya","doi":"10.2174/0118741495277728240508051048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n This study provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of conventional concrete (CC) and Sisal Fiber Concrete (SFC) and incorporates sisal fiber into a concrete blend for the M25 grade concrete mix.\n \n \n \n In order to evaluate the efficacy of both variations of concrete, mechanical and durability parameters were examined. As compared to CC, the results indicated that SFC had a substantially greater compressive strength. The average compressive strength of SFC at the 28-day was 29.47 N/mm2, which signified a significant incremental percentage growth of 9.58% in comparison to CC. In the same way, SFC exhibited an exceptional flexural strength, as evidenced by its mean value of 7.81 N/mm2, which represented a significant 34.42% improvement in comparison to CC. The Bayesian factor independent sample test yielded a t-test value of 12.495 for compressive strength, accompanied by a p-value below 0.001. These results suggest that the observed difference was statistically significant. Conversely, a t-test value of 19.380 and a p-value below 0.001 were produced by the Bayesian factor independent sample test for flexural strength, both of which further supported the existence of a significant difference. The mean disparity in compressive strength between CC and SFC was 5.1522 N/mm2, with a 95% confidence interval encompassing values between 4.2856 and 6.0188 N/mm2. In a similar manner, the mean discrepancy in flexural strength was 2.0000 N/mm2, accompanied by a 95% confidence interval that varied between 1.7831 and 2.2169 N/mm2.\n \n \n \n The obtained results provide further evidence that SFC is stronger than CC in both compressive and flexural strength, which is consistent with the results obtained from the frequentist statistical analysis.\n \n \n \n With its eco-friendly properties, sisal fiber concrete could indeed play a significant role in the future of sustainable construction.\n","PeriodicalId":350575,"journal":{"name":"The Open Civil Engineering Journal","volume":"12 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Open Civil Engineering Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0118741495277728240508051048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of conventional concrete (CC) and Sisal Fiber Concrete (SFC) and incorporates sisal fiber into a concrete blend for the M25 grade concrete mix. In order to evaluate the efficacy of both variations of concrete, mechanical and durability parameters were examined. As compared to CC, the results indicated that SFC had a substantially greater compressive strength. The average compressive strength of SFC at the 28-day was 29.47 N/mm2, which signified a significant incremental percentage growth of 9.58% in comparison to CC. In the same way, SFC exhibited an exceptional flexural strength, as evidenced by its mean value of 7.81 N/mm2, which represented a significant 34.42% improvement in comparison to CC. The Bayesian factor independent sample test yielded a t-test value of 12.495 for compressive strength, accompanied by a p-value below 0.001. These results suggest that the observed difference was statistically significant. Conversely, a t-test value of 19.380 and a p-value below 0.001 were produced by the Bayesian factor independent sample test for flexural strength, both of which further supported the existence of a significant difference. The mean disparity in compressive strength between CC and SFC was 5.1522 N/mm2, with a 95% confidence interval encompassing values between 4.2856 and 6.0188 N/mm2. In a similar manner, the mean discrepancy in flexural strength was 2.0000 N/mm2, accompanied by a 95% confidence interval that varied between 1.7831 and 2.2169 N/mm2. The obtained results provide further evidence that SFC is stronger than CC in both compressive and flexural strength, which is consistent with the results obtained from the frequentist statistical analysis. With its eco-friendly properties, sisal fiber concrete could indeed play a significant role in the future of sustainable construction.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
提高混凝土机械性能的剑麻纤维可持续革命
本研究对传统混凝土(CC)和剑麻纤维混凝土(SFC)进行了全面的比较分析,并将剑麻纤维加入到 M25 级混凝土混合料中。 为了评估这两种混凝土的功效,对其力学和耐久性参数进行了检测。结果表明,与 CC 相比,SFC 的抗压强度要大得多。28 天时,SFC 的平均抗压强度为 29.47 牛顿/平方毫米,与 CC 相比,显著增加了 9.58%。同样,SFC 的抗弯强度也非常出色,其平均值为 7.81 N/mm2,与 CC 相比显著提高了 34.42%。通过贝叶斯因子独立样本测试,抗压强度的 t 检验值为 12.495,P 值低于 0.001。这些结果表明,观察到的差异在统计学上是显著的。相反,贝叶斯因子独立抽样检验得出的抗折强度 t 检验值为 19.380,p 值低于 0.001,这两个结果都进一步证明了存在显著差异。CC 和 SFC 之间抗压强度的平均差异为 5.1522 牛顿/平方毫米,95% 置信区间值介于 4.2856 和 6.0188 牛顿/平方毫米之间。同样,抗弯强度的平均差异为 2.0000 N/mm2,95% 的置信区间在 1.7831 和 2.2169 N/mm2 之间。 所得结果进一步证明,SFC 的抗压和抗折强度均高于 CC,这与频数统计分析的结果一致。 剑麻纤维混凝土具有生态友好的特性,确实可以在未来的可持续建筑中发挥重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Selection of Building Materials Using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process Sewer Inlets Detection in UAV Images Clouds based on Convolution Neural Networks Effect of Magnetized Water on Partially Replaced Aggregate with Silica Sand in Concrete Speed Corridor Enforcement System (SCES) - A Case Study of the Highways of Kosovo Determination of Temperature Stresses during the Construction of Massive Monolithic Foundation Slabs, Taking into Account the Subgrade Compliance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1