s44290-024-00005-x

Discover Civil Engineering
Review
Review of gypsum reinforced composites as building materials

Martins Taiwo Esan1
Received: 5 January 2024 / Accepted: 10 April 2024
© The Author(s) 2024 OPEN
Abstract
The utilization of gypsum reinforced composites as building materials has garnered considerable attention owing to
their exceptional amalgamation of mechanical strength, fire resistance, and versatile applications. This review initiates
by introducing gypsum as a pivotal mineral in construction, subsequently exploring the concept of composite materi-
als and elucidating the synergistic effects achieved through reinforcement. Various reinforcement types, such as fibers,
polymers, and particles, are meticulously evaluated for their contributions in augmenting mechanical properties, acoustic
and thermal insulation, as well as fire resistance in gypsum composites. The review extensively discusses the mechani-
cal attributes of gypsum composites, focusing on compressive strength and flexural behavior enhancements attained
through strategic reinforcement methods. Looking ahead, the review emphasizes ongoing research endeavors dedi-
cated to refining material formulations, exploring cutting-edge technologies, and uncovering innovative applications.
By addressing challenges and capitalizing on advantages, these composites stand poised to revolutionize conventional
building practices, bolster sustainability, and enhance safety and efficiency in built environments.
Keywords Gypsum reinforced composites · Natural fibers · Building materials · Mechanical properties · Fire resistance ·
And sustainability
1 Introduction
The construction industry constantly seeks innovative building materials that balance structural strength, environmen-
tal sustainability, and functional versatility. Gypsum-reinforced composites have emerged as a promising avenue in
rethinking construction practices. These composites, stemming from the fusion of gypsum—a mineral known for its
fire-resistant properties—and various reinforcing materials, present significant potential in tackling the multifaceted
challenges faced by the construction sector [1, 2].
Gypsum, a pivotal building material, is formed by heating gypsum rock to eliminate its naturally occurring crystalliza-
tion water, a technique utilized since ancient times. By subjecting calcium sulfate dehydrate ( CaSO4⋅2H2O) from gypsum
rock to varying temperatures, partial or complete dehydration occurs [3–5]. Heating beyond 190–200 °C results in the
complete dehydration of gypsum rock, yielding C aSO4, commonly referred to as gypsum anhydrite [6–9] due to the loss
of crystallization water.
The hemihydrate phase (CaSO4⋅2H2O) can take two crystalline structures, alpha or beta, contingent upon the cal-
cination method during manufacturing. The alpha form originates from a wet process from gypsum, while the beta
form results from a dry process extracting water vapor as it forms. Paris plaster, known as the alpha-hemihydrate,
* Martins Taiwo Esan, esanmartins6@gmail.com | 1Federal Polytechnic, Ede, Nigeria.
Discover Civil Engineering (2024) 1:5 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44290-024-00005-x
Vol.:(0123456789)
Review Discover Civil Engineering (2024) 1:5 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44290-024-00005-x
finds applications in construction [7–9]. Extensive research has investigated the hydration of hemihydrate, exploring
kinetics and setting characteristics [10–15].
Le Chatellier’s hydration technique involves the dissolution of hemihydrate in water, releasing Ca2+ and SO42−.
These ions combine to form a dihydrate, precipitating out of the solution and creating crystallization nuclei. These
nuclei are enveloped by crystals, forming a network of long, interconnected crystals that bolster the substance’s
strength [12, 16, 17]. The resulting material, (CaSO4⋅2H2O), mirrors gypsum rock chemically [18, 19].
The microstructure of the hardened paste is shaped during the hydration process and is influenced by the water-
to-gypsum ratio, initiating hydration processes and ensuring the workability of the gypsum slurry. Elevated water
content weakens the bond between gypsum crystals, causing vacancy fractions and diminishing material strength
[12, 20]. Particle size distribution, particle diameter (fineness), and homogeneity coefficient also impact the water
requirement for maintaining slurry workability [21].
Compared to other inorganic cements, gypsum binders are considered more environmentally friendly due to
their lower thermal treatment temperatures and closed-loop recycling capability [3, 22, 23]. Gypsum plasters are
extensively used in ceiling designs, partition walls, and wall coverings. Gypsum-based materials, including mortar,
composites, and boards, are increasingly favored in construction for their exceptional fire resistance, thermal prop-
erties, and sound insulation features [24–33].
Gypsum board, commonly recognized as drywall or plasterboard, is a prevalent interior building material in con-
struction, widely utilized for finishing purposes. Created by bonding gypsum plaster to a sturdy paper liner, it offers
a reliable and cost-effective solution for partitioning components in residential and commercial projects. The design
and thickness of gypsum boards can be easily adjusted to meet specific structural and acoustic requirements. The
usage of gypsum boards continues to rise, necessitating further research to comprehend their characteristics and
behaviors. While gypsum boards boast excellent sound insulation, rapid manufacturing, and easy installation [34–36],
they have drawbacks like flimsiness, low flexural strength, and inadequate sound absorption.
Scientists have explored various additive-based methods to enhance the physical and mechanical properties of
gypsum products. These methods encompass the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS), foaming agents, silicate fill-
ers (vermiculite, perlite, silica fume, fly ash, clay minerals), mineral wool, glass fibers, organic fibers, rice husk [37],
and cork [38]. Previous research has also employed natural and fiberglass fibers to distribute stress load within the
composite, addressing issues of low flexural strength [39, 40].
Despite the favorable attributes of gypsum products, challenges like waste generation due to rapid setting times
persist. Research endeavors focus on improving sustainability and reducing waste production in gypsum-based
materials [17, 41].
Developing gypsum composites with natural fiber that maintain acceptable mechanical properties while consid-
ering thermal and acoustic characteristics becomes crucial to address environmental concerns related to carbon
dioxide emissions from synthetic fiber production [42]. According to Jiménez-Rivero et al. [43], the energy-related
conservation and recycling life cycle of gypsum plasterboard highlight the health benefits of natural fiber gypsum
composites by minimizing dangerous dust produced during the separation phase.
Various review studies on gypsum composites shed light on their distinct characteristics. Al-Rifaie [44] examined
palm fiber-gypsum composites and found that, despite maintaining an advantage over fiberglass composites, the
compressive strength declined with increasing palm fiber content. Iucolano et al. [45] suggested that employing
bio-degummed hemp as reinforcement improved the mechanical properties and thermal resistance of gypsum
composites. This body of research collectively concludes that fiber reinforcement significantly and efficiently modi-
fies the mechanical properties of gypsum composites, tailoring them for specific applications.
Previous studies on the performance of natural fiber-gypsum composites scrutinized their mechanical, physical,
and fiber characteristics [46–52], as well as thermal [53], and microstructure [41, 54, 55]. Overall, reinforced gypsum
boards incorporating natural fibers are found to be a safer and more environmentally friendly alternative in con-
struction applications.
The review on gypsum composites presents valuable insights but also highlights several areas for further investiga-
tion and refinement. Firstly, it indicates a need for deeper exploration into the synergistic effects achieved through
reinforcement, particularly in elucidating the underlying mechanisms that optimize composite properties. Addition-
ally, there’s a call for a more comprehensive characterization of mechanical properties, including factors influencing
compressive strength and flexural behavior under varying loading conditions. Moreover, the review underscores the
importance of exploring novel reinforcement materials beyond the currently mentioned natural fibers. Investigating
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Civil Engineering (2024) 1:5 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44290-024-00005-x Review
alternative reinforcement options and their impact on composite properties could lead to significant advancements
in gypsum composite technology. Furthermore, the review suggests addressing practical implementation challenges
associated with manufacturing, handling, and installation of gypsum composites in real-world construction scenarios.
Understanding and mitigating these challenges could facilitate wider industry adoption of gypsum-based materials,
ultimately enhancing their practical utility and sustainability.
The purpose of this article is to delve into the properties, applications, and benefits of gypsum composites in construc-
tion. It aims to educate readers on the significance of these materials in enhancing building performance and sustain-
ability while providing insights into their various uses and advancements in the field. Additionally, the article explore
emerging trends and innovations in gypsum composite technology to offer a comprehensive understanding of their
role in contemporary construction practices.
2 Introduction to gypsum and its composites
In the construction realm, the convergence of age-old materials and groundbreaking innovations defines an intrigu-
ing landscape. Gypsum reinforced composites stand as a synthesis of tradition and modernity, blending time-honored
attributes with contemporary engineering. This exploration aims to delve into the realm of gypsum reinforced com-
posites, unraveling their characteristics, applications, and the transformative potential they offer within construction.
2.1 Gypsum’s enduring presence in construction
Gypsum, a naturally occurring mineral comprising calcium sulfate dihydrate, boasts a storied legacy in construction.
Its renowned fire resistance and mold inhibiting qualities have rendered it a cornerstone in interior finishes, partitions,
and ceilings. Gypsum’s historical application stems from the quest to harmonize functionality, safety, and aesthetics. Its
widespread availability further cements its enduring appeal in construction.
2.1.1 Composite materials: innovating construction
Composite materials, at the intersection of materials science and construction, amalgamate distinct elements to create
materials with heightened properties. Embraced across industries like aerospace and automotive, composites unlock
new possibilities, addressing challenges and fostering creative potential within the construction sector.
2.1.2 Unveiling the potential of gypsum reinforced composites
Gypsum composites are materials composed primarily of gypsum, a soft sulfate mineral, combined with various addi-
tives to enhance its properties. These composites are widely used in construction due to their fire resistance, sound
insulation, and mold resistance characteristics. They are commonly employed in interior walls, ceilings, and partitions.
The importance of gypsum composites in construction lies in their ability to improve building safety, comfort, and
durability while also offering cost-effective solutions. These materials contribute to the overall structural integrity of
buildings and provide thermal and acoustic insulation, making them essential components in modern construction
practices.
Gypsum reinforced composites epitomize this fusion, amalgamating gypsum’s advantages with diverse reinforce-
ments to craft a versatile material. Leveraging gypsum’s innate fire resistance, these composites elevate it with enhanced
mechanical properties, thermal insulation, and design flexibility. By marrying these elements, gypsum composites surpass
traditional gypsum limitations, paving the way for safer, more efficient, and visually captivating construction solutions
[56].
To mitigate gypsum composites’ brittleness, researchers integrate organic and inorganic fibers at low water and gyp-
sum concentrations, enhancing their durability and reducing weight [57, 62]. Strategies involve concentrating fibers in
stress zones to counter external pressures or creating a homogenous mix with evenly distributed fibers throughout the
matrix [58]. Notably, natural gypsum composites with fiber reinforcement exhibit lower mechanical strength compared
to synthetic gypsum composites [59]. To address synthetic fiber’s environmental impact, a shift toward natural fiber
Vol.:(0123456789)
usage is observed, despite the cost-effectiveness favoring synthetic options [57]. Synthetic fiber-reinforced gypsum
composites, while pricier, lack biodegradability unlike their natural fiber counterparts, posing environmental concerns.
2.2 Types of gypsum reinforced composites
This section explores the diverse methodologies of combining gypsum with various materials to fabricate composite
materials suitable for construction applications.
2.2.1 Gypsum‑fiber composites
Gypsum-fiber composites amalgamate natural fibers like jute, flax, or hemp with gypsum, presenting a blend of sus-
tainability and performance. These natural fibers introduce biodegradability, reduce embodied energy, and minimize
environmental impact. When integrated with gypsum, they bolster fire resistance and insulation, enriching the repertoire
of eco-friendly construction materials [60]. Incorporating natural or synthetic fibers into gypsum-based materials such
as drywall, plaster, and composites is a standard practice in the construction industry [61, 62]. Glass, cellulose, and basalt
fibers are commonly utilized to fortify tensile and flexural strength, thereby augmenting the overall toughness of these
composites [63]. The process involves integrating fibers into the gypsum slurry before casting, molding, or application.
The dispersed fibers play a crucial role in:
1. Stress Distribution: Fibers aid in evenly distributing mechanical stresses within the gypsum matrix, mitigating its
inherent brittleness and low tensile strength. This redistribution of load between gypsum and fibers diminishes the
likelihood of localized stress concentrations, thereby reducing cracks or fractures [64].
2. Crack Prevention: Fibers act as barriers impeding crack formation and propagation. Their presence within the com-
posite disrupts crack advancement, diverting or stopping it along a convoluted pathway. This characteristic signifi-
cantly elevates tensile and flexural strength [64].
3. Enhanced Toughness: Incorporating fibers significantly fortifies the composite’s overall toughness. When subjected
to stress, the fibers absorb and dissipate energy by deforming and breaking, thereby preventing abrupt failure and
bolstering resilience and durability.
The choice of fiber type, length, concentration, as well as their distribution and bonding within the gypsum matrix,
profoundly influences specific mechanical properties [65, 66].
2.2.2 Gypsum‑polymer composites
The construction and materials industry commonly employs a blend of polymers such as acrylics, polyvinyl acetate (PVA),
or styrene-butadiene (SBR) with gypsum. This combination effectively merges the flexibility inherent in polymers with the
structural robustness of gypsum, resulting in composite materials that exhibit superior qualities. These composites offer
heightened impact resistance, enhanced durability, and increased water resistance. By harnessing the hardness of gyp-
sum and the resilience of polymers, this amalgamation finds widespread utility across various construction applications
[67, 68]. Notably, it reinforces interior wall panels and ceilings, creating drywall with superior properties. Additionally,
it bolsters the durability of underlayment and self-leveling compounds in flooring, enhances the weather resistance of
exterior coatings, and unlocks new possibilities for durable sculptures and decorative elements. This seamless integra-
tion of polymers and gypsum significantly elevates the performance and longevity of products within the construction
and manufacturing sectors [69].
2.2.3 Gypsum‑particle composites
The properties of gypsum-based materials can be significantly transformed by incorporating various particles like sand,
perlite, or lightweight aggregates. This addition alters aspects such as density, thermal conductivity, and acoustic insula-
tion [70], customized to suit diverse applications, from construction to interior design. Crucial to these changes are the
size and distribution of the particles, impacting both the structural integrity and thermal performance of the composite.
The introduction of these particles into gypsum reduces the overall density of the resulting composite [71]. Light-
weight aggregates like perlite or expanded clay are often employed for this purpose as they are less dense than gypsum,
Vol:.(1234567890)
displacing some of its material within the matrix. This yields a lighter composite, especially favored in applications pri-
oritizing reduced weight, such as lightweight concrete or ceiling plasterboard.
Furthermore, the incorporation of particulate materials can influence the structural behavior of gypsum composites.
For instance, adding sand enhances the strength and load-bearing capacity, crucial for applications demanding struc-
tural robustness [70]. The mechanical properties of the composite are affected by particle size and distribution: smaller
particles bolster strength and cohesion, while larger, unevenly distributed ones might create vulnerabilities.
Utilizing particulate materials to modify gypsum-based composites offers versatility in tailoring their properties to
specific needs. Considering particle size and distribution becomes paramount in designing gypsum composites for
targeted applications ensuring desired structural and thermal characteristics are achieved [67, 70].
2.2.4 Gypsum‑nanocomposites
Gypsum nanocomposites are at the forefront of materials science, integrating nanoscale additives such as nanoparticles
or nanofibers into gypsum-based materials [72]. These additions offer several benefits:
1. Enhanced Strength and Toughness: Nanoscale materials significantly increase the strength and toughness of gypsum
composites, crucial for applications requiring robust structural integrity.
2. Improved Durability: Nanomaterials create a barrier, reducing water absorption and enhancing the durability of
gypsum nanocomposites, particularly in moisture-prone environments.
3. Enhanced Fire Resistance: The inclusion of nanoscale additives improves the fire resistance of gypsum materials,
slowing down combustion and enhancing overall fire performance, especially in construction materials.
4. Superior Thermal Properties: Gypsum nanocomposites exhibit superior thermal insulation and conductivity due
to the inclusion of nanoscale materials, making them more energy-efficient and suitable for applications requiring
precise temperature control.
2.2.5 Hybrid composites
Hybrid composites stand as sophisticated materials amalgamating various reinforcement elements like fibers, particles,
and polymers, yielding a composite that embodies a harmonious spectrum of properties [73]. This approach facilitates
the fine-tuning of material traits, catering to precise performance demands across a broad array of uses. The crux of
hybrid composites lies in recognizing that individual reinforcement materials possess unique strengths and limitations
[74, 75]. By artfully merging these materials, designers craft composites that leverage the strengths of each component
while offsetting their weaknesses. The outcome is bespoke composites presenting an unparalleled amalgamation of
properties tailored to meet specific application requisites. Hybrid composites furnish a flexible, customizable avenue
for material innovation. They grant engineers the prowess to fashion materials tailored precisely to meet distinct perfor-
mance criteria across diverse industries. By judiciously selecting and integrating different reinforcement types, hybrid
composites furnish bespoke solutions for applications where conventional materials come up short.
2.2.6 Bio‑based gypsum composites
The trend of using bio-based materials as reinforcement in gypsum composites is gaining momentum for several sustain-
ability-related reasons. This innovative approach involves incorporating agricultural residues, natural fibers, or bio-based
polymers into gypsum-based construction materials to reduce environmental impact and lower the carbon footprint [76].
Natural fibers, such as jute, hemp, and flax, are being incorporated into gypsum composites to enhance their mechani-
cal properties. These fibers are biodegradable, have a low environmental impact, and can potentially replace synthetic
reinforcements like glass fibers, which have a higher carbon footprint. Many green building certification programs, such
as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), reward the use of sustainable and bio-based materials [77].
Using these materials in gypsum composites can help construction projects earn certification points and meet sustain-
ability goals. The trend of incorporating bio-based materials into gypsum composites offers substantial environmental
benefits by reducing the carbon footprint, promoting the use of renewable resources, and enhancing the sustainability
of construction materials [78]. As sustainability becomes an increasingly important consideration in the construction
industry, these innovations are likely to gain more prominence in the market.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Incorporating bio-based materials into gypsum composites presents several challenges, but with innovation and
research, many of these obstacles can be overcome. Some of the significant challenges include:
1. Compatibility: Bio-based materials may have different properties compared to traditional additives used in gypsum
composites. Ensuring compatibility between the bio-based materials and gypsum matrix is crucial to maintain the
desired mechanical properties and durability.
2. Moisture Sensitivity: Many bio-based materials are susceptible to moisture absorption, which can lead to dimensional
instability and degradation of the composite over time. Strategies such as surface modification or encapsulation can
be employed to reduce moisture sensitivity and improve the durability of the composite.
3. Processing Conditions: The processing conditions required for incorporating bio-based materials into gypsum com-
posites may differ from those used for traditional additives. Optimizing processing parameters such as temperature,
pressure, and mixing time is essential to achieve homogeneous dispersion of bio-based materials within the gypsum
matrix.
4. Cost: Bio-based materials may be more expensive than traditional additives, which can impact the overall cost of
producing gypsum composites. However, advancements in manufacturing techniques and economies of scale can
help reduce the cost of bio-based materials and make them more competitive in the market.
5. Performance: Bio-based materials may not always offer the same level of performance as traditional additives in
terms of strength, fire resistance, and other mechanical properties. Research and development efforts focused on
improving the properties of bio-based materials through chemical modifications or blending with other additives
can help overcome this challenge.
6. Scale-up and Commercialization: Scaling up the production of gypsum composites incorporating bio-based materi-
als from laboratory-scale to commercial-scale can be challenging due to differences in processing equipment and
conditions. Collaborations between academia, industry, and government agencies can facilitate the scale-up process
and accelerate the commercialization of bio-based gypsum composites.
2.2.7 Comparative analysis of types of gypsum‑reinforced composites
Gypsum-reinforced composites are composite materials that incorporate gypsum as a key component to enhance their
properties. These composites are used in various applications, and the choice of the specific type depends on factors like
cost, availability of materials, manufacturing complexity, and long-term performance. Table 1 shows the comparison of
some common types of gypsum-reinforced composites:
The choice of gypsum-reinforced composite depends on the specific application’s requirements, cost constraints,
and availability of materials [29]. GFRG and GFRC are suitable for high-strength applications, while NFRG and recycled
gypsum composites are more eco-friendly but have limitations in terms of strength. Synthetic fiber-reinforced gypsum
composites offer versatility but can be costlier. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of these composites is
essential for selecting the right material for a given project.
2.3 Challenges faced by gypsum composites
Gypsum composites, commonly used in construction for various applications such as wallboards, panels, and moldings,
face several challenges that can affect their performance, durability, and overall quality. These challenges range from
issues during manufacturing to problems encountered during installation and use. Here are some specific examples
along with potential solutions:
1. Moisture Sensitivity:
• Challenge: Gypsum composites are highly sensitive to moisture, which can lead to warping, swelling, and mold
growth, particularly in humid environments or areas prone to water exposure.
• Potential Solution: Incorporating water-resistant additives or coatings can help mitigate moisture absorption.
Additionally, improving the manufacturing process to ensure proper drying and sealing of the finished products
can enhance their resistance to moisture.
2. Mechanical Strength:
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Civil Engineering
Table 1 Types of Gypsum-reinforced composites and their properties, weakness, applications [45, 67, 79]
Gypsum-reinforced composites Material properties Weaknesses Applications
Glass Fiber Reinforced Gypsum (GFRG) GFRG is known for its high strength and low The raw materials can be expensive, and Load-bearing structures, walls, partitions
weight, making it suitable for construction manufacturing GFRG panels can be com-
applications where structural strength is plex and require specialized machinery
needed. It’s fire-resistant and offers good
(2024) 1:5
insulation properties
Glass Fiber Reinforced Cement (GFRC) with GFRC with gypsum combines the durability The manufacturing process is labor-intensive Architectural facades, decorative elements,
Gypsum of cement with the lightweight proper- and can be expensive, making it more suit- custom molding
ties of gypsum. It has good resistance to able for high-end applications
weathering and is used in decorative and
architectural applications
Natural Fiber Reinforced Gypsum (NFRG) It has lower mechanical strength compared It has lower mechanical strength compared Ceiling tiles, decorative panels, sustainable
to other types, limiting its use in load- to other types, limiting its use in load- construction
bearing applications bearing applications
Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Gypsum These composites can be tailored for specific Depending on the synthetic fibers used, Fire-resistant boards, durable panels
properties, including high strength, impact cost and availability can vary. Manufactur-
resistance, and fire resistance. They are ver- ing can also be complex, especially for
satile and suitable for various applications advanced composites
Recycled Gypsum Composites These composites are eco-friendly, as they Mechanical properties can be inferior to Wallboards, non-structural elements, interior
utilize recycled gypsum waste. They offer other types, limiting their use in high-stress finishes
good insulation properties and are rela- applications
tively cost-effective
Exterior Gypsum Sheathing This type is specifically designed for exterior Primarily suited for specific construction Exterior sheathing in residential and commer-
sheathing applications. It provides weather needs, not suitable for decorative or load- cial buildings
resistance and good moisture control, bearing applications
helping protect the building envelope
| https://doi.org/10.1007/s44290-024-00005-x
Vol.:(0123456789)
Review
• Challenge: Gypsum composites may lack sufficient mechanical strength, especially when subjected to high loads
or impact forces, leading to cracking, breakage, or deformation.
• Potential Solution: Reinforcing the gypsum matrix with fibers (e.g., fiberglass, cellulose) or incorporating structural
reinforcements (e.g., metal or fiberglass mesh) during manufacturing can enhance the mechanical properties of
the composites, making them more durable and resistant to damage.
3. Fire Resistance:
• Challenge: While gypsum composites inherently possess fire-resistant properties, they may not always meet the
increasingly stringent fire safety regulations or performance requirements.
• Potential Solution: Enhancing the fire-retardant additives or incorporating synergistic materials (e.g., intumescent
additives, fire-resistant coatings) can improve the fire resistance of gypsum composites, ensuring compliance
with safety standards and enhancing their suitability for various applications, such as in commercial buildings or
residential structures.
4. Environmental Impact:
• Challenge: Traditional gypsum composites may have a significant environmental footprint due to the energy-
intensive manufacturing process and the use of non-renewable resources.
• Potential Solution: Utilizing recycled gypsum or alternative eco-friendly binders (e.g., bio-based binders, recycled
cellulose fibers) can reduce the environmental impact of gypsum composites. Additionally, optimizing the manu-
facturing process to minimize energy consumption and waste generation can further enhance the sustainability
of these materials.
5. Dimensional Stability:
• Challenge: Gypsum composites may exhibit dimensional instability over time, leading to shrinkage, expansion,
or warping, which can compromise the integrity and aesthetics of the finished products.
• Potential Solution: Implementing advanced manufacturing techniques, such as controlled curing processes and
formulation optimization, can improve the dimensional stability of gypsum composites. Additionally, proper
storage and handling practices during transportation and installation can help minimize dimensional changes
and ensure the long-term performance of the materials.
2.4 Physical properties of gypsum composites
It is unquestionably crucial to be aware of how efficiently a product like gypsum absorbs moisture while examining its
physical properties. However, the research so far indicates that a number of physical traits, including moisture content,
water absorption, and microstructure features, are present in gypsum materials.
2.4.1 Setting time of gypsum composite
The setting time of gypsum composite refers to the time taken for the material to transition from a liquid or semi-liquid
state to a solid state. This property is crucial in various applications, particularly in dentistry, construction, and art-related
industries.
There are two main types of gypsum materials used in construction: plaster of Paris and gypsum plaster. Plaster of
Paris typically has a shorter setting time (around 5–15 min) and is commonly used for casting molds, crafting, and minor
repairs. Gypsum plaster, used for wall plastering, has a longer setting time (around 20–30 min), allowing more time for
application before it hardens [80]. Factors influencing setting time include the water-to-powder ratio, temperature, and
additives used [81]. Adjusting these variables can modify the setting time to suit specific project requirements.
This time is crucial as it determines when the material can be molded while still malleable. Khalil et al. [37] conducted
research on the impact of various additives on gypsum composites and observed that an increase in rice husk content
prolonged the setting time. Conversely, Flores and Medina [82] found that higher volumes of graphite filler in graphite-
gypsum composites led to reduced setting times, possibly due to a lower water content in the mixture with more
graphite present. The contrasting effects of rice husk content and graphite filler content on the setting time of gypsum
composites are influenced by their interactions with water, their effects on the hydration process of gypsum, and their
influence on the microstructure of the composite material.
Vol:.(1234567890)
Alicia San-Antonio [83] studied gypsum with added extruded polystyrene waste and noted that the setting time is
affected by the volume of this waste material, with an increase causing a decrease in setting time. The periodic changes
in gypsum rheology during setting play a significant role in the utilization of gypsum-based materials. These materials
are often applied with a high water-to-gypsum ratio initially, creating a consistency that extends the setting period and
optimizes material usage. Following mixing, sometime is required for the consistency to reach an ideal level, allowing
for further work to be carried out.
2.4.2 Workability of gypsum composite
The workability of gypsum, defined by ASTM C472-99, refers to the ease of handling freshly mixed gypsum with minimal
loss of homogeneity. This quality, often linked with terms like strength, fluidity, and mobility, can be assessed through
tests like the slump test, flow table test, and angle flow box test. Studies exploring gypsum mortar with added fiber have
shown that while fiber doesn’t affect the manipulation of the gypsum matrix, higher fiber content decreases workability
[44, 84]. Additionally, the use of polypropylene fiber has been found to reduce gypsum matrix workability, likely due to
uneven fiber dispersion hindering gypsum penetration [85].
Sophia et al. [86] examined the impact of mineral admixture and bio-carbonate filler on gypsum plaster’s physico-
mechanical characteristics. They used various water-gypsum ratios and tested the influence of natural zeolite and shell
powder on gypsum paste workability. Their findings suggested that adding shell powder significantly enhanced gypsum
manageability, while zeolite made it more challenging to work with. Studies by Krejsova [87] indicated that gypsum with
smoother particles is more workable compared to gypsum with rough particles. Hernandez-Olivares [88] also observed
that a water-to-gypsum ratio of 0.6 reduced gypsum composite workability compared to a higher ratio of 0.8.
2.4.3 Moisture/water absorption of gypsum composite
Exploring the impact of moisture on composites involves investigating their water absorption tendencies. Composites
reinforced with natural fiber are less favored due to their susceptibility to moisture. The hydrophilic nature of the fibers
leads to swelling when exposed to moisture, resulting in microcracks that compromise mechanical strength [89, 90].
Treating fibers chemically can significantly reduce this effect by altering their surface to minimize water absorption.
Construction materials face long-term challenges from environmental conditions, requiring accelerated aging processes
to anticipate their behavior [91]. Temperature and humidity variations can affect materials, emphasizing the importance
of evaluating their endurance and compliance with safety standards.
In assessing water resistance, bio-composites made of gypsum often undergo drying-wetting cycles rather than pro-
longed water exposure. Studies indicate that these bio-composites can withstand approximately 40 cycles, although
immersion has occasionally led to binder loss on the filler surface, impacting strength. Interestingly, hemp fiber com-
posites subjected to chemical and biological treatments showed a 17% decrease in moisture absorption compared to
untreated fibers [90]. Biologically treated hemp fibers displayed greater hydrophobicity compared to both chemically
treated and untreated fibers.
Manipulating manufacturing processes can also influence water absorption. For instance, pressed curing resulted in a
notable 40% reduction in water absorption for granulated cork and cellulose fiber samples [92]. Temperature variations
during manufacturing affect water absorption in materials like gypsum particle boards; higher temperatures reduced
water absorption percentages. Adding rice husk to bio-composites was found to decrease water absorption due to the
hydroxyl group present in the husk [93]. Similarly, the addition of bagasse and wheat straw improved water resistance
in gypsum composites. Wheat straw demonstrated notable water resistance due to its concentrated extractives and
wax content [94].
Furthermore, adjusting the quantity of cotton fiber in gypsum reinforcement altered the composite’s physical and
mechanical properties, enhancing water absorption due to the fiber’s presence [95]. Biopolymers tend to absorb more
moisture compared to synthetic composites, and natural composite materials have demonstrated poor performance
when exposed to water.
2.4.4 Density of gypsum composite
Variations in density significantly impact the quality of composite materials. For instance, incorporating expanded
perlite into gypsum composites, alongside micro silica and calcium carbonate, resulted in a substantial decrease in
Vol.:(0123456789)
bulk density, as evidenced by Vimmrova et al. [30]. Gypsum containing 20% perlite showed a drastic reduction from
the initial 300 kg/m3 to 547 kg/m3, marking a decrease of over 50%.
Herrero et al. [96] explored plaster-rubber mortars and observed a density drop from 1222 kg/m3 to 650 kg/m3
when recycled tires with rubber particles were utilized. This reduction in density spanned between 16 to 47% for
the smallest particles.
Khalil et al. [97] demonstrated a 9% decline in density (from 1150 kg/m3 to 1030 kg/m3) in regular gypsum by
introducing a 10% silica composite, possibly influenced by extensive additive use.
Researchers, such as Borreguero et al. [98], investigated smart gypsum composites with thermoregulating micro-
capsules, noting a decrease in density with higher microcapsule compositions compared to standard gypsum.
Shiroma et al. [49] achieved a composite density of 1100 kg/m3 by incorporating up to 5% wood particles in the
mass, while Morale-Conde [99] observed a reduction in the quantity and number of additives (wood shavings or
sawdust) resulting in a decrease of 53.94% and 41.92% respectively, yet increasing the proportion of additives.
Carmen and Maria [100] found that composite wood waste-gypsum exhibited a lower density than normal gyp-
sum, and only [82] reported an increase in composites made with gypsum. Notably, the density of isostatic graphite
filler increased as filler amount increased, reaching 1280 kg/m3. Fiber-based composites generally display higher
densities than regular gypsum. All these can be found in Fig. 1.
2.4.5 Porosity of gypsum composite
According to Khalil et al. [97], combining silica fumes with gypsum paste reduced porosity by 5% compared to
using regular gypsum. In another study, Khalil et al. [37] observed that increasing slag or calcium carbonate content
by 10% made rice husk and PVA polymer more porous. Gencel et al. [27] investigated novel lightweight gypsum
composites involving diatomite and polypropylene fiber production. Diatomite significantly increased porosity to a
desirable level, ranging from 35.9% to 47.8% in gypsum composites. Introducing diatomite at a 20% ratio elevated
material porosity by 32.4%, unaffected by the fibers’ presence. The porous nature of diatomite contributed to this
increase in porosity. Ferreira et al. [101] discovered that in gypsum reinforced with natural caroa fibers, increasing
fiber mass content to 3% raised porosity to 52%. Vimmrova et al. [30] found that incorporating expanded perlite
increased the porosity of gypsum composites (micro silica/calcium carbonate) from 59.2% to 69.4%, as depicted in
Fig. 2. Borreguero et al. [98] observed a minor increase in gypsum composite porosity from 0.47% to 0.48% upon
adding thermoregulating microcapsules. This higher microcapsule content improved porosity compared to regular
gypsum. However, conflictingly, Vimmrova et al. [30] and Borreguero et al. [98] contradicted the findings of Flores
Fig. 1 Plain gypsum and

composite samples
Vol:.(1234567890)
Fig. 2 Porosity of plain gyp-

sum and composite samples
Medina and Barbero-Barrera [82]. They observed a decrease in composite porosity from 37.2% to 34.1% due to the
use of isostatic graphite filler, contrary to the initial assumptions (Fig. 2).
2.5 Microstructures properties of gypsum composite
In the production of fiber-gypsum composites, analyzing the microstructure is pivotal for understanding fracture types,
assessing the impact of treatments on fiber surfaces, determining crystallinity indices, and evaluating other critical fac-
tors. This analysis reveals the degree of fiber compatibility within the gypsum matrix and the adhesion between fiber
and matrix, shedding light on inherent defects [102–105].
Various microscopic techniques, including scanning electron microscopy (SEM), field emission scanning electron
microscopy (FESEM), and optical microscopy, have been employed extensively to examine gypsum composite materials
[106–108]. SEM, in particular, has been instrumental in exploring interactions between fibers and the matrix, detecting
voids, and studying fiber surface morphology.
Microstructure refers to the composition, quantity, shape, size, and distribution of phases within a solid material. Gyp-
sum, comprising calcium sulfate dihydrate crystals, forms a network of interconnected needle-like crystals characterized
by high porosity (up to 70%) and consistent size [109]. Precisely modeling their microstructures remains challenging,
but understanding these characteristics is crucial for quality control purposes.
Microscopic imaging aids in understanding how natural fiber composites weaken or fracture at the micro-level. Stud-
ies using SEM have shown enhanced surface adhesion between cellulose fibers and the gypsum matrix, consequently
improving the mechanical properties of composites. Investigations on gypsum composites treated with hemp fibers,
whether chemically or biologically, exhibited stronger bending behavior and reduced damage, highlighting the impact
of treatments on composite toughness [110].
Furthermore, surface modifications, such as alkaline treatments, were found to enhance fiber-matrix adhesion, reduc-
ing the likelihood of fractures at the interface. Figure 3 illustrates how biologically treated fiber-reinforced composites
shown improved toughness and less damage. Additionally, alkaline treatment increased the composites’ toughness by
lowering the likelihood of fracture at the fiber-gypsum matrix interface, according to Fatma et al. [53] Varying NaOH
concentrations in treatments exhibited differing effects, with higher concentrations contributing to improved fiber
performance. Other studies explored the influence of additional components, like matcher powder or polyamide fibers,
on gypsum composites, revealing alterations in hydration rates and the development of distinct microstructures [111].
Alajmi [112] looked into the morphological alterations brought on by various NaOH concentrations. The outcomes
demonstrated that in solutions containing 6% NaOH, treated fibers outperformed untreated fibers. The micrograph
Vol.:(0123456789)
Fig. 3 SEM images of hemp

fiber at two different magni-
fications, showing the fiber
both untreated (RF) and pro-
cessed (BTF and CTF) [90]
also demonstrates the high fiber effect, which is likely to have contributed to the failure, by displaying a sisal fiber with
a 20% volume shattered fracture plane.
Li [113] looked into the viability of employing matcher powder as an addition in gypsum composites and found that
the composite took longer to hydrate the more matcher it contained. In comparison to reference samples, gypsum with
a higher matcher powder concentration took longer to set and hydrate. Eve [114] published the results of a study in
which gypsum and polyamide fiber were combined. The mechanical and microstructural characteristics of the gypsum
composite were thoroughly examined. It was discovered that the gypsum matrix and the polyamide fiber had different
microstructures from regular gypsum. As the fiber concentration grew, piquets with big confined holes and areas rich
in matrix developed more often. Foti [55] also used SEM to study composites consisting of wastepaper and gypsum.
Better fiber-matrix adhesion was produced by gypsite crystal formations around the fibers, which enhanced mechanical
characteristics. SEM photos of a broken sample of the composites demonstrate that the porosity of the gypsum-cellulose
composites was decreased by filling the pores produced by the interlocking of the two components. This demonstrates
that the mechanical properties of the composites are improving and that samples containing 1% cellulose adhere to
one another more tightly than samples made entirely of gypsum [115].
Observations from SEM images showcased gypsite crystal formations around fibers, which improved fiber-matrix
adhesion, resulting in enhanced mechanical properties. Notably, the reduction in porosity in gypsum-cellulose com-
posites indicated improved mechanical strength, emphasizing the significance of composite structures in enhancing
material properties [116].
2.5.1 X‑ray diffraction of gypsum composite
X-ray diffraction (XRD) is a powerful technique used to analyze the structure of materials, including gypsum composites.
Gypsum composites typically consist of gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate) combined with other materials like addi-
tives, fillers, or reinforcing agents to enhance specific properties. Recent studies delved into cellulose fiber [115], bio-
degummed hemp fiber [45], and hemp fiber [90]. Kondratieva [54] suggested that incorporating Taurit additives alters
mineral unit morphology, refining gypsum’s structure and enhancing its strength. Analysis via XRD of chemical additives
demonstrated that higher additive volumes expedited hydration, yielding thicker, denser crystals.
Enhancing cellulose crystallinity through chemical treatments can heighten the composite’s strength [115]. The diffrac-
tion pattern of the composite displays a hemihydrate peak at 14.7 and 29.4. Assessing chemical additive samples using
XRD revealed that increased concentrations expedited hydration and led to a denser crystal structure. Hernandez-Olivares
Vol:.(1234567890)
[88] unveiled the optimal bond between cork cells and hydrated gypsum crystals, yet the composite’s mechanical prop-
erties remain insufficient. Table 2 depicts the phases identified through XRD analysis.
According to Table 2, the X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis conducted on calcium sulfate (CaSO4) samples reveals the
presence of different phases, each characterized by distinct crystal structures. Anhydrous calcium sulfate, devoid of
water molecules, is indicated by the absence of peaks around 11.6° and the presence of a characteristic peak at 29.2°.
This phase is crucial for various applications but is not explicitly detailed in the provided data.
Hemihydrate, known as gypsum powder (CaSO4.0.5H2O), exhibits peaks at 14.6°, 25.6°, 29.7°, 31.7°, 32.9°, and 49.1°,
representing specific crystallographic planes. These peaks confirm the presence of gypsum powder, which contains half
a water molecule per calcium sulfate unit.
In contrast, the hydrated hemihydrate phase (CaSO4.2H2O) displays additional peaks at 11.6°, 20.7°, 23.4°, 29.1°, 31.1°,
33.3°, and 43.3°. These peaks signify the incorporation of two water molecules per calcium sulfate unit, indicating a higher
degree of hydration compared to gypsum powder.
The composite material observed in the analysis likely combines anhydrous calcium sulfate with hemihydrate. The
presence of peaks at 14.7° and 29.4° suggests the presence of hemihydrate, while the absence of the 11.6° peak indicates
the exclusion of hydrated calcium sulfate. Such composite materials can be tailored to possess specific properties by
adjusting the relative proportions of the constituent phases.
Overall, the XRD results offer valuable insights into the crystalline phases present in the samples. Understanding
these phases is essential for various applications, ranging from construction materials to pharmaceutical formulations.
By identifying and characterizing the phases accurately, researchers can optimize the composition and properties of
calcium sulfate-based materials to meet specific requirements in different fields.
2.6 Mechanical properties of gypsum composites
There have been several developments in building materials that make use of recyclable or natural resources. Natural
and synthetic fibers are used to strengthen plasterboards. These constructions must undergo a rigorous evaluation for
compressive and flexural strength before being made available for commercial use. Gypsum composites, often used in
construction and manufacturing, exhibit various mechanical properties that make them valuable in different applications.
Gypsum composites typically consist of gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate) combined with additives or reinforcements
to enhance their mechanical characteristics.
2.6.1 Compressive properties
The utilization of natural fibers to reinforce gypsum has seen notable advancements, promoting sustainability in the
construction industry. Before these structures are commercially available, they undergo rigorous testing to assess their
compressive strength. Several academic studies have delved into the influence of natural fibers like palm, sawdust, hemp,
abaca, and coroa fibers on gypsum’s compressive strength [44, 101, 110, 119].
Research consistently demonstrates that incorporating fibers enhances gypsum’s compressive strength properties.
For instance, Iucolano et al. [110] observed improved mechanical properties in hemp-reinforced gypsum samples com-
pared to brittle, unreinforced ones. Dai and Fan’s exploration of wood sawdust [120] revealed a significant enhancement
in compressive strength with antifoam agent treatment, resulting in a 35% reduction in water content and a strength
increase from 2.21 MPa to 13.25 MPa (Fig. 4).
Table 2 XRD phases Sample Phases 2theta (°) Author
CaSO4.2H2O 11.6 [41]

Hemihydrate (gypsum pow- CaSO4. 0.5H2O 14.6, 25.6, 29.7, 31.7, 32.9 [41, 117],
der) and 49.1
Hydrated hemihydrate (gyp- CaSO4.2H2O 11.6, 20.7, 23.4, 29.1, 31.1, [117, 118]
sum + water) 33.3 and 43.3
CaSO4.2H2O 29.2 [115]
Composite CaSO4. 0.5H2O 14.7 and 29.4 [115]
Vol.:(0123456789)
Fig. 4 Shows fiber-reinforced

gypsum for compressive
strength characteristics
Similarly, Aghaee et al. [121] strengthened the gypsum matrix using textile waste materials, elevating compressive
strength from 8 to 13 MPa. Al-Rifaie and Al-Niami [44] found that palm fiber addition increased compressive strength
from 6.8 MPa to 13 MPa, altering the gypsum’s brittleness to a more flexible nature.
Different studies showcased varied impacts. Shiroma et al. [49] highlighted that reinforcing with wood particles
between 5 and 10% improved compressive strength, while Hostalkova et al. [47] noted a decrease in strength with
increased wood fiber content, possibly challenging gypsum matrix control. Moreover, investigations by Regulska and
Repelewicz [122] indicated good compressive strength for gypsum reinforced with sawdust at lower concentrations,
albeit decreasing with higher filler content.
Ferreira et al. [101] reported enhanced compressive strength using caroa natural fibers with added PVA, while Aliewi
et al. [123] found that PVC additions, even at 3%, increased strength to 8.19 MPa compared to pure gypsum.
Studies, such as Fatma et al. [53], revealed that surface treatments like NaOH on doum palm fibers improved com-
pressive strength. Fatma’s SEM measurements suggested that treated fibers linked more strongly on the break’s surface
than untreated ones.
Foti et al. [55] investigated Tetra packs, recycled papers, and paper boards in gypsum, determining the maximum filler
content without significant mechanical property reduction. Gypsum-Tetra-pack composites exhibited high compressive
strength at 6.46 MPa.
Lastly, Villoria Saez [51] found that gypsum reinforced with ceramic waste exhibited greater compressive strength
compared to plain gypsum (Fig. 4), demonstrating potential for use as a building insulation material.
2.6.2 Flexural properties
The flexural strength of composite materials, crucial for structural use, depends on the interaction between their fibers
and matrix. Various fiber types and matrix materials impact manufacturing costs and composite quality. Research sug-
gests a potential correlation between fiber quantity and flexural strength. For instance, studies by [121] on natural fiber
composites found increases in flexural strength, like textile waste fibers increasing from 3.63 MPa to 3.78 MPa (Fig. 5).
Other investigations have explored enhancing materials through additives or different fiber types. For example,
treating sawdust-gypsum composites with an antifoam agent increased flexural strength from 4.43 to 4.59 MPa Dai and
Fan [120]. Similarly, cellulose pulp fibers in gypsum showed a 13 MPa improvement in flexural properties compared to
pure gypsum.
Iucolano et al. [124] conducted another test on the flexural characteristics of abaca fibers. With the addition of 2
percent abaca fibers and treatment with distilled water, the composite’s flexural strength rose, reaching 2.95 MPa as
seen in Fig. 5. When the number of fibers is increased and a water to 40 percent gypsum ratio is utilized, date palm fiber
gypsum composites exhibit higher flexural strength qualities ranging from 7 to 11 MPa and ductile material at maximum
Vol:.(1234567890)
Fig. 5 Shows fiber-gypsum

composites for a test of flex-
ural strength
stress [44].Tests on different fibers, like abaca or date palm fibers, showcased varying flexural strength changes when
incorporated into gypsum, ranging from 2.95 MPa to 11 MPa. However, the inclusion of wood particles or natural wood
fibers sometimes reduced flexural strength, contrary to expectations.
Further studies explored innovative additions like recycled PET fibers or caroa fibers in gypsum composites. While
some increased strength by 40%, others showed that excessive fiber content weakened gypsum’s flexural properties.
Moreover, the inclusion of ceramic and concrete debris, according to Villoria Saez [51], increases the composites’ flex-
ural strength from 2.65 MPa to 3.45 MPa (Fig. 5). Incorporating ceramic or concrete debris was found to elevate flexural
strength, while the addition of industrial waste like PVC by Aliewi et al. [123] enhanced it from 4.77 MPa to 5.11 MPa.
Each study adds to our understanding of how different fibers, treatments, or additives impact composite materials’
flexural strength, highlighting the complexity of optimizing these properties for various applications.
To provide practical guidance, researchers and manufacturers may need to conduct systematic experiments to identify
the optimal fiber content range for specific composite formulations. This process would involve testing a range of fiber
content levels and evaluating the resulting flexural properties to identify the point at which the maximum strength or
other desired performance criteria are achieved.
Furthermore, it’s essential to consider other factors such as cost-effectiveness, ease of manufacturing, and the overall
performance requirements of the intended application. Balancing these factors alongside flexural strength optimiza-
tion can lead to the development of composite materials with superior mechanical properties and commercial viability.
In summary, while excessive fiber content can indeed weaken flexural properties, determining the optimal fiber con-
tent range requires careful experimentation and consideration of various factors. Researchers and manufacturers should
aim to strike a balance between reinforcing effects and practical considerations to achieve the desired performance
characteristics in composite materials.
2.7 Thermal properties of gypsum reinforced composites
Gypsum itself possesses decent thermal insulating properties. When combined with reinforcing materials like glass fib-
ers, cellulose fibers, or other additives, it further improves its thermal conductivity [53, 125, 126]. These reinforcements
reduce heat transfer by impeding the movement of thermal energy through the material, making the composite more
effective in insulation applications.
Gypsum-based composites often exhibit relatively low coefficients of thermal expansion. This means they are less
prone to significant expansion or contraction due to temperature changes compared to some other construction materi-
als [127, 128]. This attribute is particularly valuable in applications where dimensional stability is crucial, as it minimizes
the risk of structural damage or deformation caused by temperature variations.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Determining the thermal conductivity of gypsum can be complex due to factors like radiation and moisture
affecting its pores. Different methods yield varied results, particularly at higher temperatures, leading to discrep-
ancies among studies. Andersson and Jansson [129] introduced the Transient Hot Strip method to gauge thermal
conductivity by assessing a metal strip’s resistance in gypsum. Harmathy [130] employed a technique using a TC-31
thermal conductivity meter, aligning closely with Mehaffey’s [131] findings. These small-scale methods shed light
on gypsum’s thermal conductivity variations. Yet, pinpointing precise statistics for a specific product remains chal-
lenging due to water flow, radiation in voids, and gypsum cracks. However, despite differing results, both studies
agree that thermal conductivity remains relatively stable until the initial dehydration phase commences.
As temperature rises, gypsum’s thermal conductivity increases marginally until the onset of dehydration, as
observed by Wang [132]. The presence of moisture decreases with temperature, affecting thermal conductivity.
Notably, gypsum undergoes a significant decrease in thermal conductivity when water vaporizes, a key shift seen
in Zhang et al. [133].
Scientists have calibrated thermal property values to fit experimental results, highlighting alterations after water
evaporation and at higher temperatures as crucial factors influencing gypsum’s thermal conductivity. Computa-
tional analyses by Wullschleger and Ghazi Wakili [134] showcased the minimal impact of changes in the enthalpy
needed for gypsum dehydration on its temperature production.
Furthermore, studies on gypsum boards exposed to fire consistently advocated for an increased real heat value
compared to conventional estimations, as proposed by Wang. Ang and Wang [135] supported this by examining
moisture migration’s impact on gypsum boards under high temperatures, emphasizing the influence of fire speed
and airflow within gypsum boards.
Roy-Poirier and Sultan [136] discovered that the temperature background of the gypsum layer rises significantly
by approximately 300 °C just as the fall-off occurs. They noted that fall-off isn’t solely temperature-dependent,
occurring more due to the temperature profile across the board thickness than a specific temperature.
In floor assemblies, wider screw spacing lowers fall-off temperatures due to increased tension close to wider-
spaced screws. However, for walls, screw spacing isn’t as critical. The failure of gypsum is influenced by tempera-
ture distribution and stress within the material, emphasizing the need for comprehensive investigations beyond
temperature-based judgments.
Gypsum, on its own, possesses decent thermal insulating properties. However, when combined with reinforc-
ing materials like glass fibers, cellulose fibers, or other additives, its thermal conductivity can be further improved.
These reinforcements play a crucial role in reducing heat transfer by impeding the movement of thermal energy
through the material, thus making the composite more effective in insulation applications. By incorporating these
reinforcements, the composite’s thermal performance is enhanced beyond what gypsum can achieve alone.
Moreover, the addition of reinforcing materials also contributes to the dimensional stability of gypsum-based
composites. By reducing the coefficients of thermal expansion, these reinforcements help minimize the risk of
structural damage or deformation caused by temperature variations. This is particularly valuable in applications
where dimensional stability is crucial, as it ensures the integrity of the structure over time.
In studies exploring the thermal conductivity of gypsum, the impact of reinforcements is essential to consider.
While different methods may yield varied results, particularly at higher temperatures, the presence of reinforce-
ments can influence these findings. The combination of gypsum with reinforcing materials may exhibit different
thermal conductivity behaviors compared to pure gypsum, especially during phases such as dehydration where
moisture content plays a significant role. Understanding how reinforcements interact with gypsum in terms of
thermal properties is thus essential for accurately assessing its performance in real-world applications.
Furthermore, investigations into the behavior of gypsum boards under fire conditions also underscore the impor-
tance of reinforcements. Studies have shown that the presence of reinforcements can affect the real heat value
and thermal response of gypsum boards when exposed to high temperatures. Factors such as moisture migration
and airflow within the boards, influenced by the composition of reinforcements, can significantly impact the fire
resistance and thermal stability of gypsum-based materials.
In summary, the role of reinforcements in enhancing the thermal performance of gypsum-based composites is
crucial and should be explicitly addressed in discussions concerning their thermal properties, dimensional stability,
and behavior under fire conditions. Integrating this aspect provides a comprehensive understanding of how addi-
tives and reinforcements contribute to the overall performance of gypsum-based materials in various applications.
Vol:.(1234567890)
2.8 Acoustic properties of gypsum reinforced composites
Achieving effective sound absorption and insulation is crucial for maintaining favorable acoustic environments,
especially in building construction. Research into the acoustic properties of building materials is essential to com-
prehend their sound absorption and insulating capabilities. Natural fiber composite materials have emerged as
promising options due to their cost-effectiveness, reduced health risks, and use of renewable resources contributing
to sustainability in construction [137–142].
In a study by Gunal et al. [143], gypsum ceiling tiles were enhanced by incorporating wool’s thermal insulation
qualities and coir’s durability. Increasing coir content raised the composite’s sound absorption coefficient, reach-
ing 0.35 at 5500 Hz. Coir fibers exhibited superior acoustic performance compared to wool, potentially due to their
rougher surface morphology.
Pedreno-Rojas [144] investigated the use of demolition wood debris in gypsum bio-composites, evaluating their
physical, mechanical, and acoustic attributes. The composite, containing 10% sawdust and 20% wood shavings,
showed a 20% improvement in sound absorption (0.531) at 2000 Hz compared to reference gypsum board.
Hernandez-Olivares [88] studied cork-gypsum composites, finding moderate sound absorption coefficients rang-
ing from 0.2 to 0.3 in high-frequency fields. Though not strong sound absorbers, these composites exhibited sound
insulating properties.
Gypsum-reinforced wood and rubber leftovers were examined for their ability to absorb sound by Adamopoulos
[145], who discovered no discernible variations in the sound absorption coefficient between various quantities of
wood and rubber. This solid block made of gypsum had an optimal absorption coefficient of 0.72 at 1 kHz, which fell
to 0.43 as the frequency grew from 2 to 4 kHz. Elkhessaimi [146] looked at the results of adding glass fiber and citric
acid to gypsum. The study concentrated on the materials’ microstructural impacts on the transmission loss of gypsum
board. The findings demonstrated that the acoustic insulation properties of the composites increased with increasing
thickness and density. The group found that a 50-mm thick glass wool cored gypsum board containing citric acid
has very promising insulating qualities. Ramezani [46] studied the acoustic properties of wood fiber-based mortars
with partial gypsum substitution (10:90, 15:85, 20:80, 25:75, and 30:70 by ratio). With an STL of 18 dB as opposed to
15 dB for plain gypsum samples, the results showed that employing wood fiber in place of gypsum in a 30:70 ratio
enhanced transmission loss characteristics over plain mortar. The outcomes also showed that the transmission loss
decreased as the thickness rose from 1 cm to 1.5 cm. For each and every tested frequency, this was true.
More recent study was done on the impact of gypsum composites of expanded polystyrene and leftover cel-
lulosic pulp on sound absorption by Oliveira [147]. The researchers found that the varied concentrations of each
chemical did not significantly differ, and the best outcomes were achieved at a low frequency (250 Hz). However,
the acoustic insulation requirements were met by the composites that were planned for usage. The recipe with the
highest cellulose pulp content had the highest absorption coefficient, with values of 0.33 and 0.16 for the measured
frequencies of 250 Hz and 500 Hz, respectively, and the second-highest absorption coefficient for the frequency of
1000 Hz (0.12). Additionally, Arroyo et al. [148] discovered that 5% micro silica added to gypsum foam enhanced the
sound absorption coefficients of gypsum composites, especially at low frequencies. The sound absorption coefficient
measured at 200 Hz was 0.64 (Table 3).
Table 3 Comparison of the Composite Material Sound Absorption Coefficient at Specific Frequencies
coefficients of different
composites Gypsum + Wool + Coir 0.35 @ 5500 Hz
Gypsum + Sawdust + Wood Shavings 0.531 @ 2000 Hz
Gypsum + Cork 0.2—0.3 @ high frequencies
Gypsum + Wood + Rubber 0.72 @ 1 kHz, 0.43 @ 2–4 kHz
Gypsum + Glass Fiber + Citric Acid Promising insulation qualities
Wood Fiber + Gypsum STL of 18 dB @ 30:70 wood fiber:gypsum ratio
Gypsum + Expanded Polystyrene + Cellulosic Pulp 0.33 @ 250 Hz, 0.16 @ 500 Hz, 0.12 @ 1000 Hz
Gypsum Foam + Micro Silica 0.64 @ 200 Hz
Vol.:(0123456789)
These studies demonstrate the diverse ways in which different materials and compositions affect the acoustic prop-
erties of gypsum-based composites, showcasing their potential for sound absorption and insulation in construction
applications.
3 Comparison with traditional building materials
One of the most significant ways gypsum composites promote sustainability is through their low embodied energy.
Embodied energy refers to the energy consumed throughout a material’s entire life cycle, encompassing extraction,
processing, transportation, and installation [149]. Gypsum composites, by requiring less energy-intensive manufacturing
processes compared to some traditional building materials, contribute to a reduced carbon footprint [67]. This not only
conserves precious resources but also lessens the environmental impact associated with construction.
Recyclability stands as another cornerstone of their sustainability profile. Gypsum composites can be reclaimed and
recycled at the end of their lifecycle, preventing materials from ending up in landfills and reducing the demand for virgin
resources [150–152]. This closed-loop approach aligns with circular economy principles, which prioritize resource effi-
ciency and waste reduction. By embracing recycling, these composites minimize waste and extend their utility, thereby
reducing the strain on finite resources.
Furthermore, the potential use of bio-based materials in gypsum composites amplifies their sustainability quotient.
Incorporating natural fibers, binders, or additives derived from renewable sources infuses these composites with an eco-
friendly edge [110, 153]. This not only reduces the reliance on fossil-based materials but also harnesses the regenerative
capacity of nature. Such a shift towards bio-based components fosters a harmonious relationship between construction
and the environment, fostering a greener and more sustainable future.
In essence, gypsum composites present a holistic approach to sustainability. Their low embodied energy conserves
energy resources, their recyclability minimizes waste, and their compatibility with bio-based materials reduces the eco-
logical impact of construction [154, 155]. By embracing these composites, the construction industry takes a progressive
step towards creating buildings that are not only structurally sound but also environmentally responsible. As society
seeks to balance the needs of the present with the well-being of future generations, gypsum composites emerge as a
catalyst for sustainable building practices.
The primary drivers of cost-effectiveness in gypsum composite production typically include raw material costs, energy
consumption, labor costs, production efficiency, waste management, and transportation costs. To balance cost consid-
erations with performance and sustainability goals, manufacturers can employ several strategies:
1. Raw Material Selection: Opt for cost-effective yet high-quality raw materials. Conducting thorough research and
sourcing materials from reliable suppliers can help achieve this balance.
2. Energy Efficiency: Implement energy-efficient technologies and processes in manufacturing. This might involve
investing in equipment upgrades, optimizing production schedules to minimize energy consumption during off-
peak hours, and utilizing renewable energy sources where feasible.
3. Process Optimization: Continuously analyze and refine production processes to enhance efficiency and reduce waste.
Lean manufacturing principles can be applied to streamline operations and minimize costs without sacrificing qual-
ity.
4. Labor Management: Invest in workforce training and development to improve productivity and reduce labor costs.
Additionally, automation and robotics can be integrated into production lines to increase efficiency and reduce
reliance on manual labor.
5. Waste Reduction and Recycling: Implement practices to minimize waste generation and maximize material recycling.
This can include reusing production by-products, optimizing material usage to reduce scrap, and implementing
recycling programs for waste materials.
6. Transportation Optimization: Strategically plan transportation routes and logistics to minimize costs and environmen-
tal impact. Consolidating shipments, utilizing efficient transportation modes, and optimizing inventory management
can help reduce transportation costs while lowering carbon emissions.
7. Product Innovation: Invest in research and development to create gypsum composites that offer superior perfor-
mance characteristics while maintaining cost-effectiveness and sustainability. This might involve exploring alternative
materials, improving product design, or enhancing manufacturing processes.
Vol:.(1234567890)
8. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Conduct comprehensive LCAs to evaluate the environmental impacts of different pro-
duction methods and materials throughout their life cycles. This holistic approach helps identify opportunities for
improvement and informs decision-making to achieve sustainability goals while balancing costs and performance.
4 Summary of the findings
The literature review section provides a comprehensive overview of the physical, mechanical, thermal, and acoustic
properties of gypsum composites, along with comparisons to traditional building materials. Here are the key findings
and their implications for the construction industry:
1. The setting time and workability of gypsum composites are highly adjustable through manipulation of variables such
as water-to-powder ratio and temperature. This adaptability facilitates tailored solutions for specific project needs,
particularly in dentistry, construction, and art-related fields. Additionally, comprehending gypsum’s workability is
crucial for maintaining homogeneity and ease of application during construction processes.
2. Moisture absorption varies among gypsum composites due to factors like fiber content, additives, and manufacturing
techniques. Effective management of moisture absorption is vital for preserving the structural integrity and longevity
of gypsum-based materials, particularly in environments prone to humidity or moisture exposure.
3. The density and porosity of gypsum composites significantly influence their mechanical and thermal characteristics.
Modifications with additives or reinforcements offer opportunities to enhance material performance, reduce weight,
and improve insulation properties, thereby expanding their potential applications.
4. Analysis of gypsum composite microstructure provides valuable insights into mechanical properties, fracture behav-
ior, and compatibility between fibers and the matrix. Understanding these microstructural features is essential for
quality assurance and optimizing material performance across various applications.
5. Gypsum composites reinforced with natural fibers or additives demonstrate improved compressive and flexural
strength compared to pure gypsum. These enhancements contribute to their suitability for structural applications,
promoting sustainability through the use of recyclable or renewable materials.
6. Gypsum composites possess moderate thermal insulation properties, which can be further enhanced by incorporat-
ing reinforcing materials. Understanding thermal conductivity and expansion characteristics is crucial for designing
energy-efficient buildings and ensuring dimensional stability under varying temperature conditions.
7. Gypsum composites exhibit potential for sound absorption and insulation, offering opportunities for creating favora-
ble acoustic environments in buildings. Incorporating natural fibers or additives can further enhance acoustic per-
formance, aligning with sustainable construction practices.
8. Compared to traditional building materials, gypsum composites offer several sustainability advantages, including
low embodied energy, recyclability, and compatibility with bio-based materials. Embracing gypsum composites can
mitigate environmental impact and promote resource efficiency in the construction industry.
5 Challenges and future directions
Although gypsum composites offer significant advantages, they face notable challenges related to moisture sensitivity
and durability. Excessive moisture can lead to dimensional changes, loss of mechanical properties, and degradation over
time, making the material susceptible to warping, cracking, and mold growth. To address these issues, ongoing research
focuses on developing moisture-resistant additives, improving curing processes, and understanding material behavior
under different humidity conditions. Durability concerns arise from exposure to weather, chemicals, and mechanical
stress, necessitating the formulation of composites with enhanced resistance. Studies explore various surface treatments
and coatings to mitigate these challenges. For instance, applying nano-silica and acrylic emulsion coatings creates a
barrier against moisture ingress, improving dimensional stability and resistance to degradation. Hydrophobic treatments
using silane coupling agents reduce water absorption and enhance moisture resistance. Nanostructured coatings, incor-
porating nanoparticles like nano-silica or nano-clay, reinforce the gypsum matrix and provide a dense barrier against
moisture penetration, improving mechanical properties and durability. Polymer-modified coatings, containing polymers
such as styrene-butadiene latex or acrylic polymers, form flexible barriers against cracking, warping, and degradation.
Vol.:(0123456789)
These research efforts highlight the potential of surface treatments and coatings to enhance the performance and lon-
gevity of gypsum composites in diverse applications and environments.
6 Conclusion
In summary, this review underscores the transformative potential of gypsum-reinforced composites in revolutionizing
the construction industry. By amalgamating gypsum’s advantageous properties with various reinforcing elements, these
materials offer versatile, long-lasting, and eco-friendly solutions for a broad spectrum of building applications. Our
study contributes significantly to the existing literature by shedding light on key aspects of gypsum composites, with a
particular focus on their mechanical properties and potential applications in underdeveloped regions.
The findings highlight the rapid adoption of gypsum composite materials in constructing building components, driven
by their cost-effectiveness, efficient thermal and acoustic insulation capabilities, and lightweight yet robust construc-
tion elements. Moreover, the incorporation of natural fibers such as hemp, cotton, sisal, jute, and wood into the gypsum
matrix is shown to enhance flexibility and mechanical strength, thereby expanding the scope of their applications.
Furthermore, our investigation reveals a consistent improvement in mechanical strength with increased fiber content,
accompanied by a decrease in the density of gypsum composites. However, we recognize the need for further research
to explore dimensional stability, thermal conductivity, and acoustic properties of these materials. Additionally, com-
prehensive studies on gypsum board applications in residential and commercial construction are warranted to unlock
their full potential.
Looking ahead, the implications of our findings extend beyond academia, with practical implications for construction
professionals, policymakers, and stakeholders. By fostering close collaboration between research and practical applica-
tion, we can accelerate the widespread adoption of gypsum-reinforced composites, thereby advancing sustainability,
efficiency, and resilience in the built environment.
In conclusion, our review underscores the critical role of gypsum composites in shaping the future of construction,
emphasizing the need for continued research and innovation to unlock their full potential. Through concerted efforts,
we can harness the transformative power of these materials to address pressing challenges and build a more sustainable
and resilient built environment for generations to come.
Acknowledgements Nill.
Author contributions Martins Taiwo E wrote the main manuscript.
Data availability No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Declarations
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://c reati vecom
mons.o
rg/l icens es/b
y/4.0
/.
References
1. Amberkar T, Mahanwar P. Thermal energy management in buildings and constructions with phase change material-epoxy composites:
a review. Energy Source Part A Recover Util Environ Eff. 2023;45(1):727–61.
2. Belardi P, Gusella V, Liberotti R, Sorignani C. Built environment’s sustainability: the design of the Gypso| TechA of the University of
Perugia. Sustainability. 2022;14(11):6857.
3. Dima C, Badanoiu A, Cirstea S, Nicoara AI, Stoleriu S. Lightweight gypsum materials with potential use for thermal insulations. Materials.
2020;13(23):1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13235454.
4. Wei S, Wang C, Yang Y, Wang M. Physical and mechanical properties of gypsum-like rock materials. Adv Civ Eng. 2020;2020:1–17.
Vol:.(1234567890)
5. Guan Q, et al. Preparation of α-calcium sulfate hemihydrate from industrial by-product gypsum: a review. Physicochem Probl Miner
Process. 2021;57(1):168–81.
6. Wirsching F. Calcium sulfate. Ullmann’s Encycl Ind Chem. 2000. https://doi.org/10.1002/14356007.a04_555.
7. Kuntze R. Gypsum: Connecting Science and Technology. Micro Nano Lett. 2009.
8. Gioseffi K. Insights into the kinetics of solid gypsum dehydration from wide and small-angle synchrotron X-ray scattering. Brisbane:
Queensland University of Technology; 2019.
9. La Bella M. Multiscale study of the calcium sulfate hemihydrate-gypsum transformation with diffraction and tomography techniques.
Université Grenoble Alpes [2020-....], 2023.
10. Amathieu L, Boistelle R. Crystallization kinetics of gypsum from dense suspension of hemihydrate in water. J Cryst Growth.
1988;88(2):183–92.
11. Ridge MJ, Surkevicius H. Hydration of calcium sulphate hemihydrate. I. Kinetics of the reaction. J Appl Chem. 1962;12(6):246–52.
12. Lewry AJ, Williamson J. The setting of gypsum plaster - Part III The effect of additives and impurities. J Mater Sci. 1994;29(23):6085–90.
13. Lancia A, Musmarra D, Prisciandaro M. Measuring induction period for calcium sulfate dihydrate precipitation. AIChE J. 1999;45(2):390–7.
14. Solberg C, Hansen S. Dissolution of CaSO4·1/2H2O and precipitation of CaSO4·2H2O - a kinetic study by synchrotron X-ray powder dif-
fraction. Cem Concr Res. 2001;31(4):641–6.
15. Gmouh A, et al. Development and validation of a dimensional variation measurement set-application to the plaster setting. Mater Sci
Eng A. 2004;372(1–2):123–7.
16. Karni J, Karni E. Gypsum in construction: origin and properties. Mater Struct. 1995;28(2):92–100.
17. Camarini G, De Milito JA. Gypsum hemihydrate–cement blends to improve renderings durability. Constr Build Mater. 2011;25(11):4121–5.
18. Camarini G, Pinheiro SMM. Microstructure of recycled gypsum plaster by SEM. Adv Mater Res. 2014;912–914(April):243–6. https://doi.
org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.912-914.243.
19. Pinheiro S, Camarini G. Characteristics of gypsum recycling in different cycles. Int J Eng Technol. 2015;7(3):215–8. https://doi.org/10.
7763/ijet.2015.v7.794.
20. Yu QL, Brouwers HJH. Microstructure and mechanical properties of β-hemihydrate produced gypsum: an insight from its hydration
process. Constr Build Mater. 2011;25(7):3149–57.
21. Kojima Y, Yasue T. Synthesis of large plate-like gypsum dihydrate from waste gypsum board. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2006;26(4–5):777–83.
22. Ashraf MS, Ghouleh Z, Shao Y. Production of eco-cement exclusively from municipal solid waste incineration residues. Resour Conserv
Recycl. 2019;149:332–42.
23. Ghouleh Z, Shao Y. Turning municipal solid waste incineration into a cleaner cement production. J Clean Prod. 2018;195:268–79.
24. Skujans J, Vulans A, Iljins U, Aboltins A. Measurements of heat transfer of multi-layered wall construction with foam gypsum. Appl Therm
Eng. 2007;27(7):1219–24.
25. Gutiérrez-González S, Gadea J, Rodríguez A, Blanco-Varela MT, Calderón V. Compatibility between gypsum and polyamide powder
waste to produce lightweight plaster with enhanced thermal properties. Constr Build Mater. 2012;34:179–85.
26. Toppi T, Mazzarella L. Gypsum based composite materials with micro-encapsulated PCM: Experimental correlations for thermal proper-
ties estimation on the basis of the composition. Energy Build. 2013;57:227–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.11.009.
27. Gencel O, Del CozDiaz JJ, Sutcu M, Koksal F, ÁlvarezRabanal FP, Martínez-Barrera G. A novel lightweight gypsum composite with diato-
mite and polypropylene fibers. Constr Build Mater. 2016;113:732–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.125.
28. Erbs A, Nagalli A, Querne de Carvalho K, Mymrin V, Passig FH, Mazer W. Properties of recycled gypsum from gypsum plasterboards and
commercial gypsum throughout recycling cycles. J Clean Prod. 2018;183:1314–22.
29. Boccarusso L, Durante M, Iucolano F, Mocerino D, Langella A. Production of hemp-gypsum composites with enhanced flexural and
impact resistance. Constr Build Mater. 2020;260: 120476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120476.
30. Vimmrová A, Keppert M, Svoboda L, Černý R. Lightweight gypsum composites: design strategies for multi-functionality. Cem Concr
Compos. 2011;33(1):84–9.
31. Pedreño-Rojas MA, Flores-Colen I, De Brito J, Rodríguez-Liñán C. Influence of the heating process on the use of gypsum wastes in plasters:
mechanical, thermal and environmental analysis. J Clean Prod. 2019;215:444–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.053.
32. Rubio-Avalos JC, et al. Flexural behavior and microstructure analysis of a gypsum-SBR composite material. Mater Lett. 2005;59(2–3):230–3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2004.07.054.
33. Bicer A, Kar F. Thermal and mechanical properties of gypsum plaster mixed with expanded polystyrene and tragacanth. Therm Sci Eng
Prog. 2017;1:59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2017.02.008.
34. Vasconcelos G, Camões A, Fangueiro R, Vila-chã N. Gypsum-cork based composite material. 1st Int. Conf. Nat. Fibers. 1999: 1–10.
35. Deng YH, Furuno T. Properties of gypsum particleboard reinforced with polypropylene fibers. J Wood Sci. 2001;47(6):445–50. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF00767896.
36. Ali MA, Grimer FJ. Mechanical properties of glass fibre-reinforced gypsum. J Mater Sci. 1969;4(5):389–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF005
49703.
37. Khalil AA, Tawfik A, Hegazy AA, El-Shahat MF. Effect of some waste additives on the physical and mechanical properties of gypsum
plaster composites. Constr Build Mater. 2014;100(68):580–6.
38. Serhat Başpinar M, Kahraman E. Modifications in the properties of gypsum construction element via addition of expanded macroporous
silica granules. Constr Build Mater. 2011;25(8):3327–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.022.
39. Bilici I, Deniz CU, Oz B. Thermal and mechanical characterization of composite produced from recycled PE and flue gas desulfurization
gypsum. J Compos Mater. 2019;53(23):3325–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998319827097.
40. Kuqo A, Mai C. Mechanical properties of lightweight gypsum composites comprised of seagrass Posidonia oceanica and pine (Pinus
sylvestris) wood fibers. Constr Build Mater. 2021;282: 122714.
41. Carvalho MA, Calil C, Savastano H, Tubino R, Carvalho MT. Microstructure and mechanical properties of gypsum composites reinforced
with recycled cellulose pulp. Mater Res. 2008;11(4):391–7.
42. Boquera L, et al. Thermo-acoustic and mechanical characterization of novel bio-based plasters: the valorisation of lignin as by-product
from biomass extraction for green building applications. Constr Build Mater. 2021;278: 122373.
Vol.:(0123456789)
43. Jiménez-Rivero A, García-Navarro J. Best practices for the management of end-of-life gypsum in a circular economy. J Clean Prod.
2017;167:1335–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.068.
44. Al-Rifaie WN, Al-Niami M. Mechanical performance of date palm fibre-reinforced gypsums. Innov Infrastruct Solut. 2016;1(1):1–7.
45. Iucolano F, Liguori B, Aprea P, Caputo D. Evaluation of bio-degummed hemp fibers as reinforcement in gypsum plaster. Compos Part
B Eng. 2018;138:149–56.
46. Ramezani H, Shahdab S, Nouri A. Study on effects of wood fiber content on physical, mechanical, and acoustical properties of wood-
fiber-filled gypsum composites. Mater Res. 2012;15(2):236–41. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-14392012005000018.
47. Hošťálková M, Vavřínová N, Longauerová V. Mechanical properties of the gypsum composite reinforcement with wooden fibers. Int Rev
Appl Sci Eng. 2019;10(1):15–21.
48. Yildizel SA. Mechanical performance of glass fiber reinforced composites made with gypsum, expanded perlite, and silica sand. Rev
Rom Mater Rom J Mater. 2018;48(2):229–35.
49. Shiroma L, Camarini G, Beraldo AL. Effect of wood particle treatment on the properties of gypsum plaster pastes and composites. Rev
Mater. 2016;21(4):1032–44. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-707620160004.0095.
50. Liguori B, Caputo D, Iucolano F. Fiber-reinforced lime-based mortars: effect of zeolite addition. Constr Build Mater. 2015;77:455–60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.067.
51. Villoria Sáez P, Del Río Merino M, Sorrentino M, Porras Amores C, Santa Cruz Astorqui J, Viñas Arrebola C. Mechanical characterization
of gypsum composites containing inert and insulation materials from construction and demolition waste and further application as a
gypsum block. Materials. 2020;13(1):1–14.
52. Chang W-P, Kim K-J, Gupta RK. Moisture absorption behavior of wood/plastic composites made with ultrasound-assisted alkali-treated
wood particulates. Compos Interfaces. 2009;16(7–9):937–51.
53. Fatma N, Allègue L, Salem M, Zitoune R, Zidi M. The effect of doum palm fibers on the mechanical and thermal properties of gypsum
mortar. J Compos Mater. 2019;53(19):2641–59.
54. Kondratieva N, Barre M, Goutenoire F, Sanytsky M. Study of modified gypsum binder. Constr Build Mater. 2017;149:535–42. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.140.
55. Foti D, et al. Microstructure and compressive strength of gypsum-bonded composites with papers, paperboards and Tetra Pak recycled
materials. J Wood Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10086-019-1821-5.
56. Ismail A, Wang J, Salami BA, Oyedele LO, Otukogbe GK. Microencapsulated phase change materials for enhanced thermal energy stor-
age performance in construction materials: a critical review. Constr Build Mater. 2023;401: 132877.
57. Pickering KL, Efendy MGA, Le TM. A review of recent developments in natural fibre composites and their mechanical performance.
Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2016;83:98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.08.038.
58. Lilargem Rocha D, Tambara Júnior LUD, Marvila MT, Pereira EC, Souza D, de Azevedo ARG. A review of the use of natural fibers in cement
composites: concepts, applications and Brazilian history. Polymers. 2022;14(10):2043.
59. Zak P, Ashour T, Korjenic A, Korjenic S, Wu W. The influence of natural reinforcement fibers, gypsum and cement on compressive strength
of earth bricks materials. Constr Build Mater. 2016;106:179–88.
60. Sangmesh B, et al. Development of sustainable alternative materials for the construction of green buildings using agricultural residues:
a review. Constr Build Mater. 2023;368: 130457.
61. Lushnikova N, Dvorkin L. Sustainability of gypsum products as a construction material. Second Edi Elsevier Ltd. 2016. https://doi.org/
10.1016/b978-0-08-100370-1.00025-1.
62. Bustillo Revuelta M, Bustillo Revuelta M. Gypsum products. Constr Mater Geol Prod Appl. 2021; 195–215.
63. Saleem A, Medina L, Skrifvars M, Berglin L. Hybrid polymer composites of bio-based bast fibers with glass, carbon and basalt fibers for
automotive applications—a review. Molecules. 2020;25(21):4933.
64. Nguyen H, Kinnunen P, Carvelli V, Mastali M, Illikainen M. Strain hardening polypropylene fiber reinforced composite from hydrated
ladle slag and gypsum. Compos Part B Eng. 2019;158:328–38.
65. Boumaaza M, Belaadi A, Bourchak M. Systematic review on reinforcing mortars with natural fibers: challenges of environment-friendly
option. J Nat Fibers. 2022;19(16):14262–86.
66. An H, Wang L, Lv F, Fu R, Lu Y, Kong D. Multi-objective optimization of properties on polymer fiber-reinforced desulfurization gypsum-
based composite cementitious materials. Constr Build Mater. 2023;369: 130590.
67. Jia R, Wang Q, Feng P. A comprehensive overview of fibre-reinforced gypsum-based composites (FRGCs) in the construction field.
Compos Part B Eng. 2021;205: 108540.
68. Nicoleau L, Van Driessche AES, Kellermeier M. A kinetic analysis of the role of polymers in mineral nucleation. The example of gypsum.
Cem Concr Res. 2019;124: 105837.
69. Murphy J. Additives for plastics handbook. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2001.
70. Doleželová M, Scheinherrova L, Krejsová J, Keppert M, Černý R, Vimmrova A. Investigation of gypsum composites with different light-
weight fillers. Constr Build Mater. 2021;297: 123791.
71. Yu QL, Brouwers HJH. Cement & Concrete composites development of a self-compacting gypsum-based lightweight composite. Cement
Concr Composites. 2012;34:1033–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.05.004.
72. J. Giró Paloma. Characterization of polymers and microencapsulated phase change materials used for thermal energy storage in build-
ing. 2015.
73. Swolfs Y, Verpoest I, Gorbatikh L. Recent advances in fibre-hybrid composites: materials selection, opportunities and applications. Int
Mater Rev. 2019;64(4):181–215.
74. Bhat AH, Khan I, Usmani MA, Umapathi R, Al-Kindy SMZ. Cellulose an ageless renewable green nanomaterial for medical applications:
an overview of ionic liquids in extraction, separation and dissolution of cellulose. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019;129:750–77.
75. Dubey KA, Bhardwaj YK. High-performance polymer-matrix composites: novel routes of synthesis and interface-structure-property
correlations. Handb Synth Strateg Adv Mater Vol Mater Specif Synth Strateg. 2021, 1–25.
76. Bumanis G, Vitola L, Pundiene I, Sinka M, Bajare D. Gypsum, geopolymers, and starch—alternative binders for bio-based building materi-
als: a review and life-cycle assessment. Sustainability. 2020;12(14):5666.
Vol:.(1234567890)
77. Vierra S. Green building standards and certification systems. Washington: Natl. Inst. Build. Sci; 2016.
78. Kehli K, Belhadj B, Ferhat A. Development of a new lightweight gypsum composite: effect of mixed treatment of barley straws with hot
water and bio-based phase change material on the thermo-mechanical properties. Constr Build Mater. 2023;389: 131597.
79. Haba B, Benali F, Jawaid M, Leao AL. A Review on gypsum-based composites reinforced with palm fibers in construction applications.
Int J Thermophys. 2022;43(11):164.
80. Millar W. Plastering: plain and decorative. London: Routledge; 2016.
81. Han B, Zhang L, Ou J. Smart and multifunctional concrete toward sustainable infrastructures. Singapore: Springer; 2017.
82. Flores Medina N, Barbero-Barrera MM. Mechanical and physical enhancement of gypsum composites through a synergic work of poly-
propylene fiber and recycled isostatic graphite filler. Constr Build Mater. 2017;131:165–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.
11.073.
83. San-Antonio-González A, Del Río Merino M, Viñas Arrebola C, Villoria-Sáez P. Lightweight material made with gypsum and extruded
polystyrene waste with enhanced thermal behavior. Constr Build Mater. 2015;93:57–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.
05.040.
84. Arikan M, Sobolev K. The optimization of a gypsum-based composite material. Cem Concr Res. 2002;32(11):1725–8.
85. Zhu C, Zhang J, Peng J, Cao W, Liu J. Physical and mechanical properties of gypsum-based composites reinforced with PVA and PP fibers.
Constr Build Mater. 2018;163:695–705.
86. Sophia M, Sakthieswaran N. Synergistic effect of mineral admixture and bio-carbonate fillers on the physico-mechanical properties of
gypsum plaster. Constr Build Mater. 2019;204:419–39.
87. Krejsová J, Doleželová M, Pernicová R, Svora P, Vimmrová A. The influence of different aggregates on the behavior and properties of
gypsum mortars. Cem Concr Compos. 2018;92:188–97.
88. Hernández-Olivares F, Bollati MR, Del Rio M, Parga-Landa B. Development of cork-gypsum composites for building applications. Constr
Build Mater. 1999;13(4):179–86.
89. Kalia S, Kaith BS, Kaur I. Pretreatments of natural fibers and their application as reinforcing material in polymer composites—a review.
Polym Eng Sci. 2009;49(7):1253–72.
90. Iucolano F, Liguori B, Aprea P, Caputo D. Thermo-mechanical behaviour of hemp fibers-reinforced gypsum plasters. Constr Build Mater.
2018;185:256–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.036.
91. Morales CN, Claure G, Emparanza AR, Nanni A. Durability of GFRP reinforcing bars in seawater concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2021;270:
121492.
92. Eires R, Camões A, Jalali S. New eco-friendly gypsum materials for civil construction. Mater Sci Forum. 2008;587–588:908–12.
93. Kim S. Incombustibility, physico-mechanical properties and TVOC emission behavior of the gypsum–rice husk boards for wall and ceiling
materials for construction. Ind Crops Prod. 2009;29(2–3):381–7.
94. Nazerian M, Kamyab M. Gypsum-bonded particleboard manufactured from agricultural based material. For Sci Pract. 2013;15(4):325–31.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11632-013-0420-6.
95. Zhang WH, Li GZ, Liu MR. Properties research of cotton fiber reinforced gypsum based composites. Adv Mater Res. 2011;194–196:1759–62.
96. Herrero S, Mayor P, Hernández-Olivares F. Influence of proportion and particle size gradation of rubber from end-of-life tires on mechani-
cal, thermal and acoustic properties of plaster-rubber mortars. Mater Des. 2013;47:633–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.
063.
97. Khalil AA, Tawfik A, Hegazy AA, El-Shahat MF. Influencia de distintas fuentes de sílice en las propiedades físicas y mecánicas de materiales
derivados del yeso. Mater Constr. 2013;63(312):529–37. https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2013.04312.
98. Borreguero AM, Garrido I, Valverde JL, Rodríguez JF, Carmona M. Development of smart gypsum composites by incorporating ther-
moregulating microcapsules. Energy Build. 2014;76:631–9.
99. Morales-Conde MJ, Rodríguez-Liñán C, Pedreño-Rojas MA. Physical and mechanical properties of wood-gypsum composites from
demolition material in rehabilitation works. Constr Build Mater. 2016;114(2016):6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.
137.
100. Carmen RL, María MCJ. The influence of natural and synthetic fibre reinforcement on wood-gypsum composites. Open Constr Build
Technol J. 2017;11(1):350–62.
101. Ferreira SE, Da Pedro SA, Cárdenas ON, Da Costa PAF, Da Silva DAC. Mechanical properties of a composite of gypsum reinforced with
caroá fiber and pvac. Mater Sci Forum. 2019;958:57–61.
102. Naser MZ, Hawileh RA, Abdalla JA. Fiber-reinforced polymer composites in strengthening reinforced concrete structures: a critical review.
Eng Struct. 2019;198: 109542.
103. Maraveas C. Production of sustainable construction materials using agro-wastes. Materials. 2020;13(2):262.
104. Akter M, Uddin MH, Anik HR. Plant fiber-reinforced polymer composites: a review on modification, fabrication, properties, and applica-
tions. Polym Bull. 2023;81:1–85.
105. Khilji IA, Chilakamarry CR, Surendran AN, Kate K, Satyavolu J. Natural fiber composite filaments for additive manufacturing: a compre-
hensive review. Sustainability. 2023;15(23):16171.
106. Al Muhit BA. Investigation on the mechanical, microstructural, and electrical properties of graphene oxide-cement composite. 2015.
107. Zhang Y, Tao W, Wang K, Li D. Analysis of thermal properties of gypsum materials incorporated with microencapsulated phase change
materials based on silica. Renew Energy. 2020;149:400–8.
108. Usman F, et al. In-depth analysis of physicochemical properties of particulate matter (PM10, PM25 and PM1) and its characterization
through FTIR, XRD and SEM–EDX Techniques in the Foothills of the Hindu Kush Region of Northern Pakistan. Atmosphere. 2022;13(1):124.
109. Chen Z, Sucech S, Faber KT. A hierarchical study of the mechanical properties of gypsum. J Mater Sci. 2010;45(16):4444–53.
110. Iucolano F, Boccarusso L, Langella A. Hemp as eco-friendly substitute of glass fibres for gypsum reinforcement: impact and flexural
behaviour. Compos Part B Eng. 2019;175: 107073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107073.
111. Siengchin S. A review on lightweight materials for defence applications: a present and future developments. Def Technol. 2023;24:1–17.
112. Alajmi R. Study on sisal fibres as insulator in building materials. Bachelor Thesis, University South. Queensland. 2015.
Vol.:(0123456789)
113. Li H, Xu C, Huang Y, Chen Q, Jiang Z, Wang Y. Modification on the performance of the hemihydrate gypsum with the plant source
polymer of dry Matcha powder. J Wuhan Univ Technol Mater Sci Ed. 2018;33(6):1452–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11595-018-1990-x.
114. Eve S, Gomina M, Gmouh A, Samdi A, Moussa R, Orange G. Microstructural and mechanical behaviour of polyamide fibre-reinforced
plaster composites. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2002;22(13):2269–75.
115. Nindiyasari F, et al. Characterization and mechanical properties investigation of the cellulose/gypsum composite. J Compos Mater.
2016;50(5):657–72.
116. Ciemnicka J, et al. Changes in the strength properties and phase transition of gypsum modified with microspheres, aerogel and
HEMC polymer. Materials. 2021;14(13):3486.
117. Geraldo RH, et al. Gypsum plaster waste recycling: a potential environmental and industrial solution. J Clean Prod. 2017;164:288–300.
118. Pundir A, Garg M, Singh R. Evaluation of properties of gypsum plaster-superplasticizer blends of improved performance. J Build
Eng. 2015;4:223–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2015.09.012.
119. Regulska K, Repelewicz A. Properties of gypsum composites with straw fillers. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2019;585(1): 012105.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/585/1/012105.
120. Dai D, Fan M. Preparation of bio-composite from wood sawdust and gypsum. Ind Crops Prod. 2015;74:417–24. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.indcrop.2015.05.036.
121. Aghaee K, Yazdi MA, Yang J. Flexural properties of composite gypsum partition panel. Proc Inst Civil Eng Eng Sustain. 2015. https://
doi.org/10.1680/ensu.14.00058.
122. Regulska K, Repelewicz A. Properties of gypsum composites with shavings. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2019;603(2): 022065. https://
doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/603/2/022065.
123. Aliewi JM, Qader A, Noori N, Ali ANM. Effect of adding industrial wastes on the mechanical properties of gypsum. 2019; 6–9. https://
doi.org/10.21275/ART2020736.
124. Iucolano F, Caputo D, Leboffe F, Liguori B. Mechanical behavior of plaster reinforced with abaca fibers. Constr Build Mater.
2015;99:184–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.09.020.
125. Fornés IV, Vaičiukynienė D, Nizevičienė D, Tamošaitis G, Pupeikis D. The improvement of the thermal and acoustic insulation proper-
ties of phosphogypsum specimens by adding waste wood fibre. Constr Build Mater. 2022;331: 127341.
126. Abu-Jdayil B, Mourad A-H, Hittini W, Hassan M, Hameedi S. Traditional, state-of-the-art and renewable thermal building insulation
materials: an overview. Constr Build Mater. 2019;214:709–35.
127. Cunha S, Aguiar J, Pacheco-Torgal F. Effect of temperature on mortars with incorporation of phase change materials. Constr Build
Mater. 2015;98:89–101.
128. Lv F, Wang L, An H, Chen S, Shu J, Kong D. Effects of hybrid fibers on properties of desulfurized gypsum-based composite cementi-
tious materials. Constr Build Mater. 2023;392: 131840.
129. Andersson L, Jansson B. Analytical fire design with gypsum—a theoretical and experimental study. Lund: Institute of Fire Safety
Design; 1987.
130. Harmathy TZ. Properties of building materials. SFPE Handb. Fire Prot. Eng., pp. 1/378–1/391, 1988.
131. Mehaffey JR, Cuerrier P, Carisse G. A model for predicting heat transfer through gypsum-board/wood-stud walls exposed to fire.
Fire Mater. 1994;18(5):297–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.810180505.
132. Wang H.-B. Heat transfer analysis of components of construction exposed to fire. 1995; pp. 1–193. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/14780/1/
DX201847.pdf%0A. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/14780/
133. Zhang H, et al. Preparation and thermal performance of gypsum boards incorporated with microencapsulated phase change materi-
als for thermal regulation. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells. 2012;102:93–102.
134. Wullschleger L, Ghazi Wakili K. Numerical parameter study of the thermal behaviour of a gypsum plaster board at fire temperatures.
Fire Mater An Int J. 2008;32(2):103–19.
135. Ang CN, Wang YC. The effect of water movement on specific heat of gypsum plasterboard in heat transfer analysis under natural
fire exposure. Constr Build Mater. 2004;18(7):505–15.
136. Roy-Poirier A, Sultan M. Approaches for determining gypsum board fall-off temperature in floor assemblies exposed to standard
fires. 2007; 38.
137. Bledzki AK, Sperber VE, Faruk O. Natural and wood fibre reinforcement in polymers, vol. 13. Shrewsbury: iSmithers Rapra Publishing;
2002.
138. Mohammed L, Ansari MNM, Pua G, Jawaid M, Islam MS. A review on natural fiber reinforced polymer composite and its applications.
Int J Polym Sci. 2015;2015(23):291–305.
139. Peças P, Carvalho H, Salman H, Leite M. Natural fibre composites and their applications: a review. J Compos Sci. 2018;2(4):66.
140. Elfaleh I et al. A comprehensive review of natural fibers and their composites: an eco-friendly alternative to conventional materials.
Results Eng. 2023; 101271.
141. Abdullahi SS, Mohammad REA, Jagaba AH, Musa H, Birniwa AH. Natural, synthetic, and composite materials for industrial effluents
treatment: A mini review on current practices, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability. Case Stud Chem Environ Eng. 2023; 100570.
142. Chen L, et al. Recent developments on natural fiber concrete: a review of properties, sustainability, applications, barriers, and
opportunities. Dev Built Environ. 2023;16: 100255.
143. Guna V, et al. Wool and coir fiber reinforced gypsum ceiling tiles with enhanced stability and acoustic and thermal resistance. J
Build Eng. 2021;41: 102433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102433.
144. Pedreño-Rojas MA, Morales-Conde MJ, Pérez-Gálvez F, Rodríguez-Liñán C. Eco-efficient acoustic and thermal conditioning using
false ceiling plates made from plaster and wood waste. J Clean Prod. 2017;166:690–705.
145. Adamopoulos S, Foti D, Voulgaridis E, Passialis C. Manufacturing and properties of gypsum-based products with recovered wood
and rubber materials. BioResources. 2015;10(3):5563–72.
146. Elkhessaimi Y, Tessier-Doyen N, Smith A. Effects of microstructure on acoustical insulation of gypsum boards. J Build Eng.
2017;14(August):24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.09.011.
Vol:.(1234567890)
147. De Oliveira KA, et al. Sound absorption of recycled gypsum matrix composites with residual cellulosic pulp and expanded polystyrene.
BioResources. 2019;14(2):4806–13.
148. Arroyo FN, et al. Development of plaster foam for thermal and acoustic applications. Constr Build Mater. 2020;262: 120800. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120800.
149. Morini AA, Ribeiro MJ, Hotza D. Early-stage materials selection based on embodied energy and carbon footprint. Mater Des. 2019;178:
107861.
150. Oh H. Opportunities for promoting the recycling of gypsum board from construction, renovation, and demolition in Manitoba. 2019.
151. Sormunen P. Ecodesign of construction and demolition waste-derived thermoplastic composites. 2020.
152. Patti A, Cicala G, Acierno D. Eco-sustainability of the textile production: waste recovery and current recycling in the composites world.
Polymers. 2020;13(1):134.
153. Rajak DK, Pagar DD, Kumar R, Pruncu CI. Recent progress of reinforcement materials: a comprehensive overview of composite materials.
J Mater Res Technol. 2019;8(6):6354–74.
154. Schmidt W, et al. Innovation potentials for construction materials with specific focus on the challenges in Africa. RILEM Tech Lett.
2020;5:63–74.
155. Rai JPN, Saraswat S. Green technologies for waste management: a wealth from waste approach. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2023.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Vol.:(0123456789)

s44290-024-00005-x

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

s44290-024-00005-x

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discover Civil Engineering

Review of gypsum reinforced composites as building materials

Received: 5 January 2024 / Accepted: 10 April 2024

© The Author(s) 2024 OPEN

* Martins Taiwo Esan, esanmartins6@gmail.com | 1Federal Polytechnic, Ede, Nigeria.

Discover Civil Engineering (2024) 1:5 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44290-024-00005-x

2 Introduction to gypsum and its composites

2.1 Gypsum’s enduring presence in construction

2.1.1 Composite materials: innovating construction

2.1.2 Unveiling the potential of gypsum reinforced composites

2.2 Types of gypsum reinforced composites

2.2.6 Bio‑based gypsum composites

2.2.7 Comparative analysis of types of gypsum‑reinforced composites

2.3 Challenges faced by gypsum composites

2.4 Physical properties of gypsum composites

2.4.1 Setting time of gypsum composite

2.4.2 Workability of gypsum composite

2.4.3 Moisture/water absorption of gypsum composite

2.4.4 Density of gypsum composite

2.4.5 Porosity of gypsum composite

Fig. 1 Plain gypsum and

Fig. 2 Porosity of plain gyp-

2.5 Microstructures properties of gypsum composite

Fig. 3 SEM images of hemp

2.5.1 X‑ray diffraction of gypsum composite

2.6 Mechanical properties of gypsum composites

Table 2 XRD phases Sample Phases 2theta (°) Author

CaSO4.2H2O 11.6 [41]

Fig. 4 Shows fiber-reinforced

Fig. 5 Shows fiber-gypsum

2.7 Thermal properties of gypsum reinforced composites

2.8 Acoustic properties of gypsum reinforced composites

3 Comparison with traditional building materials

4 Summary of the findings

5 Challenges and future directions

Author contributions Martins Taiwo E wrote the main manuscript.

You might also like

2 Introduction to gypsum and its composites

2.1 Gypsum’s enduring presence in construction

2.1.1 Composite materials: innovating construction

2.1.2 Unveiling the potential of gypsum reinforced composites

2.2 Types of gypsum reinforced composites

2.2.6 Bio‑based gypsum composites

2.2.7 Comparative analysis of types of gypsum‑reinforced composites

2.3 Challenges faced by gypsum composites

2.4 Physical properties of gypsum composites

2.4.1 Setting time of gypsum composite

2.4.2 Workability of gypsum composite

2.4.3 Moisture/water absorption of gypsum composite

2.4.4 Density of gypsum composite

2.4.5 Porosity of gypsum composite

2.5 Microstructures properties of gypsum composite

2.5.1 X‑ray diffraction of gypsum composite

2.6 Mechanical properties of gypsum composites

2.7 Thermal properties of gypsum reinforced composites

2.8 Acoustic properties of gypsum reinforced composites

3 Comparison with traditional building materials

4 Summary of the findings

5 Challenges and future directions