Construction methods and materials in the hot, humid, wet region of northern Thailand are often rudimentary. Shelters are left susceptible to harsh weather conditions, and weather-worn materials revealing gaping holes into buildings are common sights. Therefore, better insulation and more durable wall materials are needed in such underdeveloped areas prone to extreme weather.
Phenolic foam warrants consideration as a building material because of several characteristic features. It is lightweight and has low thermal conductivity, allowing for applications as a building insulation material. Moreover, the material has low flammability, low smoke toxicity, and is cost-competitive with conventional foams, such as polyurethane and expanded polystyrene (EPS).
This paper evaluated the potential of using phenolic foam as a building material in northern Thailand. Phenolic foam's mechanical and insulation properties, sustainable benefits, and costs were evaluated when used as an insulation material in the hot, arid, wet region of northern Thailand. Four types of fiber reinforced phenolic foams were fabricated: bamboo, aramid, glass, and cellulose. Choosing these materials provided a comparison study of natural and synthetic materials.
Water absorption and accelerated aging tests were conducted on fabricated composite foam samples to simulate the flooding and extreme heat and humidity conditions of northern Thailand. Compression, shear, and conductivity tests were performed after these climate simulations. Measurements of retained mechanical properties were performed to determine if the material would be a suitable insulation and/or load-bearing material. Fire resistance testing was also performed on the samples. In addition to testing, an environmental impact assessment was performed on the composite foams. Finally, costs to insulate a home in northern Thailand with the materials were evaluated.
Results were compared with expanded polystyrene, a common insulation material. The results showed that neither the fabricated fiber reinforced phenolic foam nor EPS is comparable in strength to conventional load-bearing materials and do not retain their mechanical properties after extreme climate exposure. Little distinction could be drawn between natural and synthetic fibers. Results also showed phenolic foam's stronger fire resistance and insulative properties under dry conditions than EPS. Comparison of environmental impacts showed that, due to fiber reinforced phenolic foams' relatively low embodied energy, the material warrants consideration as a sustainable alternative to conventional building insulation materials such as EPS. Finally, cost considerations showed that neither phenolic foam nor EPS can feasibly be used as building insulation in low-income areas of northern Thailand.
Keywords: Design of fiber reinforced phenolic foam, strengthening of composite materials, environmental impact
