Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 675678

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Surface characteristics and hardness of MDF panels laminated with thermally compressed veneer
mit Byksar
Department of Wood Mechanics and Technology, Faculty of Forestry, Duzce University, Duzce, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
The aim of this study was to investigate surface characteristic (surface roughness and wettability) and hardness of sandwiched panels produced from medium density berboard and thermally compressed wood veneer. Oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) veneers were compressed at temperature levels of 150 C, 180 C, and 200 C using 4 MPa and 6 MPa pressure for 8 min. Commercially produced MDF samples were laminated with such thermally compressed veneer sheets. Contact angle (CA) of the panels were measured with a goniometer. The surface roughness (SR) of the samples was determined ne stylus tracing technique and Janka hardness was determined according to ASTM D 1037 standard. The results showed that the SR value of the panels decreased with increasing press pressure and temperature. Press pressure had no signicant effect on the CA values of the panels while temperature signicantly affected. All of the compressed veneer laminated panels had higher hardness value compared to non-compressed veneer laminated panel. The hardness value of the panels increased with increasing press pressure and temperature. This study showed that press pressure and temperature can be used to improve surface characteristics of non-laminated and laminated MDF panels. Thermally compressed veneer laminated MDF panels can be utilized for structural purposes due to higher hardness. It also would provide more efcient use of adhesive to manufacture plywood and LVL and better surfaces for surface treatments such as painting. 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 2 January 2012 Received in revised form 16 January 2012 Accepted 30 January 2012 Available online 8 February 2012 Keywords: A. Wood A. Laminates B. Wettability B. Surface properties B. Hardness

1. Introduction Thermal compression process has been used for many years in different applications [13]. This process is used to enhance physical and mechanical properties of wood materials. In addition to the enhancement of mechanical properties of wood products, surface quality can also be improved as a result of compression process. Compressed veneer sheets with a smoother surface can be used for plywood and laminated veneer lumber (LVL) manufacturing while reducing consumption of the adhesive amount so that the overall production cost can be positively controlled. Surface roughness of veneer plays an important role on depth of penetration of adhesive into the veneer, uniform distribution of adhesive as well as having improved bonding quality between veneer sheets [2]. Results of some past studies also suggested that press temperature played an important role on surface quality of compressed and heat treated veneer sheets [47]. Various studies also have been carried out to determine the surface roughness of compressed veneer sheets [1,2,7]. Bekhta et al. [1] evaluated that effect of compression ratio on surface roughness of birch and alder veneers
Tel.: +90 380 542 1137; fax: +90 380 542 1136.
E-mail address: umitbuyuksari@duzce.edu.tr 1359-8368/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.01.087

compressed using a cold rolling process. They showed that surface roughness of veneer improved as the compression degree increased. Candan et al. [2] investigated that surface quality of thermally compressed Douglas r veneer. They compressed veneer samples using press pressure levels of 1.0 N/mm2, 2.0 N/mm2, and 2.5 N/mm2 at two temperatures of 180 C and 210 C for 3 min. They reported that surface of the veneers become smoother when press pressure and temperature increased. Compressed veneers also supply higher thermal conductivity and lower glue consumption in plywood production compared to non-compressed veneers [4,8]. Asako et al. [4] reported that effective thermal conductivity of Japanese cedar increased after radial compression. Bekhta and Marutzky [8] investigated glue saving possibilities in plywood production by using previously compressed veneers. They concluded that using these veneers in the plywood production enable higher shear strength with lower glue consumption. Medium density berboard (MDF) is one of the most widely used interior wood composite substrates for cabinet and other furniture manufacture. Solid veneer is also used as prime overlay for MDF to manufacture expensive furniture units. Among the other species beech is widely used to laminate substrate particleboard and MDF panels in many European countries. Buyuksari et al. [9]

676

. Byksar / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 675678

evaluated physical and mechanical properties of MDF panels laminated with compressed veneer. They stated that compressed veneer using different press temperature and pressure levels could be considered as an alternative way to develop sandwich type products with satisfactory structural properties. However currently there is no information on surface characteristics and hardness of MDF panels laminated with compressed veneer in the form of sandwich panel. Therefore, the objective of this work was to evaluate effect of laminating with thermally compressed veneer on the surface roughness, wettability and hardness of MDF panels. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Materials Oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) veneer sheets with 1.5 mm thickness produced by rotary peeling technique and commercially manufactured MDF panels with a thickness of 12 mm were cut into 500 mm by 500 mm sections. The veneers were compressed in a laboratory type hot press. A total of 4 veneer samples were compressed for each trial. Thickness of each veneer was measured at four corners at an accuracy of 0.01 mm before and after they were compressed to determine reduction of thickness as function of pressure and temperature. MDF panels were laminated with control (non-compressed) and compressed veneer sheets using urea formaldehyde adhesive with 65% solid content and 1.25 urea/formaldehyde ratio at a spread rate of 160 g/m2. Ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) solution with 20% solid content was also added at a level of 1% based on dry weight of wood into the adhesive mix. Sandwiched panels with two sheet of veneer were compressed in a computer controlled hot press. Specimens were conditioned in a climate chamber with a temperature of 20 C and a relative humidity of 65% for three weeks before any tests were carried out. Experimental design, veneer compression and sandwich panel production parameters are shown in Table 1. 2.2. Determination of surface roughness Test specimens with 50 mm 50 mm dimensions were conditioned in a climate chamber until they attained 12% equilibrium moisture content. The surface roughness measurement points were randomly marked on the sample surfaces and twenty measurements for each type of panel were accomplished. A Mitutoyo SJ-301 surface roughness tester, stylus type prolometer, was employed for the surface roughness tests. Three roughness parameters, average roughness (Ra), mean peak-to-valley height (Rz), and maximum roughness (Rmax) characterized by ISO 4287 standard [10] were determined to evaluate the surface characteristics of the panels. Ra is the arithmetic mean of the absolute values of the prole deviations from the mean line and is by far the most commonly used parameter in surface nish measurement. The roughness values were measured with a sensitivity of 0.5 lm.

The length of tracing line (Lt) was 4 mm and the cut-off was k = 0.8 mm. Measurements were done at room temperature and pin was calibrated before the tests. 2.3. Determination of wettability The wetting behavior of the samples conditioned at 65% relative humidity at 20 C was characterized by the contact angle method (goniometer technique). Contact angles (CA) were measured using KSV Cam-101 Scientic Instrument (Helsinki, Finland). The sessile drop method is the most widely used procedure. The CA was determined simply by aligning a tangent with the sessile drop prole at the point of contact with the solid surface. The drop image was stored by a video camera. An imaging system was used to measure CA, shape and size of water droplets for the tested surfaces of the samples at room temperatures. After the 5 lL droplet of distilled water was placed on the sample surface, contact angles from the images were measured at 1-s time intervals up to 30 s total and average CA was calculated. Twenty samples with a size of 50 mm 50 mm were used from each type of panel for CA measurements. Surface roughness and wettability samples of the produced panels are shown in Fig. 1. 2.4. Determination of surface hardness Janka hardness value was determined by using a Janka ball with 11.28 mm in diameter according to ASTM D 1037 [11]. The load was continuously applied throughout the test at a uniform rate of motion of the movable crosshead of the universal testing machine of 5 mm/min. The maximum load required to embed the ball to one half its diameter was recorded the measure of hardness. 2.5. Data analyses and statistical methods For the surface roughness, wettability and hardness, all multiple comparisons were rst subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA) at p < 0.01 and signicant differences between mean values of the panel groups were determined using Duncans multiple range test. 3. Results and discussion The results of ANOVA and Duncans mean separation tests for surface roughness parameters, contact angle and hardness values of panels are illustrated in Tables 2 and 3. Statistical analysis showed signicant differences (p < 0.01) between surface roughness, wettability and hardness values of produced panels. The non-laminated MDF panels had the lowest Ra value while MDF panels laminated with non-compressed veneer had the highest Ra value. All of the compressed veneer laminated panels had lower Ra value compared to non-compressed veneer laminated panel. The Ra value of the panels decreased with increasing press

Table 1 Experimental design, veneer compression and sandwich panel production parameters. Panel type Process Veneer compression Pressure (MPa) A B C D E F G H MDF/Control Laminated Laminated Laminated Laminated Laminated Laminated Laminated 4 6 4 6 4 6 Temp. (C) 150 150 180 180 200 200 Time (min) 8 8 8 8 8 8 Sandwiched panels Pressure (MPa) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 Temp. (C) 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 Time (min) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

. Byksar / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 675678

677

Fig. 1. Surface roughness and wettability samples of the panels.

Table 2 Surface roughness parameters of the panels and the test results of ANOVA and Duncans mean separation tests. Panel type A B C D E F G H Ra (lm) 2.72 (0.3)a 10.87 (2.1)b 8.13 (0.8)c 6.51 (1.6)de 5.98 (1.2)de 5.87 (0.9)de 5.34 (1.1)ef 4.97 (0.7)f Rmax (lm) 20.94 (2.1)a 73.75 (12.8)b 62.94 (8.4)c 48.49 (8.2)d 46.54 (7.1)d 44.88 (6.1)def 42.81 (8.2)ef 39.9 (5.3)f Rz (lm) 14.78 (1.3)a 50.3 (6.8)b 44.4 (4.6)c 35.7 (4.5)d 33.9 (4.9)de 32.0 (7.1)ef 31.6 (5.0)ef 29.0 (3.1)f

Values in parentheses are standard deviations. af Values having the same letter are not signicantly different (Duncan test).

Table 3 Wettability and hardness of the panels and the test results of ANOVA and Duncans mean separation tests. Panel type A B C D E F G H CA () 77.3 37.9 62.0 60.5 71.7 73.7 77.7 73.5 (16.9)a (10.8)b (10.6)c (10.7)c (7.8)a (7.0)a (10.5)a (12.1)a Hardness (N) 8795.9 8808.6 9086.4 9589.6 9461.9 9648.1 9423.1 9768.8 (346.1)a (451.6)a (261.1)ab (269.4)d (448.0)d (177.4)d (452.6)bd (320.8)d

Values in parentheses are standard deviations. ad Values having the same letter are not signicantly different (Duncan test).

pressure and temperature. Similar results were observed by several researchers [13,7,12]. Bekhta et al. [1] concluded that surface roughness of birch and alder veneers enhanced with increasing compression degree. Candan et al. [2] stated that roughness values of compressed Douglas r veneer at 210 C were also found to be better than those compressed at a temperature of 180 C. Fang et al. [12] stated that surface roughness of compressed was lower than that of non-compressed veneer due to the effect of press pressure and lathe check conglutination. The Rmax and Rz parameters of panels had similar trends to the Ra values. These values also decreased with increasing press pressure and temperature. Similar

trends for these values were found by Bekhta et al. [1] and Candan et al. [2]. The panels laminated with non-compressed veneer had the lowest CA value of 37.9 while the highest CA (77.7) was found for the group G laminated with veneer at a pressure of 4 MPa using a temperature of 200 C (Table 3). Press pressure had no signicant effect on the CA values of the panels while temperature affected signicantly. Previous studies showed negative effect of heat on the wettability of wood and wood based materials [1317]. Poncsak et al. [14] reported that overdrying inactivated the surfaces of Douglas-r veneer, resulting in poor wettability. Ayrilmis and Winandy [15] for MDF panels and Aydin [17] for beech wood found that CA values increased as the temperature increased. Wettability decreases due to chemical changes such as degradation of the most hygroscopic compounds, hemicelluloses, and amorphous cellulose and dehydratation reactions [18,19]. Hakkou et al. [16] suggested that the change in wettability might be due to the modication of conformational arrangement of wood biopolymers as a result of residual water or plasticization of lignin. Sernek [20] stated that wettability is directly related to the oxygen:carbon (O/C) ratio and inversely related to the C1/C2 ratio. Hardness value of the non-laminated MDF panels was the lowest while the highest hardness value was found for group H laminated with veneer at a pressure of 6 MPa using a temperature of 200 C (Table 3). All of the compressed veneer laminated panels had higher hardness value compared to non-compressed veneer laminated panel. The hardness value of the panels increased with increasing press pressure and temperature. Similar results were found by several researchers [3,12]. Unsal and Candan [3] found that hardness value of solid pine wood increased with increasing press pressure and temperature. They also stated that this increases may have occurred due to the increase in density of the specimens with increasing pres pressure and temperature. Fang et al. [12] stated that Brinell hardness of densied veneers was about two or three times that of control for both aspen and hybrid poplar. 4. Conclusion Thermally compressed veneer laminated MDF panels had smoother surfaces and worse wettability compared to

678

. Byksar / Composites: Part B 44 (2013) 675678 [8] Bekhta PA, Marutzky R. Reduction of glue consumption in the plywood production by using previously compressed veneer. Holz Roh Werkst 2007;65(1):878. [9] Buyuksari U, Hiziroglu S, Ayrilmis N, Akkilic H. Mechanical and physical properties of medium density berboard panels laminated with thermally compressed veneer. Composites Part B 2012;43(2):1104. [10] ISO 4287. Geometrical product specications (GPS)surface texture: prole methodterms, denitions and surface texture parameters. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 1997. [11] ASTM D 1037. Evaluating the properties of wood based ber and particle panel materials. Book of Standards. vol. 04.10. West Conshohocken (PA): American Society for Testing and Materials; 1999. [12] Fang C, Mariotti N, Cloutier A, Koubaa A, Blanchet P. Densication of wood veneers by compression combined with heat and steam. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 2012;70(13):15563. [13] Petrissans M, Gerardin P, Elbakali D, Serraj M. Wettability of heat treated wood. Holzforschung 2003;57(3):3017. [14] Poncsak S, Shi SQ, Kocaefe D, Miller G. Effect of thermal treatment of wood lumbers on their adhesive bond strength and durability. J Adhes Sci Technol 2007;21(8):74554. [15] Ayrilmis N, Winandy JE. Effects of post thermal-treatment on wettability, surface roughness, and adhesive bonding performance of exterior medium density berboard. Mater Manuf Process 2009;24(5):5949. [16] Hakkou M, Petrissans M, Zoulalian A, Gerardin P. Investigation of wood wettability changes during heat treatment on the basis of chemical analysis. Polym Degrad Stabil 2005;89(1):15. [17] Aydin I. Activation of wood surface for glue bond by mechanical pretreatment and its effect on some properties of veneer surface and plywood panels. Appl Surface Sci 2004;233(14):26874. [18] Kocaefe D, Poncsak S, Dore G, Younsi R. Effect of heat treatment on the wettability of white ash and soft maple by water. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 2008;66(5):35561. [19] Esteves BM, Domingos IJ, Pereira HM. Pine wood modication by heat treatment in air. Bioresources 2007;3(1):14254. [20] Sernek M. Comparative analysis of inactivated wood surfaces. Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2002.

non-compressed veneer laminated MDF. It also had higher hardness than non-laminated MDF and non-compressed veneer laminated MDF. The surface roughness and hardness of the sandwiched panels improved with increasing press pressure and temperature. Press pressure had no signicant effect on the CA values of the panels while temperature affected signicantly. This study showed that press pressure and temperature can be used to improve performance of non-laminated and laminated MDF panels. Thermally compressed veneer laminated MDF panels can be utilized for structural purposes due to higher hardness. It also would provide more efcient use of adhesive to manufacture plywood and LVL and better surfaces for surface treatments such as painting. References
[1] Bekhta P, Hiziroglu S, Shepelyuk O. Properties of plywood manufactured from compressed veneer as building material. Mater Des 2009;30(4):94753. [2] Candan Z, Hiziroglu S, Mcdonald AG. Surface quality of thermally compressed Douglas r veneer. Mater Des 2010;31(7):35747. [3] Unsal O, Candan Z. Moisture content, vertical density prole and janka hardness of thermally compressed pine wood panels as a function of pres pressure and temperature. Dry Technol 2008;26(9):11659. [4] Asako Y, Kamikoga H, Nishimura H, Yamaguchi Y. Effective thermal conductivity of compressed wood. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2002;45(11):224353. [5] Adachi K, Inoue M, Kanayama K, Rowell RM, Kawai S. Water removal of wet veneer by roller pressing. J Wood Sci 2004;50(6):47983. [6] Dundar T, Ayrilmis N, Candan Z. Evaluation of surface roughness of laminated veneer lumber (LVL) made from beech veneer treated with various re retardants and dried at different temperatures. Forest Prod J 2008;58(1/ 2):716. [7] Bekhta PA, Niemz P, Sedliacik J. Effect of pre-pressing of veneer on the glueability and properties of veneer-based products. Eur J Wood Prod 2012;70(1):99106.