Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 48, Issue 6, pp 2370–2375 | Cite as

Hardness and density profile of surface densified and thermally modified Scots pine in relation to degree of densification

  • Lauri RautkariEmail author
  • Kristiina Laine
  • Andreja Kutnar
  • Sergej Medved
  • Mark Hughes


Solid Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) wood was surface densified to three different degrees of compression and hydrothermal post-treatment after surface densification process was performed. The study determined the significance of degree of compression and hydrothermal post-treatment on the density profile generated and the resulting improved Brinell hardness. It was found that different degree of compression resulted in only slightly different density profiles, when compared on the absolute thickness scale. Although the hydrothermal post-treatment lead to an average mass loss of 3.8 % in surface densified specimens regardless of the degree of compression, density profile of surface densified specimens was not significantly affected by hydrothermal post-treatment. Furthermore, the surface densification increased the Brinell hardness more than 90 %. Degree of compression had limited effect, which means that it did not matter if the specimens were compressed from 22 to 15 mm or 18 to 15 mm, the Brinell hardness was approximately the same. The hydrothermal post-treatment did not reduce the Brinell hardness of control and surface densified specimens. Furthermore, the surface densification significantly increased the elastic recovery of surface densified wood, which was measured during hardness measurements and was affected by degree of compression. Additionally, the hydrothermal post-treatment reduced the elastic recovery, in control specimens and surface densified specimens.


Density Profile Densified Wood Equilibrium Moisture Content Initial Thickness Elastic Recovery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to thank the COST Action FP0904 for financial support within the frame of Short Term Scientific Mission and Miss Cara Leitch for technical support.


  1. 1.
    Navi P, Girardet F (2000) Holzforschung 54:287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blomberg J, Persson B (2004) J Wood Sci 50:307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kamke FA, Sizemore H (2008) Viscoelastic thermal compression of wood. US Patent No. US7404422B2Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kutnar A, Kamke FA (2010) Wood Sci Technol 46:73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kamke FA, Kutnar A (2011) Wood Mater Sci Eng 6:105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kutnar A, Kamke FA, Sernek M (2009) Wood Sci Technol 43:57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rautkari L, Kamke FA, Hughes M (2011) Wood Sci Technol 45:693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kutnar A, Kamke FA, Sernek M (2008) Holz Roh Werkst 66:439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fang CH, Mariotti N, Cloutier A, Koubaa A, Blanchet P (2011) Eur J Wood Prod 70:155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Welzbacher CR, Wehsener J, Rapp AO, Haller P (2008) Holz Roh Werkst 66:39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tabarsa T, Chui YH (1997) For Prod J 47:71Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rautkari L, Laine K, Laflin N, Hughes M (2011) J Mater Sci 46:4780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pizzi A, Leban J-M, Zanetti M, Pichelin F, Wieland S, Properzi M (2005) Holz Roh Werkst 63:251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gong M, Lamason C, Li L (2010) J Mater Process Technol 210:293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rautkari L, Properzi M, Pichelin F, Hughes M (2010) Wood Sci Technol 44:679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boonstra MJ, Blomberg J (2007) Wood Sci Technol 41:607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laine K, Rautkari L, Hughes M, Kutnar A (2012) Eur J Wood Prod. doi: 10.1007/s00107-012-0649-0
  18. 18.
    Kutnar A, Rautkari L, Laine K, Hughes M (2012) Eur J Wood Prod 70:727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    EN 1534 (2000) Wood and parquet flooring—determination of resistance to indentation (Brinell)—test method. CEN—European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Inoue M, Norimoto M, Tanahashi M, Rowell RM (1993) Wood Fiber Sci 25:224Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Navi P, Heger F (2004) MRS Bull 29:332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heger F, Groux M, Girardet F, Welzbacher C, Rapp AO, Navi P (2004) Mechanical and durability performance of THM densified wood. In: Proceedings of the final workshop COST action E22 environmental optimisation of wood protection, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Statgraphics Plus Version 5.0 (2000) Manugistics, Inc., Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rautkari L, Properzi M, Pichelin F, Hughes M (2009) Wood Sci Technol 43:291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hill CAS, Ramsay J, Keating B, Laine K, Rautkari L, Hughes M, Constant B (2012) J Mater Sci 47:3191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauri Rautkari
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kristiina Laine
    • 1
  • Andreja Kutnar
    • 3
    • 4
  • Sergej Medved
    • 5
  • Mark Hughes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest Products Technology, School of Chemical TechnologyAalto UniversityAaltoFinland
  2. 2.Forest Products Research Institute, Joint Research Institute for Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and the Built EnvironmentEdinburgh Napier UniversityEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Andrej Marušič InstituteUniversity of PrimorskaKoperSlovenia
  4. 4.ILTRA d.o.o.LjubljanaSlovenia
  5. 5.Department of Wood Science and Technology, Biotechnical FacultyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations