Annals of Forest Science

, 74:25

Improving the utility, performance, and durability of wood- and bio-based composites

Review Paper

Abstract

Key message

This paper briefly reviews the state of the art in various types of wood- and bio-based composites, summarizes recent advances, and then discusses future possibilities for improving the durability of wood- and bio-based composites.

Context

Wood can be processed and reformed into a number of different biocomposites.

Aims

We aimed at reviewing the state of the art in various types of wood- and bio-based composites.

Methods

Review of utility, performance and durability of wood- and bio-based composites.

Results

The advanced biocomposites will:

Combine wood, natural biofibers, and non-biomaterials to create synergistic hybrid materials that far exceed performance capabilities of current biocomposites

Be renewable, recyclable, and totally sustainable

Provide superior performance and serviceability exceeding performance of current biocomposites

Be more durable, dimensionally stable, moisture proof, and fire resistant

Be less expensive to produce and use (over the life cycle of use) than the materials they replace

Conclusion

The next generation of advanced wood- and bio-based composites must provide high-performance construction and specialty products that simultaneously promote resource and environmental sustainability and provide advanced performance, long-term performance, enhanced durability, and value.

Keywords

Composites Wood-based composites Bio-based composites Durability Performance Moisture issues 

References

  1. ANSI (2009a) ANSI Standard A208.1: American National Standard for particleboardGoogle Scholar
  2. ANSI (2009b). ANSI Standard A208.2: American National Standard for fiberboardGoogle Scholar
  3. APA (2014) Performance standard for wood-based structural panels. APA Tech. Bull. S350. ANSI Standard PS-2-2010Google Scholar
  4. ASTM (2016) ASTM Standard D7857: standard test method to evaluate the effects of FR chemicals on properties of strand-based composites. ASTM book of standards. West Conshohocken, PA.Google Scholar
  5. AWPA (2016a) Standard U-1 and T-1. Standards for pressure treated wood. AWPA book of standards. American Wood Protection Association, Birmingham, ALGoogle Scholar
  6. AWPA (2016b) Guidance Document L: data requirements of listing chemically modified wood with enhanced durability in AWPA standards. AWPA book of standards. American Wood Protection Association. Birmingham, ALGoogle Scholar
  7. AWPA (2016c) Guidance Document N: data requirements of listing thermally modified wood with enhanced durability in AWPA standards. AWPA book of standards. American Wood Protection Association. Birmingham, ALGoogle Scholar
  8. Ayrilmis N, Kartal SN, Laufenberg TL, Winandy JE, White RH (2005) Physical and mechanical properties and fire, decay, and termite resistance of treated oriented strandboard. Forest Prod J 55(5):74–81Google Scholar
  9. Fahlstrom GB (1982) Durability of CCA-B treated plywood having non-conforming penetration patters. Forest Prod J 32(2):51–52Google Scholar
  10. Gardner D, Tascioglu C, Wålinder M (2003) Wood composite protection. In: Goodell B, Nicholas DD, Schultz TP (eds) Wood deterioration and preservation: advances in our changing world. American Chemical Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Jorge F, Pereira C, Ferreira J (2004) Wood-cement composites: a review. Holz Roh Werkst 62:370–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kent SM, Leichti RJ, Rosowsky DV, Morrell JJ (2004a) Biodeterioration effects on nailed connections. In: Proceedings World Timber Engineering Conference, Helsinki, Finland. June 2004. 6 pagesGoogle Scholar
  13. Kent SM, Leichti RJ, Rosowsky DV, Morrell JJ (2004b) Effects of decay by Postia placenta on the lateral capacity of nailed oriented strandboard sheathing and Douglas-fir framing members. Wood Fiber Sci 36:560–572Google Scholar
  14. Kent SM, Leichti RJ, Rosowsky DV, Morrell JJ (2005) Effects of decay on cyclic properties of nailed connections. J Mater Civ Eng 17(5):579–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kent SM, Leichti RJ, Rosowsky DV, Morrell JJ (2006) Analytical tools to predict changes in properties of oriented strandboard exposed to the fungus Postia placenta. Holzforschung 60:332–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kilpatrick J, Barnes HM (2006) Biocide treatments for wood composites—a review. IRG/WP 06-40323. Int’l. Res. Group on Wood Preservation. Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  17. King DT, Sinha A, Morrell JJ (2015) Effect of wetting on performance of small-scale shear walls. Wood Fiber Sci 47(1):74–83Google Scholar
  18. Kreber B, Humphrey PE, Morrell JJ (1993) Effect of polyborate pretreatment on the shear strength development of phenolic resin to Sitka spruce bonds. Holzforschung 47(5):398–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kretschmann DE, Winandy JE, Clausen C, Wiemann M, Bergman R, Rowell R, Zerbe J, Beecher J, White R, McKeever D, Howard J (2007) Wood. In: Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of chemical technology. NY. J. Wiley & Sons. 60p. (https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2007/fpl_2007_kretschmann001.pdf).
  20. Lake MA, McIntyre CR (2006) Formosan termite response to weathered borate-treated wood. Proceedings: Wood protection 2006, Forest Products Society, Madison, WI. pp 295–298Google Scholar
  21. Laks P, Richter D, Larkin G, Eskola J (2010) A survey of the biological resistance of commercial WPC decking. In: 10th Pacific Rim Bio-Based Composites Symposium, October 5–8, 2010, Banff, Alberta, Canada pp 193–201.Google Scholar
  22. Long B, Morrell JJ (2012) Effects of postlayup borate treatment on appearance and flexural properties of Douglas-fir glued laminated beams. Forest Prod J 63(1):46–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mankowski M, Morrell J (2000) Patterns of fungal attack in wood–plastic composites following exposure in a soil block test. Wood Fiber Sci 32:340–345Google Scholar
  24. Meza L, Sinha A, Morrell JJ (2013) Effect of wetting during construction on properties of Douglas-fir plywood and oriented strandboard flooring. Forest Prod J 63(5/6):199–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller DJ, Currier RA (1984) Permeability of glue lines in Douglas-fir plywood by preservative solutions. Forest Prod J 14(7):303–309Google Scholar
  26. Morrell JJ, Stark N, Pendleton D, McDonald A (2010) Durability of wood-plastic composites. In: Tenth International Conference on Wood and Biofiber Plastic Composites and Cellulose Nanocomposites Symposium, May 11–13, Madison, WI. Madison, WI: Forest Products SocietyGoogle Scholar
  27. Morrell JJ, Vidrine C, Jin L, Preston AF (2012) Termite resistance of copper-based preservative supplemented aspen strandboards. International Research Group on Wood Protection Document No. IRG/WP/12-30594. Stockholm, Sweden. 8pGoogle Scholar
  28. Morris P, Cooper P (1998) Recycled plastic/wood composite lumber attacked by fungi. Forest Prod J 48:86–88Google Scholar
  29. Moya L, Tze WTZ, Winandy JE (2009) The effect of cyclic relative humidity changes on moisture content and thickness swelling behavior of oriented strandboards. Wood Fiber Sci 41(4):447–460Google Scholar
  30. Murphy RJ, Dickinson DJ, Turner P, Wickens PJ, Hashim R (1993) Vapor boron treatment of wood composites. In: Proc. IUFRO Symp. on the PWood-Based Composite Products. A.F. Preston, ed. Forest Prod. Soc., Madison, WI. pp. 49–56.Google Scholar
  31. Ross A, Ward H, Smith W (2003) New generation of preservation treatments for wood-based panels and other engineered wood products. In: Proc. 2003 European Panel Products Conference, Wales, UK. 8ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Sabo R, Elhaijar R, Clemons C, Pillai K (2015) Characterization and processing of nanocellulose thermosetting composites. Chap 15. In: J.K. Pandey et al. (eds.) Handbook of polymer nanocomposites. Processing, performance and application—volume C: polymer nanocomposites of cellulose nanoparticles. Springer-Verlag. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. Schauwecker C, Morrell J, McDonald A, Fabiyi J (2006) Degradation of a wood-plastic composite exposed under tropical conditions. Forest Prod J 56(11–12):123–129Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt EL (1993) Decay testing and moisture changes for a plastic wood composite. Proc Amer Wood Protection Assoc 89:108–109Google Scholar
  35. Schmidt EL, Hall HJ, Gertejansen RO, Carll CG, DeGroot RC (1983) Biodeterioration and strength reductions in preservative treated aspen waferboard. Forest Prod J 33(11/12):45–53Google Scholar
  36. Silva A, Gartner B, Morrell J (2007) Towards the development of accelerated methods for assessing the durability of wood plastic composites. ASTM J Test Eval 35(3):203–210Google Scholar
  37. Smith B, Bailey D (2003) Emerging domestic markets for treated lumber. Proceedings: Enhancing the durability of lumber and engineered wood products. Forest Products Society, Madison, WI. pp 3–6Google Scholar
  38. Smith RS, Balcaen P (1978) Effect of species composition of preservative treated Douglas-fir plywood on its decay resistance. International Research Group on Wood Preservation Document No. IRG/WP/214. Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith W, Wu Q (2005) Durability improvement for structural wood composites through chemical treatment. Forest Prod J 55(2):8–17Google Scholar
  40. Suchsland O, Woodson GE (1987) Fiberboard manufacturing practices in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ag. Handbook 640. Washington, DC. 26pGoogle Scholar
  41. U.S. Census Bureau (2014) 2014 characteristics of new housing. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 763 pg. (http://www.census.gov/construction/chars/pdf/c25ann2014.pdf).
  42. U.S. Census Bureau (2015) Residential construction in September 2015. U.S. Department Housing and Urban Development. CB15-176. 6 pg. (http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf).
  43. USDA (2010) Wood handbook: wood as an engineering material. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Report FPL-GTR-190, Madison, WI. 508 pgs. (https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fpl_gtr190.pdf ).
  44. Vaughn J, Morrell JJ (2012) Effects of post-layup ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate treatment on appearance and flexural properties of Douglas-fir glued laminated beams. European J Wood Products 70:241–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Verhey S, Laks P, Richter D (2001) Laboratory decay resistance of woodfiber/thermoplastic composites. Forest Prod J 51(9):44–49Google Scholar
  46. Vidrine C, Kamke FA, Morrell JJ, Preston AF (2008) Preserving panels by furnish addition of copper compounds: effects on panel properties. Proc Amer Wood Protection Assoc 104:135–145Google Scholar
  47. Wang W, Morrell J (2004) Water sorption characteristics of two wood–plastic composites. Forest Prod J 54:209–212Google Scholar
  48. Wang W, Kent S, Freitag C, Leichti RJ, Morrell JJ (2005) Effect of moisture and fungal exposure on the mechanical properties of hem-fir plywood. J Forestry Research 16(4):299–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Winandy J, Barnes HM, Hatfield C (2000) Temperatures of wood roof materials and attics in Mississippi and Wisconsin. USDA, For. Serv. Res. Paper FPL-RP-589, Madison, WI. 24pGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of Wood Science and EngineeringOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations