Properties of Commercial Kraft Paper Honeycomb Furniture Stock Panels Conditioned under 65 and 95 Percent Relative Humidity
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Physical and mechanical properties of a range of commercially produced kraft paper honeycomb stock panels were assessed to provide technical information of interest to primary and secondary manufacturers and product end users. Five groups of four replicate panels each 44.45 mm in thickness were fabricated by Panolite Industries, Lac Megantic, Quebec, from unlaminated 6.3- and 9.5-mm-thick medium-density fiberboard (MDF) and particleboard (PB), and 3.2-mm-thick veneered hardboard (HB). At 65 percent relative humidity (RH) sandwiches made from MDF were superior in mechanical properties to those made from PB. Marked differences in flexural properties were found for 3.2-mm veneered HB; this type of facing and the sandwich structure made from it is significantly greater in flexure when the wood veneer runs parallel to the long axis of the panel. For PB and MDF facings, sandwiches were stronger and stiffer if made from thicker facing material (9.5 mm), and there was a small but significant effect of honeycomb ribbon orientation: an orientation parallel to the long axis of the panel/test specimen gives the sandwich greater resistance to deformation under load. Conditioning facing materials and sandwich specimens under 95 percent RH over 45 days caused loss of strength properties of up to 50 percent, especially for 6.3-mm MDF.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
The authors are, respectively, Research Scientist and Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Wood Science—Composites Group, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (kate.semple@ubc.ca, araba@mail.ubc.ca); Research Scientist and Senior Technician, FPInnovations, Quebec, Canada (James.Deng@fpinnovations.ca, Francine.Cote@fpinnovations.ca); Professor and Post Doctoral Fellow, Univ. of Toronto Faculty of Forestry—Biomaterials Lab., Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ning.yan@utoronto.ca...
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. Akhour, S.and H.Maaitah. 2012. Finite element analysis of loading area effect on sandwich panel behavior beyond the yield limit, chap. 12, pp. 353–376. In:Finite Element Analysis—New Trends and Developments. EhrahimiF.(Ed.). InTech, Open Access Publishing, Rijeka, Croatia.
2. Anonymous. 2006. Lightweight makes U.S. landfall in Iowa. Surface and Panel Quarter2:42.
3. Anonymous. March 16, 2009. Quebec Panolite secures C$430,000 loan. Wood Based Panels International Online. http://www.wbpionline.com/features/quebec-panolite-secures-c430000-loan/. Accessed July 5, 2013.
4. Anonymous. December 7, 2011. Lightweight board in a one-step process. Wood Based Panels International Online. http://www.wbpionline.com/features/lightweight-board-in-a-one-step-process/. Accessed July 5, 2013.
5. ASTM International. 2006a. Standard test method for evaluating properties of wood-base fiber and particle panel materials. ASTM D1037‐06a. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 30pp.
6. ASTM International. 2006b. Standard test method for core shear properties of sandwich constructions by beam flexure. ASTM C393/C393M-06. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 8pp.
7. ASTM International. 2006c. Practice for determining sandwich beam flexural and shear stiffness. ASTM D7250/D7250M-06. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2pp.
8. ASTM International. 2007. Standard test method for direct moisture content measurement of wood and wood-base materials. ASTM D4442. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 6pp.
9. ASTM International. 2010. Standard test method for flatwise tensile strength of sandwich constructions. ASTM C297/C297M-04. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 6pp.
10. ASTM International. 2011. Standard test method for flatwise compressive properties of sandwich cores. ASTM C365/C365M-11a. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 6pp.
11. Barboutis, I.and V.Vassiliou. 2005. Strength properties of lightweight paper honeycomb panels for furniture. In:Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary of Engineering Design (Interior and Furniture Design) Symposium, October 17–18, 2005, Sofia, Bulgaria. 6pp.
12. Beins, H. P. 2007. Frameless lightweight panels. Specialty Wood J. 10(1):45–49.
13. Bitzer, T. 1997. Honeycomb Technology: Material Design, Manufacturing and Applications. Chapman and Hall, London. 234pp.
14. Busch, K. 2004. IKEA's big idea. Surface Panel Spring2004:31–38.
15. Egger 2013. Egger Eurolight®—Application and processing of lightweight building boards. 56pp. http://www.egger.com/downloads/bildarchiv/184000/1_184315_PP_Industry-Eurolight_EN.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2015.
16. Fulton, R. E.and N. P.Skyes. 1966. Effect of face-sheet stiffness on buckling of cylindrical shells of sandwich construction. NASA Technical Note NASA TN D-3454. Langley Research Center, Langley Station, Hampton, Virginia.
17. Guo, Y.and J.Zhang. 2004. Shock absorbing characteristics and vibration transmissibility of honeycomb paperboard. Shock Vibration11(5/6):521–531.
18. He, M.and W.Hu. 2008. A study on composite honeycomb sandwich panel structure. Mater. Design29(3):709–713.
19. Hettich. 2010. Connections for lightweight construction ‘Hettinject.' Technik für Möbel. 36pp. http://www.hettich.com/fileadmin/content/mediathek/hettinject_hft_2010_en.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2015.
20. Khan, M. K. 2006. Compressive and lamination strength of honeycomb sandwich panels with strain energy calculation from ASTM standards. Proc. IMechE G J. Aerospace Eng. 220:375–386.
21. Kollmann, F. P., E. W. Kuenzi, and A. J.Stamm. 1975. Principles of Wood Science and Technology II Wood Based Materials. Springer Verlag, Berlin. pp. 284–319.
22. Maloney, T. M. 1993. Modern Particleboard and Dry Process Fiberboard Manufacturing. 2nd ed. MillerFreeman, San Francisco. 681pp.
23. Markwardt, L. J.and L. W.Wood. 1959. Long-term case study of sandwich panel construction in FPL experimental unit. Report no. 2165. USDA Forest Products Laboratory in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
24. Mercado, L. L.and D. L.Sikarskie. 1999. On response of a sandwich panel with a bilinear core. Mech. Compos. Mater. Struct. 6(1): 57–67.
25. Murthy, O., N. Munirudrappa, L. Srikanth, and R. M.Rao. 2006. Strength and stiffness optimization studies on honeycomb core sandwich panels. J. Reinforced Plastics Compos. 25(6):663–670.
26. Palms, J.and G. E.Sherwood. 1979. Structural sandwich performance after 31 years of service. USDA Forest Service Research Paper FPL 342. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin, 17pp.
27. Petras, A. 1998. Design of sandwich structures. PhD thesis. Engineering Department, Cambridge University. 114pp.
28. Petras, A.and M. P. F.Sutcliffe. 1999. Failure mode maps for honeycomb sandwich panels. Compos. Struct. 44(4):237–252.
29. Ping, Y. S. 2009. Research on the influence of the humidity to cushioning properties of honeycomb paperboard. MSc thesis. Engineering Mechanics, Jinan University, China. 53pp.
30. Pohl, A. 2009. Strengthened corrugated paper honeycomb for application in structural elements. PhD thesis. Engineering Department, Technische Universitat Wien, Vienna. 332pp.
31. Sam-Brew, S., K. E. Semple, and G. D.Smith. 2010. Edge reinforcement of honeycomb sandwich panels. Forest Prod. J. 60(4):382–389.
32. Sam-Brew, S., K. E. Semple, and G. D.Smith. 2011. Preliminary experiments on the manufacture of hollow core composite panels. Forest Prod. J. 61(5):381–389.
33. SAS Institute, Inc. 2010. Using JMP Version 9. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina. 540pp.
34. Seidl, R. J. 1956. Paper-honeycomb cores for structural sandwich panels. USDA Forest Service Report No. 1918. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin.
35. Semple, K. E., E. K. Sackey, H. J. Park, and G. D.Smith. 2005 a. Properties survey of furniture grade particleboard Part I—Variation within M2 grade and a reassessment of the relationships between density, bond strength, and screw withdrawal resistance. Forest Prod. J. 55(12):117–124.
36. Semple, K. E., E. K. Sackey, H. J. Park, and G. D.Smith. 2005 b. Properties survey of furniture grade particleboard Part 2—MS and M2 grade comparison and a practical in-situ test for internal bond strength. Forest Prod. J. 55(12):125–131.
37. Semple, K. E., E. K. Sackey, and G. D.Smith. 2007. UBC 11/FCC 07D/UT 04: Development of novel hollow core composites. Unpublished technical report to Natural Resources Canada Value to Wood Program. NRCan, Ottawa. 36pp.
38. Stosch, M. 2008. Think light: Innovative lightweight panels. In:Proceedings of the National Think Light Seminar, March 11, 2008, Surrey, British Columbia. Organized byFPInnovations, Fachhochschule Lippe, und Hoxter University of Applied Sciences, Germany.
39. Wisdom, B. B. 2005. Think “Better”—Lightweight panel advantages drive its momentum. Modern Woodworking December2005:14–15.
40. Wood, L. W. 1958. Sandwich panels for building construction. USDA Forest Service Report No. 2121. USDA Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. 60pp.
41. Zenkert D. (Ed.). 1997. The Handbook of Sandwich Construction. Engineering Materials Advisory Services Ltd., Chameleon Press Ltd., London. Chap. 1–5, pp. 1–146.