خصوصیات مکانیکی پانل‌ساندویچی سبک ساخته شده از ساقه آفتابگردان و ضایعات لایه صنوبر

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیات علمی

2 دانشجو

3 مدیر گروه صنایع چوب و کاغذ دانشگاه زابل

4 هیات علمی گروه صنایع چوب و کاغذ دانشگاه زابل

چکیده

پانل‌های ساندویچی چوبی دارای ویژگی‌های خاصی هستند که مهم‌ترین آن را می‌توان مقاومت مکانیکی بالا نسبت به وزن پایین پانل‌ها نام برد. این پانل‌ها می‌توانند جایگزین مناسبی برای سیستم-های سنتی ساختمان در ایران باشد. هدف این پژوهش بررسی خصوصیات مکانیکی پانل ‌ساندویچی سبک وزن ساخته شده از پسماند ساقه آفتابگردان و ضایعات لایه صنوبر است. به این منظور از چسب ملامین/اوره فرمالدئید با نسبت‌های (20:80، 35:65، 50:50) و خرده های ساقه آفتابگردان و ضایعات لایه صنوبر با نسبت اختلاط (0:100، 25:75، 50:50، 75:25، 100:0) و لایه صنوبر 8/1 میلیمتری برای سطوح پانل و پرس یک مرحله‌ای در ساخت پانل‌ها استفاده شد. آزمون‌های مقاومت خمشی، مدول الاستیسیته، چسبندگی داخلی و مقاومت به فشار موازی الیاف به ترتیب مطابق با استاندارد ASTM آییننامه C393، D1037 و C364 انجام شد. نتایج آزمون‌های مکانیکی توسط تجزیه واریانس و گروه بندی میانگین‌ها با آزمون چند دامنه‌ای دانکن با سطح اطمینان 95 درصد مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفت. نتایج بیانگر این بود که با افزایش نسبت ملامین به اوره فرمالدئید مقاومت‌ها به صورت چشمگیری افزایش پیدا کرد. پانل‌ها با مغزی خالص ساقه آفتابگردان و لایه صنوبر به ترتیب بیشترین مقادیر مقاومت خمشی 19 و 25 مگاپاسکال، مدوال الاستیسیته 6003 و 8004 مگاپاسکال و چشبندگی داخلی 31/0 و 43/0 مگاپاسکال را به دست آوردند. در رابطه با مقاومت به فشار موازی الیاف پانل ساندویچی با مغزی خالص ساقه آفتابگردان با 9/6 مگاپاسکال بیشترین مقاومت را داشت و با افزایش نسبت اختلاط ساقه آفتابگردان با خرده لایه صنوبر در مغزی مقاومت‌ها کاهش یافت.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Mechanical Properties of a Light Weight Wood Base Sandwich Panel Made From Sunflower Stalks and Poplar Layer Scrap

نویسندگان [English]

  • mohammad shamsian 1
  • Hamidreza Mansouri 3
چکیده [English]

Light weight wood base sandwich panels have some special properties and their most important properties is high mechanical strength with its light weight. These panels can replace instead of traditional structural systems in Iran. The purpose of this paper is investigating the mechanical properties of light weight wood base sandwich panels that have made from sunflower stalk wastes and particles of poplar layers. So, Melamine Urea formaldehyde resin with ratio of (20:80, 35:65, 50:50), particles of sunflower stalk and poplar layers wastes with composition ratio of (0:100, 25:75, 50:50, 75:25, 100:0) and poplar layer with 1.8 millimeter was made for surfaces of panel and manufactured in one step press. Mechanical test such as modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity, internal bonding, compression parallel to board plane were made according to ASTM standards. Results of tests were analyzed through the analysis of variance and classification of averages according with Duncan method tests with reliability of 95 percent was made. As a result, the mechanical strengths improve with increasing of melamine-urea formaldehyde ratio. Panels with pure sunflower and poplar obtain respectively the highest bending strength 19 and 25 MPa, modulus of elasticity 6003 and 8004 MPa and internal bond 0.31 and 0.43 MPa. In conjunction with the parallel pressure resistance, sandwich panels with a core of pure sunflower stalks with 6.9 MPa was the most resistant. Also strengths have reduced with increasing the sunflower stalks ratio to particles of poplar layers in core layers.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • low density panel
  • Mechanical properties
  • melamineurea formaldehyde
  • sandwich panel
  • sunflower stalk
[1]. Rassam, G., Rangavar, H., Taghiary, HR., and Taheri, A. (2012). Study on the possibility of using sunflower stalk in particleboard production. Iranian Journal of Wood and Paper Industries, 2(2): 83-97.

[2]. Gertjejansen, R. O. (1977). Properties of particleboard from sunflower stalks and aspen Planer shavings. Technical. Bulletin, 311 (24): 1-8.

[3]. Khristova, P., Yussifou, N., Gabir, S., Glavche, I., and Osman, Z. (1998). Particleboards from sunflower stalks and tannin modified UF resin. Cellulose Chemistry and Technology, 32: 327-337.

[4]. Ince, A., Ugurluay, S., Guzel, E., and Ozcan, M. T. (2005). Bending and shearing characteristics of sunflower stalk residue. Biosystem Engineering, 92(2): 175-181.

 
[5]. Duigou, A. L., Deux, J. M., Davies, P., and Baley, C. (2011). PLLA/flax mat/balsa bio-sandwich manufacture and mechanical properties. Applied Composite Materials, 18(5): 421-438.

[6]. Sampathrajan, A., and Vijayaraghavan, N. C. (1992). Mechanical and thermal properties of particle boars made from farm residues. Bioresources Technology Journal, 40(3): 249-251.

[7]. Barboutis, I., and Vassiliou, V., (2005). Strength properties of lightweight paper honeycomb panels for furniture. In :Proceedings of International Scientific Conference, 10th Anniversary of Engineering Design. 17-18 October, Sofia, pp. 1-6.

[8]. Shalbafan, A., Luedtke, J., Welling, J., and Thoemen, H. (2012). Comparison of foam core materials in innovative lightweight wood-based panels. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products, 70(1-3): 287-292.

[9]. Chen, Z., Yan, N., Deng, J., and Smith, G. (2011). Flexural creep behavior of sandwich panels containing Kraft paper honeycomb core and wood composite skins. Materials Science and Engineering, 528(16): 5621–5626.

[10]. Khatibi, M. A., and Rahimi, H. (2004). Fabrication process and an investigation of properties of thermoplastic honeycomb sandwich panels. Iranian Journal of Polymer Science and Technology, 17(6): 345-351.

[11]. Ghofrani, M., Pishan, S., and Talaei, A. (2014). The effect of core type and skin on the mechanical properties of lightweight sandwich Panels. Iranian Journal of Wood and Paper Science Research, 28(4): 720-731.

[12]. Saffari, M., Jabbari, M., Najafi, A., Tatari, A., and Ghaffari, M. (2013). The effect of face and adhesive types on mechanical properties of sandwich panels made from honeycomb paper. Iranian Journal of Wood and Paper Industries, 4(2): 157-169.

[13]. Mazinani, M., Rezaei, H., and Nikfarjam, M. (2007). Comparison between theory and experiment and Balsa sheet honeycomb sandwich construction with cerebral vessels Extremist. In :Ninth Conference on Maritime, , pp. 1-13

[14]. No, B. Y., and Kim, M. G. (2007). Evaluation of melamine‐modified urea‐formaldehyde resins as particleboard binders. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 106(6): 4148–4156.

[15]. Tohmura , S., Inoue, A., and Sahari, S. H. (2001). Influence of the melamine content in melamine-ureaformaldehyde resins on formaldehyde emission and cured resin structure. Journal of Wood Science, 47(6): 451-457.

[16]. ASTM. (2004). Standard test method for flexural properties of sandwich constructions, Annual book of ASTM standard, C 393-00, 2004.

[17]. ASTM. (2004).  Standard test methods for evaluating properties of wood-based fiber and particle panel materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standard, D 1037-99, 1999.

[18]. ASTM. (2004). Standard test method for edgewise compressive strength of sandwich constructions, Annual Book of ASTM Standard, C 364-99, 1999.

[19]. Amerian Natinal Standard for Particleboard. Composite panel association, Gaithersburg,  A208.1, 1999.

[20]. Cai, Z., and Ross, R. G. (2010) Mechanical propertoies of woodbased composites materials. Forest Products Laboratory, General Technical Report, 12.1-12.12.

[1]. Li, Y., Mai, Y. W., and Ye, L. (2000). Sisal fibre and its composites: a review of recent developments. Composites Science and Technology, 60(11): 2037–2055.

[21]. Mo, X., Cheng, F., Wang, D., and Sun, X. S. (2003). Physical properties of mediumdensity wheat straw particleboard using different adhesives. Industrial Crops and Products 18(1): 47-53.

[22]. Zanneti, M., and Pizzi, A. (2004). Dependance on the adhesive formulation of the upgrading of MUF particleboard adhesives and decrease of melamine content by buffer and additives. Holz Roh Werkst, 62: 445-451.

[23]. Tasooji, M., Tabarsa, T., and Mohamadi, A. (2010). Manufacturing of wheat straw particleboards based on the mixture of MF and UF resins. Iranian Journal of Wood and Paper Science Research, 25(2): 291-301.