| Literature DB >> 28772480 |
Jakub Sandak1,2, Giacomo Goli3, Paola Cetera4, Anna Sandak5, Alberto Cavalli6, Luigi Todaro7.
Abstract
The influence of the thermal modification process on wood machinability was investigated with four minor species of low economic importance. A set of representative experimental samples was machined to the form of disks with sharp and dull tools. The resulting surface quality was visually evaluated by a team of experts according to the American standard procedure ASTM D-1666-87. The objective quantification of the surface quality was also done by means of a three dimensions (3D) surface scanner for the whole range of grain orientations. Visual assessment and 3D surface analysis showed a good agreement in terms of conclusions. The best quality of the wood surface was obtained when machining thermally modified samples. The positive effect of the material modification was apparent when cutting deodar cedar, black pine and black poplar in unfavorable conditions (i.e., against the grain). The difference was much smaller for an easy-machinability specie such as Italian alder. The use of dull tools resulted in the worst surface quality. Thermal modification has shown a very positive effect when machining with dull tools, leading to a relevant increment of the final surface smoothness.Entities:
Keywords: alder; cedar; hygro-thermal modification; machinability; pine; poplar; roughness; surface quality; wood
Year: 2017 PMID: 28772480 PMCID: PMC5459161 DOI: 10.3390/ma10020121
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Chamber temperature and pressure during the Thermo-Vacuum (TermoVuoto) treatment of the samples.
Wood density of the investigated species before (Control) and after thermal modification (TH). In brackets the standard deviation (SD).
| Treatment | Italian Alder | Black Pine | Black Poplar | Deodar Cedar |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 556 (11) | 475 (10) | 479 (22) | 571 (28) |
| TH | 506 (7) | 461 (36) | 425 (13) | 447 (25) |
Wood moisture content measured by gravimetric method just before the machining process on untreated samples (Control) and thermally modified samples (TH). In brackets the standard deviation (SD).
| Treatment | Italian Alder | Black Pine | Black Poplar | Deodar Cedar |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 11.8 (0.6) | 12.6 (0.8) | 11.8 (0.7) | 12.1 (0.6) |
| TH | 7.6 (0.5) | 9.4 (0.9) | 7.6 (0.5) | 7.1 (0.7) |
Figure 2Classification of “pressed grain”, a defect not previously classified by ASTM D-1666 87 (2×).
Figure 3Results of visual quality assessment of wooden disks’ surfaces considering: raised (RG), fuzzy (FG), torn (TG) and pressed (PG) grains. Note: the lower the value, the smoother the surface is; a value of 4 indicates that the surface is defect-free.
Scores of the surface quality of diverse species after machining thermally modified and control samples. The lower the value, the higher the quality (TH—thermal modification).
| Specie | Score |
|---|---|
| Black Pine Control | 21.2 |
| Black Pine TH | 18.9 |
| Black Poplar Control | 20.3 |
| Black Poplar TH | 18.4 |
| Deodar Cedar Control | 16.3 |
| Deodar Cedar TH | 16.0 |
| Italian Alder Control | 18.3 |
| Italian Alder TH | 19.6 |
Figure 4Average roughness (Ra) for different grain orientations in thermally modified and control wood samples of diverse species.
Figure 5Differences between the average surface roughness for thermally modified and control samples of diverse species.
Scores of the surface quality of diverse species after machining thermally modified and control samples. The lower the value, the higher the quality (TH—thermal modification).
| Specie | Score (mm) |
|---|---|
| Black Pine Control | 9.586 |
| Black Pine TH | 5.301 |
| Black Poplar Control | 7.012 |
| Black Poplar TH | 5.154 |
| Deodar Cedar Control | 4.279 |
| Deodar Cedar TH | 2.849 |
| Italian Alder Control | 5.009 |
| Italian Alder TH | 5.640 |
Figure 6Average roughness for untreated and thermally modified black pine disks at different grain orientations machined with sharp and dull tools.
Figure 7Differences between the average surface roughness after machining thermally modified and unmodified black pine with sharp and dull tools.