Improving Core Bond Strength of Particleboard Through Particle Size Redistribution


  • Emmanuel K. Sackey
  • Kate E. Semple
  • Seung-Won Oh
  • Gregory D. Smith


Coarse furnish, core furnish, fines, internal bond, particle mix, screw withdrawal resistance, uniform density


Novel particleboard furnish mixtures were formulated to improve the core-bonding and screw-holding of industrial particleboard without increasing resin content or board density. Single-layer (uniform vertical density with core furnish only) and conventional 3-layer particleboards were manufactured at two density levels from four novel mixes plus control (unscreened industrial core furnish). Board mean and core density, internal bond strength, edge screw withdrawal resistance, and moduli of rupture and elasticity were measured.

The core of commercial furniture-grade particleboard appears to contain too many fine particulates and insufficient coarser particles. Uniform density profile single-layer boards containing novel mixes with higher-coarse (>2 mm) and lower-fines (<1-2 mm) fractions than industrial furnish had higher bond strength and screw-holding. In three-layer boards of low target density, replacing 20% fines particle content of the total furnish with coarse particles increased internal bond strength by 40% and screw-holding by 18%. The results from this study suggest that not only fines content but also the ratio of all particle-size fractions strongly affect particle packing-efficiency and bond strength. This suggests that industrial particleboard core furnish be screened into three size-fractions, and some of the fines replaced with two coarser-particle fractions.


Ansi (1999) American National Standard A208.1. Particleboard. Composite Panel Association, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. 11 Pp.nAstm (2000) D1037. Annual book of ASTM standards 2000; Section four, Construction (wood). Vol. 04.01 West Conshohocken, PA.nBrumbaugh J (1960) Effect of flake dimensions on properties of particle boards. Forest Prod J 5:243-246.nConrad MPC, Smith GD, Fernlund G (2004) Fracture of wood composites and wood-adhesive joints: A comparative review. Wood Fiber Sci 36(1):26-39.nDuncan TF (1974) Normal resin distribution in particleboard manufacture. Forest Prod J 24(6):36-44.nFakhri HR, Semple KE, Smith GD (2006) Permeability of OSB. Part I. The effects of core fines content and mat density on transverse permeability. Wood Fiber Sci 38(3):450-462.nFeng MW, Andersen AW (2004) Uniformity of UF resin distribution in MDF—in a mill study using the Glue-marker method. In Proc of 7th Pacific Rim Bio-Based Composites Symposium, X. Zhou, C. Mei, J. Jin and X. Xu, eds. Nanjing, China. October 31-November 2, 2004. Science & Technique Literature Press. Pp 67-77.nHaselein CR, Calegari L, Barros MV, Hack C, Hillig E, Pauleski DT, Pozzera F (2002) Mechanical strength and dimensional stability of particleboard made with different particle sizes. Ciencia Florestal 12(2):127-134.nHeebink BG, Hann RA (1959) How wax and particle shape affect stability and strength of oak particleboards. Forest Prod J 9(7):197-203.nHeinemann C, Humphrey PE, Frühwald A (2002) Evaluation of adhesive cure during hot pressing of wood-based composites. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wood-based Materials, Wood Composites and Chemistry (WOOD Kplus) and COST E13 Final Meeting, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna, 19-20 September 2002. Pp 163-170.nHill MD, Wilson JB (1978) Particleboard strength as affected by unequal resin distribution on different particle. Forest Prod J 28(11):44-48.nKakaras IA, Papadopoulos AN (2004) The effects of drying temperature of wood chips upon the internal bond strength of particleboard. J I Wood Sci 16(5):277-279.nKelly MW (1977) Critical literature review of relationships between processing parameters and physical properties of particleboard. Forest Prod. Lab. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL 10, 64 Pp.nKollmann FFP, Kuenzi EW, Stamm AJ (1975) Principles of wood science and technology II. Wood based materials Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.nLei Y-K, Wilson JB (1980) Fracture toughness of oriented flakeboard. Wood Sci 12(3):154-161.nLynam FC (1959) Factors influencing the properties of chipboard. J I Wood Sci 2(4):14-27.nMaloney TM (1970) Resin distribution in layered particleboard. Forest Prod J 20(1):43-52.nMaloney TM (1993) Modern particleboard and dry process fiberboard manufacturing. 2nd ed. Miller Freeman, San Francisco, 681 pp.nMarra GA (1954) Discussion following article by Turner. Forest Prod J 4(5):210-223.nMoslemi AA (1974) Particleboard. Volume 1: Materials. Southern Illinois Press. IL 244 pp.nMottet AL (1967) The particle geometry factor in particleboard manufacturing. In Proc 1st Washington State University symposium on particleboard, Pullman, Washington, T.M. Maloney, ed. Pp. 23-73.nNemli G (2003) Effects of some manufacturing factors on the properties of particleboard manufactured from Alder (Alnus glutinosa subs. Barbata). Turk J Agric For 27:99-104.nPost PW (1958) Effect of particle geometry and resin content on bending strength of oak flake board. Forest Prod J 8:317-322.nPost PW (1961) Relationship of flake size and resin content to mechanical and dimensional properties of flake board. Forest Prod J 11(9):34-37.nRiver BH (1994) Fracture of adhesive bonded wood joints. In: Handbook of adhesive technology. eds. Pizzi, A., Mittal, K.L. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, Chapter 9.nSmith I, Landis E, Gong M (2003) Fracture and fatigue in wood. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex. Pp 246.nSemple K, Sackey E, Park HJ, Smith GD (2005) Properties variation study of furniture grade M2 particleboard manufactured in Canada. Forest Prod J 55(12):117-124.nTalbott JW, Maloney TM (1957) Effect of several production variables on modulus of rupture and internal bond strength of boards made from green Douglas fir planer shavings. Forest Prod J 7(10):395-398.nWong ED, Zhang M, Wang Q, Kawai S (1999) Formation of the density profile and its effects on the properties of particleboard. Wood Sci Technol 33(4):327-340.n






Research Contributions