4.6 Article

Tensile shear strength of UF- and MUF-bonded veneer related to data of adhesives and cell walls measured by nanoindentation

Journal

HOLZFORSCHUNG
Volume 64, Issue 3, Pages 337-342

Publisher

WALTER DE GRUYTER & CO
DOI: 10.1515/HF.2010.046

Keywords

adhesive diffusion; Automated Bonding Evaluation System (ABES); bond line; cell wall properties; cure time; mechanical properties; melamine-urea-formaldehyde (MUF); nanoindentation; particleboard adhesive; urea-formaldehyde (UF)

Funding

  1. Kompetenzzentrum Holz GmbH
  2. Dynea Austria GmbH

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The tensile shear strength of veneer lap joints was characterised. The joints were produced with an Automated Bonding Evaluation System (ABES) using urea-formaldehyde (UF) as well as melamine-urea-formaldehyde (MUF) adhesive formulated for particleboard production. At a fixed heating temperature of 110 degrees C, a systematic increase in bond strength was observed for both adhesives with increasing cure time. The absolute bond strength was significantly higher for MUF compared to UF. Nanoindentation experiments with the same specimens used for ABES revealed a very hard, stiff and brittle character of the UF resin, whereas the MUF proved significantly less hard and stiff, and less brittle. Wood cell walls in contact with adhesive, i.e., where adhesive penetration into the cell wall was assumed, showed significantly altered mechanical properties. Such cell walls were harder, stiffer and more brittle than unaffected reference cell walls. These effects were slightly more pronounced for UF than for MUF. Comparing UF and MUF, the micro-mechanical properties of cured adhesive and interphase cell walls confirm earlier observations that tougher adhesives can lead to higher macroscopic bond strength. In strong contrast to that, no obvious correlation was found between micro-mechanical properties and the strong cure time dependence of macroscopic bond strength.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available