1 PB

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/312214174
Determination of the Effect of Surface Roughness on the Bonding Strength of

Wooden Materials
Article in Bioresources · January 2017

DOI: 10.15376/biores.12.1.1417-1429
CITATIONS READS
37 2,057
1 author:
Cevdet Sogutlu
Gazi University
83 PUBLICATIONS 356 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Determination of the Diagonal Tensile Strength Performances of the Wooden Window Corner Joints with Single or Double Mortise and Tenon View project
Bazı yerli Ağaç Türlerinin İşlenebilme Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Cevdet Sogutlu on 16 January 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Determination of the Effect of Surface Roughness on the

Bonding Strength of Wooden Materials
Cevdet Söğütlü
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of surface roughness
on bonding strength in Oriental beech, cherry, Scots pine, and Taurus
cedar woods. In conformance with this objective, after planing the wooden
materials under different conditions, their surface roughness values were
determined in accordance with various standards using scanning
equipment. The bonding strength test specimens were prepared using
polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) and polyurethane (PUR) adhesives after the
wooden materials were separated into three groups of varying surface
roughness values, after which bonding strength experiments were carried
out. The data obtained from the experiments were evaluated statistically
at a 95% level of confidence. According to the test results, the highest
bonding strength was obtained in the Oriental beech (9.27 N/mm2),
whereas the lowest bonding strength was obtained in the Scots pine (3.65
N/mm2). There was not a statistically significant difference between the
bonding strength of the cherry and Oriental beech woods. The PVAc
adhesive (7.61 N/mm2) produced more successful results than the PUR
adhesive (5.63 N/mm2). Furthermore, it was found that in the specimens
with low surface roughness values for each wood type and used adhesives
had high bonding strengths.
Keywords: Wood species; Adhesive; Surface roughness; Bonding strength
Contact information: Department of Wood Products Industrial Engineering, Technology Faculty,

Gazi University 06500 Ankara, Turkey; *Corresponding author: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Adhesive bonding of wood plays an increasing role in the forest products industry
and is a key factor for efficiently utilizing the timber resources. The main use of adhesives
can range from wood-based panels, structural composite lumber, doors, windows,
laminated wood products, and furniture to picture frames. Such items are commonly used
in the building and construction industry as well as in the residential and commercial
structures (Özçifçi 2008; Ross 2010).
A number of advantages can be underlined in terms of having qualified joints. An
adhesive joint can distribute the applied load over the entire bonded area and with a more
uniform distribution of stress, requires little or no damage to the adherends, adds very little
weight to the structure, has a superior fatigue resistance to other joining methods, is suitable
for joining dissimilar materials, and can reduce manufacturing costs. Achievement of these
objectives generally requires careful surface preparation of the adherends (Custodió et al.
2009; Ross 2010).
A number of related studies in the literature indicate the significance of surface
roughness for bonding strength. Depending on the wood species’ anatomical
characteristics and tissues, such as tracheids, rays, parenchyma, resin canals, and fibers,
together with machining, creates surface irregularities that have an impact on the wood
Söğütlü (2017). “Roughness and joint bonding,” BioResources 12(1), 1417-1429. 1417
surface roughness (Fujiwara et al. 2005). The type of wood, planing, and sanding under
different conditions have an effect on the surface roughness and bonding strength (Yang et
al. 2012). Moreover, high roughness also may cause decreasing bond strength (Kılıç 2016).
Murmanis et al. (2007) showed, via fluorescence microscopy, morphological differences
in bonded wood specimens with respect to their surface machining. Knife-planing gave
much smoother surfaces as seen at the cellular level than abrasive planing. According to
de Moura and Hernández (2007) and Hernández and Cool (2008), cutting depth did not
affect the surface quality, however, the feed speed had a significant effect on the surface
quality (Ra increased as feed speed increased) and the adhesion strength for the face-milled
specimens. Helical planing produced smoother surfaces (Ra: 6.48) and higher pull-off
strength (2.03 MPa) than face milling (Ra: 8.75 µm, 1.15 MPa). Furthermore, increasing of
feed speed resulted in an increase of cutting power of 30% (Kubs et al. 2016).
Other studies have shown that the surface roughness decreases with an increase in
spindle speed and feed rate. Milling tests show the important role spindle speed plays on
the evolution of the surface roughness as a function of material removal rate (Davim et al.
2009). On the other hand, higher cutting speeds corresponded to a lower surface roughness
(Kvietková et al. 2015). In a study by Yang et al. (2012), wood species and sanding had
significant influence on the surface machining roughness and adhesion strength. For
certain wood species, surface roughness and adhesion strength can be controlled by
changing machining methods.
It is, however, not so easy to measure or evaluate the roughness because the surface
texture of wood is composed of anatomical roughness as well as the roughness due to
processing (Okumura and Fujiwara 2007). The wood surface roughness values obtained
using standards developed for homogenous materials have been related to several other
properties, such as glueability, varnish adhesion, and weathering characteristics (Stumbo
1963; Peters et al. 1970; Richter et al. 1995; Taylor et al. 1999; Söğütlü et al. 2016). Based
on the findings of Hiziroğlu et al. (2013), it can be concluded that fine stylus-type
equipment can be used to quantify the surface quality of specimens from wood species
used as a function of sanding with different grit sizes of sandpapers. The effect of
decreasing the resolution on roughness parameters was examined as compared with a
resolution of 1 μm, which was taken as a reference. The results showed that a measuring
resolution of 5 μm seems reliable for all species sanded with common grit sizes (Gurau et
al. 2013). Furthermore, it has been designated in the determination of the surface roughness
that making measurements perpendicular to the fibers, in the direction of the fibers, or at a
45° angle to the fibers, leads to a nonlinear change in surface roughness (Budakci et al.
2007; Vitosyte et al. 2012)
There are many factors affecting the quality of bonding such as surface roughness,
chemical structure of the adhesive, press pressure and duration, and climatic properties of
the environment. In addition, there are the difficulties of separating shallow wood failure,
as well as adhesion and cohesion failure in the bond line from each other, especially when
adhesive and wood have almost the same color. Particularly in such cases, the noted wood
failure percentage (WFP) of one and the same sample can vary quite a bit, depending on
the person evaluating it (Künniger 2008; Kläusler et al. 2014; Hass et al. 2014). According
to Burdurlu et al. (2006), the shear strength values of black pine specimens bonded with
PVAc adhesive were higher (8.16 N/mm2) than those bonded with PUR adhesive (7.95
N/mm2).
Experimental results and statistical analysis suggest that processing pressure is the
most important factor, and penetration is a secondarily important factor in determining
adhesion strength. Moreover, determined primarily by adhesive viscosity and surface
roughness, contact angle was found to be a major factor in controlling penetration (Cheng
and Sun 2006). Good penetration of the adhesive is promoted by excellent wood-to-
adhesive-surface interaction and excellent adhesive mobility. In experimental efforts to
improve the wood-adhesive interaction and provide a smooth surface with minimal
extractives and machining debris, wood is often resurfaced prior to bonding. Nevertheless,
penetration of adhesive into wood does not always correlate with bond strength confirmed
also for modified wood that lumen (Chandler et al. 2005; Bastani et al. 2016). By applying
existing and newly developed techniques to the study of specific adhesives, a much better
knowledge of the factors that lead to durable bonds can be obtained. A high roughness also
may cause decreasing bond strength (Murmanis et al. 2007; Kılıç 2016). It is important to
use analysis techniques in concert and to apply them to samples evaluated by the standard
adhesive performance evaluation methods (Frihart 2005).
Cherry, Oriental beech, Scots pine, and Taurus cedar are important economic
species in Turkey. Although these species are widely used in applications, there is limited
available information to guide producers on the best practices to obtain optimal
performance in terms of bonding strength. Therefore, it is important to examine the
relationship between the processing parameters and wood adhesive performance in these
species. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of wood surface roughness on
bonding strength.
EXPERIMENTAL
Materials
Samples of cherry (Prunus cerasus L.), Oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky),
Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), and Taurus cedar (Cedrus libani A. Rich.) were obtained
from Turkey for this study. Average air-dried densities with standard deviation, given in
parenthesis were 0.59 (0.02) g/cm3 for cherry, 0.65 (0.03) g/cm3 for Oriental beech, 0.52
(0.01) g/cm3 for Scots pine, and 0.51 (0.01) g/cm3 for Taurus cedar. Test specimens were
selected according to the TS 2470 (1976) standard, and criteria such as natural color uniformity,
smoothness of fibers, absence of knots, heart uniformity, absence of reaction wood, and
absence of fungal and insect damage were used to identify specimens for further processing.
Two commercial adhesives, i.e., polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) and polyurethane (PUR), were
used. PVAc is produced by Kleiberit Company with code 303 which is single component
and specific gravity is 1.10 g/cm3 at the 20 °C. PUR is produced by Kleiberit Company
with code 501 which is single component and specific gravity is 1.13 g/cm3 at the 20 °C.
Methods
Sample preparation
Preparation of the samples was carried out in accordance with the standard ASTM-
D 1666-87 (1999). A total of 240 samples were prepared with dimensions of 5 mm x 55
mm x 650 mm. From the 240 samples, 10 replicates were prepared for wood species (4),
adhesive type (2), and surface roughness (3) tests. The prepared samples were stored in a
well-ventilated area with no direct exposure to sunlight. The average temperature in the
storage area was 202 °C, and the relative humidity was 655%. The specimens were
stored under these conditions until they reached a constant weight. The average moisture
content (MC) was determined to be 12  0.5% in the 10 pre-control specimens, according
to TS 2471 (2005).
Planing
The samples were planed at feed rates of 6, 9, and 12 m/min in the radial direction
of their annual rings. The planing procedure was carried out by means of a horizontal
milling machine by the head of 4 replaceable blades cutter with a diameter of 85 mm. In
this process, the rotation speed was 7200 rpm, the cutting speed was 32 m/s, and feed per
knife was 0.035 mm.
The cutting speed (v) was calculated from Eq. 1, and the feed per knife (ut) was
calculated from Eq 2.
v
 Dn m / s (1) ut 
1000
mm (2)
1000  60 n z
where D is the diameter of cutter head (mm), n is the rotations per minute of cutter (rpm),
z is the number of blades.
Measurement of surface roughness

Surface roughness was determined according to ISO 4287 (1997) and TS 2495 EN
ISO 3274 (2005) standard procedures using a stylus-type profilometer (TIME TR-200,
Time High Tech Ltd., China) with TIMESurf software. This equipment had a 10-mm/min
measuring speed, a 5-μm pin radius, and a 90° probe angle. After adjusting the equipment
to a 12.5 mm sampling length (5 cut-off length x 2.5 mm tracing length), the measurements
were made on the samples in a direction perpendicular to the grain. Three parameters are
commonly used in the evaluation of the surface roughness. These are the arithmetical mean
deviation of profile (Ra), ten-point height of irregularities (Rz) and the maximum height of
profile (Ry) (Hiziroglu et al. 2013; Thoma et al. 2015). The surface roughness values of
the specimens were grouped according to the feeding speed for planing. These were
evaluated as the first group for the 6 m/min feeding speed, the second group for the 9 m/min
feeding speed, and as the third group for the 12 m/min feeding speed.
Bonding
In the gluing process, the adhesive solution was spread with a brush to create a 160
to 180 g/m2 layer for one of the surfaces, in compliance with the suggestions of the
manufacturing company (Kleiberit 2016). The pressing pressure was 0.9 N/mm2, the
pressing period 24 h, and the pressing temperature was 20  2 °C in the bonding procedure.
The TS EN 204 (2004) standard was complied with for the samples properties and the
bonding strength tests (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Dimensions of tensile share specimen (mm)
Determination of tensile shear strength

The tensile shear strength was determined using the TS EN 205 (2004) standard.
Experiments were processed with 50 mm/min loading speed by applying a static tensile
load (Fig. 2).
Fmaks
Fig. 2. Principle of tensile shear experiment
The goal of the tensile test was to break the specimen from the glue line with the
balanced and gradated withdrawal force implemented. The bonding strength () was
calculated from Eq. 3 by determining the maximum force (Fmax, N) at the moment of
breaking,
F max

F max
N / mm2
l b A (3)
where l is the glued surface length (mm), b is the glued surface length (mm), and A is the
test surface area (mm2)
Statistical analysis
To determine the effects of the wood type, adhesive type, and surface roughness on
adhesion strength, multiple analyses of variance (MANOVA) were conducted using the
MSTAT-C, a computer-based statistical package, developed by Michigan State University
(USA). When the differences emerged as statistically significant according to P<0.05, the
importance was determined amongst groups with the Duncan test. Thus, data sets were
separated into homogeneity groups according to the least significant difference (LSD)
critical values. Regression analyses were used to determine a relation between the surface
roughness and bonding strength.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The surface roughness values of the specimens were grouped according to the
feeding speed for planing. These were evaluated as the first group for the 6 m/min feeding
speed, the second group for the 9 m/min feeding speed, and as the third group for the 12
m/min feeding speed (Table 1).
Table 1. Classification of Surface Roughness Values

Wood type-Surface Roughness (µm)
Classification Cherry Oriental beech Scots pine Taurus cedar
Min Max 𝑋̅ Min Max 𝑋̅ Min Max 𝑋̅ Min Max 𝑋̅
Ra 2.93 3.08 3.00 4.85 5.10 4.95 3.96 4.57 4.27 3.81 4.03 3.92
st
1 Group Rz 19.82 21.09 20.94 29.74 31.93 30.66 21.69 23.86 22.70 21.09 23.70 22.09
Ry 23.92 27.88 25.92 37.26 39.66 38.47 30.46 32.89 31.52 26.64 30.13 27.15
Ra 3.69 3.88 3.78 5.15 5.46 5.28 4.14 4.59 4.38 4.08 4.35 4.22
nd
2 Group Rz 22.54 24.29 23.51 30.19 31.78 31.17 23.03 25.17 24.20 22.59 25.16 23.97
Ry 29.02 31.33 30.16 38.69 39.67 39.26 31.61 33.91 32.76 27.94 31.57 30.31
Ra 3.92 4.17 4.03 5.32 5.72 5.54 4.29 4.74 4.54 4.31 4.58 4.42
rd
3 Group Rz 22.23 25.44 24.04 31.39 33.13 32.39 24.64 26.93 25.66 23.49 26.20 24.28
Ry 27.98 32.59 30.42 39.38 42.63 41.02 32.12 35.70 34.37 29.12 32.97 30.39
Table 1 shows that the surface roughness values of the 1st group are lower than 2nd
rd
and 3 groups. In other words, surface roughness increased as feeding speed increased. In
the planing process, the increase of surface roughness with increasing feed speed has been
previously reported (de Moura and Hernández. 2007; Budakçı et al. 2007; Hernández and
Cool 2008; Kubš et al. 2016).
The bonding strength results for wood type, adhesive type, and surface roughness
are given in Table 2.
Table 2. Bonding Strength Results

Surface Group-Bonding Strength (N/mm2)
Wood type /
Adhesive type 1st Group 2nd Group 3rdGroup
Min Max 𝑋̅ Min Max 𝑋̅ Min Max 𝑋̅
PVAc 9.59 11.90 10.86 9.19 10.93 10.19 8.34 10.22 9.47
Cherry
PUR 8.96 10.96 10.13 7.17 9.63 7.82 5.40 7.94 6.49
PVAc 11.47 13.22 12.42 10.86 12.20 11.68 8.77 11.52 10.37
Oriental beech
PUR 7.15 8.16 7.74 6.47 8.01 7.27 5.48 7.91 6.11
PVAc 3.71 4.64 4.19 3.28 4.36 3.85 3.37 3.90 3.61
Scots pine
PUR 3.05 3.99 3.59 2.92 3.99 3.41 2.64 3.75 3.23
PVAc 5.00 6.66 5.80 3.63 5.06 4.48 3.63 5.47 4.25
Taurus cedar
PUR 3.68 4.62 4.27 3.13 4.67 3.87 2.85 4.07 3.59
Table 2 shows that the adhesion values of each wood type, glue type, and surface
group are different. The analysis of variance results were used to determine if wood type,
adhesive type, or surface roughness had an effect on adhesion strength (Table 3).
Table 3. Analysis of Variance

Degrees of Sum of Mean
Source of Variance F-Value Probability
Freedom Squares Square
Wood Type (A) 3 1638.239 546.080 1861.667 0.0000*
Adhesive Type (B) 1 232.746 232.746 793.465 0.0000*
Interaction (AxB) 3 141.511 47.170 160.811 0.0000*
Surface Roughness (C) 2 88.312 44.156 150.535 0.0000*
Interaction (AxC) 6 26.496 4.416 15.055 0.0000*
Interaction (BxC) 2 0.350 0.175 0.596 NS**
Interaction (AxBxC) 6 16.605 2.768 9.435 0.0000*
Error 216 63.359 0.293
Total 239 2207.617
*: Significant at 95% confidence level, **: No significance at 95% confidence level
The wood type, adhesive type, and surface roughness factored into the bonding
strength values and the reciprocal interactions of these factors (excluding the AxB
interaction) were found to be statistically significant at a 95% level of confidence.
The Duncan test comparison results at the level of wood type, adhesive type, and
surface roughness are given in Table 4.
Table 4. Comparison Results of the Duncan Tests for the Wood Type, Adhesive
Type, and Surface Roughness
Bonding Strength Average (𝑿 ̅ ) and Standard Deviation (s) Values (N/mm2)
Wood type Adhesive Type Surface roughness
O. Scots 1st 2nd 3rd
Cherry T. Cedar PVAc PUR
Beech pine Group Group Group
9.16 A 9.27 A 3.65C 4.38 B 7.61A 5.63B 7.38A 6.57B 5.89C
±1.24 ±0.98 ±0.38 ±0.68 ±0.80 ±0.83 ±0.69 ±0.53 ±0.46
LSD value: 0.195 LSD value: 0.138 LSD value: 0.169
Note: Number followed by the same letter indicates no statistical significant differences (Least
Significant-Difference Test with 0.95 confidence).
The highest bonding strength was obtained in the Oriental beech wood (9.27
N/mm ) followed by cherry (9.16 N/mm2), Taurus cedar (4.38 N/mm2), and Scots pine
2
(3.65 N/mm2). The difference between the Oriental beech and cherry was statistically
insignificant. The PVAc adhesive (7.61 N/mm2) provided a higher bonding strength than
the PUR adhesive (5.63 N/mm2). The first group displayed the highest bonding strength
(7.38 N/mm2) from the aspect of surface roughness; this was followed by the second group
(6.57 N/mm2), and finally the third group (5.89 N/mm2). Similar results were determined
in the study of Burdurlu et al. 2006. The PVAc adhesive produces higher shear strength
values compared with the PU adhesive. PVAc penetrates deeper and makes a better bond
formation compared with PU and the fact that its capability of penetration is higher and
that it produces a more flexible bond could be influential in the increase of shear strength.
The Duncan test comparison results at the level of wood type-adhesive type are
given in Table 5.
Table 5. Comparison Results of the Duncan Tests for Interaction of Wood Type–
Adhesive Type
Wood type
Adhesive type Cherry Oriental beech Scots pine Taurus cedar
𝑋̅ s 𝑋̅ s 𝑋̅ s 𝑋̅ s
PVAc 10.17B 1.02 11.49A 0.89 3.89F 0.59 4.84E 0.74
PUR 8.15C 1.04 7.04D 0.91 3.41G 0.61 3.91F 0.77
LSD value: 0.275
Note: Number followed by the same letter indicates no statistical significant differences (least-
significant-difference test with 0.95 confidence).
The highest bonding strength was obtained in Oriental beech wood bonded with the
PVAc adhesive (11.49 N/mm2), whereas the lowest bonding strength was obtained in the
Scots pine wood bonded with the PUR adhesive (3.41 N/mm2). The difference between the
bonding strength of Scots pine bonded with the PVAc adhesive (3.89 N/mm2) and the
Taurus cedar wood bonded with PUR (3.91 N/mm2) was found to be statistically
insignificant (LSD 0.275).
The fact that the density of Oriental beech wood was high could be effective in
obtaining a high bonding strength in Oriental beech wood compared with cherry wood. It
was reported in previous studies that the wooden material whose density was high also had
a high bonding strength (Söğütlü et al. 2016; Burdurlu et al. 2006; Kılıç 2016).
The Duncan test comparison results of the wood type-surface roughness group
interaction are given in Table 6.
Surface Roughness
Wood type
Surface
Cherry Oriental beech Scots pine Taurus cedar
roughness
̅
𝑋 s 𝑋̅ s 𝑋̅ s 𝑋̅ s
st A B GH
1 Group 10.49 0.97 10.08 0.84 3.89 0.54 5.04F 0.69
2nd Group 9.01D 0.89 9.47C 0.76 3.63HI 0.46 4.17G 0.61
rd E E I
3 Group 7.98 0.87 8.24 0.72 3.42 0.43 3.92GH 0.57
LSD value: 0.337
Note: Number followed by the same letter indicates no statistical significant differences (least-
From the aspect of the wood type-surface roughness group interaction, the highest
bonding strength was obtained in the first group surface roughness in cherry wood (10.49
N/mm2), whereas, the lowest bonding strength was obtained in the third group surface
roughness in Scots pine wood (3.42 N/mm2). The difference between the surface roughness
of cherry wood (7.98 N/mm2) in the third group and the surface roughness of Taurus cedar
(5.04 N/mm2) in the first group, as well as the difference between the surface roughness of
Scots pine (3.89 N/mm2) in the first group with the surface roughness of Taurus cedar (3.92
N/mm2) in the first group, were found to be insignificant (LSD 0.337).
The Duncan test comparison results of the wood type-adhesive and type-surface
roughness group interaction are given in Table 7.
Adhesive Type–Surface Roughness
Wood type
Adhesive Surface
Cherry Oriental beech Scots pine Taurus cedar
type roughness
𝑋̅ s 𝑋̅ s 𝑋̅ s 𝑋̅ s
st C A JK I
1 Group 10.86 0.91 12.42 0.82 4.19 0.62 5.80 0.72
PVAc 2nd Group 10.19D 0.86 11.68B 0.77 3.85KL 0.57 4.48J 0.67
rd E D LM JK
3 Group 9.47 0.83 10.37 0.75 3.61 0.55 4.25 0.65
1st Group 10.13D 0.92 7.74FG 0.83 3.59 LM 0.63 4.27JK 0.73
nd F G LM KL
PUR 2 Group 7.82 0.87 7.27 0.78 3.41 0.58 3.87 0.68
3rd Group 6.49H 0.84 6.11HI 0.75 3.23M 0.56 3.59 LM 0.66
LSD value: 0.477
Note: Number followed by the same letter indicates no statistical significant differences (least
The highest bonding strength was obtained in the Oriental beech wood (12.42
2
N/mm ) in the first surface roughness group glued with the PVAc adhesive, whereas the
lowest bonding strength was obtained in the Scots pine wood (3.23 N/mm2) in the third
surface roughness group glued with the PUR adhesive. The results in Table 7 showed that
the wood type-adhesive and type-surface roughness interaction for cherry, oriental beech,
Scots pine, and Taurus cedar woods whose surface roughness was low and were glued with
PVAc adhesive had a high bonding strength. The effect of the surface roughness factor
determined in previous studies was also observed in this study (Cheng and Sun 2006). The
fact that the PVAc adhesives had high values of bonding strength compared to the PUR
adhesives showed a resemblance to the results of similar studies (Özçifçi and Yapıcı 2008;
Altun et al. 2010).
The wood failure percentage values of the specimens are shown in Figs. 3 to 4.
100
80
Wood failure (%)
60
40
20
0
PUR PVAc PUR PVAc PUR PVAc PUR PVAc
Cherry Oriental Beech Scots Pine Taurus Cedar
Fig. 3. Wood failure percentage of the specimens Fig. 4. Wood failure
According to the Fig. 2, PVAc adhesive display higher wood failure percentage
PUR adhesive. Although PUR glue has been reported to have a higher penetration, PVAc
glue seems to be more successful under the in terms of the flexibility structure of the glue.
As Zheng et al. (2004) and Bastani et al. (2016) have reported; difficulties arise in
establishing direct relationships between adhesive penetration and bond performance.
The regression analysis proposed a predictive relationship between bonding
strength and surface roughness and is shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Relationship between bonding strength and surface roughness
Within this scope, the effect of the surface roughness on bonding strength was
observed. In other words, as the surface roughness increased, the bonding strength
decreased. Results were found in the literature that shows that surface roughness affects
bonding strength. This study showed results similar to the literature (Burdurlu et al. 2006;
Yang et al. 2012; Knorz et al. 2015; Kılıç 2016).
CONCLUSIONS
1. This study showed that the wood type, adhesive type, surface roughness, and the
reciprocal interactions of these (excluding the AxB interaction) were effective relative
to bonding strength. When cherry and Oriental beech, which are in the hardwood group,
and Scots pine and Taurus cedar, which are in the softwood group, were compared,
more successful results were obtained with the wood types in the hardwood group.
Consequently, it can be stated that in situations where bonding strength and carrying
capacity are important, it would be more appropriate to use hardwoods.
2. From the aspect of surface roughness, it was understood within the scope of this study
that every wood type having low values of roughness produced a higher bonding
strength. Thus, it is important to keep the roughness values as low as possible in the
wooden surfaces that would be bonded.
3. In the use of adhesives, the PVAc adhesive produced more successful results. It can be
stated that the use of the PVAc adhesive would be more appropriate in interior spaces
and dry surroundings and in wooden constructions where it is desired for the bonding
strength to be high.
4. There were different procedures applied in the process of shaping a great number of
wood types, adhesive types, and wooden materials in industry. It was thought that it would
be beneficial to make studies that aim to obtain suitable combinations within this diversity,
and that would test wooden materials processed under different conditions from different
wood types and with adhesives manufactured with different contents.
REFERENCES CITED
Altun, S., Burdurlu, E., and Kılıç, M. (2010). “Effect of adhesive type on the bending
moment capacity of miter frame corner joints,” BioResources, 5(3), 1473-1483.
ASTM D 1667–87 (1999). “Standard methods for conducting machining tests of wood
and wood-based materials,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bastani, A., Adamopoulos, S., Koddenberg, T., and Militz, H. (2016). “Study of adhesive
bondlines in modified wood with fluorescence microscopy and X-ray micro-
computed tomography,” International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 68, 351-
358. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.04.006
Budakçi, M., Gurleyen, L., Cinar, H., and Korkut, S. (2007). “Effect of wood finishing
and planing on surface smoothness of finished wood,” Journal of Applied Sciences 7,
2300-2306. DOI: 10.3923/jas.2007.2300.2306
Burdurlu, E., Kılıç, Y., Elı̇ bol, G. C., and Kılıç, M. (2006). “The shear strength of
Calabrian pine (Pinus brutia Ten.) bonded with polyurethane and polyvinyl acetate
adhesives,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science 99(6), 3050-3061.
DOI:10.1002/app.22905
Chandler, J. G., Brandon, R. L., and Frihart, C. R. (2005). “Examination of adhesive
penetration in modified wood using fluorescence microscopy,” In ASC Spring 2005
Convention and Exposition, 17-19, Maryland, USA.
Cheng, E., and Sun, X. (2006). “Effects of wood-surface roughness, adhesive viscosity
and processing pressure on adhesion strength of protein adhesive,” Journal of
Adhesion Science and Technology 20(9), 997-1017. DOI:
10.1163/156856106777657779
Custódio, J., Broughton, J., and Cruz, H. (2009). “A review of factors influencing the
durability of structural bonded timber joints,” International Journal of Adhesion and
Adhesives, 29(2), 173-185. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2008.03.002
Davim, J. P., Clemente, V. C., and Silva, S. (2009). “Surface roughness aspects in milling
MDF (medium density fiberboard),” The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 40(1-2), 49-55. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-007-1318-z
de Moura, L. F., and Hernández, R. E. (2007). “Characteristics of sugar maple wood
surfaces produced by helical planing,” Wood and Fiber Science 38(1), 166-178.
Frihart, C. R. (2005). “Adhesive bonding and performance testing of bonded wood
products,” Journal of ASTM International 2(7), 1-12. DOI: 10.1520/JAI12952
Fujiwara, Y., Fujii, Y., and Okumura, S. (2005). “Relationship between roughness
parameters based on material ratio curve and tactile roughness for sanded surfaces of
two hardwoods,” Journal of Wood Science 51(3), 274-277. DOI: 10.1007/s10086-
004-0649-8
Gurau, L., Mansfield-Williams, H., and Irle, M. (2013). “The influence of measuring
resolution on the subsequent roughness parameters of sanded wood surfaces,”
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 71(1), 5-11. DOI:10.1007/s00107-
012-0645-4
Hass, P., Kläusler, O., Schlegel, S., and Niemz, P. (2014). “Effects of mechanical and
chemical surface preparation on adhesively bonded wooden joints,” International
Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 51, 95-102. DOI:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.02.014
Hernández, R. E., and Cool, J. (2008). “Effects of cutting parameters on surface quality
of paper birch wood machined across the grain with two planing techniques,” Holz
als Roh-und Werkstoff 66(2), 147-154. DOI: 10.1007/s00107-007-0222-4
Hiziroglu, S., Zhong, Z. W., and Tan, H. L. (2013). “Measurement of bonding strength of
pine, kapur and meranti wood species as function of their surface quality,”
Measurement 46(9), 3198-3201. DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2013.05.005
ISO 4287 (1997). “Geometrical product specifications (GPS) surface texture: Profile
method-Terms, definitions and surface texture parameters,” International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kılıç, M. (2016). “Effect on shear strength of machining methods in Pinus nigra Arnold
bonded with polyurethane and polyvinyl acetate adhesives,” BioResources 11(3),
6663-6676. DOI: 10.15376/biores.10.3.6663-6676.
Kläusler, O., Hass, P., Amen, C., Schlegel, S., and Niemz, P. (2014). “Improvement of
tensile shear strength and wood failure percentage of 1C PUR bonded wooden joints
at wet stage by means of DMF priming,” European Journal of Wood and Wood
Products 72(3), 343-354. DOI: 10.1007/s00107-014-0786-8
Kleiberit (2016). https://www.kleiberit.com/en/adhesive-groups.html
Knorz, M., Neuhaeuser, E., Torno, S., and van de Kuilen, J. W. (2015). “Influence of
surface preparation methods on moisture-related performance of structural
hardwood–adhesive bonds,” International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 57, 40-
48. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.10.003
Kubš, J., Gašparík, M., Gaff, M., Kaplan, L., Čekovská, H., Ježek, J., and Štícha, V.
(2016). “Influence of thermal treatment on power consumption during plain milling
of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta subsp. murrayana),” BioResources 12(1), 407-418.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.12.1.407-418
Künniger, T. (2008). “A semi-automatic method to determine the wood failure
percentage on shear test specimens,” Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff 66(3), 229-232.
DOI: 10.1007/s00107-008-0236-6
Kvietková, M., Gaff, M., Gašparík, M., Kaplan, L., and Barcík, Š. (2015). “Surface quality of
milled birch wood after thermal treatment at various temperatures,”
BioResources 10(4), 6512-6521. DOI: 10.15376/biores.10.4.6512-6521
Murmanis, L., River, B. H., and Stewart, H. (2007). “Microscopy of abrasive-planed and
knife-planed surfaces in wood-adhesive bonds,” Wood and Fiber Science 15(2), 102-115.
Okumura, S., and Fujiwara, Y. (2007). “Roughness evaluation of machined surfaces of
wood,” Journal of the Japan Wood Research Society (Japan) 53(4), 173-179.
Özçifçi, A. (2008). “Impacts of impregnation with boron compounds on the bonding
strength of wood materials,” Construction and Building Materials 22(4), 541-545.
DOI:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.11.006
Özçifçi, A., and Yapici, F. (2008). “Effects of machining method and grain orientation on
the bonding strength of some wood species,” Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 202(1), 353-358. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.08.043
Peters, C. C., and Cumming, J. D. (1970). “Measuring wood surface smoothness: A
review,” Forest Products Journal 20(12), 40-43.
Richter, K., Feist, W. C., and Knaebe, M. T. (1995). “The effect of surface roughness on
the performance of finishes. Part 1. Roughness characterization and stain
performance,” Forest Products Journal 45(7-8), 91-97.
Ross, R. J. (2010). Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material (General
Technical Report 2(1)), U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Products Laboratory,
Madison, WI.
Söğütlü, C., Nzokou, P., Koc, I., Tutgun, R., and Döngel, N. (2016). “The effects of surface
roughness on varnish adhesion strength of wood materials,” Journal of Coatings
Technology and Research 13(5), 863-870. DOI: 10.1007/s11998-016-9805-5
Stumbo, D. A. (1963). “Surface texture measurement methods,” Forest Products
Journal 13(7), 299-304.
Taylor, J. B., Carrano, A. L., and Lemaster, R. L. (1999). “Quantification of process
parameters in a wood sanding operation,” Forest Products Journal 49(5), 41.
Thoma, H., Peri, L., and Lato, E. (2015). “Evaluation of wood surface roughness
depending on species characteristics,” Maderas. Ciencia y Tecnología 17(2), 285-
292. DOI: 10.4067/S0718-221X2015005000027
TS 2470 (1976). “Wood-sampling methods and general requirements for physical and
mechanical tests,” Turkish Standard Institute, Ankara, Turkey.
TS 2471 (2005). “Wood, determination of moisture content for physical and mechanical
tests,” Turkish Standard Institute, Ankara, Turkey.
TS 2495 EN ISO 3274 (2005). “Geometrical product specifications (GPS)-Surface
texture: profile method-Nominal characteristics of contact (Stylus) instruments,”
Turkish Standard Institute, Ankara, Turkey.
TS EN 205 (2004). “Adhesives – Wood adhesives for wood adhesives for non–structural
applications–determination of tensile shear strength of lap joints,” British Standards,
London, UK.
Vitosyte, J., Ukvalbergiene, K., and Keturakis, G. (2012). “The effects of surface
roughness on adhesion strength of coated ash (Fraxinus excelsior (L.)), and birch
(Betula (L.)) wood,” Materials Science 18(4), 347-351.
DOI:10.5755/j01.ms.18.4.3094
Yang, T., Xue, W., and Liu, Y. (2012). “Influence of machining methods on wood
surface roughness and adhesion strength,” in: Biobase Material Science and
Engineering (BMSE), 2012 International Conference, pp. 284-287, IEEE, Changsha,
China. DOI: 10.1109/BMSE.2012.6466231
Zheng, J., Fox, S. C., and Frazier, C. E. (2004). “Rheological, wood penetration, and
fracture performance studies of PF/pMDI hybrid resins,” Forest Products
Journal 54(10), 74.
Article submitted: October 10, 2016; Peer review completed: December 4, 2016; Revised
version received and accepted: December 30, 2016; Published: January 10, 2017.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.12.1.1417-1429
View publication stats

1 PB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 PB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 PB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Determination of the Effect of Surface Roughness on the Bonding Strength of

Article in Bioresources · January 2017

Bazı yerli Ağaç Türlerinin İşlenebilme Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Determination of the Effect of Surface Roughness on the

Keywords: Wood species; Adhesive; Surface roughness; Bonding strength

Contact information: Department of Wood Products Industrial Engineering, Technology Faculty,

Measurement of surface roughness

Fig. 1. Dimensions of tensile share specimen (mm)

Determination of tensile shear strength

Fig. 2. Principle of tensile shear experiment

Table 1. Classification of Surface Roughness Values

Table 2. Bonding Strength Results

Table 3. Analysis of Variance

Fig. 3. Wood failure percentage of the specimens Fig. 4. Wood failure

Fig. 5. Relationship between bonding strength and surface roughness

You might also like