4.6 Article

The effect of wetting cycles on moisture behaviour of thermally modified Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) wood

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 1504-1511

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10853-015-9471-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. OP Education for Competitiveness European Social Fund
  2. state budget of the Czech Republic [CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0031]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The moisture behaviour of thermally modified Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) exposed to cyclic conditions was analysed. Specimens of dimensions 15 x 15 x 5 mm(3) were thermally modified at 180 A degrees C (TM1) and 220 A degrees C (TM2) using atmospheric pressure and superheated steam. Radial, tangential, volumetric swelling and anti-swelling efficiency (ASE) were calculated during six consecutive drying-soaking cycles. Afterwards, additional specimens were exposed to ten relative humidity cycles (0 and 95 %) at temperature 25 and 40 A degrees C in order to analyse its influence on sorption behaviour. Application of thermal modification led to significant reduction of swelling from original 18.4-13.3 % for TM1 and to 10.5 % for TM2. However, after exposure to six consecutive soaking-drying cycles, the swelling of control specimens slightly decreased, whereas the swelling of thermally modified specimens increased. Due to the increased swelling after repeated cycles, the original ASE (28.6 and 42.7 %) decreased to 22.5 % for TM1 and to 36.88 % for TM2. The presence of leachable compounds and release of internal stresses are mainly attributed to that phenomenon. The EMC of the reference specimens decreases over the repeated humidity cycles for approximately 1 %-units. Same trend was found for the mild thermal modification TM1, but decreasing only in the range of 0.5 %-units. However, the EMC of the TM2 specimens during humidity cycles behaved differently. The results provide a better insight into details of thermal modification of wood and its behaviour under cyclic conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据