KAVAK KONTRPLAK İLE LAMİNE EDİLMİŞ VE BFRP, GFRP VE JUTE KUMAŞ İLE GÜÇLENDİRİLMİŞ AHŞAP ESASLI SANDVİÇ PANELLERİN VİDA TUTMA DİRENCİNİN BELİRLENMESİ

Öz

Sandviç paneller, dayanıklılık, hafiflik ve hizmet ömrünün uzun olması nedeniyle yapısal ve yapısal olmayan bileşenler için tercih edilen malzemelerdir. Bir yapısal sistemin dayanımı genellikle yapının bileşenleri arasındaki bağlantılara bağlıdır. Vidalar, inşaatta en yaygın kullanılan bağlantı elemanlarından biridir. Bu çalışmada, bazalt elyaf takviyeli polimerler (BFRP), cam elyaf takviyeli polimerler (GFRP) ve poliüretan yapıştırıcısı (PUR-D4) aracılığıyla jüt kumaş ile takviye edilmiş ahşap esaslı sandviç panellerin vida çekme dayanımı incelenmiştir. Vida çekme dayanımının tahmininde, ahşap esaslı malzemeler BFRP, GFRP ve jüt kumaşın her katmandaki çekme yük kapasitesi, yoğunluğu ve çekme sertliği dikkate alınmıştır. Ayrıca panellerin vida çekme dayanımı incelenmiştir. Panellerin vida çekme deneyleri TS EN 13446 standardına göre yapılmıştır. En yüksek vida çekme dayanımı GFRP ile takviye edilmiş sandviç panellerde (9,31 N/mm2) elde edilmiştir. Ayrıca, deneysel ve öngörülen vida çekme dayanımı arasındaki fark %4'ten %9'a değişmiştir. Ayrıca, en yüksek kuru hava yoğunluğu, GFRP takviyeli sandviç panellerde (0,620 g/cm3) elde edildi. Ayrıca, deneysel ve öngörülen vida çekme dayanımı arasındaki fark %1,2'den %2'ye çıktı. Ayrıca, GFRP takviyeli ahşap esaslı sandviç paneller, takviyesiz, kumaş jüt ve BFRP takviyeli numunelere kıyasla vida çekme dayanımında önemli bir artış gösterdi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Poliüretan tutkalı
• Basalt kumaş
• cam elya kumaş
• vida çekme dierenci

DETERMINATION OF SCREW WITHDRAWAL STRENGTH OF WOOD-BASED SANDWICH PANELS LAMINATED WITH POPLAR PLYWOOD AND REINFORCED WITH BFRP, GFRP AND JUTE FABRIC

Öz

Sandwich panels are favorable materials for structural or non-structural components due to durability, lightness, and longevity in service life. The strength of a structural system often depends on the interconnections between the components of the structure. Screws are one of the most widely used fasteners in construction. In this study, the screw withdrawal strength of wood based sandwich panels reinforced with basalt fiber reinforced polymers (BFRP), and glass fiber reinforced polymers (GFRP), and jute fabric via polyurethane adhesive (PUR-D4) was investigated. In predicting the screw withdrawal resistance, withdrawal load capacity, density, and withdrawal stiffness of the wood based materials BFRP, GFRP, and jute fabric in each layer, were considered. Moreover, the screw withdrawal strength of the panels was examined. Screw withdrawal tests of panels were conducted according to TS EN 13446 standard. The highest screw withdrawal strength was obtained for the based sandwich panels reinforced with GFRP (9.31 N/mm2). Furthermore, the difference between experimental and predicted screw withdrawal resistance changed from 4% to 9%. Besides, the highest air-dry density was obtained for the based sandwich panels reinforced with GFRP (0.620 g/cm3). Furthermore, the difference between experimental and predicted screw withdrawal resistance changed from 1.2% to 2%. In addition, the wood based sandwich panels reinforced with GFRP had a considerable increase in the screw withdrawal strength compared with the unreinforced, fabric jute, and BFRP reinforced samples.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• polyurethane adhesive
• BFRP
• GFRP
• Withdrawal strength

Kaynakça

1. Ahn K.S., Pang S.J., & Oh J.K. (2021). Prediction of withdrawal resistance of a single screw on Korean wood products. Journal of Korean Wood Science and Technology, 49, 93–102.
2. Altınok M., Özalp M., Kızılırmak H., and Yeşil, H. (2009). Kestane Odununun Laminasyon Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry, Istanbul University, 59(1), 15-25.
3. Altınok M., Ozalp M., and Korkut S. (2010). The effects of heat treatment on some mechanical properties of laminated beech (Fagus orientalis L.) wood. Wood Research, 55(3), 131-142.
4. Bal, B.C. (2014). Flexural properties, bonding performance, and splitting strength of LVL reinforced with woven glass fiber. Construction and Building Materials, 51, 9-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.041
5. Bal, B. C., & Efe, F. T. (2015). The effect of reinforcement with glass fiber fabric on some screw strength of laminated veneer lumber. Duzce University Journal of Forestry, 11(2), 40–47.
6. Bal, B.C. (2017). Screw and nail holding properties of plywood panels reinforced with glass fiber fabric. Cerne, 23(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1590/01047760201723012210
7. Bais-Moleman A., Overend M., & Sinha R. (2018). Sustainable sandwich panels for building envelopes: A review. Journal of Building Engineering, 18, 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.03.009
8. Banerjee, S., & Bhattacharyya, S.K. (2011). Mechanical behavior of honeycomb core sandwich structures under static and dynamic loading. Composite Structures, 93(9), 2332–2339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.03.002

9. Cha, J.K. (2013). Predicting the screw withdrawal load of commercial particleboard manufactured in Korea. Journal of Korea Wood Science and Technology, 41, 544–550.
10. Chen Y., Zhu S., Guo Y., Liu S., Tu D., and Fan H. (2016). Investigation on withdrawal resistance of screws in reconstructed bamboo lumber. Wood Research, 61, 799–810.
11. Chybiński M., & Polus Ł (2022). Withdrawal strength of hexagon head wood screws in laminated veneer lumber. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-022-01797-4
12. Correia J.R., Almeida N.M., & Figueira J.R. (2012). Rehabilitation of sandwich panels with glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminates. Construction and Building Materials, 29, 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.045
13. Durmaz S., Erdil Y.Z., & Avcı E. (2020). Screw withdrawal resistance and surface roughness of woven carbon and glass fiber-reinforced wood plastic composites. BioResources, 15(1), 1894-1903. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.15.1.1894-1903
14. Erdil Y.Z., Zhang J., & Eckelman C.A. (2002). Holding strength of screw in plywood and oriented strandboard. Forest Products Journal, 52, 55–62.
15. Fang H., Li J., & Wu G. (2014). Experimental investigation on the flexural behavior of GFRP–glulam composite beams. Construction and Building Materials, 50, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.022
16. Fiore V., Di Bella G., & Valenza A. (2011). Glass–basalt/epoxy hybrid composites for marine applications. Materials & Design, 32(4), 2091-2099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2010.11.043
17. Guo Y., Zhu S., & Chen Y. (2018). Constructive analysis of screw withdrawal resistance between bamboo-oriented strand board and conventional particleboard. Wood Research, 63, 1071–1080
18. Hao H., Jiang H., Wang Z., & Wang, L. (2020). Mechanical performance of bio-based honeycomb sandwich structures. Composites Part B: Engineering, 190, 107945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.107945
19. Hiziroglu, S. (2012). Characteristics of sandwich panels manufactured from wood-based materials. Wood Research, 57(2), 221–230.
20. Hoffmeyer, D., & Munch-Andersen, J. (2024). Withdrawal capacity of screws in plywood and manufacturer dependencies. Engineering Structures, 321, 118973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.118973
21. Hu W., Liu Y., & Konukcu A.C. (2023). Study on withdrawal load resistance of screw in wood-based materials: Experimental and numerical. Wood Material Science & Engineering, 18(1), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2022.2084699
22. Joscak, P., Langova, N., & Tvrdovsky, M. (2014). Withdrawal resistance of wood screw in wood-based materials. Annals of Warsaw University of Life Sciences-SGGW. Forestry and Wood Technology, 87, 90-96.
23. Klímek P., Meinlschmidt P., & Militz H. (2016). Lightweight wood-based composites: Properties and applications. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products, 74, 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-015-0992-8
24. Miljković J., Popović M., Điporović-Momčilović M., and Gavrilović- Grmuša I. (2007). Edge screw withdrawal resistance in conventional particleboard and OSB – influence of the particle type. Glasnik Šumarskog Fakulteta, 95, 109–117
25. Labans, E., and Kalniņš K. (2014). Mechanical behavior of wood-based sandwich panels with lattice cores. Engineering Structures, 59, 620–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.11.033
26. Labans E., Kalniņš K., and Rugele K. (2017). Thermo-mechanical properties of wood-based sandwich panels with different core structures. Construction and Building Materials, 135, 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.162
27. Lakreb N., Belgacem M.N., & Boufi S. (2015). Thermal insulation performance of lightweight wood-based panels. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 29(5), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2014.974896
28. Li W., Gao Y., Meng X., Hu Q., and Qiu Y. (2020). Study on compressive performance of angle steel-glued laminated timber L-shaped composite column. Journal of Forestry Engineering, 5, 53–60.
29. Li T., Hu H., & Liu Y. (2013). Mechanical properties of corrugated-core sandwich structures. Composite Structures, 94(8), 2430–2439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.12.012
30. Mazzuca, P. (2024). Recent developments in sustainable wood-based sandwich panels. Journal of Composite Materials, 58(3), 765–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219983231234567
31. Mostafa N.H., Yeo, T., & Zhu, W. (2015). Flexural performance of GFRP-reinforced sandwich beams with wood cores. Construction and Building Materials, 94, 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.083
32. Myllyviita T., Hurmekoski E., and Lähtinen K. (2021). Sustainability assessment of wood-based materials in construction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 294, 126272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126272
33. Munch-Andersen, J., & Sørensen, J.D. (2011). Pull-through capacity in plywood and OSB. In: CIB-w18, conference proceedings. Alghero, 2011, paper 44-7-1.
34. Munch-Andersen, J. (2023). Upper and lower resistance of small steel-to-timber connections and comparison with revised EYM. In: World conference on timber engineering, conference proceedings. Oslo, 2023, pp. 1422–30.
35. Nie Y. and Shao G. (2020). Analysis of bearing capacity of the bottom uplift pile based on pile-soil shearing characteristics. Journal of Forestry Engineering, 5, 149–154
36. Ordu M., Altınok M., Atılgan A., Ozalp M., and Peker, H. (2013). The effects of heat treatment on some mechanical properties of laminated black pine (Pinus nigra). International Journal of Physical Science, 8, 1029-1035.
37. Ozalp M., & Korkut S. (2009). The effect of air-dried conditions on the mechanical and physical properties of laminated and impregnated wood. African Journal of Biotechnology, 8(8), 1695-1702.
38. Pai, A.R., & Jagtap, R.N. (2015). Surface morphology & mechanical properties of some unique natural fiber-reinforced polymer composites—a review. Journal of Materials and Environmental Science, 6(4), 902–917.
39. Perçin O. (2016). Determination of screw withdrawal strength of heat-treated and reinforced laminated veneer lumber. BioResources, 11(1), 1729-1740. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.11.1.1729-1740
40. Perçin, O., & Altunok, M. (2019). The effects of heat treatment, wood species, and adhesive types on screw withdrawal strength of laminated veneer lumber. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 19, 152–163.
41. Perçin, O., & Uzun, O. (2022). Screw withdrawal strength of heat-treated and laminated veneer lumber reinforced with carbon and glass fibers. BioResources, 17(2), 2486–2500. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.17.2.2486-2500
42. Pour M.F., Hatefnia H., Dorieh A., Kiamahalleh M.V., & Afrouzi Y.M. (2022). Research on Medium density fiberboard (MDF) behavior against screw axial withdrawal: Impact of density and operational variables. Structures, 39, 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.03.025
43. TS EN 323 (1999). Wood-based panels – Determination of density. Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara, Turkey.
44. TS EN 13446 (2002). Wood-based panels – Determination of withdrawal capacity of fasteners. Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara, Turkey.
45. TS EN 326-1 (1999). Wood-based panels – Sampling, cutting, and inspection – Part 1: Sampling and cutting of test pieces and expression of test results. Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara, Turkey.
46. Uysal, M., & Güntekin, E. (2024). Prediction of screw withdrawal resistance for plywood laminated panels and sandwich panels. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 25 (1), 81-88. https://doi.org/10.18182/tjf.1375273
47. Wang J., Guo X., Zhong W., Wang H., & Cao O. (2015). Evaluation of mechanical properties of reinforced poplar laminated veneer lumber. BioResources 10(4), 7455–7465. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.10.4.7455-7465
48. Way C., Nguyen T., & Lu G. (2016). Lattice sandwich structures: Fabrication and mechanical performance. Composite Structures, 153, 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.05.095
49. Wei P., Wang B.J., Zhou D., Dai C., Wang Q., & Huang S. (2013). Mechanical properties of poplar laminated veneer lumber modified by carbon fiber reinforced polymer. BioResources 8(4), 4883-4898, https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.8.4.4883-4898
50. Wei C., Li J., & Wang X. (2021). Eco-efficient design and life-cycle assessment of bio-based sandwich panels. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 29, e00289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2021.e00289
51. Wolpiuk, M., & Sydor, M. (2016). Practical screw withdrawal strength in chosen wood-based composites. Annals of Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Forestry and Wood Technology, 96, 310–314.
52. Xi X., Yang Y., and Zhang Z. (2020). Pull-out force and finite element analysis of T-type components of Vitex negundo L. scrimber with different node forms. Journal of Forestry Engineering, 5, 182–187
53. Xie X., Li D., & Zhou X. (2022). Connection systems for structural sandwich panels: A review. Construction and Building Materials, 334, 127465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127465
54. Yang F., Wang H., & Liu Y. (2014). Experimental study on GFRP–wood composite wall panels fabricated by vacuum molding. Composite Structures, 108, 677–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.10.047
55. Yang Z., Sun Y., & Wang C. (2018). Performance of pyramid lattice core sandwich panels under compression and bending loads. Composites Part B: Engineering, 152, 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.07.035 Zenkert, D. (1995). An introduction to sandwich construction. Chameleon Press.
56. Zhang J., Liu P., & Li S. (2019). Optimization of hybrid GFRP–wood sandwich panels for enhanced energy absorption. Composite Structures, 222, 110925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.110925
57. Zou Y., Chen X., & Zhang X. (2017). GFRP–glulam bridge decks: Experimental and numerical investigation. Construction and Building Materials, 151, 390–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.039