NOTE TO USERS Page(s) not included in the original manuscript and are unavailable from the author or university. The manuscript was scanned as received. VII-VIII This reproduction is the best copy available. ® UMI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Evaluating Lodgepole Pine {Pinus contorta) Affected By Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonusponderosae) For Development Of Wood-Cement Board Sorin Andrei Pasca BSc - Forestry, Transylvania University, Romania, 1994 Thesis Submitted In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Degree Of Master Of Science in Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Forestry The University of Northern British Columbia April 2007 © Sorin Andrei Pasca, 2007 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Library and Archives Canada Bibliotheque et Archives Canada Published Heritage Branch Direction du Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-28437-7 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-28437-7 NOTICE: The author has granted a non­ exclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distribute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or non­ commercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats. AVIS: L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou autres formats. The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission. L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation. In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis. Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privee, quelques formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de cette these. While these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis. Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. i*i Canada Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Abstract Assessing the shelf life of wood from mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosa [Hopkins]) killed lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) in terms of its compatibility for Portland cement was examined. Two methods of assessment were used, based on the behavior o f the exothermic chemical reaction of cement hydration, accounting for the difference between neat cement paste and wood-cement mixtures. A new wood-cement compatibility index meant to integrate current approaches was defined. No evidence was found of limitations in terms of beetle-killed heartwood wood compatibility with cement; except for the white rot infested samples. An outstanding physicochemical behavior characterized the mixtures of blue-stained sapwood and cement. Three compositions of ingredients were proposed for fabricating wood-cement boards that would meet the technical specifications given by the gypsum board standards with respect to strength and stiffness. In absence of pressing, the water was the factor used to regulate workability during the molding process. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPROVAL Name: Sorin Pasca Degree: Master of Science Thesis Title: Evaluating Lodgepole Pine (Pinuscontorta) Affected By Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae)For Development Of WoodCement Board Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Robert Tait Dean of Graduate Studies University of Northern British Columbia Co-Supervisor: Dr.'Ian Hartley, Associate Professor Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Program University of Northern British Columbia Co-Supervisor: Dr. Ron Turing, Professor Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Program University of Northern British Columbia Committee Member: Dr. Matthew Reid, Assistant Professor Mathematical, Computer, and Physical Sciences Program University of Northern British Columbia External Examiner: £)r. Hossein Lohrasebi OSB Process Optimization Supervisor Ainsworth Engineered Canada Date Approved: April 1%t 'Z o q '3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “All the invention and innovation in structuralparticleboard might never have been translated into a profitable product if it had not been fo r the generations o f young wood technologists, who, at their universities, had been convinced that they would be going out into an exciting new field where their knowledge could be directly applied. Further, these people believed that they possessed the key to new discoveries in this field. ” Otto Suchsland Professor Emeritus, Department of Forestry, Michigan State University Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iii Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables vii List of Figures ix Acknowledgements xi Chapter 1 - Introduction and Objectives 1 1.1 General 1 1.2 Purpose of study 3 1.3 Objectives 5 Chapter 2 - Literature review 2.1 Wood-cement compatibility 6 2.1.1 Cement as an inorganic binder 6 2.1.2 Wood as an inhibitor for cement hydration 7 2.1.3 Methods of assessing wood-cement compatibility 9 Lodgepole pine and its suitability for wood-cement composites 12 MPB-killed pine and its suitability for wood-cement composites 13 Potential indicators for MPB-killed wood-cement compatibility 15 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6 2.2 6 Manufacturing wood-cement boards Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 iv 2.2.1 Wood-cement composites - a short history 16 2.2.2 Wood-cement composites - a North American perspective 17 2.2.3 Cement/wood ratio 19 2.2.4 Wood particle size and geometry 20 2.2.5 Water fraction of wood-cement mixtures 20 2.2.6 Technological process of fabricating wood-cement boards 22 Wood-cement boards’ characteristics 23 2.2.7.1 Dimensional stability 23 2.2.12 Mechanical properties 24 2.2.7 Chapter 3 - Materials and Methods 3.1 3.2 27 Assessing the compatibility between MPB-killed lodgepole pine (heartwood)and Portland cement 27 3.1.1 Sampling the wood 27 3.1.2 Specific gravity determination 29 3.1.3 Longitudinal gas permeability determination 30 3.1.4 Wood-cement compatibility determination 33 3.1.4.1 CA-factor method 39 3.1.4.2 Compatibility index (Cl) method 42 Preparing the boards 45 3.2.1 Materials 45 3.2.2 Fabricating the boards 48 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V Chapter 4 - Results and Discussion 51 4.1 Gas permeability results 51 4.2 Specific gravity results 53 4.3 Wood-cement compatibility results 54 4.3.1 A proposed new compatibility index: CX 54 4.3.2 Wood-cement compatibility vs. time since death 57 4.3.3 Wood-cement compatibility vs. wood gas permeability 60 Wood-cement compatibility vs. wood specific gravity 64 The significance of CX index 65 4.4 Predicting wood-cement compatibility 65 4.5 Reducing the time of doing calorimetric experiments 67 4.6 Wood-cement boards: tests’ results 72 4.6.1 Water soaking tests 72 4.6.2 Static bending test 82 4.3.4 4.3.5 Chapter 5 - Conclusions and Recommendations 86 5.1 MPB-killed lodgepole pine-cement compatibility 86 5.2 Manufacturing wood-cement boards 89 5.3 Recommendations 91 Bibliography 93 Appendix A - Sample distribution used for wood-cement compatibility determinations 101 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi Appendix B - Samples characteristics 102 Appendix C - Exothermic characteristics of wood-cement hydration 111 Appendix D - Statistical analysis of various wood-cement compatibility indices 208 Appendix E - Regression analysis (forward stepwise) for predicting CA, Cl, and CX function of physical properties o f the beetle-killed heartwood 214 Appendix F - The linear regressions for predicting CA and CX function of corresponding values determined at shorter intervals: 3.5-12, 3.5-15, 3.5-18, and 3.5-21 hours 218 Appendix G - Cross-validation of predicting CA and CX models using Dewar flask no.6 tests as a sub-sample 222 Appendix H - Two Way Analysis of Variance for the boards testing results 224 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ix List of Figures 3.1 Study area within areas affected by mountain pinebeetle 28 3.2 Diagram showing the apparatus used for measuring both low and high longitudinal gas permeability 31 3.3 The apparatus used for measuring gas permeability 32 3.4 The setup used for calorimetric experiments 36 3.5 Hydration temperature vs. time 37 3.6 Total heat vs. time / Ca determination 40 3.7 Heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent / Cl determination 44 3.8 Wood particle sizes 45 3.9 Vibration table used for fabricating wood-cement boards 48 3.10 The specimens for the static bending test 49 3.11 The testing system used for the static bending test 50 4.1 Heat rate vs. time / CX determination 56 4.2 Wood-cement compatibility vs. time since death 57 4.3 Wood-cement compatibility vs. gas permeability 63 4.4 Wood-cement compatibility vs. specific gravity 64 4.5 & 4.6 4.7 & 4.8 4.9 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the thickness swelling means after 2 h soaking 73 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the thickness swelling means after 24 h soaking 74 Spatial distribution of wood particles of various sizes Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 4.10 & 4.11 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the length increase means after 2 h soaking 4.12 & 4.13 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the length increase means after 24 h soaking 4.14 & 4.15 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the width increase means after 2 h soaking 4.16 & 4.17 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the width increase means after 24 h soaking 4.18 & 4.19 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the weight increase means after 2 h soaking 4.20 & 4.21 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the weight increase means after 24 h soaking 4.22 & 4.23 Relationships between boards’ density and strength properties 4.24 & 4.25 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the modulus of rupture (MOR) means 4.26 & 4.27 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the modulus of elasticity (MOE) means Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 Chapter 1 - Introduction and Objectives 1.1 General “When steel or concrete construction fails, it is considered a design problem, but when wood construction fails it is considered a material problem rather that a design problem...” said Dr. Greg Foliente of Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Infrastructure Systems Engineering. On the other hand, CSIRO launched the concept of sustainable construction regarding the idea of commercial buildings which were built faster, performed better for more, and ultimately, were recyclable and had a zero net cost to the environment. Concrete and wood are two apparently opposing ‘concepts’ governing the world of building material; except for consideration of a mix of two materials. Among several wood species in North America, lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelm.) had the least inhibitory effect on cement hydration (Hachmi et al., 1990; Hofstrand et al., 1984; Miller and Moslemi, 1991b). Also, storing the timber prior to using it for wood-cement boards improved the compatibility between wood particles and cement, attributed to a loss in some natural chemical inhibitors (Lee et al., 1987; Dinwoodie and Paxton, 1984). Since many research studies (Woo et al., 2005; Watson, 2006) showed that the amount of wood extractives decreased by time since death (TSD), it was assumed that beetle-killed wood was at least as suitable as green lodgepole pine was for wood-cement composites. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 The current mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonusponderosa [Hopkins]) (MPB) infestation in British Columbia interior has affected millions of hectares of forest and a volume of hundreds of million cubic meters of lodgepole pine for the last ten years. The importance and the length of the period of time before MPB-killed timber starts deteriorating vary, depending on the different manufactured wood products produced from the dead wood. Referring to the industry specialists’ experience, the shelf life of infested timber for veneer-plywood is about 3 years, for dimension lumber is 5 years, and up to 10 years or more for manufacturing OSB or various particleboards. The low moisture content in MPB-killed trees is a key characteristic for shelf life, which affects the manufacturing process of wood products. For instance, dry MPB-killed wood develops checks, which has a negative impact on veneer and lumber recovery, and also, the geometry and the size of strands or flakes used in manufacturing particleboards affect resin bonding, in terms of both quality and consumption. In other words, the shelf life of the MPB-killed timber increases as the size of the wood used for different products decreases (Hartley and Pasca, 2006). Wood-cement composites were widely utilized in many countries, from interior and exterior applications as building materials (i.e., siding, roofing, cladding, fencing and subflooring) to highway sound barriers (Moslemi, 1999). This composite proved to have unique advantages over other conventional materials, namely, durability, fire resistance and workability. Also, wood-cement composites showed good fungal and termite attack resistance, and it could be an excellent acoustic insulator. Adding the environmental related aspects, such as using the wood waste, or being free of any petroleum-based binders and other additives, manufacturing of wood-cement composites shows substantial growth opportunities. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 Manufacturing this kind of composite needs only basic facilities in terms of technological equipment, therefore setting small operations nearby sawmills in affected areas in BC is a viable solution for salvaging MPB-killed wood, and in the future, for utilization of the sawdust resulted as waste material from sawing the timber. Nevertheless, wood-cement boards should not be considered as a substitute for wood particleboards but rather as an alternate into areas of high risks of fire or moisture (Dinwoodie, 1988) or an opportunity for manufacturing composites from recycled waste wood-based resources (Rowell et al., 1993; Schmidt et al., 1994; Falk, 1994). There are two key reasons for considering MPB-killed timber as a potential raw material for wood-cement composites: the high suitability between lodgepole pine and Portland cement and the opportunity of prolonging the shelf life of the MPB-killed timber by using small wood particles. 1.2 Purpose of study Before any studies on manufacturing boards are to be developed, it is necessary to have an assessment of the compatibility between MPB-killed wood and cement, and also to identity possible quantitative indicators used to predict the shelf life of MPB-killed wood in terms of its suitability for inorganic-bonded materials. This project provides an investigation of the relationship between time since death of the attacked lodgepole pine and timber quality, especially regarding its suitability for wood-cement composite, as part of determination of processing and product performance properties of MPB-killed timber for panel products. Determining the indicators needed to assess the shelf life of the MPB-killed timber in terms of its suitability for a certain wood product is one of the most important tasks. In Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 this study, time since death, longitudinal gas permeability, and specific gravity are chosen as potential indicators in evaluating the compatibility between MPB-killed wood and cement, because each of them may be related with various degree of deterioration in dead wood, especially with the morphological changes linked with the presence of extractives and incipient decay, which are the key inhibitors in setting of wood-cement mixtures. Two inhibitory indices: CA-factor (CA) (Hachmi et al., 1990) and Compatibility Index (Cl) (Karade et al., 2003) are calculated, as a measurement of the compatibility between dead wood and cement. Both methods of assessment are based on the behavior of the exothermic chemical reaction of cement hydration, accounting for the difference between neat cement paste and wood-cement mixtures. A new proposed index (CX) calculation is meant to bring a better approach in terms of evaluating wood-cement hydration features, combining the effects of both CA and Cl. This study also examines the standardizing of a new product as a building material used for non-load bearing wall, therefore, gypsum board standards (CAN/CSA, 1991a; CAN/CSA, 1991b) and wood-base fiber and particle panel materials standards (ASTM, 1991) will be used in order to determine the optimum mixture of ingredients (wood/cement ratio and sawdust particle size) leading to a composite board which meets the technical specifications. Determining the optimum ratio of ingredients and the optimum wood particle size is one of the main targets of this study. Characteristics as board’s density, strength, and dimensional stability will be taken into account for defining the acceptable limits of range of proportion and particle size of the wood used into the wood-cement mixture. On the other hand, the need for workability of the mixture before starting hardening and also, the requirements for a quality process of hydration of cement will settle on the proportion of water into the mixtures. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1.3 Objectives Throughout both sets of experiments, assessing the wood-cement suitability and evaluating the basic properties o f a wood-cement board, several objectives will be met; these will include: 1. To use time since death, specific gravity and gas permeability as potential quantitative clues in predicting the shelf life of MPB-killed lodgepole pine in terms of its compatibility with Portland cement. 2. To determine the effectiveness of using MPB-killed timber to make a woodcement composite, developing and delivering of market support information on the physical properties of a wood-cement board, used as a part of a non-load bearing wall system. 3. To develop a method for the manufacturing of a wood-cement board, comprising the preparation of a mixture having the optimum proportion of ingredients, regarding: cement/wood ratio wood particle size a set amount of water Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 Chapter 2 - Literature review Almost every study on wood-cement composites focused on two distinct topics: assessing wood-cement compatibility and manufacturing wood-cement boards. Exothermic reaction of cement hydration, retardant action of wood extractives, and comparing different methods o f evaluation were among the issues debated within general subject of assessing wood-cement suitability. Setting the optimum mixture of ingredients and testing the boards for physical and mechanical properties were a matter of technological process of fabricating boards. 2.1 Wood-cement compatibility 2.1.1 Cement as an inorganic binder Concrete is a composite material which is made up of a filler and a binder. The binder is the cement paste which is made mixing cement and water and which ‘glues’ the filler together. Cement is a mixture of compounds made by burning limestone and clay together at very high temperatures. There are various types of cement for special purposes, but the most common is Portland cement. This comprises five major compounds listed in Table 2.1. By adding water to cement each of the compounds undergoes hydration and contributes to the final concrete product. As the main component of Portland cement, tricalcium silicate is responsible for most of the early strength of the final concrete product. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 By hydration, tricalcium silicate transforms into calcium silicate hydrate, calcium hydroxide, and an important amount of heat: 2Ca3S i05 + 7H20 -♦ 3CaO 2Si024H20 + 3Ca(OH)2 + 173.6kJ Heat is a measure o f making the chemical bonds during hydration, and the strength of concrete is directly related to the amount of heat released during this reaction. Table 2.1 Composition o f Portland cement Cement compound Weight percentage Tricalcium silicate 45-65% Dicalcium silicate 15-30% Tricalcium aluminate 1-8% Tetracalcium aluminoferrite 8-15% Gypsum 1-3% Chemical formula Ca3SiOs or (CaO)3 S i0 2 Ca2SiC>4 or(CaO)2S i02 Ca3Al206 or (CaO)3A120 3 Ca4Al2Feio or (CaO ) 4 A120 3Fe20 3 CaS04 2H20 2.1.2 Wood as an inhibitor for cement hydration Wood, an organic material, inhibits the hardening of cement, an inorganic binder. Weatherwax and Tarkow (1964) showed that sugars, tannins, and starches are among those compounds having an adverse effect on cement hydration. Almost all the research dealing with wood-cement composites contributed to justify this theory. The most evident validation was given by the results showing that decayed wood was totally incompatible with setting of Portland cement. Weatherwax and Tarkow (1967) only noticed this fact by calculating inhibitory indices for decayed wood, bark, and heartwood from southern pine. They found that decayed wood was 10 to 15 times less compatible than bark and 30 to 50 times less compatible than heartwood. Cellobiose and glucose were mentioned among the main metabolic byproducts of the rotten wood (Biblis and Lo, 1968). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 The initial stage o f incipient brown rot is non-enzymatic, partly affecting cellulose and hemicellulose chains, but the advanced stages of brown rot and especially white rot that decomposes the lignin and exposes the cellulose to subsequent microbial attack, lead to transforming almost all complex wood constituents into simple soluble sugars. Researchers from cement and concrete sector explained in detail the chemical mechanisms happening when various sugars were added to Portland cement paste. The alkaline stability and the calcium binding capacity made the sugars good retarders (Thomas and Birchall, 1983). Even the tricalcium aluminate was affected by glucose and some glucose oxidation products during the hydration process (Milestone, 1977). Prolonged seasoning of the logs and adding various types of accelerators to woodcement mixtures were used in order to improve wood-cement compatibility (Lee, 1984). Simatupang and Handayani (2001) presented a fermentation test method for simulating seasoning and therefore, for reducing the total sugar content in rubber wood (Hevea brasiliensis) sawdust. Since it is accepted that various extractives were responsible for the variation in wood-cement compatibility, research focused on identifying differences among species and between sapwood and heartwood. Although studies showed that the extractive content did not necessarily determine the degree of suitability of a certain species for cement and that the chemical composition of the extractives also played an important role in wood-cement compatibility (Hachmi and Moslemi, 1989), there was suggested that hardwoods generally were less compatible than softwoods. More soluble hemicellulose in hardwoods than in softwoods was thought to be the reason for the lower compatibility with cement (Miller and Moslemi, 1991b). Also, the same study presented the sapwood of the softwoods being more Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 compatible with cement than the heartwood. It is in heartwood where most of the extractives are deposited (Desch and Dinwoodie, 1996). However, larch (Larix occidentalis) was found to be extremely inhibitory to cement, even more retardant than several hardwood species (Hofstrand et al., 1984). Meanwhile, chestnut oak (Quercus prinus) proved to be more compatible than softwood species such as spruce (Picea engelmannii), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) or ponderosa pine {Pinus ponderosa) (Moslemi and Lim, 1984). Attempts to set up correlations between woodcement compatibility and extractive content faced difficulties because of various methods of extraction (1% NaOH, hot water, ehanol/benzene, ether) (Pettersen, 1984) and consequently, because of various sorts of extractives. It seemed that water-soluble compounds had the greatest inhibitory effect (Hachmi and Moslemi, 1989). 2.1.3 Methods of assessing wood-cement compatibility There is no consensus in terms of adopting the approach for evaluating woodcement compatibility. However, there are two major directions: (1) assessing the mechanical properties of the final products (various wood-cement composites) such as bending strength, tensile strength, or compressive strength; and (2) interpreting the behavior of the exothermic chemical process of cement hydration accounting for the difference between neat cement paste and wood-cement mixtures. Compressive strength of cylindrical samples was used by Lee and Hong (1986) and Blankenhom et al. (1994) as indicator of wood-cement compatibility. Moreover, the results were correlated with hydration temperatures and hydration times of the wood-cement mixtures (Lee et al. 1987; Blankenhom et al., 1994). Lee and Short (1989) were looking for a direct approach of assessment, considering the performance requirements of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 composite product’s end use such as bending properties. Tensile strength gave a measure of the inhibitory effect of various extractives (Miller and Moslemi, 1991a) and then correlations with hydration characteristics were provided for 14 North American species and also for sapwood and heartwood (Miller and Moslemi, 1991b). Semple and Evans (2000) calculated modulus o f rupture (MOR) for wood-wool cement boards (WWCB) manufactured from Radiata pine (Pinus radiata) sapwood, blue-stained sapwood, and heartwood and compared them to MOR of a commercially manufactured board. The greatest advantage of this first approach would be the opportunity to have an assessment of the final products characteristics. However, almost all wood-cement composites comprised various additives which improved the physical characteristics of the products. Accelerators o f cement hydration were usually used to compensate adverse effects of the wood. The differences among various species in terms of their compatibility with cement could be diminished by using a certain technological process in producing the composite. The most common analytical method of assessment was to evaluate characteristics of the exothermic process of cement hydration, based on measuring the decrease of the heat during the hydration process, as the inhibitor wood was added to cement paste. Maximum temperature, the time to reach that maximum, the heat evolved over the first 24 hours, and maximum heat rate were among the calorimetric indicators of the cement hydration taken into account. Simple inhibitory indices based on temperature figures were calculated and used at the beginning (Weatherwax and Tarkow, 1964; Davis, 1966). More complex equations were developed (Hofstrand et al., 1984; Hachmi et al., 1990) in order to reduce the lack of consistency in the classification of species (Jorge et al., 2004). The newest method was proposed by Karade et al. (2003). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2.2 Various methods of wood-cement compatibility assessment Clasification Index Equation T Suitable ( T m a x > 6 0 ° C ) Intermediately suitable ( 50 °C < T m a x < 60 °C) Ubsuitable ( T m a x < 50 °C) Inhibitory index (/) Low I value indicates good compatibility Inhibitory index (I) Low 1 value indicates good compatibility I = { [ ( t m a x t ’m a x ) / t ' m a x ] ' [ ( T ’„ a x - T m ax) / r maxj- [ ( S ’- s ) /s ] } - io o Weighted Maximum Temperature Ratio (C7) High C T value indicates good compatibility R T = ( TmJ tmax) ■[(mw+mi)/mc] 100 C T = ( R T /R ’T) 100 Maximum Heat Rate Ratio (CH) High CH value indicates good compatibility R H [(Tmax-Tr) / tmax] (mcw+ me/ -t- /nc, mcj) CH = (R H /R ’H) 100 CA-factor ( C A ) Compatible (C4>68%) Moderately compatible (28%t- * , § ^ 12 1 " 9 « 6 IS 3 I 0 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figure 3.7 Heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent / Cl determination Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 3.2 Preparing the boards 3.2.1 Materials Wood All the boards were made using wood from a single MPB-killed tree. The wood chips were left to reach the equilibrium moisture content of 6.5% in the laboratory conditions. They were further broken off into smaller particles using a grinder and screened through a tower o f four sieves, the size of each of the sieves being given by the number of wires per inch, resulting in three particle size fractions (Figure 3.8): 1. 16-32 size mesh (approximately 0.5 cm length) 2. 8-16 size mesh (approximately 1 cm length) 3. 4-8 size mesh (approximately 2 cm length) Figure 3.8 Wood particle sizes Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 Cement Normal Portland Cement (CAN/CSA A5 TypelO) was used as inorganic binder. Three cement/wood ratios (oven-dried weight basis) were chosen for this experiment: 1. cement/wood ratio 2:1 2. cement/wood ratio 3:1 3. cement/wood ratio 4:1 Because wood had already included a small amount of water given by its 6.5% moisture content, the following corrections were made and used for the actual ratios: 1. cement/wood 1.88:1 2. cement/wood 2.82:1 3. cement/wood 3.76:1 All the combinations between the three ratios and the three particle sizes produced a matrix of 9 samples. Four replications were made for each mixture of ingredients. In this study, the code MPB-3-2, for instance, stood for a specimen made by mixing cement with MPB-killed wood in a ratio cement/wood of 3:1 and using wood particles size no.2 (screened through size 8 mesh and retained by size 16 mesh). Water In absence of any board pressing, the technological fabrication process was adjusted accordingly. Therefore, the need for an enhanced workability of the mixtures was possible by increasing the amount of water. The same as used into the calorimetric experiments, the optimum water/cement ratio for the Portland cement was considered at 0.4:1. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 The extra amount needed by absorptive wood was determined based on different permeability characteristics o f each of the sample of wood particles. As noticed above, the size of the particles affected the absorption. For every board made, a pretest was performed in order to determine the right amount of water that those specific wood particles would need to complete a quick absorption, considered within a 3-min time interval, the same time used while mixing the ingredients when making the boards. The proportion of the absorbed water in the pretest was then extrapolated for the entire board in each case. The smaller the wood particles and the larger the amount of sapwood, the larger the proportion of water added to the mixtures. Even on the same sapwood/heartwood ratio the variation in absorption could be quite significant even within the same tree. Consequently, the exact values used for determining the water to wood ratio in this specific study might not be useful for reproducing in other experiments. Extra variation could also be added by a different moisture content of the wood. But the absorption pretest on a small amount of wood particles would give the right amount of water to be used when manufacturing boards not using presses. Additives Among various chlorides proven as accelerators for cement curing (Moslemi et al., 1983; Zhengtian and Moslemi, 1985; Wei et al., 2000) calcium chloride (CaCh) was chosen as the additive for the wood-cement mixtures in this study. Considering the relative warm laboratory conditions only a small amount of 2% (cement weight basis) was used. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 3.2.2 Fabricating the boards Wood and cement were mixed together for about 1 minute and then water was added continuing to mix for another 3 minutes. The mixture was poured into a table frame (Figure 3.9). A relative low pressure given by a lid clamped on top of the frame was used for compacting the mat. In conjunction with that, a low frequency vibration (20 Hz), produced by a sander mounted on top of the lid, helped removing air pockets and better distributing the wood particles. The vibration was in use for the first three minutes. Wolfe and Gjinoli (1996 and 1999) also used vibration for manufacturing boards but a lower frequency (0.5Hz). After 24 hours, the panel was taken from the form, wrapped up in plastic foil, and allowed to cure for 28 days at 21 °C. Figure 3.9 Vibration table used for fabricating wood-cement boards After a slow air drying in lab conditions for 45 days, the panel was trimmed at testing specimens’ dimensions: 150 x 75 x 10 mm for the water soaking tests and 305 x 76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 x 10 mm for the static bending test (Figure 3.10). From each panel two sets of samples were obtained. A duplication o f each of the panels provided another two samples, therefore, a total of four replications were used for each test. The specimens were prepared with specifications given by Standard Test Methods of Evaluating the Properties of Wood-Base Fiber and Particle Panel Materials D 1037-89 (ASTM, 1991). This test was intended to provide the procedures for obtaining basic properties suitable for comparison studies with other materials of construction. The methods were based on small-specimen tests for wood-base fiber and particle panel material and offered data for comparing mechanical and physical properties of various materials. Figure 3.10 The specimens for the static bending test The water absorption and thickness swelling tests measurements were done after conditioning the test specimens for 48 hours at a relative humidity of 65%. The specimens Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 were submerged horizontally under 1 in. of distilled water maintained at a temperature of 20 ± 1°C for 2 h and then for an additional 22 h. The thickness was measured using a digital caliper, averaging the readings at four points midway along each side 1 in. in from the edge of the specimen. The thickness swelling was expressed as percentage of the original thickness. The water absorption was expressed as the percentage by weight based on the weight after conditioning. In addition to that, reports on linear variation were made, for both length and width expansion. The static bending test was performed using a Series IX Automated Testing System located in the testing laboratory of the Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd., 100 Mile House, BC (Figure 3.11). The tests were performed by applying a load at a uniform rate of motion of 0.18in/min of the movable crosshead. The span between the supports was 9 inches. Figure 3.11 The testing system used for the static bending test Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 Chapter 4 - Results and Discussion The physical properties of all wood samples used in this study, including time since death class, specific gravity (value and class), and longitudinal gas permeability (value and class) are in Appendix B, Table B l. All calorimetric characteristics of hydration for both neat cement paste and woodcement mixtures, including maximum difference of temperature, maximum heat rate, maximum heat equivalent rate, all the times needed to reach those maximums, and the computed compatibility indices are also presented in Appendix B, Table B2. The wood samples and the wood-cement mixtures were grouped by each Dewar flask where the experiments have been performed. Appendix C presents graphically the exothermic behavior during the 3.5-24 h interval for each wood-cement sample in comparison with the corresponding behavior of the neat cement paste. The plotted data was based on temperature readings and calculations using Equations 14, 15, 16, and 18 from Chapter 3. 4.1 Gas permeability results A wide range of values was obtained for longitudinal gas permeability of MPBkilled heartwood. The lowest value was 0.01 cm3(gas)cm 1atm 1s~l and the highest was 216.43 cm3(gas)cm~latm ]s~]; the later was a rotten sample. Five classes of GP were introduced in order to reduce this large variability (Table 4.1). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 Table 4.1 Distribution of the MPB-killed heartwood samples by gas permeability classes Longitudinal Specific Range of values Number of discs Gas Permeability Class (cm 3(gas)cm~xatm-1s ~l ) 1 <0.1 80 2 0.1 -0.25 128 3 0.25 - 0.5 60 4 0.5 - 1.0 54 5 >1.0 44 Total discs 366 A paired two sample t-test was performed in order to evaluate the difference between permeability values at breast height section and at half of the merchantable bole section. There was no significant difference (95% confidence interval, p=0.208, t=1.26, t o .0 5 0 8 2 ),2 = 1 .97) between the two sections in terms of longitudinal gas permeability. When the classes of permeability were used in place of actual permeability values, the statistical results were p=0.311, t= l .02, and to . 05(182), 1.97. That is, the longitudinal gas permeability of T ~ MPB-killed heartwood did not significantly differ with tree height, at least for the first half of the bole, which comprises most of the volume of merchantable wood (approximately 70%). Thus, as a potential indicator for wood-cement compatibility, longitudinal gas permeability could be measured on samples removed from suitable locations on the bole. Woo et al. (2005) reported an increase in permeability for the infested heartwood with tree height. Nevertheless, that conclusion derived from running analysis on a single MPB-killed tree; therefore, the sample size could have affected the results. No correlation was found between TSD and GP. Despite the fact that many findings showed that the extractive content of the infested sapwood was lower than that of sound sapwood and also, that permeability increased with the decrease in extractive content (Woo et al., 2005), the results obtained in this study showed that the variation of the longitudinal Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 gas permeability of the infested heartwood by the time since death was not significant. On the other hand, although apparent signs of brown rot fungi attack could be noticed in all GP classes, the majority of the affected discs belonged to GP-5, confirming the increase in permeability on infested wood (Green III and Clausen, 1999). Even on the samples which did not appear to be attacked by brown rot fungi, the higher permeability could be an effect of incipient decay yet invisible to the naked eye. Ten discs were randomly chosen from each GP class in order to perform woodcement compatibility tests and to assess a possible relationship between gas permeability and wood-cement compatibility indices (Appendix A, Table A2). Only samples which were evidently identified as brown rot infested were included in the GP-5 group. A group of five discs attacked by white rot fungi was isolated and considered the ‘white rot’ group. 4.2 Specific gravity results Five classes of SG were introduced in order to reduce the variability of the actual SG values. The distribution of the discs of MPB-killed heartwood by SG is shown in Table 4.2. A paired two sample t-test was performed in order to evaluate the difference between specific SG at breast height section and half of the merchantable bole section. It was found that there was a significant difference in SG at the upper section (p=0.001, t= 3.33, t()05(182),2= l .97). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 Table 4.2 Distribution of the MPB-killed heartwood samples by specific gravity classes Specific Gravity Range of values Number of discs Class 1 < 0.4 45 2 0.4 - 0.433 101 3 0.433 - 0.467 104 4 0.467 - 0.5 60 5 >0.5 56 Total discs 366 The results were in accordance with previous findings which indicated a reduced specific gravity with height for both MPB-killed sapwood and MPB-killed heartwood. When analyzed by specific gravity classes the statistical results were: p=0.001, t=3.41, and to.05(182),2= 1.97, also indicating a significant difference. That is, if SG was proven to be a reliable indicator for wood-cement compatibility, then different portions on the bole would have different compatibilities with cement based on SG variation. From each SG class, ten discs were randomly drawn for wood-cement compatibility tests (Appendix A, Table A3). 4.3 Wood-cement compatibility results 4.3.1 A proposed new compatibility index: CX Compatibility index (Cl) brought a new approach in terms of assessing woodcement hydration behavior. The intensity of reaction, expressed by the maximum heat equivalent rate and the equivalent time needed to reach that maximum heat was the key characteristic the index calculation was based on. However, accelerator agents may alter the significance of the index, since they only reduce the time of setting of cement; therefore Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 they artificially increase the value of the Cl index, meant to be an overall compatibility assessor. For example, as presented in this chapter later on, the majority of the samples using blue-stained sapwood produced Cl indices above 100 mark, but most of the hydration characteristics (maximum temperature, maximum heat rate, total heat) were evidently lower than those of neat cement. A new compatibility index was introduced in an attempt to account for individual deficiencies o f prior approaches, but also to merge into a single indicator the positive effects given by calculating both the CA and the Cl. Three elements were taken into consideration in order to thoroughly cover the key aspects of hydration behavior: maximum heat rate, the time needed to reach that maximum, and the total heat released within 3.5-24 h interval. An example of the CX significance and calculation was presented in Figure 4.1; all the calculations were done on a per gram of mixture basis. The graphs show the determination o f maximum heat rate ( H R max) , the time to reach that maximum (tmax) , and total heat released within 3.5-24 hours interval, that is the area under heat rate curve (H 3 .5.24); neat cement paste (Dewar flask no.l): H R ’max = 50.63 Jh~xg ~x, t’max = 6.63 h, FF3.5-24 = 254.4 J; wood-cement mixture (sample 444): HRmax = 34.96 J h 'xg ', tmax = 7.26 h, H3 5-24 = 198.4 J ; C X = 79. The heat rate was obtained by differentiating Equation 14, as follows: H R , = ^ = (Cc +C, ) at, d{Tt - T r) dt. + k ( T ,- T r) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (18) 56 w o o d -cem en t (—) v s. n e a t cem en t (---) £m L. «V X 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 Time (h) Figure 4.1 Heat rate vs. time / CX determination Then, the new index was calculated as the cubic root of the product of the maximum heat rate ratio, the total heat within 3.5-24 hours interval ratio, and the time to reach the maximum heat inverse ratio: CX = J HR™X Hy5 2-4 r,nax -100 v HR max H 3 5 - 2 4 (19) where: HRm3X= maximum heat rate of wood-cement mixture (Jh ]g 1) HR max maximum heat rate of neat cement paste (Jh lg 1) H 35_24 = total heat released by wood-cement mixture in 3.5-24 hours interval (J) H 3 5 - 2 4 = total heat released by neat cement paste within 3.5-24 hours interval (J) tmax = time to reach maximum heat rate of wood-cement mixture (h) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 t max = time to reach maximum heat rate of neat cement paste (h) 4.3.2 Wood-cement compatibility vs. time since death Table 4.3 illustrates the CA, Cl, and CX indices calculated for two control groups (‘sound’ wood and blue stain sapwood) and for the heartwood samples from four time since death classes (TSD1-4). Their means and standard deviations are also shown in Figure 4.2. One Way Analysis of Variance gave the estimating differences among the six groups for each o f the three compatibility indices (Appendix D). Sound wood TSD-1 TSD-2 TSD-3 TSD-4 Bluestained sapw ood Figure 4.2 Wood-cement compatibility vs. time since death CA vs. Time since death The only statistically significant (p=0.01) difference in terms of wood-cement compatibility (CA) was between the blue-stained sapwood group and TSD-4 group (see Appendix D l). The presence of incipient decay and its byproducts could be the reason for Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 the decrease in compatibility as the dead trees age (TSD-4), but rather than that, the increased compatibility of the blue-stained sapwood with cement might be the real explanation for this compatibility. The TSD-4 group did not significantly differ from the other three TSD groups and also from the ‘sound’ wood group. Moreover, the CA average values for all groups expressed high degree of compatibility with cement, since they surpassed the proposed levels of compatibility defined by prior classifications. For instance, Hachmi and Moslemi (1989) suggested an upper CA-factor index of 68 as the borderline between ‘moderate compatibility’ and ‘high compatibility’ and a lower CA-factor index of 28 as the threshold towards ‘incompatibility’. As there was mentioned above, all prior CA-factor indices were not calculated on a per gram of mixture basis, that is, they should be larger by 8.35% than the values obtained in this study. For example, the average CA of ‘sound’ wood group was 79.8, but it would become 86.5 based on former calculations, which was reasonably in accordance with the CA-factor index value of 85 obtained for lodgepole pine (Hachmi et al., 1990). C l vs. Time since death As the graphical representation indicates (Figure 4.2) the differences among groups were more apparent when Cl factor was taken into consideration as indicator for woodcement compatibility. Blue-stain sapwood group was significantly (p<0.001) more compatible with cement than all the other groups (see Appendix D l). The results were in accordance with prior findings (Davis, 1966) that suggested that mixtures containing bluestained wood showed an earlier setting than mixtures containing non blue-stained wood, as a direct effect of the decrease in extractive content in the infested sapwood. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 But the average Cl value for blue-stain sapwood was over 100. This could be interpreted that blue-stained sapwood had a potential accelerator effect for setting of cement, since both effects of hydration, with a greater maximum heat evolution rate and especially a shorter equivalent time to reach that maximum, contributed to a higher Cl index than those of the neat cement. Obviously, more research would be needed to understand the chemical composition of blue-stained sapwood and its interaction on cement hydration. The ‘sound’ wood group was found to be significantly more compatible than TSD-4 (p=0.026). However, that was not the case when compared with the other three TSD classes. CX vs. Time since death CX index had similar statistically significant (p<0.001) differences between bluestained sapwood group and all other five groups since almost all the times to reach the maximum heat rate of the blue-stained sapwood samples were shorter, even than the times characterizing neat cement paste (see Appendix D l). However, the maximum heat rates and the total heat released were below those of neat cement, so the CX values did not surpass the 100 mark. There was found no statistical difference among the ‘sound’ wood group and the TSD classes groups. Taking into consideration the fact that the ‘sound’ wood group comprised both sound sapwood and sound heartwood, there was an assumption that the compatibility of MPB-killed wood would improve in real situation when the ‘high compatible’ blue-stained sapwood would be mixed with heartwood. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 4.3.3 Wood-cement compatibility vs. wood gas permeability Table 4.4 comprises the CA, Cl, and CX values for five gas permeability classes and the ‘white rot’ group. The GP-5 class includes only samples having visible signs of brown rot. Figure 4.3 shows the means by each index and each group and the standard deviations. CA vs. Gas permeability No significant difference in terms of CA means among the five GP classes was found, even considering the brown rot affected samples in GP-5. However, the ‘white rot’ group CA mean is statistically lower (p<0.001) than any other group’s mean (see Appendix D2). The mean value of 48.8 suggested a ‘moderate’ compatibility, although with a standard deviation of 27.1, the variation in terms of white rot affected wood-cement compatibility is quite significant. There are two samples (2472 and 1432) at the upper limit of ‘incompatibility’ (CA=16 and 28, respectively), meanwhile other two samples (1512 and 3252) could be considered still compatible (CA=75 and 76, respectively). C l vs. Gas permeability The increase in wood-cement compatibility with wood permeability, as reflected in Figure 4.3, was statistically proven by the significant difference (p<0.037) in terms of Cl means between GP-1 and GP-4 (see Appendix D2). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.3 Compatibility indices vs. time since death CA 82 79 82 77 81 73 82 78 82 82 79.8 (3.0) Sound wood Cl CX 98 85 84 71 95 81 98 87 97 81 89 81 98 80 96 86 93 77 93 79 94.1 80.8 (4.6) (4.7) CA 79 82 81 83 81 79 78 78 83 70 79.4 TSD-1 Cl 92 99 85 90 91 85 81 85 95 84 88.7 (3.8) (5.6) CX 79 88 77 82 83 79 74 77 83 70 79.2 CA 19 83 78 82 76 79 78 76 80 78 78.9 TSD-2 Cl 97 86 79 89 78 83 81 84 85 92 85.4 CX 87 88 79 81 71 78 74 76 80 79 79.3 CA 82 77 80 79 84 80 80 81 77 75 79.5 TSD-3 Cl 94 78 82 91 84 94 89 81 92 94 87.9 CX 86 73 71 82 80 83 80 73 82 83 79.3 (2.3/ (5.9) (5.3/ (2.6) (6.1) (5.1/ M Note. - Four time since death classes and two control groups: ‘Sound’ wood and Blue-stained sapwood - Bold values represent the means o f 10 observations (see Appendix A, Table A l) - The values in parenthesis represent standard deviations CA 74 83 76 78 71 76 76 78 78 79 76.9 (8.2/ TSD-4 Cl 79 85 78 78 69 80 86 97 93 98 84.3 CX 67 81 70 72 61 75 73 82 81 82 74.4 Blue-stained sapwood CA Cl CX 85 117 96 80 120 98 78 110 91 80 95 85 77 97 83 84 110 100 82 105 91 81 102 85 83 113 94 88 111 96 81.8 108.0 91.9 (9.4) (7.2) (3.3/ (8.2) (5.9) CA 16 75 49 76 28 W hite rot Cl 24 74 48 73 37 CX 15 60 48 64 16 Table 4.4 Compatibility indices vs. longitudinal gas permeability CA 75 79 76 79 74 78 71 77 79 78 76.6 GP-1 Cl 76 87 78 83 79 78 69 89 89 85 81.3 CX 72 81 71 78 67 72 61 79 79 77 73.7 CA 79 86 78 77 87 76 80 80 77 80 80.0 GP-2 Cl 84 90 81 78 89 80 84 94 85 81 84.6 CX 78 82 74 73 85 75 80 83 76 71 77.7 CA 79 80 83 80 76 79 77 80 80 78 79.2 GP-3 Cl 91 95 90 85 86 88 94 89 88 90 89.6 CX 78 86 82 80 73 81 77 80 83 80 80.0 CA 82 82 84 81 81 78 84 82 84 83 82.1 GP-4 Cl 99 94 95 99 91 81 84 89 97 95 92.4 CX 88 86 83 87 83 72 80 82 90 83 83.4 (2.6) (6.4) 48.8 (6-3) (3.7) GP-5 (brown rot) CA Cl CX 77 91 78 77 92 82 78 92 79 77 94 77 78 97 82 78 93 81 79 98 82 70 84 70 75 94 83 75 84 74 76.4 91.9 78.8 (5.0) (4.7/ 51.2 35.4 (1.9/ (3.2) (3.5/ (1.9) (6.1) (5.0) (2.6) (27.1) (22.1) (24.5) (4.7/ (4.2) Note. - Five gas permeability classes and ‘White rot’ group - Bold values represent the means o f 10 observations (see Appendix A, Table A2) - The values in parenthesis represent standard deviations ON Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.5 CA 79 79 78 80 81 76 71 78 79 81 78.2 SG-1 Cl 84 92 79 95 85 78 69 81 88 81 83.2 (2.9) (7.5) CX 78 79 79 86 77 70 61 72 81 73 75.6 to ; C4 78 87 76 79 80 80 77 78 70 75 78.0 SG-2 Cl 80 89 80 91 89 81 94 93 84 94 87.5 CX 74 85 75 82 80 71 77 81 70 83 77.8 C4 82 74 83 81 79 80 85 77 77 79 79.7 SG-3 Cl 94 79 90 91 85 84 92 89 89 98 89.1 CX 86 67 82 83 79 80 86 79 79 82 80.3 C4 75 79 76 78 81 78 84 78 83 75 78.7 SG-4 Cl 76 87 78 92 99 78 84 81 95 84 85.4 (4.3) (5.8) (5.2) (3.2) (5.4) (5.4) (3-D (7.8) CX 72 81 71 79 87 72 80 74 83 74 77.5 C4 83 82 78 77 76 83 80 80 76 78 79.3 SG-5 Cl 86 89 81 78 84 85 85 82 86 85 84.1 CX 88 81 74 73 76 81 80 71 73 77 77.4 (2.7) (3.1) (5.D - The values in parenthesis represent standard deviations o\ 63 One of the hypotheses of this study was that the lack of extractives could increase the permeability of the heartwood, but also, could lessen the inhibitory effect on cement hydration leading to an improved compatibility. The significant difference between GP-1 and GP-4 could be linked with that, but the confirmation would be obtained only after a research study should deal with relating the permeability with the extractive content analysis. Nevertheless, gas permeability could be at some degree a good predictor of woodcement compatibility expressed by Cl. GP-1 GP-2 GP-3 GP-4 GP-5 (brown rot) White rot Figure 4.3 Wood-cement compatibility vs. gas permeability CX vs. Gas permeability As indicated above, the new proposed index CX, amplified the ‘poor’ values of the two other indices. In this case, there was an even lower value of the decline in compatibility for the ‘white rot’ group (p<0.001) (see Appendix D2). Meanwhile, CX attenuated the peaks of compatibility especially given by Cl index. Therefore, no other Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 significant difference was found among any GP classes, in terms of wood cement compatibility reflected by CX index. Besides the expected reduced suitability of white rot affected wood for cement mixtures, an important fact revealed by this section is that incipient ‘brown rot’ did not inhibit cement hydration, maintaining a high level of compatibility. 4.3.4 Wood-cement compatibility vs. specific gravity All the compatibility indices values are in Table 4.5. The means of each of the three compatibility indices and the standard deviations by five SG classes are plotted in Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4 Wood-cement compatibility vs. specific gravity Analysis o f variance among the five SG classes for each of the three indices showed no significant difference among any groups (see Appendix D3); wood-cement Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 compatibility did not statistically vary with specific gravity. There had been an initial assumption that a lower specific gravity related with incipient forms of decay could also have been related with a low index of compatibility with cement. As the data suggested the minimum means for each of the indices was reached at the lowest density (SG-1), but the difference in the mean values was not large enough in order to be accepted by statistical procedure. However, all tested samples presented high levels of compatibility with cement. 4.3.5 The significance of CX index As shown in Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 the CX index represented a combined effect of the CA and Cl approaches. For example, low CA and Cl indices merged into an even lower CX index (‘white rot’ group), but the ‘exaggerated’ Cl index (blue-stained sapwood group) was attenuated by a still high CX index; not over 100 mark, though. The correlations among the three indices were very high. A coefficient of determination R2 of 0.787 was obtained when predicting CX by CA and a value R2 of 0.876 was obtained predicting CX by CL A multiple linear regression used for predicting CX function of both CA and Cl produced a coefficient of determination R2 of 0.932, which clearly demonstrated the positive interaction of the two indices (CA and Cl) in generating the new CX. 4.4 Predicting wood-cement compatibility Predicting wood-cement compatibility as a function of various physical properties of the MPB-killed heartwood, as independent variables, was one of the goals of this study. Except for white rot wood all the heartwood samples were pooled and three separate Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 regression analysis (stepwise forward method) were run for each of the dependent variables: CA, Cl, and CX, as function of TSD, GP, and SG. The analysis output is presented in Appendix E. CA prediction As expected by running the A VOVA analysis when there were not found any significant differences among the CA means, the attempt to predict CA failed. However, TSD-class was statistically accepted (p=0.027) into a possible model as the only independent variable: CA = 81.1 -0 .8 TSD (20) The R2 value of 0.074, indicated a very poor linear relationship and therefore, one should be very cautious in validating the model. C l prediction The slight increase in Cl values with an increase in gas permeability found in Section 4.3.2 was confirmed by running the regression analysis. Therefore, GP-class was the only independent variable statistically accepted (p<0.001) into a possible model for predicting Cl: Cl = 80.7 + 2.4 ■GP Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (21) 67 An R2 value of 0.299 barely supports the model, however, gas permeability and its potential association with the extractive content inside heartwood could be considered as a possible predictor of wood-cement compatibility expressed by Cl. CX prediction Since CX was conceived as a combination of effects coming from two different approaches, its prediction was supposed to incorporate the characteristics from the two analyses made for predicting both CA and Cl. Therefore, the possible model for predicting CX comprised both TSD-class and GP-class as statistically accepted independent variables (p=0.021 and p=0.014, respectively): CX = 79.1 - 1.4 TSD + 1.1 GP (22) Since R2 = 0.154 in the above regression, it is doubtful that the model could be valid. Nevertheless, it illustrated the integrated character of the CX index, confirming the assumption that it comprised the effects of the two other indices. 4.5 Reducing the time of doing the calorimetric experiments One of the major impediments of doing calorimetric experiments for wood-cement compatibility evaluation was the time consuming character of the tests. Also, the huge variability of the wood samples, in terms of both physical and chemical aspects, led to the need of running enough replicates for obtaining reliable results. Therefore, reducing the time of the calorimetric tests would definitely improve the methodology of doing this type Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 of research. One important component o f the compatibility indices’ calculation was the time needed to reach the maximum heat rate of wood cement mixtures. Both the real time and the actual time when the equivalent heat reaches maximum, as in Cl calculation, usually did not exceed a ten hours threshold (except for the case of white rot samples). That is, the hydration time needed for calculating Cl index could be successfully reduced at less than 24 hours. The difficulty occurred when CA and CX calculations were concerned, which were based totally or partially on the total heat released within 3.5-24 hours interval. The attempt was to build predictions for the actual CA and CX (based on calculations over 3.5-24 h interval) using as variables the corresponding values for CA and CX calculated at shorter intervals. Therefore, various CA type indices were calculated at various time intervals starting with the interval of 3.5-10 h, and then adding 1 hour at a time up to the actual index value calculated for the 3.5-24 hours interval. Calculations were also made for CX type indices. Two correlation matrices were created showing high correlation coefficients among the indices calculated at various time intervals (see Tables 4.6 and 4.7). However, only four regression equations were developed, at 3.5-12 h, 3.515 h, 3.5-18 h, and 3.5-21 h intervals for each of the two indices (Appendix F). They would be used as models to predict the CA index and the CX index function of corresponding values at more convenient shorter intervals. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.6 Correlation matrix of CA values determined at various time intervals Time intervals 3.5-10 3.5-11 3.5-12 3.5-13 3.5-14 3.5-15 3.5-16 3.5-17 3.5-18 3.5-19 3.5-20 3.5-21 3.5-22 3.5-23 3.5-10 3.5-11 3.5-12 3.5-13 3.5-14 3.5-15 3.5-16 3.5-17 3.5-18 3.5-19 3.5-20 3.5-21 3.5-22 3.5-23 1.0000 0.9910 0.9744 0.9572 0.9360 0.9161 0.9020 0.8882 0.8760 0.8632 0.8485 0.8347 0.8207 0.8050 1.0000 0.9948 0.9855 0.9725 0.9586 0.9482 0.9375 0.9271 0.9155 0.9019 0.8891 0.8753 0.8597 1.0000 0.9968 0.9895 0.9803 0.9729 0.9648 0.9559 0.9454 0.9333 0.9213 0.9079 0.8926 1.0000 0.9974 0.9920 0.9870 0.9808 0.9732 0.9637 0.9524 0.9414 0.9283 0.9136 1.0000 0.9982 0.9954 0.9914 0.9853 0.9770 0.9668 0.9569 0.9447 0.9307 1.0000 0.9992 0.9969 0.9924 0.9854 0.9766 0.9677 0.9564 0.9432 1.0000 0.9991 0.9960 0.9903 0.9827 0.9749 0.9646 0.9524 1.0000 0.9986 0.9946 0.9886 0.9822 0.9732 0.9623 1.0000 0.9985 0.9948 0.9903 0.9834 0.9746 1.0000 0.9987 0.9961 0.9914 0.9848 1.0000 0.9990 0.9963 0.9917 1.0000 0.9989 0.9959 1.0000 0.9989 1.0000 3.5-24 (CA) 0.7870 0.8414 0.8749 0.8963 0.9140 0.9274 0.9376 0.9489 0.9633 0.9758 0.9847 0.9906 0.9955 0.9987 3.5-24 (CA) 1.0000 OV VO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.7 Correlation matrix of CX values determined at various time intervals Time intervals 3.5-10 3.5-11 3.5-12 3.5-13 3.5-14 3.5-15 3.5-16 3.5-17 3.5-18 3.5-19 3.5-20 3.5-21 3.5-22 3.5-23 3.5-24 (CX) 3.5-10 3.5-11 3.5-12 3.5-13 3.5-14 3.5-15 3.5-16 3.5-17 3.5-18 3.5-19 3.5-20 3.5-21 3.5-22 1.0000 0.9990 0.9975 0.9960 0.9944 0.9931 0.9922 0.9915 0.9910 0.9906 0.9901 0.9897 0.9895 0.9892 1.0000 0.9995 0.9988 0.9979 0.9970 0.9965 0.9959 0.9955 0.9951 0.9947 0.9944 0.9941 0.9938 1.0000 0.9998 0.9993 0.9987 0.9983 0.9979 0.9976 0.9972 0.9968 0.9965 0.9962 0.9960 1.0000 0.9998 0.9995 0.9992 0.9989 0.9986 0.9983 0.9979 0.9977 0.9974 0.9972 1.0000 0.9999 0.9997 0.9995 0.9993 0.9990 0.9987 0.9985 0.9982 0.9980 1.0000 1.0000 0.9998 0.9996 0.9994 0.9992 0.9990 0.9988 0.9986 1.0000 1.0000 0.9998 0.9996 0.9994 0.9993 0.9991 0.9989 1.0000 0.9999 0.9998 0.9997 0.9995 0.9994 0.9992 1.0000 1.0000 0.9999 0.9998 0.9997 0.9996 1.0000 1.0000 0.9999 0.9999 0.9998 1.0000 1.0000 0.9999 0.9999 1.0000 1.0000 0.9999 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9889 0.9935 0.9957 0.9969 0.9977 0.9983 0.9987 0.9991 0.9994 0.9997 0.9998 0.9999 0.9999 1.0000 3.5-23 3.5-24 (CX) 1.0000 o 71 The cross-validation method with a second sub-sample was chosen for statistical regression. A testing standard recommended split is 80-85% from the total number of observations used for statistical regression analysis and the remaining 15-20% observations for the cross validation sample. Therefore the index values given by the samples tested in Dewar flasks number 1 to 5 were used to build the prediction models and those tested in Dewar flask number 6 were used for cross-validation. Based on a confidence interval of 95% the chosen eight models have met the statically significance requirements (p<0.001): CA predictions: CA = 30.901 +0.662 ■CA3 .5 . 1 2 (R2 = 0.765) (23) CA = 23.087+ 0.751 ■CA3.5. i 5 (R2 = 0.860) (24) C A = 14.909 + 0.842 CA 3 .5 - 1 8 (R2 = 0.928) (25) CA = 6.361 +0.935 CA3 .5 - 2 1 (R2 = 0.981) (26) CX predictions: CX= 8.167 + 0.923 - C X 3 s - 1 2 (R2 = 0.991) (27) CX = 5.147 + 0.954 • CX3.5-15 (R2 = 0.997) (28) C X= 2.835 + 0.976 CX3.5-18 (R2 = 0.999) (29) CX= 1.163 + 0.991 CX3.5-21 (R2= 1.000) (30) As expected, the influence total heat ratio had over the CX calculation was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 significantly reduced, so even for the 3.5-12 hours interval the coefficient of determination was very high (R2 = 0.991), illustrating that the model would work well. The correlations between predicted and actual scores obtained for the sub-sample tested in Dewar flask number 6 were squared (Appendix G) to compare them with the coefficients o f determination for each of the models. In all the cases, the cross-validation samples were even better predicted by the regression equations than the larger sample that generated the models. In conclusion, there is no doubt about the appropriateness of using shorter intervals in doing the calorimetric tests, since the advantage of saving substantial time is backed by a strong relationship between the calculated index values, especially for the CX index. 4.6 Wood-cement boards: tests’ results The tests’ results were divided and analyzed separately: water soaking test and static bending test. The two-way Analysis of Variance was used to investigate possible effects of the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size, and the potential interaction between the two factors. The results generated by using the two-way ANOVA procedure in the SigmaStat software application (version #3.1) were compiled in Appendix H. Only the statistically significant comparisons were discussed. 4.6.1 Water soaking tests The first set o f readings, including measurements of the weight, thickness, length, and width, was recorded after 2 hours and then the specimens were left submersed for another 22 hours. The percentage increases were calculated with respect to the initial Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 values recorded after conditioning the specimens at RH of 65%. Tables 4.8 and 4.9 show the averages obtained from four replications, including standard deviations, for various physical properties affected by soaking. Thickness swelling The Figures 4.5 - 4.8 illustrate all 9 interactions between the three levels of each of the two factors after 2 and 24 h of soaking for the thickness swelling. The graphs clearly showed that the wood particle size was the only factor affecting the thickness swelling. That was confirmed by statistical significance (p<0.001). The thickness swelling of the wood-cement boards increased with the size of the wood particles. Thickness swelling after 2 hours Thickness swelling after 2 hours -o - - o - - S iz e 1 1 -o -Q - -•< > •- Ratio2 ------ Size2 Ratio3 —a— Size3 — a — Ratio4 0.4 0.2 - C e m e n t/w o o d ra tio P a rtic le s ize Figures 4.5 and 4.6 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the thickness swelling means after 2 hours soaking Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 Thickness swelling after 24 hours Thickness swelling after 24 hours - • o ■ - Ratio2 0.8 X ------- Ratio3 — 6— Ratio4 0.4 - C e m e n t/w o o d ra tio P a rtic le s iz e Figures 4.7 and 4.8 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the thickness swelling means after 24 hours soaking A possible explanation for this was based on the geometry of the wood particles and the process of manufacturing both the wood particles and the boards themselves. Random spatial distribution of the particles during the mat formation increased with the decrease in particles’ dimensions. Consequently, the bigger the wood particles, a larger amount of the particles would be horizontal in the 1-cm thick board (Figure 4.9). The longest dimension of the slivers usually represented the longitudinal direction of the wood and therefore, a wood particle in a horizontal position in the board contributed through the radial or the tangential swelling to the overall swelling of the board rather than the longitudinal swelling, which is considerably smaller. Similar observations were made by Fan et al. (2002), but regarding the shrinkage of the boards after long exposure (400 days) under constant relative humidity (65%RH). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 4.9 Spatial distribution of wood particles of various sizes Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.8 Average increases for several physical characteristics of the wood-cement boards after 2 hours soaking Sample no. Average initial density Average initial MC Average increases after 2 hours (g/cm3) (%) Density (%) MC (%) Weight (%) Thickness cement/wood ratio 2:1 MPB-2-1 MPB-2-2 MPB-2-3 0.84(0.04) 0.82(0.02) 0.80(0.08) 13.55(0.53) 13.63(0.64) 14.05(0.36) 36.5(3.34) 29.71(1.64) 26.76(1.65) 320.0(22.5) 263.7(20.3) 232.5(8.2) 38.2(3.41) 31.55(1.25) 28.65(1.50) 0.74(0.06) 1.01(0.22) 1.03(0.37) 0.20(0.03) 0.21(0.12) 0.23(0.03) 0.30(0.08) 0.20(0.11) 0.23(0.13) cement/wood ratio 3:1 MPB-3-1 MPB-3-2 MPB-3-3 1.00(0.04) 1.02(0.04) 1.03(0.03) 12.92(0.43) 12.48(0.47) 12.21(0.15) 23.64(3.19) 20.03(1.37) 20.27(2.00) 219.1(30.9) 194.4(13.4) 204.6(15.7) 25.03(3.03) 21.56(1.54) 22.26(1.63) 0.72(0.22) 0.88(0.21) 1.14(0.34) 0.16(0.05) 0.17(0.03) 0.22(0.06) 0.23(0.18) 0.22(0.10) 0.30(0.05) cement/wood ratio 4:1 MPB-4-1 MPB-4-2 MPB-4-3 1.05(0.10) 1.04(0.02) 1.11(0.02) 12.03(0.64) 12.42(0.72) 12.14(0.62) 14.53(1.88) 17.39(0.76) 17.87(0.46) 142.7(11.3) 169.5(10.6) 183.5(6.7) 15.37(1.89) 18.68(0.52) 19.84(0.79) 0.38(0.11) 0.63(0.29) 1.14(0.25) 0.15(0.03) 0.18(0.07) 0.23(0.04) 0.20(0.05) 0.28(0.12) 0.29(0.11) Width (%) Length (%) (%) Note. Standard deviations appear in parenthesis as the result o f four replications -» j os Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.9 Average increases for several physical characteristics of the wood-cement boards after 24 hours soaking Sample no. Average initial density Average initial MC Average increases after 24 hours (g/cm3) (%) Density (%) MC cement/wood ratio 2:1 MPB-2-1 MPB-2-2 MPB-2-3 0.84(0.04) 0.82(0.02) 0.80(0.08) 13.55(0.53) 13.63(0.64) 14.05(0.36) 40.47(3.68) 34.25(1.66) 31.33(1.36) 357.2(23.3) 303.7(17.6) 274.4(5.8) 42.65(3.76) 36.34(0.68) 33.81(1.88) 0.91(0.09) 1.13(0.23) 1.31(0.35) 0.31(0.07) 0.34(0.22) 0.28(0.03) 0.32(0.08) 0.28(0.22) 0.29(0.17) cement/wood ratio 3:1 MPB-3-1 MPB-3-2 MPB-3-3 1.00(0.04) 1.02(0.04) 1.03(0.03) 12.92(0.43) 12.48(0.47) 12.21(0.15) 28.23(2.48) 24.68(1.60) 23.80(2.03) 259.2(22.4) 240.6(15.5) 237.9(16.4) 29.63(2.28) 26.67(1.51) 25.89(1.71) 0.76(0.17) 1.00(0.10) 1.35(0.30) 0.20(0.05) 0.28(0.04) 0.30(0.05) 0.19(0.11) 0.31(0.13) 0.34(0.04) cement/wood ratio 4:1 MPB-4-1 MPB-4-2 MPB-4-3 1.05(0.10) 1.04(0.02) 1.11(0.02) 12.03(0.64) 12.42(0.72) 12.14(0.62) 21.08(2.41) 21.11(0.93) 19.79(0.78) 209.5(9.3) 207.2(13.3) 205.5(8.4) 22.53(2.03) 22.83(0.57) 22.21(0.70) 0.52(0.22) 0.81(0.33) 1.36(0.40) 0.25(0.05) 0.19(0.06) 0.26(0.07) 0.42(0.16) 0.41(0.15) 0.39(0.08) Thickness (%) Length (%) Width (%) Weight (%) (%) Note. Standard deviations appear in parenthesis as the result o f four replications --j "j 78 Neither the cement/wood ratio nor the interactions between the two factors, cement/wood ratio and particle size, influenced the swelling of the boards. However, a detailed Multiple Comparison Procedure (Holm-Sidak method) showed a significant difference between Size 3 (the largest wood particle size) and both smaller sizes within the level Ratio 4 (cement/wood ratio 4:1) after 2 hours of soaking. That is, more cement (ratio 4:1) managed to hinder the swelling of the boards made from smaller wood particles (size 1 and 2) compared with those made from the largest ones (size 3). The fact is even more obvious after 24 hours of soaking when a significant difference is noticed within Ratio 3 level, too. However, the thickness swelling values were lower than values of various commercial panels which varied in a range between 10% and 30% (Suchsland, 2004). As expected, the cement acted as a very stable bonding matrix around the wood particles, even for the large ones. It would be assumed that the actual variation in thickness for a board used for interior application under little changes in relative humidity to be negligible. Linear expansion There was found no statistically significant difference among any levels of the two factors, wood/cement ratio and particle size, or any interactions resulted from various factor-levels combinations for both length and width (Figures 4.10 - 4.17). With an average -0.25% and characterized by stability and consistency, the linear expansion of the wood-cement boards could be considered within acceptable limits for composite boards (Suchsland, 2004) and in accordance with prior results obtained for wood-cement materials (Lee, 1984). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 Length expansion after 2 hours Length expansion after 2 hours - I 05 o 0.4 - Size2 Ratio3 0.2 0 - ■= o> 0.1 c -I 0.5 , Ratio4 o) 0.1 0.0 C e m e n t/w o o d ra tio P a rtic le s ize Figures 4.10 and 4.11 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the length increase means after 2 hours soaking Length expansion after 24 hours OS & 0) 0 4 M n a?o 0.3 c 0.2 --o --S iz e 1 ------- Size2 — Ci— Size3 £ O) 0 1 c o _l 0.0 Length expansion after 24 hours * a5 1 ■JT 0.4 o> s 0.3 * — ■E 0 .2 0-. _ p . . . a ..... tr- - - o ■ - Ratio2 Ratio3 — ci— Ratio4 0.1 ■o 0.1 5 0.0 4 P a rtic le s ize Figures 4.14 and 4.15 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the width increase means after 2 hours soaking Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 Width expansion after 24 hours Width expansion after 24 hours 0.5 0.5 4) V> 0.4 - 8 7£ o - Ratio2 5 0.3 o c .--o- c 0.2 ---- 1 3 2 C e m e n t/w o o d ratio - Ratio3 ts~—Ratio4 P a rtic le size Figures 4.16 and 4.17 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the width increase means after 24 hours soaking Water absorption The effect produced by the two factors and their interactions on water absorption was expressed through the weight increase (Figures 4.18-4.21). Water absorption after 2 hours Water absorption after 2 hours 50 -S iz e l <8 30 . - -Q - - Size2 ------- A — —Size3 - - o - - Ratio2 <5 30 o - Ratio3 .5 20 --- A-—Ratio4 o> 10 - 0 2 3 C e m e n t/w o o d ra tio 4 1 2 3 P a rtic le size Figures 4.18 and 4.19 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the weight increase means after 2 hours soaking Both cement/wood ratio and wood particle size were significant and also, the interaction effect was significant (Appendix H). Cement/wood ratio was the key factor in affecting the water absorption, the significance (p<0.001) occurring among the three ratios but also among the three ratios within each of the levels of the other factor, namely wood Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 particle size. Water absorption after 24 hours Water absorption after 24 hours — 50 i 50 -o --S iz e 1 O .£ a ------- Size2 20 - -tr o -A — &— Size3 Ratio3 -a— Ratio4 a 10 2 3 4 C e m e n t/w o o d ra tio 2 3 P a rtic le s ize Figures 4.20 and 4.21 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the weight increase means after 24 hours soaking After 24 hours of soaking there were statistically significant (Appendix H) differences among all the combinations of cement/wood ratios within each of the three wood particle sizes. That is, the boards became more permeable as the amount of cement decreased. The presence of a larger amount o f wood could be a reason for increasing permeability at lower ratios. More wood could have also led to the incidence of more air voids into the boards since no significant pressure was applied during the manufacturing process and the mat at lower ratios was less compact. On the other hand, the finest particles (size 1) led to significantly more permeable boards, the fact being more obvious within the lowest cement/wood ratio level (2:1). The lack of a significant difference within the higher ratios showed the stabilization role of the cement paste with respect to water absorption. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 4.6.2 Static bending test The averages from the four replications including the standard deviations for both modulus o f elasticity (MOE) and modulus of rupture (MOR) are presented in Table 4.10. There are linear relationships between the density of the boards and MOE (R2=0.72) and between the density and MOR (R2=0.66) (Figures 4.22 and 4.23). However, within a definite cement/wood ratio, practically at the same density, strength and stiffness are both negatively affected by the wood particle size. Density vs. MOE Density vs. MOR 4000 i 6000 5000 4000 ♦ “ 2000 S 1000 2 7 3000 E O 2000 1000 0.8 0.9 D en sity (g /c m A3) .1 D e n s ity (g /c m A3) Figures 4.22 and 4.23 Relationships between boards’ density and strength properties Modulus o f elasticity (MOE) Statistical analysis (Appendix H) showed that both factors, cement/wood ratio and particle size, were significant. The significant differences among various ratios (p<0.001) demonstrated that MOE increases as the amount of cement increases. The role of cement in enhancing the MOE was obvious within the size 1 level (Figure 4.25); all the three cement/wood ratios being statistically different with respect to MOE means. Within large particle levels (size 2 and 3) the role of cement matrix for increasing MOE was found to be Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 significant only between ratio 2 and both ratio 3 and 4. No significant difference was found between MOE at ratio 3 and ratio 4 that is, for large wood particles, adding more cement did not significantly improve the stiffness of the boards. Table 4.10 Mechanical properties of the wood-cement boards Sample no. Average density Average MC MOE MOR (g/cm3) (%) (MPa) (kPa) cement/wood ratio 2:1 MPB-2-1 MPB-2-2 MPB-2-3 0.84(0.04) 0.82(0.02) 0.80(0.08) 13.55(0.53) 13.63(0.64) 14.05(0.36) 1454(303) 1165(231) 1125(237) 2785(341) 2090(346) 1722(264) cement/wood ratio 3:1 MPB-3-1 MPB-3-2 MPB-3-3 1.00(0.04) 1.02(0.04) 1.03(0.03) 12.92(0.43) 12.48(0.47) 12.21(0.15) 2529(75) 2428(684) 2156(702) 4349(444) 3936(985) 3084(936) cement/wood ratio 4:1 MPB-4-1 MPB-4-2 MPB-4-3 1.05(0.10) 1.04(0.02) 1.11(0.02) 12.03(0.64) 12.42(0.72) 12.14(0.62) 3656(683) 2724(142) 2456(309) 5461(1153) 4068(629) 3894(599) Note. Standard deviations appear in parenthesis as the result o f four replications The fact was also proved by the significant differences within ratio 4 level. The boards made from the finest particles (size 1) are significantly stiffer than the boards made from larger particles (size 2 and size 3). At lower ratios, particle size did not significantly affect the MOE (Figure 4.24). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 Modulus of elasticity Modulus of elasticity 4000 4000 'Jo' 3000 - - - o - - S iz e 1 : CL S - Size2 2000 - iu < r\ O 1000 — *— Size3 s 15' 3000 ■ | 9 ........................ 5---T7— ------- - - • o - - Ratio2 — ------- Ratio3 IU O £ 2000 J i 9------------- _ 1 0 0 0 -I 0 2 3 4 C e m e n t/w o o d ra tio " " D « — a — Ratio4 J- - - - - - - - - - - ,- - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 2 3 P a rtic le size Figures 4.24 and 4.25 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the modulus of elasticity (MOE) means. Modulus o f rupture (MOR) The boards’ behavior in terms of MOR showed a similar pattern with that of MOE (Figures 4.26 and 4.27). Adding more cement improved the strength. However, that was not the case within large particles levels. For both size 2 and size 3, the MOR at ratio 4 did not significantly differ from MOR at ratio 3. Modulus of rupture Modulus of rupture o - - Ratio2 □--- Ratio3 a — Ratio4 C e m e n t/w o o d ra tio P a rtic le size Figures 4.26 and 4.27 Interaction plots between the two factors: cement/wood ratio and wood particle size for the modulus of rupture (MOR) means. Various wood particle sizes did not have an effect on boards’ strength except for the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 situation with MOR means within ratio 4. The finest particles produced the strongest boards. It is possible that, in the absence of any major pressing, the material made from large particles (size 2 and size 3) incorporates more air voids which led to reduced strength Taking into consideration the bending requirements for the gypsum board, with maximum MOR of 4000 kPa and maximum MOE of 2500 MPa, three compositions of ingredients shown in Table 4.11 would generate wood-cement boards having the mechanical properties exceeding those parameters. Table 4.11 The compositions of ingredients proposed for fabricating wood-cement boards Wood-cement board’s composition MOR (kPa) MOE (MPa) 16-32 4300 2500 4:1 16-32 5500 3700 4:1 8-16 4100 2700 Cement/wood (ratio) Particle size (mesh fraction) 3:1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 Chapter 5 - Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 MPB-killed lodgepole pine-cement compatibility From the analysis of the data tested throughout this study, valuable information was gained in terms of assessing wood-cement compatibility. Two approaches were employed in order to better evaluate most of the aspects of the exothermic process of wood-cement mixtures hydration, and a new index was proposed as potential merger of the two procedures. On the other hand, the sampling procedure was intended to comprehensively cover various characteristics of the MPB-killed wood; therefore the results could be considered as having general relevance for an authentic evaluation of the infested wood’s suitability for cement mixtures. The following conclusions were derived from this study: 1. The MPB-killed wood is at least as suitable as the ‘sound’ lodgepole pine for wood-cement composites. No evidence was found of limitations in terms of MPB-killed heartwood wood compatibility with cement in comparison with a control ‘sound’ lodgepole pine wood. Moreover, the hydration characteristics were close enough to those belonging to neat cement paste, confirming the hypothesis that MPB-killed wood has a ‘high’ level of compatibility with Portland cement. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 2. There are three factors related to the methodological aspects employed in the experiments that reinforce the significance of the study’s results: wood particles used in the calorimetric experiments were finer than normal. A 20-40 mesh fraction, as usually utilized, would have amplified the exothermic behavior of wood-cement mixtures, leading to even higher indeces. all of the heat calculations included in this study have been made on a per gram of mixture basis, for both neat cement paste and wood-cement mixtures. Besides increasing the consistency in determining the compatibility indices, this approach reduced the values of CA-factor by 8.35%, compared with supposed prior calculations. Nevertheless, all the CA values exceeded the given ‘compatibility’ threshold of 68, except for the ‘white rot’ samples. all of the tests were done on heartwood, which is less compatible than sapwood. Moreover, the mixtures of blue-stained sapwood and cement revealed very high indices of compatibility. If pure infested heartwood was found to be compatible with cement, then it would be expected that adding blue-stained sapwood to the mix would make MPB-killed wood a very suitable raw material for wood-cement composites. 3. The new proposed index CX is a reliable assessor of compatibility. Its calculation takes into consideration most of the exothermic characteristics of wood-cement mixtures hydration: maximum heat rate, time to reach that maximum heat rate, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 and total heat released during the chemical process. Therefore, CX is highly correlated with CA and Cl, and especially with their combined interaction. The CX index accentuates wood-cement incompatibility when both CA and Cl do so, but diminishes the artificial ‘high’ compatibility given especially through Cl approach. 4. Time since death is not a reliable predictor of wood-cement compatibility. Therefore, the MPB-killed wood’s usefulness for wood-cement composites remains unchanged for many years after the attack. Also, the wood-cement compatibility does not significantly vary with specific gravity. Gas permeability may be a predictor of various degrees of compatibility between infested wood and cement. However, further research would be needed to study the relationship among permeability, wood-cement compatibility, and the extractive content. 5. Incipient decay produced by brown rot fungi does not significantly affect woodcement compatibility. However, the level of suitability radically drops towards ‘incompatibility’ by the time white rot fungi have attacked the wood. 6. The high correlation between the CA values obtained by running the calorimetric trials for less than 24 hours and the actual CA values offers the possibility of reducing the time of doing these very time consuming experiments. This also may lead to the prospect of having more samples to be included into tests. That would be even more useful if the CX approach was employed, since this index’s Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 calculation was based mostly on those exothermic characteristics occurring roughly in the first 12 hours of hydration (maximum heat rate and time to reach that maximum). The regression models show a very high coefficient of determination and also, they are strongly cross-validated. 5.2 Manufacturing wood-cement boards In absence of pressing, the technological process of fabricating wood-cement boards underwent several adjustments that made it unique compared with the customary specifications. The need for an increased workability during the forming phase was completed by adding more water to the mixtures. The various wood permeabilities were taken into consideration by applying an absorption pretest in order to determine the right amount of water for maintaining consistency with respect to fluidity for each of the wood-cement mixtures. Several conclusions resulted from analyzing the concrete data collected from the two tests (water soaking and static bending): 1. The thickness swelling is low, even for the boards made from big wood particles. Encapsulating the wood particles, the hardened cement paste represses the normal swelling of the wood to low levels. The linear expansion is also negligible. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 2. The water absorption values obtained for the boards fabricated in this study may be higher than those found by other authors. That could be explained by the lack of pressing applied during the manufacturing process. An increased number of air voids may lead to an increase in permeability, but also could be beneficial in terms of dimensional stability, humidity controlling, and reducing density. 3. The static bending test results show that the amount of cement is the major factor in improving strength and stiffness. This contradicts the findings that indicated the wood slivers acted as reinforcement for wood-cement composites. However, the way the boards are fabricated in this study indicates that cement paste matrix is the key element in assuring the bonding and enhancing the mechanical properties. Moreover, big chunks of wood could obstruct a complete removal of the air during the mat formation, affecting the strength of the boards. Some o f the boards’ characteristics are in disagreement with prior findings, especially when it comes to the potential role of the big wood particles as reinforcement for the concrete. In this study, the finest particles produced the best boards in terms of both the dimensional stability and the bending strength. Wood particles size 1 also produced the most fluid mixtures with a high level of workability during the molding process. Since the strength is not the key requirement for a board intended to be used as part of the interior wall system, the fact that the lack of pressing lead to an increase in air voids would not be a liability but rather it may be considered beneficial. Reducing the boards’ density is one of the goals of the wood-cement manufacturers. As for an interior Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 application, a porous board may increase the acoustic and thermal insulation and also enhance dimensional stability and body integrity under various potential external and internal stresses. Three compositions o f ingredients are proposed for fabricating wood-cement boards that meet the technical specifications given by the gypsum board standards with respect to strength and stiffness. The excellent behavior under wet environment, the prospect of a good nail holding capacity, and an anecdotic fungal and fire resistance are also benefits which could lead the way towards standardizing a new building material. 5.3 Recommendations Future projects are suggested in order to validate or improve the methodology for assessing wood-cement compatibility and manufacturing boards. Some of them are intended to provide further explanation into the wood-cement mechanisms. 1. A project should be developed to validate the use of the new proposed CX index for wood-cement compatibility by relating its values with physical or mechanical characteristics of the wood-cement materials. 2. Other major tree species from British Columbia, such as spruce or aspen, should be tested for their compatibility with Portland cement. Raw waste material, such as the sawdust from sawmill or the fines resulted from OSB processing should also be considered as potential aggregate in a wood-cement composite. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 3. High tech devices should be employed in assessing wood-cement composites performance. X-ray densitometer analysis could provide information related with material’s density. Image interpretation could also offer data on composition or wood particles alignment. 4. Further tests such as nail holding capacity, fire and fungal resistance, physical and mechanical changes under aging tests should complete the attempt towards standardizing the wood-cement board as a new building material used for interior walls. 5. The Static Bending tests should be duplicated on thicker boards. If the cement matrix was found to be responsible for most of the strength then the boards should be thick enough to allow cement acting as a binder for bigger wood particles. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 Bibliography Alberto, M. M., Mougel, E., Zoulalian, A. (2000). Compatibility of some tropical hardwoods species with portland cement using isothermal calorimetry. Forest Products Journal, 50(9), 83-88. ASTM. (1991). Standard test methods o f evaluating the properties o f wood-base fiber and particle panel materials: D 1037-89 (Vol. 04.09 Wood). Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Ballard, R. G., Walsh, M.A., Cole, W.E. (1984). The penetretion and growth o f blue-stain fungi in the sapwood of lodgepole pine attacked by mountain pine beetle. Canadian Journal o f Botany, 62, 1724-1729. Biblis, E. J., Lo, C.F. (1968). Effect on the setting of southern pine-cement mixtures. Forest Products Journal, 18(8), 28-34. Blankenhom, P. R., Labosky, P.Jr., DiCola, M., Stover, L.R. (1994). Compressive strength of hardwood-cement composites. Forest Products Journal, 44(4), 59-62. Campbell, A. G., Kim, W.J., Koch, P. (1990). Chemical variation in lodgepole pine with sapwood/heartwood, stem height, and variety. Wood and Fiber Science, 22(1), 2230. CAN/CSA. (1991a). Gypsum board - Building materials and products: A82.27-M91. Toronto, ON: Canadian Standards Association. CAN/CSA. (1991b). Physical testing o f gypsum board: A82.20.3-M91. Toronto, ON: Canadian Standards Association. Carino, N. J., Lew, H.S. (2001). The maturity method: from theory to application. Paper presented at the Structures Congress & Exposition. Sponsored by Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE, May 21-23, 2001, Washington, D.C. Comstock, G. L. (1967). Longitudinal permeability o f wood to gases and nonswelling liquids. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Forest Products Research Society, July 4,1967 - Session 9 - Anatomy & Fundamental Properties, Vancouver, B.C. Cramer, S. M., Friday, O.M., White, R.H., Sriprutkiat, G. (2003). Mechanical properties o f gypsum board at elevated temperatures. Paper presented at the Fire and materials 2003 - 8th International Conference, January 2003, San Francisco, CA. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 Davis, T. C. (1966). Effect of blue stain on setting of excelsior-cement mixtures. Forest Products Journal, 16(6), 49-50. de Souza, M. R., Geimer, R.L., Moslemi, A.A. (1997). Degradation of conventional and C02-injected cement-bonded particleboard by exposure to fungi and termites. Journal o f Tropical Products, 5(1), 63-69. Defo, M., Cloutier, A., Riedl, B. (2004). Wood-cement compatibility of some Eastern Canadian woods by isothermal calorimetry. Forest Products Journal, 54(10), 4956. Desch, H. E., Dinwoodie, J.M. (1996). Timber: Structure, Properties, Conversion, and Use (7th ed.). Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press. Dinwoodie, J. M., Paxton, B.H. (1984). Wood-cement particleboard: A technical assessment. Applied Polymer Symposia, 40, 217-227. Dinwoodie, J. M. (1988). A technical assessment o f cement-bonded partcleboards. Paper presented at the International Conference on Fiber and Prticleboards Bonded with Inorganic Binders, Moscow, Idaho, October 24-26, 1988. Falk, R. H. (1994). Housing products from recycled wood. Paper presented at the Pacific Timber Engineering Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, July 11-15, 1994. Fan, M. Z., Dinwoodie, J.M., Bonfield, P.W., Breese, M.C. (1999). Dimensional instability of cement-bonded particleboard: behavior of cement paste and its contribution to the composite. Wood and Fiber Science, 31(3), 306-318. Fan, M. Z., Dinwoodie, J.M., Bonfield, P.W., Breese, M.C. (2002). Dimensional instability of cement bonded particleboard. Wood Science and Technology, 36, 125-143. Geimer, R. L., de Souza, M.R., Moslemi, A.A. (1977). Low-density cement-bonded wood composites made conventionally and with carbon dioxide injection. Drvna Industrija, 47(2), 55-62. Gong, A., Kamdem, D.P., Harichandran, R. (2004). Compression tests on wood-cement particle composites made o f CCA-treated wood removed from service. Paper presented at the Environmental Impacts of Preservative-Treated Wood Conference, Orlando, Florida, February 8-10, 2004. Green III, F., Clausen, C.A. (1999). Production of polygalacturonase and increase of longitudinal gas permeability in southern pine by brown-rot and white-rot fungi. Holzforschung, 53(6), 563-568. Hachmi, M., Moslemi, A.A. (1989). Correlation between wood-cement compatibility and wood extractives. Forest Products Journal, 39(6), 55-58. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 Hachmi, M., Moslemi, A.A., Campbell, A.G. (1990). A new technique to classify the compatibility of wood with cement. Wood Science and Technology, 24, 345-354. Hartley, I. D., Pasca, S.A. (2006). Evaluation and review of potential impacts of mountain pine beetle infestation to composite board production and related manufacturing activities in British Columbia, Mountain Pine Beetle Initiative Working Paper 2006-12 - MPBIP.O. #8.33: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre. Haygreen, J. G., Bowyer, J.L. (1996). Forest Products and Wood Science (3rd ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Hofstrand, A. D., Moslemi, A. A., Garcia, J.F. (1984). Curing characteristics of wood particles from nine northern Rocky Mountain species mixed with Portland cement. Forest Products Journal, 34(2), 57-61. Huffaker, E. M. (1962). Use of planer mill residues in wood-fiber concrete. Forest Products Journal, 12(1), 298-301. Illman, B. L. (1992). Oxidative degradation of wood by brown-rot fungi, Active oxygen/oxydative stress and plant metabolism. Current topics in plant physiology. (Vol. 6, pp. 97-106). Rockville, MD: American Society of Plant Physiologists. Jorge, F. C., Pereira, C., Ferreira, J.M. (2004). Wood-cement composites: a review. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff, 62, 370-377. Karade, S. R., Irle, M., Maher, K. (2003). Assessment of wood-cement compatibility: A new approach. Holzforschung, 57(6), 672-680. Koch, P. (1996). Lodgepole pine in North America (Vol. 2). Madison, WI: Forest Products Society. Lee, A. W. C. (1984). Physical and mechanical properties of cement bonded southern pine excelsior board. Forest Products Journal, 34(4), 30-34. Lee, A. W. C. (1985). Effect of cement/wood ratio on bending properties of cement-bonded southern pine excelsior board. Wood and Fiber Science, 77(3), 361-364. Lee, A. W. C., Hong, Z. (1986). Compressive strength of cylindrical samples as an indicator of wood-cement compatibility. Forest Products Journal, 36(11/12), 8790. Lee, A. W. C., Short, P.H. (1989). Pretreting hardwood for cement-bonded excelsior board. Forest Products Journal, 39(10), 68-70. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 Lee, W. C., Hong, Z., Phillips, D.R., Hse, C.Y. (1987). Effect of cement/wood ratios and wood storage conditions on hydration temperature, hydration time, and compressive strength of wood-cement mixtures. Wood and Fiber Science, 19(3), 262-268. Lewis, K., Thompson, D., Hartley, I.D., Pasca, S. (2006). Wood decay and degradation in standing lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelm.) killed by mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosa Hopkins: Coleoptera), Mountain Pine Beetle Initiative Working Paper 2006-11 - MPBIP.O. #8.10: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre. Ma, L. F., Yamauchi, H., Pulido, O.R., Sasaki, H., Kawai, S. (2000). Production and properties o f oriented cement-bonded boards from Sugi (Cryptomeria japonica D.Don). Paper presented at the Wood-cement composites in the Asia-Pacific region, Canberra, Australia, December 10, 2000. Miller, D. P., Moslemi, A.A., Short, P.H. (1989). The use of fly ash in wood-cement composites. Forest Products Journal, 39(9), 34-38. Miller, D. P., Moslemi, A.A. (1991a). Wood-cement composites: effect of model compounds on hydration characteristics and tensile strength. Wood and Fiber Science, 23(4), 472-482. Miller, D. P., Moslemi, A.A. (1991b). Wood-cement composites: species and sapwoodheartwood effects on hydration and tensile strength. Forest Products Journal, 41(3), 9-14. Milestone, N. B. (1977). The effect of glucose and some glucose oxidation products on the hydration of tricalcium aluminate. Cement and Concrete Research, 7, 45-52. Moslemi, A. A., Garcia, J.F., Hofstrand, A.D. (1983). Effect of various treatments and additives on wood-Portland cement-water systems. Wood and Fiber Science, 15(2), 164-176. Moslemi, A. A., Lim, Y.T. (1984). Compatibility of southern hardwoods with Portland cement. Forest Products Journal, 34(7/8), 22-26. Moslemi, A. A., Pfister, S.C. (1987). The influence of cement/wood ratio and cement type in bending strength and dimensional stability of wood-cement composite panels. Wood and Fiber Science, 19(2), 165-175. Moslemi, A. A. (1993). Inorganic-bonded wood composites: From sludge to siding. Journal o f Forestry, 97(11), 27-29. Moslemi, A. A. (1999). Emerging technologies in mineral-bonded wood and fiber composites. Advanced Performance Materials, 6, 161-179. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 Mougel, E., Beraldo, A.L., Zoulalian, A. (1995). Controlled dimensional variations of a wood-cement composite. Holzforschung, 49(5), 471-477. Okino, Y. A., de Souza, M.R., Santana, M.A.E., Alves, M.V.daS., de Sousa, M.E., Teixeira, D.E. (2004). Cement-bonded wood particleboard woth a mixture of eucalypt and rubberwood. Cement and Concrete Composites, 26, 729-734. Okino, Y. A., de Souza, M.R., Santana, M.A.E., Alves, M.V.daS., de Sousa, M.E., Teixeira, D.E. (2005). Physico-mechanical properties and decay resistance of Cupressus spp. cement-bonded particleboards. Cement and Concrete Composites, 27, 333-338. Papadopoulos, A.N. (2005). An investigation of the suitability of some Greek wood species in wood-cement composites manufacture. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff, 63(6), 437441. Pettersen, R. C. (1984). The chemical composition of wood. Advances in Chemistry Series, 207, 57-126. Pimentel, L. L., Beraldo, A.L. (2001). Pinus caribaea wood-Portland cement mortar composite fo r roofing tile fabrication. Paper presented at the Agribuilding 2001, Campinas, SP, Brazil, Sptember 3-6, 2001. Prestemon, D. R. (1976). Preliminary evaluation of a wood-cement composite. Forest Products Journal, 26(2), 43-45. Ramirez-Coretti, A., Eckelman, C.A., Wolfe, R.W. (1998). Inorganic-bonded composite wood panel systems for low-cost housing: a Central American perspective. Forest Products Journal, 48(4), 62-68. Rosenberg, N., Ince, P., Skog, K., Plantinga, A. (1990). Understanding the adoption of new technology in the forest products industry. Forest Products Journal, 40(10), 15-22. Rowell, R. M., Spelter, H., Arola, R.A., Davis, P., et al. (1993). Opportunities for composites from recycled wastewood-based resources: a problem analysis and research plan. Forest Products Journal, 45(1), 55-63. Saul, A. G. A. (1951). Principles underlying the steam curing of concrete at atmospheric pressure. Magazine o f Concrete Research, 2(6), 127-140. Sauvat, N., Sell, R., Mougel, E., Zoulalian, A. (1999). A study of ordinary portland cement hydration with wood by isothermal calorimetry. Holzforschung, 55(1), 104-108. Schmidt, R., Marsh, R., Balatinecz, J.J., Cooper, P.A. (1994). Increased wood-cement compatibility of chromate-treated wood. Forest Products Journal, 44(7/8), 44-46. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 Schwartz, H. G., Simatupang, M.H. (1984). Suitability of beech for use in manufacture of wood cement. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff, 42, 265-270. Semple, K., Cunningham, R.B., Evans, P.D. (1999). Cement hydration tests using wood flour may not predict the suitability of Acacia mangium and Eucalyptus pellita for the manufacture of wood-wool cement boards. Holzforschung, 55(3), 327-332. Semple, K., Evans, P.D. (2000). Properties of wood-wool cement boards manufactured from radiata pine wood. Wood and Fiber Science, 52(1), 37-43. Semple, K., R.B., Evans, P.D., Cunningham, R.B. (2000). Compatibility of 8 temperate Australian Eucalyptus species with Portland cement. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff, 58, 315-316. Siau, J. F. (1984). Transport Processes in Wood. New York: Spriger-Verlag. Siau, J. F. (1995). Wood: Influence o f Moisture on Physical Properties. Blacksburg, VA: Department of Wood Science and Forest Products Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Simatupang, M. H. (1979). Water requirement for the production of cement bonded particle board. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff, 57(10), 379-382. Simatupang, M. H., Seddig, N., Habighorst, C., Geimer, R.L. (1990). Technologies for rapid production o f mineral-bonded wood composite boards. Paper presented at the 2nd International Inorganic Bonded Wood and Fiber Composite Materials Conference, Moscow, ID, October 14-17, 1990. Simatupang, M. H., Habighorst, C., Lange, H., Neubauer, A. (1995). Investigations on the influence of the addition of carbom dioxide on the production and properties of rapidly set wood-cement composites. Cement and Concrete Composites, 17, 187197. Simatupang, M. H., Handayani, S.A. (2001). Fermentation of saw dust from freshly cut rubber wood to improbe its cement compatibility. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff 59, 27-28. Stahl, D. C., Cramer, S.M., Geimer, R.L. (1997). Effects of microstructural heterogenity in cement excelsior board. Wood and Fiber Science, 29(4), 345-352. Stahl, D. C., Skoraczewski, G., Arena, P., Stempski, B. (2002). Lightweight concrete masonry with recycled wood aggregate. Journal o f Materials in Civil Engineering, 14(2), 116-121. Suchsland, O. (2004). The swelling and shrinking o f wood (1st ed.). Madison, WI: Forest Products Society. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 Teixeira, D. E., Moslemi, A.A. (2001). Assessing modulus of elasticity of wood-fiber cement (WFC) sheets using nondestructive evaluation (NDE). Bioresource Technology, 79, 193-198. Thomas, N. L., Birchall, J.D. (1983). The retarding action of sugars on cement hydration. Cement and concrete research, 13, 830-842. Thrower, J., Willis, R., de Jong, R., Gilbert, D., Robertson, H. (2005). Sample plan to measure tree characteristics related to the shelf life of mountain pine beetle-killed lodgepole pine trees in British Columbia, Mountain Pine Beetle Initiative Working Paper 2005-1: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre. van Elten, G. J. (2004). History, present, andfuture o f wood cement products. Paper presented at the International inorganic bonded composite materials 2004, Vancouver, BC. Watson, P. (2006). Impact o f the mountain pine beetle in pulp and papermaking (The mountain pine beetle: A synthesis of biology, management, and impacts on lodgepole pine - edited by Les Safranyk and Bill Wilson), [CD]. Natural Resources Canada, CFS. Weatherwax, R. C., Tarkow, H. (1964). Effect of wood on setting of Portland cement. Forest Products Journal, 14, 567-670. Weatherwax, R. C., Tarkow, H. (1967). Decayed wood as an inhibitor. Forest Products Journal, 14(12), 567-570. Wei, Y. M., Zhou, Y.G., Tomita, B. (2000). Study of hydration behavior of wood cementbased composite II: effect of chemical additives on the hydration characteristics and strength of wood-cement composites. Journal o f Wood Science, 46, 444-451. Wei, Y. M., Tomita, B. (2001). Effects of five additive materials on mechanical and dimensional properties of wood cement-bonded boards. Journal o f Wood Science, 47,437-444. Wiedenbeck, J. K., Hofmann, K., Peralta, P., Skaar, C., Koch, P. (1990). Air permeability, shrinkage, and moisture sorption of lodgepole pine stemwood. Wood and Fiber Science, 22(3), 229-245. Winandy, J. E. (2002). Emerging materials: What will durable materials look like in 2020? Paper presented at the Enhancing the Durability of Lumber and Engineered Wood Products Conference - 2002, Kissimmee (Orlando), FL. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 Wolfe, R., Gjinolli, A.E. (1996). Assessment o f cement-bonded wood composites as means o f using low-valued woodfor engineered applications. Paper presented at the International Wood Engineering Conference: 28-31 October 1996, New Orleans, LA. Wolfe, R. W., Gjinolli, A. (1999). Durability and strength of cement-bonded wood particle composites made from construction waste. Forest Products Journal, 49(2), 24-31. Woo, K. L., Watson, P., Mansfield, S.D. (2005). The effects of mountain pine beetle attack on lodgepole pine wood morphology and chemistry: implications for wood and fiber quality. Wood and Fiber Science, 37(1), 112-126. Zhengtian, L., Moslemi, A.A. (1985). Influence of chemical additives on the hydration characteristics of western larch wood-cement-water mixtures. Forest Products Journal, 35(7/8), 37-43. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 APPENDIX A: Sample distribution used for wood-cement compatibility determinations Table A1 Sound wood TSD-1 TSD-2 TSD-3 TSD-4 Blue-stained sapwood Sound-1 Sound-2 Sound-3 Sound-4 Sound-5 Sound-6 Sound-7 Sound-8 Sound-9 Sound-10 152 154 2114 3264 3404 3494 5072 5074 5112 3324 92 94 444 694 1012 1064 1692 2602 3302 1182 862 2302 3754 3934 4204 4264 4344 4402 594 3994 2182 2642 2702 2712 3794 3822 4082 2072 2474 2704 64-sapwood 164-sapwood 194-sapwood 2704-sapwood 5092-sapwood 162-sapwood 2764-sapwood 474-sapwood 574-sapwood 14-sapwood Table A2 Sample distribution among five gas permeability classes and white rot group GP-1 GP-2 GP-3 GP-4 GP-5(brown rot) White rot 192 432 1012 1064 2182 2712 3794 4324 4394 5074 104 242 1692 2302 3562 3822 3874 4264 4302 4514 1082 1114 3264 3302 4082 4154 4304 4344 5094 5104 154 862 1934 2074 3404 3932 4204 4352 5064 5112 284 594 1182 2032 2072 2474 2704 3324 3994 4034 2472 1512 1434 3252 1432 Table A3 Sample distribution among five specific gravity classes SG-1 SG-2 SG-3 SG-4 SG-5 104 152 444 1114 2114 2702 3794 3932 4154 4402 2282 3562 3822 3934 4344 4514 2032 2474 3324 3994 862 2182 3264 3404 3494 3874 3952 4324 5064 2704 192 432 1012 1182 2074 2712 4204 5072 5112 4034 94 694 1692 2302 2602 2642 3302 3754 4082 5074 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 APPENDIX B: Samples characteristics Table B1 Physical properties of t ie wood samples Sample no. TSD Specific gravity Gas permeability class (cm3/cm-atm-sec) class 5 2 2 Dewar flask 1 64-sapwood 94 104 444 2472-white rot 2642 3404 3562 3822 3934 4154 5064 Sound-1 Sound-2 Sound-3 2 1 0.518 0.392 0.397 0.351 0.508 0.451 0.427 0.408 0.415 0.387 0.447 1 5 3 2 2 2 1 3 0.21 0.21 0.06 216.43 0.01 0.82 0.14 0.11 0.06 0.25 0.83 2 1 0.453 0.422 3 2 0.06 0.58 3 3 3 1 3 4 3 3 3 0.465 0.443 0.362 0.413 0.551 0.487 0.415 0.456 0.404 0.514 0.431 3 3 1 2 5 4 2 3 2 5 2 2.80 0.54 0.42 192.88 0.63 0.56 102.13 0.13 0.29 0.09 0.30 1 2 4 4 1 1 4 3 3 1 1 1 5 1 4 2 2 1 3 4 Dewar flask 2 92 154 164-sapwood 594 862 1114 1512-white rot 1934 2074 3994 4264 4304 5074 5104 Sound-4 Sound-5 1 1 1 4 5 4 3 5 4 4 5 2 3 1 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 Table B1 (continued) Sample no. TSD Specific gravity class Gas permeability (cm3/cm atm sec) class Dewar flask 3 192 194-sapwood 1064 1434-white rot 1692 2704-sapwood 3252-white rot 3952 4034 4204 4352 4402 5092-sapwood 5094 Sound-6 3 0.489 4 0.02 1 2 4 2 0.493 0.367 0.502 4 1 5 0.06 6.14 0.12 1 5 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 0.481 0.448 0.493 0.479 0.403 0.389 4 3 4 4 2 1 136.17 0.11 82.06 0.83 0.53 0.09 5 2 5 4 4 1 1 0.418 2 0.41 3 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 0.478 0.626 0.455 0.491 0.416 0.410 0.406 0.512 0.448 4 5 3 4 2 2 2 5 3 0.01 0.11 0.30 82.80 1.27 0.07 5.89 0.02 6.56 1 2 3 5 5 1 5 1 5 1 3 3 3 1 0.433 0.450 0.398 0.401 0.490 3 3 1 2 4 0.25 0.19 0.59 0.16 0.13 3 2 4 2 2 Dewar flask 4 162-sapwood 432 694 1082 1182 2032 2282 2474 2602 2704 2764-sapwood 3264 3874 3932 4514 5072 Sound-7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 Table B1 (continued) Sample no. TSD Specific gravity Gas permeability class (cmVcm-atm-sec) class Dewar flask 5 152 284 474-sapwood 574-sapwood 1012 2072 2114 3324 3754 3794 4082 4302 5112 Sound-8 Sound-9 1 1 0.383 0.455 1 3 0.65 2.80 4 5 2 4 1 1 3 4 4 3 1 0.471 0.420 0.376 0.406 0.540 0.393 0.528 0.407 0.488 4 2 1 2 5 1 5 2 4 0.08 1.51 0.03 8.66 0.20 0.04 0.38 0.20 0.98 1 5 1 5 2 1 3 2 4 1 4 4 3 4 4 2 1 3 3 3 0.474 0.370 0.436 0.506 0.395 0.476 0.558 0.466 0.457 0.429 0.427 4 1 3 5 1 4 5 3 3 2 2 0.13 27.40 0.05 0.13 0.53 0.08 0.30 0.19 0.05 0.39 0.08 2 5 1 2 4 1 3 2 1 3 1 Dewar flask 6 14-sapwood 242 1432-white rot 2182 2302 2702 2712 3302 3494 4324 4344 4394 Sound-10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 Table B2 Hydration characteristics of the wood-cement mixtures Sample no. N eat cem ent 1 (standard deviation) time(AT) Max AT (°C) 46.90 (%) 100.0 64-sapwood 94 104 444 2472-white rot 2642 3404 3562 3822 3934 4154 5064 Sound-1 Sound-2 Sound-3 37.72 35.28 32.70 32.78 7.95 35.73 34.25 36.11 31.56 32.76 34.36 35.63 35.69 33.19 35.34 80.4 75.2 69.7 69.9 17.0 76.2 73.0 77.0 67.3 69.9 73.3 76.0 76.1 70.8 75.4 Neat cement 2 (standard deviation) 92 154 164-sapwood 594 862 1114 1512-white rot 1934 2074 3994 4264 4304 5074 5104 Sound-4 Sound-5 47.00 100.0 75.0 75.3 77.1 72.8 76.3 76.1 67.2 76.0 75.7 72.0 73.5 68.8 72.6 70.5 72.8 73.6 50.58 100.0 101.2 112.3 99.4 85.2 0.0 83.4 85.9 98.5 85.5 98.0 88.1 104.9 97.8 71.2 82.7 42.32 38.46 32.05 34.97 1.48 35.10 34.99 34.79 31.63 33.89 34.19 37.50 34.60 29.00 33.84 83.7 76.0 63.4 69.1 2.9 69.4 69.2 68.8 62.5 67.0 67.6 74.1 68.4 57.3 66.9 9.28 100.0 47.45 100.0 8.32 9.67 9.07 10.58 9.77 10.03 14.95 9.60 9.68 9.23 10.77 10.12 11.05 9.61 8.58 12.42 (3.77) 111.5 96.0 102.3 87.7 95.0 92.5 62.1 96.7 95.9 100.5 86.2 91.7 84.0 96.6 108.2 74.7 34.71 37.75 42.63 30.79 33.85 33.92 20.88 31.20 37.70 33.90 33.91 28.50 30.98 31.02 33.87 30.02 time(HR) (%) (h) 6.63 100.0 (0.07) 9.23 8.32 9.40 10.96 3.50 11.20 10.87 9.48 10.93 9.53 10.60 8.90 9.55 13.12 11.30 (0.34) (1.05) Max HR (J/h-g) (%) (0.25) (0.20) (0.81) 35.26 35.41 36.23 34.23 35.85 35.75 31.58 35.71 35.60 33.84 34.56 32.32 34.13 33.12 34.20 34.60 (h) 9.34 (%) 100.0 5.37 6.22 6.88 7.26 9.53 7.28 6.55 6.35 7.32 6.43 6.58 5.78 6.15 8.27 6.93 123.5 106.6 96.4 91.3 69.6 91.1 101.2 104.4 90.6 103.1 100.8 114.7 107.8 80.2 95.7 6.72 100.0 (0.24) 73.2 79.6 89.8 64.9 71.3 71.5 44.0 65.8 79.5 71.4 71.5 60.1 65.3 65.4 71.4 63.3 Note. Percent (%) columns represent corresponding percentage from ‘Neat cement’ values Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5.88 6.38 5.12 6.12 6.15 5.98 10.12 6.35 6.50 6.33 6.78 6.67 7.62 6.70 5.68 6.55 114.3 105.3 131.3 109.8 109.3 112.4 66.4 105.8 103.4 106.2 99.1 100.7 88.2 100.3 118.3 102.6 106 Table B2 (continued) Sample no. Max AT (°C) Neat cem ent 3 (standard deviation) 192 194-sapwood 1064 1434-white rot 1692 2704-sapwood 3252-white rot 3952 4034 4204 4352 4402 5092-sapwood 5094 Sound-6 Neat cement 4 (standard deviation) 162-sapwood 432 694 1082 1182 2032 2282 2474 2602 2704 2764-sapwood 3264 3874 3932 4514 5072 Sound-7 48.36 (%) 100.0 (h) 9.10 32.65 36.22 33.77 25.03 34.29 35.20 33.06 38.39 32.74 36.39 35.71 35.75 34.11 35.77 34.20 67.5 74.9 69.8 51.8 70.9 72.8 68.4 79.4 67.7 75.2 73.8 73.9 70.5 74.0 70.7 49.29 100.0 (J/h-g) (%) 100.0 57.11 100.0 (0.46) 79.5 71.8 72.3 69.7 68.7 69.2 69.3 69.5 67.2 72.4 77.5 73.2 73.1 69.4 69.2 69.5 73.2 76.0 102.2 98.6 37.9 81.9 95.6 62.3 88.8 86.0 80.0 93.5 79.0 100.0 85.8 105.2 31.62 46.74 34.26 35.80 33.96 37.19 30.40 41.04 31.52 41.04 36.84 33.85 36.49 37.17 37.33 55.4 81.8 60.0 62.7 59.5 65.1 53.2 71.9 55.2 71.9 64.5 59.3 63.9 65.1 65.4 9.27 100.0 52.38 100.0 8.73 9.12 9.83 9.93 9.56 9.90 11.83 10.43 11.40 10.32 9.35 9.46 10.17 12.22 13.18 10.37 12.13 (4.39) 106.2 101.6 94.3 93.4 97.0 93.6 78.4 88.9 81.3 89.8 99.1 98.0 91.2 75.9 70.3 89.4 76.4 49.63 34.66 36.45 34.18 33.43 31.23 31.62 34.13 34.56 33.69 42.30 34.76 34.65 31.70 30.88 31.32 33.66 (h) 6.63 (%) 100.0 (0.11) 11.98 8.90 9.23 24.00 11.11 9.52 14.60 10.25 10.58 11.38 9.73 11.52 9.10 10.60 8.65 (0.31) (1.05) time(HR) Max HR (%) (0.11) (0.80) 39.19 35.41 35.63 34.36 33.84 34.10 34.14 34.24 33.10 35.71 38.18 36.10 36.05 34.22 34.12 34.25 36.08 time(AT) 7.35 5.65 6.65 18.11 7.60 5.69 10.37 6.42 6.70 7.80 6.38 8.18 5.71 6.08 5.82 90.2 117.3 99.7 36.6 87.2 116.5 63.9 103.3 99.0 85.0 103.9 81.1 116.1 109.0 113.9 6.52 100.0 (0.15) 94.7 66.2 69.6 65.3 63.8 59.6 60.4 65.2 66.0 64.3 80.8 66.4 66.2 60.5 59.0 59.8 64.3 Note. Percent (%) columns represent corresponding percentage from ‘Neat cement’ values Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5.17 6.52 6.90 7.17 6.63 6.65 7.47 6.20 7.46 6.03 5.72 6.55 6.83 8.13 8.67 7.57 6.77 126.1 100.0 94.5 90.9 98.3 98.0 87.3 105.2 87.4 108.1 114.0 99.5 95.5 80.2 75.2 86.1 96.3 107 Table B2 (continued) Max AT Sample no. Neat cement 5 (standard deviation) (°C) 51.25 (%) 100.0 (0.81) (%) 100.0 37.58 37.20 38.18 39.18 35.74 37.08 38.76 33.84 36.38 32.86 34.23 34.47 38.61 37.20 37.56 73.3 72.6 74.5 76.4 69.7 72.4 75.6 66.0 71.0 64.1 66.8 67.3 75.3 72.6 73.3 Neat cem ent 6 (standard deviation) 14-sapwood 242 1432-white rot 2182 2302 2702 2712 3302 3494 4324 4344 4394 Sound-10 49.93 100.0 79.1 80.3 30.4 65.3 67.7 66.0 68.6 72.3 72.3 68.6 71.8 71.6 74.6 (%) 100.0 81.8 91.1 100.0 107.2 79.8 103.0 76.8 91.1 77.5 63.5 91.8 85.6 99.5 109.9 76.8 34.58 31.89 35.28 44.10 28.86 35.06 34.83 29.22 31.75 24.90 30.93 31.31 35.06 41.19 30.46 64.5 59.5 65.8 82.3 53.8 65.4 65.0 54.5 59.2 46.5 57.7 58.4 65.4 76.8 56.8 9.44 100.0 58.63 100.0 10.32 10.18 24.00 10.96 9.60 12.42 11.83 9.23 11.10 9.35 9.60 10.18 10.90 (0.46) 91.5 92.7 39.3 86.1 98.3 76.0 79.8 102.3 85.0 101.0 98.3 92.7 86.6 48.33 39.04 2.83 29.71 32.39 29.24 31.87 38.35 38.13 37.20 38.17 34.85 34.32 time(HR) (h) 6.46 (%) 100.0 (0.04) 11.25 10.10 9.20 8.58 11.53 8.93 11.98 10.10 11.87 14.48 10.02 10.75 9.25 8.37 11.98 (0.43) (0.61) Max HR (J/hg) 53.60 (0.25) (0.74) 152 284 474-sapwood 574-sapwood 1012 2072 2114 3324 3754 3794 4082 4302 5112 Sound-8 Sound-9 39.51 40.07 15.19 32.59 33.78 32.96 34.24 36.12 36.08 34.26 35.85 35.74 37.23 time(AT) (h) 9.20 6.53 6.25 5.64 5.27 7.43 5.98 7.56 7.15 8.57 9.32 7.30 6.70 6.23 5.98 6.53 98.9 103.4 114.5 122.6 86.9 108.0 85.4 90.3 75.4 69.3 88.5 96.4 103.7 108.0 98.9 6.49 100.0 (0.03) 82.4 66.6 4.8 50.7 55.2 49.9 54.4 65.4 65.0 63.4 65.1 59.4 58.5 Note. Percent (%) columns represent corresponding percentage from ‘Neat cement’ values R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5.21 6.83 23.55 7.91 7.00 7.03 7.23 6.51 6.81 6.30 6.55 6.23 6.32 123.1 95.0 27.6 82.0 92.7 92.3 89.8 99.7 95.3 103.0 99.1 104.2 102.7 108 Table B2 (continued) Sample no. Max Qe H(3.5-24) (%) (J/g) (J/h-g) 100.0 15.46 Neat cement 1 (standard deviation) 254.4 64-sapwood 94 104 444 2472-white rot 2642 3404 3562 3822 3934 4154 5064 Sound-1 Sound-2 Sound-3 215.0 210.3 199.8 198.4 40.9 212.0 206.1 220.0 192.5 200.8 201.9 214.7 209.3 200.4 207.8 (%) 100.0 84.5 82.7 78.5 78.0 16.1 83.3 81.0 86.5 75.7 78.9 79.4 84.4 82.3 78.8 81.7 16.02 12.38 11.87 11.64 1.16 12.56 12.73 12.41 11.59 13.15 12.66 13.83 12.79 12.51 13.33 Cl CX (h) 10.30 100.0 100 100 100 131.4 92.6 91.8 82.9 77.6 89.6 99.9 98.1 85.1 97.0 94.6 104.8 116.1 87.1 103.8 85 83 79 78 16 83 81 87 76 79 79 84 82 79 82 117 86 84 79 24 85 91 89 80 91 88 97 98 84 95 96 88 78 79 15 81 83 85 75 82 81 90 85 71 81 100 100 100 79 82 80 77 82 80 75 84 81 75 80 77 78 78 77 81 97 99 120 92 94 95 74 95 99 94 94 94 85 90 98 97 87 88 98 82 86 86 60 83 87 83 83 77 77 80 87 81 (%) (0.28) (0.58) (7.5) CA time(Qe) 103.6 80.1 76.8 75.3 7.5 81.2 82.3 80.3 75.0 85.1 81.9 89.5 82.7 80.9 86.2 7.84 11.12 11.22 12.43 13.27 11.50 10.31 10.50 12.11 10.62 10.89 9.83 8.87 11.83 9.92 10.41 100.0 14.67 100.0 100.0 231.6 Neat cement 2 (0.31) (0.36) (5.5) (standard deviation) 9.33 111.6 12.34 84.1 78.5 92 181.9 10.13 102.8 13.85 94.4 81.9 154 189.7 7.94 131.1 16.16 110.2 80.3 186.0 164-sapwood 9.74 106.9 11.54 78.7 77.2 594 178.9 103.8 12.54 85.5 10.03 82.0 862 189.8 9.88 105.4 12.44 84.8 80.0 1114 185.2 13.08 79.6 74.6 10.22 69.7 172.8 1512-white rot 9.12 11.64 79.3 114.1 83.6 193.6 1934 103.4 10.07 80.8 13.85 94.4 187.2 2074 104.6 12.43 84.7 9.95 74.7 3994 172.9 103.9 85.3 10.02 79.9 12.51 185.1 4264 111.6 11.63 9.33 76.9 79.3 178.0 4304 11.43 77.9 11.28 92.3 5074 180.9 78.1 9.93 104.8 77.7 11.37 77.5 5104 179.9 113.5 85.2 9.17 77.2 12.50 Sound-4 178.9 9.64 108.0 12.74 81.0 86.8 187.6 Sound-5 Note. Percent (%) columns represent corresponding percentage from ‘Neat cement’ values R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 Table B2 (continued) Sample no. H(3.5-24) (%) Max Qe (J/hg) 16.61 (%) 100.0 time(Qe) (%) (h) CA Cl CX 100.0 100 100 100 Neat cement 3 m 261.1 (standard deviation) (0.8) 192 194-sapwood 1064 1434-white rot 1692 2704-sapwood 3252-white rot 3952 4034 4204 4352 4402 5092-sapwood 5094 Sound-6 196.5 204.5 205.8 128.2 203.5 209.8 198.4 220.8 195.2 218.8 212.7 211.4 200.8 209.4 189.5 75.3 78.3 78.8 49.1 77.9 80.4 76.0 84.6 74.8 83.8 81.5 81.0 76.9 80.2 72.6 11.44 17.14 11.87 8.49 12.79 13.82 13.25 15.06 12.12 15.06 13.70 13.46 14.22 13.19 12.96 68.9 103.2 71.5 51.1 77.0 83.2 79.8 90.7 73.0 90.7 82.5 81.0 85.6 79.4 78.0 11.62 8.26 10.24 21.76 11.60 8.93 14.73 10.45 10.12 12.46 10.21 12.07 8.85 9.96 9.57 84.1 118.3 95.4 44.9 84.2 109.4 66.3 93.5 96.5 78.4 95.7 80.9 110.4 98.1 102.1 75 78 79 49 78 80 76 85 75 84 82 81 77 80 73 76 110 83 48 81 95 73 92 84 84 89 81 97 88 89 72 91 78 48 74 85 64 86 74 80 82 73 83 83 81 100.0 15.64 100.0 10.78 100.0 100 100 100 120.3 99.0 92.9 98.2 101.1 109.0 88.2 110.7 95.3 117.2 116.2 103.0 92.5 86.4 84.0 87.2 107.9 84 79 82 79 78 77 78 78 76 79 82 83 80 78 80 78 82 110 87 89 91 92 94 80 93 84 98 105 90 84 81 81 81 98 100 81 81 78 79 77 74 81 76 82 91 82 80 72 71 74 80 Neat cement 4 258.1 (standard deviation) (7.3) 162-sapwood 432 694 1082 1182 2032 2282 2474 2602 2704 2764-sapwood 3264 3874 3932 4514 5072 Sound-7 217.0 204.7 212.4 204.0 200.9 198.6 202.0 200.3 196.0 204.9 211.5 215.1 205.3 200.9 207.3 201.7 212.6 100.0 (0.79) (0.17) (0.85) 84.1 79.3 82.3 79.0 77.8 76.9 78.3 77.6 75.9 79.4 81.9 83.3 79.5 77.8 80.3 78.1 82.4 15.75 11.83 13.40 13.13 13.01 12.58 11.47 12.16 11.67 12.79 14.71 12.26 11.83 12.01 12.16 11.87 13.93 9.77 (0.40) 100.7 75.6 85.7 84.0 83.2 80.4 73.3 77.7 74.6 81.8 94.1 78.4 75.6 76.8 77.7 75.9 89.1 8.96 10.89 11.60 10.98 10.66 9.89 12.22 9.74 11.31 9.20 9.28 10.47 11.66 12.48 12.83 12.36 9.99 Note. Percent (%) columns represent corresponding percentage from ‘Neat cement’ values R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 Table B2 (continued) Sample no. Neat cement 5 (standard deviation) Max Qe H(3.5-24) (%) (J/g) 247.8 100.0 (J/h-g) 15.40 (5.6) (0.02) CA Cl CX (%) 100 100 100 100 time(Qe) (%) 100.0 (h) 10.74 (0.08) 152 284 474-sapwood 574-sapwood 1012 2072 2114 3324 3754 3794 4082 4302 5112 Sound-8 Sound-9 194.8 191.8 200.7 204.8 189.1 192.4 201.6 174.3 197.5 176.1 187.1 190.4 205.8 192.5 203.7 78.6 77.4 81.0 82.6 76.3 77.6 81.4 70.3 79.7 71.1 75.5 76.8 83.1 77.7 82.2 12.93 11.70 12.89 15.29 10.59 12.64 11.93 11.10 12.69 9.90 12.19 11.52 13.44 13.47 12.94 84.0 76.0 83.7 99.3 68.8 82.1 77.5 72.1 82.4 64.3 79.2 74.8 87.3 87.5 84.0 10.57 9.90 8.72 8.34 12.28 9.33 11.58 10.88 13.27 14.40 11.50 11.19 10.45 10.19 10.38 101.6 108.5 123.2 128.8 87.5 115.1 92.7 98.7 80.9 74.6 93.4 96.0 102.8 105.4 103.5 79 77 81 83 76 78 81 70 80 71 76 77 83 78 82 92 91 102 113 78 97 85 84 82 69 86 85 95 96 93 79 78 85 94 71 82 77 70 71 61 73 76 83 86 77 Neat cement 6 (standard deviation) 14-sapwood 242 1432-white rot 2182 2302 2702 2712 3302 3494 4324 4344 4394 Sound-10 274.7 100.0 17.02 100.0 10.52 100.0 100 100 100 126.1 99.6 35.5 90.2 90.2 91.3 88.9 93.8 91.7 98.4 101.3 105.7 108.1 88 86 28 74 77 76 78 80 79 77 80 79 82 111 90 37 79 78 78 78 85 85 89 89 89 93 96 82 16 67 73 70 72 80 79 79 80 79 79 (0.87) (4.6) 242.3 235.1 77.7 202.9 211.4 208.9 214.3 219.7 217.4 210.3 219.1 216.5 224.5 88.2 85.6 28.3 73.9 77.0 76.0 78.0 80.0 79.1 76.6 79.8 78.8 81.7 16.72 13.94 6.58 11.92 11.58 11.41 11.68 13.04 13.36 13.59 13.38 12.79 13.54 (0.28) 98.2 81.9 38.7 70.0 68.0 67.0 68.6 76.6 78.5 79.8 78.6 75.1 79.6 8.34 10.56 29.62 11.66 11.66 11.52 11.83 11.22 11.47 10.69 10.39 9.95 9.73 Note. Percent (%) columns represent corresponding percentage from ‘Neat cement’ values R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX C: Exothermic characteristics of wood-cement hydration N eat c em en t 1 (temperature vs. time) N eat c em en t 1 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60, 40 o) 50 ^ 40 O o 30 2 30r 10i 5 20 10 CO X 0 Of 12 15 18 21 24 12 Time (h) 300 18 2 ra 200 15 C o S 150 o to > o (0 0) ® 100 X 6 9 12 15 24 N eat cem en t 1 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 3 21 18 Time (h) N eat c em en t 1 (total heat) ~ 15 18 21 24 O) 12 9 6 -----1 3 0 5 Time (h) 15 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) Figures Cl. Neat cement 1(—) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64-sapw ood and n e at c em en t 1 (temperature vs. time) 64-sapw ood an d n e a t ce m e n t 1 (heat rate vs. time) 60 3 40 O 30 £ 30 5 2 10 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 21 18 24 Time (h) 64-sapw ood an d n e a t cem en t 1 (total heat) 64-sapw ood an d n e a t c e m e n t 1 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 250 15 3 200 12 r 15 150 9 re ® 100 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 5 15 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) Figures C2. 64-sapwood (■ ■) and neat cement 1 (—) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 an d n e at c em en t 1 (temperature vs. time) 94 a n d n e at ce m e n t 1 (heat rate vs. time) 50 6 0 fT o> 40 XT 30 a s rt d> 20 10 X 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 94 and n e at c em en t 1 (total heat) 94 an d n e a t c e m e n t 1 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 T 250 TO 200 ~ 150 100 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) Figures C3. 94 (—) and neat cement 1 (—) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 an d n e a t c e m e n t 1 (temperature vs. time) 104 a n d n e a t c e m e n t 1 (heat rate vs. time) 50 3 40 £ 50 f I O 30 S 30 t; 2 0 201— 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 104 an d n e a t c em en t 1 (total heat) 104 a n d n e a t cem en t 1 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 250 15 ra 200 12 ~ 9 150 ra ® 100 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C4. 104 (—) and neat cement 1 (—) V— * Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 444 a n d n e a t c em en t 1 (temperature vs. time) 444 an d n e a t c e m e n t 1 (heat rate vs. time) 50 40 30 0) 301 s 20 4-1 dns> 10 X 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 6 3 24 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 444 and n e a t c em en t 1 (total heat) sam p le 444 (—) an d n e a t c e m e n t 1(—) (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 T 250 o> 200 o> JC ~ 150 | 100 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C5. 444 (—) and neat cement 1 (—) t—» t-h Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2642 an d n e at c em en t 1 (temperature vs. time) 2642 an d n e a t cem en t 1 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 rT o> ou =5 40 40 O 30 £ 2 201 O o 3 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 30 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 21 18 24 Time (h) 3562 an d n e a t c em en t 1 (total heat) 3562 and n e a t c em en t 1 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 4© -* P 250 15 12 +O 5— O). o> 200 J 15 150 3 | 100 £ o 3 > 0) CO *-> 18 3 £ 9 P 15 o ^U) 12 250 o) 200 r 15 150 o 3 ca ® 100 6 50 > 0) (0 0 X 0 6 0) 3 o Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3934 an d n e at c em en t 1 (temperature vs. time) 4154 an d n e a t ce m e n t 1 (heat rate vs. time) 50 50 i 40 .c 30 20 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 4154 and n e at c em en t 1 (total heat) 4154 an d n e a t c em en t 1 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 250 15 ro 200 12 2 ” 150 9 ra ® 100 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C l I. 4154 (—) and neat cement 1 (—) to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5064 an d n e a t cem en t 1 (temperature vs. time) 5064 an d n e a t c e m e n t 1 (heat rate vs. time) s> ■C 40 k — 2 2 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 300 18 B 15 JO ro 200 r 150 ® 100 O) 3 -C o 3 0>) (0 0) X 9 12 15 24 5064 an d n e a t cem en t 1 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 6 21 18 Time (h) 5064 an d n e a t c em en t 1 (total heat) 3 15 18 21 24 12 9 6 3 0 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C l2. 5064 (—) and neat cement 1 (-—) K> Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sound-1 a n d n e a t c em en t 1 (temperature vs. time) Sound-1 an d n e a t c e m e n t 1 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60,-r O) 40 4 0 1— 30 30 r - 20 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 21 18 24 Time (h) Sound-1 and n e a t cem en t 1 (total heat) Sound-1 and n e a t ce m e n t 1 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 250 O to h. ro 200 c Z 15 18 15 12 +o5 — O 150 3 £ « ® 100 o 3 > to O 40 O 30 20 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) Sound-3 and n e at cem en t 1 (total heat) Sound-3 and n e a t c e m e n t 1 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 O +* 250 18 15 2 c 12 o5 — + O) 3 200 5" 150 3 £ n ® 100 o 3 >D < 4-i O X 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 9 6 3 0 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C l 5. Sound-3 (—) and neat cement 1 (—) (O Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2472-white rot and n e at cem en t 1 (temperature vs. time) 2472-white rot an d n e a t c em en t 1 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 ra 50 40 g -C 30 40 30 £ 20 20 i re re 10r 10 X 0 ~l Ot 12 15 18 21 24 12 Time (h) © +-* 250 o> 200 X 100 re a> 24 2472-white rot a n d n e a t c e m e n t 1 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 150 21 18 Time (h) 2472-white rot an d n e at cem en t 1 (total heat) r 15 18 15 o ^ 12 ^3 £re o 3 > re re re 50 0 X 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 9 6 3 0 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C l 6. 2472-white rot (—) and neat cement 1 (—) to Q\ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N eat c em en t 2 (temperature vs. time) N eat c em en t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 50 50 jo> 40 40 £ 30 2 . 30 20 I 20 10 © 10 x I 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 12 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) N eat c em en t 2 (total heat) N eat c em en t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 15 £ 2 12 o3 ^O) 9 + 200 O) 3 150 C 3 5 m 100 0) X 50 o 3 6 4-1 3 0 X 0>) © CO 12 15 18 21 0 24 Time (h) 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C l 7. Neat cement 2 (---) ro Heat rate (J/hg) o 92 and n e a t cem en t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 30 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 40 h 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 92 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (total heat) 92 and n e a t c e m e n t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 15 T Heat evolution rate Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 and n e a t c em en t 2 (temperature vs. time) 200 m — j 150 s 100 X 3 6 9 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 O) JE 5 15 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figures C l 8. 92 (—) and neat cement 2 (—) 154 and n e a t c em en t 2 (temperature vs. time) 154 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 50 40 o> 40 30 20 2 20 r 10 $ 10L 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 9 Time (h) 12 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 154 a n d n e at c em en t 2 (total heat) 154 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 15 200 12 150 o — O) 9 o 3 6 3 £ > a> 4-* 1a> 0 X 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 3 0 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) Figures C l 9. 154 (—) and neat cement 2 (—) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164-sapw ood an d n e a t cem en t 2 (temperature vs. time) 164-sapw ood an d n e a t c e m e n t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 50 40 - 30 - i 30 20 2 20 10 8 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 Time (h) Time (h) 164-sapw ood an d n e a t cem en t 2 (total heat) 164-sapw ood an d n e a t c e m e n t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 ss 200 o> c 12 ^ 03 3 -£ 9 o 150 s 100 o 3 §5 4-1 re a* x 3 6 9 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 15 6 3 0 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C20. 164-sapwood (—) and neat cement 2 (—) O Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 594 and n e a t cem en t 2 (temperature vs. time) 594 an d n e a t c e m e n t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 50 40 o) 40 30 3 301 43 , 20 2 20 h 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 9 Time (h) 15 200 12 150 9 2 100 6 50 3 0 0 6 9 12 21 18 24 594 an d n e a t c e m e n t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 3 15 Time (h) 594 an d n e at cem en t 2 (total heat) o> 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C21. 594 (—) and neat cement 2 (—) U> Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 862 and n e a t c em en t 2 (temperature vs. time) 862 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 50 rT o) 40 o o 30 —! 2 20 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 862 and n e a t cem en t 2 (total heat) 862 a n d n e at c em en t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 15 200 12 -5 150 9 o> •*-< ra o> 100 6 X 3 o 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) Figures C22. 862 (—) and neat cement 2 (—) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1114 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (temperature vs. time) 1114 and n e a t ce m e n t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 40 oo 0> 2 ® 10t X 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 1114 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (total heat) 1114 and n e a t c e m e n t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 15 200 12 -5 150 9 100 6 o> 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C23. 1114 (—) and neat cement 2 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1934 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (temperature vs. time) 1934 a n d n e a t c em en t 2 (heat rate vs. time) o> o 30 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 1934 and n e a t c em en t 2 (total heat) 1934 a n d n e a t c em en t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 *a■> » 15 s 200 12 o — 9 +35 £O 0 3 6 1 -4-> 3 (0 a> X 0 c o> c© a 100 X 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C24. 1934 (—) and neat cement 2 (—) U> 4^ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2074 a n d n e a t c e m e n t 2 (temperature vs. time) 2074 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (heat rate vs. time) O 30 3 30 h 3 t; 2 0 2 20k ® 10r 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 2074 and n e a t c e m e n t 2 (total heat) 2074 and n e a t cem en t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 15 200 12 150 9 2 100 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C25. 2074 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) neat cement 2 (—) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3994 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (temperature vs. time) 3994 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 50 50 r-| 40 to 4 0 1— 30 3 30 U 20 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 3994 and n e a t c em en t 2 (total heat) 3994 and n e a t c e m e n t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 15 200 12 to 9 9 100 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C26. 3994 (—) and neat cement 2 (—) u> as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4264 an d n e at c em en t 2 (temperature vs. time) 4264 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 50 50 n 40 £ro 40*- 30 3 20 2 20 30 r 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 3 6 9 12 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 4264 an d n e at c e m e n t 2 (total heat) 4264 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 2n L_ 200 c 150 ----1 S 100 15 12 o ^O) 9 — 5 o 3 6 > 0) 3 (0 X 0 <4-* 4a-1 200 15 2 12 c o — o 9 o> 4IB-* 3 -C ® 100 o 3 > O 4-* (0 o X X 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 0 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C28. 4304 (—) and neat cement 2 (—) U> 00 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5074 a n d n e a t c em en t 2 (temperature vs. time) 5074 an d n e a t c e m e n t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 50 50 40 30 0) 2 «o> 20 10 X 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 200 12 150 9 s 100 6 50 3 0 0 9 12 24 5074 an d n e a t ce m e n t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 6 21 18 Time (h) 5074 and n e a t c em en t 2 (total heat) 3 15 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C29. 5074 (—) and neat cement 2 (—) U> SO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5104 and n e a t c em en t 2 (temperature vs. time) 5104 an d n e at cem en t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 50 n oo 5 1016 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 5104 and n e a t c em en t 2 (total heat) 5104 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 15 200 12 -5 150 9 o> 4-1 < 0 100 a> 6 X 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C30. 5104 (—) and neat cement 2 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. S ound-4 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (temperature vs. time) Sound-4 and n e a t c e m e n t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 50 40 30 Q> 20 10 101 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 21 18 24 Time (h) S ound-4 and n e a t c em en t 2 (total heat) S ound-4 and n e a t c e m e n t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 15 200 12 150 9 3 100 6 o> 15 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C31. Sound-4 (—) and neat cement 2 (—) £ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. S ound-5 an d n e at c em en t 2 (temperature vs. time) S ound-5 an d n e a t cem en t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 50 50 n 40 o 30 3 30 2 20 5 20 10 8 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 24 S ound-5 an d n e a t c e m e n t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 15 200 12 150 9 3 100 6 50 3 0 3 21 18 Time (h) S ound-5 an d n e a t c em en t 2 (total heat) u> 15 0 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C32. Sound-5 (—) and neat cement 2 (—) to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1512-white rot n e a t c em en t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 1512-white rot a n d n e a t c em en t 2 (heat rate vs. time) 50 40 30 20 2 20 10 8 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 1512-white rot and n e a t c e m e n t 2 (total heat) 1512-white ro t an d n e a t ce m e n t 2 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 15 200 12 =5' 150 9 "S o> 100 6 X 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C33. 1512-white rot (—) and neat cement 2 (—) u> Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N eat c em en t 3 (temperature vs. time) o 0 £ N eat c e m e n t 3 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 ry 40 3 501 f \ 2 301 •' M 20 £ 20 as 10 V — - ------ -------- ----------- ------------ \ i 1 . % io k - 0 -------- / ------ \ --------------------------- 40 I 30 , -------------- --------------------------------------------------- 0 1--------- i--------- 1--------- 1 --------- i--------- 1--------- 1----- — 12 15 18 21 24 3 6 9 12 Time (h) 18 21 24 Time (h) N eat c em en t 3 (total heat) N eat c em en t 3 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 3 250 2 ra 200 r 150 ns ® 100 18 15 * ~ 12 ^o O 3 -C 9 O >3 6 m a) X 3 15 6 9 12 15 18 21 3 0 24 Time (h) 15 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) Figures C34. Neat cement 3 (—) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192 and n e at c em en t 3 (temperature vs. time) 192 an d n e a t c em en t 3 (heat rate vs. time) O 30 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) & (0 250 - o> 200 F O ^ Ip O) r 150 m ® 100- 3 £ o 3 15 18 21 24 15 12 9 6 CO 3 0> 12 18 > 0) ro ® 50 0 3 X 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C36. 194 (—) and neat cement 3 (—) 4^ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1064 an d n e at c em en t 3 (temperature vs. time) o 1064 an d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat rate vs. time) 30 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 3 2 50 c ro 200 ^o O) 3 £ o 3 a>> 1o3 X 9 12 24 1064 an d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 6 21 18 Time (h) 1064 and n e at c em en t 3 (total heat) 3 15 15 18 21 24 18 15 12 9 6 3 0 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C37. 1064 (—) and neat cement 3 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1434-white ro t and n e a t cem en t 3 (temperature vs. time) 1434-white rot and n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat rate vs. time) 60 rn TO 50h o 1 30 40h S 301 5 20 2 i 20F 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 21 18 24 Time (h) 1434-white ro t and n e a t c em en t 3 (total heat) 1434-white rot an d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 & 15 2 c 12 ^o — D) 250 to 200 ~ 15 150 3 £ o 3 A A 100 > A X 50 A A 0 X 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 9 6 3 0 15 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) Figures C38. 1434-white rot (—) and neat cement 3 (—) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1692 an d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (temperature vs. time) 1692 an d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat rate vs. time) 60 n o> O 30 o S 30i 5 20 10i 10li 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 1692 and n e a t c e m e n t 3 (total heat) 1692 and n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 T 250 ra 200 r 150 m ® 100 50 3 ------- 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C39. 1692 (—) and neat cement 3 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2704-sapw ood and n e a t c e m e n t 3 (temperature vs. time) 2704-sapw ood an d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat rate vs. time) 50 6 0 rr 40 ^ 30 40 2 30 £ 20 10 0 6 3 12 9 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 2704-sapw ood and n e a t c e m e n t 3 (total heat) 2704-sapw ood a n d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 T 250 ro 200 r 150 o 30 30 f- 5 20 •*-» ns o> X 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 3952 an d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (total heat) 3952 an d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 T 250 ro 200 ~ 150 o 3 ® 100 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C41. 3952 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) neat cement 3 (—) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4034 and n e at c em en t 3 (temperature vs. time) 4034 an d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat rate vs. time) 50 cn 40 s: O 30 o 0) 30i— 2 T 0O ) 5 20 10 X 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 21 18 24 Time (h) 4034 an d n e at c em en t 3 (total heat) 4034 an d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 250 15 200 12 150 9 100 6 50 3 0 3 15 0 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C42. 4034 (—) and neat cement 3 (—) i—-k Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4204 and n e at c e m e n t 3 (temperature vs. time) 4204 an d n e a t c em en t 3 (heat rate vs. time) 60 n oo £ 30 h 2 ns a> 10i 200~ 150 ra ® 100 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C43. 4204 (—) and neat cement 3 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4352 an d n e at c em en t 3 (temperature vs. time) 4352 and n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat rate vs. time) 60 n o> ^ oo 401 o 30 r 2 0> -4-1 IB X 6 3 12 9 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 21 18 24 Time (h) 4352 an d n e at c em en t 3 (total heat) 4352 and n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 3 00 r 18 250 [ 15 o» 200 12 ^ 15 150 9 m ® 100 6 X 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C44. 4352 (—) and neat cement 3 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4402 and n e a t cem en t 3 (temperature vs. time) 4402 an d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 0 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 21 18 24 Time (h) 4402 an d n e a t c em en t 3 (total heat) 4402 and n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 n 18 2 5 0 1- 15 ro 2 0 0 - 12 S' 150- 9 100- 6 n ® 15 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C45. 4402 (—) and neat cement 3 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5092-sapw ood an d n e a t cem en t 3 (temperature vs. time) 5092-sapw ood an d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 a 50 40 | 40 ® 30 20 2 «« 20 £ 10 o 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 0) 4-1 ® 100 18 T « 2 50 c ro 200 150 24 5092-sapw ood a n d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 3 00 « 21 18 Time (h) 5092-sapw ood an d n e a t c em en t 3 (total heat) ~ 15 o 45 3 O 0>) 4n-* o> 3 6 9 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 5 15 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) Figures C46. 5092-sapwood (—) and neat cement 3 (—) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5094 an d n e at c em en t 3 (temperature vs. time) 5094 and n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat rate vs. time) 50 o> 40 ^ 40 i 30 2 30 j— 2 201— re o> 101-v 20 10 T 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 5094 an d n e at c em en t 3 (total heat) 5094 an d n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 250 15 o> 200 12 2" 150 9 m ® 100 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C47. 5094 (—) and neat cement 3 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sound-6 and n e a t c em en t 3 (temperature vs. time) Sound-6 an d n e a t c em en t 3 (heat rate vs. time) 60 n 201 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) Sound-6 and n e a t c em en t 3 (total heat) S ound-6 an d n e a t c em en t 3 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 T 250 ro 200 “ 150 T O TO 100 X 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C48. Sound-6 (—) and neat cement 3 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3252-white rot an d n e a t cem en t 3 (temperature vs. time) 3252-white rot and n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat rate vs. time) 60 n & 6 3 12 9 15 18 21 3 0 1— 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 3252-white rot and n e a t c em en t 3 (total heat) 3252-white rot and n e a t c e m e n t 3 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 18 T 300 250 ro 200 r 150 50 | 40 50 40 O o 30 £ 5 20 10 30 ^ 20 £ 101 0i CO 12 15 18 21 24 12 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) N eat c e m e n t 4 (total heat) N eat c e m e n t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 a> co 2 50 18 15 ra 200 o~12 “ 3 £ 150 « ® 100 o 3 > o> 0co) X 50 12 15 18 21 24 Time (h) 15 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) Figures C50. Neat cement 4 (—) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162-sapw ood an d n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat rate vs. time) 162-sapw ood and n e a t c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) ~ o 50 30 ® 30 5 20 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 Time (h) Time (h) 162-sapw ood an d n e a t c em en t 4 (total heat) 162-sapw ood an d n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 d> $0 250 o> 200 D) 3 ^ “*-» 150 re o> 100 o 3 o re re X 4-* X 3 6 9 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 18 15 12 9 6 3 0 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C51. 162-sapwood (—) and neat cement 4 (—) CT\ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 432 a n d n e a t c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) 432 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (heat rate vs. time) o> o ^ 30 6 3 12 9 15 18 21 24 40 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 432 an d n e a t cem en t 4 (total heat) 432 an d n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 250 15 TO 200 12 “*-» 150 9 ra ® X 100 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) Figures C52. 432 (—) and neat cement 4 (—) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 694 and n e at c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) 694 an d n e a t cem en t 4 (heat rate vs. time) 60 O) 50 40 O 30 2 30 2 20 o(0 10 X 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 694 an d n e at c em en t 4 (total heat) 694 and n e a t c em en t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 0) +* 25 0 18 15 2 c 12 o — O)■ ra 200 ~ 12 150 3 £ o 3 100 3 > (0 o Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1082 and n e a t c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) 1082 and n e a t c em en t 4 (heat rate vs. time) 6 0 rn 50 n ^S O h i O 30 40h £ 20 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 1082 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (total heat) 1082 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 250 15 ro 200 12 ^ ■*-* 150 9 X 6 m a> 100 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C54. 1082 (- ) and neat cement 4 (—) h—* o\ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1182 an d n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat rate vs. time) 1182 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) 50 40 oo 30 t; 2 0 10 o 6 3 12 9 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 1182 and n e a t c em en t 4 (total heat) 1182 an d n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 2 50 ra 200 r i 150 m ■? 100 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C55. 1182 (—) and neat cement 4 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2032 and n e a t c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) o 2032 an d n e a t cem en t 4 (heat rate vs. time) 3 40h 30 ® 30 r t; 20 10t 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 9 12 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 2032 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (total heat) 2032 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 250 ro 200 ~-♦-a 150 ra o X 100 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C56. 2032 (—) and neat cement 4 (—) © ©N Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2282 a n d n e a t c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) 2282 an d n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat rate vs. time) -j 4 0 1 O 30 3ra >_ ra a> X 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 9 12 Time (h) 21 18 24 Time (h) 2282 and n e a t c em en t 4 (total heat) 2282 and n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 n 18 2 5 0 1- 15 ro 200 k 12 r 150 - 9 3 100 6 ra 15 - 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C57. 2282 (—) and neat cement 4 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2474 and n e a t c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) 2474 a n d n e a t c em en t 4 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 n 40 30 ® 30 20 10 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 2474 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (total heat) 2474 a n d n e a t c em en t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) O iH SB 18 15 c o> 200 Z 150 12 3 £O ) 9 O3 > 6 0) 4(0 -» 3 0) X 0 o *45 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C58. 2474 (—) and neat cement 4 (—) O n oo Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2602 and n e a t c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) 2602 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (heat rate vs. time) 60 o> 50 40 oo 30 20 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 2602 and n e a t c e m e n t 4 (total heat) 2602 an d n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 250 15 o> 200 12 5" 150 9 I 100 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C59. 2602 (—) and neat cement 4 (—) Os vo Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2704 an d n e at c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) 2704 an d n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 n 40 p CD 401 30 ® 30 f- 40 30 B 30 h <5 i 20 « 20 r 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 9 Time (h) 12 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 3264 a n d n e a t c em en t 4 (total heat) 3264 and n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 250 3 200 r 150 -> I 100 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C62. 3264 (—) and neat cement 4 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3874 and n e at c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) 3874 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (heat rate vs. time) 50 ra 40 40 30 20 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 3874 an d n e at c em en t 4 (total heat) 3874 an d n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 250 15 ra 200 12 r 12 150 9 I 100 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C63. 3874 (—) and neat cement 4 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4514 and n e a t c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) 4514 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 rT O) 40 40 30 20 10 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 9 Time (h) 12 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 4514 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (total heat) 4514 an d n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 250 15 o> 200 12 r(0 150 9 ■¥ 100 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C64. 4514 (—) and neat cement 4 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3932 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) 3932 an d n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 40 o> 50 40 30 30 20 20 (0 0) 10 10 X 0 0 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 3932 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (total heat) 3932 an d n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 250 15 ro 200 r 150 m £ 100 12 o '£3 3 JO8) 3 12 9 O 3 > 0) a(0> z 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 0 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C65. 3932 (—) and neat cement 4 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5072 and n e a t c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) 5072 an d n e a t cem en t 4 (heat rate vs. time) 50 rT 40 h O 0 £ —i 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 9 Time (h) 12 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 5072 and n e a t cem en t 4 (total heat) 5072 an d n e a t c em en t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 18 1 250 ro 200 r 150 ra ■S 100 3 o 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C66. 5072 (—) and neat cement 4 (—) i—» Os Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sound-7 and n e a t ce m e n t 4 (heat rate vs. time) Sound-7 a n d n e a t c em en t 4 (temperature vs. time) p 30 £ 30 £ 20 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 3 6 9 Time (h) 15 18 21 24 Time (h) Sound-7 and n e a t c em en t 4 (total heat) 300 250 to 200 r 150 m £ 100 50 0 3 12 Sound-7 an d n e a t c e m e n t 4 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 18 15 12 9 6 3 0 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) Figures C67. Sound-7 (—) and neat cement 4 (—) 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N eat c em en t 5 (temperature vs. time) N eat c em en t 5 (heat rate vs. time) u» i 40 ® 30 < 20 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 21 18 24 Time (h) N eat c em en t 5 (total heat) N eat c em en t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 18 a 15 E c 12 O ‘£5 O) 200 o> 15 150 3 £ 4-. m v 100 o 3 > 0) CQ < D X 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 9 6 3 0 24 Time (h) 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C68. Neat cement 5 (—) "0 00 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 an d n e a t cem en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 152 an d n e a t cem en t 5 (heat rate vs. time) j? 50 3 40 2 30 oo 40 __ V— <1 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 9 12 Time (h) 15 18 24 21 Time (h) 152 a n d n e a t c e m e n t 5 (total heat) 152 an d n e a t c em en t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 _ 200 o> 3 150 o> JC «O 100 X 50 “ J X 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) Figures C69. 152 (—) and neat cement 5 (—) 25 35 45 55 E q u ivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 284 an d n e at cem en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 60 50 O 40 ~ 30 5 20 10 0 3 9 6 12 15 18 284 and n e a t c e m e n t 5 (heat rate vs. time) 21 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3 24 6 12 9 Time (h) 15 18 21 24 Time (h) 284 an d n e a t c em en t 5 (total heat) 284 an d n e a t c em en t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 © 18 2 15 12 o w oi ■ 5 J3 9 o 6 >D < 3 (0 a> 0 _ 200 o> 3 150 « 100 4-* 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 E q u iva len t time (h) Figures C70. 284 (■ ■) and neat cement 5 (—) OO O Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 474-sapw ood an d n e a t c em en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 474-sapw ood a n d n e a t c em en t 5 (heat rate vs. time) 60 50 rr 40 — 30 50 12 Time (h) 15 18 24 21 Time (h) 474-sapw ood a n d n e a t c em en t 5 (total heat) 474-sapw ood a n d n e a t c e m e n t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 re 4-* 18 5 15 c O —■ 12 O) 3 ;C 9 O -> > 6 re 3 re re 0 X 200 3 150 15 100 3 6 9 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 E q u ivalen t time (h) Figures C71. 474-sapwood (—) and neat cement 5 (—) OO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 574-sapw ood an d n e a t ce m e n t 5 (heat rate vs. time) 574-sapw ood and n e a t c em en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 50 40 a 30 < 20 18 55 15 c o -» 12 4J O) 3 £ 9 o 3 > 6 0) 3 R> a> 0 Z _ 200 o> 3 150 « 100 3 6 9 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C l2. 574-sapwood (—) and neat cement 5 (—) OO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1012 an d n e a t cem en t 5 (heat rate vs. time) 1012 and n e a t c em en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 60 50 o 40 ~ 30 < 20 10 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3 24 6 9 12 Time (h) 15 18 21 24 Time (h) 1012 and n e at c em en t 5 (total heat) 1012 an d n e a t c em en t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 > 4a-* 18 s 15 c o —■ 12 s o> 3 £ 9 0 3 > 6 © 4-* 3 01 a> 0 X 200 O) =5 150 reu 100 < X 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C73. 1012 (—) and neat cement 5 (—) OO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2072 and n e a t cem en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 2072 an d n e at c em en t 5 (heat rate vs. time) 21 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3 24 6 12 9 Time (h) 15 18 21 24 Time (h) 2072 and n e a t c em en t 5 (total heat) 2072 an d n e at cem en t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 J= 9 0 > 6 0) 3 (0 d) 0 1 200 =5 150 100 50 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 E q uivalent tim e (h) Figures C74. 2072 (—) and neat cement 5 (—) 00 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2114 and n e a t cem en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 60 50 O 40 30 20 10 0 3 2114 a n d n e a t cem en t 5 (heat rate vs. time) o> 40 10i 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 3 6 9 12 Time (h) 18 21 24 Time (h) 2114 a n d n e a t c em en t 5 (total heat) 2114 an d n e a t c e m e n t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 D < 3 re 3 150 re 100 3 15 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C75. 2114 (—) and neat cement 5 (—) OO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3324 and n e a t c em en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 3324 an d n e a t cem en t 5 (heat rate vs. time) 21 24 60 j? 50 3 40 £ 30 TO £ 20 TO ^ _ © 10 0 3 6 9 12 Time (h) 15 18 24 21 Time (h) 3324 and n e a t c e m e n t 5 (total heat) 3324 a n d n e a t c em en t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 0) $ 18 15 12 o> 3 £ 9 o 3 > 6 a> 3 TO a> 0 X 200 o> =5 150 TO 100 a> X 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 E q uivalen t time (h) Figures C76. 3324 (—) and neat cement 5 (—) 00 Os Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3754 and n e a t c em en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3 3754 an d n e a t c e m e n t 5 (heat rate vs. time) JO 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 40 3 6 12 9 Time (h) 18 24 21 Time (h) 3754 an d n e a t c em en t 5 (total heat) 3754 an d n e a t c e m e n t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 18 15 12 9 6 3 0 _ 200 o> 3 150 « 100 3 15 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C77. 3754 (■ •) and neat cement 5 (—) OO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3794 and n e at c em en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 3794 an d n e a t c em en t 5 (heat rate vs. time) 60 60 o> 40 30 20 O 40 ~ 30 < 20 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 9 12 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 3794 and n e at c em en t 5 (total heat) 3794 an d n e a t cem en t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 18 15 12 ^ O) 3 £ 9 o 3 6 > © 3 re 0) 0 X 4-> _ 200 o> 3 150 3 100 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 E q u iva len t time (h) Figures C78. 3794 (—) and neat cement 5 (—) OO OO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4082 an d n e a t c em en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 60 50 O 40 30 20 10 0 3 4082 and n e a t cem en t 5 (heat rate vs. time) 60 40 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 3 6 9 12 Time (h) 15 18 21 24 Time (h) 4082 an d n e a t c em en t 5 (total heat) 4082 and n e a t cem en t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 18 2 15 c o — 12 ^ o> 3 £ 9 o 3 6 > a> 3 re a> 0 X 4 -» 200 3 150 5 100 4 -* 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 E quivalen t time (h) Figures C79. 4082 (—) and neat cement 5 (—) oo Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4302 and n e a t c em en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 4302 an d n e a t c em en t 5 (heat rate vs. time) 60 50 40 30 20 j? 50 3 40 £ 30 re £ 20 re 10 o 10 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 3 6 9 12 Time (h) 18 21 24 Time (h) 4302 and n e a t c em en t 5 (total heat) 4302 an d n e a t c e m e n t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 0) re 18 15 12 o 35 O) 3 £ 9 o 3 > 6 3 re a> 0 X 200 150 100 50 0 3 15 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 25 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 E q u iva len t tim e (h) Figures C80. 4302 (■ ■) and neat cement 5 (—) O Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5112 an d n e a t c em en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 5112 an d n e a t c em en t 5 (heat rate vs. time) 50 o 40 o __ h< 3 40 3 30 2 £ 20 TO ._ © 10 6 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 3 6 9 12 Time (h) 21 18 24 Time (h) 5112 and n e a t c e m e n t 5 (total heat) 5112 and n e a t cem en t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 18 0) E 15 c o — 12 ^ at 3 £ 9 O > 6 a> <-• 3 Q Q> 0 X _ 200 at 3 150 2 100 50 3 15 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) Figures C81. 5112 (—) and neat cement 5 (—) 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sound-8 an d n e at cem en t 5 (temperature vs. time) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 Sound-8 a n d n e a t c em en t 5 (heat rate vs. time) 21 24 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3 6 9 12 Time (h) 18 21 24 Time (h) Sound-8 a n d n e at c em en t 5 (total heat) Sound-8 an d n e a t c em en t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 © 18 5 15 c o —' 12 Z O) 3 £ 9 o 3 6 a>> -*-» 3 ra a> 0 X _ 200 D> 3 150 « 100 0) 1 50 0 3 15 6 9 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C82. Sound-8 (—) and neat cement 5 (—) t—* Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. S ound-9 an d n e a t cem en t 5 (heat rate vs. time) Sound-9 and n e at c e m e n t 5 (temperature vs. time) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3 60 50 o 40 ~ 30 <3 20 10 0 3 9 6 12 15 18 21 24 6 12 9 21 18 24 Time (h) Time (h) Sound-9 and n e at cem en t 5 (total heat) S ound-9 and n e a t cem en t 5 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 250 a> 18 2 15 c 12 o ^ O) 3 £ 9 o 3 > 6 a) 3 (0 a> 0 X 4-» _ 200 o> 3 150 « 100 50 0 3 15 6 9 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 E q uivalen t time (h) Figures C83. Sound-9 ( ) and neat cement 5 (—) 1UJ sO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N eat c em en t 6 (temperature vs. time) N eat c e m e n t 6 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 jp 50 3 40 £ 30 £ 20 2 10 o 40 o0 30 1- 20 < 10 0 12 15 18 21 24 12 Time (h) 15 18 21 24 Time (h) N eat c em en t 6 (total heat) N eat c e m e n t 6 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 a> 18 2 15 c o o 12 3 £ 9 o “5 > 6 a> 3 (0 0) 0 X 250 200 5 150 100 50 0 ^ | 4-1 12 15 18 21 24 5 Time (h) 15 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) Figures C84. Neat cement 6 (—) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14-sapw ood an d n e at c em en t 6 (heat rate vs. time) 14-sapw ood and n e a t c em en t 6 (temperature vs. time) 50 40 ? 30 I< © 10 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 3 24 6 9 12 18 21 24 Time (h) Time (h) 14-sapw ood an d n e a t c em en t 6 (total heat) 14-sapw ood an d n e a t c em en t 6 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 250 ro 200 z 150 (0 . . . © 15 o> SI 100 50 X 3 6 9 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C85. 14-sapwood (■ -) and neat cement 6 (—) \D Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242 an d n e a t c em en t 6 (temperature vs. time) 242 a n d n e a t c e m e n t 6 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 40 50 40 30 30 20 20 10 0 10 0 6 3 12 9 15 18 21 24 6 3 12 9 Time (h) 15 21 18 24 Time (h) 242 an d n e a t cem en t 6 (total heat) 242 and n e a t c e m e n t 6 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 1 8 -i 250 ® 200 5 150 | 100 50 0 3 X 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C86. 242 (—) and neat cement 6 (—) o ON Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1432-white rot and n e a t c em en t 6 (temperature vs. time) 1432-white rot an d n e a t c e m e n t 6 (heat rate vs. time) 60 r r j? 50 3 40 Si 30 £ 20 30 5 20 2 -i ra a; 10 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 0 3 6 9 12 Time (h) 15 18 21 24 Time (h) 1432-white rot a n d n e a t c e m e n t 6 (total heat) 1432-white rot an d n e a t c e m e n t 6 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 250 200 5 150 (0 . . . aj 100 50 0 3 6 9 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C87. 1432-white rot (—) and neat cement 6 (—) so Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2182 an d n e a t cem en t 6 (temperature vs. time) 2182 an d n e a t c em en t 6 (heat rate vs. time) 50 j? 50 t . 40 0> 2 <-> re a> I 40 E 30 .c x 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C90. 2702 (—) and neat cement 6 (—) 200 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2712 and n e a t c em en t 6 (temperature vs. time) 2712 a n d n e a t cem en t 6 (heat rate vs. time) 50 O) c. —> 40 0) 2 40 30 4-* 20 10 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 3 6 12 9 Time (h) 18 21 24 Time (h) 2712 an d n e a t c em en t 6 (total heat) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 3 15 2712 an d n e a t cem en t 6 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 18 T x 6 9 12 1 5 15 Time (h) Figures C91. 2712 (—) and neat cement 6 (—) 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) ro o Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3302 and neat cement 6 3302 and neat cement 6 (temperature vs. time) (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 40 3 40 £ 30 S 20 © 10 E 30 18 15 c o —- 12 m D) 3 £ 9 o 3 > 6 0) <-> 3 10 0) 0 X 2 200 100 50 0 3 24 3302 and neat cement 6 5 150 (Q . __ © 21 18 Time (h) 300 _ 250 ® 15 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) Figures C92. 3302 (—) and neat cement 6 (—) 25 35 45 55 Equivalent time (h) 65 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3494 and n e a t c em en t 6 (temperature vs. time) 3494 an d n e a t c em en t 6 (heat rate vs. time) 50 40 40 30 oo I< 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 6 3 9 12 Time (h) 15 18 24 21 Time (h) 3494 a n d n e a t c em en t 6 (total heat) 3494 a n d n e a t c em en t 6 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 250 ® 200 150 100 18 t - z 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) Figures C93. 3494 (■ ) and neat cement 6 (—) 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) ro oO L Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4324 an d n e a t c em en t 6 (temperature vs. time) 4324 an d n e a t ce m e n t 6 (heat rate vs. time) 50 O) 40 40 30 20 10 0 3 9 6 12 15 18 21 24 3 9 6 12 Time (h) 15 18 21 24 Time (h) 4324 and n e a t c e m e n t 6 (total heat) 4324 and n e a t c e m e n t 6 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 ^ 250 200 5 150 8 100 0) s c 18 15 o — 12 ^ Dl 3 £ 9 o 3 > 6 a) +■■ 3 re a> 0 X 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 35 45 55 65 75 E q uivalen t tim e (h) 204 Figures C94. 4324 (—) and neat cement 6 (—) 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4344 an d n eat c em en t 6 (temperature vs. time) 4344 an d n e a t c em en t 6 (heat rate vs. time) 50 40 =S 40 30 20 10 0 3 ® 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 10 3 6 9 12 Time (h) 18 24 21 Time (h) 4344 an d n e at c em en t 6 (total heat) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 3 15 4344 an d n e a t c em en t 6 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) +a■> * 18 2 15 c o — 12 O) 3 £ 9 o 3 > 6 a> 4-» 3 « d> 0 X 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C95. 4344 (—) and neat cement 6 (—) o Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4394 a n d n e a t c em en t 6 (temperature vs. time) 4394 an d n e a t c e m e n t 6 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 O) 40 .e 3 40 3 30 j: 20 2 10 30 20 10 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 3 24 6 9 12 Time (h) 15 18 24 21 Time (h) 4394 an d n e a t cem en t 6 (total heat) 4394 an d n e a t c e m e n t 6 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 300 250 18 T - 5 > 200 r 1 5 0 I 100 50 0 3 —} x 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 5 15 Time (h) 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C96. 4394 (■ ) and neat cement 6 (—) to o as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sound-10 an d n e a t c em en t 6 (temperature vs. time) Sound-10 an d n e a t cem en t 6 (heat rate vs. time) 50 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3 40 30 20 10 0 3 9 6 12 15 18 21 24 6 9 12 Time (h) 18 24 21 Time (h) Sound-10 and n e a t c e m e n t 6 (total heat) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 3 15 Sound-10 an d n e a t c em en t 6 (heat equivalent rate vs. time equivalent) 18 T - -j x 6 9 12 15 Time (h) 18 21 24 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Equivalent time (h) Figures C97. Sound-10 (—) and neat cement 6 (—) to o -o 208 APPENDIX D: Statistical analysis of various wood-cement compatibility indices D1 One Way Analysis of Variance among TSD classes and two control groups CA-factor Group Name Sound wood TSD-1 TSD-2 TSD-3 TSD-4 Blue-stained sapwood N 10 10 10 10 10 10 Source o f Variation Between Groups Residual Total DF 5 54 59 M issing 0 0 0 0 0 0 ss 124.283 513.900 638.183 Mean 79.800 79.400 78.900 79.500 76.900 81.800 MS 24.857 9.517 Std Dev 3.048 3.806 2.283 2.635 3.178 3.327 SEM 0.964 1.204 0.722 0.833 1.005 1.052 F 2.612 P 0.035 All Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Tukey Test): Comparisons for factor: Comparison Blue-stained sapwood vs. TSD-4 Blue-stained sapwood vs. TSD-2 Blue-stained sapwood vs. TSD-1 Blue-stained sapwood vs. TSD-3 Blue-stained vs. Sound wood Sound wood vs. TSD-4 Sound wood vs. TSD-2 Sound wood vs. TSD-1 Sound wood vs. TSD-3 TSD-3 vs. TSD-4 TSD-3 vs. TSD-2 TSD-3 vs. TSD-1 TSD-1 vs. TSD-4 TSD-1 vs. TSD-2 TSD-2 vs. TSD-4 D iff o f M eans 4.900 2.900 2.400 2.300 2.000 2.900 0.900 0.400 0.300 2.600 0.600 0.1000 2.500 0.500 2.000 P 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 q P 5.023 2.973 2.460 2.358 2.050 2.973 0.923 0.410 0.308 2.665 0.615 0.103 2.563 0.513 2.050 0.010 0.302 0.513 0.559 0.697 0.302 0.986 1.000 1.000 0.423 0.998 1.000 0.467 0.999 0.697 P<0.050 Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Compatibility index fCI) Group Name Sound wood TSD-1 TSD-2 TSD-3 TSD-4 Blue-stained sapwood N 10 10 10 10 10 10 M issing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 94.100 88.700 85.400 87.900 84.300 108.000 Std Dev 4.581 5.638 5.910 6.100 9.358 8.179 SEM 1.449 1.783 1.869 1.929 2.959 2.586 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209 Source o f Variation Between Groups Residual Total DF 5 54 59 SS 3888.000 2514.400 6402.400 MS 777.600 46.563 F 16.700 P < 0.001 All Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Tukey Test): Comparisons for factor: Comparison Blue-stained sapwood vs. TSD-4 Blue-stained sapwood vs. TSD-2 Blue-stained sapwood vs. TSD-3 Blue-stained sapwood vs. TSD-1 Blue-stained vs. Sound wood Sound wood vs. TSD-4 Sound wood vs. TSD-2 Sound wood vs. TSD-3 Sound wood vs. TSD-1 TSD-1 vs. TSD-4 TSD-1 vs. TSD-2 TSD-1 vs. TSD-3 TSD-3 vs. TSD-4 TSD-3 vs. TSD-2 TSD-2 vs. TSD-4 D iff o f Means 23.700 22.600 20.100 19.300 13.900 9.800 8.700 6.200 5.400 4.400 3.300 0.800 3.600 2.500 1.100 P 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.026 0.065 0.339 0.494 0.702 0.887 1.000 0.845 0.963 0.999 q 10.983 10.473 9.315 8.944 6.442 4.542 4.032 2.873 2.502 2.039 1.529 0.371 1.668 1.159 0.510 P<0.050 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No Proposed index (CX) Group Name Sound wood TSD-1 TSD-2 TSD-3 TSD-4 Blue-stained sapwood N 10 10 10 10 10 10 Source o f Variation Between Groups Residual Total DF 5 54 59 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 ss 1712.283 1698.700 3410.983 Mean 80.800 79.200 79.300 79.300 74.400 91.900 Std Dev 4.686 5.116 5.250 5.122 7.183 5.934 MS 342.457 31.457 SEM 1.482 1.618 1.660 1.620 2.272 1.876 F 10.886 <0. All Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Tukey Test): Comparisons for factor: Comparison Blue-stained sapwood vs. TSD-4 Blue-stained sapwood vs. TSD-1 Blue-stained sapwood vs. TSD-3 Blue-stained sapwood vs. TSD-2 Blue-stained vs. Sound wood Sound wood vs. TSD-4 Sound wood vs. TSD-1 D iff o f M eans 17.500 12.700 12.600 12.600 11.100 6.400 1.600 P 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 q 9.867 7.160 7.104 7.104 6.258 3.608 0.902 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.128 0.988 P<0.050 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210 Sound wood vs. TSD-3 Sound wood vs. TSD-2 TSD-2 vs. TSD-4 TSD-2 vs. TSD-1 TSD-2 vs. TSD-3 TSD-3 vs. TSD-4 TSD-3 vs. TSD-1 TSD-1 vs. TSD-4 1.500 1.500 4.900 0.1000 0.000 4.900 0.1000 4.800 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0.846 0.846 2.763 0.0564 0.000 2.763 0.0564 2.706 0.991 0.991 0.382 1.000 1.000 0.382 1.000 0.405 No No No No No No No No D2 One Way Analysis of Variance among five GP classes and ‘white rot’ group CA-factor Group Name GP-1 GP-2 GP-3 GP-4 GP-5 (brown rot) White rot Source o f Variation Between Groups Residual Total N 10 10 10 10 10 5 M issing 0 0 0 0 0 0 DF 5 49 54 Mean 76.600 80.000 79.200 82.100 76.400 48.800 Std Dev 2.633 3.712 1.932 1.853 2.591 27.087 SEM 0.833 1.174 0.611 0.586 0.819 12.114 SS 4338.009 3246.100 7584.109 MS 867.602 66.247 F 13.096 P <0.001 All Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Tukey Test): Comparisons for factor: Comparison GP-4 vs. W hite rot GP-4 vs. GP-5(brown rot) GP-4 vs. GP-1 GP-4 vs. GP-3 GP-4 vs. GP-2 GP-2 vs. W hite rot GP-2 vs. GP-5(brown rot) GP-2 vs. GP-1 GP-2 vs. GP-3 GP-3 vs. W hite rot GP-3 vs. GP-5(brown rot) GP-3 vs. GP-1 GP-1 vs. W hite rot GP-1 vs. GP-5(brown rot) GP-5(brown rot) vs. W hite rot D iff o f M eans 33.300 5.700 5.500 2.900 2.100 31.200 3.600 3.400 0.800 30.400 2.800 2.600 27.800 0.200 27.600 p 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 q 10.564 2.215 2.137 1.127 0.816 9.898 1.399 1.321 0.311 9.644 1.088 1.010 8.819 0.0777 8.755 p <0.001 0.624 0.659 0.967 0.992 <0.001 0.919 0.936 1.000 <0.001 0.971 0.979 <0.001 1.000 <0.001 P<0.050 Yes No No No No Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211 Compatibility index (CIl Group Name GP-1 GP-2 GP-3 GP-4 GP-5 (brown rot) White rot N 10 10 10 10 10 5 Source o f Variation Between Groups Residual Total M issing 0 0 0 0 0 0 DF 5 49 54 Mean 81.300 84.600 89.600 92.400 91.900 51.200 Std Dev 6.447 5.038 3.169 6.132 4.701 22.061 SEM 2.039 1.593 1.002 1.939 1.487 9.866 SS 7077.982 3177.000 10254.982 MS 1415.596 64.837 F 21.83 P < 0.001 All Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Tukey Test): Comparisons for factor: Comparison GP-4 vs. W hite rot GP-4 vs. GP-1 GP-4 vs. GP-2 GP-4 vs. GP-3 GP-4 vs. GP-5(brown rot) GP-5(brown rot) vs. W hite rot GP-5(brown rot) vs. GP-1 GP-5(brown rot) vs. GP-2 GP-5(brown rot) vs. GP-3 GP-3 vs. W hite rot GP-3 vs. GP-1 GP-3 vs. GP-2 GP-2 vs. W hite rot GP-2 vs. GP-1 GP-1 vs. W hite rot D iff o f Means 41.200 11.100 7.800 2.800 0.500 40.700 10.600 7.300 2.300 38.400 8.300 5.000 33.400 3.300 30.100 q P 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 13.211 4.359 3.063 1.100 0.196 13.051 4.163 2.867 0.903 12.313 3.260 1.964 10.710 1.296 9.652 Mean 73.700 77.700 80.000 83.400 78.800 40.600 Std Dev 6.308 4.668 3.528 5.038 4.185 23.660 SEM 1.995 1.476 1.116 1.593 1.323 10.581 SS 7103.036 3291.400 10394.436 MS 1420.607 67.171 F 21.149 P <0.001 0.037 0.272 0.970 1.000 <0.001 0.053 0.342 0.988 <0.001 0.212 0.734 <0.001 0.940 <0.001 P<0.050 Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Proposed index (CX) Group Name GP-1 GP-2 GP-3 GP-4 GP-5(brown rot) White rot N 10 10 10 10 10 5 Source o f Variation Between Groups Residual Total M issing 0 0 0 0 0 0 DF 5 49 54 All Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Tukey Test): Comparisons for factor: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212 Comparison GP-4 vs. W hite rot GP-4 vs. GP-1 GP-4 vs. GP-2 GP-4 vs. GP-5(brown rot) GP-4 vs. GP-3 GP-3 vs. W hite rot GP-3 vs. GP-1 GP-3 vs. GP-2 GP-3 vs. GP-5(brown rot) GP-5(brown rot) vs. W hite rot GP-5(brown rot) vs. GP-1 GP-5(brown rot) vs. GP-2 GP-2 vs. W hite rot GP-2 vs. GP-1 GP-1 vs. W hite rot D iff o f Means 42.800 9.700 5.700 4.600 3.400 39.400 6.300 2.300 1.200 38.200 5.100 1.100 37.100 4.000 33.100 P 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 q 13.484 3.743 2.199 1.775 1.312 12.412 2.431 0.887 0.463 12.034 1.968 0.424 11.688 1.543 10.428 P <0.001 0.105 0.631 0.807 0.937 <0.001 0.526 0.988 1.000 <0.001 0.732 1.000 <0.001 0.883 <0.001 P<0.050 Yes No Do Not Test Do Not Test Do Not Test Yes Do Not Test Do Not Test Do Not Test Yes Do Not Test Do Not Test Yes Do Not Test Yes D3 One Way Analysis of Variance among five SG classes CA-factor Group Name SG-5 SG-1 SG-2 SG-3 SG-4 SG-5 N 10 10 10 10 10 10 M issing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 79.300 78.200 78.000 79.700 78.700 79.300 Std Dev 2.710 2.936 4.320 3.234 3.129 2.710 SEM 0.857 0.929 1.366 1.023 0.989 0.857 Source o f Variation Between Groups Residual Total DF 5 54 59 SS 22.933 560.000 582.933 MS 4.587 10.370 F 0.442 Mean 83.200 87.500 89.100 85.400 84.100 Std Dev 7.451 5.759 5.384 7.777 3.071 SEM 2.356 1.821 1.703 2.459 0.971 MS 58.930 F 1.57] Compatibility index fCI) Group Name SG-1 SG-2 SG-3 SG-4 SG-5 N 10 10 10 10 10 M issing 0 0 0 0 0 Source o f Variation Between Groups DF 4 SS 235.720 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213 Residual Total 45 49 1688.300 1924.020 37.518 Proposed index (CXI Group Name SG-1 SG-2 SG-3 SG-4 SG-5 N 10 10 10 10 10 M issing 0 0 0 0 0 Source o f Variation Between Groups Residual Total DF 4 45 49 Mean 75.600 77.800 80.300 77.300 77.400 SS 114.280 1440.600 1554.880 Std Dev 6.931 5.181 5.376 5.458 5.147 SEM 2.192 1.638 1.700 1.726 1.628 MS 28.570 32.013 F 0.892 P 0.476 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214 APPENDIX E: Regression analysis (forward stepwise) for predicting CA, Cl, and CX function of physical properties of the beetle-killed heartwood Dependent Variable: CA Forward Stepwise Regression F-to-Enter: 4.000 P = 0.050 F-to-Remove: 3.900 P =0.053 Step 0: Standard Error o f Estimate = 3.161 Analysis o f Variance: Group DF SS Residual 65 649.455 Variables in Model Group Coef. Constant 79.091 Variables not in Model Group F-to-Enter TSD 5.116 1.834 SG GP 0.00745 Std. Coeff. MS 9.992 F Std. Error 0.389 P F-to-Remove P P 0.027 0.180 0.931 Step 1: TSD Entered R = 0.272 Rsqr = 0.074 Adj Rsqr = 0.060 Standard Error o f Estimate = 3.065 Analysis o f Variance: Group DF SS Regression 1 48.069 64 Residual 601.386 Variables in Model Group Coef. Constant 81.076 TSD -0.804 Variables not in Model Group F-to-Enter SG 1.740 GP 0.00104 Std. Coeff. -0.272 MS 48.069 9.397 F 5.116 Std. Error 0.955 0.355 P 0.027 F-to-Remove P 5.116 0.027 P 0.192 0.974 Summary Table Step # Vars. Entered Vars. Removed R RSqr Delta RSqr Vars in Model 1 TSD 0.272 0.0740 0.0740 1 The dependent variable Ca can be predicted from a linear combination o f the independent variables: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215 P TSD 0.027 The following variables did not significantly add to the ability o f the equation to predict Ca and were not included in the final equation: SG GP Normality Test: Passed (P = 0.165) Constant Variance Test: Passed (P = 0.449) Power o f performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.601 Dependent Variable: Cl Forward Stepwise Regression F-to-Enter: 4.000 P = 0.050 F-to-Remove: 3.900 P = 0.053 Step 0: Standard Error o f Estimate = 6.429 Analysis o f Variance: Group DF SS Residual 65 2686.985 Variables in Model Group Coef. Constant 87.348 Variables not in Model Group F-to-Enter TSD 0.837 SG 0.0979 GP 27.282 Std. Coeff. MS 41.338 F Std. Error 0.791 P F-to-Remove P P 0.364 0.755 <0.001 Step 1: GP Entered R = 0.547 Rsqr = 0.299 Adj Rsqr = 0.288 Standard Error o f Estimate = 5.425 Analysis o f Variance: Group DF SS Regression 1 803.081 Residual 64 1883.904 Variables in Model Group Coef. Std. Coeff. Constant 80.745 GP 2.449 0.547 Variables not in Model MS 803.081 29.436 F 27.282 Std. Error 1.430 0.469 P <0.001 F-to-Remove P 27.282 <0.001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216 G roup TSD SG F-to-Enter 1.902 0.0981 P 0.173 0.755 Summary Table Step # Vars. Entered 1 GP Vars. Removed R 0.547 RSqr 0.299 Delta RSqr 0.299 Vars in Model 1 The dependent variable Cl can be predicted from a linear combination o f the independent variables: P GP <0.001 The following variables did not significantly add to the ability o f the equation to predict Cl and were not included in the final equation: TSD SG Normality Test: Passed Constant Variance Test: (P = 0.809) Passed (P = 0.644) Power o f performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.998 Dependent Variable: CX Forward Stepwise Regression: F-to-Enter: 4.000 P = 0.050 F-to-Remove: 3.900 P =0.053 Step 0: Standard Error o f Estimate = 5.550 Analysis o f Variance: Group DF SS Residual 65 2002.318 Variables in Model Group Coef. Constant 78.682 Variables not in Model Group F-to-Enter TSD 4.616 0.172 SG GP 5.415 Std. Coeff. MS 30.805 F Std. Error 0.683 P F-to-Remove P P 0.035 0.679 0.023 Step 1: GP Entered R = 0.279 Rsqr = 0.078 Adj Rsqr = 0.064 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217 Standard Error o f Estimate = 5.371 Analysis o f Variance: Group DF Regression 1 Residual 64 SS 156.188 1846.131 Variables in Model Group Coef. Constant 75.769 GP 1.080 MS 156.188 28.846 Std. Coeff. 0.279 Variables not in Model Group F-to-Enter TSD 5.623 SG 0.549 F 5.415 Std. Error 1.415 0.464 P 0.023 F-to-Remove P 5.415 0.023 P 0.021 0.461 Step 2: TSD Entered R = 0.392 Rsqr = 0 .1 5 4 Adj Rsqr = 0.127 Standard Error o f Estimate = 5.187 Analysis o f Variance: Group DF Regression 2 Residual 63 Variables in Model Group Coef. Constant 79.140 TSD -1.428 GP 1.137 SS 307.460 1694.858 MS 153.730 26.903 Std. Coeff. Variables not in Model Group F-to-Enter SG 0.495 Summary Table Step # Vars. Entered 1 GP 2 TSD F 5.714 Std. Error 1.972 0.602 0.449 -0.275 0.294 P 0.005 F-to-Remove P 5.623 6.422 0.021 0.014 RSqr 0.0780 0.154 Delta RSqr 0.0780 0.0755 P 0.484 Vars. Removed R 0.279 0.392 Vars in Model 1 2 The dependent variable Cx can be predicted from a linear combination o f the independent variables: P TSD 0.021 GP 0.014 The following variables did not significantly add to the ability o f the equation to predict Cx and were not included in the final equation: SG Normality Test: Passed Constant Variance Test: (P = 0.565) Passed (P = 0.085) Power o f performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.908 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218 APPENDIX F: The linear regressions for predicting CA and CX function of corresponding values determined at shorter intervals: 3.5-12,3.5-15,3.5-18, and 3.521 hours Linear Regression: CA function o f CA 3 .5.12 CA = 30.901+ (0.662 * CA 3.5-12) N = 77.000 R = 0.875 Rsqr = 0.765 Adj Rsqr = 0.762 Standard Error o f Estimate = 4.162 Constant CA 3.5-12 Coefficient 30.901 0.662 Std. Error 3.057 0.0423 Analysis o f Variance: DF SS Regression 1 4239.142 Residual 75 1299.310 Total 76 5538.452 t 10.107 15.643 MS 4239.142 17.324 72.874 P <0.001 <0.001 F 244.696 P <0.001 Linear Regression: CA function o f CA3.5.15 CA = 23.087+ (0.751 * CA 3.5-15) N = 77.000 R = 0.927 Rsqr = 0.860 Adj Rsqr = 0.858 Standard Error o f Estimate = 3.215 Constant CA 3 .5-15 Coefficient 23.087 0.751 Analysis o f Variance: DF Regression 1 Residual 75 Total 76 Std. Error 2.591 0.0350 SS 4763.348 775.104 5538.452 t 8.911 21.469 MS 4763.348 10.335 72.874 P <0.001 <0.001 F 460.907 P <0.001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Linear Regression: CA function o f CA 3.5.I8 C A = 14.909+ (0.842 * C A 3.s.,8) N = 77.000 R = 0.963 Rsqr = 0.928 Adj Rsqr = 0.927 Standard Error o f Estimate = 2.305 Constant C A 3.s.18 Coefficient 14.909 0.842 Std. Error 2.051 0.0271 Analysis o f Variance: DF SS Regression 1 5139.816 Residual 75 398.637 Total 76 5538.452 t 7.271 31.097 MS 5139.816 5.315 72.874 P <0.001 <0.001 F 967.011 P <0.001 Linear Regression: CA function o f CA35_2 i CA = 6.361+ (0.935 * CA35-2i) N =77.000 R = 0.991 Rsqr = 0.981 Adj Rsqr = 0.981 Standard Error o f Estimate = 1.173 Constant C A 3.5.2i Coefficient 6.361 0.935 Std. Error 1.150 0.0149 t 5.533 62.867 Analysis o f Variance: DF SS MS Regression 1 5435.309 5435.309 Residual 75 103.143 1.375 Total 76 5538.452 72.874 P <0.001 <0.001 F 3952.246 P <0.001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220 Linear Regression: CX function o f CX 3 .5.12 CX = 8.167 + (0.923 * CX3.S_I2) N = 77.000 R = 0.996 Rsqr = 0.991 Adj Rsqr = 0.991 Standard Error o f Estimate = 1.140 Constant CX3.5.I2 Coefficient 8.167 0.923 Analysis o f Variance: DF Regression 1 Residual 75 Total 76 Std. Error 0.773 0.00993 SS 11218.417 97.531 11315.948 t 10.560 92.880 P < 0.001 < 0.001 MS 11218.417 1.300 148.894 F 8626.767 P < 0.001 Linear Regression: CX function o f CX3.s.is CX = 5.147 + (0.954 * CX3 5.]5) N = 77.000 R = 0.998 Rsqr = 0.997 Adj Rsqr = 0.997 Standard Error o f Estimate = 0.713 Constant C X 3.5_is Coefficient 5.147 0.954 Analysis o f Variance: DF Regression 1 Residual 75 Total 76 Std. Error 0.502 0.00640 SS 11277.845 38.103 11315.948 t 10.251 148.993 MS 11277.845 0.508 148.894 P < 0.001 < 0.001 F 22198.844 p < 0.001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221 Linear Regression: CX function o f CX3.s_i8 CX = 2.835 + (0.976 * CX3.5.18) N = 77.000 R = 0.999 Rsqr = 0.999 Adj Rsqr = 0.999 Standard Error o f Estimate = 0.411 Constant CX3#5_]8 Coefficient 2.835 0.976 Analysis o f Variance: DF Regression 1 Residual 75 Total 76 Std. Error 0.298 0.00377 SS 11303.279 12.669 11315.948 t 9.513 258.682 MS 11303.279 0.169 148.894 P <0.001 <0.001 F 66916.380 P < 0.001 Linear Regression: CX function o f CX3 5.2, C X = 1.163 + (0.991 * C X 3 5-2i) N =77.000 R = 1.000 Rsqr = 1.000 Adj Rsqr = 1.000 Standard Error o f Estimate = 0.189 Constant C X 3.5-2i Coefficient 1.163 0.991 Analysis o f Variance: DF Regression 1 Residual 75 Total 76 Std. Error 0.140 0.00176 SS 11313.266 2.682 11315.948 t 8.308 562.477 MS 11313.266 0.0358 148.894 P <0.001 <0.001 F 316380.680 p < 0.001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX G: Cross-validation of predicting CA and CX models using Dewar flask no.6 tests as a sub-sample Table G1 Cross-validation for CA prediction models Sample 14-sapwood 242 1432-white rot 2182 2302 2702 2712 3302 3494 4324 4344 4394 Green-10 R2 3.5-12 Model 3.5-15 Model 3.5-18 Model 3.5-21 Model CA3.5-12 P red icted CA CA3.5-15 P red icted CA CA3.5-18 P red icted CA CA 3.5-21 P red icte d CA 83.3 78.8 9.7 63.3 68.9 66.9 69.0 73.7 72.0 70.5 73.2 72.9 74.2 86 83 37 73 77 75 77 80 79 78 79 79 80 84.0 80.5 10.2 67.7 71.4 69.8 71.8 75.4 74.4 71.9 75.1 74.5 76.9 86 84 31 74 77 76 77 80 79 77 79 79 81 85.5 82.0 13.0 70.3 73.3 72.2 74.2 76.9 76.4 73.5 76.4 75.9 78.6 87 84 26 74 77 76 77 80 79 77 79 79 81 87.0 83.9 17.9 72.2 75.2 74.4 76.5 78.7 78.1 75.4 78.1 77.6 80.4 88 85 23 74 77 76 78 80 79 77 79 79 82 0.996 0.998 0.998 Note. R2 values represent the square o f the coefficient correlations obtained between predicted and actual CA values Actual CA 88 86 28 74 77 76 78 80 79 77 80 79 82 0.999 to to to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table G2 Sample 14-sapwood 242 1432-white rot 2182 2302 2702 2712 3302 3494 4324 4344 4394 Green-10 R2 3.5- 12 Model 3.5-15 Model 3.5-18 Model 3.5-21 Model CX3.5-12 P redicted C X CX3.5-15 P red icted C X CX3.5-18 P red icted C X CX3.5-2I P red icte d C X Actual CX 94.2 79.8 11.2 63.6 70.3 67.1 69.1 77.8 76.5 76.8 77.7 77.0 76.5 95 82 19 67 73 70 72 80 79 79 80 79 79 94.5 80.3 11.4 65.1 71.2 68.0 70.0 78.4 11A 11A 78.4 77.5 77.4 95 82 16 67 73 70 72 80 79 79 80 79 79 95.0 80.8 12.3 65.9 71.8 68.8 70.8 79.0 78.1 77.9 78.8 78.0 78.0 96 82 15 67 73 70 72 80 79 79 80 79 79 95.6 81.5 13.7 66.5 72.4 69.5 71.5 79.6 78.6 78.6 79.4 78.6 78.6 96 82 15 67 73 70 72 80 79 79 80 79 79 96 82 16 67 73 70 72 80 79 79 80 79 79 1.000 1.000 1.000 Note. R2 values represent the square o f the correlation coefficient obtained between predicted and actual CX values 1.000 to 224 APPENDIX H: Two Way Analysis of Variance for the boards testing results Thickness swelling after 2 hours Source o f Variation Cement/wood ratio Wood particle size Cement/wood r x Wood particle Residual Total DF 2 2 4 27 35 SS 0.333 1.448 0.330 1.713 3.825 MS 0.167 0.724 0.0824 0.0635 0.109 F 2.626 11.411 1.298 P 0.091 <0.001 0.296 All Significant Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Holm-Sidak method): Overall significance level = 0.05 Comparisons for factor: W ood particle size Comparison D iff o f Means t Size3 vs. Sizel 0.491 4.773 Size3 vs. Size2 0.264 2.569 Size2 vs. Sizel 0.227 2.204 Unadjusted P 0.0000561 0.0161 0.0362 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 0.050 Comparisons for factor: Wood particle size within Ratio4 Comparison D iff o f M eans t Unadjusted P Size3 vs. Sizel 0.763 4.281 0.000 Size3 vs. Size2 0.517 2.905 0.007 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Significant? Yes Yes Yes Significant? Yes Yes Thickness swelling after 24 hours Source o f Variation Cement/wood ratio Wood particle size Cement/wood r x Wood particle Residual Total DF 2 2 4 27 35 SS 0.288 2.253 0.227 1.878 4.646 MS 0.144 1.127 0.0567 0.0696 0.133 F 2.071 16.199 0.815 P 0.146 <0.001 0.527 All Significant Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Holm-Sidak method): Overall significance level = 0.05 Comparisons for factor: W ood particle size Comparison D iff o f M eans t Size3 vs. Sizel 0.609 5.658 Size3 vs. Size2 0.363 3.367 Size2 vs. Sizel 0.247 2.291 Unadjusted P 0.00000524 0.00230 0.0300 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 0.050 Significant? Yes Yes Yes Comparisons for factor: Wood particle size within Ratio3 Comparison D iff o f Means t Unadjusted P Size3 vs. Sizel 0.585 3.137 0.004 Critical Level 0.017 Significant? Yes Comparisons for factor: Wood particle size within Ratio4 Comparison D iff o f M eans t Unadjusted P Size3 vs. Sizel 0.840 4.504 0.000 Size3 vs. Size2 0.555 2.976 0.006 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Significant? Yes Yes Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Length expansion after 2 hours Source o f Variation Cement/wood ratio Wood particle size Cement/wood r x Wood particle Residual Total SS 0.00657 0.0190 0.00356 0.0950 0.124 MS 0.00328 0.00951 0.000890 0.00352 0.00355 F 0.933 2.703 0.253 P 0.406 0.085 0.905 DF 2 2 4 27 35 SS 0.0367 0.00517 0.0383 0.211 0.291 MS 0.0183 0.00258 0.00958 0.00781 0.00832 F 2.347 0.331 1.226 P 0.115 0.721 0.323 DF 2 2 4 27 35 SS 0.00145 0.00964 0.0471 0.319 0.378 MS 0.000723 0.00482 0.0118 0.0118 0.0108 F 0.0612 0.408 0.996 SS 0.116 0.00508 0.0468 0.498 0.666 MS 0.0582 0.00254 0.0117 0.0184 0.0190 F 3.157 0.138 0.634 SS 1368.655 48.450 213.427 106.054 1736.586 MS 684.328 24.225 53.357 3.928 49.617 F 174.221 6.167 13.584 DF 2 2 4 27 35 Length expansion after 24 hours Source o f Variation Cement/wood ratio Wood particle size Cement/wood r x Wood particle Residual Total Width expansion after 2 hours Source o f Variation Cement/wood ratio Wood particle size Cement/wood r x Wood particle Residual Total P 0.941 0.669 0.427 Width expansion after 24 hours Source o f Variation Cement/wood ratio Wood particle size Cement/wood r x Wood particle Residual Total DF 2 2 4 27 35 P 0.059 0.872 0.642 Water absorbtion after 2 hours Source o f Variation Cement/wood ratio Wood particle size Cement/wood r x Wood particle Residual Total DF 2 2 4 27 35 P <0.001 0.006 <0.001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226 All Significant Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Holm-Sidak method): Overall significance level = 0.05 Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio Comparison D iff o f Means t Ratio2 vs. Ratio4 14.840 18.342 Ratio2 vs. Ratio3 9.850 12.174 Ratio3 vs. Ratio4 4.991 6.168 Comparisons for factor: W ood particle size Comparison D iff o f Means t Sizel vs. Size3 2.614 3.231 Sizel vs. Size2 2.272 2.808 Unadjusted P 9.030E-017 1.785E-012 0.00000136 Unadjusted P 0.00324 0.00916 Significant? Yes Yes Yes Critical Level 0.017 0.025 0.050 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Significant? Yes Yes Comparisons for factor: W ood particle size within Ratio2 Comparison D iff o f Means t Unadjusted P Sizel vs. Size3 9.551 6.815 0.000 Sizel vs. Size2 6.656 4.750 0.000 Size2 vs. Size3 2.894 2.065 0.049 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 0.050 Significant? Yes Yes Yes Comparisons for factor: W ood particle size within Ratio4 Comparison D iff o f Means t Unadjusted P Size3 vs. Sizel 4.475 3.193 0.004 Critical Level 0.017 Significant? Yes Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio within Sizel Comparison D iff o f Means t Unadjusted P Ratio2 vs. Ratio4 22.837 16.296 0.000 Ratio2 vs. Ratio3 13.174 9.400 0.000 Ratio3 vs. Ratio4 9.664 6.896 0.000 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 0.050 Significant? Yes Yes Yes Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio within Size2 Comparison D iff o f Means t Unadjusted P Ratio2 vs. Ratio4 12.872 9.185 0.000 Ratio2 vs. Ratio3 9.986 7.125 0.000 Ratio3 vs. Ratio4 2.886 2.060 0.049 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 0.050 Significant? Yes Yes Yes Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio within Size3 Comparison D iff o f Means t Unadjusted P Ratio2 vs. Ratio4 8.812 6.288 0.000 Ratio2 vs. Ratio3 6.390 4.560 0.000 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Significant? Yes Yes Water absorbtion after 24 hours Source o f Variation Cement/wood ratio Wood particle size Cement/wood r x Wood particle Residual Total DF 2 2 4 27 35 SS 1420.693 116.577 81.292 95.329 1713.891 MS 710.346 58.288 20.323 3.531 48.968 F 201.190 16.509 5.756 P <0.001 <0.001 0.002 All Significant Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Holm-Sidak method): Overall significance level = 0.05 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227 Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio Com parison D iff o f M eans t Ratio2 vs. Ratio4 15.078 19.655 Ratio2 vs. Ratio3 10.200 13.297 Ratio3 vs. Ratio4 4.877 6.358 Comparisons for factor: W ood particle size Comparison D iff o f M eans t Sizel vs. Size3 4.299 5.604 Sizel vs. Size2 2.993 3.902 Unadjusted P 1.582E-017 2.288E-013 0.000000828 Unadjusted P 0.00000604 0.000573 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 0.050 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Significant? Yes Yes Yes Significant? Yes Yes Comparisons for factor: W ood particle size within Ratio2 Comparison D iff o f Means t Unadjusted P Sizel vs. Size3 8.842 6.655 0.000 Sizel vs. Size2 6.317 4.754 0.000 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Significant? Yes Yes Comparisons for factor: Wood particle size within Ratio3 Comparison D iff o f Means t Unadjusted P Sizel vs. Size3 3.741 2.815 0.009 Critical Level 0.017 Significant? Yes Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio within Sizel Comparison D iff o f M eans t Unadjusted P Ratio2 vs. Ratio4 20.126 15.147 0.000 Ratio2 vs. Ratio3 13.020 9.799 0.000 Ratio3 vs. Ratio4 7.106 0.000 5.348 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 0.050 Significant? Yes Yes Yes Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood iratio within Size2 Comparison D iff o f Means t Unadjusted P Ratio2 vs. Ratio4 13.510 10.168 0.000 Ratio2 vs. Ratio3 9.664 7.273 0.000 Ratio3 vs. Ratio4 3.846 2.895 0.007 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 0.050 Significant? Yes Yes Yes Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio within Size3 Comparison D iff o f Means t Unadjusted P Ratio2 vs. Ratio4 11.597 8.728 0.000 Ratio2 vs. Ratio3 7.918 5.959 0.000 Ratio3 vs. Ratio4 3.679 2.769 0.010 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 0.050 Significant? Yes Yes Yes Modulus of elasticity (MOEj Source o f Variation Cement/wood ratio Wood particle size Cement/wood r x Wood particle Residua] Total DF 2 2 4 25 33 SS 16555195.465 2428505.012 1115516.359 5134585.921 26372841.777 MS 8277597.733 1214252.506 278879.090 205383.437 799177.024 F 40.303 5.912 1.358 P <0.001 0.008 0.277 All Significant Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Holm-Sidak method): Overall significance level = 0.05 Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio Comparison D iff o f Means t Ratio4 vs. Ratio2 1697.377 8.703 Ratio3 vs. Ratio2 1122.736 6.068 Unadjusted P 0.00000000489 0.00000243 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Significant? Yes Yes 228 Ratio4 vs. Ratio3 574.641 2.947 0.00686 Comparisons for factor: W ood particle size Comparison D iff o f M eans t Unadjusted P Sizel vs. Size3 633.995 3.335 0.00266 Comparisons for factor: W ood particle size within Ratio4 Comparison D iff o f M eans t Unadjusted P Sizel vs. Size3 1200.075 3.467 0.002 Sizel vs. Size2 931.859 2.692 0.012 0.050 Yes Critical Level 0.017 Significant? Yes Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Significant? Yes Yes Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio within Sizel Comparison D iff o f Means t Unadjusted P Ratio4 vs. Ratio2 2202.263 6.872 0.000 Ratio4 vs. Ratio3 1127.332 3.518 0.002 Ratio3 vs. Ratio2 1074.930 3.354 0.003 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 0.050 Significant? Yes Yes Yes Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio within Size2 Comparison D iff o f Means t Unadjusted P Ratio4 vs. Ratio2 1558.787 4.503 0.000 Ratio3 vs. Ratio2 1262.475 3.940 0.001 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Significant? Yes Yes Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio within Size3 Comparison D iff o f M eans t Unadjusted P Ratio4 vs. Ratio2 1331.080 3.846 0.001 Ratio3 vs. Ratio2 1030.802 3.217 0.004 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Significant? Yes Yes Modulus of rupture (MOR) Source of Variation Cement/wood ratio Wood particle size Cement/wood r x Wood particle Residual Total DF 2 2 4 25 33 SS 30441415.350 9934437.961 1080680.182 12486660.279 56220943.639 MS 15220707.675 4967218.980 270170.046 499466.411 1703664.959 F 30.474 9.945 0.541 P <0.001 <0.001 0.707 All Significant Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures (Holm-Sidak method): Overall significance level = 0.05 Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio Comparison D iff o f M eans t Ratio4 vs. Ratio2 2275.254 7.481 Ratio3 vs. Ratio2 1590.619 5.513 Ratio4 vs. Ratio3 684.635 2.251 Comparisons for factor: W ood particle size Comparison D iff o f M eans t Sizel vs. Size3 1298.482 4.380 Sizel vs. Size2 833.778 2.813 Unadjusted P 0.0000000780 0.00000994 0.0334 Unadjusted P 0.000186 0.00942 Comparisons for factor: Wood particle size within Ratio4 Comparison D iff o f M eans t Unadjusted P Sizel vs. Size3 1566.831 2.903 0.008 Sizel vs. Size2 1392.618 2.580 0.016 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 0.050 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Significant? Yes Yes Yes Significant? Yes Yes Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Significant? Yes Yes 229 Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio within Sizel Comparison D iff o f M eans t Unadjusted P Ratio4 vs. Ratio2 2675.777 5.354 0.000 Ratio3 vs. Ratio2 1564.476 3.131 0.004 Ratio4 vs. Ratio3 1111.302 2.224 0.035 Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio within Size2 Comparison D iff o f M eans t Unadjusted P Ratio3 vs. Ratio2 1845.791 3.694 0.001 Ratio4 vs. Ratio2 1978.175 3.665 0.001 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 0.050 Significant? Yes Yes Yes Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Significant? Yes Yes Comparisons for factor: Cement/wood ratio within Size3 Comparison D iff o f Means t Unadjusted P Ratio4 vs. Ratio2 2171.810 4.024 0.000 Ratio3 vs. Ratio2 1361.590 2.725 0.012 Critical Level 0.017 0.025 Significant? Yes Yes Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.