NC State
BioResources
Kılıç, M. (2015). "Effects of machining methods on the surface roughness values of Pinus nigra Arnold wood," BioRes. 10(3), 5554-5562.

Abstract

In this study, samples were subjected to the following surface treatment techniques: sawing with a circular saw, planing with a thickness machine, and sanding with a sanding machine (with No. 80 sandpaper). After samples were treated radially and tangentially with machines, their surface roughness values (Ra, Ry, and Rz) were measured according to ISO 4288. When statistics related to surface roughness values (for Ra, Ry, and Rz) were analyzed, it was found that surfaces processed with the thickness machine exhibited the smoothest surfaces. Also, according to the same statistical tables, the lowest surface roughness values were found for surfaces cut tangentially.


Download PDF

Full Article

Effects of Machining Methods on the Surface Roughness Values of Pinus nigra Arnold Wood

Murat Kılıç

In this study, samples were subjected to the following surface treatment techniques: sawing with a circular saw, planing with a thickness machine, and sanding with a sanding machine (with No. 80 sandpaper). After samples were treated radially and tangentially with machines, their surface roughness values (RaRy, and Rz) were measured according to ISO 4288. When statistics related to surface roughness values (for RaRy, and Rz) were analyzed, it was found that surfaces processed with the thickness machine exhibited the smoothest surfaces. Also, according to the same statistical tables, the lowest surface roughness values were found for surfaces cut tangentially.

Keywords: Surface roughness; Pinus nigra Arnold wood; Wood machining; Cutting directions

Contact information: Kırıkkale University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Deparment of Interior Architechure & Environment Design, Yahsihan, Kırıkkale, Turkey; *Corresponding author: muratkilic@kku.edu.tr

INTRODUCTION

The success of surface treatments in protecting wood as a final product and in increasing its visual appeal depends on the smoothness of its surface material (Richter et al. 1995). Also, the surface roughness of woody material significantly affects the general performance of the product in terms of the joining of wood with adhesive (Burdurlu et al. 2005). One of the most important criteria in the determination of a material’s surface smoothness is surface roughness.

There are several factors influencing the surface roughness values of wood; these can be simply regarded as the annual ring variation, the density, the cell structure, and the latewood/earlywood ratio. The surface quality of the final product and accordingly its cost are also influenced by the machining used in manufacturing, the characteristics of the raw material, and/or the combination of these two parameters (Kilic et al. 2006).

Increased cutting speed, or rpm, generally results in the improved surface quality of wood products (McKenzie 1960; Lemaster and Beall 1993; Mitchell and Lemaster 2002; Kilic et al. 2006). The planed surface characteristic of solid wood is a function of its machining quality, which is directly related to knife marks per cm and not cutterhead speed alone (Davis 1962; Akbulut et al. 2000; Burdurlu et al. 2006).

Sand marks were also found to be important parameters influencing the quality of the surface. Grit size, and relatedly an alteration from the expected surface quality degree, would also result in a cost increase and wastage of raw material. Surface irregularities on solid wood are not always distinguished entirely compared to the other materials. Surface roughness of wood, at present, is defined using technical terms, given a representative or numerical reading of the surface topography. However, no universally accepted standard for the method has been established for these purposes, even though several methods are available such as stylus, optical profilometer, image analyses techniques-using a video camera, pneumatic, ultrasonic, and microscopy (Stumbo 1963; Faust 1987; Drew 1992; Funck et al. 1992; Hiziroglu et al. 2013; Salca and Hiziroglu 2014).

Each technique has relative advantages and disadvantages. Past studies have used the stylus method to determine the surface roughness of solid wood and wood composites (Peter and Cumming 1970; Ostman 1983; Hiziroglu and Suchsland 1993; Hiziroglu 1996; Aslan et al. 2008; Hiziroglu et al. 2013). A major advantage of the stylus method is that it provides an actual profile of the surface and standard numerical roughness parameters. Irregularities and magnitude of roughness can objectively be determined with this method. Thus, in this study, the fine stylus method was preferred to determine the surface roughness of machined wood samples prepared from Pinus nigra wood. The purpose was to determine the roughness of surfaces obtained by the most frequently used wood processing machines.

EXPERIMENTAL

Experimental materials were obtained from the Çamkoru Dr. Fuat Adalı Research Forest of the Central Anatolia Forestry Research Institute.

The trees were cut in accordance with ISO 4471 (ISO 1982). The trees were selected based on the following criteria: regular, strong formation of the tree stem and crown; natural wood color; parallel fibers without any curliness; and no damage from insects and fungi. Furthermore, tree crowns that were cultivated in extremely humid or extremely dry areas, or in areas subjected to frequent wind and storms were avoided. Trees with intricate branches or with irregular crowns, as well as trees that were jammed between other trees were not selected.

Black pines were obtained from the Çamkoru Research Forest at an elevation of 1500 to 1550 m. Five trees were cut in total. After cutting, branches on the stems were grubbed, round timbers were sampled at above 0.3 m from the base, and the length of the trees and their diameters at 1.30 m were measured (Table 1).

Table 1. Properties of Experimental Trees

Specimens were cut to dimensions of 60 x 500 mm in the Sample Preparing and Technology Laboratory of the Wood and Non-wood Forest Products Division of the Central Anatolia Forestry Research Institute. The specimens were then held in a conditioning room until they reached an air-dry moisture content of 12%.

Cutting direction and surface treatment were the main variables in the production of the samples. Two cutting directions (radial and tangential) and three surface treatment techniques (cutting by circular saw, planning, and sanding) were used in this work, and 180 measurements were taken with 30 test repetitions (2 x 3 x 30=180).

To assess the effects of different surface roughness values obtained with different surface processing techniques on the surface roughness of black pines, samples were subjected to the following operations in the appropriate time courses: lumbering, considering tangential and radial cutting directions and sample thicknesses and using a 40-tooth circular saw (6000 rpm); grating using a three-blade planer thicknesser (4500 rpm); and sanding using 80-grit sandpaper (1400 rpm). The feeding rate was constant at 10 m/min during processing. The type of operation was indicated by symbols on the front and back of the samples.

The Mitutoya Surftest-301 Series roughness tester, which takes measurements with the stylus method, was used to determine the effects of cutting direction, cutting with a circular saw, and planing and sanding on surface roughness. Measurements of surface roughness were made across the grain. The direction of measurement is displayed in Fig. 1.

The speed of the surface roughness measuring equipment used was 0.5 mm/s, the limit wavelength  was 0.8 mm, and the measurement length (lt) was 21 mm (diamond tip stylus, tip angle 90°/tip radius 2 m). At the end of the surface roughness replications, the Ra, Ry, and Rz values of each piece were determined. Surface roughness values were determined in accordance with ISO 4288 (ISO 1996).

Fig. 1. Surface profilometer used in this study

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Evaluation of the Data Obtained for Ra (Average Roughness)

The variance analysis calculated for Ra from the surface roughness parameters is given in Table 2. According to the listed results, it was determined that in addition to machine type and cutting directions affecting the Ra value, the dual effects of these variables on Ra is statistically important. According to the results of the Tukey’s test performed to compare the averages, the smoothest surfaces were obtained with the thickness machine (Ra=4.76 m), followed by the sanding machine (Ra=5.06 m) and the circular saw (Ra=7.01 m) (Table 3).

In some studies, it was found that the surfaces obtained from thicknessers had smoother surfaces than those resulting from the sanding machine and circular saw (Aslan et al. 2008; İlter and Balkız 2005; İlter et al. 2002). Corresponding findings were also obtained in Burdurlu et al. 2006 (Table 5).

Table 2. Variance Analysis for Ra

Table 3. Tukey’s Test for Ra According to Machine Type

When statistical values according to cutting direction (Table 4) were investigated, the average surface roughness values of the samples cut tangentially were found to be lower than the samples cut radially (RaTangential=5.40 m, RaRadial=5.82 m). Compatible findings were also obtained by others (İlter et al. 2002; İlter and Balkız 2005; Burdurlu et al. 2006) (Table 5).

Table 4. Statistical Values for Ra According to Cutting Direction

The surfaces obtained in tangential cuts were found to be smoother compared to the surfaces obtained in radial cuts. This could be caused by an increase or decrease in the tissue voids stemming from the fiber cutting angle together with the cutting method.

Evaluation of the Data Obtained for Ry (Rmax) (Maximum Roughness)

The variance analysis calculated for Ry from surface roughness parameters is given in Table 6.

Table 5. Ra values of Wood Types

Table 6. Variance Analysis for Ry

According to the results listed in Table 6, not only do the machine type and cutting direction affect Ry values, but also the dual effects of these variables on Ry are statistically important. According to the results of the Tukey’s test performed to compare the averages, the smoothest surfaces were obtained with the thickness machine (Ry=35.57 m), followed by the sanding machine (Ry=41.78 m) and the circular saw (Ry=50.59 m) (Table 7).

Table 7. Tukey’s Test Results for Ry According to Machine Type

When statistical values according to cutting direction (Table 8) were investigated, the average maximum profile height values of the samples cut tangentially were lower than those of the samples cut radially (RyTangential=41.594 m, RyRadial=43.708 m).

Table 8. Statistical Values for Ry According to Cutting Direction

Ry results values found in this work were similar to those determined in previous studies (İlter and Balkız 2005; İlter et al. 2002).

Evaluation of the Data Obtained for Rz (Mean Peak-to-valley Height)

The variance analysis calculated for Rz surface roughness parameter is given in Table 9.

Table 9. Variance Analysis for Rz

According to the results listed in Table 9, not only the machine type and cutting direction affect Rz values, but the dual effects of these variables on Rz is statistically important. According to the results of the Tukey’s test performed to compare the averages, the smoothest surfaces were obtained with the thickness machine (Rz=28.54 m), followed by the sanding machine (Rz=30.62 m) and the circular saw (Rz=40.63 m) (Table 10). When statistical values according to cutting direction (Table 11) were investigated, the average ten-point height values of the samples cut tangentially were lower than the samples cut radially (RzTangential=31.923 m, RzRadial=34.609 m).

Table 10. Tukey’s Test for Different Machine Types

Table 11. Statistical Values for Rz According to Cutting Direction

Rz results values found in this work were similar to those determined in a previous studies (İlter and Balkız 2005; İlter et al. 2002).

CONCLUSIONS

  1. In this work, the effect of various machining methods of Pinus nigra Arnold wood on its surface roughness characteristics was investigated. In light of preliminary results of this work, a stylus method can accurately be used to evaluate surface roughness of machined samples of black pine.
  2. Specimens were processed with the following frequently-used surface treatment techniques: sawing with a circular saw, planing with a thickness machine, and sanding with a sanding machine (No. 80 sandpaper). After the samples were treated radially and tangentially with machines, their surface roughness values (RaRy, and Rz) were measured. When the statistics of surface roughness values were examined (for RaRy, and Rz), it was determined that the smoothest surfaces were obtained from samples treated with a thickness machine.
  3. The roughness values of tangentially-cut surfaces were found to be the lowest, according to the previously mentioned statistical values.
  4. Surface roughness is important for lowering the amount of surface material used in the wood industry, as well as for improving the adhesion process. Therefore, there are great benefits to determining the surface roughness values of tree species grown in Turkey.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is grateful for the support of the Turkey General Directorate of Forestry, Central Anatolia Forestry Research Institute, Grant. No. 23.7133/2009-2011-2013.

REFERENCES CITED

Aslan, S., Coskun, H., and Kılıç, M. (2008). “The effect of the cutting direction, number of blades and grain size of the abrasives on surface roughness of Taurus Cedar (Cedrus Libani A. Rich.) woods,” Building and Environment 43, 696-701. DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.01.048.

Akbulut, T., Hiziroglu, S., and Ayrilmis, N. (2000). “Surface absorption, surface roughness, and formaldehyde emission of Turkish medium density fiberboard,” Forest Products Journal 50(6), 45-48.

Burdurlu, E., Kılıç, Y., Eli̇bol, G. C., and Kılıç, M. (2006). “The shear strength of Calabrian pine (Pinus brutia Ten.) bonded with polyurethane and polyvinyl acetate adhesives,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science 99, 3050-3061. DOI:10.1002/app.22905.

Burdurlu, E., Usta, I., Ulupınar, M., Aksu, B., Eraslan, T. Ç. (2005). “The effect of the number of blades and the grain size of abrasives in planing and sanding on surface roughness of European black pine and Lombardy poplar,” Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 29, 315-321.

Davis, E. M. (1962). Machining and Related Characteristics of United States Hardwoods, Technical Bulletin No. 1267, USDA, Washington, DC.

Drew, W. E. (1992). “Surface texture measurement errors: Stylus type instruments,” Quality, October, 41-44.

Faust, T. D. (1987). “Real time measurement of veneer surface roughness by image analysis,” Forest Products Journal 37(6), 34-40.

Hiziroglu, S., Zhong, Z. W., and Ong, W. K. (2013). “Evaluating of bonding strength of pine, oak and nyatoh wood species related to their surface roughness,” Measurement 49, 397-400. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.11.053

Hiziroglu, S., Zhong, Z. W., and Tan, H. L. (2013). “Measurement of bonding strength of pine, kapur and meranti wood species as function of their surface quality,” Measurement 46(9), 3198-3201. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.05.005

Hiziroglu, S. (1996). “Surface roughness analysis of wood composites: A stylus method,” Forest Products Journal 46(7–8), 67-72.

Hiziroglu, S., and Suchsland, O. (1993). “Linear expansion and surface stability of particleboard,” Forest Products Journal 43(4), 31-34.

ISO 4471 (1982). “Wood-sampling sample tree and logs for determination of physical and mechanical properties of wood homogeneous stands,” International Organization for Standardization.

ISO 4288 (1996). “Geometrical product specifications (GPS) – Surface texture: Profile method rules and procedures for the assessment of surface texture,” International Organization for Standardization.

İlter, E., and Balkız, Ö. (2002). “Okaliptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehn.) odununun yüzey pürüzlülük değerlerinin belirlenmesi,” İç Anadolu Ormancılık Araştırma Müdürlüğü Teknik Bülten No: 283, ISSN 1302-9452, Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı Yayın No: 280, Ankara, (Turkish).

İlter, E.,Çamlıyurt, C., and Balkız, Ö. (2005) “Uludağ Göknarı (Abies Bornmülleriana Mattf.) odununun yüzey pürüzlülük değerlerinin belirlenmesi üzerine araştırmalar,” İç Anadolu Ormancılık Araştırma Müdürlüğü Teknik Bülten No: 281, ISSN 1302-9452, T.C. Orman Bakanlığı Yayın No: 175, Ankara, (Turkish).

Kilic, M., Hiziroglu, S., and Burdurlu, E. (2006). “Effect of machining on surface roughness of wood,” Building and Environment41(8), 1074-1078. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.05.008

Lemaster, R. L., and Beall, F. C. (1993). “The use of dual sensors to measure surface roughness of wood-based composites,” Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Non-destructive Testing of Wood, MD, Forest Products Society, Wisconsin, 123-130.

McKenzie, W. M. (1960). “Fundamental aspects of the wood cutting process,” Forest Products Journal 10(9), 447-457.

Mitchell, P., and Lemaster, R. (2002). “Investigation of machine parameters on the surface quality in routing soft maple,” Forest Products Journal 52(6), 85-90.

Ostman, B. A. L. (1983). “Surface roughness of wood-based panels after aging,” Forest Products Journal 33(7–8), 35-42.

Peter, C. C., and Cumming, J. D. (1970). “Measuring wood surface smoothness: A review,” Forest Products Journal 20(12), 40-43.

Richter, K., Feist, W., and Kanebe, M. (1995). “The effects of surface roughness on the performance of finishes,” Forest Products Journal45 (7–8), 91-97.

Salca, E. A., and Hiziroglu, S. (2014). “Evaluation of hardness and surface quality of different wood species as function of heat treatment,” Materials & Design 62, 416-423. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.05.029

Stumbo, D. A. (1963). “Surface texture, measuring methods,” Forest Products Journal 12(7), 299-303.

Article submitted: February 6, 2015; Peer review completed: March 28, 2015; Revised version received: July 4, 2015; Accepted: July 6, 2015; Published: July 20, 2015.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.10.3.5554-5562