Abstract
Structural particleboard (SPB) is a promising structural wood-based panel that can be manufactured using existing particleboard production facilities. Although product performance requirements for SPB have been only partially established, developed SPB panels have demonstrated basic product-level properties such as bending performance, internal bond strength, moisture resistance, and formaldehyde emission. However, experimental verification of structural performance is required for practical structural applications. In this study, newly developed SPB was evaluated for product performance and structural performance, including compressive strength, structural bending performance, and in-plane shear strength, and the results were compared with those of conventional particleboard (PB) and oriented strand board (OSB). To assess reliability as a structural material, coefficients of variation and 5th percentile were examined in addition to mean values. SPB satisfied all product performance requirements and showed superior compressive performance compared with OSB and conventional PB in terms of both mean and 5th percentile. In bending, SPB exhibited structural performance comparable to that of OSB in the major axis and showed competitive performance based on the 5th percentile. In-plane shear performance was also stable in terms of mean value, variability, and 5th percentile. These findings demonstrate that SPB has strong potential for use as a structural wood-based panel.
Download PDF
Full Article
Evaluation of the Structural Performance of Wood-Based Panels: Comparison of Structural Particleboard, Conventional Particleboard, and Oriented Strand Board
In-Hwan Lee 
,a Min Lee , a,* Chul-Ki Kim ,a Yonggun Park ,a and Bora Jeong b
Structural particleboard (SPB) is a promising structural wood-based panel that can be manufactured using existing particleboard production facilities. Although product performance requirements for SPB have been only partially established, developed SPB panels have demonstrated basic product-level properties such as bending performance, internal bond strength, moisture resistance, and formaldehyde emission. However, experimental verification of structural performance is required for practical structural applications. In this study, newly developed SPB was evaluated for product performance and structural performance, including compressive strength, structural bending performance, and in-plane shear strength, and the results were compared with those of conventional particleboard (PB) and oriented strand board (OSB). To assess reliability as a structural material, coefficients of variation and 5th percentile were examined in addition to mean values. SPB satisfied all product performance requirements and showed superior compressive performance compared with OSB and conventional PB in terms of both mean and 5th percentile. In bending, SPB exhibited structural performance comparable to that of OSB in the major axis and showed competitive performance based on the 5th percentile. In-plane shear performance was also stable in terms of mean value, variability, and 5th percentile. These findings demonstrate that SPB has strong potential for use as a structural wood-based panel.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.21.4.10294-10308
Keywords: Structural particleboard (SPB); Structural performance; Compressive strength; Flexural strength; In-plane shear strength; 5th percentile; Oriented Strand Board (OSB)
Contact information: a: Wood Engineering Division, Forest Products and Industry Department, National Institute of Forest Science, 57 Hoegi-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02455, Republic of Korea; b: Board Chemical Research Team, Technology Research Institute, Dongwha Enterprise, 164 Wolmi-ro, Incheon, Republic of Korea; *Corresponding author: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Structural wood-based panels are used as sheathing materials for walls, floors, and roofs in light-frame wood construction, where they play an important role in ensuring the stiffness and load-bearing capacity of the structural system. At present, oriented strand board (OSB) is the most widely used material among structural wood-based panels (Bederina et al. 2009; Li et al. 2017; Mirski et al. 2019). However, Korea lacks a domestic OSB production base and therefore relies heavily on imported products, which presents limitations in terms of supply stability and quality consistency. Under these circumstances, if structural panels could be manufactured using existing particleboard production facilities, the application scope of the domestic panel industry could be expanded while also broadening the range of available structural materials.
Recently, the wood construction market in Korea has reached an institutional turning point, with the potential to expand from limited applications centered on detached houses to public buildings and multi-family housing. In response to these market changes, the stable supply of structural wood-based panels has become an important issue. In particular, although structural sheathing is an essential component in light-frame wood construction, Korea still remains highly dependent on imported OSB, with approximately 57,000 m³ of OSB imported in 2024 (Kang et al. 2023; IndexBox 2026). Therefore, if structural panels can be domestically produced and supplied using the existing particleboard (PB) production base, this would be significant in terms of stabilizing the supply chain of structural wood-based materials and enhancing their industrial applicability. In this regard, structural particleboard (SPB) needs to be considered as an alternative structural panel material that is well suited to domestic conditions.
PB can utilize industrial waste wood and underused wood resources as raw materials, offering high resource efficiency, and its properties can be tailored by controlling the raw materials and manufacturing process (Astari et al. 2018). Based on these advantages, SPB has been developed, and its product properties, including bending strength, internal bond strength, moisture resistance, and formaldehyde emission, have already reached levels that satisfy the relevant requirements (Battegazzore et al. 2018; Lee et al. 2023; Kim et al. 2024). In other words, SPB has already achieved the fundamental performance required as a panel product, and the next step in discussing its applicability as a structural panel is to evaluate its structural performance.
The applicability of structural wood-based panels cannot be sufficiently assessed based solely on basic material properties. For practical use as structural materials, load-resisting performance under compression, bending, and in-plane shear must be examined, and not only the mean strength but also material variability and characteristic values should be evaluated. In structural design, characteristic values such as the 5th percentile are more relevant than mean values. Therefore, to determine the potential use of SPB as a structural panel material, both the level and reliability of its structural performance need to be examined through comparison with OSB and conventional PB.
Therefore, in this study, newly developed SPB was first examined to determine whether it satisfied the product performance requirements, and its structural performance was then evaluated with a focus on compressive strength, bending strength, and in-plane shear strength. In addition, by comparing the calculated mean values, coefficients of variation, and 5th percentile values with those of conventional PB and OSB, this study aimed to evaluate the applicability of SPB as a structural panel material.
EXPERIMENTAL
Materials
Newly developed SPB was used as the target material in this study, while conventional PB and OSB were used as reference materials. The reference OSB was a commercial panel manufactured by Company A, certified by APA, and produced in accordance with PS 2-18. For SPB manufacture, particles with size ranges of 10 to 325 mesh and 4 to 40 mesh were used for the face and core layers, respectively. The initial moisture content of all particles before drying ranged from 23% to 40%, and the particles were oven-dried to a moisture content below 1% prior to board manufacture. Melamine–urea–formaldehyde (MUF) resin and polymeric methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (pMDI) resin were used as adhesives, with NH₄Cl as a hardener and wax emulsion as an additive. The reference PB was a commercially available 12 mm-thick product, whereas the OSB was a commercially available North American product with a thickness of 11.1 mm.
Manufacturing of Structural Particleboard
SPB was manufactured with a face/core/face layer ratio of 2:6:2 and a target density of approximately 0.75 g/cm³. The face layers were bonded with 12.0% MUF resin containing 17% melamine and 2.0% pMDI resin, whereas the core layer was bonded with 8.0% MUF resin and 5.0% pMDI resin. The MUF hardener was added at 20% based on the adhesive solids content, and wax emulsion was added at 1.0% and 0.7% based on oven-dry particle weight for the face and core layers, respectively. Before hot pressing, the mat moisture content was adjusted to 9 to 11%. The panels were hot-pressed at 200 °C and 50 kgf/cm² for 8.0 s/mm. The final panel dimensions were 12 mm (T) × 1220 mm (W) × 2440 mm (L).
Evaluation of Physico-Mechanical Properties and Formaldehyde Emissions
The product performance of SPB was evaluated to determine whether the panels satisfied the requirements for structural wood-based panels. The evaluated properties included bending strength, modulus of elasticity in bending, internal bond strength, thickness swelling, wet bending strength, internal bond strength after boiling, and formaldehyde emission. Bending performance, internal bond strength, and thickness swelling were determined in accordance with the relevant ISO standards, whereas water resistance was assessed based on wet bending performance and internal bond strength after boiling. Formaldehyde emission was measured using the desiccator method.
Structural Performance Evaluation
The structural performance of SPB was evaluated to examine its applicability as a structural panel material. Compressive strength, structural bending performance, and in-plane shear performance were evaluated. The compression test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D3501-05a (2018), using specimens with dimensions of 200 mm × 300 mm. The bending test was performed based on Method B of ASTM D3043 (2017), using specimens with dimensions of 300 mm × 800 mm and a span length of 780 mm. The in-plane shear test was conducted in accordance with Method B of ASTM D2719 (2019), and the shear stress and shear stiffness were calculated from the deformation and maximum load of the specimens. Although SPB and conventional PB are isotropic materials without a distinct panel direction, they were tested in both directions in the same manner as OSB, which has major and minor axes.
Compression Test
The compression test was performed in accordance with ASTM D3501-05a (2018). Panel specimens were prepared with dimensions of 200 mm × 300 mm. The compression test setup is shown in Fig. 1. During testing, the specimen was allowed to move freely in the vertical direction, while out-of-plane deformation toward the front and back surfaces was restrained using support jigs. The load and deformation were measured until failure at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min. The load was measured using a 200 kN load cell installed at the upper loading head, and deformation was measured precisely using a 50 mm linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) attached to the center of the specimen. The total length of the LVDT was 200 mm, which was shorter than the specimen height of 300 mm.
The compressive modulus of elasticity (MOE) was calculated using Eq. 1, and the compressive strength was calculated using Eq. 2, in accordance with ASTM D3501-05a (2018),
Fig. 1. Photographs and schematic diagram of the compression test setup for structural panels
Bending Test
The bending test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D3043 (2017). Method B was used to determine the bending strength under a four-point loading configuration, minimizing the influence of shear force. Rectangular specimens measuring 300 mm in width and 800 mm in length were prepared. The span length and loading span were set to 780 and 300 mm, respectively. The test was performed at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min using an Instron 5585 universal testing machine equipped with a 200 kN load cell, and loading was continued until the maximum load was reached. Deflection was measured using a LVDT installed at the bottom center of the specimen.
The MOE and modulus of rupture (MOR) of the panel specimens were calculated using Eqs. 3 and 4, respectively.
In-Plane Shear Test Method
The in-plane shear test was conducted in accordance with Method B of ASTM D2719 (2019), which recommends a large-panel shear test to simulate a pure shear condition and evaluate the shear modulus and shear strength of structural panels. According to ASTM D2719 (2019), the side length of the shear area should be at least 610 mm to prevent compressive buckling and should not exceed 48 times the total specimen thickness. For panels with a thickness of less than 12.7 mm, or with a thickness less than 1/48 of the shear area dimension, two or more panels may be bonded together through the thickness direction before testing. Accordingly, two layers of OSB and SPB were bonded together, whereas conventional PB was tested as a single panel.
To prevent edge failure, larch reinforcement blocks were bonded to the four corners of the square shear area, as shown in Fig. 2. The specimens were prepared as 850 mm × 850 mm square panels, and the four corners were cut to 120 mm × 120 mm, resulting in an internal shear area of 610 mm × 610 mm. The specimens were fixed using a loading jig and tested using an Instron 5585 universal testing machine equipped with a 200 kN load cell. Tensile loading was applied at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min until failure.
Fig. 2. Photographs and schematic diagram of the in-plane shear test setup for structural panels
Two LVDTs were used to measure in-plane deformation. One LVDT was installed vertically on the front surface of the specimen to measure in-plane tensile displacement, and the other was installed horizontally on the opposite surface to measure in-plane compressive displacement. Shear strain was calculated from the two displacement values. The test results were analyzed in accordance with ASTM D2719 (2019) and ASTM D2915-10 (2017), and the modulus of rigidity, Gxy, was calculated using Eq. 5,
Determination of 5th Percentile
The structural performance of SPB, conventional PB, and OSB under compression, bending, and shear was compared using the 5th percentile. The 5th percentile were determined using a parametric method based on a lognormal distribution, as shown in Eqs. 7 and 8. As described in Eq. 8, the 5th percentile was calculated using a lognormal distribution and the k-factor corresponding to the number of test specimens at a 75% confidence level, as specified in ASTM D2915-10 (2017).
RESULTS AND DISCISSION
Mechanical Properties of Wood-based Panels
The basic properties of the panels used in this study are presented in Table 1. SPB satisfied the requirements specified in the relevant ISO and JIS standards. The density of SPB was higher than that of OSB and conventional PB, whereas OSB showed a higher moisture content than the other panel specimens.
The physical and chemical properties of OSB, SPB, and conventional PB are summarized in Table 2. Under air-dried conditions, the MOR and MOE of OSB and SPB exceeded the required standard values. In particular, the MOR and MOE of SPB were higher than the requirements specified for OSB in ISO 16894 (2016). In addition, SPB exhibited similar MOR and MOE values in both panel directions, indicating no distinct difference between the major and minor axes. By contrast, conventional PB did not meet the required MOR value of 17.0 MPa.
Table 1. Basic Information of Wood-based Panel and Standards
All specimens satisfied the requirement for internal bond strength. The JIS A 5908 (2003) requirement for structural PB specifies that thickness swelling should be less than 12% after 24 h of immersion in water at 20 °C. In the thickness swelling test, SPB showed the lowest value of 3.20%, thereby satisfying the structural requirement. However, OSB and conventional PB showed thickness swelling values of 16.14% and 18.10%, respectively, indicating that they did not meet the requirement for structural use.
Moisture resistance is a critical requirement for wood-based panels used in structural applications. APA Test Method D-2 Mold Test, included in APA PRP-108 (2021), specifies a mold resistance procedure in which test specimens are subjected to wetting followed by exposure to 90 to 97% relative humidity for one week. This procedure highlights the importance of moisture-related bond durability for structural wood-based panels exposed to temporary wetting or high-humidity conditions. In the APA classification for OSB, Exposure 1 is not intended for permanent outdoor exposure but indicates bond durability sufficient to resist temporary moisture exposure, such as that occurring during construction delays.
Table 2. Mechanical and Chemical Properties and Standards of Wood-based Panels
In the wet bending test, OSB and SPB satisfied the required strength values, whereas conventional PB failed to meet the requirement. Although no requirement is specified for wet bending MOE, SPB exhibited higher values than OSB. After boiling treatment, only SPB satisfied the internal bond strength requirement, with a value of 0.27 MPa, exceeding the required value of 0.14 MPa. By contrast, OSB showed an internal bond strength of 0.08 MPa, suggesting limited water resistance but insufficient performance to satisfy the requirement. Conventional PB disintegrated after boiling treatment, and its internal bond strength could not be measured.
The MOR of wood-based panels is closely related to density; therefore, higher density than that of furniture-grade PB is required when PB is used for structural applications. The improved water resistance of SPB was also attributed to the combined application of MUF resin with a high melamine content and an isocyanate-based adhesive. Although OSB is also produced using an isocyanate-based adhesive, its relatively low adhesive loading may have contributed to its lower water resistance. In contrast, conventional PB exhibited poor water resistance because it was bonded with UF resin.
The formaldehyde emissions of conventional PB and SPB were 0.47 mg/L and 0.43 mg/L, respectively, corresponding to the E0 grade. In contrast, OSB exhibited a lower formaldehyde emission of 0.14 mg/L, corresponding to the SE0 grade. This difference can be attributed to the resin systems used in each panel: conventional PB was bonded with UF resin, SPB was manufactured using MUF and pMDI resins, and OSB was manufactured using pMDI resin.
Structural Performance Evaluation
Compression test results of panel specimens
Structural wood-based panels resist tensile and compressive stresses induced by bending when subjected to lateral loads such as wind and seismic loads (Phillips et al. 2021). Therefore, compressive strength is an important mechanical property for evaluating the structural performance of panel materials. The compression test results are summarized in Table 3.
The mean compressive strengths of OSB in the major and minor axes and conventional PB were 11.2, 10.5, and 12.2 MPa, respectively, indicating comparable performance among these panels. In contrast, SPB showed a mean compressive strength of 15.9 MPa, corresponding to a 31 to 52% increase compared with the other panel types.
An F-test indicated no significant difference in variance between SPB and OSB (p = 0.357), supporting the assumption of equal variances. An independent-samples t-test subsequently revealed that the compressive strength of SPB (M = 15.9 MPa, SD = 3.1 MPa) was significantly higher than that of OSB in the major axis (M = 11.2 MPa, SD = 2.6 MPa), representing an increase of approximately 41%, t(36) = 8.38, p < 0.001.
The mean compressive modulus of elasticity of SPB was 68.8% higher than that of conventional PB and exceeded that of OSB in the minor axis. However, it remained lower than the mean compressive modulus of elasticity of OSB in the major axis. For SPB and conventional PB, specimens were cut in two orthogonal directions, and the results were pooled because no distinct directional difference was observed.
Table 3. Compression Test Results of Wood-based Panels
For compressive strength, SPB exhibited the highest 5th percentile among the tested panels, at 12.6 MPa. This value was approximately 50% higher than that of OSB, which is commonly used as a structural panel material in building applications. The higher lower 5th percentile of SPB was mainly associated with its high mean compressive strength and relatively low variability. Although OSB in the major axis showed the highest mean compressive MOE, its coefficient of variation (CV) was also high, indicating relatively large variability in stiffness. As described in Eq. 8, the 5th percentile was calculated using a lognormal distribution and the k-factor corresponding to the number of test specimens at a 75% confidence level. In structural design, allowable stresses for timber-based structural materials are typically derived from characteristic values, such as 5th percentile, rather than from mean values. Therefore, the 5th percentile value provides a more practical basis for evaluating structural performance.
Figure 3 presents the representative compression failure modes of SPB. In failure mode 1, failure occurred at the center of the specimen. In failure mode 2, failure occurred near the upper loading region. In failure mode 3, failure also initiated near the upper loading region, but splitting propagated toward the loaded surface. The white and black lines are only used to indicate the specimen boundaries, and the red lines should be considered when interpreting the failure modes. The red arrows indicate the direction of loading. The differences in compressive strength among these failure modes were negligible, and no clear relationship between failure mode and compressive strength was observed.
Fig. 3. Compressive failure mode of SPB
Compressive performance does not directly represent the overall structural behavior of wall or panel assemblies as a single parameter. However, it is an important indicator of the fundamental capacity of panel materials to resist in-plane stress states and localized compressive stresses (Sudo et al. 2023). The higher 5th percentile of SPB compared with OSB may be advantageous for conservative strength evaluation in structural member design. Thus, the compression test results of SPB should not be interpreted only as an indication of mechanical superiority, but also as evidence of its potential to provide reliable design values as a structural panel material.
Bending test results of panel specimens
The static bending test results are summarized in Table 4. The mean MOR of SPB was 17.9 MPa, representing a 37.7% increase compared with conventional PB, which showed an MOR of 13.0 MPa. Although the MOR of OSB in the major axis was 20.3 MPa, which was 13.4% higher than that of SPB, the MOR of OSB in the minor axis was 12.4 MPa. Thus, SPB exhibited a 44.0% higher MOR than OSB in the minor axis.
Table 4. Bending Test Results of Wood-based Panels
In terms of the 5th percentile, the MOR of SPB was 7.2% higher than that of OSB in the major axis. SPB also showed a lower coefficient of variation than OSB, indicating higher reliability for structural applications. The MOE of SPB was 48.7% higher than that of conventional PB and was comparable to that of OSB in the major axis. Therefore, SPB, which does not have distinct major and minor axes, showed promising bending performance and may be considered a potential alternative to OSB as a structural panel material.
Fig. 4. Regression relationship between MOR and MOE of the tested wood-based panels
Ayrilmis et al. (2010) reported MOR values of 20.8 MPa and 9.9 MPa for OSB in the major and minor axes, respectively, at 20 °C. Okkonen and River (1996) compared the strength properties of five types of plywood and four types of OSB and reported mean MOR values ranging from 18.7 to 26.9 MPa in the major axis. Variations in MOR among studies can be attributed to differences in panel grade, manufacturing conditions, raw material characteristics, panel density, and testing procedures. The MOR values obtained in the present study fell within the range reported for commercial OSB products in previous studies.
All specimens failed in the tensile zone at the bottom center of the specimen. For OSB, partial separation along the bond lines between strand layers was observed as cohesive failure, followed by splitting propagation. By contrast, PB and SPB exhibited brittle failure. Nevertheless, because the bending strengths of SPB and OSB were comparable, the influence of failure mode on bending strength was considered negligible.
A positive correlation was observed between MOR and MOE for all panel specimens. Regression analysis yielded the empirical equation MOR = 2.94MOE + 1.06, with a coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.78, indicating a strong positive relationship between the two properties. Similar relationships between MOR and MOE have been reported for structural wood-based panels, particularly OSB, where bending strength is closely associated with panel stiffness. Jin and Dai (2010) also reported a strong correlation between MOR and MOE in commercial OSB products. The relatively high R² value obtained in the present study suggests that MOE may serve as an effective predictor of MOR for wood-based panels (Fig. 4).
In-plane shear test results of panel specimens
In-plane shear tests were performed on PB, OSB, and SPB to evaluate the in-plane shear resistance of the panel specimens. All specimens exhibited nearly linear behavior until reaching the ultimate shear strength, followed by brittle failure. Because the specimens were subjected to a biaxial stress state during the test, failure occurred at relatively low strain levels (Palagala et al. 2023). Failure initiated at the corners under tensile stress and propagated diagonally through the shear area. Similar failure behavior was observed for OSB, SPB, and PB, as shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Failure modes of specimens after the in-plane shear test
The test results for shear stiffness and shear stress are summarized in Table 5 and visualized using box-and-whisker plots in Fig. 6. The plots present the mean, maximum, minimum, first quartile, median, and third quartile values. The box represents the interquartile range, defined as the distance between the first and third quartiles, corresponding to the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively. As shown in Table 5 and Fig. 6, the in-plane shear stress and shear stiffness of SPB were comparable to those of OSB. However, SPB showed lower overall variability than OSB, indicating more uniform mechanical properties. According to ISO 3129 (2021), the CV for wood properties, including shear, compression, and tensile strength parallel to the grain, is approximately 20%. In contrast, the CV of the shear strength of OSB in this study was 43%, indicating substantial variability, whereas SPB showed a CV of 16%, suggesting a more reliable distribution of shear strength.
Table 5. In-plane Shear Test Results of Wood-based Panels
For structural materials, lower variability in mechanical properties is important because it enables more accurate structural design and improves the reliability of design values. Moreover, the 5th percentile of the in-plane shear strength of SPB was 53.8% higher than that of OSB. These results suggest that SPB provides in-plane shear performance comparable to that of OSB, while offering higher reliability in both in-plane shear strength and shear stiffness. Therefore, SPB has strong potential for use as a structural panel material in timber construction.
Fig. 6. Boxplots of shear stress and modulus of rigidity for OSB, PB, and SPB specimens
Although this study has provided meaningful experimental evidence of the structural performance of SPB, further investigations are required before design standards can be established and its range of applications can be expanded. Future studies should examine cyclic loading behavior, creep behavior under long-term loading, performance stability under moisture variations, and fastener connection performance. Nevertheless, the present study provides important fundamental data by demonstrating that SPB exceeds the level of merely satisfying product requirements and can be considered a viable candidate for structural wood-based panel applications.
CONCLUSIONS
- Structural particleboard (SPB) specimens satisfied the requirements specified in the relevant ISO and JIS standards for basic panel properties. The modulus of rupture and modulus of elasticity exceeded the required values, and the internal bond strength and moisture resistance met the relevant requirements. The formaldehyde emission of SPB corresponded to the E0 grade.
- In the compression test, SPB exhibited a mean compressive strength of 16.0 MPa, which was 31 to 52% higher than those of oriented strand board (OSB) and conventional particleboard (PB). The 5th percentile of SPB was 12.6 MPa, which was 50% higher than that of OSB. The coefficient of variation was 11%, indicating relatively low variability and reliable compressive performance.
- In the bending test, the 5th percentile bending strength of SPB was 7.2% higher than that of OSB in the major axis, and SPB showed a lower coefficient of variation. The influence of failure mode on bending strength was negligible. Regression analysis between MOE and MOR produced the empirical equation MOR = 2.94MOE + 1.06, with an R2 value of 0.78, indicating a strong positive correlation.
- In the in-plane shear test, the mean shear stress and modulus of rigidity of SPB were comparable to those of OSB. However, the 5th percentile shear stress of SPB was 53.8% higher than that of OSB, suggesting higher reliability in shear performance.
- Based on these results, SPB demonstrated structural performance comparable to that of OSB, with higher lower-tail values in compressive, bending, and in-plane shear strength. Therefore, SPB can be considered a promising candidate for use as a structural wood-based panel. The results of this study provide fundamental data for the structural application of particleboard-based panels in timber construction.
REFERENCES CITED
APA PRP-108-21 (2021). “Performance standards and qualification policy for wood structural panels,” APA – The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, WA, USA.
Astari, L., Prasetiyo, K. W., and Suryanegara, L. (2018). “Properties of particleboard made from wood waste with various size,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 166(1), article 012004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/166/1/012004
ASTM D2719 (2019). “Standard test methods for wood structural panels in shear through-the-thickness,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D2915-10 (2017). “Standard practice for sampling and data-analysis for structural wood and wood-based products,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D3043-17 (2017). “Standard test methods for structural panels in flexure,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D3501-05a (2018). “Standard test methods for wood-based structural panels in compression,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Ayrilmis, N., Buyuksari, U., and As, N. (2010). “Bending strength and modulus of elasticity of wood-based panels at cold and moderate temperatures,” Cold Regions Science and Technology 63(1-2), 40-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2010.05.004
Battegazzore, D., Alongi, J., Duraccio, D., and Frache, A. (2018). “All natural high-density fiber- and particleboards from hemp fibers or rice husk particles,” Journal of Polymers and the Environment 26(4), 1652-1660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-017-1071-9
Bederina, M., Laidoudi, B., Goullieux, A., Khenfer, M. M., Bali, A., and Quéneudec, M. (2009). “Effect of the treatment of wood shavings on the physico-mechanical characteristics of wood sand concretes,” Construction and Building Materials 23(3), 1311-1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.07.029
IndexBox. (2026). Asia’s OSB market: 2024. IndexBox.
ISO 12460-4 (2013). “Wood-based panels—Determination of formaldehyde release – Part 4: Desiccator method,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 16893 (2016). “Wood-based panels—Particleboard,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 16894 (2016). “Wood-based panels—Oriented strand board (OSB),” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 16978 (2003). “Wood-based panels—Determination of modulus of elasticity in bending and of bending strength,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 16983 (2003). “Wood-based panels—Determination of swelling in thickness after immersion in water,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 16984 (2003). “Wood-based panels—Determination of tensile strength perpendicular to the plane of the panel,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 3129 (2021). “Wood—Sampling methods and general requirements for physical and mechanical testing of small clear wood specimens,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jin, J., and Dai, C. (2010). “Characterizing variability of commercial oriented strandboard: Bending properties,” Forest Products Journal 60(4), 373-381. https://doi.org/10.13073/0015-7473-60.4.373
JIS A 5908 (2003). “Particleboards,” Japanese Standards Association, Tokyo, Japan.
Kang, E.-C., Lee, M., Lee, S.-M., and Park, S.-H. (2023). “Mechanical properties of the oriented strand board (OSB) distributed in the Korean market,” Journal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology 51(4), 253-269. https://doi.org/10.5658/WOOD.2023.51.4.253
Kim, C.-K., Lee, H. W., Lee, M., and Lee, S.-J. (2024). “Shear resistance for lateral force of light-frame wall sheathed with structural particleboard (PB),” BioResources 19(2), 2314-2326. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.19.2.2314-2326
Lee, M., Kang, E.-C., Lee, S.-M., and Yoon, S.-M. (2023). “Mechanical properties of structural particleboard and termite and decay resistance,” BioResources 18(3), 6169-6182. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.18.3.6169-6182
Li, M., Khelifa, M., and El Ganaoui, M. (2017). “Mechanical characterization of concrete containing wood shavings as aggregates,” International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 6(2), 587-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2017.12.005
Mirski, R., Derkowski, A., Dziurka, D., Dukarska, D., and Czarnecki, R. (2019). “Effects of a chipboard structure on its physical and mechanical properties,” Materials 12(22), article 3777. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12223777
Okkonen, E. A., and River, B. H. (1996). “Outdoor aging of wood-based panels and correlation with laboratory aging: Part 2,” Forest Products Journal 46(3), 68-74.
Palagala, V. Y., Bhanushali, J. D., and Nithyadharan, M. (2023). “Characterization studies on calcium silicate boards and fibre cement boards used as sheathing in light gauge steel framed systems,” Structures 51, 684-706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.03.036
Phillips, E.-E., Murphy, R., Connors, J., McMullen, K. F., Jacques, E., and Bruhl, J. C. (2021). “Experimental evaluation of OSB-faced structural insulated panels subject to blast loads,” Engineering Structures 229, article 111597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111597
Sudo, R., Aoki, K., and Inayama, M. (2023). “Investigation of mechanical properties and elucidation of factors affecting wood-based structural panels under embedment stress with a circular dowel I: Analysis of the influence of various conditions on the embedment properties,” Journal of Wood Science 69, article 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10086-023-02093-2
Article submitted: June 6, 2026; Peer review completed: July 25, 2026; Revised version received and accepted: August 14, 2026; Published: September 3, 2026.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.21.4.10294-10308