Comparative material study reveals method-dependent set recovery in modified and unmodified wood, indicating that water storage tests fail to reflect high-humidity performance.
Densification is a well-known method for improving the mechanical properties of wood. In the present study, unmodified and furfurylated wood samples were densified and submitted to cyclic water storage tests and cyclic alternating climate tests. Swelling coefficients and spring-back data were determined for the evaluation of the quality of densification. The study shows that results depend on the test method applied. Simple water storage tests do not reflect the behavior of densified wood in the high humidity range. The spring-back data of unmodified samples are more influenced by the testing method than those of the furfurylated ones.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Buchelt et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: