Session 26 ic2011 de vallance 1

Patent Pending Patent Pending

Utilization of Textile Waste as Core

Material in Sustainable Composites

David DeVallance,

Jody Gray, and

Holly Lentz


The long-term goal of this research:

• Combine post and pre-consumer textile waste with

wood residues to manufacture energy efficient

interior and exterior composite materials

The objectives in this project:

• Collect and process textile waste from local sources;

• Manufacture composite panels using a mixture of

wood and textile material;

• Study the impact of varying recycled content and

fiber type on the mechanical and physical properties

of manufactured composite panels;

• Analyze the bonding performance between recycled

textile fibers and wood material

GOALS & OBJECTIVES


• In 2008, 12.4 million tons of textiles were generated (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2009).

• 73 to 85 percent of textile waste (preconsumer and

postconsumer) ending up in landfills (Chen et al. 2006, Secondary

Materials and Recycled Textiles Association 2009)

• There is potential to recycle textile material as a

partial fiber substitute in many wood-based

composite materials

• Use of recycled fibers presents an opportunity to

develop sustainable composites that could achieve

points under various green building programs

BACKGROUND


EXPERIMENTAL: Process Flow Pre and Post Consumer Textile

Waste Collection

Textile Refinement/Shredding

Wood Strand/Textile Blending

Panel Formation (orientation of

wood surface and wood/textile

core material)

Panel Hot Pressing

Panel Hot Stacking/Cooling Specimen

Preparation

Stage 1

Shredding

Stage 2

Shredding

Stage 3

Shredding

Stage 4

Shredding

Property

Evaluation


EXPERIMENTAL • Cotton waste textiles were collected from Phoenix Textile

and Apparel in West Virginia

• The textile material was sent through an industrial

shredder four passes

• Nominal 7/16-inch thick, 27-inch by 27-inch Oriented

Strand Board (OSB)/Textile Fiber composite panels (50%

surface and 50% core layers) were fabricated

• The textile material was blended with mixed hardwood

strand core material in varying amounts

• Textile Percent (Wood/Textile ratio): 0% (100/0), 5% (95/5),

15% (85/15), 25% (75/25), and 50% (50/50)

• 10 panels per type were produced for a total of 50 panels


EXPERIMENTAL Blending

Forming


EXPERIMENTAL Pressing

Final Products


Property Testing

Internal Bond Strength

Flexural Strength (Modulus of Rupture, MOR) and

Modulus of Elasticity (MOE) in Primary and Secondary

orientation

Nail Withdrawal Strength

Water Absorption

Thickness Swell

100% Textile Core (50/50 panels) excluded from

mechanical and physical testing


TEST RESULTS: Internal Bond Strength

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results showed

a statistically significant difference between composite

panel types (p<0.0001)

Multiple range test analysis showed statistically

significant differences between the internal bond

strength of all panel types

Summary

Statistic

Internal Bond Strength (psi)

100/0 95/5 85/15 75/25

Average 51 41 20 8

St. Dev. 22 9 8 4

COV % 42 23 42 51

Minimum 8 19 9 1

Maximum 90 63 51 19


TEST RESULTS: Flexural Strength (MOR)

ANOVA results showed a statistically significant

difference in between composite panel types in both

orientations (p<0.0001)

Multiple range test analysis did not show any

statistically significant differences in MOR (primary and

secondary) between the control (100/0) and 95/5 panels

Box-and-Whisker Plot

MO

R-P

rim

ary

(p

si)

Panel Type: Wood to Textile Ratio

100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5

0

1

2

3

4

5(X 1000)


MO

R-S

econ

dary

(p

si)


100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5

0

1

2

3

4

5(X 1000)


TEST RESULTS: Modulus of Elasticity (MOE)





statistically significant differences in MOE (primary and

secondary) between the control (100/0) and 95/5 panels


MO

E -

Pri

ma

ry (

ps

i)


100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5

0

2

4

6

8(X 100000)


MO

E-S

eco

ndary

(psi)


100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5

0

1

2

3

4

5(X 100000)


TEST RESULTS: Nail Withdrawal Strength





statistically significant differences in nail withdrawal

strength between the control (100/0) and 95/5 panels


Na

il W

ith

dra

wal

Str

en

gth

(lb

/in)


100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

Nail Withdrawal Strength (lb/inch)

Summary Statistic 100/0 95/5 85/15 75/25

Average 91 84 53 60

St. Dev. 52 40 32 30

COV % 57.0 47.5 59.9 49.7

Minimum 16 28 8 20

Maximum 225 205 143 121


TEST RESULTS: Thickness Swell

Panels that included textile core material had a lower

average thickness swell compared to the controls

However, ANOVA results did not show any statistically

significant difference between composite panel types

(p=0.0637)


Th

ick

ne

ss

Sw

ell (

%)


100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5

32

42

52

62

72 Thickness Swell (%)


Average 43.9 41.4 40.2 43.6

St. Dev. 7.5 3.5 4.2 3.5

COV % 17.1 8.6 10.5 8.0

Minimum 36.0 32.4 32.4 37.8

Maximum 67.1 46.7 47.0 49.4


TEST RESULTS: Water Absorption

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results showed a

statistically significant difference in between composite

panel types in both orientations (p<0.0001)


statistically significant differences in water absorption

between the control (100/0) and 95/5 panels


Wa

ter

Ab

so

rpti

on

(%

)


100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5

71

81

91

101

111

121

Water Absorption (%)


Average 85.4 89.3 92.8 100.2

St. Dev. 7.7 3.3 8.4 6.6

COV % 9.1 3.7 9.1 6.6

Minimum 76.8 83.3 71.2 84.9

Maximum 102.5 94.3 108.7 110.4


On-going research

Research is underway to evaluate:

1. Further evaluate thickness swell and water absorption

2. Increasing textile layer density

3. Inclusion of textiles throughout

4. Evaluation of acoustical and thermal properties

5. Different types of textile fibers

Major Conclusions

1. Addition of 5% recycled textile material to structural

panels did not influence mechanical and physical

properties

2. Addition of recycled textile reduced thickness swell

(needs verified again through repeated testing)

3. Addition of higher percentage of textiles resulted in

panels likely more suitable for interior applications


Acknowledgments:

Environmental Center at West Virginia University for

providing support from a grant from US Dept. of

Commerce.

Special thanks to Andrew Grubler (WVU) who assisted in

the project.

Questions?

Further Information: [email protected]


References:

Chen, H.-L and L.D. Burns. 2006. Environmental analysis of textile products.

Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 24(3), 248-261.

Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association. 2009. Textile Recycling

Fact Sheet, Retrieved November 17, 2009, from <

http://www.textilerecycle.org/facts.pdf>.

United Stated Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Textiles. Retrieved

November 17, 2009, from

<http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/textiles.htm>.

Business

Session 26 ic2011 de vallance 1