See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270843888

Mechanical Property Characterization of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Wood-

Polypropylene Composite Panels Manufactured Using a Double Belt Pressing
Technology

Article  in  Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering · September 2012

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000489

CITATIONS READS

7 1,379

7 authors, including:

Sandeep Tamrakar Stephen Shaler

University of Delaware University of Maine
17 PUBLICATIONS   159 CITATIONS    68 PUBLICATIONS   1,106 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roberto A. Lopez-Anido Douglas J. Gardner

University of Maine University of Maine
111 PUBLICATIONS   1,117 CITATIONS    246 PUBLICATIONS   4,089 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

FLM 3D Printing of cellulose nanofiber filled thermoplastics View project

HEAT TREATED WOOD FILLED ENGINEERING THERMOPLASTIC COMPOSITES AND ITS APPLICABILITY ON FURNITURE JOINTS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sandeep Tamrakar on 05 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mechanical Property Characterization of Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Wood-Polypropylene Composite Panels
Manufactured Using a Double Belt Pressing Technology
Sandeep Tamrakar1; Stephen M. Shaler, Ph.D.2; Roberto A. Lopez-Anido, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE3;
Douglas J. Gardner, Ph.D.4; Christopher H. West5; Yousoo Han, Ph.D.6; and Russell Edgar7

Abstract: A novel manufacturing process for wood-polypropylene composite (WPC) panels reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
sheets was implemented using a double belt pressing technology. FRP sheets were placed on both sides of the WPC agglomerates during
fabrication, which resulted in increased productivity and reduced thermal stresses compared with secondary bonding processes. Significant
improvements in the mechanical properties of the FRP reinforced sheet panels were found during flexural and tensile tests on the coupon
level. Even with addition of only one layer of FRP reinforcement on both sides of a WPC panel, the flexural modulus and strength increased
by a factor of 2.6 and 3.8, respectively. Furthermore, the flexural and tensile properties of the WPC material considered in this study were
found to be superior compared with the properties of an extruded WPC material. The changes in the flexural modulus of the FRP reinforced
WPC panels with respect to the number of FRP layers were predicted using a model based on moment-curvature analysis. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000489. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Composite materials; Wood; Fiber reinforced polymer; Curvature; Panels; Mechanical properties.
Author keywords: Wood-polypropylene composite; Fiber-reinforced polymer; Double belt press; Moment-curvature analysis.

Introduction exhibit enhanced outdoor durability (versus certain species of solid

Wood polymer composite (WPC) materials are considered environ-
mentally friendly materials because of their use of recycled thermo-
plastics and processing residue fillers such as sawdust, peanut
shells, or rice hulls. The use of fillers can increase the stiffness
and decrease the total cost of the product (Clemons 2008). Several
studies have shown an increase in stiffness of WPC materials com-
pared to neat polymer materials (Alvarez-Valencia et al. 2010;
Tamrakar and Lopez-Anido 2011). Moreover, WPC materials
1
Graduate Research Assistant, AEWC Advanced Structures and Com-
posites Center, Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME 04469. E-mail: tamrakar@udel
.edu
2
Professor of Wood Science, AEWC Advanced Structures and Compo-
sites Center, Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME 04469. E-mail: shaler@maine.edu
3 agents. However, the research conducted by Raj et al. (1990)
Professor of Civil Engineering, AEWC Advanced Structures and Com-
posites Center, Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME 04469 (corresponding author).
E-mail: rla@maine.edu
4
Professor of Wood Science, AEWC Advanced Structures and
Composites Center, Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME 04469. E-mail: douglas
.gardner@umit.maine.edu
5
Wood Plastic Composites Research Associate, AEWC Advanced
Structures and Composites Center, Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME 04469.
E-mail: chris.west@umit.maine.edu
6
Wood Plastic Composites Specialist, AEWC Advanced Structures and
Composites Center, Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME 04469. E-mail: yousoo
.han@umit.maine.edu
7
Wood Composites Manager, AEWC Advanced Structures and
Composites Center, Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME 04469. E-mail: russell
.edgar@umit.maine.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 20, 2011; approved on
January 25, 2012; published online on January 28, 2012. Discussion period
open until February 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 9, September 1, 2012. © ASCE, ISSN 0899-
1561/2012/9-1193-1200/$25.00.
wood) and lower maintenance costs because the wood particles are
encapsulated by the polymer resin (Klyosov 2007). These advan-
tages have prompted a great interest in using WPC materials
for exterior structural applications.
Despite the relative improvements in material properties, it is
unlikely that WPC materials will replace load-bearing members,
such as beams or columns, employed in building and transportation
structures. This restricted use is mainly because of the relatively
low strength and time-dependent deformation of WPC materials
compared with traditional structural materials. The cause of low
strength can be attributed to the poor interfacial bond between
wood and polymer (Klyosov 2007). Several studies have been con-
ducted in an attempt to improve the compatibility between the
wood and polymer interface using various additives/coupling
and Lu et al. (2005) show that using coupling agents alone might
not be enough to achieve significant improvement in the mechani-
cal properties of WPC materials. The increase in deformation of
WPC materials over time under sustained load can be attributed
to its viscoelastic properties. Studies on time-dependent behavior
of WPC material can be found in the research conducted by
Tamrakar et al. (2011) and Alvarez-Valencia et al. (2010).
One approach to enhance the mechanical properties of WPC
members is to reinforce the surface with some other material with
higher mechanical properties such as fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP). Extrusion and injection molding technologies are the two
most commonly used manufacturing processes for fabricating
WPC materials (Stark 2006). However, there are several issues re-
garding the placement of FRP materials during manufacturing.
Dura (2005) conducted quasi-static flexural tests on extruded
WPC hollow cross-section box beams reinforced on the top and
bottom flanges with one-layer of E-glass FRP. The peak load
for the reinforced members increased 2.4 times compared with

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2012 / 1193

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1193-1200.

the unreinforced member, whereas the modulus of elasticity (MOE)
increased by a factor of 1.73. In as much as the FRP reinforcement
was placed by hand during layup, this method becomes labor in-
tensive and expensive, especially for mass production. Although
WPC materials can be fabricated continuously with intricate pro-
files using extrusion processes, the difficulty in incorporating a dif-
ferent material by coextrusion hinders productivity. Inclusion of
FRP reinforcement using injection molding would be very difficult
to accomplish, especially for large-scale production. Even were this
process feasible, productivity would be much lower than using
existing fabrication methods.
As a consequence of these complexities in the application of
FRP reinforcement from a manufacturing point of view, a need
for the development of a structural component with an economi-
cal and relatively quick manufacturing process exists. Jiang et al.
(2007) worked on reinforcing WPC deck board with com-
mingled glass and polypropylene fiber. First, the WPC deck
boards were fabricated through an extrusion process, and then
the reinforcement was placed on the surface of the WPC deck
boards using a hot press. For the specimens reinforced on both
sides, the modulus of elasticity (MOE) and modulus of rupture
(MOR) increased by 1.3 and 1.6 times, respectively. In another
study by Deng and Tang (2010), reinforcement was incorporated
into WPC materials by sandwiching sisal and glass fiber fabrics
within the WPC panel during compression molding of WPC
pellets. In as much as the fabrics were not placed at the areas
of extreme fiber stress, the panels did not take full advantage
of the superior mechanical properties of the reinforcement.
Nonetheless, for the specimens with two layers of glass fabric
reinforcement, the writers observed significant improvements
in tensile strength (up to 3 times) and tensile modulus (up to
2 times). In a study conducted by Naghipour et al. (2011), carbon
and glass FRP composites were placed manually on the tensile
face of the WPC I-beams. WPC beams were reinforced with up
to three layers of FRP sheets by placing one layer at a time using
a bubble roller. Results from four-point bending tests on the
WPC beams reinforced with three layers of carbon and glass
FRP showed an increase in MOR by a factor of 1.8 (in both
cases) compared with the unreinforced WPC beams. The
MOE increased by a factor of 1.5 and 1.3 for the carbon and
glass FRP reinforced beams, respectively.
In this study, a novel method of fabricating reinforced WPC
panels was implemented in which WPC agglomerates were
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the double belt press technology adapted from Thermofix® Technology Center (T. T. C)
1194 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2012
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1193-1200.
sandwiched between FRP sheets to form the panels using a double
belt pressing technology. Tensile and flexural tests were carried out
at the coupon level to determine mechanical properties and
subsequently explore the possibilities of using these panels for
structural applications. Moreover, mechanical properties of WPC
materials obtained from various fabrication methods were
compared.
Materials
The WPC material was composed of polypropylene (50% by
weight) and 40 mesh pine wood flour (50% by weight).
Raw WPC material was in the form of granulated, reground
pellets, the precompounds of wood and polymer, which were
compounded using a Palltruder. No additives such as a cou-
pling or coloring agents were used. FRP composite sheets
made of 35% E-glass continuous fibers and 65% polypropylene
matrix were used as the reinforcement. One layer of FRP
composite had a thickness of 0.72 mm with an orientation
of 0°∕90°∕0°.
Double Belt Press Technology
The procedure for fabricating the WPC sheet panels using a double
belt press technology consisted of spreading the raw reground
WPC material (between the FRP sheets in the case of the reinforced
treatments) atop the press belt followed by heating, pressing, and
cooling (Fig. 1). The WPC-FRP sandwich was heated to a temper-
ature of 230°C through the heating platens, which are attached to
the upper and lower belts. The lower belt is mounted rigidly,
whereas the entire upper belt can be moved vertically to adjust
panel thickness. Three pairs of calibration nip rolls were mounted
between the heating and cooling zones. Pressure on the panel
between the first pair of nip rolls was 200 kPa, which was increased
to 300 kPa for the second and third pairs. Then the panels were
cooled through the cooling platens and were cut to the desired
length of 2.4 m. The line speed was 0.5 m∕ min. For the reinforced
WPC panels, FRP sheets were placed simultaneously on the top
and bottom of the WPC pellets. The polypropylene present in
WPC and FRP melted under the heat of the platens and bonded
together when cooled down. As such, no adhesive was required
to bond the FRP and WPC materials.
 Double belt press technology is an appropriate method for fab-
ricating WPC panels in large scales, especially when surface
reinforcement is desired. The method is relatively fast as fabrication
of WPC panels and placement of reinforcement are achieved in a
single step. Furthermore, because the materials are subjected to
high temperature only once during fabrication, less thermal stress
is induced in the material compared with other methods, where the
placement of reinforcement is done using a hot press on previously
fabricated panels.
Panels measuring 1.2 × 2.4 m were fabricated with up to four
layers of FRP. The average thickness values are presented in
Table 1. In the case of the WPC panels reinforced with four layers
of FRP, visible voids randomly spread throughout the cross section
were present. It should be noted that regardless of the number of
FRP layers used, the same press temperature and pressures were
employed. Inadequate heating might be one of the reasons the
WPC pellets did not melt fully for the four-layer FRP panels. Also,
studies conducted on deconsolidation phenomenon of wood par-
ticles have indicated that voids might be produced if the pressure
is inadequate during the cooling period. This phenomenon is attrib-
uted to the restoration of the elastic deformation incurred during the
initial stages of the fabrication process (Ye and Mai 2002). This
lack of homogeneity in the material yielded very high variability
in the results of the quasi-static tests, and hence these results were
not included in the data analysis. Clearly, optimized press cycles
would need to be developed for changing compositions of material,
such as the number of layers of FRP.
Experimental Work
Tensile and flexural tests were conducted on coupons cut from vari-
ous parts of the panels in both machine (longitudinal) and cross
machine (transverse) directions using a flow water jet. Prior to test-
ing, specimens were conditioned at 23°C and at 50% relative hu-
midity for 1 week. All tests were carried out using an Instron servo
hydraulic testing machine rigged with a 100-kN load cell.
Tensile Tests
Tensile test specimens were cut from the unreinforced WPC and
one-layer FRP reinforced WPC panels (2-layer, 3-layer, and 4-layer
specimens only tested in flexure). Specimens were cut and shaped
to comply with the type III specimens specified in ASTM D638.
Specimens were loaded at a rate of 0.1% strain per minute
(5 mm∕ min) until failure. An extensometer was used for measur-
ing strain over the 50-mm gauge length in the middle portion of the
specimen.
Flexural Tests
Flexural tests were conducted on unreinforced and reinforced WPC
panels in three-point bending. Specimens had a width of 32 mm.
Span between the supports was increased for specimens with
Table 1. Dimensions of Flexural Test Specimens
No. of Total Distance
FRP thickness between Length-to-depth
layers (mm) supports (mm) ratio
0 7.9 124 15.7
1 9.1 143 15.7
2 10.6 162 15.3
3 12.1 187 15.6
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2012 / 1195
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1193-1200.
increasing number of FRP reinforcement to maintain a consistent
length to depth ratio (Table 1). Specimens were loaded at a strain
rate of 0.1% per minute in three-point bending in accordance to
ASTM D790. Load was monitored and recorded using LabVIEW,
and the midspan deflection was measured using crosshead motion.
Results
Tensile Tests
For the unreinforced WPC specimens, the mode of failure was brit-
tle with no warning of impending failure and within the gauge
length. In contrast, the mode of failure for all reinforced specimens
was ductile and only one-third of the reinforced specimens failed
within the gauge length.
The typical stress-strain response for specimens cut in longitu-
dinal and transverse directions is shown in Fig. 2. For unreinforced
WPC specimens in both directions, the response was initially linear,
followed by a nonlinear region, and then yielding until failure. For
the reinforced specimens in both directions, the response was
roughly bilinear with two linear portions connected by a region
of nonlinearity. The location of the nonlinear region corresponds
to the level of strain at which the WPC specimens started to yield.
Tangent MOE values were calculated from the slope of the
curve between strain values of 0.05 and 0.2%. Table 2 shows
the changes in tensile properties for unreinforced and reinforced
WPC specimens. In the longitudinal direction, compared with
the unreinforced specimens, the MOE and ultimate tensile strength
(UTS) for reinforced specimens increased by 1.6 and 3.8 times,
respectively. In the transverse direction, the MOE and UTS in-
creased by 1.3 and 2.8 times, respectively. However, the changes
in strain to failure for both directions were insignificant.
Flexural Tests
Unreinforced WPC specimens failed in tension, leaving an irregu-
lar fracture surface in the middle region of the specimen, whereas in
the FRP-reinforced WPC specimens, wrinkling of FRP in compres-
sion was seen prior to failing in tension (Fig. 3). Typical stress-
strain curves for WPC and FRP-reinforced WPC specimens in
the longitudinal and transverse directions are shown in Fig. 4.
The stress-strain response for unreinforced WPC specimens was
initially linear followed by nonlinear behavior until failure. In
Fig. 2. Typical stress-strain response of unreinforced and reinforced
WPC specimens under tensile loading in the longitudinal and trans-
verse directions
Table 2. Tensile Properties as a Function of Reinforcement
Longitudinal direction Transverse direction
Specimen MOE (GPa) UTS (MPa) Strain at failure (%) MOE (GPa) MOR (MPa) Strain at failure (%)
Unreinforced WPC specimen 3.5 (5) 20.3 (6) 2.1 (10) 2.8 (2) 16.2 (3) 2.3 (13)
FRP reinforced WPC specimen 5.6 (7) 77.4 (2) 2.5 (5) 3.7 (5) 45.6 (5) 2.7 (5)
Note: Numbers in parentheses represent coefficient of variation (%).

contrast, the stress-strain response for reinforced specimens was
fairly linear up to the initial failure of FRP, after which the response
became highly nonlinear until failure.
Flexural offset yield strength and flexural strength were deter-
mined according to ASTM D790 (2007). Flexural offset yield
strength was calculated with an offset of 0.5% and 0.1% for unrein-
forced and FRP-reinforced specimens, respectively (Fig. 5). Chord
modulus was calculated by performing a linear regression between
10 and 40% of maximum stress. Energy stored was calculated from
the area under the load-deflection curve. The portion of the load-
deflection curve up to which the total deflection was less than
the depth of the specimen was considered for the calculation of
energy stored because beyond this point, the assumptions of
Euler-Bernoulli beam theory are not valid.
The incorporation of FRP layers significantly increased the
mechanical properties of the panels (Table 3). There is a significant
difference between the mechanical properties of one-layer FRP re-
inforced and the unreinforced WPC specimens. In the longitudinal
direction, compared with the unreinforced specimens, chord modu-
lus of one-layer FRP-reinforced WPC specimens increased by a
factor of 2.6, whereas offset yield strength and maximum flexural
strength increased by a factor of 3.3 and 3.8, respectively. Perhaps
the most remarkable improvement was in the amount of energy
stored, which increased from 2.4 J for unreinforced to 10.4 J for
one-layer FRP-reinforced specimens in the longitudinal direction.
justified from a cost versus additional performance basis. Fig. 6
shows the normalized values of stored energy, yield strength,
and chord modulus as a function of the number of FRP layers.
Again, normalized values of yield strength and chord modulus
seem to be asymptotically approaching a practical limit with an
increasing number of FRP layers. This phenomenon could be
attributed to the use of the same pressure and temperature for
all the panels during fabrication, which may have resulted in a
weaker bond between the FRP layers and greater void content
in the WPC core. Consequently, the shear transfer between the con-
secutive FRP layers and throughout the WPC core might have been
hindered. This was evident from the flexural tests of the four-layer
FRP reinforced specimens, where the specimens failed with a hori-
zontal crack in the middle of the specimen parallel to the length
propagating through the center of the specimen, suggesting
decreased shear strength in the WPC core (Fig. 7).

Discussion

Addition of FRP Layers

Experimental results showed that increasing the number of FRP
layers only marginally increased flexural performance. As such,
it is likely that increasing the number of FRP layers will not be

Fig. 4. Typical stress-strain response of unreinforced and reinforced

WPC specimens under flexural loading: (a) longitudinal; and (b) trans-
Fig. 3. Typical failure of FRP composite sheet during flexural testing verse directions

1196 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2012

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1193-1200.

 Fig. 5. Calculation of various parameters

The amount of energy stored increased almost linearly with the

increase in number of FRP layers used. Moreover, the increase in
normalized values of amount of energy stored is higher than that for
yield strength and chord modulus (Fig. 6). This suggests that the
most appropriate structural application for these FRP-reinforced
WPC panels could be in blast-resistant buildings for the protection
of soldiers or in structures exposed to extreme events such as earth-
quakes. This increase in ability to absorb energy is promising,
although it should be noted that the response of the full-scale panels
under a blast load might be different than the response observed at
material level under quasi-static loading.
Comparison of Mechanical Properties of WPC Material
as a Function of Fabrication Methods
The mechanical properties of the WPC material from the current
study were compared with the extruded WPC specimen. The ex-
truded WPC specimens were from the Z-section sheet pile fabri-
cated at the AEWC Center, University of Maine. Specific details
regarding the extruded specimen can be found in the paper by
Alvarez-Valencia et al. (2010). Both tensile and flexural strength
of the WPC material from the current study were found to be sig-
nificantly higher than those of the extruded specimens (Table 4 and
Table 5). Because no additives were used in the formulation con-
sidered in this study, it is worth mentioning that the addition of
coupling agents would likely result in a WPC material with even
higher mechanical properties. Similar trends in increase in strength
properties have been observed in WPC materials fabricated by
injection molding (Panthapulakkal and Sain 2006; Behravesh et al.
2010).
In the WPC extrusion process, higher pressure results in
higher shear forces. Fiber breakage during the extrusion process
Fig. 6. Normalized values of energy stored, yield strength, and chord
modulus in longitudinal and transverse directions
attributable to high shear forces induced in the cross section has
been well documented (Yam et al. 1990; Grande and Torres
2005). Although wood flour was used as opposed to wood fibers
during the extrusion process, it is possible that the wood flour might
have been damaged by high shear stresses. Various studies have
shown decrement in mechanical properties with reduction in filler
size (Klyosov 2007), which might be true in this case as well. In
contrast, during fabrication using double belted presses, the raw
materials are subjected to compressive stresses through the nip
rolls. As such, because of the differences in the loading conditions,
the shearing between the particles during double belt press would
be lower compared with extrusion processes. This could be one
possible explanation for the higher mechanical properties of the
WPC materials produced using double belt press technology. An-
other possibility might be the multiple processing on the double
belt pressing method using WPC pellets. Those two steps of
processing, compounding in the Palltruder and thermal diffusion
in the double belt press, might have resulted in a better dispersion
of fillers into the polypropylene matrix compared with the extrusion
process.
Moment-Curvature Analysis
A nonlinear model based on moment-curvature analysis was used
to predict the stress-strain response of WPC beams reinforced
with FRP on the surfaces. The model takes as input the uniaxial

Table 3. Flexural Properties as a Function of Number of FRP Layers

Energy stored
Chord Offset yield Maximum Flexural Flexural up to deflection
Principal modulus strength flexural stress at strain at equal to the depth
direction Specimen (GPa) (MPa) strength (MPa) break (MPa) break (%) of beam (J)
Longitudinal WPC 3.6 (6) 36.8 (6) 40.1 (7) 29.0 (17) 2.5 (4) 2.4 (8)
1-Layer FRP 9.3 (3) 122.4 (4) 151.7 (5) 80.0 (63) 4.0 (9) 10.4 (3)
2-Layer FRP 11.6 (4) 157.8 (5) 169.8 (3) 59.9 (42) 5.1 (11) 17.6 (5)
3-Layer FRP 13.3 (4) 167.3 (3) 170.8 (2) 45.3 (43) 6.3 (14) 24.3 (3)
Transverse WPC 2.8 (3) 33.2 (4) 34.1 (4) 19.2 (43) 2.9 (9) 2.0 (4)
1-Layer FRP 5.4 (2) 76.3 (3) 104.3 (5) 102.8 (6) 3.2 (17) 6.8 (5)
2-Layer FRP 7.2 (4) 99.9 (5) 124.3 (7) 89.4 (45) 3.7 (18) 11.9 (2)
3-Layer FRP 7.9 (1) 112.6 (2) 134.1 (4) 106.5 (16) 3.6 (23) 16.3 (5)
Note: Numbers in parentheses represent coefficient of variation (%).

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2012 / 1197

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1193-1200.

 Fig. 8. Theoretical versus experimental stress-strain response
Fig. 7. Failure of WPC specimen reinforced with four layers of FRP
sheets
σ ¼ A · tanhðB · εÞ (1)

stress-strain response of the materials (WPC and FRP), dimension
of the beam, number of FRP layers, and their location from the
neutral axis. With this model, the mechanical properties of hybrid
composite beams exhibiting nonlinear behavior was predicted and
correlated with the experimental findings.
The moment-curvature analysis was carried out based on the
following assumptions:
1. Plane sections of the beam remain plane during loading.
Strains vary linearly along the cross section of the WPC core
and FRP sheets;
2. Shear deformation is not accounted for;
3. There is perfect bonding between FRP sheets and the WPC
surface, i.e., no slipping between the two materials; and
4. The stress-strain response of both (WPC and FRP) materials
is known.
Uniaxial constitutive model describing the stress-strain response
of WPC material under tensile loading was used. A tangent hyper-
bolic model (Eq. 1) was chosen to describe the tensile response
because of its use in the previous studies for describing stress-strain
response of WPC materials (Dura 2005; Davidow and Fridley
2003):
where σ = stress; ϵ = strain; and A and B = the model parameters.
The parameters for the tensile model were obtained by curve
fitting the stress-strain response obtained from the tensile tests
of WPC in the longitudinal direction, as presented in the results
section. From the result of the curve fit, the values of A and B were
found to be 20.3 and 1.88 MPa, respectively. Because the stress-
strain response in compressive mode was not available, a linear
model was used with the compressive modulus same as the tensile
modulus. The compressive strength was assumed to be four times
the tensile strength. This was chosen arbitrarily to make sure that
while performing moment-curvature analysis, the WPC material
would always fail in tension when loaded in flexural mode.
The uniaxial stress-strain response of the FRP material was ob-
tained from the tensile tests. The tests were conducted in accor-
dance to ASTM D638 (2003) on the specimens cut from a sheet
of FRP material in the longitudinal direction. The specimen dimen-
sions conformed to the type II specimens specified in the test stan-
dard. A total of eight specimens was tested using an Instron servo
hydraulic testing machine with an 8.9-kN load cell. Specimens
were loaded at a strain rate of 0.1% per minute. Strain over the area
of interest was monitored using an Aramis digital image correlation

Table 4. Tensile Properties of WPC Materials as a Function of Fabrication Method

Source Method of fabrication Ratio filler/polymer Polymer Filler MOE (GPa) UTS (MPa)
This paper Double belt press 50∕50 Polypropylene Pine 3.5 20.3
Alvarez-Valencia et al. Extrusion 46∕41 3.0 13.0
(2010)
Tamrakar and 3.1 13.5
Lopez-Anido (2011)

Table 5. Flexural Properties of WPC Materials as a Function of Fabrication Method

Method of Ratio filler/ Span-to-depth MOE MOR
Source fabrication polymer Scale and specimen Loading type ratio (GPa) (MPa)
This paper Double belt press 50∕50 Coupon cut from 3-point bending 16 3.6 40.1
sheet pile
Alvarez-Valencia et al. (2010) Extrusion 46∕41 Full-scale sheet 4-point bending 11–23 3.15 14.3
pile section
Tamrakar and Lopez-Anido (2011) Coupon cut 16 3.7 22.5
from panel

1198 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2012

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1193-1200.

Table 6. Comparison of Experimental and Predicted MOE each layer with cross-sectional area of dA was calculated for a
Experimental Theoretical given strain distribution throughout the depth. Eq. 2 was then
Specimen MOE GPa MOE GPa solved for the location of the neutral axis by equating the tensile
and compressive forces. Eq. 3 was used to calculate the external
WPC 3.6 3.5
Reinforced WPC (1 layer) 9.3 8.8
applied moment ðM EXT Þ for a given curvature and neutral axis lo-
Reinforced WPC (2 layers) 11.6 11.5 cation. After obtaining the required parameters by balancing the
Reinforced WPC (3 layers) 13.3 13.1 equations, the strain was increased by a small amount and the pro-
cess was repeated. This iteration was continued until the failure
strain in tensile or compressive fiber was reached. After establish-
ing the moment-curvature relationship, the load-deflection re-
system. The maximum stress induced on the material was identified sponse was calculated by numerically integrating the curvature
as the tensile strength, which was 377.2 MPa with 10% coefficient twice over the length of the beam. Then, the stress-strain response
of variation (COV). The material failed at a strain of 2.6% (9% was calculated using the specimen geometry.
COV). The value of tensile modulus was 16.5 GPa (with 8% Z Z
COV), which was calculated using linear regression between 10
σdA þ σdA ¼ 0 (2)
and 40% of the tensile strength. It was assumed that the stress-strain AWPC AFRP
response of FRP material under tensile loading was linear up to
failure. Additionally, it was assumed that the stress-strain response
under compressive loading was identical to that in tension. While Z Z
performing the moment-curvature analysis, the WPC section was σ · zdA þ σ · zdA þ M EXT ¼ 0 (3)
divided into several small layers. However, each FRP layer was AWPC AFRP
treated as a single layer. Using the tangent hyperbolic model
and the linear model for the WPC in tension and compression zone, The predicted stress-strain responses of the unreinforced and
respectively and the linear model for the FRP, stress ðσÞ induced in FRP-reinforced WPC materials are shown in Fig. 8. Comparison
between the predicted and experimental flexural modulus is shown
in Table 6. The theoretically calculated modulus is accurate com-
pared with the experimental results. However, the model could not
accurately predict the flexural strength. One reason could be the
assumption made on the constitutive behavior of the FRP under
compressive loading. In the model, it was assumed that the tensile
and compressive failure strain of the FRP material was 2.6%.
However, during the experiments the initial failure of the specimens
was by buckling of compression fibers prior to tensile failure of the
FRP material. This suggests that the buckling occurred before a
strain of 2.6% was reached in the extreme fibers.
The stress distribution along the WPC cross section shown in
Fig. 9 was captured from the model just before failure. Because
the WPC material has higher compressive strength compared with
its tensile strength, a shift in the location of the neutral axis was
observed. Fig. 10 shows the stress distribution along the depth
of three layers of FRP-reinforced WPC specimens. A sudden
Fig. 9. Predicted stress distribution along the depth of unreinforced change in the stress values can be seen near the boundary of the
WPC material WPC and FRP material.

Fig. 10. Predicted stress distribution along the depth of three layers of FRP-reinforced WPC material

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2012 / 1199

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1193-1200.

Conclusions
WPC panels reinforced with FRP sheets were fabricated using an
innovative fabrication method. Significant increases in mechanical
properties were observed for panels reinforced with one layer of
FRP sheet on each side. The flexural modulus and strength of
the one-layer FRP-reinforced WPC specimens were 2.6 and
3.8 times that of the unreinforced WPC specimens. Although
the increase in the amount of energy stored with increasing number
of FRP layers was found to increase almost linearly, the increase in
mechanical properties was observed to be approaching a practical
limit with a higher number of FRP layers.
The mechanical properties of WPC material fabricated by dou-
ble belt press technology were compared to those produced
by an extrusion process. In addition to the advantages of this tech-
nology, such as ease of laying reinforcing materials and the
increased speed of fabrication, it was found that the tensile and
flexural properties of the WPC material fabricated using this tech-
nology improved compared with the extruded WPC material. Also,
the ductility of the material was found to increase with the addition
of FRP layers.
Finally, the stress-strain responses of the FRP-reinforced WPC
beams were predicted using moment-curvature analysis. The model
accurately predicted the flexural modulus of the reinforced WPC
materials as a function of the number of FRP layers. Such a model
can be used for predicting the mechanical properties of a hybrid
composite material with varying material constituents prior to
the actual fabrication.
The manufacturing method presented in this paper is suited for
high-volume production of structural parts because fabrication of
WPC panels and placement of the reinforcement is achieved in a
single step without requiring secondary bonding. This novel WPC
material has potential to expand the use of wood-based composites
in construction to load-bearing applications.
Acknowledgments
This research project was carried out under Contract no. DTFH61-
06-D-00022. The authors are grateful to the United States Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) for the financial support.
References
Alvarez-Valencia, D., Dagher, H. J., Davids, W. G., Lopez-Anido, R.,
and Gardner, D. J. (2010). “Structural performance of wood
plastic composite (WPC) sheet piling.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 22(12),
1235–1243.
ASTM. (2003). “Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics.”
ASTM D638, New York.
1200 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2012
View publication stats J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012.24:1193-1200.
ASTM. (2007). “Standard test methods for flexural properties of unrein-
forced and reinforced plastics and electrical insulating materials.” ASTM
D790, New York.
Behravesh, A. H., Aghdam, A. Z., and Soury, E. (2010). “Experimental
investigation of injection molding of wood/plastics composites.”
J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 29(3), 456–465.
Clemons, C. (2008). “Raw materials for wood-polymer composites.”
Wood-polymer composites, K. O. Niska and M. Sain, ed., Woodhead
Publishing Limited, Cambridge, UK.
Davidow, S. A., and Fridley, K. J. (2003). “Development of design values
for wood-plastic composite materials.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 15(5),
415–418.
Deng, S., and Tang, Y. (2010). “Increasing load-bearing capacity of wood-
plastic composites by sandwiching natural and glass fabrics.” J. Reinf.
Plast. Compos., 29(20), 3133–3148.
Dura, M. J. (2005). “Behavior of hybrid wood plastic composite-fiber
reinforced polymer structural members for use in sustained loading
applications.” Master’s thesis, Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME.
Grande, C., and Torres, F. G. (2005). “Investigation of fiber organization
and damage during single screw extrusion of natural fiber reinforced
thermoplastics.” Adv. Polymer Tech., 24(2), 145–156.
Jiang, L., Wolcott, M. P., Zhang, J., and Englund, K. (2007). “Flexural
properties of surface reinforced wood/plastic deck board.” Poly. Eng.
Sci., 47(3), 281–288.
Klyosov, A. (2007). Wood-plastic composites, John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, NJ.
Lu, J. Z., Wu, Q., and Negulescu, I. I. (2005). “Wood-fiber/high-density-
polyethylene composites: couopling agent performance.” J. Appl.
Polym. Sci., 96(1), 93–102.
Naghipour, M., Nematzadeh, M., and Yahyazadeh, Q. (2011). “Analytical
and experimental study on flexural performance of WPC—FRP
beams.” Construct. Build. Mater., 25(2), 829–837.
Panthapulakkal, S., and Sain, M. (2006). “Injection molded wheat straw
and corn stem filled polypropylene composites.” J. Poly. Environ.,
14(3), 265–272.
Raj, R. G., Kokta, B. V., Grouleau, G., and Daneault, C. (1990). “Influence
of coupling agents on mechanical properties of composites containing
cellulosic fillers.” Poly. Plast. Technol. Eng., 29(4), 339–353.
Stark, N. M. (2006). “Effect of weathering cycle and manufacturing method
on performance of wood flour and high-density polyethylene compo-
sites.” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 100(4), 3131–3140.
Tamrakar, S., and Lopez-Anido, R. A. (2011). “Water absorption of wood
polypropylene composite sheet piles and its influence on mechanical
properties.” Construct. Build. Mater., 25(10), 3977–3988.
Tamrakar, S., Lopez-Anido, R. A., Kiziltas, A., and Gardner, D. J. (2011).
“Time and temperature dependent response of a wood-polypropylene
composite.” Composites Part A., 42(7), 834–842.
Thermofix Technology Center. (2011). Development of new products
designed for R&D, test and prototype runs small scale and pilot
production, Thermofix Technology Center, Mühlhausen, Germany.
Yam, K. L., Gogoi, B. K., Lai, C. C., and Selke, S. E. (1990). “Composites
from compounding wood fibers with recycled high density polyethyl-
ene.” Poly. Eng. Sci., 30(11), 693–699.
Ye, L., Lu, M., and Mai, Y. (2002). “Thermal de-consolidation of thermo-
plastic matrix composites—I. Growth of voids.” Compos. Sci. Technol.,
62(16), 2121–2130.