Beech and Walnut Wood: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Rita Xu and Version 1 by Ehsan Bari.

Beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) forests in Iran are one of the most important sources of the hardwood species used for lumber, furniture, and interior object design due to its hardness, wear resistance, strength, and excellent bending capabilities. 

  • beech
  • density
  • shrinkage
  • static bending
  • walnut

1. Introduction

Wood and wood products are some of the most important materials that have been traditionally used for building constructions, veneers, flooring, boatbuilding, furniture, cabinetry, musical instruments, plywood, and turned objects [1,2][1][2]. To date, wood is still an essential material for several applications due to its mechanical properties, workability, and thermal isolation properties. However, wood may also have some negative properties, including low dimension stability related to weather changes. Additionally, some mechanical properties such as strength and hardness are not identical in all directions of the grain, which can be aggravated by internal defects [3]. Thus, the use of wood for specific applications needs deep knowledge about its physical and mechanical properties. In this context, wood density is one of the most important features in the selection of trees and could be considered the main factor for understanding wood quality. For instance, some studies have proposed that the average density of beech wood is higher than 0.7 g/cm3 [1,4][1][4].
The Hyrcanian region, located south of the Caspian Sea, covers ~50,000 km2 of the northern provinces in Iran. Due to the characteristic climate with high precipitation and the fertility of the soil, this region is well-known for plant diversity and fast growth. In particular, Iranian beech is one of the main inhabiting species in this area, which occupies 30% of the surface [5]. Although the beech wood species has a moderate durability against microorganisms [6[6][7][8],7,8], it is one of the main wood sources in many European countries [1[1][4][9][10][11][12],4,9,10,11,12], and this wood is mostly used in plywood, veneer, furniture, and construction [13] and has high potential for pulping and bio-pulping [14].
Walnut tree species are cultivated in many countries around the world due to their strength and beautiful color patterns [15,16,17,18][15][16][17][18]. Among these properties, the Persian walnut produces edible fruits which is being planted in many countries like southeastern Europe and western Central Asia [16,17,19][16][17][19]. This wood is mainly used for furniture, construction panels, and veneer products [15,20,21][15][20][21]. On the other hand, Iran is the third most important country in terms of walnut wood production, after China and the United States [18].
Due to the traditional use of wood species for several applications worldwide, it is necessary to acquire specific knowledge of the physical and mechanical properties of wood, such as the modulus of elasticity (MOE), modulus of rupture (MOR), and other strength properties with great significance for wood products and construction [22]. Nowadays, many diverse methods are used to evaluate wood properties such as color measurement [23], tomography [24] and thermography [25,26][25][26], near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy [27[27][28],28], and wave propagation methods [29,30][29][30]. Some studies have investigated the physical and mechanical properties of beech wood, such as the modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity, shear strength parallel to the grain, density, and shrinkage [10,11,31,32,33,34,35][10][11][31][32][33][34][35]. For instance, Saurat and Gueneau [36] reported that the mechanical strength of European beech was higher compared to that of American beech wood. Regarding walnut wood, research has also been conducted on the physical and mechanical properties of this valuable species, such as density, shrinkage, modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity, shear strength parallel to the grain, compression strength parallel to the grain, and tensile strength parallel to grain [20,21,37,38,39][20][21][37][38][39].

2. Physical Properties

The results of the physical and mechanical properties of beech and walnut wood are shown in Table 3. As can be seen for walnut wood, a significant difference was observed between the dry density, radial shrinkage, tangential shrinkage, and volumetric shrinkage. Moreover, significant differences between Iranian and Georgian beech were also found in terms of physical properties except radial shrinkage. A significant difference between these species was reported (Table 41). The significant differences in the physical properties of the wood species from the four different regions and between the two types of beeches are mainly due to the density of the wood, because the density directly affects most of the physical and mechanical strengths of the wood. Moreover, growth conditions and environmental factors, especially altitude, weather, and the age of the tree, may cause changes in wood properties [12].
Table 31.
Physical properties of the studied wood species.
Properties Noor

Walnut

(		Juglans regia) Shahrekord

Walnut

(		Juglans regia) Mashhad

Walnut

(		Juglans regia) Mako

Walnut

(		Juglans regia) Sangdeh

Beech

(		Fagus orientalis) Georgia

Beech

(		Fagus orientalis)
16.26 {1.06}


(120)
15.42 {0.71}

(120) 16.433 {0.71}

(327) 18.73 {0.384}

(38)
1 The numbers in curly brackets indicate standard deviation. 2 The numbers in parentheses indicate the number of samples used.
Table 42.
Statistical analysis of physical properties.
Type Dry Density Axial Shrinkage Radial Shrinkage Tangential Shrinkage Volumetric Shrinkage
Dry density (g/cm3) 0.62 {0.03} 1

(120) 		2 0.59 {0.03}

(120)		 0.625 {0.02}

(120)		 0.58 {0.02}

(120)		 0.61 {0.12}

(327)		 0.65 {0.027}

(38)
Axial shrinkage (%)
ANOVA of four walnut 0.000 0.122 ns 0.031 0.000 0.000
0.192 {0.061}

(120)
t-test of beech0.181 {0.195}

(120)		 0.0000.223 {0.083}

(120)		 0.206 {0.101} 0.000 0.128 ns

(120)		 0.32 {0.15}

(327)		 0.58 {0.243}

(38)
0.000 0.000 Radial shrinkage (%) 6.24 {0.881}

(120)		 5.68 {0.595}

(120)		 6.225 {0.408}

(120)		 5.813 {0.455}

(120)		 5.359 {0.31}

(327)		 5.47 {0.403}

(38)
Tangential shrinkage (%) 10.7 {1.124}

(120)		 8.91 {1.155}

(120)		 9.779 {0.726}

(120)		 8.781 {0.714}

(120)		 10.649 {0.84}

(327)		 12.15 {0.405}

(38)
Volumetric shrinkage (%) 17.04 {1.32}

(120)		 14.54 {1.23}

(120)
Significant difference at level of 5%. ns not significant.
The results for the dry density of wood from the Noor and Mashhad regions were 0.62 and 0.625 g/cm3, respectively, which are close to the values reported by Bachtiar et al. [20] of 0.65 g/cm3 for walnut woods in Eastern Europe and by Bachtiar et al. [39] of 0.67 g/cm3 for walnut woods in the Caucasus. Furthermore, the results for the dry density of wood from the Shahrekord and Mako regions were 0.59 and 0.58 g/cm3, respectively, which are similar to the value reported by Castro et al. [38] of 0.52 g/cm3 for walnut wood in Italy. However, some previous studies have reported values above 0.7 g/cm3 for the dry density of walnut wood [21,37][21][37]. The values of radial, tangential, and volumetric shrinkage of the four types of walnut woods in this study were approximately equal to those reported by Castro et al. [38].
The dry density values of the beech wood collected from Sangdeh and Georgia were 0.61 and 0.65 g/cm3, respectively. These results are similar to the properties reported by Akrami et al. [4] for F. sylvatica in Germany (0.64 g/cm3), for oriental beech in Iran [34] (0.59 g/cm3), and for F. sylvatica [35] and beech in the USA (0.64 g/cm3) [33]. However, several authors have demonstrated slightly higher dry density values (0.68 g/cm3) for beech trees (F. sylvatica) grown in Europe [1,10,11,31][1][10][11][31]. Overall, the obtained result for radial shrinkage in this research was similar to that of Kretschmann [33]. In addition, the tangential and volumetric shrinkage results of the Sangdeh beech obtained in the current study (10.65% and 16.43%, respectively) were lower than the findings described by Kretschmann [33], where the high shrinkage was attributed to the lower density of Sangdeh beech. On the other hand, the tangential and volumetric shrinkage results of the Georgian timbers were similar to the results reported by Lo Monaco et al. [31].

3. Mechanical Properties

The results of the mechanical properties of the beech and walnut wood are shown in Table 53. As can be seen for walnut wood, a significant difference was observed between bending strength, modulus of elasticity, and shear and tensile strength parallel to grain. In addition, significant differences between Iranian and Georgian beech were found for all mechanical properties. A significant difference between these species was reported (Table 64). The significant differences in the mechanical properties of the wood species from the four different regions and between the two types of beeches are mainly due to the different density of wood.
Table 53.
Mechanical properties of the studied wood species.
Properties Noor

Walnut

(		Juglans regia) Shahrekord

Walnut

(		Juglans regia) Mashhad

Walnut

(		Juglans regia) Mako

Walnut

(		Juglans regia) Sangdeh

Beech

(		Fagus orientalis) Georgia

Beech

(		Fagus orientalis)
Tangential Screw in Radial Impact Bending
Bending strength (MPa) 96.23 {7.68} 1

(18) 		2 91.13 {6.99}

(18)		 100.54 {7.10}

(18)		 87.61 {5.06}

(18)		 88.17 {1.19}

(46)
ANOVA of four walnut trees 0.001 0.000 0.082 ns99.01 {5.21}

 0.001 0.025(16)
0.825 ns 0.127 ns 0.618 ns 0.083 ns Modulus of elasticity (MPa) 10092 {6.21}

(18)		 10084 {5.91}

(18)		 10049 {8.71}

(18)		 7504 {5.94}

(18)		 9308 {8.43}

(46)		 11224 [7.96}

(16)
Compression parallel to the grain (MPa) 36.07 {4.25}

(9)		 32.47 {4.14}

(9)		 37.91 {4.58}

(9)		 33.88 {4.25}

(9)		 42.05 {6.62}

(9)
4218 {2.63}
t-test of beech 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 - - 0.03557.05 {4.13}

(16)
Shear strength parallel to the grain (MPa) 10.73 {0.74}

(9)		 9.92 {1.32}

(9)		 9.15 {0.41}

(9)		 8.95 {0.71}

(9)		 8.412 {0.65}

(14)		 10.47 [1.45]

(16)
Tensile strength parallel to the grain (MPa) 131.4 {5.56}

(9)		 124.7 {7.48}

(9)		 127.97 {8.34}

(9)		 125.83 {4.65]

(9)		 82.51 {2.42}

(12)		 131.15 {7.10}

(16)
Tensile strength perpendicular to the grain (MPa) 3.15 {0.56}

(9)		 3.1 {0.39}

(9)		 - - 1.99 {0.39}

(14)		 3.71 {0.44}

(16)
Screw withdrawal strength tangential (N) 4061 {3.53}

(9)		 3916 {3.77}

(9)		 4031 {3.86}

(9)		 3685 {4.22}

(9)		 4466 {4.78}

(20)		 -
Screw withdrawal strength radial (N) 4151 {4.12}

(9)		 4123 {4.61}

(9)

(9)		 3915 {3.98}

(9)		 4566.2 {4.42}

(20)		 -
Impact bending (KJ/m2) 120.3 {13.89}

(9)		 110.1 {7.21}

(9)		 - - 129.9 {8.72}

(10)		 110.81 {1.37}

(16)
1 The numbers in curly brackets indicate standard deviation. 2 The numbers in parentheses indicate the number of samples used.
Table 64.
Statistical analysis of mechanical properties.
Type Bending Strength MOE Compression Shear Tensile Parallel Tensile

Perpendicular		 Screw in
Significant difference at level of 5 %. ns not significant.

References

  1. Czajkowski, Ł.; Olek, W.; Weres, J. Effects of heat treatment on thermal properties of European beech wood. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2020, 78, 425–431.
  2. Brunetti, M.; Nocetti, M.; Pizzo, B.; Aminti, G.; Cremonini, C.; Negro, F.; Zanuttini, R.; Romagnoli, M.; Mugnozza, G.S. Structural products made of beech wood: Quality assessment of the raw material. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2020, 78, 961–970.
  3. Fathi, H.; Nasir, V.; Kazemirad, S. Prediction of the mechanical properties of wood using guided wave propagation and machine learning. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 262, 120848.
  4. Akrami, A.; Barbu, M.C.; Fruehwald, A. Characterization of properties of oriented strand boards from beech and poplar. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2014, 72, 393–398.
  5. Bayranvand, M.; Kooch, Y.; Alberti, G. Classification of humus forms in Caspian Hyrcanian mixed forests ecoregion (Iran): Comparison between two classification methods. Catena 2018, 165, 390–397.
  6. Bari, E.; Daniel, G.; Yilgor, N.; Kim, J.S.; Tajick-Ghanbary, M.A.; Singh, A.P.; Ribera, J. Comparison of the Decay Behavior of Two White-Rot Fungi in Relation to Wood Type and Exposure Conditions. Microorganism 2020, 8, 1931.
  7. Bari, E.; Schmidt, O.; Oladi, R. A histological investigation of Oriental beech wood decayed by Pleurotus ostreatus and Trametes versicolor. For. Pathol. 2015, 45, 349–357.
  8. Bari, E.; Nazarnezhad, N.; Kazemi, S.M.; Ghanbary, M.A.T.; Mohebby, B.; Schmidt, O.; Clausen, C.A. Comparison between degradation capabilities of the white rot fungi Pleurotus ostreatus and Trametes versicolor in beech wood. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2015, 104, 231–237.
  9. Tsioras, P.A.; Liamas, D.K. Residual tree damage along skidding trails in beech stands in Greece. J. For. Res. 2015, 26, 523–531.
  10. Gryc, V.; Vavrčík, H.; Gomola, Š. Selected properties of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). J. For. Sci. 2008, 54, 418–425.
  11. Pöhler, E.; Klingner, R.; Künniger, T. Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.)–Technological properties, adhesion behaviour and colour stability with and without coatings of the red heartwood. Ann. For. Sci. 2006, 63, 129–137.
  12. Standovár, T. A Review on Natural Stand Dynamics in Beechwoods of East Central Europe. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2003, 1, 19–46.
  13. Torkaman, J.; Vaziri, M.; Sandberg, D.; Limaei, S.M. Relationship between branch-scar parameters and knot features of oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Libsky). Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 13, 117–120.
  14. Bari, E.; Ohno, K.; Yilgor, N.; Singh, A.; Morrell, J.; Pizzi, A.; Ghanbary, M.T.; Ribera, J. Characterizing Fungal Decay of Beech Wood: Potential for Biotechnological Applications. Microorganism 2021, 9, 247.
  15. Loewe-Muñoz, V.; Balzarini, M.; González, M.O. Pure and mixed plantations of Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.) for high quality timber production in Chile, South America. J. Plant Ecol. 2019, 13, 12–19.
  16. Pollegioni, P.; Woeste, K.E.; Chiocchini, F.; Olimpieri, I.; Tortolano, V.; Clark, J.; Hemery, G.; Mapelli, S.; Malvolti, M.E. Landscape genetics of Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.) across its Asian range. Tree Genet. Genomes 2014, 10, 1027–1043.
  17. Hemery, G.; Savill, P.; Thakur, A. Height growth and flushing in common walnut (Juglans regia L.): 5-year results from provenance trials in Great Britain. Forests 2005, 78, 121–133.
  18. Ebrahimi, A.; Zarei, A.; Fatahi, R.; Ghasemi-Varnamkhasti, M. Study on some morphological and physical attributes of walnut used in mass models. Sci. Hortic. 2009, 121, 490–494.
  19. Bolling, B.W.; Chen, C.-Y.O.; McKay, D.L.; Blumberg, J.B. Tree nut phytochemicals: Composition, antioxidant capacity, bioactivity, impact factors. A systematic review of almonds, Brazils, cashews, hazelnuts, macadamias, pecans, pine nuts, pistachios and walnuts. Nutr. Res. Rev. 2011, 24, 244–275.
  20. Bachtiar, E.V.; Rüggeberg, M.; Niemz, P. Mechanical behavior of walnut (Juglans regia L.) and cherry (Prunus avium L.) wood in tension and compression in all anatomical directions. Revisiting the tensile/compressive stiffness ratios of wood. Holzforschung 2017, 72, 71–80.
  21. Bachtiar, E.V.; Rüggeberg, M.; Hering, S.; Kaliske, M.; Niemz, P. Estimating shear properties of walnut wood: A combined experimental and theoretical approach. Mater. Struct. 2017, 50, 248.
  22. Wolenski, A.R.V.; Peixoto, R.G.; Aquino, V.B.D.M.; Christoforo, A.L.; Lahr, F.A.R.; Panzera, T.H. Evaluation of mechanical strengths of tropical hardwoods: Proposal of probabilistic models. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2020, 78, 757–766.
  23. Nasir, V.; Nourian, S.; Avramidis, S.; Cool, J. Prediction of physical and mechanical properties of thermally modified wood based on color change evaluated by means of “group method of data handling” (GMDH) neural network. Holzforschung 2019, 73, 381–392.
  24. Perlin, L.P.; Pinto, R.C.D.A.; do Valle, Â. Ultrasonic tomography in wood with anisotropy consideration. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 229, 116958.
  25. López, G.; Basterra, L.A.; Acuña, L. Estimation of wood density using infrared thermography. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 42, 29–32.
  26. Barreira, E.; de Freitas, V.P. Evaluation of building materials using infrared thermography. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007, 21, 218–224.
  27. Sandak, J.; Sandak, A.; Riggio, M. Multivariate analysis of multi-sensor data for assessment of timber structures: Principles and applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 101, 1172–1180.
  28. Riggio, M.; Sandak, J.; Sandak, A.; Pauliny, D.; Babiński, L. Analysis and prediction of selected mechanical/dynamic properties of wood after short and long-term waterlogging. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 68, 444–454.
  29. Nasir, V.; Nourian, S.; Avramidis, S.; Cool, J. Stress wave evaluation for predicting the properties of thermally modified wood using neuro-fuzzy and neural network modeling. Holzforschung 2019, 73, 827–838.
  30. Beall, F.C. Overview of the use of ultrasonic technologies in research on wood properties. Wood Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 197–212.
  31. Monaco, A.L.; Calienno, L.; Pelosi, C.; Balletti, F.; Agresti, G.; Picchio, R. Technical properties of beech wood from aged coppices in central Italy. iForest Biogeosci. For. 2015, 8, 82–88.
  32. Simsek, H.; Baysal, E.; Peker, H. Some mechanical properties and decay resistance of wood impregnated with environmentally-friendly borates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 2279–2284.
  33. Kretschmann, D.E. Mechanical properties of wood. In Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material: Chapter 5, Centennial ed.; General Technical Report FPL; Forest Products Laboratory: Madison, WI, USA, 2010; pp. 5.1–5.46.
  34. Taj, M.A.; Najafi, S.K.; Ebrahimi, G. Withdrawal and lateral resistance of wood screw in beech, hornbeam and poplar. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2009, 67, 135–140.
  35. Campean, M.; Marinescu, I.; Ispas, M. Influence of drying temperature upon some mechanical properties of beech wood. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2007, 65, 443–448.
  36. Saurat, J. Growth stresses in beech. Wood Sci. Technol. 1976, 10, 111–123.
  37. Guler, C.; Dilek, B. Investigation of High-frequency Vacuum Drying on Physical and Mechanical Properties of Common Oak (Quercus robur) and Common Walnut (Juglans regia) Lumber. BioResources 2020, 15, 7861–7871.
  38. Castro, G.; Bergante, S.; Sansone, D.; Bidini, C.; Pelleri, F. Common walnut (Juglans regia L.) wood characteristics in two Italian plantations. Ann. Silvic. Res. 2019, 43, 35–40.
  39. Bachtiar, E.V.; Sanabria, S.J.; Mittig, J.P.; Niemz, P. Moisture-dependent elastic characteristics of walnut and cherry wood by means of mechanical and ultrasonic test incorporating three different ultrasound data evaluation techniques. Wood Sci. Technol. 2016, 51, 47–67.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Feedback