1. Utilization of Textile Waste as Core
Material in Sustainable Composites
David DeVallance,
Jody Gray, and
Holly Lentz
Patent Pending

2. GOALS & OBJECTIVES
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
Patent Pending

3. BACKGROUND
• 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
Patent Pending

4. EXPERIMENTAL: Process Flow
Pre and Post Consumer Textile
Waste Collection
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Textile Refinement/Shredding Shredding Shredding Shredding Shredding
Wood Strand/Textile Blending
Panel Formation (orientation of
wood surface and wood/textile
core material)
Panel Hot Pressing
Specimen Property
Panel Hot Stacking/Cooling Preparation Evaluation
Patent Pending

5. 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
Patent Pending

6. EXPERIMENTAL
 Blending
 Forming
Patent Pending

7. EXPERIMENTAL
 Pressing
 Final Products
Patent Pending

8. 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
Patent Pending

9. 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
Internal Bond Strength (psi)
Summary
Statistic 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
Patent Pending

10. 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 Box-and-Whisker Plot
(X 1000) (X 1000)
MOR-Secondary (psi)
5 5
MOR-Primary (psi)
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5 100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5
Panel Type: Wood to Textile Ratio Panel Type: Wood to Textile Ratio
Patent Pending

11. TEST RESULTS: Modulus of Elasticity (MOE)
 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 MOE (primary and
secondary) between the control (100/0) and 95/5 panels
Box-and-Whisker Plot Box-and-Whisker Plot
(X 100000) (X 100000)
5
MOE-Secondary (psi)
8
MOE - Primary (psi)
4
6
3
4
2
2
1
0 0
100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5 100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5
Panel Type: Wood to Textile Ratio Panel Type: Wood to Textile Ratio
Patent Pending

12. TEST RESULTS: Nail Withdrawal Strength
 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 nail withdrawal
strength between the control (100/0) and 95/5 panels
Nail Withdrawal Strength (lb/in)
Nail Withdrawal Strength (lb/inch) Box-and-Whisker Plot
Summary
100/0 95/5 85/15 75/25 240
Statistic
200
Average 91 84 53 60 160
St. Dev. 52 40 32 30 120
COV % 57.0 47.5 59.9 49.7 80
40
Minimum 16 28 8 20
0
Maximum 225 205 143 121 100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5
Panel Type: Wood to Textile Ratio
Patent Pending

13. 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)
Box-and-Whisker Plot
Thickness Swell (%)
Thickness Swell (%) 72
Summary
Statistic 100/0 95/5 85/15 75/25 62
Average 43.9 41.4 40.2 43.6
52
St. Dev. 7.5 3.5 4.2 3.5
COV % 17.1 8.6 10.5 8.0 42
Minimum 36.0 32.4 32.4 37.8 32
100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5
Maximum 67.1 46.7 47.0 49.4
Panel Type: Wood to Textile Ratio
Patent Pending

14. 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)
 Multiple range test analysis did not show any
statistically significant differences in water absorption
between the control (100/0) and 95/5 panels
Water Absorption (%)
Box-and-Whisker Plot
Water Absorption (%)
Summary 121
Statistic 100/0 95/5 85/15 75/25
111
Average 85.4 89.3 92.8 100.2 101
St. Dev. 7.7 3.3 8.4 6.6 91
COV % 9.1 3.7 9.1 6.6 81
Minimum 76.8 83.3 71.2 84.9 71
100/0 75/25 85/15 95/5
Maximum 102.5 94.3 108.7 110.4
Panel Type: Wood to Textile Ratio
Patent Pending

15. 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
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
Patent Pending

16. Questions?
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.
Further Information: david.devallance@mail.wvu.edu
Patent Pending

17. 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>.
Patent Pending