wood use: u.s. competitiveness and technologyÑvol. ii

CHAPTER

Introduction

CHAPTER 1

Introduction—Few materials are as widely used or as ver-

satile as wood. For millenia, wood’s extensivenatural occurrence and its adaptability, renew-ability, and workability have combined to makeit a material of choice in a wide range of ap-plications. When abundant, wood has helpedbuild and fuel many great civilizations. Scar-city of wood has sometimes contributed to acivilization’s decline.

For many purposes, wood has required com-paratively little alteration from its natural state,

More recently, technology has helped trans-form wood into an expanding variety of prod-ucts bearing little resemblance to wood as itappears in trees or is used in conventionallumber (table 1). In addition to lumber andfirewood, products that can be made fromwood now include chemical feedstocks andplastics, reconstituted wood-building materials,liquid and gaseous fuels, food supplements,and 14,000 kinds of paper,

Table 1 .—Taxonomy of Major Forest Products

Status ofProduct Description Major end use

Lumber type productsB o a r d sa -- Dimension a lumber

Timbers

Parallel laminatedveneer (PLV)

Utility poles

Panel type productsPlywood

Hardwood

Particleboard

Medium-densityfiberboard

Semirigid insulationboard

Rigid insulationboard

Waferboard

Oriented strandboard (OSB)

Corn-Ply

1“ thick, 4“ to 16’, > 1“ wide2“ to < 5“ thick, > 2" wide, usually 4’ to 16’long solid wood, sometimes edge glued

5 + thick, > 4“ wide, various lengths;solid or laminated wood

Usually same dimensions as lumber andtimbers, made from wood veneerslaminated with parallel grains

9“ to 14” diameter, 50’ to 80’

Flat panels, usually 4’ x 8’, less than 1.5”thick, made from wood veneers laminatedwith grains of adjacent veneersperpendicular, Usually 3 to 5 plies (veneers)

Flat panels made of individual wood fibers,usually glued together

Flat panels, less than 1.5” thick, cut tosize of 4’ x 8’, composed of very smallwood particles glued together

Same as hardboard, with extremely flat,smooth surface and edges

Flat panels made of individual wood fibers,usually loosely matted, fibers bonded byinterfelting

Same as semirigid insulation board

Flat plywood-like panels made with flat,nonalined wafers or large chips of woodglued and pressed together

Flat plywood-like panels made with alignedstrands or ribbon-shaped pieces of wood,Sometimes crossbanded (strands indifferent layers oriented perpendicular toadjacent layers), sometimes veneered

Flat plywood-like panels or lumber-likepieces, with particleboard cores andwood veneer faces

MM

M

G

M

M

M

M

M

D

D

G

G

General purposeStructural framing

Structural framing beams, and largesupports

Structural framing and supports, Canbe used in millwork and molding

Transmission lines

also

Structural sheathing, flooring, and a varietyof semistructural uses

Floor underpayment, facing for architecturalconcrete, wall linings, door inserts, stereo,radio and TV cabinetry, and furniture

Underlay merit, furniture core

Furniture, wall siding

Insulation, cushioning

Interior walls and ceilings, exterior sheathing

Paneling, substitute for plywood instructural use, wallboard

Same as plywood

B Same as lumber and plywood

9

10 ● Wood Use: U.S. Competitiveness and Technology

Table I.–Taxonomy of Major Forest Products (continued)

Product Description —

Paper productsUnbleachedkraft paper

Bleachedkraft paper

Newsprint andgroundwoodprinting papers

Corrugating medium

Linerboard

Paperboard

Coated paper

Specialty papers

Tissue paper

Other productsRayon

Acetate

Cellulosic films

Brown, somewhat coarse, stiff papermanufactured primarily by the kraft sulfateprocess from hardwoods and softwoods

White fine textured paper manufactured byeither the kraft sulfite process or the kraftsulfate process from either softwoods orhardwoods. The better papers areprovided from softwoods

Coarse textured paper of low strength andlimited durability, which tends to yellowwith age. It is manufactured frommechanical and semimechanical (particularlychemically treated) pulp, which uses eitherhardwoods or softwoods

Coarse, low-strength paper producedprimarily from sulfite pulping of hardwoods

Stiff, durable, thick paper made primarilyfrom unbleached kraft paper made by thesulfate process

Stiff paper of moderate thickness madeprimarily from bleached sulfate kraft pulp

Printing papers that have been coated withmaterials that improve printability andphoto reproduction

Diverse group of products ranging fromthin filter papers to stiff card stock

Thin, soft, absorbent papers manufacturedprimarily from chemical groundwood pulps

Synthetic fiber produced by the viscoseprocess using pure cellulose produced bythe dissolving pulp process. Rayon hasproperties similar to cotton

Synthetic fibers produced from dissolvingpulp-like rayon, but further chemicaltreatment make them water resistant withproperties more like nylon or orlon

Film made from dissolving pulp by therayon and acetate processes, butextruded as sheets of various thicknesses

Status oflifecycle

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

D

Major end use .

Heavy packaging, bags, and sacks

Fine writing and printing papers andpaperboard for packaging

Printing of newspaper and for otherprinting uses not requiring durability

Corrugated boxes as dividers andstiffeners between the paperboard liners

Heavy duty shipping containers andcorrugated boxes

Milk cartons, folding boxes, and individualpackaging

Magazines, annual reports, and books

Cigarettes, filter papers, bonded papers(with cotton fibers) index cards, tags, filefolders, and postcards

Toweling, tissues, and hygenic products

Woven cloth as a cotton substitute

Woven cloth as a substitute for nylon andother petroleum-derived synthetic fibers

Packaging (cellophane) protectivecoverings, photographic applications,transparent drafting and graphic materials

NOTE: B

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

Characteristics of Wood

Wood is grouped into hardwoods and soft- characteristics are significant between andwoods. Hardwoods generally are broad-leaved within species and even between pieces ofdeciduous trees, while softwoods are conifers, wood from different parts of a single tree.with needles or scalelike leaves that generallyare evergreen. Although there are broad dif-ferences in the characteristics of wood from

Microstructure of Wood

hardwoods and softwoods, variations in micro- Differences in microstructure between soft-structural, physical, chemical, and mechanical woods and hardwoods give the wood from

Ch. 1—Introduction ● 1 1

these species different properties, Softwoodshave fewer cell types, generally longer fibers,thinner cell walls, and more uniform cellulararrangements than do hardwoods. Because oftheir strength, softwoods often are preferredin structural applications. Hardwoods varyconsiderably in their machining and dryingcharacteristics, which makes the commercialuse of hardwoods more complex, However,grain patterns and color make them attractivefor furniture and cabinetry.

There also can be microstructural differenceswithin species of wood. Leaning trees containcompression wood (softwoods) or tensionwood (hardwoods), apparently a result of thetree’s microstructure changing to accommo-date the uneven load distribution as it grows.Fertilization, pruning, and other silvicultural*practices also change the microstructure ofwood. These changes, currently under inves-tigation by wood technologists, may have someeffect on the utilization of wood grown in con-trolled environments (the so-called plantationwood).

Chemical Characteristics of Wood

The major chemical constituents of wood in-clude: 1) cellulose, 2) lignin, 3) hemicellulose,and 4) extractives. Cellulose, which comprisesapproximately 50 percent of wood by weight(ovendry), is the primary structural component.The exceptionally strong chemical bonds with-in cellulose molecules give wood great strengthrelative to its weight, Cellulose fibers are themajor component of paper and can be alteredchemically to produce a wide range of prod-ucts such as chemicals, plastics, syntheticfibers, and films, Lignin, which cements thefiber together, is a complex organic chemicalthe structure and properties of which are notfully understood. Theoretically, lignin could beconverted into a number of chemicals. Cur-rently, however, it is burned to produce energyas a waste product from pulp and paper man-ufacturing, Hemicellulose is similar to cellu-

lose in composition and function. It plays animportant role in fiber-to-fiber bonding in pa-permaking. Finally, several extractives arecontained in wood but do not contribute to itsstrength properties,

Physical Characteristics of Wood

Physical properties of wood vary consider-ably, both between and within species. Someof the more important physical properties ofwood are: 1) density (or specific gravity); 2) me-chanical properties (strength and stiffness aremost important); 3) shrinking and swelling dueto changes in moisture content; 4) thermalproperties; 5) electrical properties; 6) machin-ing or working qualities; 7) susceptibility todecay; 8) degree of resistance to chemicals;9) combustibility; 10) weathering; and 11) ap-pearance, such as grain, texture, and sheen,The range of values for some of these proper-ties and their importance is shown in table 2.

Density (mass per unit volume] is generallya good indicator for other properties (includingmechanical, thermal, and electrical). Specificgravity varies with different locations in thetree and is influenced by silvicultural practices;hence, it influences a tree’s other properties,Manipulation of growth factors is one of thefew controls available to “manufacture” thewood substance to desired properties. Thiscontrasts with other materials, in which manyvariables can be manipulated to achieve de-sired properties,

Wood moisture content (the ratio of theamount of water in the wood to its dry weight)is another important variable. This moisture,bound in the cell walls, influences wood prop-erties. Stiffness and strength decrease, andthermal and electrical conductivity increase,as moisture content increases, The moisturecontent of living trees usually is above 50 per-cent but varies considerably by species, timeof year, and associated weather conditions.Once felled, however, the wood dries and tendstoward an equilibrium moisture content (EMC)corresponding to prevailing relative humidityand temperature conditions. Air or kiln dry-ing is used to reduce the moisture content of


Table 2.— Physical Properties of Wood

Property Range or average Importance

Density (specific gravity) 20-45 lb/ft3

(0.3 to 0.7)

Shrinkage and swelling Hardwood: 10-19 percentby volume

Softwood: 7-14 percentby volume

Thermal properties

Electrical properties

Decay and chemicalresistance

Combustibility

Working qualities

Weathering

Appearance

Resistance: R= 1.25[ft2 h“ F/Btu/in]

Diffusivity: D=O.25 x 10 -3

(in2/s)

Dielectric constant: 2-5Resistivity: 1010 to 1013 ohm-m

(103 to 104 when saturated)—

Density can affect the ability of wood to hold coatings suchas paint, stain, and adhesives. It affects the machinabilityand other working qualities and the weight and ease ofhandling the products.

Shrinkage upon drying can result in warping, crooking, andbowing in lumber. Some woods have a greater tendencytoward internal stresses caused by shrinkage, which maymake them less suitable for lumber or may requirespecial treatment to avoid deformities. Shrinkage alongthe grain is only 10 percent of shrinkage across thegrain.

Wood is a good thermal and electrical insulator. Because itsthermal conductivity is a fraction of that of most metals,wood tends to gain heat slowly from its surroundings.

Wood is a poor electrical conductor, though its conductivityincreases with increasing moisture content.

Different species vary in resistance to decay and chemicals.Wood deteriorates more rapidly in warm humidenvironments than in other conditions. It is often used inchemical processing operations where exposure to mildacids and acidic salt solutions would corrode ordinarysteel or cast iron.

Two important aspects of wood combustibility are flamespread and char development. Rate of charring into largewood members is very slow; hence, strength is retainedfor a long time in a fire situation.

Working qualities refers to the ease and quality of planing,shaping, turning, mortising, sanding, steam bending, andnail and screw splitting. They affect appearance, usefullife, and range of use of wood products.

Weathering causes boards to warp, pull out fasteners, checkor split, and turn gray. Sometimes weathered appearanceis desirable for decorative use.

Color, grain, texture, sheen, and surface roughness affectthe appearance of wood. Fine furniture woods requirespecial characteristics, as do woods used for panelingand cabinetry. The appearance of structural material isless important.

SOURCE Adapted from U S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Wood Handbook Wood as an Engineering Material (Washington,D C U S Government Printing Off Ice, 1974)

green lumber to approach the EMC to meet theend-use requirement.

In contrast to most other structural materialssuch as ceramics, concrete, and metals, whichhave the same properties in all directions,wood is naturally anisotropic, having differentmechanical and physical properties along itsthree dimensions. The three mutually perpen-dicular, characteristic dimensions of wood arecalled: longitudinal (along the grain), radial(across the grain, out from the center), and tan-gential (across the grain, tangent to the annual

rings) (fig. 1). Stiffness and strength, as well asother properties, vary considerably in the threedirections.

Strength, particularly along the grain, is oneof the most important mechanical propertiesof wood. Wood’s strength is compared on astrength-to-weight basis with other materialsin table 3.

During use, wood is subjected to a numberof different loading modes including bending,compression, shear, and tension. Most impor-

Ch. I—Introduction ● 1 3

Figure 1 .—Three Characteristic Directions of WoodThat Are Influenced by Wood Properties

tantly, wood is a very efficient material forbending applications, and designers can com-pensate for its relatively low shear strength par-allel to the grain by making long, slender struc-tural members that stand up well to bending. *In addition, because its compression strength

is relatively high, wood is an excellent mate-rial for columns. Its inherent strength is lessimportant in the design of columnar supportsthan its geometry and stiffness. Clear woodalso has high tensile strength. As a result,higher grade (clear] material is used in tensionmembers of trusses or in the outer layers oflaminated beams.

Energy Consumption inWood Products Manufacture

The amount of energy required to produceconstruction materials and paper from woodgenerally is less than that required for produc-ing products from metals, plastics, or masonryon a weight basis (table 4). Production of paper,for example, uses less than half the energy perton than does the production of plastics andless than 10 percent as much as the produc-tion of aluminum foil for packaging. Thus,wood, being a renewable resource, could sub-stitute for other materials that require largeamounts of energy for their manufacture.

Table 3.—Structural Properties of Some Wood, Metals, and Masonries

14 . Wood Use: U.S. Competitiveness and Technology

Table 4.—Energy Requirements for Primary Commodities (million Btu (oil-equivalent)/ton))

Available residueCommodity Extraction Processing Transport energy N e ta total

Softwood lumber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.943 4.846 1.966 8.313 2.909Softwood sheathing plywood . . . . . . 0.747 6.871 2.081 3.697 6.002Structural flakeboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.956 7.511 1.314 8.616 2,270Underpayment particleboard. . . . . . . . 4.6172b 8.101 1.198 1.529 12.387Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.52 7.60 0.40 — 8.52Concrete block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.52 7.60 0.65 — 8.77Clay brick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.57 7.73 0.76 — 9,06Steel studs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.45 46.20 1.67 — 50.32Steel joists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.45 46.20 1.67 — 50.32Aluminum siding . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....26.80 172.00 1.67 — 200.47

Present and Prospective Uses of Wood

Domestic production of wood has increasedby about one-third since 1950. Much of thegrowth in demand for wood has been in high-value wood products such as lumber, plywoodand veneer, and pulp, while the declines havebeen in lower value products, such as railroadties and mine timbers. Wood is used for a va-riety of purposes, including shelter and otherconstruction, communication, packaging, in-formation storage, energy, textiles, and chem-icals.

The chemical constituents of wood, primar-ily carbon and hydrogen, may be converted toforms that can be used to manufacture a widerange of products currently derived from petro-leum—although few now are so used, Chemi-cals recovered from wood through pulping areused in turpentine, rosins, pine oils, furfural,and other commonly used chemical products.Lignin, although currently burned as a wasteproduct to produce energy within pulpmills,shows promise as an adhesive, dispersingagent, binder, and source of vanillin anddimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). Rayon, celluloseacetate, and cellulose esters, manufacturedfrom woodpulp, maybe used for cloth, packag-ing films, and explosives. Sawdust and woodflour are used as cattle feed and as bulkingagents in human food.

As an energy source, wood’s historical im-portance is difficult to overstate. Until 1870,

wood was the primary fuel for both industrialand residential heating in the United States. i

Even in 1940, when coal had long supplantedwood as a residential heating fuel, more house-holds were heated with wood than with gas,electricity, and oil combined. The recent resur-gence of wood in home heating—brought aboutby the rising costs and potential shortages inother energy sources—has both stimulated andbeen stimulated by technological innovationsin wood-burning stoves and other devicesadapted to home heating.

The forest products industry itself has be-come an industrial leader in the use of woodas an alternative energy source. Roughly halfof the energy needs of the industry are pro-duced from wood residues and byproducts. Insome cases, mills have become virtually energyself-sufficient. In addition, a few wood-fueledcentral electric-generating stations of modestsize have been constructed by utility com-panies. Gasification technologies offer poten-tial for converting wood into energy productsthat are easily transported and may be usedin conventional gas combustion equipment.Wood may also be converted to liquid fuels,such as ethanol and methanol. In the event of

I U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, His-torical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975), pp.587-588.

an oil supply interruption or larger increasesin the price of petroleum, wood could back updomestic supplies of coal and other fossil fuels.

Wood has been the paper industry’s majorsource of raw material for well over a century.Paper may also be manufactured from a vari-ety of natural cellulose materials, including cot-ton, bagasse, and other agricultural crops, andfrom recycled waste paper, By removing ligninand other extractives and separating the strongindividual wood fibers through chemical ormechanical processes, paper may be formedinto a variety of products, ranging from tissuesand newsprint to construction board.

Some of the oldest and still major uses ofwood are framing, sheathing, cabinetry, anda variety of semistructural and decorative pur-poses in construction. The most notable newdevelopments in wood utilization involve re-ducing wood to smaller integral components,such as chips, strands, flakes, wafers, or fibersand reconstituting them into products with per-formance characteristics different and fre-quently superior to those made from solid nat-ural wood. Recent developments includewaferboard and oriented-strand board (OSB)

made from a variety of species into compositesthat can substitute for conventional plywood.

Modern materials science also has made itpossible to combine different materials in away that can produce composite products withperformance characteristics superior to thoseof either of the parent materials, Wood andmetal have been laminated to provide not onlya more durable finished furniture panel, butalso one that resists cigarette burns by dispers-ing heat through metal foils. Composite panelsfaced with plastics are widely used for counter-tops, desktops, and tabletops. Plastic-impreg-nated papers are used for various types ofpackages that must resist or contain liquids.

In the future, wood maybe combined in verydifferent ways at the fiber level to produce en-tirely new materials. For example, wood ma-terials could be extruded, molded, and formedinto complex shapes by combining wood fiberswith binders, adhesives, and resins. Wood alsomay be combined with other fibrous materialssuch as fiberglass or graphite to produce newhigh-strength, lightweight materials with spe-cial properties.

Wood as a Fuel

This section updates information on woodenergy use and summarizes several importantaspects of wood energy explored in detail ina 1980 OTA report, Energy From BiologicalProcesses. 2

The rapid growth in coal and petroleum asenergy sources since 1870 resulted in a rapiddecline of wood’s contribution to total energyuse. Since the 1973 oil embargo, wood energyuse has grown rapidly, so that it again is thelargest use for wood by volume (fig. 2).

(government Printing office, 1980).


Figure 2.– U.S. Wood Energy Consumption, 1850-1980

3.0

2.5

2,0

1.5

1.0

Year

SOURCE Charles E Hewett, et al “Wood Energy in the Untted States, ” AnnualRewew of Energy, Jack M Hollander (ed ) (Palo Alto, Cal if AnnualReviews, tnc ), 1981


Wood-fuel consumption totaled 2,2 quadril-lion Btu (2.2 Quads) in 19803—about 3 percentof U.S. energy use (74 Quads).4 The forest prod-ucts industry accounted for 63 percent of 1980wood energy use.5 Nearly all the remainingwood energy consumption was for residentialhome heating (fig. 3).

OTA estimates that energy accounted forabout 55 percent of the wood removed fromU.S. lands in 1980, the first year for which com-prehensive survey data is available (table 5). A

1981, op. cit.

partial explanation for the high proportion offuelwood compared with other wood used in1980 is that demand for other forest productswas low due to recession. However, use ofwood as a fuel has increased rapidly since the1%0’s, even during periods when demand forforest products was high.

The potential exists for significantly greaterwood energy production. OTA’s Energy FromBiological processes assessment concludedthat wood has the greatest potential to contrib-ute to the Nation’s energy supply among alter-native biomass energy sources. The studyfound that 4 Quads/yr of wood energy couldbe produced from wood by the year 2000 with-out significant Government action. With incen-tives and improved forest management, asmuch as 10 Quads/yr could be produced. Much

Figure 3.— Estimated Wood-Fuel Consumption, 1961-81

11

Ch.1—Introduction ● 17

of this amount could be produced from byprod-ucts of wood processing, logging residues, andwoody biomass removed during thinning oftimber stands, stand conversions, and othermanagerncnt activities.6

Industrial Wood-Fuel Use

The forest products industry consumed 81mill ion ovendry tons (81 million cords) of woodin 1981. Industrial wood energy consumptiontotaled 1.4 Quads of wood fuel, of which about1.0 Quad was consumed by the energy-inten-sive pulp and paper industry and the remain-der by the solid-wood-products sector. Thepulp and paper industry now derives about halfof its energy needs from wood fuels and ligninbyproducts produced during pulping,7 An esti-mated 73 percent of the solid-wood-products

industry energy needs were supplied fromwood in 1981, up from 69 percent in 1978.8

Most wood fuels used by the industry comefrom wood residues and processing wastes,rather than from trees specifically harvestedfor energy use, However, some firms now har-vest wood for energy use, and some residuesare traded among businesses within the indus-try as a marketable commodity.

Continued increases in wood-fuel use by theforest products industry are probable but willgrow more slowly in the future. The industrynow uses over 96 percent of the woody raw ma-terials that enter mills for either products orenergy (fig. 4). Opportunities to increase woodenergy further may depend on: 1) increased re-covery of woody materials at harvest, and2) capital investment in more energy-efficientmanufacturing processes.


Figure 4.—Timber Supply to and Product Output From Primary Processing Plants, 1976 (million cubic feet)

Supply to primaryprocessing plants

Domestic roundwood 12.815hardwoods 3,297 ●

softwoods 9,518

Imported roundwood+

100and chips

SOURCE: T. Ellis and C. D Risbrudt. Unpublished manuscript

Ch. 1—/ntroduction ● 1 9

Over the long term, as new facilities andtechnologies designed for energy conservationgradually are introduced, it is possible thatsome forest product firms will produce moreenergy than they consume, thus becoming netenergy producers. The pulp and paper indus-try already is a leader in cogeneration—thesimultaneous generation of useful heat andelectricity. The industry has the largest num-ber of cogeneration facilities among U.S. in-dustries and currently accounts for 29 percentof the U.S. cogeneration capacity, ranking sec-ond to the primary-metals industry in cogen-erated electrical power, g At one Maine pulpand paper mill, total self-sufficiency in electri-city reportedly has been achieved through anewly constructed biomass powerplant andcompany-operated hydroelectric stations. Sur-plus power is sold to a local utility.10

Residential and Commercial Fuelwood Use

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) esti-mates that about 48,2 million ovendry tons(48.2 million cords) of wood was consumed inresidential heating in 1981.11 Residential fuel-wood consumption has at least doubled sincethe 1973 oil embargo, according to the DOEsurvey. Other indications, such as a fourfoldincrease in the use of wood stoves (from 2.6million in 1973 to nearly 11 million in 1981),also suggest rapid growth in residential fuel-wood use12 (table 6).

Home fuelwood use may continue to in-crease, although probably not as rapidly as inthe 1970’s. Factors that will affect home fuel-wood use include: 1) price and availability ofwood relative to alternative fuels, 2) proximityof fuelwood users to wood supplies, 3) home-owner willingness to cut and transport fuel-wood and maintain wood-burning stoves andfurnaces, and 4] introduction of technologicallysuperior wood-burning stoves and furnaces

Table 6.—Estimated Wood Stove Shipments andInventory (thousands)

Wood stoveYear shipments

1970 ... . . . . 2241971 . . . . . . . 2201972 ... 2251973 ... . 2351974 ... . 4741975 ... . . 8531976 . . 8351977 . . . . . . 1,3021978 . . . 1,6811979 ... . . 2,1161980 . . . 2,116

Wood stoveimports

NANA202080

280200240380437437

Wood stoveinventory

3,0792,8662,7512,6302,7443,2953,8504,8076,0887,8689,531

1981 . 2,116 437 10,960SOURCE U S Department of Energy Estfrnafes of U S Wood Energy Consurnp-

t(on From 1949 to 1981 (Washington, D C Department of Energy 1982)

that burn wood more efficiently or conven-iently.

Commercial sector (nonforest products busi-nesses) wood-fuel use also is increasing, al-though currently it comprises less than 1 per-cent of total wood-fuel consumption. In manyareas, market prices for wood fuel currentlyare competitive with fuel prices for oil, natu-ral gas, and coal. Commercial wood-fuel usemay continue to grow, especially in areas likethe South, which have abundant wood sup-plies. Some States actively encourage commer-cial use of wood fuels. The Georgia ForestryCommission, for example, finances wood-fueldemonstration projects in hospitals, schools,and other public institutions.13

In a few instances, public utilities have estab-lished wood-fueled central electric-generatingstations, as in Burlington, Vt., and Eugene,Oreg. Limitations on wood-fuel generating sta-tions include large capital costs and difficultiesin assuring wood supplies from timbershedsat economic transportation distances fromplants.

Secondary Fuels and Chemicals From Wood

Almost all wood fuels are directly burned.A variety of long-established and emerging


technologies can process wood and wood-based residues into “secondary fuels” (gas, liq-uid, and solid). Similar technologies and proc-esses can be used to produce chemical feed-stocks for the manufacture of a high proportionof chemicals, plastics, and other products nowproduced from petroleum (fig. 5).

Bioconversion processes such as sacchari-fication, fermentation, and gasification wereused to produce fuels and/or chemicals com-mercially on a minor scale during both WorldWar I and World War II, but they were not ableto compete with petroleum fuels and petro-chemicals in peacetime,14 Recent developmentshave focused renewed attention on productionof secondary fuels and chemicals from wood.The technologies for conversion of wood andother forms of biomass to energy and chem-icals are discussed fully in OTA’s Energy FromBiological Processes report. 15

The potential for wood to be used as an alco-hol fuel is discussed in DOE’s Alcohol FuelsPolicy Review.18 If used on a widespread basis,methanol and ethanol could offset somewhatU.S. gasoline consumption (about 101 billion— ... -

Iq’rhe history of wood chemical and secondary fuel use throughWorld War II is discussed in Egon Glesinger, The Corning Ageof Wood (New York: Simon & S[;huster, 1949). Another book byGlesinger, Nazis in the Woodpile: Hit~er’s Plot fi)r Essential Ra~%’Material (Indianapolis; New York: Bobbs-Merril, 1942) discussesthe military and strategic importance of wood as a fuel and chem-ical to the Third Reich,

IsEnergy From Biological Processes, vol. II: Technical andEnvironmental Analyses (Washington, D. C.: office of Technol-ogy Assessment, 1980),

ISU,S, Department of Energy, Report of the Alcohol Fue/s pol-

ic~ Review (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, 1979].

gal in 1981).17 However, there are economic dif-ficulties in commercializing processes to con-vert woody biomass to alcohol.

Wood currently is used to produce silvichem-icals valued at over $5OO million per year.Silvichemicals include naval stores (oleoresins,tall oil, turpentine, rosins, and the like) andchemicals derived from pulping byproducts,such as lignin products, vanillin, DMSO, anda variety of other useful substances,

Use of wood as a substitute for petroleumfeedstocks is technically possible but will de-pend on the price of petroleum and coal (whichcan also be used as a petrochemical substitute)and capital expenditures for new plant con-struction. Coal is widely viewed by the chem-ical industry as a more likely short-term sub-stitute for petroleum feedstocks than wood.Nonetheless, evolutionary growth in woodchemical use is probable—especially whenwood can be used in less highly processedforms or to produce chemicals not readilyderived from coal or petroleum.

Lignin chemistry is one promising area of re-search. 18 Lignin has a complex structure thatmakes it difficult to process, but, left intact, itcan be used in plastics, adhesives, and variousother compounds, About 3 percent of the ligninbyproducts produced during pulping are recov-ered for production of chemicals; the rest isburned for energy.

17Figure derived from Monthly Energy Review: November1982, op. cit., p. 36.

‘BHenry J. Bungay, “Biomass Refining, ” Science, vol. 218, Nov.12, 1982, p. 643.

Wood Technology and the

While an extraordinary range of wood prod- of the

Resource Base

national materials mix, economics anducts exists, they must compete with other ma- market forces generally determine which ma-terials for their share of an often highly spe- terial is predominantly used for any specificcialized market. Just as wood can be substituted purpose, But other factors, including existingfor many other materials, those materials can plant equipment and capital investment,substitute for wood in some applications, with energy consumption, raw material availabilitylittle change in product performance. In terms and security of supply, and institutional

Ch. /—lntroduct/on ● 21

1 Separation via I

Wood- 1

t

Organic compounds

- Methane


considerations—government policies, industrystructure, and societal customs, practices, andpreferences—also play a role.

Recently, the forest products industry has ex-perienced changes in portions of its traditionalmarket shares. In the highly competitive mar-ket for residential building materials, whichconstitutes the largest single market for forestproducts, wood has retained its dominance butlost portions of its markets in several areassuch as flooring, siding, and furniture, At thesame time, a variety of new building materialsmade from wood are available that could helpretain current markets or expand into otherareas in time,

Even within the family of wood products,substitution takes place: plywood has replacedlumber for many uses, and now particleboardchallenges plywood in the market for structuralpanels. In some cases, composite materialshave enhanced wood’s competitiveness by per-mitting it to enter new markets and helping toretain portions of markets that otherwise mightbe lost. A salient example of the former is theplastic-coated boxboard that has virtually re-placed half-gallon milk containers made ofglass.

At one time, other biomass materials (pri-marily cotton) provided nearly all feedstocksfor plastics manufacture. By 1960, fossil fuelsaccounted for 90 percent of plastic feedstocks,even though the volume of wood feedstocks re-mained about the same. Uncertainties aboutpetroleum prices and supplies have led to somerecent, though modest, increases in wood-derived feedstocks. In addition, petroleum-derived plastics have competed successfully formany specialized markets formerly dominatedby paper.

Although wood is a renewable resource, incontrast to metals or fossil fuels for which afixed amount is available, the possibility of atimber famine in the United States as a resultof the scarcity of softwood sawtimber has beenraised repeatedly for more than a century. Soft-woods have been used more heavily than hard-woods because of their wood properties andthe fact that they tend to have most of the

usable wood in a well-formed trunk. As a re-sult, softwoods are growing scarcer relative tomany hardwoods, which remain largely under-utilized. Moreover, over the past century, thereal (deflated) price of softwood sawtimber hasincreased steadily.

The United States has a large inventory ofboth softwood and hardwood species, Growth,on a nationwide basis, still is greater than an-nual harvest for both types of wood, althoughthe margin of annual growth over harvest ismuch narrower for softwoods. Capacity of theNation’s forests to provide increasing amountsof wood maybe limited, however, and technol-ogies for improving the efficiency of wood uti-lization could help extend the timber resourceby offsetting increases in demand. Technologycould increase utilization by: 1) increasing theproportion of products recovered from round-wood, or wood raw material, in primary proc-essing; 2) expanding the ability to utilize hard-wood species and defective material; and3) increasing the efficient use of manufacturedwood products,

The United States has harvested approxi-mately 12 billion cubic feet (ft3) of roundwoodannually for decades, In recent years, the pro-portion of this harvest that has been wasted hasdropped dramatically, In 1976, less than 4 per-cent of the roundwood entering primary proc-essing was wasted, although that portion stillrepresented 10 million tons. Because many res-idues from one phase of the manufacturingprocess may be used as raw material for otheruses (fig. 4), an increase in the product recoveryat one point in the manufacturing process mayreduce the amount of residue available to pro-duce other products or energy. While there aresignificant opportunities for technology tochange the products manufactured from a spe-cific quantity of wood, there appears to be lit-tle chance to increase the efficiency of woodutilization in primary processing as a whole—with the exception of some pulping technol-ogies that provide higher fiber recovery.

On the other hand, technology has alreadysignificantly affected the ability to use a widervariety of wood species and materials formerly


considered worthless. The introduction ofpanel products and hardboard opened avenuesfor wood from limbs, branches, treetops, roots,hardwoods, and even dead or defective woodand bark. New technologies for paper manu-facture offer enormous potential for usinghardwoods to produce strong papers for pack-aging and communication, Even in lumber andplywood manufacture, which still depend onwood cut from the trunk of the tree, the abilityto utilize smaller logs has expanded signifi-cantly. Possibilities also exist for increased useof hardwoods. Regardless of future levels of de-mand, wood-utilization technology has the po-tential to ease pressures on the timber resourcebase (table 7).

Significantefficient end

The futureefficiency inon research

opportunities also exist for moreuse, particularly in construction.

It maybe possible to reduce the amount of lum-ber and panel products used (through im-proved integrated structural design) withoutadversely affecting the quality and strength ofthe structure. Present commercial techniquescould reduce wood consumption in framing bynearly one-third, for example.

Recycling technologies also may extend thetimber resource base. Recycled wastepaper canreduce not only the amount of virgin wood fi-ber needed for pulp and paper manufacturing,but also the amount of energy consumed in thepulping process. Little solid wood is reusedcurrently, but with appropriate designs andnew methods of fastening, it also might berecycled.

Research and Development on the Use of Wood

uses of wood and the degree ofwood utilization largely dependand development (R&D). Three

major institutional groups in the United Statesare involved in R&D on the use of wood: 1) theFederal Government, which funds as well asperforms R&D; 2) the forest industry, which isinstrumental in developing products and im-proving manufacturing processes; and 3) aca-demic institutions that conduct training andbasic research. Each plays an important rolein the activities that lead to the invention, de-velopment, and eventual commercialization ofwood products and processes.

The relative proportions of industry and Gov-ernment funding for all R&D in the UnitedStates have shifted in the past 30 years. In the1950’s and 1960’s, the Federal Government wasthe major funding source for R&D, but the gapbetween industrial contributions and Govern-ment funding began to narrow in the early1970’s, Industry outspent the Government forthe first time in 1980. The National ScienceFoundation (NSF) estimates that over $69 bil-lion was expended for all R&D in the UnitedStates in 1981. Forty-nine percent of the ex-

penditures were made by industry, while 47percent came from Federal agencies. The re-maining 4 percent originated from foundationsand other private sources.

Current trends suggest that industry fundingas a percentage of total funding will continueto advance, while the Federal sector’s contri-bution will decline.19 The funding structure forresearch alone (excluding the developmentfunction) is the reverse, however. In 1981, over53 percent of the expenditures for basic andapplied research were derived from the Fed-eral Government, while industry contributedapproximately 37 percent. z” The private sectoractually performed more of the total R&D un-dertaken in the United States than it funded,because some private research was Govern-ment supported. In 1981, 71.2 percent of theR&D (measured by dollars expended) was per-formed by industry. The Federal Government

19J. Eluga, Probable l.eLels of R&D Expenditures in 1982: Fore-cast and Anal~’sis (Columbus, Ohio: 13attelle Columbus Labora-tories, 1981), p. 2.

ZONationa] Sclerlce Board, Science indicators 1980 (Washing-ton, D. C.: .National Science Foundation, 1981), p, 253,

, ~~• 1 - r

Table 7.—Status of Selected Technological Developments in Wood Utilization

. .Pulp and paper industry:Pressurized groundwoodpulping (PGW)

Chemithermomechanical pulping(CTMP)

Hardwood chemimechanicalpulping (CMP)

Press drying paper

Pyrolytic recovery

Organosolv pulping

Oxygen pulping

Solid wood products:Best opening face

Saw-dry-rip

Edge glue and rip

Parallel laminated veneer

Rationale for or advantage of technology——.End-use product Status of commercialization Wood type

Reduced energy requirements and higherquality paper in comparison with traditionalgroundwood pulping processes; less kraftpulp needed for mixing

Reduced energy requirements; higher qualitypaper than in traditional mechanical pulpingtechnologies because long fibers are leftrelatively intact; less kraft pulp needed formixingPermits utilization of low-value hardwoodssuch as red oak and poplar; reduced energyconsumption in comparison with othermechanical techniques; less kraft pulpneeded for mixingPermits utilization of hardwoods in produc-tion of linerboard that is superior in qualityto conventionally dried softwood kraft paper,except in tear strength; reduced energy re-quirements and chemical processing needsReduced energy requirements in recoveringpuIping chemicalsReduced energy requirements; expandedhardwood utilizationOxidation of pulping liquors reduces needfor bleaching chemicals and facilities; mayreduce need-for water polIution control ex-penditures due to less chlorine in bleaching

Higher lumber recovery factor; permitsproduct yield improvements of 4 to 21 0/0

Higher lumber recovery reduces defects inproduct by 19 to 87°/0Higher recovery of product, higher lumberqualityPermits higher recovery of lumber fromlogs, improves lumber quality; fasterprocessing at the mill

Newsprint, printingpapers

News printpages

Newsprintpapers

Linerboard

, printing

printing

Process efficiency

Process efficiency

Process efficiency

Lumber uses

Lumber uses

Lumber uses

Lumber and timberuses

Five mills worldwide as of 1980; Softwoods15 mills ordered (4 in U.S.); rapidgrowth expected

Installed at some thermo-mechanical pulpmills

Two small mills in U. S.; rapidexpansion possible

Feasible, but commercial-scalefacility has yet to be developed

Demonstrated

Yet to be demonstrated;possible in next two decadesYet to be demonstrated;possible in next two decades

Mill-tested but not widely used

Used by some mills, but notwidely acceptedNone

Some manufacturing currentlyin production

Softwoods

Hardwoods

Hardwoods

Any

Hardwoods orsoftwood

Primarilysoftwoods

Hardwoodsand softwoodsHardwoodsand softwoodsHardwoodsand softwoods

.Ch. 1 —Introduction ● 25

I In

(uE

o-1

Q

I

co

0

c

uo03

.


conducted 13 percent; universities and col-leges, 12 percent; and the balance was per-formed by miscellaneous nonprofit organi-zations.

Within the forest products sector, the struc-ture of R&D funding is obscured by the lackof reliable and sufficiently detailed informationon Government and industry outlays for wood-utilization R&D. NSF reports an estimated ag-gregate expenditure in 1979 of $148 million forlumber and wood products R&D and $454 mil-lion for pulp and paper products R&D, but doesnot provide a breakdown of funding by con-tributor. 21 Funding levels for R&D within theforest products sector remained about the samefor 1977 through 1979, when measured in con-stant dollars. Between 1970 and 1980, R&D ex-penditures for lumber and wood products grewapproximately 62 percent, and pulp and paperR&D increased 70 percent, when measured inactual dollars.occurred in thetion during the

211t)id., p. 279.

However, little real growthR&D budget because of infla-past decade.

Federal Government R&D Activities

Wood-utilization research conducted by theFederal Government is concentrated in the For-est Service of the U.S. Department of Agricul-ture (USDA), In fiscal year 1981, the ForestService funded over $16.8 million of in-housewood science and utilization research, about72 percent of which was performed at the For-est Products Laboratory (FPL) in Madison, Wis.The balance was conducted at the regional For-est Experiment Stations and at various re-search centers throughout the United States,(University research funded by the Forest Serv-ice is discussed in a following section,) TheForest Service tends to concentrate its in-housewood science and utilization research on proj-ects that generally are regarded as beneficialto the United States—i.e., that are long-term,high-risk, and therefore unlikely to be under-taken by the private sector,

FPL’s fiscal year 1981 R&D program in-cluded 18 activities involving approximately 97scientist-years of effort, funded for $12,1 mil-lion (table 8). Its fiscal year 1982 budget wastargeted at $13.7 million to support an effortof 104 scientist-years. The laboratory’s researchefforts are centered on the protection of wood

Table 8.—Funding and Man-Year Commitments by Activities at the U.S. Forest Service,Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis.: Fiscal Year 1981

Funds Scientist-Activity (thousand dollars) Percent years—Protection of wood in adverse environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,178.5Engineered wood structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,149.1Wood fiber products and processing development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942.9Engineering properties of wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888.3Improved chemical utilization of wood ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869.1Structural composite products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840.5National timber and wood products requirements and utilization economics . . . 822.7Improved adhesive systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791.0High-yield, nonpolluting pulping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758.0Quality and yield improvement in wood processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 690.0Criteria for fiber-product design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . 641.0Microbial technology in wood utilization. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525.0Improvements in drying technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503.7Fire-design engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371.0Engineering design criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370.0Corrugated-package engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341.5Center for anatomy research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293.0Pioneering research unit in descriptive wood anatomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12,116.3SOURCE Cooperative Research Information Service (CRIS), U S Department of Agriculture

—

9.89.57.87,37,26.96.86.56.25.75.34.34.23.13.02.82.41.2

100.0

865777866654544441

97


from decay and insects and on the engineer-ing of structural wood products, wood fiberproducts, and manufacturing processes. Ap-proximately 35 percent of FPL’s budget is usedfor fundamental research—e.g., properties andanatomy of wood—and 65 percent is used forapplied research. The level of research efforthas been approximately the same since 1978,based on constant dollars expended. From 5to 10 percent of the laboratory’s annual budgetis devoted to cooperative research with aca-demic institutions.

In addition to research centered at FPL, theForest Service supported an R&D program of$4.7 million and 40 scientist-years in fiscal year1981 at the research centers of the regional for-est range and experiment stations (table 9).Most of this research centered on the utiliza-tion of hardwood species and on the econom-ics of improving the performance of the re-gional wood products industries,

R&D on wood energy and wood as a substi-tute for petroleum products is conducted by

DOE at its national laboratories, although fund-ing for these activities was reduced in the fiscalyear 1982 and 1983 budgets. At its peak in fiscalyear 1981, DOE spent $11 million on R&D re-lated to wood combustion, gasification, and liq-uefaction. This work is funded in fiscal year1983 at $2.2 million. Other research related towood science and utilization, such as researchon toxic preservatives and adhesives, may oc-cur incidentally to the missions of other R&Dagencies, but its size in relation to the total Gov-ernment effort is small.

R&D in Academic Institutions

Academic research plays a unique role incomplementing the research in wood scienceand utilization undertaken by industrial andGovernment laboratories. Funding for aca-demic research in fiscal year 1981 was approx-imately $9.5 million (table 10). Less than one-third of the academic research budgets in 1981came from the Federal Government; State andindustrial contributions accounted for 71,6 per-

Table 9.— 1981 Funding and Scientist-Years by Activities at the U.S. Forest Service Experiment Stations

Actlvi ty

Improving wood-resource harvesting andutilization . . . . . . . . .

New and improved systems, methods, andtechniques for processing hardwoods ... .

Regional economics of forest resources ...

Low-grade hardwood utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Timber quality and product-yield potential ofWestern softwood resources ., . . . . . . .

Developing more productive markets and usesfor forest resources of the Central andSouthern Rocky Mountains ... . . . . .

U t i l i z a t i o n o f S o u t h e r n t i m b e r . . . . . . . .

Wood products research . . . . . . . . ...

Process ing Southern woods . . . . . . . . .

Total ., . ... . ... . . . . . . .

FundsLocation (thousand dollars) Percent Man-years—

Forest SciencesLaboratoryMissoula, Mont. $ 447,0 9.5 4.0

Carbondale, Ill, 361.0 7.7 3.0Duluth, Minn. 512.0 10.9 4.1

Princeton, W.Va. 418.5 8.9 2.1

Pacific NorthwestRange Exp. Sta.Portland, Oreg. 573.3 12.2 5.0

Ft. Collins, Colo. 286.8 6.1 4,0Southern Forest

Exp. Sta.Athens, Ga. 594.2 12.7 6,0

Southern ForestExp. Sta.Athens, Ga. 500.3 10.7 6.0

Alexandria, La, 998.9 21.3 6.0

$4.692.0 100.0 ‘40.2SOURCE Cooperatlve Research Information System (CR IS) U S Department of AgrlcuIture ‘- -


Table 10.— Funding of Wood Utilization R&D Performed by U.S. Academic Institutions in Fiscal Year 1980

Source (thousand dollars)

Mclntyre-Activity Stennis

Structural panels (including plywood andcomposites) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 278.1

Economic analysis and data/information . . . . . . 76.2Properties and performance of wood and

wood products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376.0Energy and chemical production from wood. 181.3Protection, preservatives, and coatings . . 78.8Pulp and paper technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125.6General and miscellaneous wood utilization . . 42.6Adhesives and bonding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109.0Structural design and fasteners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,1Drying and moisture characteristics ... . . . . . 119,1Composite and laminated beams/lumber. . . . . . 54.8Sawmill design and process technology . . . . . . 22.7Wood anatomy and fiber quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.7Sawing and machining . . . . . . . . . . 3.2Whole-tree chipping and chip processing . . . . 14.8Species utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.0

Total ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,623.0Percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0

Other Federal Non-Federal

$ 103.7 $1,505.1165,5 1,076.8

80,7257,4

94.568.047,238.852.046.9

5.923.4

016.761.218.6

610.4458.4523.5394.8399.2338,1335,9292,0233,6164.0158.5163.0106,138,4

Total Percent

$1,886.91,318.5

1,067.1897.1696.8588.4489.0485.9466.0458,0294,3210.1199.2182.9182.179.0

19.913,9

11,29.47,36.25.25.14.94.83.12.22.11,91.90.9

$1,080.411.4

$6,797.871.6

$9,492.3100.0

100,0

cent of the total. Major emphasis was placedon R&D related to composite structural panels(19.9 percent), economic analysis and woodproducts data (13.9 percent), and propertiesand performance of wood and wood products(11.2 percent).

Within the federally funded portion of theacademic research budget, 17 percent of thefunds originate from McIntyre-Stennis Act pro-grams (76 Stat. 806), which are administeredby the USDA’s Cooperative State ResearchService. The Forest Service, NSF, DOE, andother agencies provided 11 percent of the totalacademic budget devoted to wood science andutilization research in 1981. The remaining 72percent came from State and industry sources.

While the proportions of R&D funds contrib-uted by industry and the States are not iden-tified by USDA in its Cooperative Research In-formation System (CRIS) (table 10), a recentsurvey of forest-products research in the Southsuggests that industry contributed approx-imately 15 percent of the academic researchfunds in that region, with the States account-

SOURCE Cooperative Research Information System (CRIS), U S Department of Agriculture

ing for 47 percent of the funds expended,22 Theremaining 38 percent was funded by variousFederal agencies. The Southern colleges anduniversities included in the survey receivedhalf (48.8 percent) of the total wood science andutilization R&D funds provided to all U.S. aca-demic institutions in 1981. To the extent thatthe South reflects the national situation, theStates appear to be the major funding sourcefor wood-utilization R&D at colleges and uni-versities.

Industrial R&D

Because of the proprietary nature of muchof the forest products industry’s R&D and thereluctance of the private sector to disclose R&Dbudgets, a detailed assessment of industrialR&D is not possible, although the informationavailable suggests that major emphasis withinthe industry is aimed at process improvementrather than basic research.

ZZK. Thompson, status of Forest products Research at publicInstitutions in the South (Mississippi State, Miss.; MississippiForest Products Laboratory, 1982), p. 12.

Ch. 1 —Introduction ● 29

In terms of both dollars and scientist man-years allocated, the forest products industry isthe largest supporter of wood science and uti-lization R&D in the United States. NSF esti-mates that in 1979 the industry spent a totalof $148 million on lumber, wood products, andfurniture R&D, and $454 million on paper andallied products R&D, Of the funds expendedby the pulp and paper industry, 4 percent werefor basic research, 25 percent for applied re-search, and 71 percent for product and proc-ess development. According to NSF, the solid-wood-products manufacturers spent 68 percentof their R&D budgets on development, 28 per-cent on applied research, and 4 percent onbasic research. ’s

A recent McGraw-Hill survey estimated thepulp and paper industry’s 1980 R&D expendi-tures at $508 million and its 1981 expendituresat $584 million,24 An estimated 40 percent ofthe R&D funds were spent for improving exist-ing products, 27 percent for developing newproducts, and 31 percent for developing newmanufacturing processes, Industry analysts ex-pect greater emphasis on new processes in thefuture and a slight increase in emphasis on newproducts by the pulp and paper industrythrough 1985,

While actual-dollar R&D expenditures by theforest products industry increased at a signif-icant rate between 1969 and 1979 (fig. 6), fund-ing remained nearly level, measured in con-stant dollars. Between 1977 and 1981, R&Dexpenditures by the pulp and paper industry(fig. 6) increased approximately 10 percent an-nually in actual dollars, compared with anaverage annual increase of 15 percent in all in-dustries. 25

Z~I n~ust r} Stllr] ie$ Groul), Science Resources Studies Hi.gh -iight.s: Reaj Growth in Industrial R&D Performance Continuesin 1979 (Washington, D. C.: National Science Foundation, 1981),NSF 81-313, p. 2,

Zq~C[)nomiCs D~partm~nt, ,?Yth Annual McGra w’-Hill .!urtreJrof flusine.s.s Plans for Research and Development Expenditures(New York: hlc~raw-}lil] Publications Co., 1982], p. 8.

25” A Research Spending Surge Defies Recession, ” BusinessI%reek, July 5, 1982, p. 68.

Historical Research and DevelopmentExpenditures

160150 “

R&D expenditures by the140 “ lumber and furniture industry130 — /

(1972)

40 “302010 I I I I I I I 1 I I

SOURCE Economics Department, 27fh ,4rmua/ McGrawWI// Survey of Bus/nessHans for Rese@rch and Development Expenditures (New York McGrawHIII Publlcatlon Co , 1982)

The manner in which the forest products in-dustry reports R&D activities may mask thenature of industrial R&D programs, For exam-ple, many of the large pulp and paper pro-ducers and integrated forest products firmshave extensive forest management researchprograms in addition to wood-utilization R&D.NSF, the Federal Trade Commission, and theSecurities and Exchange Commission reportaggregate R&D funding and do not report theproportion of corporate funds devoted to for-est management versus that spent on wood-utilization R&D. For this reason, the R&D fund-ing statistics quoted in this report include for-est management research; therefore, the actualamount spent on wood utilization R&D prob-ably is less than reported.

Other industrial sectors also perform R&Dthat is used by the forest products industry;likewise, some forest products industry R&Daffects other industries. The major R&D effortrelated to wood utilization is funded directlyby the forest products industry. A relativelysmall proportion of the total wood-utilizationR&D effort appears to come from machinerysuppliers, coating (paints) and resin manufac-turers (chemicals), and users of wood products.It appears that most R&D performed by lumberfirms is specifically used by the lumber indus-


try, while less than 50 percent of the R&D per-formed by pulp and paper firms is used primar-ily by the industry itself.26

Compared to other manufacturing industries,the pulp and paper sector is well below themean in its funding of R&D as a percentage ofsales and capital expenditures. In 1981, R&Dexpenditures by the pulp and paper industrywere less than 1 percent of its sales—signif-icantly less than the 2.5-percent average for allmanufacturing industries. 27 Electrical commu-nications, aerospace, and the scientific instru-ment industries led all other manufacturing in-dustries in 1981, Aerospace led all othermanufacturing industries, devoting over 16.2percent of its capital expenditures to R&D,

which was 24 times more than that devoted bythe pulp and paper industry. 28

The relatively low premium put on R&D bythe forest products industry may be due to acombination of factors: 1) the industry ismature in the sense that wood products arewell developed and have been used in essen-tially the same form for a long time; 2) woodproducts are not high technology and, there-fore, are not likely to be subject to revolutionarytechnological breakthroughs in their manu-facture and use; 3) the industry is resource-oriented in that it focuses on the conversionof timber to useful products, rather than on themanufacture of a specific commodity thatcould be made from a range of materials; and4) forest industry management generally is pro-moted from within; thus, the industry’s R&Ddirection generally is less exploratory and isfocused on product improvement or processefficiency rather than on new products.

.28 E(:onomics Department, Op. Cit., pp. 11-12.

wood use: u.s. competitiveness and technologyÑvol. ii

Documents