Next Article in Journal
Comparative Study of SFPE and Steering Modes in Pathfinder to Optimise Evacuation Routes
Previous Article in Journal
A Three-Step Computer Vision-Based Framework for Concrete Crack Detection and Dimensions Identification
Previous Article in Special Issue
High-Rise Timber Offices: Main Architectural and Structural Design Parameters
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Advancements and Applications of Wood-Based Sandwich Panels in Modern Construction

Wood Science and Technology Centre, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB E3C 2G6, Canada
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2024, 14(8), 2359; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082359
Submission received: 16 May 2024 / Revised: 23 July 2024 / Accepted: 25 July 2024 / Published: 31 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Contemporary Applications of Wood in Architecture and Construction)

Abstract

:
Wood sandwich panels are widely utilized in residential, commercial, and industrial settings due to their excellent thermal insulation characteristics, ease of installation, and high strength-to-weight ratio. This review provides an overview on experimental outcomes demonstrating the structural integrity and versatility of wood sandwich panels. It highlights recent advancements in meeting payload requirements and their effectiveness in reducing costs and weights for prefabricated houses. The review focuses on structural applications and material efficiency, showcasing their roles in lightweight, durable constructions for retrofitting and new projects. The potential of novel, sustainable materials in construction is explored, addressing current challenges and emphasizing the diverse applications and environmental benefits of wood-based sandwich panels, underscoring their importance in advancing energy-efficient and sustainable construction.

1. Introduction

The global construction industry is currently facing two issues: first, meeting the growing requirements for residential buildings in the world, and second, minimizing its negative environmental impact. This situation emphasizes the importance of researching and implementing environmentally friendly building materials to help reduce carbon emissions, energy consumption, and construction waste. Wood-based sandwich panels are becoming increasingly popular as a building material due to their eco-friendliness and efficiency in the construction industry and other sectors.
Wood-based sandwich panels have improved significantly during the last few years. These panels were developed in the mid-20th century with the aim of providing lightweight, insulating alternatives for construction applications. Their capabilities have grown as material sciences and manufacturing technologies have advanced. Fundamental research in the late 20th century [1,2,3] helped explain the structural behaviours of sandwich panels under varied stresses. At the beginning of the 21st century, research increasingly focused on using more sustainable adhesives and core materials from recycled or renewable sources.
Wood-based sandwich panels are unique for their layered structure; thus, they have improved mechanical strength, good thermal insulation, and weight reduction [4]. It helps reduce transportation and construction costs. Also, using such renewable resources as wood corresponds with sustainable development goals, whose purpose is to prioritize and promote resource efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions [5,6,7,8].
Recent studies have highlighted the importance of materials used for the faces and cores of the sandwich panels and their geometric configurations in the determination of the thermal and mechanical behaviours of such panels. For instance, wood-based faces combined with various core materials like balsa (Ochroma pyramidale) wood and polyurethane (PUR) foam significantly influenced the panels’ performance [9,10,11]. The thermal performance of sandwich panels, governed mainly by the core materials, is crucial for effective insulation. Studies have reported the thermal conductivity (λ) values of foam cores as low as 0.070 W/mK, making them highly efficient for insulation [12,13]. Incorporating glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) in the faces of sandwich panels enhanced their resistance to bending and compression stresses, significantly improving the structural performance and longevity of the panels [10,14]. The mechanical properties of the panels could be further enhanced by optimizing geometric configurations, such as incorporating rib-stiffened cores, which increased load-bearing capacity and reduced the risk of buckling under stress [15,16].
Another critical aspect regarding the structural performance of sandwich panels goes to the connections between separate panels, between panels and structure, and between the panels’ layers. Effective connections are essential for ensuring the structural integrity and load transfer between panels in a building. Different types of connections, such as mechanical fasteners, adhesives, and hybrid systems, have been studied to optimize the performance and ease of assembly of sandwich panels [17,18,19]. For instance, it was demonstrated that the grooved bonding technique could enhance core–face adhesion in sandwich panels [20]. One study investigated the shear performance of a novel non-metallic cross-laminated timber (CLT) wall-to-wall connection using a double-dovetail mortise-tenon joint, demonstrating its effectiveness in enhancing structural integrity and load transfer, with the joint increasing the maximum load up to 47.27 kN and the maximum stiffness to 4.73 kN/mm [21]. Meanwhile, the ductility ratio, calculated as the displacement at the ultimate load divided by the displacement at the yield load, increased to 4.58 from 1.94 under cyclic loading, indicating its robust performance in seismic conditions. Another study introduced a novel hybrid joining insert for sandwich panels with pyramidal lattice truss cores, demonstrating improved shear performance and pull-out strength; specifically, the hybrid insert achieved pull-out loads from 2.10 kN up to 6.90 kN and a shear stiffness significantly higher than traditional inserts [22]. Integrating efficient connection systems between wood-based composite sandwich panels and load-bearing walls is essential for ensuring structural stability. Steel angles with adhesively bonded, bolted, or mixed connections significantly enhance the structural performances of panels with GFRP faces and either PUR foam or balsa wood cores, reducing mid-span deflections by up to 65%, highlighting their importance in building rehabilitation applications [23]. A deep understanding of the behaviours of these connections under different loading conditions is crucial for the safe and efficient use of sandwich panels in construction.
Sandwich panels are innovative products that have a significant impact on modern construction. Their applications include many construction projects, including residential and commercial buildings. They offer flexible options that meet the high standards of modern building design [4]. Furthermore, wood-based sandwich panels have natural aesthetic appeal and ecologically friendly characteristics. They help create environments that improve the well-being of residents and also make a connection with the natural environment [24]. It is a fact that studies have, during recent years and after the COVID-19 pandemic, found a positive correlation between the presence of wood in the built environment and its benefits for mental health [25,26,27,28].
Even though wood-based sandwich panels are becoming increasingly popular and offer numerous advantages, their implementation in the construction industry involves some challenges. It is necessary to conduct in-depth life cycle assessment (LCA) analyses to better understand their impact on the environment. Customer perception and cost competitiveness must also be studied [29,30]. In addition, ongoing research and innovation are necessary to address technological issues such as durability and fire resistance [31,32].
This review aims to achieve two primary goals. The first is to provide an overview of the current research on wood-based sandwich panels for construction, focusing on their development, properties, manufacturing techniques, and applications. The second is to identify current challenges and limitations preventing the uses of wood-based sandwich panels. This study also aims to collect information from the field and provide insights and recommendations for future research on wood-based sandwich panels in sustainable construction practices. This review is of interest to scientists, architects, engineers, policymakers, and consumers in both the wood and construction industries.

2. Definition, Composition, and Structure

A typical sandwich panel consists of two faces, two layers of adhesive, and a lightweight core of a unique structure (Figure 1).
Usually, the core of a wood-based sandwich panel comprises lightweight materials like foam, balsa wood, or other fibrous materials arranged in the structure of a given type [33,34,35,36]. The core sets the thickness of the panel; it may have lower stiffness and strength [3]. It is responsible for controlling the panel’s weight and limiting the relative movement of faces [36,37]. The face materials are usually made from engineered wood products like plywood, oriented strand board (OSB), or laminated veneer lumber (LVL), providing the structural strength and rigidity required for construction applications; see Figure 2 [8,11,38].
To further enhance the mechanical properties of wood-based sandwich panels, ribs can be incorporated into the core structure. Ribs, often made from materials like GFRP or other high-strength composites, significantly improve the stiffness and load-bearing capacity of the panels; see Figure 3. They also help distribute stresses evenly across the panel, reducing the likelihood of localized failures and increasing overall durability. Incorporating ribs can increase the flexural performance of panels. In non-wooden panels comprising a PUR core and GFRP skins, shear deformation of the core contributed to over 50% of mid-span deflection in the panel without ribs. By adding ribs, flexure became more dominant, and shear deformations of the ribs contributed to only 15–20% of the total deflection [15,16]. Another study on non-wood-based sandwich panels, composed of low-density PUR foam core sandwiched between two GFRP skins, has shown that incorporating ribs can lead to an increase in strength and stiffness by 140%, compared to non-stiffened panels [15].
Moreover, ribs and other reinforcements in wood-based sandwich panels could markedly enhance their flexural behaviour [12,15,16]. These reinforcements contributed to increased load distribution and resistance to local buckling. The introduction of ribs or webs could allow the use of lower-strength core materials while maintaining higher structural performance, making the panels both cost-effective and efficient for large-scale applications in construction [38,44].

3. Manufacturing Technologies

3.1. Fabrication

Wood-based sandwich panels are made through several steps, with the aim of making a final product with improved properties. Depending on the end-use application, it would be stable, lightweight, soundproof, fire resistant, and effectively insulating. Over the years, these manufacturing technologies have advanced significantly. Newer improvements have been focused on making the panels more efficient and environmentally friendly.
Traditional manufacturing processes involve the adhesive bonding of the core to wood-based facings. Hand lay-up is the fundamental stage where components are arranged by hand and prepared for pressing [45]. The final qualities of wood-based sandwich panels depend on the production method to some degree. The adhesive and pressing process affect the core–face bond strength, which impacts the mechanical strength and service longevity of panels [46]. Cold pressing is popular for its energy conservation; using room-temperature pressing with low-temperature curing adhesives increases manufacturing timelines by requiring extended curing periods [47,48,49]. In contrast, hot pressing uses heat to speed up adhesive drying, reducing production time. This heat increases the bond between the core and face materials but causes some energy consumption [45,50,51,52]. Vacuum pressing is a complex procedure that surrounds the panel assembly within a vacuum bag. It removes air before applying pressure, provides consistent pressure distribution, limits void formation, and increases the panel’s quality [53,54,55].
Recent advancements have been appearing following these traditional methods. They focus on improving the sustainability and efficiency of the manufacturing processes. For example, developing and applying eco-friendly adhesives focuses on bio-based compounds or the ones with reduced formaldehyde emissions. These measures have significantly decreased the panels’ environmental impact and improved indoor air quality in structures [56,57,58]. The development of automated assembly lines has resulted in a revolution in production efficiency. That can ensure stable panel quality, reduce material waste, and decrease manufacturing costs by optimizing the use of both materials and energy [59]. Furthermore, the precision provided by the 3D printing technology allows a core to be manufactured with complicated geometries, which provides specific advantages in thermal insulation or mechanical properties, thereby widening the potential for construction applications [60,61,62].
The comparative costs and economic analyses of different manufacturing technologies for wood-based sandwich panels reveal huge variations depending on the materials and processes used. Traditional manufacturing methods, such as manual lay-up and vacuum bagging, tend to have lower initial capital investment but higher labour costs [45,55]. In contrast, automated processes like resin transfer moulding and pultrusion, while requiring significant upfront investment in machinery and tooling, offer reduced labour costs and improved production efficiency in the long run [63,64]. Recent innovations in additive manufacturing and robotic assembly enhance cost-effectiveness by minimizing material waste and optimizing production times. An economic analysis indicates that automated and advanced manufacturing techniques, despite their higher initial setting costs, provide greater long-term savings and scalability, making them more suitable for large-scale production and industrial applications [65,66,67]. Decision-makers in the construction sector can leverage these insights to make informed choices about manufacturing technologies that balance cost, efficiency, and scalability. Furthermore, the life cycle cost (LCC) assessment can assist in understanding the costs of using wood-based sandwich panels in construction from cradle to grave.
There are several challenges in the production of wood-based lightweight panels, such as trade-offs between cost, labour intensity, limitations in finishing and post-forming, and performance degradation [68]. While such panels offer benefits, such as reduced material costs and improved flexibility, manufacturing difficulties and costs can be decreased. For example, the sandwich panels of a foam core could provide core homogeneity and thermal insulation properties. That makes them an attractive alternative to the typical panel with relatively high thicknesses. Notably, honeycomb panels have become more cost-effective and demonstrate improved structural integrity, stiffness, and load-bearing capacity for thicknesses greater than 24 mm due to the increased empty spaces within the core that reduce relative material costs [8].
Wood-based sandwich panels are material-efficient and sustainable thanks to advancements in manufacturing. Such techniques as eco-friendly adhesives, automated lines, and 3D printing improve production and expand their uses in construction despite slightly high costs and complexity challenges.

3.2. Innovations in Material Technology

In addition to fire resistance and improved acoustic properties, notable innovations in sandwich panels affecting the construction industry include the application of GFRP in the manufacturing of the sandwich panels, enhancing their resistance to bending and compression stresses, and elevating their structural integrity and long-term uses [10,69]. For example, GFRP-faced and wood-based core honeycomb sandwich panels, utilized in sustainable prefab building construction, showed variable flexural strengths depending on the core composition: MDF honeycomb panels achieved a maximum bending stress of 13.30 MPa, those filled with wheat straw reached 41.95 MPa, and panels with a plywood core exhibited up to 107.14 MPa [70]. In another study, the GFRP sandwich panels, with homogeneous-core configurations composed of high- and low-density balsa layers separated by a circular adhesive interface or GFRP arch, demonstrated flexural strengths of approximately 29.90 MPa to 34.14 MPa [71]. Another study found that locally stiffening GFRP composite sandwich panels with balsa wood cores significantly increased their punching resistance. This enhancement enabled the panels to support a concentrated load capacity that is three times greater than that of the non-stiffened panels [72]. A useful approach was found in a study of non-wood-based GFRP composite sandwich panels with different core materials (PUR vs. polyethylene terephthalate (PET) foams), which showed that the inclusion of longitudinal GFRP web reinforcement enhanced the load-bearing capacity of the web–core sandwich panels significantly, achieving an increase of 4.3 to 9.3 times compared to the homogeneous-core specimens. This improvement is attributed to the GFRP webs’ ability to substantially boost the shear strength of the panels, thereby making a significant contribution to their overall load-bearing capacity [10]. This strategy could be incorporated into wood-based sandwich panels. This type of reinforcement is particularly valuable in environments requiring strong, durable materials to withstand extreme conditions. Further advancements have been made with panels featuring surfaces of plywood combined with thermoplastic glass fibre/polypropylene (PPE) composites, which have shown improved environmental resistance and fire safety [10]. Additionally, the tensile strength of GFRP sandwich panels was increased significantly to about 512.50 MPa and exhibited brittle behaviour [10].
Innovations in core materials have also played a key role in improving the functional properties of sandwich panels. New introductions include low-density fiberboard cores and cores made from natural fibres like coconut fibres and cork agglomerates. These materials provide superior thermal insulation and contribute to sound absorption, making them ideal for residential and educational environments where noise reduction is a priority [73]. Structural innovations such as rib-stiffened cores, as mentioned above, and honeycomb configurations have also been developed to reduce weight without compromising stiffness or load capacity. These designs are particularly suited for prefabricated housing, where speed and efficiency of construction are required [74].
The integration of sustainable materials is at the forefront of recent innovations. Panels constructed from renewable resources like jute, burlap, and aerated concrete cores highlight the industry’s shift towards more sustainable building practices. These materials reduce the ecological footprint of construction projects and enhance the panels’ structural and thermal properties [75].

4. Properties of Wood-Based Sandwich Panels for Buildings

4.1. Mechanical Properties and Their Applications in Construction

Wood-based sandwich panels have high strength-to-weight ratios that exceed those of common construction materials such as solid wood, concrete, and steel [4,76,77]. This makes these panels perfect for situations that require lightweight and strong materials. For example, their use in prefabricated construction demonstrates their ability to reduce overall wood consumption and construction weight while maintaining structural integrity [70]. It is essential to consider the ratio of strength to density when evaluating wood-based and other sandwich panels. This ratio reflects the panel’s structural efficiency, combining its mechanical strength and weight. For instance, in the case of sandwich-structured composite plywood panels, the variations in the veneer thickness ratio in plywood significantly change the stress distribution in each layer of the sandwich panel. Also, it influences the stiffness of a sandwich panel. Stiffness can be increased by increasing the thickness ratio of the parallel-oriented veneer sheets [78]. Moreover, the low density suggests a hollow structure, which contributes to the reduced weight and provides excellent thermal and sound insulation properties. This property is important in various applications, especially in the construction and aerospace industries, where lightweight yet strong materials are highly desirable. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding and optimization of this strength-to-density ratio is critical for maximizing the structural performance of sandwich panels and ensuring their cost-effectiveness across various applications. Further research into core designs has shown that innovative approaches can significantly enhance the mechanical performance of wood-based sandwich panels. For example, the research of the wooden sandwich panels with an auxetic core and oval cells discovered a modulus of elasticity (MOE) of 3.30 GPa and a bending strength of 26.60 MPa while maintaining a density below 400 kg/m³ and a thickness of 20 mm, making them effective substitutes for traditional wood-based panels due to their advantageous strength-to-weight ratio [79]. In a different study, novel wood-based sandwich composite panels, featuring an interlocking plywood kagome lattice core and grooved particleboard facings, demonstrated a flatwise compressive strength of 2.64 MPa and an edgewise compressive strength of 6.40 MPa, while maintaining a relatively low density of 392 kg/m³ and a total panel thickness of 38 mm, offering competitive strength properties suitable for versatile structural applications [20]. Similarly, bamboo–wood corrugated sandwich panels demonstrated that panels with a thickness of 18 mm exhibited a modulus of rupture (MOR) of 38.53 MPa, an MOE of 5.21 GPa, and a compressive strength (CS) of 3.60 MPa, providing an option for non-structural applications [80]. Additionally, research on wood-based sandwich panels with corrugated cores demonstrated that these panels, manufactured with a panel thickness of 47.80 mm, exhibited an MOE of 1.45 GPa and an MOR of 4.64 MPa, showing excellent construction properties while maintaining a low density of 228 kg/m³ [81]. As mentioned above, innovative materials, such as GFRP, can strengthen wood-based sandwich panels and improve their mechanical performance under bending and compression stresses [69,70,76]. While traditional technologies were focused on bonding between the core and faces of the panels, some studies showed that panels with incompletely glued surfaces had discovered that even with partial bonding, the mechanical properties could be better than expected, as non-glued areas of the core contribute to the overall strength [82].
To illustrate the practical applications of these advancements, wood-based sandwich panels with plywood face layers were designed for lightweight, fast-transformable housing applications. Panels with a stiffener/foam core, specifically thermoplastic glass fibre (TPGF)/PP, and bonded to plywood achieve an average MOE of 6.20 GPa and a flexural strength of 26.10 MPa with a density of 325 kg/m³ and a thickness of 64 mm. Alternatively, panels featuring a thermoplastic composite core attained an MOE of 4.18 GPa and a flexural strength of 22.60 MPa, with a reduced density of 235 kg/m³ and a thickness of 59 mm. Compared to conventional 50 mm thick plywood, which has an MOE of 9.20 GPa and a flexural strength of 36.60 MPa at a density of 680 kg/m³, these sandwich panels could offer a significant reduction in weight comparing the MOE and density [42]. Another study on wood-based sandwich panels examined panels made from particleboard, MDF, OSB, and plywood, which demonstrated, when used as internal layers and glued with PUR adhesive, significantly increased mechanical properties: an MOE of 8.88 GPa and an MOR of 92.90 MPa, while maintaining a thickness of 12.3 mm for MDF and 3.64 mm for plywood [83].
The flexural properties and densities of various sandwich panels are presented in Table 1.
Exploring the mechanical properties of wood-based sandwich panels reveals their potential in modern construction methodologies. It highlights their superior strength-to-weight ratios and adaptability in various applications, from residential to aerospace industries. By optimizing the interplay between the core material and faces, these panels can offer enhanced performance under mechanical stresses while contributing to sustainability in the construction sector.

4.2. Thermal Insulation Capabilities Linked to Sustainable Construction

Effective thermal insulation is a unique feature of wood-based sandwich panels, making them suitable for sustainable construction projects. The core materials in wood-based sandwich panels, such as foam or balsa, are chosen for such properties as low λ, which can notably improve the building’s thermal insulation. Because of this quality, less energy is used for heating and cooling, which lowers operational costs and carbon emissions. Such panels are ideal for energy-efficient structures; for example, the λ of thick plywood-faced sandwich panels with a fiberboard core of a density of 340 kg/m3 or 410 kg/m3 was 0.070 or 0.077 W/mK [13], causing a 10% difference. Another study showed that eco-sustainable wood waste panels made from pine, oak, and mahogany provided λ values ranging from 0.071 to 0.084 W/mK [45]. The λ values of insulated sandwich panels from natural rubber and rubber wood were 0.070–0.080 W/mK [52].
Comparatively, foam-filled sandwich panels, often utilizing materials like PUR and EPS (expanded polystyrene), generally produced λ values ranging from 0.022 to 0.040 W/mK, which were lower than those of solid wood, which varied from 0.100 to 0.210 W/mK [13,84]. For instance, PUR foam-filled panels typically had a λ value of around 0.022 W/mK, providing excellent insulation properties [85]. This makes foam-filled panels highly efficient in minimizing heat transfer, thus further reducing energy consumption in buildings.
Additionally, the λ values of the sandwich panels, which are manufactured with different types of faces, such as alder (Alnus), birch (Betula) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) veneer, and aluminium and polypropylene as core materials in sandwich panels, were investigated. The highest values were obtained from alder for the aluminium core panels at 0.108–0.262 W/mK and Scots pine at 0.111–0.259 W/mK for the polypropylene core panels as wood species [86]. Moreover, ferrocement sandwich panels filled with coconut fibres have a λ value as low as 0.221 W/mK [87]. That was comparable to the λ values of coconut wood CLT, which ranged from 0.153 to 0.264 W/mK [88]. The λ value of CLT panels measured was 0.12 W/mK [89]. In addition, the properties of sandwich panels made of cork agglomerate and wood veneer were investigated to highlight the possibility of utilizing renewable resources to improve thermal performance in building designs [73]. Further research analyzed sandwich panels made of cross-insulated timber (CIT). CIT was combined with a rigid PUR foam core. A comprehensive life cycle analysis (LCA) evaluated the environmental impacts of CIT sandwich panels and highlighted their excellent thermal insulation capabilities with minimal material consumption [30]. Additional research has demonstrated that these panels might effectively replace the traditional insulators in building envelopes. That could aid in creating more ecologically and energy-efficient building solutions [31]. It is evident that a variety of sandwich panels, with thermal conductivities ranging from as low as 0.070 W/mK to as high as 0.262 W/mK, are suitable for energy-efficient building applications due to their effective insulation properties. These panels include plywood, wood waste, natural rubber wood, wood veneers with metal cores, and novel materials like cork agglomerate; compared to traditional materials, like steel and concrete, steel structures have a λ value of approximately 50 W/mK and concrete around 1.60 W/mK, whereas wood-based sandwich panels can achieve much lower values, reducing energy consumption in buildings; see Table 2. The above findings underscore the superior thermal insulation properties of wood-based sandwich panels, making them a good choice for sustainable and energy-efficient construction.

4.3. Sound Insulation and Absorption in Building Design

In addition to their thermal properties, wood-based sandwich panels are highly valued for their sound insulation and absorption capabilities, making them an excellent choice for noise reduction in various building environments. These panels are especially valued for reducing noise in schools and residential buildings. Studies demonstrated that the use of wood veneer panels with cork cores could reduce noise transmission [73,99] since cork agglomerates naturally absorb sound. Having two distinct functions highlights the adaptability and significance of the panels in modern architectural design when soundproofing is becoming an increasingly important factor. In addition, an extensive study of prefabricated façade panels, including massive, sandwich, and frame designs, indicated that wooden sandwich panels had an average sound transmission class (STC) value of 22 dB and provided sound insulation of 37–47 dB [31]. The results from this study revealed that these panels could minimize noise in construction applications. It makes them an excellent option for offices and libraries needing quiet areas. Another study examined insulated sandwich panels from natural rubber and rubber wood that exhibited a sound transmission loss of 35–80 dB, approximately twice better than current wall materials [52]. Further research on the structural insulated panels (SIPs) consisting of OSB faces and expanded EPS core displayed that the airborne sound reduction index (Rw) value of these panels could be reduced to 39 dB [100]. Compared to these data, in terms of STC, a three-layer bare CLT wall (95 mm to 115 mm) typically had a sound insulation level of 32–34 dB [101]. Table 3 lists the STC rating values.
Table 4 presents an examination of the physical and mechanical properties of various wood-based sandwich panels [103]. The analysis indicates that panels of high-density fiberboard HDF composites, like HDF with rattan and bamboo mats, have a high density (753–848 kg/m³), sound absorption coefficient from 0.01 to 04, and strong mechanical properties, with an MOR up to 37 MPa and an MOE up to 5.22 GPa, making them ideal for robust structural applications. Honeycomb composites, featuring a paper core, have moderate densities (382–517 kg/m³), sound absorption coefficient from 0.01 to 0.27, and MOR values up to 19.7 MPa and MOE values up to 2.99 GPa, balancing strength and weight. DendroLight sandwich panels, with a pine and birch wood core, are moderate-density (459–493 kg/m³), offering sound absorption from 0.01 to 0.13 and high mechanical strength, with an MOR up to 55.5 MPa and an MOE up to 9.17 GPa for birch plywood facings. These materials are ideal for applications requiring high mechanical strength, light weight, and sound insulation [103].
The wide range of applications for sandwich panels highlights their adaptability and significance in contemporary architectural design, where efficient soundproofing is becoming a more critical consideration.

4.4. Fire Resistance in Wood-Based Sandwich Panels

Fire resistance is an important feature of construction materials or products, such as wood-based sandwich panels. They are characterized by fire resistance, which can be upgraded with fire retardants or by using non-flammable core materials such as gypsum wall boards, allowing them to meet or go above the high fire resistance criteria imposed for construction materials [31]. Wood has some fire resistance due to its charring capabilities, but these panels can be improved to meet or exceed these requirements.
Sandwich panels, when paired with non-combustible boards of the A1 or A2 class [104], have been shown to ensure the safety of residential structures effectively, as shown in Table 5 [105,106]. As a result of this structure, their suitability for safety-critical applications was improved, showing the potential of these panels to increase protection against fire. Under Czech law, wood-based sandwich structures with flammable structural elements are restricted to a maximum fire height of 9 m. However, they can still meet the 90-min fire resistance requirement for structural element [105].
Specific test procedures are employed to accurately evaluate the fire resistance of wood-based sandwich panels. One commonly used method is the ISO 834 Standard “Fire-resistance tests—Elements of building construction—Part 1: General requirements” [107], which exposes panels to a standardized temperature curve in a controlled furnace environment. The temperature within the furnace is increased according to the ISO 834 time–temperature curve, and the panels are monitored for temperature rise on the unexposed surface and structural integrity [107]. Another standard method is ASTM E119, “Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials”, which determines the fire resistance of building materials and structural elements [108]. This involves subjecting a sandwich panel to fire exposure in a furnace, measuring the time it takes for the panel to reach certain temperature thresholds on the unexposed surface, and evaluating its ability to maintain structural stability during and after fire exposure.
For instance, a study measuring the fire resistance of a 2.59 m × 2.59 m (8.5 ft × 8.5 ft) sandwich panel composed of 0.64 cm (0.25 in) thick E-glass/Derakane 510A faces, a 7.62 cm (3 in) thick balsa wood core, and a 3.18 cm (1.25 in) protective layer of Structo-Guard was conducted; it was found that the panel had a mid-span deflection significantly below the 60.96 cm (2 ft) limit after one hour of exposure to a maximum flame temperature of 2000 °F (1093.3 °C) [109]. Prefabricated wood-based sandwich panels from another research work with a thickness of 76 mm (3 in), using thermal insulation materials such as PUR, EPS, XPS (extruded polystyrene), GPS (graphite polystyrene), honeycomb, rock wool, or glass wool in the middle layer, were found to have an average fire resistance of 30 to 90 min [31]. Also, wood-based sandwich panels with a thickness of 59 mm, composed of plywood faces and a corrugated thermoplastic composite core (glass fibre/polypropylene), demonstrated fire resistance of 30 to 90 min, with specific flexural stiffness being 60% higher than that of a conventional plywood panel [11]. Different studies examined the fire resistance of wood-based sandwich panels with OSB faces and insulation cores of either mineral wool or EPS. It was found that mineral wool core panels exhibited superior fire resistance, maintaining structural integrity and lower surface temperatures during fire exposure, compared to EPS core panels, with mineral wool panels achieving a surface temperature of 37 °C after 120 min, significantly better than the surface temperature of 220 °C observed for EPS core panels [105].
Compared to this, another research work examined the fire resistance of large CLT panels. The structure remained intact during the whole 60 min test [78]. Further investigations have explored panels’ structural performance and fire resistance with various face materials and cores. For instance, some studies focused on panels with plywood faces and thermoplastic glass fibre/polypropylene composites [42]. These results highlighted the need for continued innovation to fully explore the potential of these materials in fire-prone areas. The studies emphasized the importance of material composition in enhancing fire safety, particularly noting that the chemical composition of the polyols used in the foam core significantly improved fire resistance.
In addition to these material innovations, fire protection systems play a crucial role in enhancing the fire resistance of wood-based sandwich panels. Research showed that wood-based sandwich panels protected with calcium silicate boards exhibited significantly lower temperature evolution within the panel, reducing the influence of the core material. For example, studies have reported that composite sandwich panels with 25 mm thick calcium silicate boards adhered to the bottom face could maintain temperatures at the top face well below critical levels, with the temperature at the top face remaining at 52 °C and 39 °C even after 80 min of fire exposure, effectively delaying heat transfer to the core and enhancing fire resistance [110]. This protection is critical to ensure that the core material does not significantly contribute to spreading fire. In contrast, wood-based sandwich panels without protective layers are heavily relied on the fire resistance of the type of core materials. Materials such as mineral wool and phenolic foam cores have been studied for their fire-resistant properties. Mineral wool cores provide high fire resistance, class up to EL120, and continue to perform their function in the event of a fire for up to 120 min (2 h) due to their non-combustible nature and ability to withstand high temperatures [111,112]. Phenolic foam cores, while combustible, form a char layer when exposed to fire, which acts as a barrier to slow down heat penetration [113]. The EL classification system indicates the duration (in minutes) over which a material can withstand fire exposure while maintaining its structural integrity and limiting temperature rise.
Another approach involves applying intumescent coatings to the surface of a wood-based sandwich panel. These coatings expand when exposed to high temperatures, forming an insulating char layer that protects the underlying materials. Studies have shown that intumescent coatings can significantly enhance the fire resistance of wood-based sandwich panels, providing additional time for evacuation and fire control measures [114]. Thus, lightweight, fire-resistant wood-based sandwich panels were developed using a vermiculite core and plywood faces. They achieved a maximum temperature of only 83.2 °C during a 120 min Bunsen burner test, indicating superior fire resistivity and thermal insulation performance [115].
These studies demonstrate how fire safety technology has advanced in the building sector. They show how, with the proper planning and preparation, wood-based sandwich panels may provide several benefits over more conventional building materials. Because of their lightweight design, they may save costs from foundation and structure, labour, and construction time due to their reduced structural load and ease of installation. However, despite these advantages, it is crucial to recognize the initial capital investment and market acceptance challenges that currently prevent their uses in the building sector [116].

5. Applications of Wood-Based Sandwich Panels in Construction

5.1. Conventional and Modern Uses in Construction

The previous sections discussed the mechanical, thermal, and acoustic properties and fire resistance of wood-based sandwich panels with kind of brief introduction to the applications of these panels. Next, the discussion will turn to real-life applications of wood-based sandwich panels. Figure 4 summarizes the applications of wood-based sandwich panels in construction.
One of the most popular materials used in residential and light commercial construction is SIPs. They have two structural face layers and an insulating foam core placed between them. Typically, faces are made of OSB. SIPs are made under regulated conditions and may be customized to almost any building design, making for a strong, cost-effective, and energy-efficient structure. Installed SIPs save energy costs by maintaining sustainable building principles, which are roughly 50% more energy-efficient than conventional timber framing; see Figure 5 [117]. Products like Kingspan TEK Cladding Panels are SIPs that provide superior thermal performance and are used in residential and commercial buildings [118].
A case study conducted in the United States compared the use of SIPs with traditional wood framing in residential construction. The SIP home required 120 labour hours and was completed in 18 h, while the conventional wood-framed home required 140 labour hours and took 34 h to complete. SIPs saved about two-thirds of the site framing labour for walls and roofs and reduced construction cycle time by a similar magnitude. However, SIP construction could generate 12% factory waste in panel areas, compared to minimal waste observed on-site for the wood-framed home [119]. Another evaluation in the United States assessed the use of wood-based SIPs in manufactured housing, comparing it with traditional construction methods. Champion Enterprises built the first HUD-code (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development)-approved manufactured homes using SIPs. The SIP home, constructed at Champion’s Redman factory in Silverton, Oregon, demonstrated nearly 50% energy savings compared to homes built to minimum HUD standards, consuming 11,249 kWh over a seven-month period. The SIP construction used 60 panels compared to more than 1000 parts typical of traditional framing, reducing complexity and labour. The construction process showed that the SIP home could be built in 12 days, with the first half taking about 6 h longer than a typical house but the second half being completed much quicker as workers became more familiar with the process and experienced fewer interruptions [120].
Beyond SIPs, another practical application of wood-based sandwich panels is the ZIP System®. In real-life applications, ZIP System® wood-based sandwich panels are commonly applied in constructing walls and roofs for their integrated approach to sheathing and insulation. They provide a simplified installation procedure, increased energy efficiency because of the integrated insulation, and an integrated moisture barrier that enhances the building’s thermal envelope. These panels provide rapid building time frames while complying with energy codes, offering a strong foundation for residential and commercial buildings; see Figure 6 [121].
Starcell SPA offers another type of wood-based sandwich panels for construction. They show multiple characteristics, such as increased durability, a lightweight design, and various application alternatives. It is possible to use these panels in various architectural applications, such as ventilated façades, raised floors, and false ceilings, because they have been specifically designed for that purpose. They offer more environmentally friendly and sustainable alternatives to conventional materials. Also, they emphasize enhanced technical performances and environmental benefits [122].
Furthermore, a hybrid sandwich wall element created by Metsä Wood and its partners is set to modernize offsite construction. This innovative method combines concrete and Kerto® LVL (laminated veneer lumber) [123]. The load-bearing core of a hybrid sandwich wall element consisted of a Kerto LVL panel. An insulating layer and a reinforced concrete façade came next. By combining the strength of concrete with the carbon-sequestering properties of wood, their dual composition decreases emissions and reduces the need for concrete. These panels, which came from certified sustainable forests, would enhance environmental advantages by providing improved thermal insulation and enhancing building energy efficiency. Towards their life cycle end, the wood elements would be recycled or converted into bioenergy. These panels are proposed as especially well suited for uses requiring environmental sustainability and structural integrity, like energy-efficient housing developments and eco-friendly building façades.
These diverse applications highlight the versatility and advantages of wood-based sandwich panels in modern construction.

5.2. Sustainability and Environmental Impacts

Sandwich panels made of wood are an excellent example of sustainable construction technology. They combine the environmental benefits of wood with state-of-the-art engineering approaches to meet today’s sustainability and energy efficiency demands. Using wood’s natural capacity of absorbing carbon dioxide throughout the production of wood, i.e., the growth of trees, and storing carbon over the life span of the wood products, these wood-based sandwich panels can balance the carbon dioxide emissions that result from the production, transportation, and installation processes [45,57,124,125,126].
Wood is a sustainable and renewable material that can be managed responsibly and is a natural carbon sink. All these highlight its ecological value [45,57,124,127]. LCA analysis shows that wood-based sandwich panels have an exceptionally low global warming potential (GWP), with a carbon footprint as low as 3.5–5.4 kg CO2 equivalent (eq) per m2, when compared to conventional building materials like concrete and steel; see Figure 7 [45,124].
Another case study conducted in Canada in 2019 compared wood aluminium-laminated (WAL) panels with aluminium honeycomb panels (AHPs) using the LCA [129]. The study analyzed the environmental impacts of manufacturing the WAL panels with three different cores—MDF, OSB, and plywood—and compared them to AHP. The results showed that WAL panels had significantly lower environmental impacts on human health, climate change, and resource depletion. For example, the climate change impact for WAL panels ranged from 27.90 to 31.20 kg CO2 eq, compared to 41.50 kg CO2 eq for AHP. Additionally, WAL panels required 4.24 to 4.81 MJ/m2 of primary energy, whereas AHP required 6.29 MJ/m2.
Sustainability certifications, such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) [130] and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) [131], are required to ensure that the wood used in these panels comes from properly managed forests. These certificates promote biodiversity and sustainable land use and significantly improve the environmental standing of wood-based sandwich panels [57,127]. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) [132] is another program that sets standards for forest management focusing on North America. SFI certification ensures that forests are managed in a way that preserves natural habitats, protects water quality, and supports biodiversity, similar to the globally recognized PEFC. FSC is widely implemented in North America and globally.
Incorporating LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) [133] certification can also add value, as it recognizes best-in-class building strategies that meet key sustainability metrics, including energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emission reductions, and management of resources. Moreover, Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) [134] provide quantified environmental data to compare products that fulfil the same function, thus helping users make informed decisions about the materials they use and their overall environmental impact.
Wood-based sandwich panels’ recyclability and efficient end-of-life management highlight their environmental friendliness. These panels are highly recyclable, as wood components can be used in other construction projects or transformed into new wood-based products [45]. Furthermore, these panels can serve as a bioenergy source at the end of their life cycle through incineration or other thermal processes [127]. Additionally, the thermal insulation capabilities of wood-based sandwich panels result in lower energy consumption and emissions during the use phase of construction, highlighting their importance in improving energy efficiency [127,135]. This feature is especially useful in increasing the environmental benefits of structures built with these panels.
The long-term performance and durability of wood-based sandwich panels are critical factors in their adoption for widespread construction use. These panels must withstand various environmental conditions, including moisture, temperature fluctuations, and UV exposure. Studies showed that wood-based sandwich panels, when properly treated and coated, exhibited good resistance to moisture absorption, maintaining structural integrity and preventing rot and decay [136,137,138]. Direct liquid water exposure, while not intended for these panels, could potentially damage the wood-based faces if it occurs accidentally [139]. Using moisture-resistant adhesives and coatings on the core could enhance durability, and low-density wood cores could provide good thermal insulation that is stable over the long term [140]. Moreover, innovations, such as the integration of UV-resistant polymers and moisture barriers, could further enhance the panels’ durability. For instance, silicone-based and ZnO-based coatings could provide wood with durable UV protection [141,142]. However, there is a need for research to further develop even robust solutions to address potential issues such as delamination and thermal expansion, ensuring the panels’ longevity and reliability in diverse climates.
In summary, wood-based sandwich panels are recognized as a highly sustainable construction material, offering considerable environmental advantages throughout their life cycle—from raw material sourcing to end-of-life disposal or recycling. Through the integration of natural and recyclable materials, such as those highlighted in studies focusing on flax FRP faces with cardboard cores [143], lightweight wood-strand panels [144], and GFRP/wood-based honeycomb structures filled with wheat straw [70], these panels exemplify the shift towards eco-friendly building solutions. The emphasis on sustainability certifications, recyclability, and superior thermal performance further asserts the role of wood-based sandwich panels in paving the way for sustainable construction practices, aligning modern construction demands with the imperative for environmental stewardship.

5.3. Challenges and Opportunities

In addition to the applications and advantages discussed above, it is important to address the challenges and opportunities associated with wood-based sandwich panels. The benefits and uses of wood-based sandwich panels are well documented. A detailed examination found mixed agreement and disagreement in this sector. Many studies highlight the panels’ superior thermal insulation and suitable mechanical properties, but assessments of their long-term durability and environmental stress tolerance vary significantly. The inconsistency of these results calls for further investigations and testing uniformity. The literature thoroughly examines the environmental advantages of the panels, such as carbon footprint and energy efficiency. LCA analysis must consider all environmental aspects, from raw materials extraction to product utilization or recycling [145]. The investigations confirmed the panels’ environmental sustainability and guided their design and manufacture. These assessments should cover all stages, beginning with the extraction of the materials and ending with their disposal or recycling. Such a study might show ways to decrease the carbon impact of the panels further, enhancing their environmental credentials.
The mechanical properties and structural performance of wood-based sandwich panels also present both challenges and opportunities. Improving the mechanical properties, such as bending and compression strengths, is crucial for the broader adoption of these panels in various construction applications. The incorporation of materials like GFRP and the optimization of geometric configurations, such as rib-stiffened cores, have shown significant improvements in mechanical performance. However, further research is needed to develop materials and configurations that can provide consistent and enhanced performance under diverse conditions.
It is essential to increase the fire resistance of wood-based sandwich panels without adding any dangerous or ecologically damaging chemicals, including making panels that do not burn would be a significant advancement, investigating environmentally friendly production techniques where lower energy consumption and waste is necessary to improve sandwich panel sustainability [48], and developing more efficient methods for recycling or reusing industrial waste, employing sustainable energy sources in production, and improving adhesive curing processes are all possible areas of proceeding [13]. Protective layers such as reinforcing wood-based sandwich panels with gypsum boards or other fire-resistant materials can significantly improve their fire resistance [31]. Fire safety, building codes, and sustainability certifications for wood-based sandwich panels in construction should also be examined. Understanding these criteria may assist manufacturers and construction specialists in improving sandwich panels for environmentally friendly construction, which is crucial for industry acceptability.
Research is also needed to determine the long-term performance of wood-based sandwich panels under various environmental conditions, including temperature, humidity, and biological factors [138,146]. Factors like fluctuating temperatures, varying humidity levels, and prolonged exposure to UV radiation can significantly impact the performance of these panels over time. Additionally, using idealized laboratory conditions in many studies may not accurately represent real-world scenarios. Addressing this gap through field testing and long-term performance monitoring in actual environmental conditions will provide more reliable data on durability, thermal performance, mechanical integrity, and overall resilience. This approach will help ensure that the panels can withstand the diverse and unpredictable conditions they will face in real-world applications.
Furthermore, improving insulating core materials or making them lighter, more sustainable, or more effective would increase panel usefulness. The building industry is moving toward sustainability, and wood-based sandwich panels have significant potential for growth. Although these materials have been better understood and used, numerous untapped research areas still exist that could address knowledge gaps and inspire new uses. Research into smart building technology and wood-based sandwich panels is promising. It integrates advanced automation and data analytics to enhance building efficiency, user experience, and operational management [147]. Built-in sensors for structural health monitoring and adaptive insulating properties that respond to environmental changes may create smart building systems that improve energy efficiency and comfort for residents [148,149,150]. Investigating customization possibilities in designing and producing wood-based sandwich panels could introduce new opportunities for architectural uses [151]. Research panels that can be customized in shape, size, or aesthetic finish to meet unique design requirements would improve their attractiveness and adaptability in construction projects. Moreover, exploring the role of wood-based sandwich panels in modular and prefabricated construction represents another critical area for future research [31,69,74,126]. These panels’ light weight and strength may make them perfect for more efficient, waste-free construction processes. How these panels may be optimized for modular building, including transportability, assembly efficiency, and personalization could expand sustainable construction methods.
These study themes might develop wood-based sandwich panels and promote green building. Academic institutions, industrial businesses, and regulatory authorities should work together to investigate and ensure that wood-based sandwich panels continue to affect sustainable building.

6. Concluding Remarks

This review highlights the advancements and applications of wood-based sandwich panels in modern construction. These panels offer numerous benefits, including superior thermal insulation, high strength-to-weight ratio, and the use of renewable materials, making them ideal for green construction, from residential to commercial buildings. However, due to the nature of wood as a biomaterial, several challenges and shortcomings need to be addressed. Long-term exposure to environmental factors, such as moisture and temperature fluctuations, can negatively impact the structural integrity and mechanical properties of wood-based sandwich panels, even though their thermal insulation properties remain effective. Fire resistance is also critical, although current protection systems, such as calcium silicate boards, have shown promise.
Key findings and implications are given as follows:
  • Structural performance. These panels’ high strength-to-weight ratio enhances structural performance while minimizing the load on foundations and supporting structures, making them versatile for various construction applications.
  • Energy efficiency. The panels’ superior thermal insulation significantly reduces energy consumption for building heating and cooling, contributing to greater energy efficiency.
  • Sustainability. Using renewable materials in these panels supports sustainable construction practices, contributing to lower carbon footprints in building projects. Technological advances, such as automation and additive manufacturing, have improved production efficiency, resulting in cost savings and reduced material waste.
  • Economic considerations. While advanced manufacturing technologies involve high initial costs, their long-term benefits include reduced labour costs, higher production efficiency, and lower material waste. Comprehensive economic analyses can assist decision-makers in adopting these technologies.
Challenges and research topics include the following:
  • Enhanced thermal insulation. Exploring ways to further enhance the thermal insulation properties of wood-based sandwich panels will help maximize building energy savings.
  • Fire resistance. Current fire resistance measures, while promising, require further development to enhance the panels’ inherent fire-resistant properties. Developing and testing new fire-resistant materials and coatings will enhance safety.
  • Durability. Long-term durability concerns remain, particularly related to exposure to moisture, temperature fluctuations, and UV radiation. Future research should investigate new materials and treatments to improve the long-term performance of wood-based sandwich panels under various environmental conditions.
  • Standardization and performance data. Standardized testing and evaluation methods are needed to ensure consistent performance and safety. Additionally, extensive data on these panels’ long-term performance and ageing under varying environmental conditions is necessary.
  • Economic viability. Detailed cost–benefit analyses of different manufacturing technologies are needed to determine the most cost-effective methods for large-scale production.
In summary, while wood-based sandwich panels hold great promise for modern construction, addressing their limitations through focused research and practical innovations will be key to unlocking their full potential. This review underscores the importance of these panels in advancing energy-efficient, sustainable building practices and highlights the need for continued innovation to overcome current challenges.

Funding

The Collaborative Research and Development Program of Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the New Brunswick Innovation Research Chair Program of New Brunswick Innovation Foundation, and the PhD Recruitment Funding Program of the University of New Brunswick, Canada, are greatly acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Allen, H.G. Analysis and Design of Structural Sandwich Panels, 1st ed.; The Commonwealth and International Library; Structures and Solid Body Mechanics Division; Elsevier: Southampton, UK, 1969; ISBN 978-1-4831-5904-1. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gibson, L.J.; Ashby, M.F. The mechanics of three-dimensional cellular materials. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 1982, 382, 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zenkert, D. An Introduction to Sandwich Structures, 2nd ed.; Dan Zenkert: Stockholm, Sweden, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wei, P.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Y.; Pu, L. Wood-based sandwich panels: A review. Wood Res. 2021, 66, 875–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bais-Moleman, A.L.; Sikkema, R.; Vis, M.; Reumerman, P.; Theurl, M.C.; Erb, K.-H. Assessing wood use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of wood product cascading in the European Union. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3942–3954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Upton, B.; Miner, R.; Spinney, M.; Heath, L.S. The greenhouse gas and energy impacts of using wood instead of alternatives in residential construction in the United States. Biomass Bioenergy 2008, 32, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Myllyviita, T.; Soimakallio, S.; Judl, J.; Seppälä, J. Wood substitution potential in greenhouse gas emission reduction—Review on current state and application of displacement factors. For. Ecosyst. 2021, 8, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barbu, M.; Jan, L.; Thömen, H.; Welling, J. New technology for the continuous production of wood-based lightweight panels. In Proceedings of the International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—Timber Committee, Geneva, Switzerland, 11–14 October 2010; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  9. Grenestedt, J.L.; Bekisli, B. Analyses and preliminary tests of a balsa sandwich core with improved shear properties. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2003, 45, 1327–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mazzuca, P. Flexural behaviour of GFRP sandwich panels with eco-friendly PET foam core for the rehabilitation of building floors. Structures 2024, 60, 105815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Labans, E.; Kalnins, K.; Bisagni, C. Flexural behavior of sandwich panels with cellular wood, plywood stiffener/foam and thermoplastic composite core. J. Sandw. Struct. Mater. 2017, 21, 109963621769958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Correia, J.R.; Garrido, M.; Gonilha, J.A.; Branco, F.A.; Reis, L.G. GFRP sandwich panels with PU foam and PP honeycomb cores for civil engineering structural applications: Effects of introducing strengthening ribs. Int. J. Struct. Integr. 2012, 3, 127–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kawasaki, T.; Kawai, S. Thermal insulation properties of wood-based sandwich panel for use as structural insulated walls and floors. J. Wood Sci. 2006, 52, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mostafa, A.; Shankar, K.; Morozov, E.V. Behaviour of PU-foam/glass-fibre composite sandwich panels under flexural static load. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 1545–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fam, A.; Sharaf, T. Flexural performance of sandwich panels comprising polyurethane core and GFRP skins and ribs of various configurations. Compos. Struct. 2010, 92, 2927–2935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, F.; Liu, W.; Fang, H.; Jia, Z. Flexural behavior of composite sandwich beams with different kinds of GFRP ribs in flatwise and edgewise positions. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 156, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xie, J.; Chen, F.; Zhao, J.; Lu, P.; Liu, F.; Li, L. Flexural behaviour of full-scale precast recycled concrete sandwich panels with BFRP connectors. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 56, 104816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhou, A.; Keller, T. Joining techniques for fiber reinforced polymer composite bridge deck systems. Compos. Struct. 2005, 69, 336–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abdolpour, H. Development of Prefabricated Modular Houses in Pure Composite Sandwich Panels. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade do Minho Escola de Engenharia, Braga/Guimarães, Portugal, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  20. Klímek, P.; Wimmer, R.; Brabec, M.; Sebera, V. Novel sandwich panel with interlocking plywood kagome lattice core and grooved particleboard facings. Bioresources 2016, 11, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gao, Y.; Xuan, S.; Xu, F.; Diao, Y.; Meng, X. Shear performance of a novel non-metallic cross-laminated timber wall-to-wall connection using double-dovetail mortise-tenon joint. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2023, 18, 1003–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Qi, G.; Chen, Y.-L.; Richert, P.; Ma, L.; Schröder, K.U. A hybrid joining insert for sandwich panels with pyramidal lattice truss cores. Compos. Struct. 2020, 241, 112123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Garrido, M.; Correia, J.R.; Keller, T.; Branco, F.A. Connection systems between composite sandwich floor panels and load-bearing walls for building rehabilitation. Eng. Struct. 2016, 106, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Burnard, M.D.; Kutnar, A. Wood and human stress in the built indoor environment: A review. Wood Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 969–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Burnard, M.D.; Kutnar, A. Human stress responses in office-like environments with wood furniture. Build. Res. Inf. 2020, 48, 316–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kotradyova, V.; Vavrinsky, E.; Kalinakova, B.; Petro, D.; Jansakova, K.; Boles, M.; Svobodova, H. Wood and its impact on humans and environment quality in health care facilities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Alapieti, T.; Mikkola, R.; Pasanen, P.; Salonen, H. The influence of wooden interior materials on indoor environment: A review. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 2020, 78, 617–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. McNair, S. Wood in the Built Environment: The Restorative Benefits of Wood on Student Health and Well-Being; Final Report for DESN 47900 Design Research 2; Faculty of Animation, Arts & Design, Sheridan College: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  29. Costa, D.; Serra, J.; Quinteiro, P.; Dias, A.C. Life cycle assessment of wood-based panels: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 444, 140955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Santos, P.; Correia, J.R.; Godinho, L.; Dias, A.M.P.G.; Dias, A. Life cycle analysis of cross-insulated timber panels. Structures 2021, 31, 1311–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Akkan, A.; Vural, N. Thermal, sound and fire performance properties of prefabricated façade panels with massive, sandwich and frame design concepts. J. Archit. Sci. Appl. 2022, 7, 464–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Estrada-Martínez, S.; Mollón, V.; Bonhomme, J. Proposals to improve the durability assessment after ageing tests for wood-based sandwich panels. JNL Sandw. Struct. Mater. 2017, 19, 216–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Martins, R.H.B.; Barbirato, G.H.A.; Campos Filho, L.E.; Fiorelli, J.; Martins, R.H.B.; Barbirato, G.H.A.; Campos Filho, L.E.; Fiorelli, J. OSB sandwich panel with undulated core of balsa wood waste. Maderas. Cienc. Y Tecnol. 2023, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chen, Z.; Yan, N. Investigation of elastic moduli of kraft paper honeycomb core sandwich panels. Compos. Part B Eng. 2012, 43, 2107–2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shalbafan, A.; Luedtke, J.; Welling, J.; Thoemen, H. Comparison of foam core materials in innovative lightweight wood-based panels. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 2012, 70, 287–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pflug, J.; Vangrimde, B.; Verpoest, I. Material efficiency and cost effectiveness of sandwich materials. Int. Sampe Symp. Exhib. 2003, 14, 1925–1937. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ugale, V.; Singh, K.; Mishra, N.; Kumar, P. Experimental studies on thin sandwich panels under impact and static loading. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2013, 32, 420–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Labans, E.; Kalnins, K. Experimental validation of the stiffness optimisation for plywood sandwich panels with rib-stiffened core. Wood Res. 2014, 59, 793–802. [Google Scholar]
  39. COMPOCEL® WF-PVC Foam Core Sandwich Panel by Cel Components S.r.l.|DirectIndustry. Available online: https://www.directindustry.com/prod/cel-components-srl/product-38588-708283.html (accessed on 5 April 2024).
  40. Honeycomb Panels Australia—Online Store. Available online: https://salepeaket.live/product_tag/37026621_.html (accessed on 5 April 2024).
  41. Superlight Panel—Sandwich Panel, Okoumè, Blond Compact Cork. Available online: https://www.ramec.it/en/prodotti/superlight-panel-pannello-sandwich-okoume-sughero-compatto-biondo/ (accessed on 5 April 2024).
  42. Edgars, L.; Kaspars, Z.; Kaspars, K. Structural performance of wood based sandwich panels in four point bending. Procedia Eng. 2017, 172, 628–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, F.; Xu, J.; Esther, B.; Lu, H.; Fang, H.; Liu, W. Effect of shear span-to-depth ratio on the mechanical behavior of composite sandwich beams with GFRP ribs and balsa wood core materials. Thin-Walled Struct. 2020, 154, 106799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Manalo, A.; Aravinthan, T.; Fam, A.; Benmokrane, B. State-of-the-art review on FRP sandwich systems for lightweight civil infrastructure. J. Compos. Constr. 2016, 21, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Merli, F.; Belloni, E.; Buratti, C. Eco-sustainable wood waste panels for building applications: Influence of different species and assembling techniques on thermal, acoustic, and environmental performance. Buildings 2021, 11, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Köhler, R.; Jurisch, M.; Mayer, A.K.; Mai, C.; Viöl, W. Loofah sandwich panels: The effect of adhesive content on mechanical and physical properties. Materials 2022, 15, 7129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Jantawee, S.; Lim, H.; Li, M.; Oh, J.-K.; Pasztory, Z.; Cho, H.; Srivaro, S. Developing structural sandwich panels for energy-efficient wall applications using laminated oil palm wood and rubberwood-based plywood/oriented strand board. J. Wood Sci. 2023, 69, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mohammadabadi, M.; Miller, J.; Street, J.; Kim, Y.; Ragon, K. Wood-based corrugated core sandwich panels manufactured using a wooden mold. BioResources 2023, 18, 3033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Semple, K.E.; Sam-Brew, S.; Deng, J.; Cote, F.; Yan, N.; Chen, Z.; Smith, G.D. Properties of commercial kraft paper honeycomb furniture stock panels conditioned under 65 and 95 percent relative humidity. For. Prod. J. 2015, 65, 106–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Burnett, M.P.; Kharazipour, A. Mechanical behaviour of a lightweight, three-layered sandwich panel based on the raw material maize. Holzforschung 2018, 72, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mustapha, K. Manufacturing, applications and mechanical properties of lightweight wood-based sandwich panels. In Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; ISBN 978-0-12-803581-8. [Google Scholar]
  52. Phohchuay, P.; Khongtong, S. Insulated sandwich panels from natural rubber and rubber wood. Srinakharinwirot Sci. J. 2008, 34, 31–44. [Google Scholar]
  53. Fajrin, J. Sustainable Hybrid Composite Sandwich Panel with Natural Fibre Composites as Intermediate Layer. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  54. Vitale, J.P.; Francucci, G.; Stocchi, A. Thermal conductivity of sandwich panels made with synthetic and vegetable fiber vacuum-infused honeycomb cores. JNL Sandw. Struct. Mater. 2017, 19, 66–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhu, D.; Shi, H.; Fang, H.; Liu, W.; Qi, Y.; Bai, Y. Fiber reinforced composites sandwich panels with web reinforced wood core for building floor applications. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 150, 196–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Antov, P.; Savov, V.; Neykov, N. Sustainable bio-based adhesives for eco-friendly wood composites. A review. Wood Res. 2020, 65, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Oliveira, P.R.; May, M.; Panzera, T.H.; Hiermaier, S. Bio-based/green sandwich structures: A review. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022, 177, 109426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Soubam, T.; Gupta, A. Eco-friendly natural rubber latex and modified starch-based adhesive for wood-based panels application—A review. Maejo Int. J. Energy Environ. Commun. 2021, 3, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Orlowski, K. Automated manufacturing for timber-based panelised wall systems. Autom. Constr. 2020, 109, 102988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Smardzewski, J.; Maslej, M.; Wojciechowski, K.W. Compression and low velocity impact response of wood-based sandwich panels with auxetic lattice core. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 2021, 79, 797–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zarna, C.; Chinga-Carrasco, G.; Echtermeyer, A.T. Biocomposite panels with unidirectional core stiffeners—3-point bending properties and considerations on 3D printing and extrusion as a manufacturing method. Compos. Struct. 2023, 313, 116930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cao, D.; Bouzolin, D.; Lu, H.; Griffith, D.T. Bending and shear improvements in 3D-printed core sandwich composites through modification of resin uptake in the skin/core interphase region. Compos. Part B Eng. 2023, 264, 110912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Garrido, M.; Madeira, J.F.A.; Proença, M.; Correia, J.R. Multi-objective optimization of pultruded composite sandwich panels for building floor rehabilitation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 198, 465–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jiang, L.; Walczyk, D.; McIntyre, G.; Bucinell, R.; Li, B. Bioresin infused then cured mycelium-based sandwich-structure biocomposites: Resin transfer molding (RTM) process, flexural properties, and simulation. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kim, T.; Lee, U.-K.; Yoo, W.S.; An, S.-H.; Cho, H.; Lee, Y.; Doh, N. Benefit/cost analysis of a robot-based construction automation system. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS 2010), Goyang-si, Republic of Korea, 27 October 2010; pp. 616–621. [Google Scholar]
  66. Feng, Y.; Qiu, H.; Gao, Y.; Zheng, H.; Tan, J. Creative design for sandwich structures: A review. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2020, 17, 1729881420921327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kladovasilakis, N.; Charalampous, P.; Tsongas, K.; Kostavelis, I.; Tzetzis, D.; Tzovaras, D. Experimental and computational investigation of lattice sandwich structures constructed by additive manufacturing technologies. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2021, 5, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Monteiro, S.; Martins, J.; Magalhães, F.D.; Carvalho, L. Lightweight wood composites: Challenges, production and performance. In Lignocellulosic Composite Materials; Kalia, S., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 293–322. ISBN 978-3-319-68696-7. [Google Scholar]
  69. Almutairi, A.D.; Bai, Y.; Ferdous, W. Flexural behaviour of GFRP-softwood sandwich panels for prefabricated building construction. Polymers 2023, 15, 2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hussain, M.; Abbas, N.; Zahra, N.; Sajjad, U.; Awan, M.B. Investigating the performance of GFRP/wood-based honeycomb sandwich panels for sustainable prefab building construction. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Osei-Antwi, M.; De Castro, J.; Vassilopoulos, A.P.; Keller, T. Fracture in complex balsa cores of fiber-reinforced polymer sandwich structures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 71, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dawood, M.; Ballew, W.; Seiter, J. Enhancing the resistance of composite sandwich panels to localized forces for civil infrastructure and transportation applications. Compos. Struct. 2011, 93, 2983–2991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lakreb, N.; Bezzazi, B.; Pereira, H. Mechanical behavior of multilayered sandwich panels of wood veneer and a core of cork agglomerates. Mater. Des. (1980–2015) 2015, 65, 627–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pradhan, S.; Mohammadabadi, M.; Entsminger, E.D.; Ragon, K.W.; Khademibami, L.; Street, J.T. Development of a high-performance building material using wood-based corrugated panels manufactured via cold-forming technique. BioResources 2023, 18, 4666–4675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Matalkah, F.; Bharadwaj, H.; Soroushian, P.; Wu, W.; Almalkawi, A.; Balachandra, A.M.; Peyvandi, A. Development of sandwich composites for building construction with locally available materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 147, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, L.; Liu, W.; Hui, D. Compression strength of hollow sandwich columns with GFRP skins and a paulownia wood core. Compos. Part B Eng. 2014, 60, 495–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Li, J.; Hunt, J.F.; Gong, S.; Cai, Z. High strength wood-based sandwich panels reinforced with fiberglass and foam. BioResources 2014, 9, 1898–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kljak, J.; Brezovi, M. Influence of plywood structure on sandwich panel properties: Variability of veneer thickness ratio. Wood Res. 2007, 52, 77–78. [Google Scholar]
  79. Smardzewski, J. Experimental and numerical analysis of wooden sandwich panels with an auxetic core and oval cells. Mater. Des. 2019, 183, 108159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yang, F.; Fei, B. The research on bamboo-wood corrugated sandwich panel. In Proceedings of the 55th International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology, Beijing, China, 27 August 2012. [Google Scholar]
  81. Smardzewski, J.; Krzyżaniak, Ł.; Wojciechowski, K.W.; Peliński, K.; Tretiakov, K.V.; Narojczyk, J.W. Bending performance and failure behavior of wooden sandwich panels with corrugated cores. Phys. Status Solidi B 2022, 259, 2200423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Luengo, E.; Arriaga, F.; Bobadilla, I.; Hermoso, E. Mechanical efficiency and quality control preliminary analysis of incompletely bonded wood-based sandwich panels. Forests 2023, 14, 1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gozdecki, C.; Kociszewski, M. The properties of sandwich panels made of standard wood-based panels. Annals of Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW. For. Wood Technol. 2021, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Forest Products Laboratory (FPL). Wood Handbook-Wood as an Engineering Material; General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory: Madison, WI, USA, 2010.
  85. PROFHOLOD. Energy Safe Technologies. PIR Premier and PUR Classic Sandwich Panels. Available online: https://profholod.com/uploads/pdf/PIR_PREMIER_2021.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2024).
  86. Aslan, M.; Öztürk, H.; DemïRkir, C. Investigation of thermal conductivity of wood sandwich panels with aluminium and polypropylene core. J. Anatol. Environ. Anim. Sci. 2019, 4, 647–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Alavez-Ramirez, R.; Chiñas-Castillo, F.; Morales-Dominguez, V.J.; Ortiz-Guzman, M. Thermal conductivity of coconut fibre filled ferrocement sandwich panels. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 37, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Srivaro, S.; Pásztory, Z.; Le Duong, H.A.; Lim, H.; Jantawee, S.; Tomad, J. Physical, mechanical and thermal properties of cross laminated timber made with coconut wood. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 2021, 79, 1519–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. LVL by Stora Enso Technical Brochure. Stora Enso Wood Products GmbH. Helsinki. Finland. Available online: https://www.storaenso.com/-/media/documents/download-center/documents/product-brochures/wood-products/lvl-by-stora-enso-technical-brochure-en.pdf (accessed on 4 June 2021).
  90. Thermal Conductivity, Specific Heat Capacity and Density. Available online: https://help.iesve.com/ve2021/table_6_thermal_conductivity__specific_heat_capacity_and_density.htm (accessed on 9 May 2024).
  91. Goss, W.P.; Miller, R.G. Thermal properties of wood and wood products. In Proceedings of the Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings International Conference, Clearwater Beach, FL, USA, 7–10 December 1992; Volume 28, pp. 193–203. [Google Scholar]
  92. Stora Enso CLT by Stora Enso Building Physics. Available online: https://www.storaenso.com/-/media/documents/download-center/documents/product-specifications/wood-products/clt-technical/clt-by-stora-enso-technical-documentation---building-physics--2021-9-en.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2024).
  93. Technical Specification of CLT Panels. Available online: https://cltprofi.com/clt-panels-technical-information/ (accessed on 9 May 2024).
  94. Oriented Strand Board-European Panel Federation. Available online: https://europanels.org/the-wood-based-panel-industry/types-of-wood-based-panels-economic-impact/oriented-strand-board/ (accessed on 9 May 2024).
  95. Tripathi, J.; Rice, R.W. Thermal conductivity values for laminated strand lumber and spruce for use in hybrid cross-laminated timber panels. BioResources 2017, 12, 8827–8837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Daza-Badilla, L.; Gómez, R.; Díaz-Noriega, R.; Avudaiappan, S.; Skrzypkowski, K.; Saavedra-Flores, E.I.; Korzeniowski, W. Thermal conductivity in concrete samples with natural and synthetic fibers. Materials 2024, 17, 817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Solids, Liquids and Gases-Thermal Conductivities Thermal Conductivity Coefficients for Insulation Materials, Aluminum, Asphalt, Brass, Copper, Steel, Gases and More. Available online: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html (accessed on 9 May 2024).
  98. Zhang, A.; Li, Y. Thermal conductivity of aluminum alloys—A review. Materials 2023, 16, 2972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Lakreb, N.; Knapic, S.; Machado, J.S.; Bezzazi, B.; Pereira, H. Properties of multilayered sandwich panels with an agglomerated cork core for interior applications in buildings. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 2018, 76, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Garay, R.M.; Pino, G.N. Acoustic behavior in three types of housing: Brick social housing, structural insulated panel (SIP) emergency housing and mediagua emergency housing. J. Constr. 2019, 18, 96–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Pagnoncelli, L.; Morales, F. Cross-laminated timber system (CLT): Laboratory and in situ measurements of airborne and impact sound insulation. In Proceedings of the EuroRegio 2016, Porto, Portugal, 13–15 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  102. STC Rating: Understanding Sound Transmission Class Rating|ASI. Acoustical Surfaces. Available online: https://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/blog/acoustics-education/sound-transmission-class-stc-rating/ (accessed on 10 May 2024).
  103. Smardzewski, J.; Kamisiński, T.; Dziurka, D.; Mirski, R.; Majewski, A.; Flach, A.; Pilch, A. Sound absorption of wood-based materials. Holzforschung 2015, 69, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. UNE-EN 13501-1 Classification of Reaction to Fire of Construction Products. Available online: https://texfire.net/en/content/une-en-13501-1-classification-of-reaction-to-fire-of-construction-products (accessed on 9 May 2024).
  105. Rusinová, M.; Kalousek, M.; Šlanhof, J. Assessment of the dynamic temperature profile in fire loaded sandwich structures based on wood in comparison with conventional structural systems. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2019, 887, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. EN 13501-1; Fire Test for Building Materials-Equipment. Available online: https://www.motistech.com/solution/en-13501-1 (accessed on 9 May 2024).
  107. ISO 834-1:1999/Amd 2:2021; Fire-Resistance Tests-Elements of Building Construction—Part 1: General Requirements-Amendment 2 2021. ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2021.
  108. ASTM E119-20; Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
  109. Mosallam, A.; Abdi, F.; Qian, Z. Fire resistance simulation of loaded deck sandwich panel and deck-bulkhead assembly structures. Compos. Part B Eng. 2008, 39, 191–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Proença, M.; Garrido, M.; Correia, J.R.; Gomes, M.G. Fire resistance behaviour of GFRP-polyurethane composite sandwich panels for building floors. Compos. Part B Eng. 2021, 224, 109171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. IZOPANEL. Sandwich Panels Manufacturer’s Catalogue. Available online: https://www.izopanel.org/files/sandwich_panels_2017.pdf (accessed on 6 April 2024).
  112. EN 1634-1:2016+A1:2018; Fire Resistance and Smoke Control Tests for Door and Shutter Assemblies, Openable Windows and Elements of Building Hardware—Part 1: Fire Resistance Test for Door and Shutter Assemblies and Openable Windows. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Builgium, 2018.
  113. Wi, S.; Kim, Y.U.; Choi, J.Y.; Shin, B.; Kim, S. Active protection against fire: Enhancing the flame retardancy of sandwich panels using an expandable graphite layer formation. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2024, 195, 108658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Bourbigot, S.; Bachelet, P.; Samyn, F.; Jimenez, M.; Duquesne, S. Intumescence as method for providing fire resistance to structural composites: Application to poly(ethylene terephtalate) foam sandwich–structured composite. Compos. Interfaces 2013, 20, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Beh, J.H.; Yew, M.C.; Saw, L.H. Development of lightweight fire resistant sandwich panel. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 476, 012031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Zenkert, D. The Handbook of Sandwich Construction; Engineering Materials Advisory Services: Columbus, OH, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  117. What Are SIPs? Summary Definition and Benefits of Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs). Available online: https://www.sips.org/what-are-sips (accessed on 4 April 2024).
  118. TEK Cladding Panel|Kingspan GB. Available online: https://www.kingspan.com/gb/en/products/structural-insulated-panels/tek-cladding-panel/ (accessed on 24 April 2024).
  119. Mullens, M.A.; Arif, M. Structural insulated panels: Impact on the residential construction process. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 786–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Baechler, M.; Hadley, D.; Sparkman, R.; Homes, G. Pushing the envelope: A case study of building the first manufactured home using structural insulated panels. In Proceedings of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Residential Buildings: Technologies, Design, Performance Analysis, and Building Industry Trends, Washington, DC, USA, 18–23 August 2002; pp. 1.29–1.41. [Google Scholar]
  121. Huber Engineered Woods LLC. An Overview of 2022. Warranties. Available online: https://www.huberwood.com/blog/warranties (accessed on 4 April 2024).
  122. Starcell. Honeycomb and Composite Panels, Italy. Available online: https://www.starcellspa.com/edilizia-2/?lang=en (accessed on 4 April 2024).
  123. New Sustainable Hybrid Sandwich Elements Combine Concrete and Wood|Informed Infrastructure. Available online: https://informedinfrastructure.com/68583/new-sustainable-hybrid-sandwich-elements-combine-concrete-and-wood/ (accessed on 5 April 2024).
  124. Liu, C.-X.; Fu, Z.-Y.; Li, P.; Qi, G. Bending and environmental characteristics of an eco-friendly sandwich panel with cork stopper cores. Dev. Built Environ. 2023, 15, 100206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Gustavsson, L.; Sathre, R. Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of wood and concrete building materials. Build. Environ. 2006, 41, 940–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Akkan Çavdar, A.; Vural, N. Analysis of the embodied and operational energy of wood-based prefabricated panels produced with different design concepts according to vernacular Baghdadi wall. J. Polytech. 2023. Available online: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2907215 (accessed on 24 April 2024).
  127. Castaldo, R.; De Falco, F.; Avolio, R.; Bossanne, E.; Cicaroni Fernandes, F.; Cocca, M.; Di Pace, E.; Errico, M.E.; Gentile, G.; Jasiński, D.; et al. Critical factors for the recycling of different end-of-life materials: Wood wastes, automotive shredded residues, and dismantled wind turbine blades. Polymer 2019, 11, 1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Diaz, M.P.A. Environmental Impact Assessment of Construction Materials in a Battery Factory. Master’s Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2023. Available online: https://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1765956/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2024).
  129. Segovia, F.; Blanchet, P.; Amor, B.; Barbuta, C.; Beauregard, R. Life cycle assessment contribution in the product development process: Case study of wood aluminum-laminated panel. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Available online: https://fsc.org/en (accessed on 8 May 2024).
  131. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). Available online: https://www.pefc.org/ (accessed on 8 May 2024).
  132. Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). Available online: https://forests.org/ (accessed on 8 May 2024).
  133. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or LEED®. Available online: https://www.cagbc.org/our-work/certification/leed/ (accessed on 8 May 2024).
  134. Environmental Product Declaration-EPD International. Available online: https://www.environdec.com/home (accessed on 8 May 2024).
  135. MAXON® Decorative PU Wall Sandwich Panel|Excellent Exteior Wall Decoration Materials 15 Years. Available online: https://maxon-steel.com/pu-wall-sandwich-panel/ (accessed on 5 April 2024).
  136. Ayanleye, S.; Quin, F.; Zhang, X.; Lim, H.; Shmulsky, R. Preservatives penetration and retention in post-treated cross-laminated timber panels with different layup and thickness. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 67, 106009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Copak, A.; Jirouš-Rajković, V.; Živković, V.; Miklečić, J. Water vapour transmission properties of uncoated and coated wood-based panels. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2023, 18, 1086–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Sekino, N.; Korai, H. The evaluation of long-term mechanical properties of wood-based panels by indoor exposure tests. J. Wood Sci. 2018, 64, 377–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Aicher, S.; Höfflin, L. Long-term performance test of eccentrically loaded sandwich wall elements with wood-based skins. Otto-Graf-J. 1999, 10, 128–143. [Google Scholar]
  140. Malik, J.; Trisatya, D.R.; Abdurachman. Potential use of fully wood based sandwich panel for house component in Indonesia for disaster mitigation and rapid built: A review. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 935, 012022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Weichelt, F.; Beyer, M.; Emmler, R.; Flyunt, R.; Beyer, E.; Buchmeiser, M. Zinc oxide based coatings for the UV-protection of wood for outdoor applications. Macromol. Symp. 2011, 301, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Sahoo, S.C.; Sil, A.; Thanigai, K.; Pandey, C.N. Use of silicone based coating for protection of wood materials and bamboo composites from weathering and UV degradation. J. Indian. Acad. Wood Sci. 2011, 8, 143–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Betts, D.; Sadeghian, P.; Fam, A. Impact behavior of sustainable sandwich panels with flax FRP faces and cardboard cores. In Proceedings of the Architectural Engineering Conference—AEI Conference 2019, American Society of Civil Engineers, Tysons, VA, USA, 2 April 2019; pp. 80–85. [Google Scholar]
  144. Voth, C.; Yadama, V. Sustainable lightweight wood-strand panels for building construction. In Proceedings of the International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—Timber Committee, Geneva, Switzerland, 11–14 October 2010; p. 7. [Google Scholar]
  145. Fnais, A.; Rezgui, Y.; Petri, I.; Beach, T.; Yeung, J.; Ghoroghi, A.; Kubicki, S. The application of life cycle assessment in buildings: Challenges, and directions for future research. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2022, 27, 627–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Nilsson, J.; Ormarsson, S.; Johansson, J. Moisture-related distortion and damage of lightweight wood panels—Experimental and numerical study. J. Indian Acad. Wood Sci. 2017, 14, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Smart Buildings: A Brief History. Available online: https://wiredscore.com/blog/2020/10/13/smart-buildings-a-brief-history/ (accessed on 7 May 2024).
  148. Konka, H.P.; Wahab, M.A.; Lian, K. On mechanical properties of composite sandwich structures with embedded piezoelectric fiber composite sensors. J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 2011, 134, 011010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Imjai, T.; Kefyalew, F.; Garcia, R.; Kim, B.; Bras, A.; Sukontasukkul, P. Performance of a novel structural insulated panel in tropical climates: Experimental and numerical studies. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 421, 135568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Park, C.Y.; Kim, J.H.; Jun, S.-M.; Kim, C.-G. Localizations and force reconstruction of low-velocity impact in a composite panel using optical fiber sensors. Adv. Compos. Mater. 2012, 21, 357–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic-FRP Sandwich Panels. Available online: https://topolocfrt.com/frp-sandwich-panels/ (accessed on 18 April 2024).
Figure 1. Sandwich panel structure: two faces, two layers of adhesive, and a core.
Figure 1. Sandwich panel structure: two faces, two layers of adhesive, and a core.
Buildings 14 02359 g001
Figure 2. Types of wood-based sandwich panels: foam core panels [39], honeycomb core panels [40], and cork agglomerate core panels [41].
Figure 2. Types of wood-based sandwich panels: foam core panels [39], honeycomb core panels [40], and cork agglomerate core panels [41].
Buildings 14 02359 g002
Figure 3. Wood-based sandwich panels: (a) with corrugated GF/PP (glass fibre/polypropylene) core [42]; (b) with rib-stiffened and foam core [42] (reproduced with permission from Elsevier, Procedia Engineering, 2017); (c) with GFRP ribs and balsa wood core [43] (reproduced with permission from Elsevier, Thin-Walled Structures, 2020).
Figure 3. Wood-based sandwich panels: (a) with corrugated GF/PP (glass fibre/polypropylene) core [42]; (b) with rib-stiffened and foam core [42] (reproduced with permission from Elsevier, Procedia Engineering, 2017); (c) with GFRP ribs and balsa wood core [43] (reproduced with permission from Elsevier, Thin-Walled Structures, 2020).
Buildings 14 02359 g003
Figure 4. Typical applications of wood-based sandwich panels in construction.
Figure 4. Typical applications of wood-based sandwich panels in construction.
Buildings 14 02359 g004
Figure 5. Structural insulated panels (SIPs) [117].
Figure 5. Structural insulated panels (SIPs) [117].
Buildings 14 02359 g005
Figure 6. ZIP System® panels [121].
Figure 6. ZIP System® panels [121].
Buildings 14 02359 g006
Figure 7. Global warming potential of different building materials: concrete [128], steel [128], and wood-based sandwich panels [45].
Figure 7. Global warming potential of different building materials: concrete [128], steel [128], and wood-based sandwich panels [45].
Buildings 14 02359 g007
Table 1. Mechanical properties of various wood-based sandwich panels.
Table 1. Mechanical properties of various wood-based sandwich panels.
Panel TypeCore MaterialMOE
(GPa)
MOR
(MPa)
Density
(kg/m³)
Thickness
(mm)
Source
Wood-based panels with plywood facesStiffener/foam6.2026.1032564[42]
Wood-based panels with plywood facesThermoplastic composite4.1822.6023559[42]
Conventional plywoodNone9.2036.6068050[42]
Wood-based panels (particleboard, MDF, OSB, plywood)Various internal layers8.8892.90N/AMDF: 12.30,
Plywood: 3.64
[83]
Wooden panels with auxetic core and oval cellsAuxetic core, oval cells3.3026.60<40020[79]
Wood-based composite panelsKagome lattice core, particleboard facingsN/AFlatwise: 2.64;
edgewise: 6.4
39238[20]
Bamboo–wood corrugated sandwich panelsCorrugated core5.2138.53N/A18[80]
Wooden panels with corrugated coresCorrugated core1.454.6422847.8[61]
Table 2. Thermal conductivity (λ) of wood-based sandwich panels compared to other building materials.
Table 2. Thermal conductivity (λ) of wood-based sandwich panels compared to other building materials.
Material TypeSpecific MaterialDensity
(kg/m3)
Thermal Conductivity—λ (W/mK)References
Wood-based sandwich panelsPlywood-faced sandwich panel of the fiberboard core of a density of 340 kg/m33400.070[13]
Plywood-faced sandwich panel of the fiberboard core of a density of 410 kg/m34100.077[13]
Eco-sustainable wood waste panel282 to 3980.071 to 0.084[45]
Natural rubber and rubber wood panel410 to 5500.070 to 0.080[52]
Alder veneer with aluminium coreN/a0.108 to 0.262[86]
Scots pine veneer with polypropylene coreN/a0.111 to 0.259[86]
Ferrocement with coconut fibreN/a0.221[87]
Wood-based materialsSoft wood348–6610.680–1.12[90,91]
Hard wood615–7501.060 to 1.250[90,91]
Cross-laminated timber (CLT)480–5000.120 to 0.130[92,93]
Coconut wood CLT655 to 9720.153 to 0.264[88]
Oriented strand board (OSB) 0.13[94]
Laminated strand lumber (LSL) 0.081 to 0.126[95]
Plywood (lightweight)5600.150[90]
Plywood (heavyweight)7000.150[90]
Additional materialsConcrete16180.8 to 2.0[90,96]
Steel785050[52]
Glass2500 to 26000.8[97]
Aluminum2700237[98]
Table 3. Sound transmission class (STC) rating chart [102].
Table 3. Sound transmission class (STC) rating chart [102].
STCWhat Can Be Heard at This Level
25Soft speech can be heard and understood.
30Normal speech can be heard and understood.
35Loud speech can be heard and understood.
40Loud speech can be heard, but not understood.
45The threshold at which privacy begins.
50Loud sounds can be heard, but are very faint.
60+At this level, good soundproofing begins.
Neighbours generally are not disturbed by very loud speech from inside.
Table 4. Physical–mechanical properties of wood-based panels [103] (adapted with permission from Smardzewski et al. 2015).
Table 4. Physical–mechanical properties of wood-based panels [103] (adapted with permission from Smardzewski et al. 2015).
CodeType of MaterialThickness
(mm)
Density
(kg/m³)
PorosityMOR
(MPa)
MOE
(GPa)
Sound Absorption Coefficient (α)
Buildings 14 02359 i001High-density fiberboard (HDF) + rattan mat
HDF 8 mm, rattan mat 3 mm
11.07530.5028.1 L *
25.6 P **
1.99 L
1.89 P
0.01–0.4
Buildings 14 02359 i002High-density fiberboard (HDF) + bamboo mat
HDF 8 mm, bamboo mat 2 mm
10.08480.4337.0 L
29.2 P
5.22 L
2.64 P
0.01–0.16
Buildings 14 02359 i003Honeycomb + Lloyd loom mat
Honeycomb paper core 5 mm, 2 × facing HDF 2 mm, 1 × facing loom mat 1.2 mm
10.24130.7216.6 L
11.4 P
2.20 L
1.93 P
0.01–0.23
Buildings 14 02359 i004Honeycomb + synthetic leather
Honeycomb paper core 5 mm, 2 × facing HDF 2.5 m, 1 × facing synthetic leather 0.6 mm
10.65170.6619.7 L
13.6 P
2.42 L
1.98 P
0.01–0.08
Buildings 14 02359 i005Honeycomb + veneer
Honeycomb paper core 5 mm, 1 × facing HDF 2.5 mm, 1 × facing oak veneer 2.3 mm
9.84560.7015.8 L
18.1 P
2.87 L
2.12 P
0.01–0.18
Buildings 14 02359 i006Honeycomb + oak + texture
Honeycomb paper core 5 mm, 2 × facing oak veneer 2.75 mm
10.54710.6914.4 L
11.8 P
2.99 L
1.39 P
0.01–0.27
Buildings 14 02359 i007Honeycomb
Honeycomb paper core 5 mm, 2 × facing HDF 2.5 mm
10.03820.756.6 L
6.3 P
2.56 L
2.43 P
0.01–0.25
Buildings 14 02359 i008Poplar plywood18.45150.6640.5 L
40.9 P
4.88 L
4.73 P
0.01–0.12
Buildings 14 02359 i009Exotic plywood7.93540.7632.9 L
0 P
3.39 L
0 P
0.04–0.125
Buildings 14 02359 i010Particleboard16.04810.689.5 L
0 P
2.08 L
0 P
0.04–0.13
Buildings 14 02359 i011Medium-density fibreboard (MDF)18.05580.6331.4 L
0 P
3.17 L
0 P
0.02–0.13
Buildings 14 02359 i012Purenit (recycling material)3.15530.636.3 L
0 P
0.500 L
0 P
0.01–0.27
Buildings 14 02359 i013Oriented strand board (OSB/3)17.56130.5930.5 L
18.8 P
6.13 L
3.41 P
0.01–0.14
Buildings 14 02359 i014DendroLight—core
Pine wood core 22 mm
22.32700.821.8 L
1.2 P
0.2 L
0.15 P
0.01–0.64
Buildings 14 02359 i015DendroLight—HDF
Pine wood core 14.5 mm, 2 × facing HDF 4 mm
22.54930.6722.3 L
22.5 P
2.92 L
2.85 P
0.01–0.12
Buildings 14 02359 i016DendroLight—birch plywood
Pine wood core 14.5 mm, 2 × facing birch plywood 4 mm
22.54590.6955.5 L
23.8 P
9.17 L
4.39 P
0.01–0.13
Buildings 14 02359 i017Tube particleboard282200.851.1 L
0.6 P
0.52 L
0.11 P
0.5–0.65
* L—along the fibres of faces; ** P—perpendicular to the fibres of faces.
Table 5. Fire safety ratings of construction materials (EN 13501-1) [104,106].
Table 5. Fire safety ratings of construction materials (EN 13501-1) [104,106].
ClassDescriptionContribution to Fire
A1Non-combustibleNo contribution to fire
A2Non-combustible with limited contributionVery limited contribution to fire
BCombustible with very limited contributionLimited contribution to fire
CCombustibleModerate contribution to fire
DCombustibleHigh contribution to fire
ECombustibleVery high contribution to fire
FUnclassifiedNo performance determined
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vladimirova, E.; Gong, M. Advancements and Applications of Wood-Based Sandwich Panels in Modern Construction. Buildings 2024, 14, 2359. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082359

AMA Style

Vladimirova E, Gong M. Advancements and Applications of Wood-Based Sandwich Panels in Modern Construction. Buildings. 2024; 14(8):2359. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082359

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vladimirova, Elena, and Meng Gong. 2024. "Advancements and Applications of Wood-Based Sandwich Panels in Modern Construction" Buildings 14, no. 8: 2359. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082359

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop