An Evolutionary History of

Oriented Strandboard (OSB)

John I. Zerbe

Zhiyong Cai

George B. Harpole 

General Technical Report

FPL–GTR–236

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Forest Products

Laboratory

February

2015
February 2015

Zerbe, John I.; Cai, Zhiyong; Harpole, George B. 2015. An evolutionary 

history of oriented strandboard (OSB). General Technical Report 

FPL-GTR-236. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 6 p.

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the 

public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, 

Madison, WI 53726–2398. This publication is also available online at 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds of libraries 

in the United States and elsewhere.

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the 

University of Wisconsin. 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) of any product or service.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 

(voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.

Abstract

To improve wood utilization efficiency, oriented strandboard 

(OSB) was developed; 80% of the wood removed from the 

forest can now be processed into marketable products. This 

manuscript describes the history of developing this most 

profitable wood product, OSB, and the early FPL contribution in development. 

Keywords: OSB, oriented strandboard, wood utilization, 

utilization efficiency, logging, wood waste

Contents

Noteworthy Facts about OSB Panels.................................1

Nonstructural Particleboards..............................................1

 Hardboard ......................................................................2

 Medium-Density Fiberboard..........................................2

 Mende Pressboard..........................................................2

Structural Particleboards....................................................2

 NOVOPLY....................................................................2

 Waferboard.....................................................................2

 PLYSTRAN Plywood ....................................................2

 Flakeboard......................................................................2

 Oriented Strandboard.....................................................2

Epilogue .............................................................................3

Literature Cited ..................................................................5
An Evolutionary History of

Oriented Strandboard (OSB)

John I. Zerbe, Wood Technologist, Retired

Zhiyong Cai, Supervisory Research Materials Engineer

George B. Harpole, Economist, Retired

Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

Historically, logging and wood processing residues have 

offered a utilization challenge for those involved in the 

harvesting and manufacture of wood products. Logging 

operations typically left stumps, tapered log butts, tree tops, 

and limbs for forest fires to remove or to compost into bedding for destructive forest insects. Even after the delivery of 

logs to a sawmill or plywood plant, residue materials have 

represented up to 60% of the log volumes delivered. Thus, 

commercial efforts have attempted to utilize as much of 

these residue volumes as possible with production of charcoal, poultry bedding, and heating fuels. Forest fires, tepee 

burners, and burn piles, however, have often provided a 

quick answer for getting rid of the surplus accumulations of 

forest and processing residues. Today, with the increased use 

of logging residues and wood chips for production of OSB 

panels, about 80% of the wood volume removed from the 

forest is now processed into marketable products (Haynes 

2003) and tepee burners no longer exist for getting rid of 

processing residues. 

The pathway to OSB production appears to have started in 

the 1920s with production of hardboards from pulp mats 

that were produced from wood chips. This was the beginning for producing composite panel products from wood 

residue types of materials. Following hardboard production 

and skipping the pulping step for producing hardboards, the 

utilization of waste materials was increased in the United 

States in the 1940s by the production of nonstructural and 

appearance grades of particleboards. Even as a nonstructural 

product, the particleboard made in the United States was 

new compared with plywood. But with the decline in the 

availability of timber suitable for plywood production in 

the 1970s, the development of technologies for production 

of structural types of particleboards quickly became a top 

priority for wood products research. Technological advancements were made, and along with these advancements came 

changes in the terminology used to describe the unique 

nature of each evolutionary step forward in product development, from particleboard, to NOVOPLY, to waferboard, 

to PLYSTRAN, to flakeboard, and finally to the oriented 

strandboard or OSB panels we speak of today. 

Noteworthy Facts about OSB 

Panels

1. OSB products set records for new product market 

adoptions in North America by moving production and 

consumption from 751 million square feet in the 1980s 

to 7.6 billion square feet by 1990 (OSBGuide 2014).

2. OSB panels have been essentially a problem-free new 

commodity wood product. Perhaps no other new wood 

product has ever been so problem free as OSB composite panels.

3. The significant reduction in production binder requirements, from approximately 7% by panel weight to 

approximately 2.5% through changes in binder formulations and use of steam injection techniques, allows 

OSB to be an economic champion in the structural 

panel markets. In contrast, binders in some early forms 

of particleboards represented up to 40% of the product’s weight.

Nonstructural Particleboards

Nonstructural particleboards are used for non-loadbearing, 

or nonstructural uses like decorative paneling, underlayments, and sidings.

The first industrial production of particleboard is believed to 

have occurred in 1941 in Bremen, Germany, using phenolic 

binders and spruce particles (Moslemi 1974). Later, Max 

Himmelheber of Baiersbronn in the Black Forest of Germany, who made particleboards in the 1930s, obtained a patent 

on January 27, 1951, thereby being considered the inventor 

of the class of products termed particleboards. Himmelheber’s company later licensed the particleboard manufacturing technology to over 80 manufacturers throughout the 

world.

In the early 1950s TECO (Timber Engineering Company, 

Cottage Grove, Wisconsin) manufactured particleboard for 

the first time in the United States at its laboratory under the 

direction of Dr. Nicholas V. Poletika in Washington, D.C. 

TECO had a multiplaten hot press, and made mats for homogeneous type particleboards.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–236

2

Additionally, there are many nonstructural types of particleboard products that have helped to develop the technologies 

that have led the way to the development of today’s structural loadbearing particleboards, such as the following.

Hardboard

Hardboard, also called high-density fiberboard, resulted in 

the early 1920s when improved methods of compressing 

wet wood pulp at high temperatures produced a higher density product. Tempered hardboard is hardboard that has been 

coated with a thin film of linseed oil and then baked.

Medium-Density Fiberboard 

Medium-density fiberboard (MDF) was first manufactured 

commercially in 1965. It is an engineered wood product 

formed by breaking down hardwood or softwood residuals 

into wood fibers, often in a defibrator, combining it with 

wax and a resin binder, and forming panels by applying 

high temperature and pressure. In most cases, the board has 

a density 25% to 50% higher than solid wood (Moslemi 

1974).

Mende Pressboard 

Mende pressboard, sometimes called thin particleboard, has 

been commercially manufactured in the United States since 

1972. All plants for producing this board have equipment 

designed for continuous sheet production.

Structural Particleboards

These are commodity wooden panels rated for dead and 

live loadings for specified spans of support and durations of 

loading.

NOVOPLY

This product was the first particleboard commercially sold 

that could be considered a structurally rated particleboard. 

NOVOPLY was a three-layered particleboard first produced 

in Switzerland in 1946 and later in the United States by 

the U.S. Plywood and Georgia-Pacific Corporations (U.S. 

Trademark Registration, #0542445, 1950, NOVOPLY).

Waferboard

This product is made from flakes called wafers. These were 

short ~1.5-in. long by approximately 0.0045 in. thick pieces 

that somewhat nest together for bonding. It was patented 

by Armin Elmendorf in 1965. Waferboard has acceptable 

strength properties but falls short for stiffness properties, 

which can cause serious user complaints. The development 

of this structural particleboard began in 1949 in a research 

laboratory of the Pack River Lumber Company at the firm’s 

Sandpoint, Idaho, location. It is thought James d’A Clark invented the first waferboard manufacturing process when he 

was trying to develop an attractive, decorative wall panel for 

nonstructural uses (Bengston and others 1988). Waferboard 

production uses soft or low-density hardwoods rather than 

scarce softwood species. Aspen, the most common species 

for waferboard production, has a transcontinental distribution through North America.

In 1978, five waferboard plants were operational in Canada 

and one in the United States (Blandin Paper Company, 

Grand Rapids, Minnesota).

PLYSTRAN Plywood 

This plywood is a 1⁄2-in.-thick three-ply hybrid sheathing 

product with a veneer face and back and a core of narrow 

veneer strips oriented in parallel for a cross-banding core, 

thereby free of any core voids. This was a white fir (Abies 

grandis) structural sheathing product developed by Potlatch Forests, Inc. (PFI) of Lewiston, Idaho, and certified 

by TECO for structural sheathing applications. The only 

production of this product was from PFI’s plywood plant in 

Lewiston, Idaho, beginning in the late 1960s and extending 

on into the late 1980s. Public records of research projects 

conducted jointly between Potlatch Forests, Inc., and Washington State University (WSU) document their research on 

the development of electrostatic wood strand orientation 

techniques in 1974 to advance the mechanical methods being used. The electrostatic technology was later adopted for 

production of oriented strandboard, or OSB panels.

Flakeboard 

Flakeboard is made from flakes thinner and longer than 

those used for waferboard. Flakeboard flakes were specified to be at least 3 in. long and approximately 0.0015 in. 

thick, allowing for the flakes to lap over one another. Forest 

Service and university collaborative research was conducted 

in reference to the utilization of a variety of softwoods and 

low-density hardwoods found in different regions of the 

United States. In June 6–8, 1978, the Forest Products Laboratory sponsored a symposium in Kansas City, Missouri, to 

present the technical and economic findings of the Forest 

Service’s flakeboard research. Three years after the Kansas 

City symposium, 19 new flakeboard plants were operating 

and after 5 years, 25 plants were operating with the randomoriented flakeboard production shifting into the form of a 

three-layered oriented strandboard to be sold as oriented 

strandboard, or OSB.

Oriented Strandboard

OSB is the culminating product in the development of structural particleboards. It is a three-layered flakeboard panel 

crossbanded by a core of oriented flakes at a right angle to 

the orientations of the face and back layers of flakes. OSB 

became a leading commercial competitor for structural 

sheathing markets in the 1980s, and correspondingly a major contributor to improved forest management practices by 

way of utilizing what were heretofore considered to be overwhelming volumes of logging and manufacturing residues.

In summary, OSB was conceptually invented and patented 

by Armin Elmendorf in 1965 as waferboard. Thus, the 
An Evolutionary History of Oriented Strandboard (OSB)

3

OSB industry evolved from the waferboard industry in the 

late 1970s as technology and investors caught up with the 

concepts of waferboard, flakeboard, and oriented strandboard. It took about three decades and many researchers 

to investigate and assess the effects of strand size, the raw 

materials that could be used, the three-layer structure, the 

different methods of strand alignment, and the effects of 

the alignment itself on the strength of OSB to develop the 

manufacturing specifications and codes that have allowed 

OSB panels to become the major wood products commodity 

that it is today.

Epilogue

The first industrial production of particleboard is believed to 

have occurred in 1941 in Bremen, Germany, using phenolic 

binders and spruce particles (Moslemi 1974). Max Himmelheber of Baiersbronn in the Black Forest, Germany, is 

considered the inventor of the class of products termed particleboard. His company later licensed over 80 manufacturers throughout the world.

Toward the end of the 1930s, Fred Fahrni of Switzerland 

worked systematically on three-layer particleboards. Later 

he received an honorary doctorate from the Federal Technical University (ETH, Zürich) for his accomplishments. 

In 1946, the first mass industrial production of three-layer 

structural boards in the world was accomplished with the 

start-up of the NOVOPAN factory in Klingnau, Switzerland. 

Later production and distribution of the product in the United States was handled by U.S. Plywood Corporation and 

Georgia-Pacific Corporation with the brand name 

NOVOPLY.

In the early 1950s, TECO manufactured particleboard for 

the first time in the United States at its laboratory under 

the direction of Dr. Nicholas V. Poletika in Washington, 

D.C. TECO had a multi-platen hot press and made mats for 

homogeneous-type particleboards.

TECO began its work with structural panels through establishing the technical suitability of using white fir (Abies 

grandis) that was prevalent in Idaho and Montana for C-D 

grade 3-ply 1⁄2-in. plywood. TECO functioning as a testing 

laboratory also certified laminated beams from inland Douglas-fir and hemlock in its initial work as a certifying agency.

TECO was able to advance particleboard technology further 

with information gained from a study of practices in Europe. 

In 1955, with the support of 25 companies, TECO Vice 

President Carl A. Rishell conducted a study on European 

practices. Generally the investigating team specialized in 

searching out data on small productive pulping processes, as 

well as hardboard and particleboard and mechanical waste 

utilization processes.

The team started with a five-day visit at the Hannover Industrial Fair where the members met principal industrialists 

from Germany and some other European countries. They 

found that the German particleboard industry had advanced 

far beyond the latest applied technologies in the United 

States. In 1955, German products were, in general, far superior to those the United States was producing (Rishell 1958).

The team also found that the technology in Switzerland was 

comparable to that operating in Germany. They did not find 

much new information in France, Belgium, Holland, and 

Denmark. In Sweden and Norway, the particleboard industry had not yet taken a foothold, but hardboard processes 

developed rapidly. Equipment and machinery was also in 

a high state of development in Europe. An improvement in 

feedstock development came with the continuous feed disk 

flaker that was manufactured in Germany.

The 1955 survey was so successful that the team provided 

information for a report that contained almost 400 pages and 

the clients requested another investigation. Another trip was 

conducted in 1956, but this time the survey was asked to 

specialize in particleboard. The 1956 tour included Finland, 

but not the Low Countries, France, and Austria. Activity 

in Finland was found to be similar to that in Norway and 

Sweden.

TECO went on to become an independent testing and certification agency and pioneered in getting structural products 

accepted in building codes. TECO cooperated closely with 

its industry supporters, especially hardwood lumber manufacturers in the East and Potlatch Forests, Inc., in the West. 

PFI’s specialty products salespeople led successful technology transfer efforts through the 1960s and 1970s by interfacing with building code officials throughout the country 

by way of their technology trained sales staff that included 

Al Marshall, Bruce Curtis, Larry Hanson, Bob Walton, Dick 

Peyran, and Bud Filler.

The Forest Service’s Close Timber Utilization Committee 

was organized in the early 1970s to consider opportunities for utilizing more of the residues from forest harvesting operations. Considering the history of particleboards 

in general and the success of NOVOPLY as an engineered 

particleboard product, the Close Timber Utilization Committee considered such products to offer promising uses for 

many types of forest and processing residues. Subsequently, 

the Forest Service Structural Flakeboard Task Force was 

organized. Together, these committees were effective in getting cooperation among different Forest Service, academic, 

and industry laboratories to establish particleboard research 

programs.

At the same time, in the 1970s the Forest Service Close 

Timber Utilization Committee and the Forest Service Structural Flakeboard Task Force had been advocating that more 

efforts needed to be aimed at cleaning up forest residues. 

And too, Forest Service Economists encouraged the development of structural particleboard as a way to offset what 

resource specialists identified as a diminishing supply of 

timber for supplying veneer grade logs to satisfy the needs 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–236

4

of the construction industries. Accordingly, strong research 

efforts were aimed at utilizing standing and down forest 

residues. R.A. Arola, project leader of a Forest Service engineering research project at Houghton, Michigan, demonstrated that significant amounts of thinnings could be recovered economically by a completely mechanized system with 

improvement of residual stand quality and growth (Arola 

1978). At Missoula, Montana, David P. Lowery and John R. 

Host began new research to improve chipping (Lowery and 

Host 1978). At Pineville, Louisiana, Peter Koch concentrated on two large research efforts to acquire residual wood for 

structural flakeboard plants, the shaping-lathe headrig, and 

the mobile chipper (Koch 1978).

Other efforts were aimed at developing more effective 

manufacturing parameters. Eddie W. Price and William F. 

Lehmann investigated flaking alternatives for wood species 

of different densities used in boards produced at different 

compression ratios. Overall, use of disk and lathe flakers 

yielded boards with higher bending strength and modulus of 

elasticity for initial test conditions (50% relative humidity) 

and after accelerated aging. Internal bond strength of boards 

made of ring-cut flakes was the highest. Despite their internal bond strengths, boards made from ring-cut and drum-cut 

flakes were less stable after being subjected to environmental conditioning than boards made from lathe-cut and diskcut flakes (Price and Lehmann 1978).

The Forest Products Laboratory developed an idealized 

concept of the form forest residues should take to process 

them more effectively. This led to definition of particles of 

elongated dimensions in the fiber direction—approximately 

2-1/2 to 3 in. long with a nominal cross-section of 1 in. by 

1 in. or less. These particles were termed fingerlings that 

would then be ring flaked to a thickness of approximately 

0.012 to 0.02 in. The long thin fingerlings were deemed best 

for making aligned flake or randomly oriented flake fiberboard. However, the failure of conventional chippers to be 

able to consistently produce flakes with fingerling geometry 

required that other means of making fingerlings be 

developed.

Roger Arola and John R. Erickson patented a machine with 

a very novel spiral screw type cutterhead mounted on a rotary shaft to make fingerlings. Moreover, it was capable of 

being operated at a landing in the forest so that forest residues did not need to be transported uneconomically in bulk 

form. The inventors called this device a spiral- or helicalhead chipper. It became available for non-exclusive licensing from the U.S. Government (Erickson 1976).

R.L. Geimer and E.W. Price studied flake geometry, flake 

quality, flake alignment, average density, density gradients, 

layer thicknesses, and resin content for determining final 

manufacturing details for structural flakeboards made from 

western softwoods and southern hardwoods. A three-layer 

board was recommended for both types of wood. Long, thin 

flakes enhanced bending properties, while thick core flakes 

maximized internal bond strengths (Geimer and Price 1978).

Chung-Yun Hse in the USDA Forest Service laboratory at 

Pineville, Louisiana, studied the effect of a resin formulation for gluing flakeboard of mixed southern hardwoods. To 

produce a flakeboard of acceptably low density a phenolic 

alloy of phenol-formaldehyde resin and polyisocyanate was 

selected (Hse 1978).

To gain acceptance of new types of structural grades of 

flakeboard, Andrew J. Baker and Robert H. Gillespie demonstrated long-term structural service life. Life expectancy 

of phenolic-bonded flakeboard was simulated using accelerated aging and its response was compared satisfactorily 

with exterior-type plywood and solid lumber (Baker and 

Gillespie 1978).

To demonstrate boards produced using optimum specifications developed by research, J. Dobbin McNatt evaluated 4- 

by 8-foot panels from Douglas-fir forest residues. For use of 

wall sheathing, the panels exceeded accepted standards and 

they met requirements of the Uniform Building Code for 

roofs and floors. Under fire exposure, the panels had a Class 

B flame spread rating and exceeded fire endurance requirements for exterior walls of one- and two-family dwellings 

(McNatt1978).

Thus particleboard and related panel products, other than 

hardboard, that were mainly unknown and not thought of 

before the 1930s have come to the forefront since. When 

people, especially the Forest Service Close Timber Utilization Committee, and later the Forest Service Structural 

Flakeboard Task Force, began to think of product outlets 

for forest residues, particleboard naturally came to mind. 

Harvesting and utilization of chips, flakes, and smaller particles, from what we now term biomass, became the object 

of focused research within the Forest Service and among 

university and industry cooperators. 

The collective results from research were sufficiently promising to encourage a combined presentation of research 

results along with the basic economic factors that would be 

required to justify private investment in the construction of 

facilities to produce structural flakeboard panels. Thus, In 

June 6–8, 1978, the Forest Products Laboratory sponsored 

a groundbreaking symposium in Kansas City, Missouri, to 

present the technical findings of the Forest Service’s “flakeboard” research results in such techno-economic terms that 

would facilitate further feasibility assessments by potential 

investors. The symposium was convened by the Forest Service’s Structural Flakeboard Task Force that was appointed 

by Chief John R. McGuire in 1973. The meeting was titled 

“Structural Flakeboard from Forest Residues” with the collective set of presentations published as a Washington, D.C., 

Forest Service Technical Report (USDA 1978).

This symposium was perhaps a groundbreaking event 

because it was the first time the Forest Service had ever 
An Evolutionary History of Oriented Strandboard (OSB)

5

presented a Forest Service wide program of research collectively in the context of techno-economic considerations. 

The economic considerations included regional estimation 

of construction and operating costs for three different sizes 

of facilities and estimates of the annual amounts of forest 

and processing residues by species that could be expected 

to be available to supply such facilities. As for the production facilities, Peter Vajda, an internationally renowned civil 

engineer, presented detailed information for constructing 

flakeboard production facilities with three different capacities for production outputs. In this context, the symposium 

presented research findings and reports from 10 Forest 

Service wood-processing scientists and 10 Forest Service 

economists located in seven different regions of the United 

States. The preliminary feasibility assessments addressed 

16 different sites in different parts of the United States.

As one of the speakers at the meeting, Peter Vajda, stated, 

“The definition of a ‘structural flakeboard’ or the physical 

properties required for a board product to be deemed ‘structural’ are somewhat vague at present. What we do know is 

that in a structural-grade product we would like to optimize 

strength, stiffness, and dimensional stability (especially 

linear expansion) properties and assure that these properties 

are retained over a long period of time and under varying 

temperature and humidity conditions. We also know that 

boards made from ‘flakes’ have basically a higher modulus 

of rupture, a higher modulus of elasticity, and a lower linear 

expansion than boards made from ‘random-type particles’ 

such as shavings, sawdust, or hammermilled chips. Furthermore, strength retention after duration of load under varying 

temperature and humidity conditions, or, indeed, exposure 

to weather requires the use of an exterior-grade binder 

(phenolic or other).” 

Vajda also mentioned that Potlatch Forests, Inc., manufactured oriented strandwood in a pilot plant located in Lewiston, Idaho. The development at PFI stemmed from their 

market experience with the core voids that occurred in 3-ply 

1⁄2-in. sheathing plywood because of the size of knot holes 

and other defects allowed for core veneers. Voids in the core 

veneers created hidden spots where workmen carrying loads 

could step and dangerously break through. Thus, oriented 

strands were formed into core mats to replace the low grade 

core veneers for cross banding. The product was sold in the 

early 1970s under the name of PLYSTRAN (Vajda 1978). 

However, oriented strandboard had its beginnings around 

the same time Clark initiated research on waferboard when 

Armin Elmendorf started to work on mechanically orienting 

strands of wood to produce stronger particleboard (1950s). 

Research was later undertaken at the Forest Products Laboratory (Geimer 1976) and by scientists at Washington State 

University who conducted research on flake orientation 

(Bengston and others 1988), including flake orientation 

through fields of electricity. Others who worked on flake orientation included Peter Koch at the Forest Service Pineville, 

Louisiana, location. For the early PLYSTRAN product (late 

1960s), researchers at Potlatch Forests worked closely with 

John Talbott at Washington State University. Dr. Herbert 

B. McKean at PFI led a productive research staff that was 

responsible for many innovative engineered products that 

became established in building construction.

Public records of research projects conducted jointly between Potlatch Forests, Inc., and Washington State University (WSU) document their research on the development of 

wood strand orientation techniques in 1974. Both Washington State University and PFI were key long-term participants in keeping advancements in particleboard manufacture 

to the forefront. Year after year a composites (particleboard) 

symposium attended by leading industrialists and researchers in the field was held at WSU. Dr. George Marra began 

the symposia and Thomas M. Maloney became his strong 

successor. The 48th International Wood Composites Symposium sponsored by WSU and APA was held in Pullman, 

Washington, April 30–May 1, 2014, as The Engineered 

Wood Association meeting. John Talbott was the leading 

researcher at WSU and did pioneering work in aligning lignocellulosic particles in an electrical field. Thomas Maloney 

was also the author of the book Modern Particleboard and 

Dry Process Fiberboard Manufacturing.

When Max Himmelheber first started implementing his 

ideas for particleboard manufacture in the 1930s, the product yield from harvested trees in Germany was only about 

40%. Today, with increased use of wood chips and sawdust, 

logging residues have been reduced to less than 10%, with 

little to no processing residues to dispose of (Haynes 2003). 

Literature Cited

Arola, R.A. 1978. Fiber for structural flakeboard—mechanized thinning and topwood recovery. In: Proceedings of 

structural flakeboard from forest residues symposium. U.S. 

Forest Service GTR–WO–5. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. pp. 13–38.

Baker, A.J.; Gillespie, R.H. 1978. Accelerated aging of 

phenolic-bonded flakeboards. In: Proceedings of structural 

flakeboard from forest residues symposium. U.S. Forest Service GTR–WO–5. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. 

pp. 93–100.

Bengston, D.N.; Gregersen, H.M.; Haygreen, J. 1988. 

Seesawing across the forty-ninth parallel. Journal of Forest 

History. 32(2):82–88.

Erickson, J.R. 1976. Exploratory trials with a spiral-head 

chipper to make hardwood “fingerling”chips for ring flakes. 

Forest Products Journal. 26(6):50–53.

Geimer, R.L. 1976. Flake alignment in particleboard as affected by machine variables and particle geometry. U.S. 

Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory Research Paper 

FPL 275. Madison, WI.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–236

6

Geimer, R.L.; Price, E.W. 1978. Construction variables 

considered in fabrication of a structural particleboard. In: 

Proceedings of structural flakeboard from forest residues 

symposium. U.S. Forest Service GTR–WO–5 Washington, 

D.C.: USDA Forest Service. pp. 69–92.

Haynes, R.W. Technical Coordinator.2003. An analysis of 

the timber situation in the United States: 1952–2050: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service 

RPA Assessment. General Technical Report PNW–GTR–

560. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Hse, C-Y. 1978. Development of a resin system for gluing 

southern hardwood flakeboards. In: Proceedings of structural flakeboard from forest residues symposium. U.S. Forest Service GTR–WO–5 Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest 

Service. pp. 81–92

Jorgensen, Richard N.; 1978. Requirements, codes, and forest service goals. In: Proceedings of structural flakeboard 

from forest residues symposium. U.S. Forest Service GTR–

WO–5 Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. pp. 10–12.

Koch, P. 1978. Two methods of acquiring residual wood for 

southern flakeboard plants—the shaping lathe headrig and 

the mobile chipper. In: Proceedings of structural flakeboard 

from forest residues symposium. U.S. Forest Service GTR–

WO–5 Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. pp. 39–46.

Lowery, D.P; Host, J.R. 1978. Structural flakeboard: collection, transportation, and preparation of wester forest 

residues. In: Proceedings of structural flakeboard from forest residues symposium. U.S. Forest Service GTR–WO–5 

Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. pp. 33–46.

McNatt. 1978. Manufacture and performance of full-size 

structural flakeboards from Douglas-fir forest residues. In: 

Proceedings of structural flakeboard from forest residues 

symposium. U.S. Forest Service GTR–WO–5 Washington, 

D.C.: USDA Forest Service. pp. 118–132.

Moslemi, A.A. 1974. Particleboard, Volumes 1 and 2. 

Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale, IL and 

Edwardsville, IL.

OSBGuide. 2014. Timberco, Inc. dba TECO, Cottage 

Grove, WI. http://osbguide.tecotested.com/osbfacts. Accessed 10-16-2014.

Price, E.W.; Lehmann, W.F. 1978. Flaking alternatives. In: 

Proceedings of structural flakeboard from forest residues 

symposium. U.S. Forest Service GTR–WO–5 Washington, 

D.C.: USDA Forest Service. pp. 47–68.

Rishell, C.A. 1958. TECO takes a new look at wood utilization. Journal of Forestry. 56:8.

Vajda, P. 1978. Plant facility considerations for structural 

flakeboard manufacture. In: Proceedings of structural flakeboard from forest residues symposium. U.S. Forest Service 

GTR–WO–5 Washington, D.C.: UDSA Forest Service. 

pp. 133–139.

USDA, Forest Service. 1978. Structural flakeboard from 

forest residues. General Technical Report WO–5. 241 p.