Effect of strand geometry and wood species on strandboard mechanical properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the performance of strandboards made from trembling aspen, a lowdensity hardwood species, with strandboards made from paper birch, a medium-density hardwood species.Strands were cut into three different lengths (78, 105, and 142 mm) and two thicknesses (0.55 and 0.75 mm) to compare the impact of species, strand geometry, specific surface, and slenderness ratio.Internal bond (IB), modulus of elasticity (MOE), and modulus of rupture (MOR) for flatwise and edgewise bending, compressive strength, and stiffness were all determined.Both species performed equally well in IB (0.73 MPa for both species combined).The highest MOE and MOR values in flatwise and edgewise bending were obtained for long, thin strands and were significantly lower for birch than for aspen panels (flatwise: 13.6 GPa and 99.2 MPa for aspen and 12.1 GPa and 85.5 MPa for birch; edgewise: 13.5 GPa and 66.3 MPa for aspen and 13.2 GPa and 65.7 MPa for birch).Short aspen strands resulted in the highest compressive properties, slightly higher than those of short birch strands (aspen: compressive strength 10.4 MPa and stiffness 1.22 GPa; birch: 10.8 MPa and 2.25 GPa, respectively).Strand length must therefore be a compromise between the need for high bending properties provided by long strands and the need for high compressive properties provided by short strands.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".