Physical and mechanical properties of black locust (<i>Robinia pseudoacacia</i>) wood grown in Belgium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to characterize black locust ( Robinia pseudoacacia L.) wood on the basis of its physical and mechanical properties. The results are compared with those reported in the literature for English oak ( Quercus robur L.), teak ( Tectona grandis L. f.), and afzelia ( Afzelia sp.), since black locust is likely to be used for the same purposes as the former species. The variations between sites, trees, and radial positions in the trunk were also studied. The physical and mechanical properties of black locust wood were evaluated on clear wood specimens taken from 27 trees distributed over five sites in Wallonia (Belgium) according to Belgian and French standards. Most of the black locust’s mechanical properties are higher than those of oak and teak. The black locust is classified as a “mid-heavy” (734 kg·m–3) and “half-hard” (5.22) wood type with very high resilience (17.2 J·cm–2), modulus of elasticity (15 700 MPa), and tensile strength in static bending (138 MPa). Its resilience is exceptional, higher than that of teak and afzelia, while its modulus of elasticity and bending strength, which surpass those of teak, are comparable with those of afzelia. Black locust shows high total volumetric shrinkage (16%), placing it in the “nervous” class, average tangential (8.8%) and radial shrinkage (5.5%) as well as average axial compressive (63 MPa) and splitting strength (17.8 N·mm–1). No technological incompatibilities would prevent the use of this wood for many value-added purposes (floor, deck, exterior woodwork, and furniture); however, significant shrinkage makes it necessary to condition the wood to its service moisture.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".