Effects of Fire-retardant Treatment and Burl Wood Structure on Three-dimensional Changes of Sandwich Panels Made from Walnut Decorative Veneer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of a fire-retardant treatment and burl wood structure on the three-dimensional changes of aircraft sandwich panels were evaluated. Unvarnished and varnished panels with an outer decorative layer made from walnut burl (Juglans hindsii L.) were studied. Half of the samples from each type of panel received a fire-retardant treatment (phosphate-based) on all three layers of the decorative plywood. The other half had the two inner layers treated and the outer layer was left untreated. Three different wood areas formed by rotary peeling and by the grain orientation from the burl structure were identified and their veneer surfaces were separately studied. Samples pre-conditioned at 20 °C and 40% relative humidity (RH) underwent adsorption (25 °C, 90% RH) and then desorption (25 °C, 40% RH) treatments. Changes in the moisture content (MC), swelling, shrinkage, roughness, and waviness were measured after each moisture exposure condition. The results showed that the fire-retardant treatment significantly increased the MC, swelling, shrinkage, roughness, and waviness of the unvarnished and varnished panels. This treatment also affected the roughness and waviness of the burl wood structure for the unvarnished panels. The effect of this anatomical feature was not noticeable in the varnished panels.
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".