Microstructure and Mechanism of Grain Raising in Wood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grain raising, the lifting of fibres when water is applied to wood surfaces, is a reason why some companies are reluctant to finish wood products with water-borne coatings. However, the elements that lift-up and cause grain raising have not been identified, and the relationship between wood density and grain raising has not been clarified. Our work sought answers to both questions. We planed or sanded different woods using aluminum oxide abrasive paper, and characterized surfaces using profilometry and SEM. Surfaces were re-characterized after wetting and drying. Grain raising is inversely related to wood density. In particular, very low-density woods are highly susceptible to grain raising, whereas grain raising does not occur in high-density woods or planed woods. In low-density woods, sanding tears cell walls creating loosely-bonded slivers of wood that project from surfaces, particularly after wetting and drying. This mechanism for grain raising was confirmed by modelling the action of abrasives on wood cell walls using an array of hollow tubes and a serrated tool. Less commonly, fibres and fibre-bundles project from surfaces. We observed that grain raising was correlated with the coarseness of the abrasive and conclude that it can be reduced in severity by tailoring sanding to account for the density and surface microstructure of wood.
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".