MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flexural and Shear Performance of Wood Composite Panel with Embedded Cross-Laminations

2021· article· en· W3211052319 on OpenAlexaff
Bojan Cosovic, Hyungsuk Lim, Rubin Shmulsky, Frank Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposite numberComposite materialCross laminated timberStiffnessMaterials scienceFlexural strengthShear (geology)BendingBending stiffnessNeutral axisStructural engineeringFlexural rigidityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structural behavior of an innovative wood-based composite system, manufactured out of 2×6 southern yellow pine lumber, was studied through destructive experiments. The composite panel system consisted of profiled 34.9-mm-thick surface laminations with precut rectangular grooves and 25.4-mm-thick cross-laminations fitted (embedded/dadoed) into the grooves. The cross-laminations were oriented across the surface layers at a specified repetitive spacing. Given that the 34.9-mm-thick surface laminations were in direct contact with each other in those places where the cross-laminations were absent, the total depth of the panels was 69.9 mm. The flexural and shear performance of this composite system, which is called embedded cross-laminated timber (ECLT), were compared against that of the conventional three-ply cross-laminated timber (CLT) panel with the same thickness. The ECLT panel specimens were expected to perform better than the CLT panel specimens in bending because they have more wood fibers aligned parallel to their neutral axes. The effective bending stiffness (EIeff) and moment carrying capacity of the two composite systems were obtained by conducting four-point bending tests at a span-to-depth ratio of 26.4∶1. The ECLT specimens exhibited an average moment carrying capacity of 10.9×106 N·mm and EIeff of 89.4×109 N·mm2, while the conventional CLT specimens achieved corresponding properties of 10.2×106 N·mm and 84.2×109 N·mm2, respectively. Also, the effective shear stiffness (GAeff) and shear force capacity of the composite systems were estimated and measured, respectively, by conducting four-point bending tests at a span-to-depth ratio of 11.6∶1. On average, the ECLT specimens resisted the shear force of 38.2×103 N, while the conventional CLT specimens resisted 36.7×103 N. The average estimated GAeff values of ECLT and CLT were 2.57×106 N and 1.93×106 N, respectively. Thus, these study results indicate that the proposed cross-laminated wood composite product might outperform conventional CLT in the major direction under bending.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials in Civil EngineeringSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207