The Dimensional Stability and Bonding Performance of Hybrid CLT Fabricated with Lumber and COSB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The differences of physical and mechanical properties of different laminations, such as softwood, hardwood or other structural composite lumber, in hybrid cross-laminated timber (HCLT), lead to their dimensional stability and bonding performance more complex than generic cross-laminated timber (CLT). In this paper, the spruce-pine-fir (SPF) dimension lumber and construction oriented strand board (COSB) were employed to fabricate HCLT. The effects of four configurations and three adhesives on the dimensional stability and bonding performance of CLT and HCLT were evaluated in term of the water absorption (WA), thickness swelling (TS), block shear strength (BSS), wood failure percentage (WFP) and rate of delamination (RD). The results showed that with the increase of the COSB laminations, the WA of HCLT specimens decreased, and the values of TS, BBS and WFP increased. The configuration had a significant influence on the dimensional stability, BBS and WFP of the specimen. The adhesive had a significant influence on the dimensional stability and some bonding performances of the specimen. The phenol resorcinol formaldehyde (PRF) specimens had the lowest average RD value compared with the one-component polyurethane (PUR) and emulsion polymer isocyanate (EPI) specimens. Failures were prone to occur in the middle of the thickness of COSB lamination during block shear and delamination tests. The outcome of this paper could help the engineering application of HLCT.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".