Developing structural sandwich panels for energy-efficient wall applications using laminated oil palm wood and rubberwood-based plywood/oriented strand board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, a new type of structural sandwich panels made with laminated oil palm wood core and rubberwood-based oriented strand board (OSB)/plywood faces were introduced for energy-efficient wall applications in Thailand. Effect of the manufacturing process and material parameters including adhesive content (250 g/m 2 and 500 g/m 2 ), core configuration (cross or parallel laminated oil palm lumber) and density (low and medium) and face material type (rubberwood-based OSB/plywood) on panel’s properties were explored. The panels were produced using two-component polyurethane adhesive and a constant clamping pressure of 0.6 MPa. Adhesive content of 250 g/m 2 was found to be sufficient for gluing all layers, with wood failure percentage of more than 80% as required by the standard. In-plane dimensional stability of the panels was mainly affected by the core configuration; it was better for cross laminated oil palm wood core sandwich panel. Higher core density resulted in increased density, thermal conductivity and compressive strength in the major direction but lower thermal resistance of the panel. The plywood face sandwich panels provided slightly higher compressive strength than OSB face sandwich panel, and their failure mechanisms were also different. The heat loss of these panels was about one-third of concrete and brick walls, hence, they can provide better insulation for indoor space. Based on the measured thermal conductivity, it was expected that these panels would pass the energy criteria according to Building Energy Code of Thailand. Thus, from the energy saving and sustainability perspectives, these panels can potentially be used as energy efficient wall panels for buildings, not only for Thailand but also for other tropical countries, where the oil palm wood and rubberwood resource is available.
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".