Evaluation of Major Physical and Mechanical Properties of Trembling Aspen Lumber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, a predominant genus of hardwoods in North America. However, its utilization has been limited to pulp and paper or wood-based composite boards. This study aimed at evaluating the major physical and mechanical properties of trembling aspen lumber, with an ultimate objective of using this species to produce engineered wood products (EWPs). The testing materials consisted of 2 × 4 (38 mm × 89 mm) trembling aspen lumber pieces in lengths of 8, 10, and 12 feet (2.44, 3.05, and 3.66 m) with two visual grades, select structural (SS) and No. 2. Machine Stress-Rated (MSR), and longitudinal stress wave (LSW), edgewise third-point bending (EWB), and axial tension tests were conducted on the lumber. It was found that, (1) by increasing the maximum knot size by a half-inch from one-quarter inch, the minimum modulus of elasticity (MOE) measured using the MSR, the mean, and the fifth-percentile ultimate tensile strength (UTS) decreased by about 8.8%, 20.1%, and 29.8%, respectively. (2) Approximately 44% of the trembling aspen lumber met the 1450f-1.3E grade for MSR lumber, and 62% qualified for the 1200f-1.2E grade. (3) There was a great potential for manufacturing cross-laminated timber (CLT) of grade E3, with a rejection rate of about 29%. (4) The mean UTS and MOE values of the SS-grade trembling aspen lumber were 22.88 MPa and 9519 MPa, respectively, being 25.5% and 11.3% lower than that of Spruce-Pine-Fir (S-P-F) lumber. The fifth-percentile UTS and MOE values were 11.57 MPa and 7404 MPa, respectively, marking a decrease of 13.3% and 1.5% compared to the S-P-F lumber. (5) The oven-dried specific gravity (SG) of the trembling aspen wood was 0.40, which was about 3.5% larger than the value provided in the Wood Handbook.
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".