MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Acoustic emission characteristics of cross-laminated timber-bamboo column with various layup configurations under axial compression

2025· article· en· W4407270338 on OpenAlexafffund
Qianzhi Huang, Yi Wang, Xuechun Wang, Ting Wang, Zhiqiang Wang, Meng Gong

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Structures · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBamboo properties and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersJiangsu Provincial Department of EducationNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNanjing Forestry UniversityQinglan Project of Jiangsu Province of ChinaUniversity of New Brunswick
KeywordsBambooAcoustic emissionColumn (typography)Cross laminated timberStructural engineeringMaterials scienceComposite numberCompression (physics)Composite materialEngineeringAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fast-growing Chinese fir and bamboo are abundant in China, which have been utilized to manufacture cross-laminated timber-bamboo (CLTB) and glued-laminated timber-bamboo (GLTB). This study was aimed at examining the layup configurations of CLTB and GLTB specimens on their axial compressive performance. The acoustic emission (AE) technique was employed to monitor the failure process of CLTB and GLTB column specimens. The results indicated that the compressive strength ( f c ) and modulus of elasticity (MOE) of CLTB were about 2.04 and 1.13 times of CLT, respectively. Compared with CLTB, the GLTB specimens had about 33 % and 30 % higher f c and MOE, respectively. Based on the AE parameter analysis, the failure process of all specimens could be grouped into gentle, steady, and steep periods, and the “fracture precursor characteristic area” could be employed to predict the failure. The specimens made of bamboo scrimber as outer longitudinal lamination released higher accumulated energy than those with fast-growing Chinese fir lumber. In addition, different optimal clustering number was obtained for the specimens with different layup configurations, which resulted in three kinds of signal clusters corresponding to different failure. The use of AE technique in this study might contribute to the health and safety monitoring of timber buildings.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering StructuresSame topicBamboo properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207