Study of adhesive-particle interaction in OSB (Oriented Strand Board)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The market of OSB panels has enhanced and the production of high quality products requires satisfactory adhesion. This work aimed to evaluate the interaction between strand particles and phenol-formaldehyde adhesive in order to relate this interaction with the final quality of the panel. Pinus oocarpa and Eucalyptus grandis trees were used and had their basic density, chemical composition and anatomical properties determined. Strand particles were obtained in disc mill and. The following chemical treatments were applied to the particles: sodium hydroxide at 1,5%, acetic acid at 1,5% distilled water during 24 hours. Moreover, non-treated particles were evaluated as control. Contact angles measurements with particle surfaces were preceded by selecting particles from heartwood and sapwood for Eucalyptus oocarpa and spring wood and late wood for Pinus oocarpa. The adhesive amount per particles values were obtained by measuring dimensions and mass before and after gluing. To allow the analyses, the particles were divided into groups which corresponded to adhesive proportion. OSB panels were produced with phenol-formaldehyde adhesive at 6, 9 and 12% for both species. The pressing cycle variables were: pressure of 3,92 MPa and temperature of 150°C during 8 minutes. After the production, the panels were transformed in samples which were acclimatized until constant mass for perpendicular traction. Average results for basic density were 0,456 g/cm³ for Pinus oocarpa and 0,510 g/cm³ for Eucalyptus grandis. Adhesive contents did not significantly influenced effective amount of adhesive applied, but they were significant for glue amount. Adhesive application groups were significant for both variables. For Pinus oocarpa species, spring wood presented lower contact angle, while lower angles were observed for sapwood of Eucalyptus grandis. Chemical treatments applied to the particles of both species caused changed in the particle surfaces and decreased the contact angle possibly due to extraction of a portion of extractives. Acetic acid and sodium hydroxide were more efficient in reducing contact angle. Panels made from Eucalyptus grandis and adhesive at 9 and 12% and panels made from Pinus oocarpa and adhesive at 12% presented perpendicular traction values that met CSA 0437-0 (CANADIAN STANDARDAS ASSOCIATION - CSA, 1993) standard requirement. Pinus oocarpa had lower basic density and lower perpendicular traction. The interaction between particle and adhesive was very complex, mostly due to need to control homogeneity of adhesive application. More details about the modifications suffered by the extractives due to chemical treatment of the particles are needed.
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".