4.6 Article

Cross-Laminated Secondary Timber: Experimental Testing and Modelling the Effect of Defects and Reduced Feedstock Properties

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su10114118

关键词

mass timber; lumber; waste wood; re-use and recycling; circular economy; off-site manufacture; building materials; construction and demolition waste; C&D; end-of-waste

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/G037698/1]
  2. UCL Centre for Urban Sustainability and Resilience Impact Award
  3. UCL
  4. Poplar HARCA
  5. Tower Hamlets Homes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The construction industry creates significant volumes of waste timber, much of which has residual quality and value that dissipates in conventional waste management. This research explored the novel concept of reusing secondary timber as feedstock for cross-laminated timber (CLT). If cross-laminated secondary timber (CLST) can replace conventional CLT, structural steel and reinforced concrete in some applications, this constitutes upcycling to displace materials of greater environmental impacts. The fabrication process and mechanical properties of CLST were tested in small-scale laboratory experiments, which showed no significant difference between the compression stiffness and strength of CLST and a control. Finite element modelling suggested that typical minor defects in secondary timber have only a small effect on CLST panel stiffness in compression and bending. Mechanically Jointed Beams Theory calculations to examine the potential impacts of secondary timber ageing on CLST panels found that this has little effect on compression stiffness if only the crosswise lamellae are replaced. Since use of secondary timber to make CLST has a more significant effect on bending stiffness, effective combinations of primary and secondary timber and their appropriate structural applications are proposed. The article concludes with open research questions to advance this concept towards commercial application.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据