The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 9:30 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 1 hour.
1989
DOI: 10.1007/bf00350607
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modelling longitudinal elastic an shrinkage properties of wood

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
32
0
1

Year Published

1991
1991
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
4
32
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Noticeable differences in shrinkage could be recognized between MW and JW. Those agree with the differences in MfA as could be expected from the reinforced matrix theory discussed above (Barber and Meylan 1964, Cave 1972, Barrett et al 1972, Koponen et al 1989, Yamamoto 1999 MW and JW was not mirrored by the FTIR CW-indicator, which gave similar values for both wood types. Density (data not shown) was higher for MW than JW samples.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Noticeable differences in shrinkage could be recognized between MW and JW. Those agree with the differences in MfA as could be expected from the reinforced matrix theory discussed above (Barber and Meylan 1964, Cave 1972, Barrett et al 1972, Koponen et al 1989, Yamamoto 1999 MW and JW was not mirrored by the FTIR CW-indicator, which gave similar values for both wood types. Density (data not shown) was higher for MW than JW samples.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 84%
“…These include the microfibril angle (MfA) (Koehler 1931, Barber andMeylan 1964), the angle at which the cellulose fibrils wind in the tracheid cell walls, as well as the physical properties of the surrounding matrix. Theoretical models describing the influence of the MfA on the TS and LS have been developed based on a hygroscopic isotropic matrix consisting of hemicelluloses and lignin which is reinforced with rigid cellulose fibrils (Barber and Meylan 1964, Barrett et al 1972, Cave 1972, Koponen et al 1989, Yamamoto 1999. These theoretical models, refined over the years (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7b). This could be explained by the difference in microfibrillar angle between S 2 and G-layers, as has been observed and modelled for softwoods [32,49], but also by differences in chemical composition or other structural features. A comprehensive model relating the macroscopic behaviour in the L direction to the parameters of cell wall composition (e.g., [60]) would be required to analyse these relationships more deeply.…”
Section: Growth Stress/physico-mechanical Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…Différents modèles ont été proposés pour décrire l'anisotropie élastique pariétale à partir des propriétés élastiques des constituants de la paroi et de l'AMF ϕ. Ils considèrent généra-lement la juxtaposition de deux parois, appartenant respectivement à deux cellules adjacentes [1,4,7,8,14], Norimoto 1986 dans [15,23,24], prenant éventuellement en compte les sous couches S 1 et une lamelle mitoyenne M. Les couches externes du multicouche, représentatives des sous couches S 2 , sont à fibres inclinées à ± ϕ par rapport à l'axe cellulaire (Fig. 1).…”
Section: La Paroi Cellulaire Renforcée Par Des Microfibrilles Orientéesunclassified