Strength Properties of Aged Wood III: Static and impact bending strength properties of aged keyaki and akamatsu woods
Open accessAbstract
建築解体材より採取した古材の無欠点小試片を用いた試験から静的曲げ強さ (MOR), 曲げヤング係数 (MOE), 衝撃曲げ強さを求めこれを新材の値と比較した。供試古材は建築後255年経過したケヤキ, 115年 (静的曲げ試験のみ), 270年および290年経過したアカマツである。新材と比較対照古材の密度の分布を合致させたうえでそれぞれの強度特性を比較するためモンテカルロシミュレーションを行った。シミュレーションで得られた新材の値と古材の値との比較から次のことが明らかになった。MOR, MOEはケヤキ古材では新材よりそれぞれ16.3%および14.8%減少し, アカマツ115年経過材では有意差はなく, 270年および290年経過したアカマツではいずれも増加した。増加率はそれぞれMOR : 17.3, 10.8%, MOE : 42.1, 26.8%であった。衝撃曲げ強さはケヤキ, アカマツとも古材は新材より減少した。その減少率はケヤキ : 15.2%, アカマツ270年および290年経過材 : 27.1%, 22.1%であった。静的曲げ試験における比例限度応力の最大応力に対する比を古材と新材で比較すると, ケヤキでは有意差はなく, アカマツでは古材の値は増加しその増加率は14.1～31.9%であった。本研究の一連の実験結果を眺めるとアカマツ古材は新材に比べて強度増加を示すもの (圧縮, 静的曲げ, せん断) もあるが, 同時に脆性的性質を帯びているように見受けられ, この性質は, 破断面の長手方向に及ぶ長さの減少 (引張), 比例限度比の増加 (圧縮, 静的曲げ) および強度減少 (引張, 衝撃曲げ) などとして現れていると考えられる。
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The highest MOE increase, of about 11% and 27%, is reported in [27] where the authors compared new and 270/290 years old small specimen of akamatsu.
“The highest MOE increase, of about 11% and 27%, is reported in [27] where the authors compared new and 270/290 years old small specimen of akamatsu (Pinus densiflora, Siebold & Zucc).”
From A review on the mechanical properties of aged wood and salvaged timber (2016) · cites this paper as [27]
The Conclusions (p. 6) report MOE increases of 42.1% for 270-year-old akamatsu and 26.8% for 290-year-old akamatsu, compared with new wood. Thus about 27% is supported, but about 11% is not an MOE increase; the paper reports 10.8% for the 290-year-old wood’s MOR. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHirashima et al. observed a MOR increase for 270 and 290 years old akamatsu specimens (17 and 42%, respectively), when testing small size specimens.
“Whereas, Hirashima et al [27] observed a MOR increase for 270 and 290 years old akamatsu specimens (17 and 42%, respectively), when testing small size specimens.”
From A review on the mechanical properties of aged wood and salvaged timber (2016) · cites this paper as [27]
The paper used small clear specimens, and its Results (§2.3.3, p. 4) report a 17.3% MOR increase for 270-year-old akamatsu. For 290-year-old akamatsu, however, the Results and Conclusion (p. 6) report a 10.8% MOR increase; 42.1% is the MOE increase for the 270-year-old specimens. The English summary (p. 1) gives the claimed 42.1% MOR figure, but it conflicts with the results, conclusion, and tabulated values. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMOE decrease was observed by several authors testing small and clear specimens: -15% [27]; -25% [4]; -12% [25].
“MOE decrease was also observed by several authors testing small and clear specimens: -15% [27]; -25% [4]; -12% [25].”
From A review on the mechanical properties of aged wood and salvaged timber (2016) · cites this paper as [27]
Except for [20,22,31], which reported only MOR reduction but no MOE reduction, in the other cases MOE and MOR evidenced the same behaviour: no variation in [1,17,24,26,27,36,60]; minor variation in [30,34]; decrease for both in [4,27,55].
“Except for [20,22,31], that reported only MOR reduction but no MOE reduction, in the other cases MOE and MOR evidenced the same behaviour: i) no variation was found in [1,17,24,26,27,36,60]; ii) minor variation was found in [30,34]; iii) decrease for both MOR and MOE was found in [4,27,55].”
From A review on the mechanical properties of aged wood and salvaged timber (2016) · cites this paper as [27]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A review on the mechanical properties of aged wood and salvaged timber
Cavalli, A., Cibecchini, D., Togni, M., & Sousa, H. S. (2016) · Construction and Building Materials · doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.001 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Sakaguchi, D., Takano, A., & Hughes, M. (2017) · International Wood Products Journal · doi:10.1080/20426445.2017.1389835 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- HIRASHIMA, Y., SUGIHARA, M., SASAKI, Y., ANDO, K., & YAMASAKI, M.
- Affiliations
- Nagoya University (JP)
- Nagoya Institute of Technology (JP)
- Venue
- Mokuzai Gakkaishi
- Publisher
- Japan Wood Society
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 146-152
- ISSN
- 0021-4795 (ISSN-L)
- 1880-7577
- OpenAlex
- W1975241327
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 5.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- ja
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- 木材学会誌 (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Wood Treatment and Properties
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Hygrothermal properties of building materials
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Bamboo properties and applications
- Keywords
- aged wood, static bending strength, elastic modulus, impact bending strength, wood aging, brittle fracture, wood density
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
