- Page 1 and 2: Corrugated Wood Composite Panels Fo
- Page 3 and 4: AcknowledgementsI would like to exp
- Page 5 and 6: Molding trials on 16”x16” panel
- Page 7 and 8: Table of ContentsAbstract..........
- Page 9 and 10: Corrugated Panel Single Span Test..
- Page 11 and 12: List of FiguresFigure 1: Corrugated
- Page 13 and 14: Figure 48: Load-displacement curves
- Page 15 and 16: Figure 93: Mock-up floor constructi
- Page 17 and 18: Table 20: MOE and strong axis bendi
- Page 19 and 20: IntroductionWood flake composite pa
- Page 21 and 22: process needed to be refined in ord
- Page 23 and 24: 4. Construct and test the performan
- Page 25 and 26: system (OSB top layer nailed-glued
- Page 27 and 28: In geometry design studies, four ge
- Page 29: Similarly, the relative strength ca
- Page 33 and 34: 21.51.8Moldability Factor1.451.4Mol
- Page 35 and 36: with as little modification to the
- Page 37 and 38: uniform line loads, or concentrated
- Page 39 and 40: subject to loads. Thus, thin shell
- Page 41 and 42: FE models are used to analyze both
- Page 43 and 44: with 4-node thin shell elements. In
- Page 45 and 46: Orthotropic Plate ModelTypical ligh
- Page 47 and 48: 2 2∂∆( x, y) ∂∆( x, y)Myy(
- Page 49 and 50: 1.41.2Fourier series approximation
- Page 51 and 52: 2qLnπqn( x) = sin( yo) for n= 1,2,
- Page 53 and 54: Free-Free and Simply Supported (FFS
- Page 55 and 56: ∫02 2⎛ ∂∆n ∂δ∆n 2 ∂
- Page 57 and 58: Convergence studies of FFSS PlatesT
- Page 59 and 60: 0.440.4380” 0.4292” 0.4434”0.
- Page 61 and 62: Beam ModelIn simple beam theory, th
- Page 63 and 64: Qz ( )⎧⎪⎪⎪h− th+t2 2⎛ 2
- Page 65 and 66: ⎡h+t2⎢ 12 ⎥first= 2 ⎢ ( τf
- Page 67 and 68: of elasticity (psi) and shear modul
- Page 69 and 70: 3∆ ≈ PL PLFEcb 1cs148EI+ 4GA(63
- Page 71 and 72: Two-span ModelFor the two-span cond
- Page 73 and 74: was encountered. The error was larg
- Page 75 and 76: Composite Deck Beam ModelBending st
- Page 77 and 78: of the corrugated panel. Substituti
- Page 79 and 80: Cefffor a specific bond, such as a
- Page 81 and 82:
if the closing gap was at a distanc
- Page 83 and 84:
weight of panel at the time of test
- Page 85 and 86:
Green aspen logs were used to produ
- Page 87 and 88:
Gauge Pressure750 psi020 180 210Tim
- Page 89 and 90:
Testing of 16”x16” PanelsThe st
- Page 91 and 92:
0.10 or lower. This indicates that
- Page 93 and 94:
zxy0.25”x0.25” 4-nodethin shell
- Page 95 and 96:
700Load/Deflection (lbs/in), y60050
- Page 97 and 98:
Load/Deflection (lbs/in), y60050040
- Page 99 and 100:
Beam ModelPPLL eqFigure 45: Equival
- Page 101 and 102:
Table 13: MOE, bending stiffness an
- Page 103 and 104:
The moisture contents of the specim
- Page 105 and 106:
Finite Element ModelFE models were
- Page 107 and 108:
The panel skin thickness also exhib
- Page 109 and 110:
The load-to-deflection ratio can di
- Page 111 and 112:
used for each thickness level. The
- Page 113 and 114:
The smallest span used in the calib
- Page 115 and 116:
Test ResultsThe average moisture co
- Page 117 and 118:
Table 23: Maximum shear and moment
- Page 119 and 120:
Maximum Moment (lbf-in/ft)500040003
- Page 121 and 122:
Test ResultsFigure 61: Load-deflect
- Page 123 and 124:
Test ProceduresTwo edge test assemb
- Page 125 and 126:
Lateral Density ProfileThe 16”x16
- Page 127 and 128:
Manufacture of 4ft x 8ft Corrugated
- Page 129 and 130:
as the carrier with an idea of desi
- Page 131 and 132:
Full-Scale Panel TestingBending pro
- Page 133 and 134:
approximate the solution for deflec
- Page 135 and 136:
Table 30: Flexure test results of 4
- Page 137 and 138:
Load22 ½” o.c. or30 ½” o.c.24
- Page 139 and 140:
ending stiffness were both over 400
- Page 141 and 142:
Corrugated Panel Two-Span Continuou
- Page 143 and 144:
the FE model estimation. The averag
- Page 145 and 146:
Strength Axis Static Bending of 2
- Page 147 and 148:
Test ProceduresNon-destructive flex
- Page 149 and 150:
used as the element thicknesses for
- Page 151 and 152:
of the partial composite test. Figu
- Page 153 and 154:
1 .10 4 FE Model (average)Load/Defl
- Page 155 and 156:
Composite Deck Two-Span Continuous
- Page 157 and 158:
ick elements for adhesive, etc.) us
- Page 159 and 160:
1.6 .10 4 FE Model (average)1.4 . 1
- Page 161 and 162:
Composite T-BeamComposite nailed-gl
- Page 163 and 164:
ottom flange of the I-joist. A tota
- Page 165 and 166:
EIwandEIfare the bending stiffnesse
- Page 167 and 168:
whereL adis the length of the adhe
- Page 169 and 170:
EIuis the bending stiffness of the
- Page 171 and 172:
Table 38: Material properties of th
- Page 173 and 174:
System BehaviorThe bending stiffnes
- Page 175 and 176:
Table 40: System effect of nailed-g
- Page 177 and 178:
A’Joints of OSBunderlayment(solid
- Page 179 and 180:
¼” dia. AFG-01 adhesiveFigure 92
- Page 181 and 182:
lockings were also installed at the
- Page 183 and 184:
Comparison to Traditional Floor Sys
- Page 185 and 186:
The baseline flexural capacities of
- Page 187 and 188:
Conclusions and RecommendationsConc
- Page 189 and 190:
The potential of using the shallow
- Page 191 and 192:
dj= depth of I-joist (in)E = modulu
- Page 193 and 194:
h = channel depth of the corrugated
- Page 195 and 196:
Sc= section modulus of the corrugat
- Page 197 and 198:
τfirst= first order shear stressϖ
- Page 199 and 200:
Howard, J.L. (2001). “U.S. Forest
- Page 201 and 202:
Appendix A. Moment of Inertia of Co
- Page 203 and 204:
Appendix B. Moldability FactorConce
- Page 205 and 206:
Appendix D. FFSS Plate Under Line L
- Page 207 and 208:
Ff = @(x)2.*qo./b.*sin(beta(k).*yo)
- Page 209 and 210:
Appendix F. Test Data for 16”x16
- Page 211 and 212:
Edge Point LoadPanel Type-ALower de
- Page 213 and 214:
Appendix H. Lateral Density Profile
- Page 215 and 216:
Panel:Date:5-4November 11, 2002Widt
- Page 217 and 218:
08LT24”x32”08RT24”x64”11LT2
- Page 219 and 220:
30T48”x48”35LT24”x64”35RT24
- Page 221 and 222:
Nominal 32” Two-Span TestPanelNo.
- Page 223 and 224:
Nominal 24” Two-Span Composite Te
- Page 225 and 226:
Appendix K. Shear Modulus of I-Jois
- Page 227:
Appendix L. Allowable Moment Estima