4.6 Article

Experimental investigation into fire performance of mixed species glulam beams under three-side fire exposure

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WOOD AND WOOD PRODUCTS
Volume 80, Issue 1, Pages 235-245

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00107-021-01746-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2019YFD1101001]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51978331]
  3. Provincial Training Programs of Innovation and Entrepreneurship for Undergraduates of Nanjing Tech University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the fire performance of mixed species glulam beams, showing that they outperformed pure Chinese fir glulam beams in fire resistance and residual bearing capacity. The research also indicated the feasibility of using low-quality fast-growing wood effectively and cost-efficiently, with significant increases in residual bearing capacity compared to Chinese fir glulam beams.
The fire performance of glulam beams of high-quality structural materials was examined in this study. Beam specimens of different wood species were subjected to different fire durations and their tension-zone (bottom) fire performance and residual bearing capacity were measured. The charring rate of the Chinese fir glulam beam mixed Douglas fir and larch wood in the tension zone was lower and its residual bearing capacity higher than a pure Chinese fir glulam beam. A set of residual section calculation results was compared with the test values to determine their feasibility in evaluating the fire performance of mixed species glulam beams. The error between the test and calculated values was less than 10%. This research could achieve effective use of low-quality fast-growing wood (Chinese fir) and save costs. In addition, the residual bearing capacity of these beams was increased by 69.1-245.4% compared with Chinese fir glulam beams.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available