Evaluation of Compressive Strength in Various Timbers for Agricultural Implements in Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, India

Annu Rani, Jayant Singh, T.P. Singh, Ajit Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Choudhary
{"title":"Evaluation of Compressive Strength in Various Timbers for Agricultural Implements in Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, India","authors":"Annu Rani, Jayant Singh, T.P. Singh, Ajit Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Choudhary","doi":"10.9734/acri/2024/v24i5754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates the compressive strength of various timber types, including Red Cedar, Java Plum, Mango, Yellow Teak, Margosa, Eucalyptus, Teak, North Indian Rose timber, Lebbeck, and Sal. The compressive strengths of these timbers were measured to be 43.79, 50.42, 78.00, 71.16, 68.32, 69.88, 80.78, 85.50, 65.12, and 81.20 MPa, respectively. North Indian Rose timber and Sal exhibited the highest compressive strengths, suggesting their superior suitability for applications requiring high compressive resistance. Conversely, Red Cedar showed the lowest compressive strength among the timbers tested. The standard deviations for these measurements were Java Plum (0.07), Mango (0.28), Yellow Teak (0.36), Teak (0.45), Margosa (0.52), Eucalyptus (6.11), Red Cedar (0.69), North Indian Rose timber (0.79), Lebbeck (0.93), and Sal (0.68), with Mango displaying the lowest variation. The findings indicate that North Indian Rose timber and Sal are particularly robust, while Mango exhibits consistent compressive strength, making these timbers preferable for specific structural applications.","PeriodicalId":505151,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Current Research International","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Current Research International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/acri/2024/v24i5754","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigates the compressive strength of various timber types, including Red Cedar, Java Plum, Mango, Yellow Teak, Margosa, Eucalyptus, Teak, North Indian Rose timber, Lebbeck, and Sal. The compressive strengths of these timbers were measured to be 43.79, 50.42, 78.00, 71.16, 68.32, 69.88, 80.78, 85.50, 65.12, and 81.20 MPa, respectively. North Indian Rose timber and Sal exhibited the highest compressive strengths, suggesting their superior suitability for applications requiring high compressive resistance. Conversely, Red Cedar showed the lowest compressive strength among the timbers tested. The standard deviations for these measurements were Java Plum (0.07), Mango (0.28), Yellow Teak (0.36), Teak (0.45), Margosa (0.52), Eucalyptus (6.11), Red Cedar (0.69), North Indian Rose timber (0.79), Lebbeck (0.93), and Sal (0.68), with Mango displaying the lowest variation. The findings indicate that North Indian Rose timber and Sal are particularly robust, while Mango exhibits consistent compressive strength, making these timbers preferable for specific structural applications.
印度北阿坎德邦潘特纳加各种农具用木材抗压强度评估
本研究调查了各种木材的抗压强度,包括红雪松、爪哇李、芒果、黄柚木、玛戈沙、桉树、柚木、北印度玫瑰木、莱贝克和萨尔。这些木材的抗压强度分别为 43.79、50.42、78.00、71.16、68.32、69.88、80.78、85.50、65.12 和 81.20 兆帕。北印度玫瑰木和萨尔木的抗压强度最高,这表明它们非常适合需要高抗压性的应用。相反,红柏的抗压强度在受测木材中最低。这些测量值的标准偏差分别为:爪哇李(0.07)、芒果(0.28)、黄柚木(0.36)、柚木(0.45)、玛戈沙(0.52)、桉树(6.11)、红雪松(0.69)、北印度玫瑰木(0.79)、莱贝克(0.93)和萨尔(0.68),其中芒果的变化最小。研究结果表明,北印度玫瑰木和萨尔木特别坚固,而芒果木则表现出稳定的抗压强度,因此这些木材更适合用于特定的结构应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信