## 3 Results and Discussion
### Physical Properties  
The FRP-LVL exhibited a higher density compared to the control panel, as indicated in Table 4. The density increase ranged from 6.23% for the ER-CF sample, with a density of 563 kg/m\({}^{3}\), to 10.38% for the PVAc-CF sample, with a density of 585 kg/m\({}^{3}\). However, these differences in density between the FRP-LVL samples were not found to be statistically significant. Furthermore, the density profile of the FRP-LVL samples revealed variations, particularly with a noticeable peak on the surface where the carbon and basalt fibers were positioned. This suggests that the distribution of fibers impacted the density profile of the FRP-LVL panels. Basalt fiber-reinforced samples revealed the highest density peaks, but in smaller thickness, while carbon fiber-reinforced samples revealed the lowest density peaks, but in larger thickness (Figure 3). This is consistent with the fiber's properties presented in Table 1 and with [50], who says that BF density is higher than CF density. The difference in thicknesses observed in Figure 3 is due to the thicknesses of the engineering fibers, glue lines, and small differences between the veneers themselves. The density values of the FRP-LVL were found to be higher in comparison to LVL. This can be attributed to the incorporation of reinforcement fibers such as BF and CF, as well as \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**ID**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Density (kg/m\({}^{3}\))**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Moisture Content (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Thickness (mm)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Thickness Swelling (\%)**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & & & & & & **24 h** & & **48 h** \\ \cline{2-10}  & **Mean** & **St. Dev.** & **Mean** & **St. Dev.** & **Mean** & **St. Dev.** & **Mean** & **St. Dev.** & **Mean** & **St. Dev.** \\ \hline P & 530 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 27.29 & 8 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.64 & 14.33 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.31 & 1.26 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.81 & 5.13 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.93 \\ \hline ER-CF & 563 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 43.13 & 10 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.82 & 14.97 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.44 & 0.74 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.22 & 4.43 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 0.45 \\ \hline ER-BF & 570 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 31.81 & 11 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.28 & 14.41 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.20 & 0.66 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.88 & 5.32 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.41 \\ \hline PVAc-CF & 585 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 14.14 & 12 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.14 & 15.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.23 & 0.60 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.70 & 4.16 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.64 \\ \hline PVAc-BF & 568 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 41.92 & 12 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 0.40 & 14.20 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.24 & 0.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.00 & 4.83 \({}^{\text{abc}}\) & 1.03 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Column means are indicated with different letters (a, b, c, and d) to indicate homogeneous groups from the multiple-range test by [PERSON]’s LSD method. This means that different letters are statistically different from each other at a 95% confidence level.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of physical properties. Figure 3: Density profile of the composite panels. the use of adhesives ER and PVAc, which have higher density values than wood. However, it was observed that there was no direct correlation between the type of reinforcement fiber or adhesive employed and the extent of density increase in the tested samples. The moisture content (MC) values of the FRP-LVL samples were higher than the MC value of the control sample. Aside from the factors that are inherent to the wood itself, aspects related to the manufacturing processes of LVL influence its equilibrium MC [43]. All of the samples exhibited moisture content within the expected range for conditioning, ranging between 8% and 12%. This indicated that the samples were appropriately conditioned, and their moisture content levels were within the desired specifications.