4.5 Article

Effect of Growth Rings per Inch and Density on Compression Parallel to Grain in Southern Pine Lumber

期刊

BIORESOURCES
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 2310-2325

出版社

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV DEPT WOOD & PAPER SCI
DOI: 10.15376/biores.15.2.2310-2325

关键词

Wood mechanics; Lumber; Density; Growth rings

资金

  1. Grants and Agreements Management Branch (GAMB) [58-0202-4-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship of growth characteristics to compression properties from commercially available southern pine lumber. The in-grade No. 2 southern pine lumber was collected from retail stores across the Southeast United States. For this specific project, 797 samples of 2 x 8 and 2 x 10 boards were examined. The samples were subjected to static bending following ASTM D 198 to determine mechanical properties. The 2 x 8 samples averaged 4.78 growth rings per inch (RPI) and the 2 x 10s averaged 3.95. Average density (p) was 477 kg.m(-3) in the 2 x 8 and 487 kgm-3 for the 2 x 10 specimens. From small clear samples from the parent boards, compression parallel to grain averaged from 43.78 MPa for the 2 x 8 to 46.77 MPa for the 2 x 10. Correlations were run to test significance among growth rings per inch and compressions parallel to grain, across both sizes: 2 x 8 and 2 x 10. Slight significance was found in those correlations and increased in measure from 2 x 8 to 2 x 10. The segmentation of RPI into three distinct groups helped strengthen the findings of effect on compression parallel to grain. Moreover, the addition of density as another test variable further strengthened in relationship per those RPI categorizations. Statistically significant findings for density per RPI segments, R-2 values: for 2 x 8 equal 0.31 (3 or less RPI) to 0.60 (more than 5 RPI). For the 2 x 10 lumber per the same segments, R2 values: 0.39, 0.46 and 0.25, respectively. The results suggest p is a better predictor than RPI alone for compression parallel to grain values.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据