Ubc - 1991 - A6 - 7 X56 PDF

MODELLING STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS OF GLUED-LAMINATED TIMBER
USING MACHINE STRESS RATED LUMBER
By
PINGBO XIONG
M. Eng., Anhui A g r i c u l t u r a l U n i v e r s i t y , 1985
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

Department o f F o r e s t r y
We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g
to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

September 1991
© Pingbo X i o n g , 1991
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced
degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it
freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive
copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my
department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written
permission.
Department
The University of British Columbia

Vancouver, Canada
D a t e
0 O-T- ^ . I ^ S \
DE-6 (2/88)
ABSTRACT
A l o c a l i z e d E-simulation model and a s t r e n g t h s i m u l a t i o n model,
which a r e based on t h e t h e o r i e s o f s t a t i o n a r y random p r o c e s s and t h e
b i v a r i a t e standard normal d i s t r i b u t i o n , have been d e v e l o p e d .
A group o f 2 x 6 2100f-1.8E SPF MSR lumber have been t e s t e d t o
obtain the within-board c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h s . The t e s t E - p r o f i l e s and
compressive strength data was used to provide the statistical
i n f o r m a t i o n f o r E - s i m u l a t i o n model and c r - s i m u l a t i o n model.
The comparison between the within-board compressive strength
test data and t h e s i m u l a t i o n results shows that the E-simulation
approach and the cr-simulation approach can model the localized
s t i f f n e s s and s t r e n g t h b e h a v i o u r s satisfactorily.
Using E-simulation model and c r - s i m u l a t i o n model t h r e e grades o f
MSR lumber have been g e n e r a t e d with localized MOE, tension strength
and c o m p r e s s i o n s t r e n g t h p r o f i l e s on each board. W i t h t h e s e g e n e r a t e d
MSR lumbers, different sizes and layups of glulam beams have been
built and t h e e f f e c t o f beam sizes and layups on t h e s t r e n g t h of
g l u l a m beams has been simulated.
The r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d from g l u l a m beam s i m u l a t i o n showed t h a t t h e
beam s i z e s and l a y u p s d i d have s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e beam s t r e n g t h
p r o p e r t i e s . W i t h one o r two l a y e r s o f h i g h e r grade l a m i n a t i o n on t h e
outer l a y e r o f t h e beam and lower grade laminations i n the rest of
inner l a y e r s o f t h e beam, t h e g l u l a m beam b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h could be
improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y .
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF NOTATIONS xv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xviii
1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES 1
1.1 Objectives 3
1.2 P r e v i o u s Study 4
2. COFI MSR LUMBER TEST PROGRAM 7
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Materials 7
2.3 Test Procedures 8
2.4 R e s u l t s and A n a l y s i s 8
3. VITHIN-BOARD COMPRESSION EXPERIMENT 10
3.1 Introduction 10
3.2 Materials 10
3.3 Experiment D e s i g n and P r o c e d u r e s 11
3.4 Results 12
4. E - RANDOM PROCESS SIMULATION MODEL 14
4.1 Introduction 14
4.2 Theoretical Basis 14

iv
4.2.1 Random P r o c e s s e s 14
4.2.2 F o u r i e r T r a n s f o r m and Power S p e c t r a l D e n s i t y . . 15
4.2.3 M o d e l l i n g the Localized E-functions 19
4.3 E - f u n c t i o n S i m u l a t i o n Example 24
4.3.1 MSR E - p r o f i l e Treatment 24
4.3.2 S p e c t r a l A n a l y s i s o f E - p r o f i l e 25
4.3.3 R e c o n s t r u c t i o n of E-functions 26
5. BIVARIATE STANDARD NORMAL SIMULATION MODEL 29
5.1 Introduction 29
5.2 B i v a r i a t e Normal D i s t r i b u t i o n 30
5.3 Model Development 32
5.4 cr-Profile S i m u l a t i o n Example 35
6. GENERATION OF E- AND (7-PROFILES FOR THREE GRADES 38
6.1 Introduction 38
6.2 G e n e r a t i o n o f E - p r o f i l e s f o r Three Grades 38
6.3 G e n e r a t i o n o f < r - p r o f i l e s f o r Three Grades 39
7. GLULAM BEAM SIMULATIONS 44
7.1 Introduction 44
7.2 G l u l a m S i m u l a t i o n Model 45
7.3 S i m u l a t i o n Beam Layups 47
7.4 Simulation Results 48
8. DISCUSSION OF GLULAM SIMULATION RESULTS 50
8.1 Introduction 50
8.2 Modulus o f E l a s t i c i t y 50
8.3 Bending Strength 53
8.3.1 Grade E f f e c t 55
V
8.3.2 Depth E f f e c t 56
8.3.3 E f f e c t o f Mixed Grade Layups 56
8.3.3.1 1650f-1.5E and 2100f-1.8E Combinations 57
8.3.3.2 1650f-1.5E and 2400f-2.0E Combinations 57
8.3.4 Comparison o f bending s t r e n g t h f o r g l u l a m 59
8.4 Tensile Strength 60
8.5 Compressive S t r e n g t h 63
9. SIZE EFFECTS ANALYSIS 66
9.1 Introduction 66
9.2 Size Effects i n Bending S t r e n g t h 67
9.3 Size Effects i n Tensile Strength 67
9.4 Size Effects i n Compressive S t r e n g t h 68
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 69
10.1 CONCLUSIONS 69
10.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER VORK 70
11. REFERENCES 72
APPENDIX A : TABLE 1 - TABLE 21 75
APPENDIX B : FIGURE 1 - FIGURE 103 98

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. D e s c r i p t i o n o f t e s t m a t e r i a l s and t e s t m a t r i x from COFI .. 76
2. Summary s t a t i s t i c s f o r t e n s i o n MSR lumber from COFI t e s t . 77
3. Summary s t a t i s t i c s f o r compression MSR lumber
from COFI t e s t 78
4. Summary o f average beam p r o p e r t i e s 79
5. F i t t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n parameters f o r MOE and cr c 81
6. D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r t e s t E and GQ (2100f-1.8E) .... 82
7. D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r generated a c (2100f-1.8E) 83
8. D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r t e s t and g e n e r a t e d
MOE v a l u e s 84
9. Lower-bound s t r e n g t h s f o r compression and t e n s i o n
simulation 85
10. D e s c r i p t i o n o f s i m u l a t i o n beams 86
11. Parameters f o r 3-P W e i b u l l d i s t r i b u t i o n and t h e i r
a s s o c i a t e d 5 t h and 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f
s i m u l a t e d beam s t r e n g t h (Depth=9") 87
vii
14. S i m u l a t e d MOE, t r a n s f o r m e d MOE and t h e i r r a t i o s 90
15. Comparison o f s i m u l a t e d and p r e d i c t e d bending s t r e n g t h ... 91
16. T e s t o f mean v a l u e s o f bending s t r e n g t h f o r 24
beam l a y u p s 92
17. T e s t o f mean v a l u e s o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h f o r 24
beam l a y u p s 93
18. T e s t o f mean v a l u e s o f compressive s t r e n g t h f o r 24
beam l a y u p s 94
19. Bending s t r e n g t h s i z e parameter F ab 95
20. T e n s i l e s t r e n g t h s i z e parameter F st 96
21. Compressive s t r e n g t h s i z e parameter F s c 97

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. C u t t i n g p a t t e r n f o r t e n s i o n and compression specimen 99
2. CDF o f t e n s i o n d a t a from COFI t e s t (1650f-1.5E) 100
5. CDF o f compression d a t a from COFI t e s t (1650f-1.5E) 103
8. S h o r t span, f l a t w i s e b e n d i n g E - p r o f i l e 106
9. C u t t i n g and numbering p a t t e r n f o r compression specimen ... 107
10. E x p e r i m e n t a l s e t u p f o r c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h specimen 13
11. MOE and c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h p r o f i l e s a l o n g t h e l e n g t h ... 108
12. The c u m u l a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n (CDF) o f t e s t and
f i t t e d board mean o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h 109
f i t t e d board s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h .. 110
14. Ensemble o f MOE a l o n g t h e l e n g t h o f t h e board I l l
15. Ensemble o f z e r o mean MOE a l o n g t h e l e n g t h o f t h e b o a r d .. 112
16. P r o b a b i l i t y d e n s i t y f u n c t i o n p(</>(w))
t 113
17. Ensemble average o f t e s t E - p r o f i l e 114
18. Ensemble s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f t e s t E - p r o f i l e 115

ix
f i t t e d b o a r d mean o f MOE 116
f i t t e d b o a r d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f MOE 117
21. Ensemble average o f t h e a m p l i t u d e spectrum 118
22. Generated E - p r o f i l e o f one board 119
23. Ensemble average o f t e s t and g e n e r a t e d E - p r o f i l e s 120
24. Ensemble s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f t e s t and g e n e r a t e d
E-profiles 121
25. T e s t and s i m u l a t e d ensemble average o f a m p l i t u d e s p e c t r a . 122
26. The r e g r e s s i o n p l o t o f board mean o f MOE
vs. c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h (2100f-1.8E) 123
27. The r e g r e s s i o n p l o t o f b o a r d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n
of MOE v s . c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h (2100f-1.8E) 124
28. G r a p h i c a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n between
the r e a l space and s t a n d a r d n o r m a l i z e d space 125
29. The r e g r e s s i o n p l o t o f t e s t modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y ( E ) v s .
w i t h i n - b o a r d c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h (O-Q) 126
30. The r e g r e s s i o n o f t e s t and s i m u l a t e d modulus o f
e l a s t i c i t y ( E ) v s . w i t h i n - b o a r d c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h (<r ) .127
c
31. Cumulative d i s t r i b u t i o n of R C 128
32. Cumulative d i s t r i b u t i o n of R T 129
33. CDF o f t e s t and g e n e r a t e d minimum t e n s i o n d a t a
(1650f-1.5E) 130
(2100f-1.8E) 131

X
(2400f-2.0E) 132
36. CDF o f t e s t and g e n e r a t e d minimum compression d a t a
(1650f-1.5E) 133
37. CDF o f t e s t and g e n e r a t e d minimum c o m p r e s s i o n d a t a
(2100f-1.8E) 134
38. CDF o f t e s t and g e n e r a t e d minimum compression d a t a
(2400f-2.0E) 135
39. Beam l a y u p s f o r t h r e e grade c o m b i n a t i o n s (depth=9") 136
42. Beam w i t h two s t i f f n e s s zones 139
43. Comparison o f s i m u l a t e d and t r a n s f o r m e d MOE 140
44. CDF o f bending s t r e n g t h ( d e p t h = 9") 141
45. CDF o f b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h ( d e p t h = 12") 142
46. CDF o f b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h ( d e p t h = 18") 143
47. The 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h
v a r i a t e s w i t h depth 144
48. The 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h
49. CDF o f b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h f o r 1650f-1.5E beams
as a f u n c t i o n o f beam depth 146
50. CDF o f bending s t r e n g t h f o r 2100f-1.8E beams
51. CDF o f b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h f o r 2400f-2.0E beams
xi
v a r i a t e s w i t h grade 149
53. The 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f bending s t r e n g t h
54. CDF o f b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h w i t h t h e c o m b i n a t i o n s
o f 1650f-1.5E and 2100f-1.8E ( d e p t h = 9") 151
55. CDF o f b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h w i t h the c o m b i n a t i o n s
o f 1650f-1.5E and 2100f-1.8E ( d e p t h = 12") 152
of 1650f-1.5E and 2100f-1.8E ( d e p t h = 18") 153
v a r i a t e s with the outer l a y e r percent of 2100fl-1.8E 154
59. CDF o f bending s t r e n g t h w i t h t h e c o m b i n a t i o n s
of 1650f-1.5E and 2400f-2.0E ( d e p t h = 9") 156
of 1650f-1.5E and 2400f-2.0E ( d e p t h = 12") .. 157
61. CDF o f b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h w i t h t h e c o m b i n a t i o n s
o f 1650f-1.5E and 2400f-2.0E ( d e p t h = 18") 158
62. The 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f bending s t r e n g t h
v a r i a t e s w i t h the o u t e r l a y e r p e r c e n t o f 2 4 0 0 f l - 2 . 0 E 159
64. CDF o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h ( d e p t h = 9") 161
65. CDF of t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h ( d e p t h = 12") 162
66. CDF o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h ( d e p t h = 18") 163

xi i
67. The 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f t e n s i l e strength
68. The 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f t e n s i l e strength
69. CDF o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h (grade = 1650f-1.5E) 166
72. The 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f t e n s i l e strength
73. The 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f t e n s i l e strength
74. CDF o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h w i t h t h e c o m b i n a t i o n s
o f 1650f-1.5E and 2100f-1.8E (depth = 9") 171
o f 1650f-1.5E and 2100f-1.8E (depth = 12") 172
of 1650f-1.5E and 2100f-1.8E (depth = 18") 173
o f 1650f-1.5E and 2400f-2.0E (depth = 9") 174
78. CDF o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h w i t h the c o m b i n a t i o n s
o f 1650f-1.5E and 2400f-2.0E (depth - 12") 175
o f 1650f-1.5E and 2400f-2.0E (depth = 18") 176
80. The 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h variates
with the outer layer percent of 2100fl-1.8E 177
81. The 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h variates

xiii
w i t h the outer layer percent of 2100fl-1.8E 178
82. The 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h variates
w i t h the outer l a y e r percent of 2400fl-2.0E 179
83. The 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h variates
w i t h the outer l a y e r percent of 2400fl-2.0E 180
84. CDF o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h ( d e p t h = 9") 181
85. CDF o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h ( d e p t h = 12") 182
86. CDF o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h (depth = 18") 183
87. The 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h
88. The 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f compressive s t r e n g t h
89. CDF o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h (grade = 1650f-1.5E) 186
93. The 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h
94. CDF o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h w i t h the c o m b i n a t i o n s
o f 1650f-1.5E and 2100f-1.8E ( d e p t h = 9") 191
of 1650f-1.5E and 2100f-1.8E ( d e p t h = 12") 192
96. CDF o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h w i t h t h e c o m b i n a t i o n s
of 1650f-1.5E and 2100f-1.8E ( d e p t h = 18") 193

xiv
of 1650f-1.5E and 2400f-2.0E ( d e p t h = 9") 194
o f 1650f-1.5E and 2400f-2.0E ( d e p t h = 12") 195
of 1650f-1.5E and 2400f-2.0E ( d e p t h = 18") 196
v a r i a t e s with the outer layer percent of 2100fl-1.8E 197
101. The 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f compressive s t r e n g t h
103. The 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h

LIST OF NOTATIONS
Variables:
A( ) = Amplitude;
b c - Width o f c o r e zone l a m i n a t i o n i n g l u l a m beam ;
b^ = Width o f f a c e zone l a m i n a t i o n i n g l u l a m beam;
E = Modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y (MOE);
E = Apparent modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y ;
E c = Core zone modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y i n g l u l a m beam ;
E^ = Face zone modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y i n g l u l a m beam;
E[ ] = Expected value;
E(z,) = Mean MOE a t l o c a t i o n x i n an E - p r o c e s s ;

i
{E(z)} = MOE p r o c e s s ;
F( ) = Fourier transform;
F*() = Complex c o n j u g a t e o f F( );
G( ) = One-sided power s p e c t r a l density;
I = Apparent moment o f i n e r t i a ;
I t = Transformed c r o s s s e c t i o n moment o f i n e r t i a ;
k = Shape parameter i n W e i b u l l distribution;
L = The l e n g t h o f t h e board;
xvi
m = S c a l e parameter i n Weibull d i s t r i b u t i o n ;
p = Random number u n i f o r m l y d i s t r i b u t e d on t h e i n t e r v a l (0,1);
p( ) = Probability density function;
R( ) = Autocorrelation function;
S( ) = t w o - s i d e d power s p e c t r a l d e n s i t y ;
T = Transformed s e c t i o n f a c t o r i n S e c t i o n 4.8;
t = Depth o f c o r e zone i n g l u l a m beam ;
t^ = Depth o f f a c e zone i n g l u l a m beam;
X = T e s t l o c a l i z e d modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y ( E ) ;
X = S i m u l a t e d l o c a l i z e d modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y ( E ) ;
X = T e s t board mean modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y ( E ) ;
X = S i m u l a t e d board mean modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y ( E ) ;
Y = T e s t l o c a l i z e d s t r e n g t h (o );
-
Y = S i m u l a t e d l o c a l i z e d s t r e n g t h (5-);
Y = T e s t board mean s t r e n g t h (<f);
Y = S i m u l a t e d board mean s t r e n g t h (<r) ;
Zj£ = S t a n d a r d n o r m a l i z e d X;
Zy = S t a n d a r d n o r m a l i z e d Y;
p xy = C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r v e c t o r (X, Y) i n t h e r e a l
space;
p-. = C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r v e c t o r (X, Y) i n t h e r e a l
xvii
space;
p N - C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r v e c t o r (X, Y) i n the standard
n o r m a l i z e d space.
= Mean v a l u e ;
a - Standard d e v i a t i o n ;
cr = Strength;
cr = L o c a t i o n parameter i n W e i b u l l d i s t r i b u t i o n ;
a c - Compressive s t r e n g t h ;
a
E( i)
x
~ S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f MOE at location x
i i n an E - p r o c e s s ;
a T = Tensile strength;
<7^ = T e s t board s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n f o r MOE;
cr* = S i m u l a t e d board s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n f o r MOE;
cry - T e s t board s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n f o r s t r e n g t h ;
cr^ = S i m u l a t e d board s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n f o r s t r e n g t h ;
(/>( ) = Phase a n g l e ;
w = Angular frequency;
oo = Variable pertaining to i n f i n i t y ;
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like t o e x p r e s s my s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e t o my supervisor,
Dr. J.D. Barrett f o r h i s invaluable advice and p a t i e n t guidance
throughout the research work and i n p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s thesis.
I would l i k e t o e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o Dr. R.O. F o s c h i f o r
h i s a d v i c e and s u p p o r t .
Thanks a r e a l s o due t o Mr. Frank Lam and Mr. Y i n t a n g Wang f o r
their helpful s u g g e s t i o n s and a s s i s t a n c e during various stages of the
work p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s thesis.
The financial s u p p o r t from t h e Department o f H a r v e s t i n g and Wood
Science of the University of British Columbia is gratefully
acknowledged.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Glued-laminated timber, commonly referred to as glulam, is a
s t r u c t u r a l t i m b e r p r o d u c t made o f elements g l u e d t o g e t h e r from s m a l l e r
p i e c e s o f wood, e i t h e r i n s t r a i g h t o r c u r v e d form, w i t h the g r a i n of
all the l a m i n a t i o n s e s s e n t i a l l y p a r a l l e l t o t h e l e n g t h o f t h e member.
In Canada, g l u l a m i s manufactured i n accordance w i t h the requirements
o f Canadian Standards A s s o c i a t i o n (CSA) Standard 0122-M, Structural Glued-
Laminated Timber. Complete S p e c i f i c a t i o n d a t a f o r g l u l a m i s given i n CVC
d a t a f i l e VS-2 Glued-Laminated Timber Specifications. Design c r i t e r i a f o r g l u l a m
in limit state design format are contained in National Standard of
Canada CAN3-086.1-M84, Engineering Design in Wood.
I n N o r t h America and Europe, g l u l a m i s used i n a wide v a r i e t y o f
applications, ranging from headers or support beams in residential
framing to major structural elements in roof framing of domed
stadiums. Glulam may be produced i n any s i z e and any shape desired,
ranging from large long-span straight beams to complex curved-arch
configurations. Current production levels by the glulam industry are
approximately 13 MMFBM (1 MMFBM = 10 6

Foot Board Measure) per y e a r i n
Canada ( A i n s w o r t h , 1989).
For glulam beams, t h e most common d e s i g n application i s as a

2
b e n d i n g member w i t h the p r i m a r y design loads a p p l i e d perpendicular to
the wide face of the laminations. To more effectively utilize the
available lumber r e s o u r c e s and t o enhance the c o m p e t i t i v e p o s i t i o n of
glulam i n the market p l a c e , such b e n d i n g members a r e produced using
engineering layups or combinations, i n c o r p o r a t i n g a range o f species
and structural grades of lumber. In these engineered layups, the
h i g h e s t q u a l i t y m a t e r i a l i s p o s i t i o n e d i n the member where the s e r v i c e
loading will create the highest stress. Conversely, lower grade
laminations are p o s i t i o n e d i n areas o r zones where t h e s t r e s s w i l l be
lower.
The Canadian g l u l a m i n d u s t r y uses l a m i n a t i n g s t o c k based on the
visual criteria and supplementary E-rating. Spruce-Pine-Fir (SPF)
machine s t r e s s - r a t e d lumber i s not p e r m i t t e d i n the CSA Standard 0122-
M, Structural Glued-Laminated Timber. S i n c e the SPF s p e c i e s group has a very
large volume i n standing timber and i s more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e from
domestic suppliers, i t i s obviously a reasonable choice to consider
SPF machine s t r e s s - r a t e d lumber as an a l t e r n a t e source and type of
material for the laminating stock, especially since the existing
visually graded laminating stock must be E-rated prior to use. The
work done i n t h i s r e p o r t i s aimed a t a s s e s s i n g the use o f MSR lumber
as the l a m i n a t i n g s t o c k i n the g l u l a m beam p r o d u c t i o n .
In order to evaluate the glulam beam strength and stiffness
behaviour, a fundamental u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s needed about the correlation
and the variation o f modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y (MOE) and strength values

3
w i t h i n and between t h e l a m i n a t i o n s used t o f a b r i c a t e t h e g l u l a m beams.
1.1 OBJECTIVES
T h i s study i s aimed a t a c h i e v i n g f i v e main o b j e c t i v e s , namely:
1. To analyze tensile strength, compressive strength and MOE
data from evaluations of three grades (1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E and
2400f-2.0E) o f 2 x 6 SPF MSR lumber p r o v i d e d by t h e C o u n c i l o f F o r e s t
Industries of B r i t i s h Columbia (COFI) and to obtain the necessary
distribution parameters r e q u i r e d f o r d e v e l o p i n g an E - s i m u l a t i o n model
and s t r e n g t h s i m u l a t i o n model.
2. To test a group of 2 x 4 2100f-1.8E s p r u c e - p i n e - f i r (SPF)
machine-stress-rated (MSR) lumber and d e v e l o p a d a t a base f o r s t u d y i n g
paired MOE and compressive strength parallel to grain variations
w i t h i n and between l a m i n a t i o n s t o be used i n g l u l a m beams.
3. To d e v e l o p an E - s i m u l a t i o n model, from which MOE d a t a points
a l o n g t h e b o a r d l e n g t h can be g e n e r a t e d . The g e n e r a t e d MOE d a t a can be
used as the input data in a tensile and compressive strength
s i m u l a t i o n model.
4. To develop a strength simulation model, from which
compressive strength parallel to grain (cr )

c and tensile strength
parallel to grain ( c y ) data p o i n t s can be g e n e r a t e d c o r r e s p o n d i n g to
the c o r r e l a t e d MOE d a t a p o i n t s g e n e r a t e d by t h e E - s i m u l a t i o n model.
5. To simulate the e f f e c t o f beam layups on t h e s t r e n g t h o f

4
glulam beams f a b r i c a t e d u s i n g r e g u l a r grades o f 2 x 6 SPF MSR lumber.
The a n a l y s i s i s performed u s i n g i n a computer program c a l l e d GLULAM.
1.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH
The localized values o f modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y E and s t r e n g t h a
along the length o f lumber i s required to accurately determine the
stiffness, strength and t h e f a i l u r e modes o f t i m b e r s t r u c t u r e s . In
recent years, some researchers have turned their attention t o the
variation of l o c a l i z e d MOE along the length of the board (Bechtel,
1985; F o s c h i , 1987). Based on an a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e F o u r i e r transform,
a method which can produce satisfactory approximations of the
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e l o c a l modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y E ( x ) a l o n g the length
of a b o a r d was p r e s e n t e d (1987, F o s c h i ) . I t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e use
of t h e minimum modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y a l o n g t h e l e n g t h o f a b o a r d could
improve the p r e d i c t i o n of strength through a better stiffness and
strength correlation.
Based on t h e t h e o r y o f s t a t i o n a r y random p r o c e s s e s , Vang e t a l .
(1990) d e v e l o p e d a p r o c e d u r e which may be used t o g e n e r a t e realistic
E(z) functions representing the v a r i a t i o n i n modulus of elasticity
a l o n g t h e l e n g t h o f a specimen.
Modelling correlated lumber properties has been an area of
a c t i v e research f o r many y e a r s . These models a r e u s e f u l i n Monte C a r l o
simulations that p r e d i c t the r e l i a b i l i t y o f wood s t r u c t u r e s . Several
authors have discussed the importance of accounting f o r the

5
concomitance between lumber strength properties (Suddarth et a l . ,
1978; G a l l i g a n e t a l . , 1979; R o j i a n i and T a r b e l l , 1984). One approach
to t h e problem was p r e s e n t e d by V o e s t e e t a l . (1979). They p r e s e n t e d a
b i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s t h a t s i m u l a t e d t h e c o r r e l a t e d p r o p e r t i e s o f modulus
of elasticity (MOE) and t e n s i l e strength ( c ) . T Their technique began
with fitting a set of MOE data with an appropriate probability
d i s t r i b u t i o n u s i n g t h e method o f maximum l i k e l i h o o d e s t i m a t i o n . Then a
weighted least squares r e g r e s s i o n was conducted t o r e l a t e t o MOE.
Random v a l u e s o f MOE were then g e n e r a t e d from t h e f i t t e d distribution
and substituted into the regression equation, adjusted by a randomly
sampled r e s i d u a l , t o g e n e r a t e a corresponding v a l u e o f u^. T h i s MOE -
(Tj, p a i r was c o r r e l a t e d i n a manner s i m i l a r t o the t e s t data. But a
disadvantage with this approach i s that t h e dependent v a r i a b l e may
need t o be transformed to obtain the desired marginal probability
distribution. The c h o i c e of transformations i s s u b j e c t i v e and o f f e r s
only l i m i t e d f l e x i b i l i t y i n modelling marginal distribution.
Taylor and Bender (1988) presented an alternate method f o r
simulating correlated lumber properties that are not n e c e s s a r i l y
normally distributed. This approach uses a transformation of the
multivariate normal distribution to model the correlated lumber
p r o p e r t i e s , and had t h e advantages o f e x a c t l y p r e s e r v i n g each marginal
distribution as w e l l as c l o s e l y approximating the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix
of t h e v a r i a b l e s .
Lam and V a r o g l u (1991a, 1991b) developed a model f o r t h e w i t h i n

6
member variation of tensile strength parallel to grain i n nominal
38x89 mm No. 2 SPF lumber. They evaluated within member tensile
strength cumulative probability distributions and the spatial
correlation of the simulated data by window and semivariogram
analyses.
Foschi and B a r r e t t (1980) have d e v e l o p e d a computer simulation
model o f t h e s t r e n g t h and s t i f f n e s s o f g l u e d - l a m i n a t e d beams i n e i t h e r
b e n d i n g , c o m p r e s s i o n o r t e n s i o n . T h e i r approach was t o use b a s i c data
on the lamination properties in a finite element computer program t o
estimate variability i n beam s t r e n g t h and s t i f f n e s s . The b a s i c data
r e q u i r e d i n t h e model a r e MOE, t e n s i l e and c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h values
and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of knots f o r various laminating grades in a
p a r t i c u l a r g l u l a m beam l a y u p .
However, few experiments have been done to measure the
variations of the l o c a l i z e d MOE and s t r e n g t h values along the board
l e n g t h f o r machine s t r e s s - r a t e d lumber.
The model d e v e l o p e d i n t h i s study i n c o r p o r a t e s some o f t h e i d e a s
by t h e p r e v i o u s researchers, and p r o v i d e s a general method t o s i m u l a t e
the p a i r e d MOE and s t r e n g t h along the length o f lumber. U s i n g these
generated MOE and s t r e n g t h values along the length o f lumber, t h e
s t r e n g t h and s t i f f n e s s p r o p e r t i e s o f g l u l a m beams w i l l be s i m u l a t e d t o
study the effect o f beam layups on g l u l a m beam s t r e n g t h s fabricated
from MSR lumber.

7
2. COFI MSR LUMBER TEST PROGRAM
2.1 INTRODUCTION
In the f a l l o f 1987, the T e c h n i c a l Services Department of the
Council of F o r e s t Industries of B r i t i s h Columbia (COFI) initiated a
glulam beam research program to specifically address an alternate
s o u r c e o f raw m a t e r i a l s u p p l y f o r t h e g l u l a m i n d u s t r y . The objective
of that research program was to evaluate the s u i t a b i l i t y o f machine
stress-rated (MSR) lumber f o r the manufacture of structural glulam
p r o d u c t s . T h i s c h a p t e r o u t l i n e s some o f t h e t e s t m a t e r i a l s , p r o c e d u r e s
and r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d from COFI t e s t program ( A i n s w o r t h , 1989).
2.2 MATERIALS
Three g r a d e s of 2 x 6 SPF MSR lumber, o b t a i n e d from an MSR lumber
producer located i n the i n t e r i o r o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , were s e l e c t e d by
a C h i e f G r a d i n g I n s p e c t o r . The grades s e l e c t e d were 1650f-1.5E, 2100f-
1.8E and 2400f-2.0E.
Two 6 - f o o t t e s t specimens were s e l e c t e d from each o f t h e 1 6 - f o o t
t e n s i o n and c o m p r e s s i o n t e s t lumber groups. One specimen, c a l l e d Zone
A, contained t h e minimum MOE zone lumber as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e Cook-
Bolinders equipment. The other specimen, Zone B, was t a k e n from the
r e m a i n i n g p o r t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t t e s t lumber ( F i g u r e 1 ) .
8
A d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e t e s t m a t e r i a l s and t e s t m a t r i x from COFI i s
provided i n T a b l e 1.
2.3 TEST PROCEDURES
The specimens from t h e t e n s i o n and c o m p r e s s i o n t e s t groups were
non-destructively tested i n the C o o k - B o l i n d e r s machine to obtain a
f l a t w i s e b e n d i n g E - p r o f i l e f o r each board.
Just before t e s t i n g , an average moisture content of 16% was
obtained from t h e randomly s e l e c t e d sample o f t e n p i e c e s .
The t e n s i o n t e s t specimens from T a b l e 1 and F i g u r e 1 were t e s t e d
i n a t e s t i n g machine w i t h a gauge l e n g t h o f two f e e t (610 mm) between
the g r i p s . The ramp l o a d t e s t s were conducted a t a r a t e o f 4000 p s i
per minute (27.8 MPa per minute). A l l specimens were tested to
failure.
The compression test specimens were tested in a compression
testing machine w i t h a gauge l e n g t h of s i x f e e t (1830 mm). The ramp
load t e s t s were conducted a t a d i s p l a c e m e n t r a t e o f 0.58 i n c h e s per
minute (14.7 mm per m i n u t e ) . A l l specimens were t e s t e d t o f a i l u r e .
2.4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Analysis of the tension and compression specimens test results
c o n s i s t e d o f a comparison between t h r e e MSR lumber grades (1650f-1.5E,
2100f-1.8E and 2400f-2.0E) u s i n g o f c u m u l a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n s .

9
Summary statistics for the tension and compression test
populations are provided i n T a b l e 2 and T a b l e 3.
The cumulative distribution functions for the three grades of
t e n s i o n and compression specimen t e s t r e s u l t s i n Zone A and Zone B are
p r o v i d e d from F i g u r e 2 t o 7.
At f i r s t the COFI t e n s i o n and compression t e s t d a t a were planned
to be used as the data base for the development of a strength
simulation model. Later i t was recognized that insufficient strength
d a t a were a v a i l a b l e on each board i n order to c o n s t r u c t the simulation
model f o r the within-board strength. Therefore, i t was decided that a
more d e t a i l e d study of within-board compressive strength tests should
be completed i n order to e s t a b l i s h a more complete localized strength
d a t a base.
The localized s t r e n g t h experiment and the localized strength and
stiffness simulation model developed from the detailed compression
s t u d i e s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r s .
10
3. WITHIN-BOARD COMPRESSION EXPERIMENT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter gives a full description o f t h e p r o c e d u r e s and
results of the within-board compressive strength parallel to grain
e x p e r i m e n t . The purpose o f t h i s experiment i s t o d e v e l o p a d a t a base
for paired within-board MOE and c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h p a r a l l e l to grain
((Tgi) p r o p e r t i e s a l o n g the board l e n g t h . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between MOE
and compressive strength parallel to grain i^c) determined
experimentally will provide a basis f o r developing a s i m u l a t i o n method
for generating correlated property data f o r glulam beam strength
studies.
3.2 MATERIALS
The lumber f o r t h i s t e s t was s e l e c t e d from a MSR lumber p r o d u c e r
located i n the i n t e r i o r of the province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Three
grades of 2 x 4 inches (38mm x 89mm) SPF MSR lumber were s e l e c t e d . The
s e l e c t e d g r a d e s were 1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E, and 2400f-2.0E. Of t h e s e
three grades, only grade 2100f-1.8E was t e s t e d f o r i t s within-board
compressive strength parallel to grain. The o t h e r two g r a d e s were
e x p e c t e d t o be t e s t e d s e p a r a t e l y i n t h e f u t u r e .
3.3 EXPERIMENT DESIGN AND PROCEDURES
The experiment was designed to test the within-board
c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h p a r a l l e l t o g r a i n (<r ) c along the board length f o r
SPF s p e c i e s group.
The test specimens were conditioned to a maximum moisture
content (MC) of 12% in the laboratory. The average of three MC
readings i n each p i e c e of lumber was obtained with a resistance-type
meter. They were then n o n - d e s t r u c t i v e l y tested i n the Cook-Bolinders
stress grading machine i n F o r i n t e k Canada Corp. (Vancouver) t o obtain
a short span, f l a t w i s e bending E - p r o f i l e f o r each b o a r d (Figure 8).
Data collection was performed by a computer a t a scan rate of 440
readings per second. T h i s t r a n s l a t e d i n t o approximately 2100 readings
per 16-foot specimen. Load readings were collected at a mid-span
deflection of 0.179 inch (4.55 mm) over a 2.99 foot (910 mm) span
(simply supported and centre loaded). Each test specimen was run
t h r o u g h the C o o k - B o l i n d e r s machine t w i c e to e l i m i n a t e the e f f e c t s of
specimen bow. The values f o r each pass were r e c o r d e d , along with the
average v a l u e s from the two passes.
Following the Cook-Bolinders evaluation, the 16-foot specimens
were cut into thirty-two (32) 6-inch (152.4 mm) long compression
specimens ( F i g u r e 9 ) .
The within-board compression specimens were tested at room
temperature with the MTS Testing Machine (MTS810) in displacement
control mode. A l o a d i n g r a t e of 0.018 in/min (0.457 mm/min) was used

12
which caused f a i l u r e i n about 2 m i n u t e s . The load c e l l capacity used
in the test was 250 KN. After the destructive test, the average
density of each w i t h i n - b o a r d compressive strength test piece was
measured. The density was calculated based on specimen weight and
measured s i z e . The e x p e r i m e n t a l s e t u p i s shown i n F i g u r e 10.
3.4 RESULTS
The test results for w i t h i n - b o a r d compression specimens are
g i v e n i n T a b l e 4.
In t o t a l 54 beams were t e s t e d . Each beam c o n s i s t e d o f 32 w i t h i n -
board compression specimen. Therefore, there were in total 1728
specimen tested.
Figure 11 shows the MOE and compressive strength profile
obtained f o r specimen No. 1805 and demonstrates t h e g e n e r a l tendency
f o r MOE and c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h t o be c o r r e l a t e d .
The cumulative d i s t r i b u t i o n functions f o r t h e mean compressive
s t r e n g t h and t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h f o r t h e 54
members a r e shown i n F i g u r e s 12 and 13.
In Figures 12 and 13, the data sets have been fitted with
normal, lognormal, 2-parameter Weibull and 3-parameter Weibull
distributions. The normal d i s t r i b u t i o n was v i s u a l l y judged t o b e s t f i t
the board average compressive strength and the board compressive
strength standard deviation.

13
The parameters f i t t e d f o r normal, lognormal, 2-parameter Veibull
and 3-parameter V e i b u l l distributions f o r MOE and a c are given i n Table
5.
F i g u r e 10 E x p e r i m e n t a l s e t up f o r compressive s t r e n g t h specimen
14
4. E - RANDOM PROCESS SIMULATION MODEL
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The use o f l o c a l i z e d values o f modulus of e l a s t i c i t y (MOE) and
strength (c) a l o n g t h e l e n g t h o f t h e lumber i s n e c e s s a r y t o a c c u r a t e l y
determine stiffness, strength and f a i l u r e mode o f t i m b e r structures.
These localized MOE variations must be included, f o r example, i n
s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s o f models o f g l u l a m beams where t h e s t i f f n e s s and
strength of a beam a r e dependent on t h e l o c a l i z e d s t i f f n e s s and
s t r e n g t h o f each l a m i n a t i o n .
This chapter will discuss the t h e o r e t i c a l basis o f t h e random
processes, Fourier transform and power spectral density and t h e i r
applications i n localized E-function generation.
4.2 THEORETICAL BASIS
4.2.1 RANDOM PROCESSES
A time-series or time-history i s the c o l l e c t i o n of observations
in time. I f the observations can be p r e d i c t e d p r e c i s e l y , t h e p r o c e s s
is called d e t e r m i n i s t i c . I f , however, the observations can o n l y be
defined i n terms o f p r o b a b i l i t y s t a t e m e n t s , t h e p r o c e s s i s r e f e r r e d t o
as s t o c h a s t i c ( o r random).
Consider an ensemble o f observed E-functions fora particular
grade of lumber (2100f-1.8E) as shown i n Figure 14. Here, t h e

15
localized MOE values along the length of a board represents a time
series. This ensemble i s referred t o as a process. Due to the fact
that the observations can only be defined in terms of probability
s t a t e m e n t s , t h e p r o c e s s i s r e f e r r e d t o as random p r o c e s s .
A random E - p r o c e s s can f o r m a l l y be d e f i n e d as an i n f i n i t e s e t or
ensemble o f " e q u a l l y - 1 i k e l y " sample E - f u n c t i o n s w i t h some statistical
o r p r o b a b i l i s t i c i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e samples.
A random E - p r o c e s s can be d e s c r i b e d by the mean E(z,) and the
standard d e v i a t i o n <r (r ) o f
E t the ensemble f o r any location x-. If the
E(x,-) and "E^,-) a r e

^ e s a m e
^ o r a
H l o c a t i o n s , the process {E(z)} i s
s a i d t o be s t a t i o n a r y . F o r the development o f t h e model, i t i s assumed
t h a t the E-process satisfies this stationary condition.
Furthermore, i f the mean v a l u e o f the ensemble i s e q u a l to the
mean v a l u e t a k e n along the l e n g t h o f any sample E - f u n c t i o n , then the
p r o c e s s {E(z)} i s s a i d t o be e r g o d i c . F o r t h e development o f t h e model,
i t i s assumed t h a t t h e E - p r o c e s s i s n o t an e r g o d i c p r o c e s s .
The E-process can be transformed into a stationary-ergodic
process with zero mean by s u b t r a c t i n g the mean of each sample E-
f u n c t i o n as shown F i g u r e 15.
4.2.2 FOURIER TRANSFORM AND POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY
L e t E ( z ) be a sample from
n z e r o mean c o n t i n u o u s E-process {E(x)}
(see F i g u r e 15}. I f
16
oo
I I E„(z) I dx < oo ( 4.1 )

-oo
then the F o u r i e r transform F ( w ) o f E (a:) e x i s t s , a c o n d i t i o n which i s

n n
u s u a l l y s a t i s f i e d i n p r a c t i c e . The sample E ( x ) u n i q u e l y n corresponds to
its Fourier transform and conversely, the inverse Fourier transform
uniquely d e f i n e s t h e sample f u n c t i o n E ( x ) t h r o u g h : n
F„( W j 0 = E„(r)e dx E (x)

n e
,uX
dx (4.2)
OO L
-oo 0
where £ i s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e board. The two f u n c t i o n s E (x) n and F (w, Z.)

n
are a F o u r i e r transform p a i r . F (w,Z.) i s i n g e n e r a l

n a complex f u n c t i o n
of the frequency u.
F (w,
n 0 = Re(w) + Im(u) = | F (w, L) \
n (4.4)
where Re(w) and Jm(w) a r e t h e r e a l and i m a g i n a r y p a r t of the F o u r i e r
transform, respectively. |F (w,/.)|

n is the amplitude or Fourier
spectrum o f E (x) n and <^(w) i s t h e phase a n g l e o f t h e F o u r i e r transform,
and g i v e n by:
17
|F (w, 0 1 = ^Re (u)

n
2
+ /m (w)
2
(4.5)
^ = M £££ ) <->
46
F o r a sample E - f u n c t i o n (E (x))
n o v e r t h e f i n i t e l e n g t h 0 < x < L,
the 2-sided power s p e c t r a l d e n s i t y f u n c t i o n o f t h e sample i s d e f i n e d
as (Bendat a n d P i e r s o l , 1 9 8 6 ) :
S (n,
E W ) 0 = J Fn>, 0 F„( , W 0 (4.7)
where Fn*(w, L) i s t h e complex c o n j u g a t e o f F ( w , n L).
The t w o - s i d e d power s p e c t r a l d e n s i t y function of the underlying
s t a t i o n a r y E - p r o c e s s i s g i v e n by (Bendat and P i e r s o l , 1 9 8 6 ) :
S ( w ) = lim E [ S ( n ,
E E u, 0 ] (4.8)
L—>oo
where E[S (n, E u, /.)] i s t h e e x p e c t e d value o f t h e power spectral
density o v e r t h e ensemble o f E - f u n c t i o n s . S u b s t i t u t i n g Eq. (4.7) into
Eq. (4.8) yields:
S (w) = Um I E [ | F > , O l
E
2
] (4.9)
L—*oo
where | F (w, Z.) | i s t h e F o u r i e r a m p l i t u d e spectrum.

n
Since E (z) i s real,

n Sg(w) i s a r e a l , non-negative a n d even
18
function:
S ( - ) = S (u>)
E W E ( 4.10 )
The one-sided power spectral density function G (w) can be

E
defined as:
G ( ) = 2 S (u/) = \ lira E[ | F > ,

E W E L) | ]2
( 4.11 )
where 0 < u < oo.
A t r u e s t a t i o n a r y random p r o c e s s c o n t a i n s an i n f i n i t e number o f
sample functions with infinite length, whereas r e a l E-functions are
few i n number and have f i n i t e l e n g t h . C o n s e q u e n t l y , an e s t i m a t e of the
power s p e c t r a l d e n s i t y f u n c t i o n o f t h e E - p r o c e s s G (w) can be o b t a i n e d

E
by f i r s t computing t h e power s p e c t r a l d e n s i t y f u n c t i o n G (w, L) o f each n
E-function, a n d then averaging t h e ensemble of spectral density
components a t each f r e q u e n c y . The a v e r a g i n g i s intended t o approximate
the e x p e c t e d v a l u e i n Eq. ( 4 . 1 1 ) , which can be r e p l a c e d by:
G>, 0 = I |F>.OI 2
(4-12)
G
E(«)= i ! > > . o (4.i3)
n =1
where N i s t h e number o f sample E - f u n c t i o n s (sample s i z e ) .

19
4.2.3 MODELLING THE LOCALIZED E-FUNCTIONS
A s t o c h a s t i c model f o r the s i m u l a t i o n o f the E v a l u e s a l o n g t h e
l e n g t h from MSR lumber d a t a was s e t up. The model was developed from
spectral analysis and random v i b r a t i o n t h e o r y , where t h e E - f u n c t i o n
was treated as stationary, non-ergodic random process as discussed
above. Using stiffness test data on lumber (MSR lumber data), the
power s p e c t r a l d e n s i t y o f the u n d e r l y i n g E - p r o c e s s can be estimated.
An ensemble o f E - f u n c t i o n s can then be r e c o n s t r u c t e d by combining the
power s p e c t r a l d e n s i t y f u n c t i o n ( o r a m p l i t u d e spectrum) o f the p r o c e s s
w i t h t h e randomly s e l e c t e d phases. The r e c o n s t r u c t e d d a t a have s i m i l a r
statistical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and frequency content to the experimental
data.
The generated E-process can be modeled by the f o l l o w i n g cosine
s e r i e s (Vang e t a l . , 1990):
N/2
( 4.14 )
i = 1
where N i s t h e number o f the d i s c r e t e f r e q u e n c i e s i n c l u d e d i n S (w);the E
a m p l i t u d e A(u>j) and f r e q u e n c y ui a r e d e t e r m i n i s t i c , but t h e phase a n g l e

i
ei(w )t i s assumed to be a random variable. The probability density
f u n c t i o n f o r 4>^i) i s t a k e n t o be d i s t r i b u t e d u n i f o r m l y between 0 and
2ir as shown i n F i g u r e 16. That i s ,

20
( 4.15 )
otherwise
The ensemble mean o f t h e Eq. (4.14) a t a s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n x i s
N/2
ElE^x)] = E[£A( Jcos(w,.x+#*,•))]W
i =1
N/2 f 27T N
$NA(W,-) cos( ,x + #w,.)) K*(w,0) «W",0)

W
.• = i l o J
= 0 ( 4.16 )
The ensemble mean square o f t h e Eq. (4.14) i s
N/2
E[E3(x)] = E[( £A( .)cos( .x+^ ,.))) ]
Wl Wl W
t = I
N/2 ( 2
? )
= ESAVi) cos ( ,x + 0K>)
2
W i»(0(w,.)) <^K»
»= H
( 4.17 )
2
i = 1
Since t h e E-process i s a stationary process, the autocorrelation
function f o r t h e random p r o c e s s E ( x ) can be d e f i n e d a s t h e average
v a l u e o f t h e p r o d u c t E ( x ) E ( x + r ) as t h e f o l l o w i n g
21
R ( r ) = E[E(i)E(x + r ) ]
B ( 4.18 )
where R (T)
E i s the a u t o c o r r e l a t i o n f u n c t i o n f o r E(z)
From Eq. ( 4 . 1 7 ) , (4.18) and l e t r - 0
N/2 .2/ x
E[E5-(x)] = £ = R (0)
£
( 4.19 )
i=i
A l s o , the Fourier transform of R (T),

E and i t s i n v e r s e , a r e g i v e n
by (Bendat and Piersol,1986):
' oo
( 4.20 )
M O = i ' S (w)
E rf w
( 4.21 )
where S (u>) i s c a l l e d
E t h e power spectral density function of the E
p r o c e s s e s and i s a f u n c t i o n o f a n g u l a r f r e q u e n c y o f u.
I f r = 0, t h e n
M ° ) = S (w) dw
E ( 4.22 )
E q u a t i n g Eq. (4.19) and Eq. ( 4 . 2 2 ) , and knowing t h a t S (w) i s a

E
22
r e a l , n o n - n e g a t i v e and even function:
oo N/2
j2 A
("••) dw = 2 S (u)
E du «2^S ( E W l )4w (4.23)
t = i i = 1
from which t h e a m p l i t u d e A(w ) can be c a l c u l a t e d t o be:

f
A(w,.) = 2^ S (w,-) Au E ( 4.24 )
For a random p r o c e s s w i t h z e r o mean (E = 0 ) , t h e mean square
v a l u e e q u a l s t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n a ^ (x) o f t h e p r o c e s s :
2 N/2 .2/ \
E[E*.(x)] = E[(E(X) - E) ] = 4(x) = £ ( 4.25 )
i = l
A"( .)
W
^ (*) ( 4.26 )
i - 1
The E-process g e n e r a t e d by Eq. (4.14) i s a stationary, ergodic
p r o c e s s w i t h z e r o mean. To make t h e E - p r o c e s s t o be n o n - e r g o d i c with
non-zero mean, Eq. (4.14) can be m o d i f i e d as f o l l o w s :
N/2
E
jO) = E
i+ £ A(w,-)cos(w,.x + #w,.)) ( 4.27 )
«' = 1
23
where i s a random v a l u e chosen from t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f beam mean
MOE values.
If, f o r example, t h e mean data can be a p p r o x i m a t e d by a 3-
parameter W e i b u l l d i s t r i b u t i o n , E^- i s g i v e n by
Ej = <r
0 + m ( - l n ( l - p) ) ( 4.28 )
where <r , m and k denote, r e s p e c t i v e l y , t h e l o c a t i o n ,

Q s c a l e and shape
parameters f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n , and p i s a random number uniformly
distributed between 0 and 1.
The N y q u i s t number f o r t h e F o u r i e r t r a n s f o r m i s 77 +1 ( i f N i s an
even number), o r N
+ 1
( i f N i s an odd number), where N i s t h e number
of frequencies. Then:
AK) = j A( .)
M N-i u
Wl
+2)
*
•
<
>
2
2
+
+
1
1
( 4.29 )
where N i s an even number; o r
N + 1
A( .) i <
W(
2
A( .) = | 0 N + 1
( 4.30 )
Wt
2
N + 1
MN U
-»' +1) i >
2
24
where N i s an odd number.
Therefore the amplitude spectrum A(w,) is symmetrical to the
Nyquist frequency. This property i s used to reduce the number of
harmonics i n Eq. (4.27) w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f e c t on t h e a c c u r a c y of
the r e s u l t s .
4.3 E-FUNCTION SIMULATION EXAMPLE
Tests of localized E-functions can be obtained by bending a
board over c o n s e c u t i v e s h o r t spans, u s i n g a c o n c e n t r a t e d load applied
at the middle o f each span. T h i s i s done by g r a d i n g machines based on
the so c a l l e d " d e f l e c t i o n method" where t h e d e f l e c t i o n i s c o n s t a n t and
the centre-point load i s measured. From the deflection measurements
and simple equations from t h e beam t h e o r y , an e s t i m a t e o f t h e bending
E v a l u e s a l o n g t h e l e n g t h o f t h e board can be o b t a i n e d .
The l o c a l i z e d MOE v a l u e s a l o n g t h e l e n g t h o f t h e boards o f grade
2100f-1.8E, which were obtained from the Cook-Bolinders machine in
Forintek Canada Corp. (Vancouver), were analyzed and used as the
input data i n the f o l l o w i n g E - f u n c t i o n s i m u l a t i o n program. In total,
54 boards were n o n - d e s t r u c t i v e l y t e s t e d i n t h e C o o k - B o l i n d e r s machine.
4.3.1 MSR E-PROFILE TREATMENT
In order to implement the E-function s i m u l a t i o n program, the
machine stress-rated MOE data profiles should be treated f i r s t to
determine the process statistics.

25
After averaging t h e MOE v a l u e s a t t h e same l o c a t i o n s a l o n g t h e
l e n g t h o f t h e boards, an ensemble average o f MOE a l o n g t h e l e n g t h o f
the board was obtained, as shown i n Figure 17. F i g u r e 18 i s the
ensemble average o f t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f MOE a l o n g t h e l e n g t h .
Eq. (4.14) g e n e r a t e s an E - p r o f i l e f o r a zero mean p r o c e s s . I n
order t o perform the Fourier transform o f each board r e c o r d and
calculate i t s power spectral density function and the related
amplitude spectrum, the zero mean MOE records are constructed by
subtracting from each one the corresponding mean value E. The
cumulative distribution f u n c t i o n ( c d f ) o f board mean MOE v a l u e s and
t h e w i t h i n - b o a r d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f MOE i s shown i n F i g u r e s 19 and
20 respectively.
The results i n F i g u r e s 19 and 20 have been f i t t e d with normal,
lognormal, 2-parameter W e i b u l l and 3-parameter W e i b u l l distributions.
The 3-parameter Weibull distribution was v i s u a l l y judged to provide
t h e b e s t f i t f o r t h e board mean o f MOE v a l u e s and t h e b o a r d standard
d e v i a t i o n o f MOE. The parameters f o r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s a r e summarized
i n T a b l e 5.
4.3.2 SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF E-PROFILE
By performing Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), the amplitude
spectrum o f t h e MOE r e c o r d i s o b t a i n e d . Then t h e ensemble average o f
the amplitude spectrum by a v e r a g i n g the amplitudes a t each frequency,
shown i n F i g u r e 2 1 , i s c o n s t r u c t e d .
26
4.3.3 RECONSTRUCTION OF E-FUNCTIONS
The principle of generation of E-functions i s that the
reconstructed E-function should have similar statistical
characteristics and f r e q u e n c y c o n t e n t a s t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l E v a l u e s .
The typical E - f u n c t i o n can be r e c o n s t r u c t e d a s i n t h e form o f
Eq. (4.27), from which t h e f i r s t p a r t E^ i s t h e random mean o f the
sample E-function obtained from a fitted cumulative distribution
f u n c t i o n ( F i g u r e 19) through t h e t e s t mean o f t h e E - f u n c t i o n s ; t h e
N/2
second p a r t , ^ A ( W - ) C O S ( W 1 J ; + ^(w,-)) , i s t h e v a r i a t i o n o f t h e E - f u n c t i o n
»=1
about t h e mean v a l u e a l o n g t h e l e n g t h .
From Eq. ( 4 . 2 6 ) , t h e s t a n d a r d deviation cr (x)

E i n each generated
board would be a c o n s t a n t value s i n c e t h e summation o f t h e ensemble
average o f t h e a m p l i t u d e spectrum i s a constant. Therefore we choose
to normalize t h e ensemble average o f amplitude spectrum by d i v i d i n g
the standard deviation of t h e E-process o-g(x) . Later, when
reconstructing E - f u n c t i o n s , the amplitude spectrum o f each generated
board i s corrected t o achieve a random s t a n d a r d deviation cr (x).

e This
random standard deviation <r ( )

e
x
i s obtained from a cumulative
d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n f i t t e d t o within-board standard d e v i a t i o n o f the
E - f u n c t i o n s ( F i g u r e 2 0 ) . With t h i s procedure t h e randomly g e n e r a t e d E-
functions will have a within-board standard deviation distribution

27
which matches t h e t e s t d a t a .
F i g u r e 22 i s a sample o f a g e n e r a t e d MOE p r o f i l e , F i g u r e 23 and
F i g u r e 24 a r e t h e ensemble mean and ensemble s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f t h e
g e n e r a t e d MOE p r o f i l e s f o r 2100f-1.8E MSR lumber.
R e s u l t s as presented i n F i g u r e s 23 and 24 show t h a t t h e r e i s a
relatively good agreement between t h e t e s t and g e n e r a t e d d a t a . As a
way of v e r i f y i n g t h e agreement between t e s t and computer s i m u l a t i o n
results, t h e two ensemble amplitude spectra had been compared i n
F i g u r e 25, which shows v e r y good agreement.
A summary o f t h e s t e p s t o implement t h e E - f u n c t i o n s i m u l a t i o n
program i s a s f o l l o w s :
1. O b t a i n t h e E - p r o f i l e s a l o n g t h e l e n g t h u s i n g t h e Cook-
B o l i n d e r s g r a d i n g machine;
2. C a l c u l a t e t h e mean and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f MOE f o r each
board;
3. O b t a i n t h e f i t t e d c u m u l a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n o f t h e
mean MOE (E^) and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n (<r ); E
4. C o n s t r u c t z e r o mean E - p r o f i l e from s t e p s 1 and 2;
5. P e r f o r m t h e F a s t F o u r i e r Transform (FFT) t o each z e r o mean
E - p r o f i l e t o obtain i t s amplitude spectrum;
6. C a l c u l a t e t h e ensemble average o f a m p l i t u d e spectrum;
7. N o r m a l i z e t h e ensemble average o f a m p l i t u d e spectrum

by d i v i d i n g by t h e ensemble s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n <r (x);
E
8. Generate random phase a n g l e s <#(w ) between 0 and 2ir;

t
9. Generate a random mean from a f i t t e d c d f o b t a i n e d
i n s t e p 3;
10. Generate a random s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n <r from a f i t t e d

E
c d f o b t a i n e d i n s t e p 3 and a d j u s t a m p l i t u d e spectrum;
11. R e c o n s t r u c t t h e g e n e r a t e d E - p r o f i l e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e
Eq. (4.27).
29
5. BIVARIATE STANDARD NORMAL DISTRIBUTION SIMULATION MODEL
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Modelling correlated lumber properties has been an a r e a of
active research f o r many y e a r s . In t h i s section, we w i l l discuss a
b i v a r i a t e approach o f s i m u l a t i n g c o r r e l a t e d lumber p r o p e r t i e s data.
It i s well known t h a t for lumber, c o m p r e s s i v e ( G ) and t e n s i l e

C
strengths parallel to grain ( G ) are

T positively correlated with the
modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y (MOE). A knowledge o f t h e s e c o r r e l a t i o n s leads
to t h e development o f t h e mechanical lumber grading machine. F o r
structural reliability analysis of wood structures, the lumber
properties a, c a,
T and MOE a r e needed as a c o m p a t i b l e s e t , f o r each
piece of material. F o r a beam s t r e n g t h analysis, as i n t h e case o f
GLULAM beam strength simulations, each element must be a s s i g n e d a
v a l u e o f MOE, <7j. and GQ , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
In t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s , t h e g e n e r a t i o n o f l o c a l i z e d MOE v a l u e s
along the length o f t h e boards has been d i s c u s s e d . With t h e generated
MOE v a l u e s a l o n g t h e l e n g t h o f the boards, c o r r e l a t e d strength values
can also be g e n e r a t e d by a B i v a r i a t e Standard Normal Distribution
Simulation Program (BNSIM) as d e s c r i b e d i n the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs.
A computer simulation model was presented for simulating
correlated random v a r i a b l e s that preserves the marginal distribution
o f each v a r i a b l e a s w e l l as t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e v a r i a b l e s . The

30
method is illustrated using modulus of elasticity (MOE) and
c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h (<r )
c d a t a f o r 2 x 6 i n c h e s ( 3 8 x 1 4 0 mm) 2100f-1.8E
Spruce-Pine-Fir (SPF).
5.2 BIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
The random v e c t o r ( X, Y) has a b i v a r i a t e normal d i s t r i b u t i o n i f
the j o i n t p r o b a b i l i t y d e n s i t y f u n c t i o n (p.d.f.) o f ( X, Y ) i s g i v e n
by
(5.1)
In (5.1), X and Y have marginal N(/j ,

;r (r )
2
x and N(// ,
y cr )
y
2
d i s t r i b u t i o n s w i t h t h e means u„, u„ and t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s a , a ,
respectively .
( X, Y) has a v a r i a n c e - c o v a r i a n c e m a t r i x
t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t o f X and Yis p.
According t o the c o n d i t i o n a l probability formula

31
(5.2)
Then, the conditional distribution of Y, given X = x, has t h e
c o n d i t i o n a l p.d.f. /(y | x ), where
" " • - ^ r - { - ^ ( ( ^ - ^ X ? )
J !
+(^) 2
- <w>(^) } 2
S i m p l i f y i n g t h e above e q u a t i o n by
= «y 1 1
- P2
( 5.4 )
V* = A* + P ^
y ( * - H) x ( 5.5 )
where a; i s a random v a r i a b l e from x — \i x + R N • a x (0 < RN < 1 ) and
RN i s a random normal number w i t h mean 0 and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1.

32
Then
1 (5.6)
/ ( H O = 0-N2T
exp
= % ( 0 , 1) (5.7)
y = a z + n (5.8)
where cr* i s a c o n s t a n t ; z* i s a random number ( 0 < z* < 1 ) .
Therefore, the conditional distribution of Y, has t h e
s i m p l i f i e d c o n d i t i o n a l p . d . f . / ( y \ x), where
(5.9)
5.3 MODEL DEVELOPMENT
A transformation of the b i v a r i a t e s t a n d a r d normal d i s t r i b u t i o n
is chosen t o model t h e two c o r r e l a t e d lumber strength and s t i f f n e s s
properties. The approach has t h e advantage o f e x a c t l y preserving each
marginal d i s t r i b u t i o n as w e l l as the c o r r e l a t i o n between MOE and
strength properties o b t a i n e d from t e s t d a t a .
This section will describe the procedures which a r e used t o
generate a c o r r e l a t e d random p a i r (X, Y) or g i v e n X, t o g e n e r a t e t h e
random v a l u e Y, where X c o u l d be chosen as a MOE and Y t h e c o m p r e s s i v e

33
strength at a particular location within a board. The theoretical
c o n s i d e r a t i o n has a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d i n t h e above s e c t i o n .
The study o f w i t h i n - b o a r d MOE and c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h property
variation showed t h a t both means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f MOE and
c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h v a r y from board t o board.
In the b i v a r i a t e standard normal d i s t r i b u t i o n s i m u l a t i o n model,
we assume t h a t :
a) . The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t p-~ f o r X mean and Y mean i s t h e

/ r
xy
same as p f o r X and Y, as shown i n F i g u r e 26.
b) . The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t p xy f o r X s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n and
Y s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n i s z e r o , as shown i n F i g u r e 27.
The procedures f o r modelling t h e c o r r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s a r e as
follows:
1. O b t a i n E - p r o f i l e s from t h e C o o k - B o l i n d e r s g r a d i n g machine and
the strength profiles from the within-board compressive strength
tests.
2. Estimate t h e parameters f o r the best fitting cumulative
distribution functions o f means and standard deviations f o r both
variables X and Y. The mean and standard deviation cumulative
distribution functions F ( r ) and F(j^) c o u l d be fitted by normal,
lognormal, 2-parameter Weibull and 3-parameter Veibull distributions
in t h e model developed, as i n F i g u r e 19, F i g u r e 20, and F i g u r e 12,
F i g u r e 13.
34
3. E s t i m a t e t h e c o r r e l a t i o n coefficient p xy i n t h e r e a l space by:
E (** - ) 1
(y* - y)
i = 1
^ - ; ~ < - )5 10
( E (y,-y) 2
£ (y,-y) ) 2 2
«= 1 «' = 1
where x and i a r e t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s o f X and Y; x and j/ a r e t h e means
of t h e X and Y; n i s t h e number o f t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s o f J and Y.
4. T r a n s f o r m X from real space into standard normalized space

X:-X
w i t h i t s mean e q u a l s 0 and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n e q u a l s 1, i.e. —a •
5. T r a n s f o r m Y from real space into standard normalized space

Y.-Y
w i t h i t s mean e q u a l s 0 and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n e q u a l s 1. i.e. Zy "Y
6. E s t i m a t e t h e c o r r e l a t i o n coefficient p N for Z x and Zy i n t h e
standard normalized space.
7. Generate random board mean X and Y from the best fitting
cumulative distribution f u n c t i o n s o f mean f o r X and Y assuming t h a t
t h e y have t h e c o r r e l a t i o n coefficient p xy ( a s shown i n F i g u r e 2 6 ) .
8. Generate random board s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n cr- and <7* from t h e

yi. Y
best fitting cumulative distribution functions of standard d e v i a t i o n
f o r cr- and cr- assuming t h a t t h e i r c o r r e l a t i o n coefficient i s zero (as

JC Y
shown i n F i g u r e 2 7 ) .
9. Generate random Z-% and t h e c o r r e l a t e d random Zy by Bivariate
S t a n d a r d Normal D i s t r i b u t i o n S i m u l a t i o n Program (BNSIM). Or

35
10. Use Z x as input, generating the correlated random Z

Y by
B i v a r i a t e S t a n d a r d Normal D i s t r i b u t i o n S i m u l a t i o n Program (BNSIM).
11. Transform Z% from standard normalized space back to real
space w i t h i t s mean e q u a l s X and standard d e v i a t i o n equals a - , i . e .

JL
X = X
i + <r~- Zy i f s t e p 9 has been adopted.
12. Transform Zy from standard normalized space back to real
space w i t h i t s mean e q u a l s Y and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n e q u a l s <T^_ , i . e .
Y,. = Y + * y • Z Y .
The transformation between the real space and standard
normalized space for the different distributions is shown
s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n F i g u r e 28.
5.4 ^--PROFILE SIMULATION EXAMPLE
F o l l o w i n g t h e above p r o c e d u r e s i t i s known t h a t g i v e n X-, Yj- can
be generated from bivariate standard normal distribution model with
the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t p „.
T
This section will give a simulation example for generating
compressive strength <T -profiles

c in accordance with correlated E-
profiles.
In o r d e r t o implement the b i v a r i a t e s t a n d a r d normal d i s t r i b u t i o n
model, the distribution parameters for the cumulative distribution
f u n c t i o n s o f means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r MOE and a c are obtained
from an experiment. Table 6 shows t h e d e s c r i p t i v e statistics f o r the

36
t e s t MOE and <r c f o r a sample o f 2 x 4 2100f-1.8E machine s t r e s s - r a t e d
lumber.
The cumulative distribution functions of mean and standard
d e v i a t i o n o f MOE a r e shown i n F i g u r e s 19 and 20.
The cumulative distribution functions of mean and standard
d e v i a t i o n o f <JQ a r e shown i n F i g u r e s 12 and 13.
From F i g u r e s 19, 20, and F i g u r e s 12, 13, t h e random b o a r d mean X
and Y, and t h e random board standard deviation cr~ and cr- a r e

X Y
generated. A 3-parameter V e i b u l l distribution will be used t o f i t t h e
MOE mean and s t a n d a r d deviation distributions. Normal distributions
a r e used t o f i t compressive s t r e n g t h (CTQ) mean and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n
di s t r i b u t i o n s .
Figure 29 shows t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l r e g r e s s i o n between modulus o f
elasticity ( E ) and w i t h i n - b o a r d compressive s t r e n g t h (cr )c o f t h e 2100-
1.8E grade 2 x 4 MSR lumber. The l e n g t h o f s h o r t compression specimen i s
6 i n c h (152.4 mm). The r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n o f t h e form <TQ - a x E + b
obtained with c o e f f i c i e n t s a = 0.0025 and b = 10.32. The c o r r e l a t i o n
coefficient p between t e s t E and a c i s 0.654.
The individual X i and Y,- v a l u e s from F i g u r e 29 were normalized
board by board. The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t p N forZ x and Zy i n t h e
s t a n d a r d n o r m a l i z e d space was found t o be 0.40.
Then, using Z x as input, t h e c o r r e l a t e d random Zy will be
generated by B i v a r i a t e S t a n d a r d Normal D i s t r i b u t i o n S i m u l a t i o n Program

37
BNSIM) assuming t h a t c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t p N = 0.40.
Finally, t r a n s f o r m i n g Zy from s t a n d a r d n o r m a l i z e d space back t o
normal space w i t h i t s mean e q u a l s Y and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n e q u a l s ,
i.e. Y =
t T + <r y • Z Y .
Table 7 shows t h e d e s c r i p t i v e statistics f o r the generated <J .

C
Figure 30 shows the experimental and g e n e r a t e d MOE vs. compressive
strength (O-Q) of grade 2100-1.8E. The correlation coefficient p xy
between t e s t E and <r c i s 0.654. The g e n e r a t e d correlation coefficient
Pzt, = 0.649. By v i s u a l check i t can be seen t h a t t h e t e s t and s i m u l a t e d

xy
MOE and a c d a t a p a i r s a r e i n agreement and t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between MOE
and t h e compressive strength i s preserved.

38
6. GENERATION OF E- AND a- PROFILES FOR GLULAM BEAM ANALYSIS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In Chapter 7, a s i m u l a t i o n program c a l l e d GLULAM w i l l be used t o
simulate the strength of glulam beams. The glulam beams will be
fabricated u s i n g c o m b i n a t i o n s o f t h r e e MSR grades ( 1 6 5 0 f l . 5 E , 2100f-
1.8E, and 2400f-2.0E). The methods d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 4 and Chapter
5 t o generate E-profiles and <T-profiles a r e used t o generate the
correlated MOE v s . c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h and MOE v s . t e n s i l e strength
profiles.
The simulated properties for this study were developed using
data from a s t u d y o f 2 x 6 (38 mm x 140 mm) MSR lumber t e n s i l e and
compressive strength behaviour p r o v i d e d by COFI (Council of Forest
Industries of B r i t i s h Columbia), which i s summarized i n chapter 1
( A i n s w o r t h , 1989).
6.2 GENERATION OF E-PROFILES FOR THREE GRADES
In order t o generate localized E-profiles using the E-function
simulation model developed i n Chapter 4, test localized E-profiles
from g r a d i n g machine a r e needed. In t h i s study, E - p r o f i l e s f o r the
three grades of MSR lumber were generated using the E-function
simulation procedures. Test E-profiles f o r three MSR grades were
p r o v i d e d from COFI. These d a t a were used t o g e n e r a t e E - p r o f i l e s u s i n g

39
t e c h n i q u e s d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n s 4.2 and 4.3. Three l e n g t h s (16, 21,
and 32 f e e t respectively) of the generated board MOE profiles were
produced f o r each grade. A t o t a l o f 1000 b o a r d were g e n e r a t e d f o r each
length/grade c o m b i n a t i o n . The t o t a l number o f g e n e r a t e d localized E-
profile d a t a p o i n t s on each b o a r d a r e 32, 42, and 64 r e s p e c t i v e l y i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e t h r e e board spans, i. e. t h e d a t a p o i n t s a r e spaced
a t 6 i n c h e s (152.4 mm). A d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s t a t i s t i c s f o r the t e s t
and g e n e r a t e d E - v a l u e s f o r t h r e e grades i s g i v e n i n T a b l e 8. F o r each
grade, 1000 boards were generated f o r analysis of glulam beam
behaviour.
6.3 GENERATION OF < T - P R 0 F I L E S FOR COFI DATA
The GLULAM beam s i m u l a t i o n program, t o be d i s c u s s e d i n t h e n e x t
chapter, requires data f o r localized tensile strength parallel to
grain (cr ) , l o c a l i z e d c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h p a r a l l e l
T to grain (cr )
c and
the correlated localized modulus of e l a s t i c i t y (MOE). Using t h e E-
function simulation model, localized E-profiles f o r t h r e e grades o f
2x6 SPF have a l r e a d y been g e n e r a t e d . In t h i s section, the l o c a l i z e d
< r - p r o f i l e s and a - p r o f i l e s
T c correlated with localized E-profiles will
be generated using the Bivariate Standard Normal Distribution
S i m u l a t i o n Program (BNSIM).
The m o d e l l i n g t e c h n i q u e d e v e l o p e d from s h o r t span ( w i t h i n - b o a r d )
compressive s t r e n g t h t e s t r e s u l t s would be used i n order t o generate
the localized <7y-profiles and cr^-prof i l e s correlated with the

40
localized E-profiles. Together with the three grades of E-profile,
compressive s t r e n g t h a c and t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h (T t e s t r e s u l t s
T collected
from COFI, t h e s t r e n g t h <7-profiles s i m u l a t i o n can be expanded from one
2 x 4 ' s grade (2100f-1.8E) t o t h e o t h e r t h r e e 2 x 6 ' s g r a d e s (1650-1.5E,
2100f-1.8E and 2400f-2.0E).
The simulation procedure requires knowledge o f t h e mean and
standard deviation of strength along the length o f t h e t e n s i o n and
c o m p r e s s i o n members. The UBC t e s t ( s e e Chapter 2 ) , u s i n g 152.4 mm (6
inch) long specimens, provides estimates o f t h e mean and standard
d e v i a t i o n o f the compression s t r e n g t h .
For t h e COFI d a t a there were o n l y two t e s t results available
(Zone A and Zone B) and t h e s e strengths will represent t h e minimum
s t r e n g t h s f o r t h e s p e c i f i c t e s t zones e v a l u a t e d . T h i s d a t a would tend
to underestimate the actual mean strength of the material. To
compensate f o r the underestimate of strength, a strength adjustment
f a c t o r R was c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g t h e UBC d a t a .
The UBC c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h d a t a were used t o s i m u l a t e t h e COFI
experiment. Zones A and Zone B were s e l e c t e d f o l l o w i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e s
of t h e COFI study. Each 72 inches zone contains 12 continuous
segments. The minimum s t r e n g t h i n the test zone f o r b o t h Zone A and
Zone B was d e t e r m i n e d from t h e t e s t d a t a .
The ratio RQ was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each specimen i n t h e UBC test
according to
41
*° =
C, + %) / 2 <">
where <? = average c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h ;
<r A = minimum c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h i n Zone A;
<7g = minimum c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h i n Zone B.
The median value of RQ, calculated from UBC compression test
results, i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1.15 (see F i g u r e 3 1 ) . The value R - 1.15
will be used as ratio RC and applied in the later compressive
strength cr^-profile simulations.
I n o r d e r t o o b t a i n the R T v a l u e , t h e d a t a r e s u l t s from Lam and
V a r o g l u (1991a) w i t h i n - b o a r d t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h t e s t have been a n a l y z e d .
The median value of R,

T calculated from Lam and Varoglu's tensile
s t r e n g t h t e s t r e s u l t s , was about 1.20 (see F i g u r e 3 2 ) . The v a l u e R T =
1.20 w i l l be used as ratio R T and a p p l i e d i n t h e t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h <r -

T
profile simulations.
Before starting t o simulate the localized c^-profiles and
c r ^ - p r o f i l e s , t h e f o l l o w i n g assumptions a r e made i n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e
t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s o f t h e program BNSIM:
a). Assume that the derived distribution parameters for the
standard deviations o f grade 2100f-1.8E c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h from UBC
test results were suitable for the distributions of the standard

42
deviations of the compressive and tensile strength f o r a l l the MSR
grades;
b) . Assume t h a t t h e s t a n d a r d n o r m a l i z e d c o r r e l a t i o n coefficient
PN (PN =
0-4) derived from UBC test results is suitable for
c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h and t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h f o r a l l t h e MSR grades;
c ) . Assume t h a t t h e R a t i o F a c t o r s R c = 1.15 and R T = 1.20 a r e
suitable f o r compressive strength and tensile strength simulation
model f o r a l l t h e MSR grades;
d) . Assume that the w i t h i n board correlation coefficient
between t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f MOE and c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h cr c (or
t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h cr^) i s z e r o and i t i s grade independent.
With t h e above assumptions and t h e p r o c e d u r e s d e v e l o p e d i n the
section (5.3), localized tensile strength p a r a l l e l to grain (o"j.) and
localized compressive strength parallel to grain (cc) have been
generated i n accordance with the correlated localized modulus of
e l a s t i c i t y (MOE) .
While simulating the localized compressive strength O~Q and
localized tensile strength (T , a

T lower bound on b o a r d strength was
adopted i n o r d e r t o e l i m i n a t e some v a l u e s which were o u t o f t h e range
of t h e minimum c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h and t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h o b t a i n e d from
COFI t e s t r e s u l t s (see Table 9 ) .
I n o r d e r t o compare t h e g e n e r a t e d l o c a l i z e d t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h and
compressive strength with COFI test results, two minimum tensile

43
s t r e n g t h and c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h v a l u e s were s e l e c t e d from Zone A and
Zone B i n each generated board. Zone A and Zone B a r e chosen as
described i n Chapter 2. C u m u l a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n functions of the t e s t
and g e n e r a t e d t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h and c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h o f Zone A and
Zone B from three grades are provided from Figures 33 t o 38. The
l e n g t h o f t h e g e n e r a t e d b o a r d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s i s 16 f e e t .
The comparisons of the CDF of test tensile strength and
compressive strength with generated tensile strength and compressive
strength show us that the strength <7-simulation model can simulate
t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h and c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h r e a s o n a b l y well.
44
7. GLULAM BEAM SIMULATIONS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The b e h a v i o u r o f any s t r u c t u r e s u b j e c t e d t o loads i s dependent
on t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f i t s c o n s t i t u e n t s . I n t h e case o f g l u l a m beams,
the e n g i n e e r i n g p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e l a m i n a t i o n s were h i g h l y v a r i a b l e and
difficult t o p r e d i c t . For t h i s reason, a great deal o f r e s e a r c h has
been targeted at finding new ways to determine strength
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f g l u l a m beam members.
One method o f e s t i m a t i n g t h e s t a t i s t i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of glulam
beam s t r e n g t h would be t o i n i t i a t e a large-scale destructive testing
program. An a p p r o p r i a t e statistical distribution c o u l d t h e n be fitted
to the data from which design stress levels could be e s t a b l i s h e d .
Assuming t h a t t h e sample s i z e was s u f f i c i e n t l y large representative of
the population, this approach would y i e l d accurate results. However,
the c o s t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a t e s t i n g program o f t h i s magnitude would be
prohibitive.
A computer model could eliminate part o f t h e need f o r large-
scale destructive testing. This section discusses a computer
simulation model to predict t h e performance of structural glue-
laminated beams, f a b r i c a t e d from r e g u l a r g r a d e s o f MSR lumber, under
uniformly distributed loads.

45
7.2 GLULAM SIMULATION MODEL
This computer model, GLULAM, was o r i g i n a l l y developed by D r s .
Foschi and B a r r e t t (1980), who used a finite element approach t o
estimate the p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n of strength and s t i f f n e s s of
g l u l a m beams.
The GLULAM model uses a Monte Carlo simulation technique to
compute t h e b e n d i n g , t e n s i l e and c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h s of the glulam
beams. I n t h i s manner, any beam s i z e o r layup can be e a s i l y analyzed.
A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f beam s i m u l a t i o n i n t h i s model f o l l o w s :
Beam l a y u p s a r e chosen f o r t h e GLULAM model i n t h e same manner
t h a t a c t u a l beams a r e assembled i n a l a m i n a t i n g p l a n t . L a m i n a t i o n s a r e
selected according t o grade r e q u i r e m e n t s s p e c i f i e d by t h e beam layup.
One beam l e n g t h lamination i s made up o f s e v e r a l p i e c e s of laminating
lumber c o n n e c t e d by e n d - j o i n t s . The l e n g t h o f each p i e c e o f lumber i n
each lamination i s randomly generated. The program indicates the
number and l o c a t i o n o f e n d - j o i n t s chosen f o r each lamination. Each
beam l e n g t h l a m i n a t i o n c o n s i s t s o f a s e r i e s o f 152.4 mm (6 i n c h ) long
e l e m e n t s . Each element i n a p a r t i c u l a r piece o f lumber i s a s s i g n e d a
modulus of elasticity (MOE), a tensile strength (o"y) , a n <

^ a
compressive strength ( c ) . c
The model i s based on t h e o b s e r v a t i o n that glulam beams behave
elastically to f i r s t f a i l u r e and t h a t most b e n d i n g f a i l u r e s o f g l u l a m
beams i n i t i a t e i n t h e t e n s i o n zone. The f a i l u r e s t r e n g t h o f t h e beams

46
was c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g t h e weakest link theory. F a i l u r e i s assumed t o
occur when t h e t e n s i l e strength p a r a l l e l t o t h e g r a i n o f any element
in a lamination i s exceeded. T h i s i s r e f e r r e d t o as " f i r s t failure".
The element s t r e s s e s a r e c a l c u l a t e d a t t h e c e n t r e of the lamination.
The subsequent p r o g r e s s i v e failures c o u l d a l s o be e x p e c t e d f o l l o w i n g
the first failure i n GLULAM program. The higher ultimate loads
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p r o g r e s s i v e f a i l u r e were i g n o r e d i n t h i s study.
A b r i e f o u t l i n e o f t h e p r o c e d u r e s used f o r t h e GLULAM s i m u l a t i o n
program f o l l o w s :
1) . The elements i n each lamination o f t h e beam a r e a s s i g n e d
individually a MOE, a compressive strength (<r ),

c and a tensile
s t r e n g t h ((T )
T values a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the l a m i n a t i o n grade;
2) . The l e n g t h o f each p i e c e o f lumber i n each lamination i s
randomly g e n e r a t e d and t h e e n d - j o i n t l o c a t i o n s a r e d e t e r m i n e d and t h e
e n d - j o i n t s t r e n g t h s a r e a s s i g n e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e beam;
3) . F i n i t e element a n a l y s i s i s used to predict f a i l u r e i n the
t e n s i o n zone.
4) . The u l t i m a t e bending s t r e s s i s r e c o r d e d and t h e above steps
are repeated u n t i l s u f f i c i e n t d a t a have been generated.
5) . The statistical distribution o f bending strength i s then
e s t i m a t e d u s i n g d a t a from s t e p 4.
47
7.3 SIMULATION BEAM LAYUPS
Strength and stiffness values of glulam are dependent on the
grade l a y u p of g l u l a m beams, i.e. the grade and l a m i n a t i o n p r o p e r t i e s of
the outer and inner laminations. For bending a p p l i c a t i o n s the outer
laminations are of a higher grade than the inner laminations. The
outer l a m i n a t i o n s g e n e r a l l y c o n t r o l the bending s t r e n g t h of t h e glulam
beam. T e n s i l e and compressive strengths parallel to grain of glulam
beams may be c o n t r o l l e d by e i t h e r the inner or the outer lamination
properties.
Three depths o f glulam beams have been e v a l u a t e d . These depths
a r e 9, 12, and 18 i n c h , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The r a t i o between span and depth
i s 21. Therefore the three spans a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the t h r e e depths are
16, 21, and 32 f e e t , r e s p e c t i v e l y . To define the depth o f each beam
(which c o n t r o l s the number of l a m i n a t i o n s i n each d e s i g n combination),
a uniform thickness of 1.5 inch (38 mm) was assumed for each
l a m i n a t i o n . For 9, 12, and 18 i n c h depth beam, the r e q u i r e d number o f
laminations are 6, 8, 12, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Glulam beams w i t h pure and
mixed grade combinations were studied for each of the three beam
depths a r e shown s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n F i g u r e s 39, 40, and 41.
In Figure 39, A, D and G are the pure grade c o m b i n a t i o n s of
2400f-2.0E, 1650f-1.8E and 2100f-1.5E, r e s p e c t i v e l y ; B and C are the
mixed combinations with grade 2400f-2.0E on the outer layers and
1650f-1.5E i n the inner layers; E and F are the mixed combinations
w i t h grade 2100f-2.0E on the o u t e r l a y e r s and 1650f-1.5E i n the inner

48
layers. I n F i g u r e 40, A, E and H a r e t h e pure grade c o m b i n a t i o n s o f
2400f-2.0E, 1650f-1.8E and 2100f-1.5E, respectively; B, C and D a r e
the mixed c o m b i n a t i o n s w i t h grade 2400f-2.0E on t h e o u t e r l a y e r s and
1650f-1.5E i n the inner layers; F and G a r e t h e mixed c o m b i n a t i o n s
w i t h grade 2100f-2.0E on t h e o u t e r l a y e r s and 1650f-1.5E i n the inner
layers. In Figure 41, A, F and I a r e t h e pure grade c o m b i n a t i o n s o f
2400f-2.0E, 1650f-1.8E and 2100f-1.5E, r e s p e c t i v e l y ; B, C, D and E a r e
the mixed c o m b i n a t i o n s w i t h grade 2400f-2.0E on t h e o u t e r l a y e r s and
1650f-1.5E i n the inner layers; G and H a r e t h e mixed c o m b i n a t i o n s
w i t h grade 2100f-2.0E on t h e o u t e r l a y e r s and 1650f-1.5E i n the inner
layers.
In s h o r t , t h r e e beam grades and t h r e e beam s i z e s were v a r i o u s l y
combined i n the simulation design of t h i s study, r e s u l t i n g i n 24
d i f f e r e n t beam groups.
7.4 SIMULATION RESULTS
The grade combinations f o r the three depths a r e 7, 8, and 9,
respectively ( s e e F i g u r e s 39, 40, and 4 1 ) . One hundred beam s i m u l a t i o n
r e p l i c a t e s were chosen f o r each one o f t h e 24 beam g r o u p s , p r o v i d i n g a
t o t a l o f 2400 s i m u l a t e d beams ( s e e T a b l e 1 0 ) .
The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s s t u d y was t o a s s e s s t h e performance o f MSR
lumber, thus, the strength of end-joints i n each beam has been
assigned sufficiently high i n order to eliminate the p o s s i b i l i t y of
end-joint failures.
49
The results o f beam s i m u l a t i o n s as portrayed by the three-
parameter W e i b u l l d i s t r i b u t i o n parameters and t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d 5 t h and
5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s f o r t h e t h r e e beam depths a r e shown i n T a b l e s
11, 12 and 13, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
I n T a b l e 11, B9A-B r e p r e s e n t s bending strength of combination A
i n 9" d e p t h , B9A-C r e p r e s e n t s c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h o f c o m b i n a t i o n A i n
9" d e p t h , B9A-T r e p r e s e n t s t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h of combination A i n 9"
d e p t h , and so on. S i m i l a r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a r e shown i n T a b l e s 12 and
13.
50
8. DISCUSSION OF SIMULATION RESULTS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter will discuss the r e s u l t s obtained from GLULAM beam
strength simulations. The effects of grades, depths and the
c o m b i n a t i o n s o f beam l a y u p s on t h e beam p r o p e r t i e s , such a s t h e MOE,
bending strength, compressive strength p a r a l l e l t o g r a i n and t e n s i l e
s t r e n g t h p a r a l l e l t o g r a i n , w i l l be a n a l y z e d .
S i n c e t h e r a t i o o f t h e l e n g t h and t h e depth o f a l l t h e s i m u l a t e d
glulam beams has t h e same v a l u e , 21, i n t h i s study, t h e depth effect
might be b e t t e r c a l l e d s i z e e f f e c t . Here we use t h e term depth effect
j u s t f o r t h e purpose o f c o n v e n i e n c e .
The simulated modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y and b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h values
will be compared t o r e s u l t s o f t h e t r a n s f o r m e d cross section a n a l y s i s .
F i g u r e 42 i s an example diagram o f one o f 24 beam c o m b i n a t i o n s which
shows t h e t r a n s f o r m e d s e c t i o n and s t r e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n . The o t h e r 23
combinations will have the s i m i l a r transformed cross s e c t i o n s and
stress distributions.
8.2 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
The average simulated MOE values f o r each beam layup can be
compared w i t h t h e average t r a n s f o r m e d MOE v a l u e s , c a l c u l a t e d by u s i n g

51
a transformed cross section analysis ( s e e F i g u r e 42) and t h e nominal
MOE f o r each grade o f lumber i n t h e beam c o m b i n a t i o n ( T a b l e 1 4 ) . The
nominal MOE values f o r grade 1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E, and 2400f-2.0E
used i n t h e t r a n s f o r m e d s e c t i o n a n a l y s i s a r e 1 . 5 x l 0 6
p s i , 1.8xl0 p s i ,
6
and 2 . 0 x l 0 6
p s i , respectively.
The equations used f o r calculating transformed bending MOE
values are presented i n the f o l l o w i n g sections.
The beam s t i f f n e s s can be determined as (see F i g u r e 4 2 ) :
EI = E I y t ( 8.1 )
where E = apparent MOE;
I = a p p a r e n t moment o f i n e r t i a , b ^ ( 2 t ^ + t ) / 12;
c
3
E^ = f a c e ( o r o u t e r ) l a y e r l a m i n a t i o n MOE;
I t = t r a n s f o r m e d c r o s s s e c t i o n moment o f i n e r t i a .
S i n c e t h e f a c e l a y e r l a m i n a t i o n Ey i s s e l e c t e d a s t h e r e f e r e n c e ,
the width o f the core layer lamination b c with i t s E c can be r e l a t e d
with the width of the face layer l a m i n a t i o n b^ w i t h i t s E^ u s i n g t h e
f o l l o w i n g equation:
The moment o f i n e r t i a of the transformed cross section I is

(
c a l c u l a t e d from t h e f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n :
52
h (2t t f
f f+ c t ( -b )
c
3
b / c
L
t - 12 12 <• 8 > d
'
The r a t i o o f t h e t r a n s f o r m e d moment o f i n e r t i a t o t h e a p p a r e n t
moment o f i n e r t i a can be determined:
L /(2yt )
E
- tc (E/-Ec)
e
3
3
I - E 2 t ) / ( V c
3 { 8
' 4 }
This ratio will be c a l l e d the transformed section f a c t o r and
denoted by T (Moody, 1974).
Then, from Eq. (8.1) E can be c a l c u l a t e d from the following
equation:
EV E (2t +t ) 3
- t (E -E ) 3
E = Jf- = —i—ZL
f / / c c f c
v
c
_ v f cJ
( 8.5 )
I 2t / + t )
c
3
As T a b l e 14 shows, t h e average s i m u l a t e d MOE v a l u e s f o r t h e 24
beam l a y u p groups were a l l w i t h i n 2% o f t h e i r t r a n s f o r m e d MOE values
(with t h e average value o f 0.4% h i g h e r ) , which verified t h e GLULAM
program works w e l l t o s i m u l a t e t h e s t i f f n e s s p r o p e r t i e s of the glulam
beams.
F i g u r e 43 compares t h e average s i m u l a t e d MOE v a l u e s w i t h average
transformed MOE values calculated by using a transformed section
analysis f o r the twenty-four (24) beam layup groups. The average

53
simulated MOE values f o r the twenty-four ( 2 4 ) groups ranged from
1.478xl0 6
p s i t o 2.054 x 1 0 6
p s i , while the transformed MOE values
r a n g e d , from 1 . 5 x l 0 6
p s i t o 2.0 x l O 6
p s i (nominal v a l u e s ) . A r e g r e s s i o n
a n a l y s i s suggested a l i n e of best f i t as:
Y = 0.2276 + 0.8707X ( 8.6 )
where Y i s t h e s i m u l a t e d MOE and X i s t h e t r a n s f o r m e d MOE, b o t h i n
terms o f m i l l i o n lb/in 2
(psi). The c o e f f i c i e n t o f d e t e r m i n a t i o n (-R )
2
was 0.997.
8.3 BENDING STRENGTH
Predictability o f bending s t r e n g t h can be measured by comparing
the predicted bending strength with the s i m u l a t e d bending strength
(Table 1 5 ) . The procedures of calculating the predicted bending
s t r e n g t h w i l l be d e s c r i b e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s .
For a two-zone beam ( F i g u r e 4 2 ) , t h e t r a n s f o r m e d s e c t i o n factor,
T, can be e x p r e s s e d as i n Eq. ( 8 . 4 ) :
E ( 2 t t ) - t (E -E )
f / + c
3
c
3
f c
T = -Z±— —^- f
% V / c
( 8.7 )
E/(2t t ) / + c
3
where:
E^ and E c = moduli o f e l a s t i c i t y f o r t h e f a c e zone and c o r e zone
shown i n F i g u r e 42;
54
t ^ and t c = depths shown i n F i g u r e 42.
The 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e MOR v a l u e s f { f o r grades o f 1650f-1.5E, 2100f-
1.8E and 2400f-2.0E a r e 3465, 4410 and 5040 p s i r e s p e c t i v e l y (obtained
from "SPS 2 NLGA S p e c i a l P r o d u c t s S t a n d a r d f o r Machine S t r e s s Rated
Lumber"). In order t o avoid inner lamination over stresses i n the
depths t c (ASTM, 1990):
* * ( HThr-) ( i j ) 4 < - 8 8
>
If f 2 i s l e s s than the q u a n t i t y c a l c u l a t e d f o r the r i g h t s i d e of
the equation (8.9), / x i s limited to a value that will satisfy an
equality. For use of with properties of the simulated physical
section, f-y can be m u l t i p l i e d by T to y i e l d a value of allowable
c o m b i n a t i o n b e n d i n g s t r e s s , o r t h e p r e d i c t e d bending s t r e n g t h , / :
f= AT ( 8.9 )
In order t o account f o r the e f f e c t o f depth a size effect
(12/ef) / 1 9
was m u l t i p l i e d t o t h e a l l o w a b l e combination bending s t r e s s /
where d i s t h e beam depth (ASTM, 1990).
It i s shown t h a t ( s e e T a b l e 15) most o f t h e s i m u l a t e d b e n d i n g
s t r e n g t h from t h e 24 beam l a y u p groups were w i t h i n 30% h i g h e r than t h e
predicted bending s t r e n g t h e x c e p t f o r t h e pure grade c o m b i n a t i o n s by
grade 1650f-1.5E. The simulated bending strengths in those
combinations attained only 85, 76 and 71 p e r c e n t of the predicted

55
v a l u e s a t t h e depths o f 9, 12 and 18 i n c h , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Table 16 shows t h e h y p o t h e s i s t e s t s of equality o f means f o r
bending s t r e n g t h o f t w e n t y - f o u r (24) beam l a y u p groups. I t indicated
t h a t beam l a y - u p has a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h s . W i t h i n
the beam layups of 9 inch depth, i t showed that the differences
between beam9-A and beam9-B, and beam9-F and beam9-G are not
significant at a = 0.05 l e v e l . T h i s was e x p e c t e d because the outer
layer l a m i n a t i o n s (grades 2100f-1.8E and 2400f-2.0E) c o n t r i b u t e most
to t h e beam bending strength, whereas the inner layer laminations
(grade 1650f-1.5E) do n o t have much influence on t h e beam bending
s t r e n g t h . S i m i l a r phenomena can a l s o be found i n t h e beam l a y u p s o f 12
i n c h depth and 18 i n c h depth.
The beam l a y u p r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n Table 16 a r e t h e same a s i n
T a b l e s 11, 12, 13 and F i g u r e s 39, 40, and 41.
8.3.1 GRADE EFFECT
F i g u r e s 44 t o 46 a r e t h e c u m u l a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n s ( c d f )
o f b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h o f t h r e e grades (1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E and 2400f-
2.0E) under t h r e e depths ( 9 , 12, and 18 i n c h e s ) .
F i g u r e s 47 t o 48 show t h e v a r i a t i o n i n 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e and 5 0 t h
percentile values o f bending strength o f t h r e e grades (1650f-1.5E,
2100f-1.8E and 2400f-2.0E) w i t h d e p t h s .
Clearly indicated from Table 16 and F i g u r e s 44 t o 48, t h e

56
bending strengths o f t h e pure grade c o m b i n a t i o n s , made up o f 1650f-
1.5E, 2100f-1.8E, and 2400f-2.0E lumber respectively, are different
s i g n i f i c a n t l y a t t h e 0.05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
8.3.2 DEPTH EFFECT
of bending s t r e n g t h of three depths ( 9 , 12, and 18 i n c h e s ) f o r t h e
t h r e e g r a d e s (1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E and 2 4 0 0 f - 2 . 0 E ) .
Figures 52 t o 53 show t h e v a r i a t i o n o f t h e 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e and
50th p e r c e n t i l e values o f bending s t r e n g t h o f t h r e e depths ( 9 " , 12",
and 18") a s a f u n c t i o n o f grade.
From T a b l e 16 and F i g u r e s 49 t o 53, t h e b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h s o f
pure grade c o m b i n a t i o n s , made up o f 1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E, and 2400f-
2.0E r e s p e c t i v e l y , a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( a t a = 0.05 l e v e l ) a t
t h e t h r e e beam depths ( 9 , 12 and 18 i n c h e s ) .
8.3.3 EFFECT OF MIXED GRADE LAYUPS
Twenty-four different beam c o m b i n a t i o n s , which can be divided
into two g r o u p s , were a s s i g n e d . One group was t h e c o m b i n a t i o n s among
grades 1650f-1.5E and 2100f-1.8E, i n which grade 2100f-1.8E i s used
for the outer laminations and grade 1650f-1.5E f o r the inner
l a m i n a t i o n s . The o t h e r group was t h e c o m b i n a t i o n s among g r a d e s 1650f-
1.5E and 2400f-2.0E, i n which grade 2400f-2.0E i s used f o r t h e o u t e r
l a m i n a t i o n s and grade 1650f-1.5E f o r t h e i n n e r l a m i n a t i o n s . The e f f e c t

57
o f mixed grade l a y u p s on t h e b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h f o r t h e two groups will
be d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s .
8.3.3.1 1650f-1.5E AND 2100f-1.8E COMBINATIONS
F i g u r e s 54 t o 56 a r e t h e c u m u l a t i v e distribution functions(cdf)
of bending strength with the combinations o f grades 1650f-1.5E and
2100f-1.8E under t h r e e depths ( 9 , 12, and 18 i n c h e s ) .
Figures 57 t o 58 a r e t h e 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e and 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e
v a l u e s o f b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e o u t e r l a y e r percent of
2100fl-1.8E.
Generally speaking, t h e 5 t h and 50th percentile values of
bending strength increased with increasing outer layer percent of
grade 2100f-1.8E ( s e e F i g u r e 57 and F i g u r e 5 8 ) .
From Table 16, F i g u r e 39 to Figure 4 1 , i t shows that the
following group tests of bending strength mean values are not
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t t h e 0.05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e : BEAM9-F v s .
BEAM9-G (depth - 9 inches) and BEAM18-H v s . BEAM18-I (depth = 18
inches).That means as t h e o u t e r layer percent o f grade 2100f-1.8E
increased, t h e bending strength would n o t be improved t o o much a t
t h o s e two beam depth groups ( s e e F i g u r e s 54 t o 5 6 ) .
8.3.3.2 1650f-1.5E AND 2400f-2.0E COMBINATIONS
F i g u r e s 59 t o 61 a r e t h e c u m u l a t i v e distribution functions(cdf)
58
of bending strength with the combinations o f grades 1650f-1.5E and
Figures 62 t o 63 a r e t h e 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e and 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e
v a l u e s o f b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e o u t e r l a y e r percent of
2400fl-2.0E.
Similar a s i n t h e above s e c t i o n , t h e 5 t h and 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e
values o f bending strength increased with increasing outer layer
p e r c e n t o f grade 2400f-2.0E ( s e e F i g u r e s 62 and 6 3 ) .
From T a b l e 16, F i g u r e s 49 t o 51 and F i g u r e s 59 t o 6 1 , i t shows
that the f o l l o w i n g test o f bending strength mean values are not
significantly d i f f e r e n t a t t h e 0.05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e : BEAM9-A v s .
BEAM9-B (depth = 9 inches), BEAM12-A v s . BEAM12-B, BEAM12-B v s .
BEAM12-C (depth = 12 inches), BEAM18-A v s . BEAM18-B, BEAM18-B v s .
BEAM18-C, and BEAM18-A v s . BEAM18-C (depth = 18 inches). That was
because that the outer layer laminations (grades 2400f-2.0E)
c o n t r i b u t e most t o t h e beam bending s t r e n g t h , whereas t h e i n n e r l a y e r
laminations (grade 1650f-1.5E) do n o t have much i n f l u e n c e on t h e beam
bending s t r e n g t h .
As discussed i n t h e l a s t two s e c t i o n s , we found t h a t as l o n g a s
the inner laminations (grade 1650f-1.5E) was w i t h i n 50% o f t h e t o t a l
d e p t h t h e beam b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h would n o t be i n f l u e n c e d a d v e r s e l y .
It i s interesting t o see t h a t , w i t h one l a y e r o f grade 2100f-
1.8E o r 2400f-2.0E on t h e o u t e r l a y e r o f t h e beam and t h e r e s t inner

59
l a y e r o f grade 1650f-1.5E, t h e beam b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h can be i n c r e a s e d
197. o r 59% (from 5287 x 1 0 6

p s i t o 6293 x l O 6
p s i o r 8406 x 1 0 p s i )
6
r e s p e c t i v e l y when t h e beam depth i s 9 i n c h . The beam b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h
can be i n c r e a s e d 35% o r 6 1 % (from 4384 x 1 0 6

p s i t o 5902 x 1 0 6
p s i or
7064xlO 6
p s i ) r e s p e c t i v e l y when t h e beam depth i s 12 i n c h . W i t h two
l a y e r o f grade 2100f-1.8E o r 2400f-2.0E on t h e o u t e r l a y e r o f t h e beam
and the r e s t inner layer of grade 1650f-1.5E, t h e beam bending
strength can be i n c r e a s e d 46% o r 76% (from 3771 x 1 0 6

p s i t o 5492 x l O 6
p s i o r 6655 x l O 6
p s i ) r e s p e c t i v e l y when t h e beam depth i s 18 i n c h .
The above r e s u l t s indicated that with one o r two layers of
h i g h e r grade l a m i n a t i o n on t h e o u t e r l a y e r o f t h e beam and lower grade
laminations i n t h e r e s t o f i n n e r l a y e r s o f t h e beam, t h e g l u l a m beam
b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h c o u l d be improved significantly.
8.3.4. COMPARISON OF BENDING STRENGTH FOR GLULAM
From current glulam standard (CAN3-086-M84), lodgepole pine-
s p r u c e and D. f i r - l a r c h glulam beams w i t h v i s u a l l y graded lamination,
grade 20f-EX and 24f-EX, have t h e a s s i g n e d maximum b e n d i n g s t r e s s f 6 =
2000 psi and f 6 = 2400 psi. The c o r r e s p o n d i n g 5th p e r c e n t i l e values are
2.1x2000 = 4200 psi and 2.1x2400 = 5040 psi, r e s p e c t i v e l y (see Figures
57 and 62, h o r i z o n t a l l i n e ) .
In F i g u r e 57, i t i s shown t h a t t h e c o m b i n a t i o n s BEAM9-E, BEAM12-
G and BEAM18-H ( s e e F i g u r e s 39, 40 and 4 1 ) , which a r e made up o f 33%,
50% and 66% grade 2100f-1.8E w i t h c o r r e s p o n d i n g depths o f 9, 12 and 18

60
inches r e s p e c t i v e l y , w i l l produce h i g h e r bending strength values than
grade 20f-EX f . I f t h e depth

b i s 9 inches, the combination BEAM9-F,
which i s made up o f 66% grade 2100f-1.8E, can even produce higher
bending s t r e n g t h v a l u e s than grade 24f-EX f . fc
Similarly, In Figure 62, i t i s shown that the combinations
BEAM9-C, BEAM12-C and BEAM18-D ( s e e F i g u r e s 39, 40 and 4 1 ) , which a r e
made up o f 33%, 50% and 50% grade 2400f-2.0E w i t h c o r r e s p o n d i n g depths
of 9, 12 and 18 inches respectively, will produce higher bending
s t r e n g t h v a l u e s t h a n grade 24f-EX ff,.
The simulation results show t h a t t h e S p r u c e - P i n e - F i r MSR lumber
can be used t o produce l a y u p s which a c h i e v e t h e f 6 = 2000 psi and f 6 =
2400 psi d e s i g n s t r e s s level.
8.4 TENSILE STRENGTH
Table 17 shows t h e h y p o t h e s i s tests of equality o f means f o r
tensile strength parallel to grain of twenty-four (24) beam layup
groups. I t indicated t h a t beam layup has a significant effect on
mean t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h s .
8.4.1 GRADE EFFECT
of t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h o f t h r e e grades (1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E and 2400f-
2.0E) under t h r e e depths ( 9 , 12, and 18 i n c h e s ) .

61
Figures 67 t o 68 show t h e v a r i a t i o n o f t h e 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e and
50th percentile values of t e n s i l e strength o f t h r e e grades (1650f-
1.5E, 2100f-1.8E and 2400f-2.0E) as a f u n c t i o n o f d e p t h s .
It i n d i c a t e d from T a b l e 17 and F i g u r e s 64 t o 68 t h a t a l l o f t h e
tensile strengths o f t h e pure grade c o m b i n a t i o n s , made up o f 1650f-
1.5E, 2100f-1.8E, and 2400f-2.0E lumber respectively, are different
8.4.2 DEPTH EFFECT
o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h o f t h r e e depths ( 9 , 12, and 18 i n c h e s ) under t h r e e
grades (1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E and 2400f-2.0E).
Figures 72 t o 73 a r e t h e 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e and 5 0 t h percentile
v a l u e s o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h o f t h r e e depths ( 9 , 12, and 18 i n c h e s ) a s a
f u n c t i o n o f grades.
From T a b l e 17 and F i g u r e s 69 t o 73, i t shows t h a t the t e n s i l e
s t r e n g t h mean v a l u e s o f t h e pure grade c o m b i n a t i o n s , made up o f 1650f-
1.5E, 2100f-1.8E, and 2400f-2.0E respectively, are significantly
different ( a t or = 0.05 l e v e l ) w i t h t h r e e beam depths ( 9 , 12 and 18
inches). F i g u r e 69 and f i g u r e 72 show t h a t t h e 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s
o f grade 1650f-1.5E a r e v e r y c l o s e among t h e t h r e e d e p t h s .

62
The mixed grade beam l a y u p s , shown i n F i g u r e 49 t o F i g u r e 5 1 ,
have two k i n d s o f grade c o m b i n a t i o n s among t h e t h r e e g r a d e s . That i s
grade 1650f-1.5E combined w i t h grade 2100f-1.8E o r w i t h grade 2400f-
2.0E. I t i s discussed i n the following section.
of tensile strength with t h e combinations of grades 1650f-1.5E and
of tensile strength with the combinations o f grades 1650f-1.5E and
v a l u e s o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e o u t e r l a y e r p e r c e n t o f
grade 2100fl-1.8E.
Figures 82 t o 83 a r e t h e 5 t h p e r c e n t i l e and 50th percentile
values o f t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h as a f u n c t i o n o f the outer l a y e r percent o f
grade 2400fl-2.0E.
Although t h e 5 t h and 50th p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f t e n s i l e strength
increased with i n c r e a s i n g outer l a y e r p e r c e n t o f grade 2100f-1.8E and
2400f-2.0E (see Figures 74 t o 8 3 ) , t h e amount o f i n c r e a s e suddenly
went up when t h e o u t e r layer percent o f grade 2100f-1.8E and 2400f-
2.0E t e n d towards 100 p e r c e n t . This i s because t h a t t e n s i o n parallel
to g r a i n high stresses are d i s t r i b u t e d across the t o t a l c r o s s - s e c t i o n .

63
The tensile strength i s dependent on t h e s t r e n g t h properties of a l l
laminations, and t o a c e r t a i n degree t h e weakest l a m i n a t i o n s control
the strength. Therefore, any lower grade l a m i n a t i o n s i n the centre of
t h e beam c o u l d reduce t h e beam t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h d r a m a t i c a l l y .
8.5 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Table 18 shows t h e h y p o t h e s i s t e s t s o f e q u a l i t y o f means f o r
compressive s t r e n g t h p a r a l l e l t o g r a i n o f twenty-four ( 2 4 ) beam layup
groups. I t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e beam layup has a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on
the mean c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h s .
8.5.1 GRADE EFFECT
F i g u r e s 84 t o 86 a r e t h e c u m u l a t i v e distribution functions (cdf)
of compressive strength of three grades (1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E and
2400f-2.0E) under t h r e e depths ( 9 , 12, and 18 i n c h e s ) .
values o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h o f t h r e e grades (1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E
and 2400f-2.0E) as a f u n c t i o n o f depths.
It i n d i c a t e d from T a b l e 18 and F i g u r e s 84 t o 88 t h a t a l l o f t h e
compressive strengths o f t h e pure grade combinations, made up o f
1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E, and 2400f-2.0E respectively, are d i f f e r e n t
64
8.5.2 DEPTH EFFECT
o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h o f t h r e e depths ( 9 , 12, and 18 i n c h e s ) under
t h r e e grades (1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E and 2400f-2.0E).
v a l u e s o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h o f t h r e e depths ( 9 , 12, and 18 i n c h e s )
as a f u n c t i o n o f g r a d e s .
From Table 18 and Figures 89 to 93, i t shows that the
compressive s t r e n g t h mean v a l u e s o f pure grade c o m b i n a t i o n s , made by
1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E, and 2400f-2.0E respectively, are s i g n i f i c a n t l y
different ( a t a = 0.05 l e v e l ) w i t h t h r e e beam depths ( 9 , 12 and 18
inches).
The mixed grade beam l a y u p s , shown i n F i g u r e 49 t o F i g u r e 51,
have two k i n d s o f grade c o m b i n a t i o n s among t h e t h r e e g r a d e s . That i s
grade 1650f-1.5E combined w i t h grade 2100f-1.8E o r w i t h grade 2400f-
2.0E. I t i s discussed i n the f o l l o w i n g section.
o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h w i t h t h e c o m b i n a t i o n s o f grades 1650f-1.5E and
o f c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h w i t h t h e c o m b i n a t i o n s o f grades 1650f-1.5E and

65
Figures 100 t o 101 are the 5th percentile and 50th percentile
values of compressive strength as a function of the outer layer
percent of 2100fl-1.8E.
Figures 102 to 103 are the 5th percentile and 50th percentile
values of compressive strength as a function of the outer layer
percent of 2400fl-2.0E.
The 5th and 50th percentile values of compressive strength
increased with i n c r e a s i n g outer l a y e r p e r c e n t o f grade 2100f-1.8E and
2400f-2.0E (see Figures 71 to 80). The amount o f i n c r e a s e was not
suddenly changed as i n the case of tensile strength rather a very
smooth i n c r e a s e o c c u r r e d when t h e o u t e r l a y e r p e r c e n t o f grade 2100f-
2.8E and 2400f-2.0E t e n d towards 100 percent.

66
9. SIZE EFFECTS ANALYSIS
9.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the size effects in bending, tensile and
compressive s t r e n g t h s have been c o n s i d e r e d .
Size effect i n lumber have been observed by Madsen from bending
t e s t performed at different l e n g t h s , f o r c o n s t a n t depths and t h e same
loading p a t t e r n . Madsen concluded t h a t the observed size dependence
c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d by t h e changes i n l e n g t h , and proposed an a d j u s t i n g
f a c t o r based on the a p p l i c a t i o n of W e i b u l l weakest l i n k t h e o r y . Thus,
( 9-1 )
where o-y and <r a r e

2 t h e bending strengths corresponding to the
lengths and i - 2 The parameter k was found t o be a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4.2 by
c a l i b r a t i o n o f Eq. (9.1) t o Madsen's e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a .
In recent years, the use of volume-effect factor i s getting
more and more popular. This volume-effect factor accounts for a l l
t h r e e parameters o f volume: w i d t h , depth and l e n g t h . F o r g l u l a m beams
of equal width subjected to the same loading configuration, the
strengths and <T may

2 t a k e t h e form of the f o l l o w i n g equation at a
67
particular probability level:
zi (Yi\ l/k
( 9.2 )
<?2 ~ \ V ) 1
where V-^ and V 2 a r e t h e beam volumes, D , 1 D,2 W lf W, 2 L\ and L 2 are
the beam d e p t h s , w i d t h s and l e n g t h s .
S i n c e V,- = Z?- W L and t h e s i m u l a t e d beams have c o n s t a n t l e n g t h t o

t i i
depth r a t i o s {i.e. L^- C C i s a c o n s t a n t ) , then
( 9.3 )
9.2 SIZE EFFECTS IN BENDING STRENGTH
Glulam beam strength simulation undertaken using a constant
r a t i o o f span t o d e p t h , L/D = 21.
The s i z e parameter F ^ = ^ i n bending s t r e n g t h i s c a l c u l a t e d f o r
three grades (1650f-1.5E, 2100f-1.8E and 2400f-2.0E) and two
probability levels (5th percentile and 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e ) (Table 19).
9.3 SIZE EFFECTS IN TENSILE STRENGTH
The size parameter F t i n tensile strength i s calculated for

68
9.4 SIZE EFFECTS IN COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
The s i z e parameter F g c i n compressive s t r e n g t h i s c a l c u l a t e d f o r

69
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 CONCLUSIONS
A group o f 2 x 6 2100f-1.8E SPF MSR lumber has been tested to
o b t a i n t h e w i t h i n - b o a r d c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h s . The t e s t E - p r o f i l e s and
compressive strength data were used to provide the statistical
i n f o r m a t i o n f o r E - s i m u l a t i o n model and <r-simulation model.
An E - s i m u l a t i o n model and a u - s i m u l a t i o n model a r e demonstrated
to s i m u l a t e l o c a l i z e d s t i f f n e s s and s t r e n g t h a l o n g t h e l e n g t h o f b o a r d
members.
The E-simulation model, which i s based on the theory of
stationary random processes, estimated t h e ensemble of amplitude
spectrum by p e r f o r m i n g the f a s t Fourier transform (FFT) t o z e r o mean
test E-profiles. This amplitude spectrum then combined with random
phases to reconstruct an E-profile having the same statistical
p r o p e r t i e s and f r e q u e n c y c o n t e n t as t h e t e s t d a t a .
The cr-simulation model, using the reconstructed E-profiles as
the input data, i n v o l v e s s i m u l a t i n g from a b i v a r i a t e standard normal
distribution, and then transforming the generated standard normalized
s t r e n g t h v a r i a b l e back t o i t s r e a l space t o o b t a i n t h e e x a c t marginal
d i s t r i b u t i o n w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t between t h e
s t i f f n e s s and s t r e n g t h .
70
The s i m u l a t i o n r e s u l t s from E - s i m u l a t i o n model and c - s i m u l a t i o n
model showed t h a t t h e s t a t i s t i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f MOE and s t r e n g t h s
are preserved and t h a t t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s between MOE and s t r e n g t h s a r e
preserved.
GLULAM beam simulation model has been used to simulate the
glulam beam strength with twenty-four beam grade combinations. The
GLULAM computer program requires the MOE, tensile strength and
compressive strength profiles generated from the E-simulation model
and c - s i m u l a t i o n model a s i t s i n p u t d a t a . D i s t r i b u t i o n s w i t h d i f f e r e n t
beam combinations of simulated bending, tensile and compressive
strengths of glulam beams were obtained from the glulam beam
simulation.
The r e s u l t s obtained from g l u l a m beam s i m u l a t i o n showed t h a t SPF
MSR lumber can be used as t h e l a m i n a t i n g stock, and t h e beam layups
did have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e beam s t r e n g t h properties. With
one o r two l a y e r s o f h i g h e r grade l a m i n a t i o n on t h e o u t e r layer of the
beam and lower grade laminations i n the r e s t of inner layers of the
beam, the glulam beam bending strength could be improved
significantly. The s i m u l a t i o n r e s u l t s show t h a t SPF MSR lumber can
provide 5th p e r c e n t i l e strength properties equivalent to Douglas-fir
beams c u r r e n t l y produced.
10.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK
It i s recommended t h a t more grade o f w i t h i n - b o a r d strength tests

71
(both t e n s i o n and compression) be c a r r i e d o u t i n o r d e r t o enrich the
l o c a l i z e d s t r e n g t h d a t a base.
The finger-joint strength needs t o be incorporated into the
simulation model i n order t o enhance t h e a c c u r a c y of the simulation
result.
F u l l - s c a l e glulam beam s t r e n g t h needs t o be t e s t e d i n o r d e r t o
verify the v a l i d i t y of the E-simulation and c r - s i m u l a t i o n model i n
practice.
To f i n d t h e optimum beam l a y u p s , t h e beam s t r e n g t h a n a l y s i s w i t h
more d i f f e r e n t beam grade and s i z e combinations should be achieved.
Further analysis should also be included to determine the cost
effectiveness of SPF MSR material as an alternative source of
laminating stock.
Strength modelling should be extended t o c o n s i d e r trends i n the
MOE and s t r e n g t h data.
With the help of using lag-statistics, the autocorrelations
among the s t i f f n e s s and s t r e n g t h s of the adjacent elements i n the
generated boards can be revealed so that the accuracy of the
s i m u l a t i o n model c o u l d be improved.
11. REFERENCES
A i n s w o r t h , D.M. 1989. O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s t a n d a r d lumber
p r o d u c t s i n t h e g l u l a m i n d u s t r y . B. Sc. T h e s i s . Dept.
o f H a r v e s t i n g and Wood S c i e n c e , F a c u l t y o f F o r e s t r y ,
University of B r i t i s h Columbia.
ASTM. 1990. ASTM D3737-89a S t a n d a r d t e s t method f o r
e s t a b l i s h i n g stresses f o r s t r u c t u r a l glued laminated
t i m b e r ( g l u l a m ) . Annual Book o f ASTM S t a n d a r d s : 455-470.
B e c h t e l , F.K. 1985. Beam s t i f f n e s s a s a f u n c t i o n o f
p o i n t w i s e E w i t h a p p l i c a t i o n t o machine s t r e s s r a t i n g .
P r o c e e d i n g s , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Symposium on F o r e s t P r o d u c t s
R e s e a r c h , CSIR, P r e t o r i a , South Africa.
Bendat, J.S. and A.G. P i e r s o l . 1986. Random d a t a : a n a l y s i s
and measurement p r o c e d u r e . W i l e y I n t e r s c i e n c e , New York.
CWC. 1988. Canadian Wood C o n s t r u c t i o n , G l u e d - l a m i n a t e d
t i m b e r d e s i g n . CWC D a t a f i l e WD-3. Canadian Wood C o u n c i l ,
Ottawa, Canada.
CSA. 1984. E n g i n e e r i n g Design i n Wood (Working S t r e s s
N a t i o n a l S t a n d a r d o f Canada). CAN3-086-M84. Canadian
S t a n d a r d s A s s o c i a t i o n , O n t a r i o , Canada.
F o s c h i , R.O. and J.D. B a r r e t t . 1980. G l u e d - l a m i n a t e d Beam
s t r e n g t h : a model. ASCE, J o u r n a l o f S t r u c t u r a l Division,
V o l . 106 (No. S T 8 ) : 1735-1754.

73
[8] F o s c h i , R.O. 1987. A p r o c e d u r e f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f
l o c a l i z e d modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y . H o l z a l s Roh-und Werkstoff,
45: 157-1260.
[9] G a l l i g a n , V.L., R.A. Johnson, and J.R. T a y l o r . 1979.
E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e c o n c o m i t a n t p r o p e r t i e s o f lumber.
P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e M e t a l P l a t e Wood T r u s s C o n f e r e n c e . Forest
P r o d u c t s R e s e a r c h S o c i e t y , Madison, V I . Page 65-70.
[10] Lam, F. and E. V a r o g l u . 1991. V a r i a t i o n o f t e n s i l e strength
a l o n g t h e l e n g t h o f lumber. P a r t 1: E x p e r i m e n t . Vood
Science and Technology ( i n p r e s s ) .
[11] Lam, F. and E. V a r o g l u . 1991. V a r i a t i o n o f t e n s i l e strength
a l o n g t h e l e n g t h o f lumber. P a r t 2: Model development and
v e r i f i c a t i o n s . Vood S c i e n c e and Technology ( i n p r e s s ) .
[12] Marx, C M . and R.C. Moody. 1981. S t r e n g t h and s t i f f n e s s o f
small glued-laminated beams w i t h d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t i e s o f
tension laminations. USDA F o r e s t S e r v i c e R e s e a r c h Paper
FPL 381. F o r e s t P r o d u c t s L a b o r a t o r y , Madison,VI.
[13] Moody, R.C. 1974. D e s i g n c r i t e r i a f o r l a r g e s t r u c t u r a l
glued-laminated beams u s i n g mixed s p e c i e s f o r v i s u a l l y
graded lumber. USDA F o r e s t S e r v i c e R e s e a r c h P a p e r , FPL 236.
Forest Products Laboratory, Madison,VI.
[14] Newland, D.E. 1975. Random v i b r a t i o n s and s p e c t r a l a n a l y s i s .
Longman Group L i m i t e d , London E n g l a n d .
[15] R o j i a n i , K.B. and K.A. T a r b e l l . 1984. R e l i a b i l i t y o f wood
members under combined s t r e s s . F o u r t h ASCE c o n f e r e n c e on

74
P r o b a b i l i s t i c Mechanics and S t r u c t u r a l R e l i a b i l i t y , American
S o c i e t y o f C i v i l E n g i n e e r s , NY. Page 86-89.
[16] Suddarth, S.K., F.E. V o e s t e , and V.L. G a l l i g a n . 1978.
Differential reliability: P r o b a b i l i s t i c engineering applied
t o wood members i n b e n d i n g / t e n s i o n . USDA F o r e s t S e r v i c e
R e s e a r c h Paper FPL 302. F o r e s t P r o d u c t s L a b o r a t o r y , Madison,
VI.
[17] T a y l o r , S.E. and D.A. Bender. 1988. S i m u l a t i n g c o r r e l a t e d
lumber p r o p e r t i e s u s i n g a m o d i f i e d m u l t i v a r i a t e normal
a p p r o a c h . T r a n s a c t i o n o f t h e American S o c i e t y o f
A g r i c u l t u r a l E n g i n e e r s , 3 1 ( 1 ) : 182-186.
[18] T a y l o r , S.E. and D.A. Bender. 1989. A method f o r s i m u l a t i n g
m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t e d lumber p r o p e r t i e s . F o r e s t Products
J o u r n a l , 39(7/8): 71-74.
[19] Vang, Y., R.O. F o s c h i , and A. F i l i a t r a u l t . 1990. Random
modelling of material properties i n r e l i a b i l i t y studies
o f l a m i n a t e d beams. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Timber E n g i n e e r i n g
C o n f e r e n c e , Tokyo, Japan.
[20] V o e s t e , F.E., S.K. S u d d a r t h and V.L. G a l l i g a n . 1979.
S i m u l a t i o n o f c o r r e l a t e d lumber p r o p e r t i e s d a t a - A
r e g r e s s i o n approach. Vood S c i e n c e , 1 2 ( 2 ) : 73-79.
[21] Yang, C.Y. 1986. Random v i b r a t i o n o f s t r u c t u r e s . V i l e y
I n t e r s c i e n c e , New Y o r k .
APPENDIX A
TABLE 1 TO TABLE 21
76
Table 1 D e s c r i p t i o n o f t e s t m a t e r i a l s and t e s t m a t r i x f r o m COFI
T e s t Mode Grade Nominal Length Sample

Dimension (feet) size
1650f-1.5E 2x6 16 63
Tension 2100f-1.8E 2x6 16 63
2400f-2.0E 2x6 16 63
1650f-1.5E 2x6 16 63
Compression 2100f-1.8E 2x6 16 63
2400f-2.0E 2x6 16 63
Table 2 Summary s t a t i s t i c s f o r t e n s i o n MSR lumber from COFI t e s t
Grade 1650f -1.5E 2100f -1.8E 2400f -2.0E

Zone A Zone B Zone A Zone B Zone A Zone B
size (n) 60 60 57 57 63 63
mean (psi) 3713 .1 4166 8 5091 .3 6285 3 7078.3 7678. 7
S.D. (psi) 1368 .7 1234 9 1554 .6 1832 8 1612.0 1676. 0
5th p e t (psi) 1459 .9 2135 4 2534 .0 3270 3 4426.6 4921. 7
minimum (psi) 1361 .2 1793 7 1438 .9 1639 9 4162.1 4255. 9
maximum (psi) 7785 .4 7400 4 8648 .2 9297 5 10560.6 11340.4
median (psi) 3557 .4 4143 1 5095 .7 6205 9 6884.9 7427. 8
78
Table 3 Summary s t a t i s t i c s f o r compression MSR lumber from COFI t e s t
Grade 1650f-1.5E 2100f-1.8E 2400f-2.0E

Zone A Zone B Zone A Zone B Zone A Zone B
size (») 63 63 58 58 60 60
mean (psi) 3689.9 3874 6 4392. 1 4520 .9 5006. 7 5047 .4
S.D. (psi) 430.0 529.3 460.6 535. 1 574.3 571. 7
5 t h pet. (psi) 2982.5 3004 0 3634. 4 3640 .7 4062. 0 4107 .0
minimum (psi) 2795.0 3008 9 3560. 1 3365 .5 3812. 6 3879 .2
maximum (psi) 4891.1 5692 9 5795. 2 5931 .0 6448. 6 6819 .4
median (psi) 3685.8 3775 1 4365. 6 4457 .1 5016. 8 4995 .9
79
Table 4 Summary o f average beam p r o p e r t i e s
MOE W a
c &
Specimen Mean S.D. Density ( 2 ) ( 3 )
M.C. (4)
No. (MPa) (MPa) Mean S.D. Mean S.D. (%)

(MPa) (MPa) (g/cm ) (g/cm )
3 3
1802 15038.,39 436.,78 52. ,37 2. 80 0,.557 0. 018 11,.0

1804 13506..30 1108.,35 44.,28 4. 83 0,.494 0. 014 10,.0
1805 13953.,06 564.,51 46. .83 3. 05 0,.499 0. 006 10 .0
1807 13417..98 381. ,97 44..02 4. 15 0,.507 0. O i l 10 .0
1808 13682.,52 794.,83 44.,47 5. 80 0,.476 0. 012 10,.5
1809 13334.,35 740.,05 42. ,96 4. 09 0,.544 0. 038 10,.0
1810 15575.,77 1057..10 49. ,27 6. 16 0,.502 0. 010 10,.0
1811 14761.,65 405. .98 48. ,47 4. 69 0 .506 0. 008 9 .5
1812 14723..22 874..50 49. ,21 4. 50 0 .549 0. 005 9 .8
1813 16003..64 1433..76 52. ,77 6. 25 0 .485 0. 009 10 .0
1814 13353..18 763. .06 46. ,36 4. 60 0 .488 0. 012 10 .0
1815 15009..40 601. ,82 50. ,28 4. 03 0 .427 0. 010 9 .3
1816 12856..37 375. ,41 39. ,96 3. 77 0 .501 0. 015 9 .3
1817 13710..02 505. ,32 46. ,04 4. 15 0 .483 0. 008 9 .5
1818 13090..96 452.,30 45. ,64 2. 38 0 .505 0. 014 9 .9
1819 13468..14 263. ,14 48. ,45 2. 67 0 .484 0. 010 10 .0
1820 13574..48 533. ,76 46. ,34 3. 29 0 .517 0. 017 9 .3
1821 14379,.09 772..55 47. .44 3. 11 0 .573 0. 011 9 .8
1822 17421,.42 1016..90 54..90 3. 95 0 .503 0. 014 10 .3
1823 14285,.38 982..19 46. .24 4. 45 0 .565 0. 016 10 .2
1825 15839,.68 829..25 51. .70 4. 08 0 .519 0. 017 10 .0
1826 14931,.23 716..36 48. .79 3. 11 0 .478 0. 005 10 .0
1827 12802,.26 435. ,95 44..44 3. 34 0 .548 0. 018 9 .5
1828 15461,.29 560.,04 48. .53 4. 29 0 .477 0. 006 11 .0
1829 13683..84 509..57 44..94 1. 59 0 .535 0. 010 10 .0
1830 14483,.48 564..19 49, .45 4. 95 0 .548 0. 011 11 .0
1831 14684,.60 483. .99 46, .50 4. 68 0 .494 0. 012 10 .0
1832 14431,.55 618..86 47. .26 3. 63 0 .451 0. 014 10 .2
1833 13551,.16 385. .56 39. .93 2. 79 0 .540 0. 005 9 .2
1834 18172,.17 663. .53 54..98 4. 18 0 .550 0. 014 9 .5
1836 15463,.11 571, .83 52. .93 4. 14 0 .432 0. 011 10 .2
1837 12713 .66 593. .95 36. .73 3. 66 0 .495 0. 007 9 .5
1838 13664,.38 527..90 42. .48 3. 43 0 .528 0. O i l 10 .0
1839 13164,.26 448..97 46. .28 3. 32 0 .517 0. 010 10 .0
1840 14619 .36 534,.07 46, .72 3.,51 0 .517 0. 014 10 .2
80
1841 14144 .22 544 .20 47 .63 3. 39 0,.490 0. 015 9 .8

1842 13934 .72 571 .51 46 .40 3. 60 0,.501 0. O i l 9 .2
1843 13832 .98 429 .24 44 .82 3. 11 0..529 0. 010 9 .0
1844 16950 .28 954 .76 48 .74 3. 59 0,.542 0. 024 9 .5
1845 15095 .44 548 .90 47 .96 4. 18 0..531 0. 009 10 .0
1846 15566 .12 548 .91 48 .63 3. 16 0..530 0. 014 10 .5
1847 16017 .49 469 .17 46 .35 4. 35 0..513 0. 008 10 .0
1848 13537 .45 562 .67 42 .28 3. 41 0..549 0. 031 10 .5
1849 15550 .91 980 .45 49 .45 5. 71 0..467 0. O i l 9 .7
1850 12730 .68 467 .14 42 .04 3. 33 0..468 0. O i l 10 .2
1851 13845 .46 463 .27 39 .20 3. 93 0..519 0. O i l 10 .0
1853 14296 .12 471 .19 44 .53 3. 89 0,.474 0. 007 10 .0
1854 13203 .80 368 .95 42 .95 3. 05 0..504 0. 009 10 .0
1855 13961 .10 402 .41 44 .58 3. 01 0..478 0. 007 9 .5
1856 13252 .70 614 .09 43 .61 2. 80 0..625 0. 032 10 .0
1857 15507 .83 1600 .55 49 .29 7. 76 0,.499 0. 012 8 .5
1858 13635 .93 243 .28 46 .96 2. 18 0..499 0. 012 10 .0
1859 13120 .80 490 .04 45 .71 3. 17 0..486 0. 007 10 .0
1860 16559 .82 514 .49 51 .66 4. 18 0..536 0. 009 10 .5
Average 14399 625 .07 46 .68 3. 87 0..510 0. 012 9 .9
(1) Averages a r e f o r 25 s e c t i o n t e s t s .
(2) Averages a r e f o r 32 s e c t i o n t e s t s .
(3) Based on w e i g h t and volume a t t i m e o f t e s t .
(4) Determined f o l l o w i n g t e s t u s i n g r e s i s t a n c e - t y p e meter.
81
Table 5 F i t t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n parameters f o r MOE and cr*
Board Mean Board S.D.

Compressive Compressive
Distribution MOE Strength MOE Strength
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
= 14399 — 46.68 = 625 - 3 .87

Normal = 1232 a — 3.77 a = 267 cr
- 1 .07
A* 14399 V-
- 46.69 t* =623 - 3 .88
Lognormal c
- 1195 a 3.82 cr = 243 a - 1 .07
m 14990 m -
48.39 m = 706 m - 3 .62
2-P W e i b u l l Jfc = 10.81 k = 13.33 k = 2.45 k
- 4 .27
°"o 12630 - 25.73 297 1 .51

3-P W e i b u l l m = 1962 m 22.68 m = 363 m — 2 .42
k 1.42 k = 5.98 k = 1.32 k
- 2 .61
*): (j, Mean;

<T Standard d e v i a t i o n ;
<T0 L o c a t i o n parameter;
m S c a l e parameter;
k Shape parameter.
82
Table 6 D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r t e s t E and O~Q (2100f-1.8E)
Board Mean Board S. D.

MOE Strength MOE Strength Dimension Length S i z e
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (inch) ( i n c h ) (n)
Mean 14399 46.68 625 3.87

S.D. 1220 3.73 264 1.06 2x4 6 1375
C.O.V. 8.47 7.99 42.24 27.39
83
Table 7 D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r generated a c (2100f-1.8E)
Board Mean Board S. D.

MOE Strength MOE Strength Dimension L e n g t h S i z e
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) ( i n c h ) ( i n c h ) (n)
Mean 14399 46.00 625 3.26

S.D. 1220 3.26 264 0.80 2x6 6 2500
C.O.V. 8.47 7.09 42.24 24.54
84
Table 8 D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r t e s t and g e n e r a t e d MOE values
T e s t MOE G e n e r a t e d MOE
( f o r three grades) ( f o r three grades)
1650f 2100f 2400f 1650f 2100f 2400f
Dimension ( i n c h ) 2x6 2x6 2x6 2x6 2x6 2x6
Length (foot) 16 16 16 16 16 16
S i z e (n) 123 115 121 3000 3000 3000
Mean (MPa) 10353 12686 14494 10366 12618 14489
S. D. (MPa) 1167 1224 1047 1156 1149 858

85
Table 9 Lower-bound s t r e n g t h s f o r c o m p r e s s i o n and t e n s i o n s i m u l a t i o n
Grade Compressive S t r e n g t h Tensile Strength

(MPa) (MPa)
1650f-1.5E 19 10
2100f-1.8E 22 17
2400f-2.0E 26 27
T a b l e 10 D e s c r i p t i o n o f s i m u l a t i o n beams
Depth o f Span o f Number o f Number o f

Beam Beam Laminations* Beams•
(inch) (foot)
9 16 6 700
12 21 8 800
18 32 12 900
* Lamination thickness i s 1.5 inches.

87
T a b l e 11 Parameters f o r 3-P V e i b u l l d i s t r i b u t i o n and t h e i r associated
5 t h and 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f s i m u l a t e d beam s t r e n g t h (Depth=9")
Layups m k 5%i le 507.il.
B9A-B* 5099 5235 2.704 6844 9670

B9A-C** 4732 1943 2.592 5350 6419
B9A-T*** 2907 3184 3.808 4367 5799
B9B-B 4335 6010 3.181 6697 9691

B9B-C 4473 1965 3.731 5359 6254
B9B-T 891 3314 3.296 2236 3856
B9C-B 4076 4843 3.061 5911 8372

B9C-C 4482 1515 2.616 4969 5799
B9C-T 1355 1882 2.311 1876 2961
B9D-B 1330 4406 3.147 3045 5252

B9D-C 3454 1986 3.139 4225 5221
B9D-T 1324 1367 1.923 1616 2454
B9E-B 2280 5626 3.518 4698 7349

B9E-C 2518 3148 6.349 4490 5489
B9E-T 1331 1742 2.355 1825 2822
B9F-B 4299 2928 2.462 5175 6822

B9F-C 4160 1846 3.182 4886 5805
B9F-T 1017 2693 3.129 2059 3412
B9G-B 4322 3662 2.451 5412 7475

B9G-C 4078 1935 2.547 4681 5754
B9G-T 2454 2061 2.971 3212 4276
* Bending;
** Compression;
*** Tension;
Ug L o c a t i o n parameter;
m S c a l e parameter;
k Shape parameter.
88
T a b l e 12 Parameters f o r 3-P W e i b u l l d i s t r i b u t i o n and t h e i r associated
5th and 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s of s i m u l a t e d beam strength(Depth=12")
Layups m k 5%ile 50%ile
B12A-B 5272 4212 2.190 6357 8835

B12A-C 4740 1240 2.422 5104 5806
B12A-T 3630 1815 2.578 4203 5204
B12B-B 4975 4344 2.255 6139 8667

B12B-C 4693 1275 2.302 5044 5780
B12B-T 1107 2834 3.125 2203 3627
B12C-B 4657 4309 2.686 6083 8416

B12C-C 4745 965 2.119 4983 5557
B12C-T 1488 1718 2.424 1993 2965
B12D-B 0 7648 5.461 4440 7152

B12D-C 3991 1340 2.730 4442 5163
B12D-T 1540 1187 1.728 1753 2500
B12E-B 1020 3778 2.792 2324 4333

B12E-C 2947 2020 4.169 3938 4797
B12E-T 1372 1004 1.846 1573 2195
B12F-B 2088 4224 3.644 3958 5908

B12F-C 1804 3332 8.751 4177 4999
B12F-T 1530 1077 1.746 1727 2403
B12G-B 1035 5876 5.577 4485 6537

B12G-C 4292 1090 2.334 4597 5224
B12G-T 1463 1519 2.360 1894 2764
B12H-B 3196 4194 2.998 4748 6906

B12H-C 3840 1678 3.138 4491 5333
B12H-T 2050 2140 3.468 2959 3975
B, C, T, <r , m,0 k Same as i n T a b l e 11.

89
T a b l e 13 Parameters f o r 3-P V e i b u l l d i s t r i b u t i o n and t h e i r associated
5 t h and 5 0 t h p e r c e n t i l e v a l u e s o f s i m u l a t e d beam strength(Depth=18")
Layups <x Q m k 5%ile 507.ile
B18A-B 3398 5343 3..118 5459 8148

B18A-C 4337 1101 3..784 4839 5336
B18A-T 3509 1398 2..919 4014 4742
B18B-B 5107 3175 1..922 5784 7884

B18B-C 4236 1217 3..561 4765 5334
B18B-T 1573 2011 2..297 2125 3287
B18C-B 4895 3518 2..250 5835 7731

B18C-C 4186 1207 3..453 4697 5271
B18C-T 1743 1118 1..661 1930 2640
B18D-B 4129 3725 2..520 5275 7350

B18D-C 3692 1516 4..355 4458 5086
B18D-T 1526 1042 2..053 1771 2398
B18E-B 1640 5487 4..567 4503 6704

B18E-C 3821 1176 3..780 4357 4888
B18E-T 1506 818 1..749 1656 2169
B18F-B 1522 2530 2..707 2367 3732

B18F-C 2658 1897 4..171 3589 4395
B18F-T 1431 509 1..806 1529 1847
B18G-B 1734 4119 4..383 3826 5523

B18G-T 802 4028 1..195 3600 3766
B18G-T 1414 817 1..935 1590 2090
B18H-B 3858 2575 2..889 4326 6126

B18H-C 2840 2188 5..818 4153 4894
B18H-T 1551 1059 1..934 1779 2427
B18I-B 3059 3255 3..148 4336 5956

B18I-C 3191 1822 4..629 4150 4874
B18I-T 2464 1242 2..455 2834 3534
B, C, T, a , Q m, k Same as i n T a b l e 11.
Table 14 S i m u l a t e d MOE, t r a n s f o r m e d MOE and t h e i r ratios
S i m u l a t e d MOE Transformed
Layups MOE S i m u l a t e d MOE
.„„ Transformed MOE
Mean COV
(10 psi)
6
(7.) (10 psi)
6
BEAM9-A 2..054 4.6 2 .000 1.027

BEAM9-B 2..006 3.7 1 .981 1.012
BEAM9-C 1..858 3.9 1 .852 1.003
BEAM9-D 1..479 4.5 1 .500 0.986
BEAM9-E 1..701 4.5 1 .711 0.994
BEAM9-F 1..786 4.3 1 .789 0.998
BEAM9-G 1..808 4.6 1 .800 1.004
BEAM12-A 2..054 3.8 2 .000 1.027

BEAM12-B 2..028 3.0 1 .992 1.018
BEAM12-C 1..958 3.5 1 .938 1.010
BEAM12-D 1..795 3.6 1 .789 1.003
BEAM12-E 1..447 4.2 1 .500 0.965
BEAM12-F 1..666 3.9 1 .673 0.996
BEAM12-G 1..754 3.6 1 .763 0.995
BEAM12-H 1..805 3.9 1 .800 1.003
BEAM18-A 2,.049 2.7 2 .000 1.025

BEAM18-B 2,.033 2.2 1 .998 1.018
BEAM18-C 2,.005 2.2 1 .981 1.012
BEAM18-D 1,.951 2.3 1 .938 1.007
BEAM18-E 1,.863 2.2 1 .852 1.006
BEAM18-F 1..478 2.4 1 .500 0.986
BEAM18-G 1,.701 2.5 1 .711 0.994
BEAM18-H 1,.783 2.7 1 .789 0.997
BEAM18-I 1,.805 2.6 1 .800 1.003
Mean 1.831 3.459 1.821 1.004

S. D. 0.189 0.846 0.165 0.014
COV (7.) 10.33 24.46 9.06 1.44
91
Table 15 Comparison o f s i m u l a t e d and p r e d i c t e d b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h

Transformed Allowable Simulated
Simulated Simulated Simulated Section Bending l Bending
Layups Bending Tension Compression Moment of Stress
Strength Strength Strength Inertia f \ u/ Allowable
(5%ile psi) (5%ile psi) (5%ile psi) T.- (psi) (psi) Bending
BEAM9-A 6844 4367 5350 1.000 5040 5204 1.32

BEAM9-B 6697 2236 5359 0.991 4995 5157 1.30
BEAM9-C 5911 1876 4969 0.926 4667 4819 1.23
BEAM9-D 3045 1616 4225 1.000 3465 3578 0.85
BEAM9-E 4698 1825 4490 0.951 4194 4330 1.08
BEAM9-F 5175 2059 4686 0.994 4384 4526 1.14
BEAM9-G 5412 3212 4881 1.000 4410 4553 1.19
BEAM12-A 6357 4203 5104 1.000 5040 5040 1.26

BEAM12-B 6139 2203 5044 0.996 5024 5024 1.22
BEAM12-C 6083 1993 4983 0.969 4884 4884 1.25
BEAM12-D 4440 1753 4442 0.895 4511 4511 0.98
BEAM12-E 2324 1573 3938 1.000 3465 3465 0.67
BEAM12-F 3958 1727 4177 0.930 4101 4101 0.97
BEAM12-G 4485 1894 4497 0.979 4317 4317 1.04
BEAM12-H 4748 2959 4591 1.000 4410 4410 1.08
B E A M 18-A 5459 4014 4839 1.000 5040 4818 1.08

BEAM18-B 5784 2125 4765 0.999 5035 4813 1.20
BEAM18-C 5835 1930 4697 0.991 4995 4775 1.22
BEAM18-D 5275 1771 4458 0.969 4884 4669 1.13
BEAM18-E 4503 1656 4357 0.926 4667 4461 1.01
BEAM18-F 2367 1529 3589 1.000 3465 3312 0.71
BEAM18-G 3826 1590 3600 0.951 4194 4009 0.95
BEAM18-H 4326 1779 4150 0.994 4384 4191 1.03
BEAM18-I 4336 2834 4153 1.000 4410 4216 1.03
Mean 4918 2280 4556 0.978 4499 4466 1.08

S. D. 1213 841 471 0.030 497 500 0.17
COV (%) 24.67 36.88 10.33 3.11 11.04 11.20 15.47
92
Table 16 Test of mean value for 24 beam layups

(Bending strength)
BEAM9- BEAM12- BEAM18- SIZE AVERAGE S. D.

LAYUPS A BCD E F G A B C D E F G H A B C D E F G H I (n) 10 psi
6
10 psi
6
BEAM9-A x **•*••• • 100 9770 1911

B • * • • • *•'» 100 9721 1849
C .... • x x x•x 100 8406 1521
D ... • • • • • • • • X •• 100 5287 1400
E • •'• • • X • • • X . . . . x ... . 100 6893 1109
F X . ..X • • • X • • • x 100 7348 1578
G * x• x 100 7574 1432
BEAM12-A x ..... . • • • 100 9003 1788
B x • * • 100 8819 1782
C • • • • • •x 100 8491 1517
D * ** X • * • X * *• *• 100 7064 1457
E ... • * • 100 4384 1274
F •• XX 100 5902 1153
G • .... ... .
x 100 6470 1115
H .... ... .
x 100 6942 1341
BEAM18 - A xx 100 8183 1634
B x 100 7917 1494
C 100 8010 1447
D 100 7432 1384
E .... 100 6655 1229
F • • • 100 3771 887
G •• 100 5492 951
H X 100 6153 848
I 100 5974 995
— Significant at or = 0.05 level

— Not significant at a = 0.05 level
93
(Tensile strength)
BEAM9- BEAM12- BEAM18- SIZE AVERAGE S. D.

LAYUPS A BCD E F G A B C D E F G H ABCDEFGHI (n) 10" psi 10" psi
BEAM9-A 100 5787 829
B • x X 100 3870 958
C • x • • • * x • 100 3023 743
D . . . • V• X • X • • . . . x • • • X • 100 2534 640
E • • • • X • • * X X • • x 100 2878 679
F • x • x X 100 3431 821
G 100 4295 666
BEAM12 - A 100 5242 661
B X 100 3645 862
C 100 3011 657
D • X * • • * X x • • • X • 100 2596 621
E . . . . . . . x . x . . 100 2262 491
F * * * * • X * * * x • 100 2488 560
G • • • x 100 2809 596
H 100 3975 603
BEAM18 - A • • 100 4757 465
B • • 100 3359 800
C 100 2741 603
D . . . x • 100 2447 463
E • X • • 100 2233 422
F • * * 100 1883 255
G * • 100 2138 385
H • 100 2489 494
I 100 3565 471
Significant at a = 0.05 level

Not significant at a = 0.05 level
94
(Compressive strength)
BEAM9- BEAM12- BEAM18- SIZE AVEF1AGE S. D.

LAYUPS A B C D E F G A B C D E F G H A B C D E FGH I (n) 10" psi 10 "psi
BEAM9 - A 100 6456 705
B 100 6248 523
C • * XX 100 5827 546
D 100 5231 611
E 100 5449 534
F X 100 5814 565
G 100 5805 785
BEAM12 - A 100 5838 478
B 100 5823 519
C 100 5599 420
D * •x * • * X x * * * *- 100 5183 468
E X 100 4783 489
F •• • **x x• • XX 100 4958 431
G X 100 5259 446
H 100 5344 530
BEAM18 - A 100 5332 291
B 100 5333 341
C 100 5271 346
D 100 5074 354
E * *X X 100 4884 312
F ••• 100 4383 461
G • • 100 4664 381
H X 100 4868 399
I 100 4858 402
* Significant ator = 0.05 level

x Not significant at a = 0.05 level
T a b l e 19 Bending s t r e n g t h s i z e parameter
Property Grade F sb
Level
1650f-1.5E 0.356
5%ile 2100f-1.8E 0.317
2400f-2.0E 0.329
1650f-1.5E 0.485
50%ile 2100f-1.8E 0.330
2400f-2.0E 0.244
T a b l e 20 T e n s i l e s t r e n g t h s i z e parameter F
Property Grade
Level
1650f-1.5E 0.079
5%ile 2100f-1.8E 0.176
2400f-2.0E 0.121
1650f-1.5E 0.411
507„ile 2100f-1.8E 0.276
2400f-2.0E 0.286
T a b l e 21 Compressive s t r e n g t h s i z e parameter F,
Property Grade F s c
Level
1650f-1.5E 0.235
5Xile 2100f-1.8E 0.175
2400f-2.0E 0.144
1650f-1.5E 0.246
507.ile 2100f-1.8E 0.238
2400f-2.0E 0.263
APPENDIX B
FIGURE 1 TO FIGURE 103

4 16 f e e t ^
Minimum E
Piece with
Minimum E Other piece
Zone A Zone B
Figure 1 Cutting pattern for tension and compression specimen

Tensile strength in Zone A and Zone B (MPa)
Figure 2 CDF of tension data from COFI test (1650f-1.5E)
»—»
8
o
1
0.9 ,++
0.8 -
t
0.7 -
0.6 -
0.5
0.4
a Zone A
0.3
0.2 H + Zone B
0.1
0
20 40 60 80
o
to
Compressive strength in Zone A and Zone B (MPa)
Figure 5 CDF of compression data from COFI test (1650f-1.5E)
o
0H i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
20 24 28 32 36 40 44


16
16
14
Q_
O 13
O
O
UJ 12
o
11
Minimum E point
10
Length (1000 mm)
Figure 8 Short span, flatwise bending E-profile

o
0\
16 foot
||||| 32
1.5 inch
6 inch
Figure 9 Cutting and numbering pattern for compression specimen
o
18 55
CD
16 a.
45
c
a>
L—
14 +-
CO
>
35 "co
co
12 a>
k_
Q.
E
MOE DATA - B - C O M P R E S S I O N DATA o
O
10 25
0 1 2 3 4 5
Length (1000 mm)
Figure 11 MOE and compressive strength profiles along the length

o
oo
Test data
Normal fit
Lognormal fit
2P Weibull fit
3P Weibull fit
_i
30 40 60 60 70
Compressive strength (MPa)
Figure 12 CDF of test and fitted board mean of compressive strength

0 2 4 6 8 10
Standard deviation (MPa)
Figure 13 CDF of test and fitted board S.D. of compressive strength

M x ) t
Length of the board
Figure 14 Ensemble of MOE along the length of the board

E„(x)
Ai
0.0
WOT
mi 1 /V n
E (x) J.
0.0
k.
Length of the board
Figure 15 Ensemble of zero mean MOE along the length
zn
113
1 2 3 4
Length (1000 mm)
Figure 17 Ensemble average of test E-profile
2000
Modulus of Elasticity (1000 MPa)
Figure 19 CDF of test and fitted board mean of MOE

I—»
ON
Figure 20 CDF of test and fitted board
standard deviation of MOE
r—»
r—'
-0
600
500
Figure 21 Ensemble average of the amplitude spectrum
00
Figure 22 Generated E-profile of one board
16
Test data Generated data
0 1 2 3 4 5
Length (1000 mm)
Figure 23 Ensemble average of test and generated E-profiles
500
0 1 2 3 4 5
Length (1000 mm)
Figure 24 Ensemble standard deviation of test and generated E-profiles to
700
Test data
600 Simulated data
500
400
300
200
100
10 15 20 25 30 35
Frequency (co)
Figure 25 Test and simulated ensemble average of a m p l i t u d e spectra

65
10
0 500 1000 1500 2000

Board standard deviation of MOE (MPa)
Figure 27 Regression plot of board S.D. MOE vs. compressive strength
Z in standard
X | Xi in real distribution
normal distribution
(X, , Y,)
1
""' 1
- r " i • -
Y, in real distribution Z in standard

Y l
normal distribution
Figure 28 Graphical demonstration of the transformation

between the real space and standard normalized space
65
60
55
CO
Q_
50
c
45
>
to
CD
40
Q.
E Fitted regression line
o
O 35
• C = 8.0343 + 0.0027 x E
• •
30 P = 0.654
25
10 12 14 16 18 20
Modulus of elasticity (10 MPa)
Figure 29 Regression plot of test MOE vs. within-board compressive strength
ON
65
60 • qb • •
•
Jo"* 1
Ig A (DD
55 •A
•
CO
50
D)
C
2 45 AP QA
CO
>
00
00 •
CD 40
CL
•
E
o
O
35
HA •
A •
A A
• Test data (p = 0.654 )
30
A Simulated data (p = 0.649 )
25
10 12 14 16 18 20
Modulus of elasticity (10 MPa)

3
Figure 30 Regression plot of test and simulated MOE vs. compressive strength
to
1
0.8
"8 0.6
O
R a t 50 percentile - 1.15
c
I 0.4
•
E
o
0.2
1.2 1.4
Ratio R c
Figure 31 Cumulative distribution function of ratio R c S3

CXI
/
R a t 50 percentile - 1.20
T
1.4 1.9
Ratio R T
Figure 32 Cumulative distribution function R T

Tensile strength (MPa)
Figure 33 CDF of test and generated minimum tension data (1650f-1.5E)

h-»
O
0 20 40 60
Figure 34 CDF of test and generated minimum tension data (2100f-1.8E)

Figure 35 CDF of test and generated minimum tension data (2400f-2.0)

Figure 36 CDF of test and generated minimum compression data (1650f-1.5E)

Figure 37 CDF of test and generated minimum compression data (21 OOf-1.8E)
4^
J '
'/ Compressive strength (MPa)
Figure 38 CDF of test and generated minimum compression data (2400f-2.0E)

Figure 39 Beam layups for three grade combinations - 9 in. beam
42 Beam with two stiffness zones
Figure
2.2
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2

Trnasformed MOE (10* psi)
Figure 43 Comparison of simulated MOE with transformed MOE

Bending strength (1000 psi)
Figure 44 CDF of bending strength for three grades (depth = 9 inch)

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19


10
sa 2400f-2.0E + 2100M.8E o 1650f-1.5E

9
1 J L J I I L
11 13 15 17
Depth (inch)
Figure 47 The 5th percentile value of bending strength vs. depth
4^
m 2400f-2.0E + 2100f-1.8E o 1650M.5E
J I I I L_ I I I I L
9 11 13 15 17
Depth (inch)
Figure 48 The 50th percentile value of bending strength vs. depth

Figure 49 CDF of bending strength for 1650f-1.5E beams as a function of beam depth
ON
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
CC
ii DEPTH=9" + DEPTH=12° o DEPTH 18"
2400f-2.0E 2100f-1.8E 1650M.5E

Grade
Figure 52 The 5th percentile value of bending strength vs. grade

10
I _ J _ : I I I
2400f-2.0E 2100M.8E 1650M.5E
Grade
Figure 53 The 50th percentile value of bending strength vs. grade

Figure 54 CDF of bending strength with the combination of
1650f-1.5E and 2100f-1.8E (depth = 9 inch)
Figure 56 CDF of bending strength with the combinations

of 1650M.5E and 2100f-1.8E (depth = 18 inch)
Figure 57 The 5th percentile value of bending strength
vs. the outer layer percent of 2100f-1.8E
Ul
ii DEPTH=9" + DEPTH=12" o DEPTH=18"
J i i i i i i i i i i
0 20 40 60 80 100
Outer layer percent of 2100f-1.8E (%)

Figure 59 CDF of bending strength with the combination

Ul
ON

of 1650f-1.5E and 2400f-2.0E (depth = 12 inch)


vo
01 DEPTH=9" + DEPTH=12" o DEPTH=18"
J I I I I I I I I L_
0 20 40 60 80 100

Tensile strength (1000 psi)
Figure 64 CDF of tensile strength for three grades (depth = 9 inch)


2400f-2.0E CT18-A)
2100f-1.8E (T18-I)
1650M.5E rri8-F)
3-P Weibull fitting
1 3 5 7 9

SB 2400f-2.0E + 2100M.8E o 1650M.5E
Depth (inch)
Figure 67 The 5th percentile value of tensile strength vs. depth

2400f-2.0E + 2100f-1.8E o 1650f-1.5E
11 13 15 17
Depth (inch)
Figure 68 The 50th percentile value of tensile strength vs. depth
Ul
Figure 69 CDF of tensile strength under three depth (1650f-1.5E)

Figure 70 CDF of tensile strength under three depth (2100f-1.8E)

Figure 72 The 5th percentile value of tensile strength vs. grade
Figure 73 The 50th percentile value of tensile strength vs. grade
o
Figure 77 CDF of tensile strength with the combination

of 1650f-1.5E and 2400f-2.0E (depth = 9 inch) ^


of 1650M.5E and 240W-2.0E (depth = 18 inch)
Figure 80 The 5th percentile value of tensile strength
—
i>
oo
20 40 60 80 100

• DEPTH=9" + DEPTH=12" o DEPTH=18"

Compressive strength (1000 psi)
Figure 85 CDF of compressive strength for three grades (depth = 12 inch)

Figure 87 The 5th percentile value of compressive strength vs. depth
oo
+ 2100f-1.8E o 1650f-1.5E
— „ J
ii « 1 7
Depth (inch)
Figure 88 The 50th percentile value of compressive strength vs. depth

Figure 89 CDF of compressive strength under three depth (1650f-1.5E)
00
ON


00
oo
• DEPTH=9" + DEPTH = 12" o DEPTH 18"
2 h
2400f-2.0E 2100M.8E 1650f-1.5E

Grade
Figure 92 The 5th percentile value of compressive strength vs. grade

10
• DEPTH=9" + DEPTH= 12" o DEPTH 18"
2 h
1
24001-2.0E 2100M.8E 1650f-1.5E
Grade
Figure 93 The 50th percentile value of compressive strength vs. grade

VO
o
Figure 94 CDF of compressive strength with the combination of

1650f-1.5E and 2100M.8E (depth = 9 inch)

1650M.5E and 2100M.8E (depth = 12 inch)

1650M.5E and 2100M.8E (depth = 18 inch)
vo
Figure 97 CDF of compressive strength with the combination

vo
4*.
Compressive strength (\0Q0 psO


ON
Figure 100 The 5th percentile value of compressive strength
B DEPTH=9' + DEPTH=12" o DEPTH
20 40 60 80


Ubc - 1991 - A6 - 7 X56 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ubc - 1991 - A6 - 7 X56 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ubc - 1991 - A6 - 7 X56 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODELLING STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS OF GLUED-LAMINATED TIMBER

USING MACHINE STRESS RATED LUMBER

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

The University of British Columbia

A l o c a l i z e d E-simulation model and a s t r e n g t h s i m u l a t i o n model,

which a r e based on t h e t h e o r i e s o f s t a t i o n a r y random p r o c e s s and t h e

b i v a r i a t e standard normal d i s t r i b u t i o n , have been d e v e l o p e d .

A group o f 2 x 6 2100f-1.8E SPF MSR lumber have been t e s t e d t o

obtain the within-board c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h s . The t e s t E - p r o f i l e s and

compressive strength data was used to provide the statistical

i n f o r m a t i o n f o r E - s i m u l a t i o n model and c r - s i m u l a t i o n model.

The comparison between the within-board compressive strength

test data and t h e s i m u l a t i o n results shows that the E-simulation

approach and the cr-simulation approach can model the localized

Using E-simulation model and c r - s i m u l a t i o n model t h r e e grades o f

MSR lumber have been g e n e r a t e d with localized MOE, tension strength

and c o m p r e s s i o n s t r e n g t h p r o f i l e s on each board. W i t h t h e s e g e n e r a t e d

built and t h e e f f e c t o f beam sizes and layups on t h e s t r e n g t h of

g l u l a m beams has been simulated.

The r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d from g l u l a m beam s i m u l a t i o n showed t h a t t h e

beam s i z e s and l a y u p s d i d have s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e beam s t r e n g t h

p r o p e r t i e s . W i t h one o r two l a y e r s o f h i g h e r grade l a m i n a t i o n on t h e

outer l a y e r o f t h e beam and lower grade laminations i n the rest of

inner l a y e r s o f t h e beam, t h e g l u l a m beam b e n d i n g s t r e n g t h could be

LIST OF FIGURES viii

1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES 1

2. COFI MSR LUMBER TEST PROGRAM 7

2.3 Test Procedures 8

3. VITHIN-BOARD COMPRESSION EXPERIMENT 10

3.3 Experiment D e s i g n and P r o c e d u r e s 11

4. E - RANDOM PROCESS SIMULATION MODEL 14

4.2 Theoretical Basis 14

4.2.2 F o u r i e r T r a n s f o r m and Power S p e c t r a l D e n s i t y . . 15

4.2.3 M o d e l l i n g the Localized E-functions 19

4.3.1 MSR E - p r o f i l e Treatment 24

5. BIVARIATE STANDARD NORMAL SIMULATION MODEL 29

5.3 Model Development 32

5.4 cr-Profile S i m u l a t i o n Example 35

6. GENERATION OF E- AND (7-PROFILES FOR THREE GRADES 38

6.2 G e n e r a t i o n o f E - p r o f i l e s f o r Three Grades 38

6.3 G e n e r a t i o n o f < r - p r o f i l e s f o r Three Grades 39

7. GLULAM BEAM SIMULATIONS 44

7.3 S i m u l a t i o n Beam Layups 47

7.4 Simulation Results 48

8. DISCUSSION OF GLULAM SIMULATION RESULTS 50

8.3 Bending Strength 53

8.3.3 E f f e c t o f Mixed Grade Layups 56

8.3.3.1 1650f-1.5E and 2100f-1.8E Combinations 57

8.3.3.2 1650f-1.5E and 2400f-2.0E Combinations 57

8.3.4 Comparison o f bending s t r e n g t h f o r g l u l a m 59

8.4 Tensile Strength 60

8.4.3 E f f e c t o f Mixed Grade Layups 62

8.5.3 E f f e c t o f Mixed Grade Layups 64

9. SIZE EFFECTS ANALYSIS 66

9.2 Size Effects i n Bending S t r e n g t h 67

9.3 Size Effects i n Tensile Strength 67