Figure 1 Universal Testing Machine Figure 2 Three Point Bending Fixture

Introduction
The testing of compressive strength, flexure, and moisture content of wood allows for
analysis of the many mechanical properties of wooden materials. Douglas Fir is a common wood
type used in the construction of wooden structures and therefore would make an ideal wood
type to test and analyze these mechanical properties. In this laboratory the compressive
strengths of wooden specimens with grain orientations of 00, 450, and 900 were determined
under a compressive loading. The flexure testing of a wooden beam allowed for its modulus of
rupture and modulus of elasticity to be found. The moisture content of a wooden specimen was
also determined to help depict the relationship between it and the mechanical properties of the
wood. All of the data was compiled into loading vs. deformation and stress vs. strain curves,
which allowed for further examination of the observed results and comparisons to be made with
typical expected values for the Douglas fir.
Materials
The wood material used for the compression, flexure, and moisture testing in this lab
was Douglas fir with clear grains and free from defects. The specimens for the compression and
moisture tests were five, 1.5 in. by 1.5 in. by 3 in. blocks with wood grains oriented at 0o, 30o,
45o, 60o and 90o. The specimen used in the flexure test was a 1.75 in. by 3.75 in. by 36 in.
wooden beam with a parallel grain orientation in respect to the longitudinal axis.
Equipment
Universal Testing Machine: used to compress the wood specimens in order to measure the
compressive strength among the varying grain orientations (see Figure 1).
Three –point Bending Fixture: a configuration on the universal testing machine that uses
three points of contact along the tested material to measure its flexure (see Figure 2).
Oven: used to heat the wood specimen to determine the oven-dry weight (see figure 3).
Micrometer: measuring device used to determine the width and thickness of the wooden
specimens (see Figure 4).
Figure 1 Universal Testing Machine Figure 2 Three point bending

fixture
This study source was downloaded by 100000837394437 from CourseHero.com on 02-01-2022 06:05:28 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/17916053/172-Lab-5/
Figure 3 Oven used to dry wood
Figure 4 Micrometer
Procedure
PART I. Compression Test

Use a micrometer to measure the cross-section and length of each specimen record on the
data sheet. The specimen are placed one at a time in the universal testing machine and
compressed until failure. The maximum lading is recorded and the failure should be sketched.
PART2: Flexure Test

Mark a 32 in. span from the end points and center point of the beam. Place the beam in the
universal testing machine. Apply a compressive load of at the center of the beam until failure.
Sketch the appearance of the failure.
PART 3: Moisture Content

Weigh the wood specimen with a balance and record the mass. Place the specimen in a
drying oven for 24 hours and reweigh the specimen to obtain a final dry weight.
Results
Part I: Compression Test

Table 1: Wood Compression Test Results
Sample Dimensions (in.) Cross-
Grain Compressive Proportional
Sample Sectional Max.
Orientation Strength Limit
No. Width Depth Height Area Load (lb.)
(degree) (psi) (psi)
(in2)
1 1.585 1.471 3 6.995 0 17,352 7,887.3 N/A
2 1.500 1.470 3 6.615 30 3,943 1,792.3 N/A
3 1.463 1.516 3 6.531 45 6,495 2,952.3 N/A
4 1.550 1.467 3 6.822 60 2,488 1,130.9 N/A
5 1.459 1.459 3 6.386 90 3,051 1,386.8 824.31
Figure 5 Failure of wood specimen with varying grain orientations
Figure 6 Failure of wood specimen with varying grain orientations
1200
1000
800
Stress (psi)
600
400
200
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Strain (in/in)
Figure 7: Stress vs. Strain Curve for 900 Grain Orientation Wood Specimen
3500
3000
2500
Load (lbs)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Displacement (in)
Figure 8: Load vs. Deformation Curve for 90o Grain Orientation Wood Specimen
Part II: Flexure Test of Wood

Table 2: Flexure of Wood Results
Sample Dimensions (in.) Slope of Load- Modulus of Elastic
Max.
Defl. Curve Rupture Modulus
Width Dept Length Span Load (lb.) (lb./in.) (psi) (psi)
1.39 x
3.75 1.75 36 32 2720 843.71 11,367.16
106
3.75 1.75 36 32 2450 1160.5 10,238.81 1.25 x 106
Figure 9 Failure of wood beams after flexure test
3000
2500
2000
Load (lbs)
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Deformation (in.)
Figure 10: Load vs. Beam Deformation for wood specimen 1
3000
2500
2000
Load (lbs)
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Deformation (in.)
Figure 11: Load vs. Beam Deformation for wood specimen 2
3000
2500
y = 843.71x + 861.01
2000
Load (lbs)
1500
1000
500
0
-0.05 0.15 0.35 0.55 0.75 0.95 1.15
Deformation (in.)
Figure 12: Slope at rapture for Load vs. Beam Deformation of specimen 1
3000
2500
y = 1160.5x + 560.03
2000
Load (lbs)
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Deformation (in.)
Figure 13: Slope at rapture for Load vs. Beam Deformation of specimen 2
Part III- Moisture Content of Wood

Table 3: Moisture Content Testing Data
Sample Initial Final Change in Moisture
No. Mass (g) Mass (g) Mass (g) Content (%)
1 65.93 48.38 17.55 36.28

Discussion
Part I: Compression Test of Wood
1. The 0° orientation specimen resulted in a frayed and splintered failure. Eventually the
specimen failed completely with splits running parallel to the wood grain. This
orientation proved to be the strongest of the three specimens. The 30o, 45°, and 60o
orientation specimen exhibited similar behavior; splits running parallel to the grain that
resulted in cracks and open fissures in the wood. Portions of the specimen bowed
outward due to the compressive stresses. The 90° orientation specimen “torqued” and
twisted under the compressive stresses.
2. At 10° orientation the compressive strength would be around 2300 psi, and at 30°
orientation the strength would be around 1000 psi. This supports the fact that wood is
stronger under compression when the grain angle is more parallel to the compressive
stress.
3. If the specimens were fully saturated with water the compressive strength parallel to the
grain and the proportional limit perpendicular to the grain would remain virtually the
same. Changes in moisture content above the fiber saturation point (FSP) have little or
no effect to the mechanical properties of wood.
Pat II: Flexure Test of Wood
1. The flexure specimen failed around a localized area where the main compressive loading
was taking place. The wood beam exhibited large splinters and cracks along the
underside of the beam directly under the loading block. This failure is indicative of
tensile stresses on the underside of the beam and compressive stresses on the topside.
2. Typical values for the modulus of elasticity and the modulus of rupture of Douglas fir
wooden specimens are 1.90 x 106 psi and 11,700 psi respectively. The values measured
in this lab for the modulus of elasticity and the modulus of rupture were 1.25 x 106 psi
and 11,367 psi respectively. Discrepancies are most likely due to the defect in the wood.
If the specimens were fully saturated with water the modulus of elasticity and the
modulus of rupture would remain virtually the same. Changes in moisture content above
the fiber saturation point (FSP) have little or no effect to the mechanical properties of
wood.
3. If the specimen were tested at an orientation of 90° the failure mode would have been
more brittle: it would have been a “violent” fracture characterized by smaller deflections
and higher loads on the beam.
Part III: Moisture Content of Wood
1. The moisture content of the wood specimen was found to be 9.02% compared to the
typical values of 25-35% at the fiber saturation point (fsp). Based on the values in Table
5, this specimen would be classified as air-dried since 9.02% is very close to 10%.
Table 4: Classification of Wood Based on Moisture Content

Classification Moisture Content
Green 30-200%
Fiber
Saturation 25-35%
Point
Air Dried 10-19%
Kiln Dried 6-7%
Oven Dried 0%
Conclusion
Testing the compression, flexure, and moisture content of wooden specimens allows for
a thorough analysis of the mechanical properties of wood. It can be concluded from the
compression test performed on the different specimens that a 00 grain orientation was the
strongest orientation resulting in the least deformation for compressive strength while 900 was
the weakest resulting in the most deformation. After computing the compressive strength at 100
and 300 it is clear that as the grain orientation increases from 00 to 900 the compressive
strength decreases. The flexure test resulted in a significantly lower maximum load than the
estimated value. It can be concluded then that there must have been defects within the wood.
No wooden beam is completely free of defects and the presence of them will decrease the
maximum load on the beam. The moisture content test demonstrated that there is a trend as
the moisture content of wood approaches its fiber saturated point (fsp). As the moisture
content increased, the compressive strength parallel to the grain, the proportional limit
perpendicular to the grain, the elastic modulus, as well as the modulus of rupture all decreased
significantly. It can be concluded then, that the overall strength of wood decreases at it
becomes saturated. With all of this information, engineers can determine which type of wood is
best suited for specific requirements in the design and construction of wooden products and
structures.
References
Bentur, A; Young, J.F.; Mindess, S.; and Gray, R.J. (1998) The Science and Technology of Civil
Engineering Materials, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.
Appendix
Calculations:
Modulus of Rupture for Flexure Test (using beam theory):

σ = Mz/I
M = PL/4
z = (1/2)(h)
I = bh3/12
M = (2720 lb.)(32 in) / (4) = 21,760 lb. in
σ = (21,760 lb. in)(0.875 in) / (1.675 in4)
= 11367.16 psi
Elastic Modulus for Flexure Test:

E = (P/δ)(L3/4bh3)
= (2720 lb./in) [(32 in)3 / (4)(3 in)(1.75 in)3]
= 1.39 x 106 psi
Moisture Content (%) = (Wfield – WOD) / (WOD) x 100

= (65.93-48.38) / 48.38 x 100
= 36.28%
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Figure 1 Universal Testing Machine Figure 2 Three Point Bending Fixture

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

Figure 1 Universal Testing Machine Figure 2 Three Point Bending Fixture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

Figure 1 Universal Testing Machine Figure 2 Three point bending

PART I. Compression Test

PART2: Flexure Test

PART 3: Moisture Content

Part I: Compression Test

Figure 6 Failure of wood specimen with varying grain orientations

Part II: Flexure Test of Wood

Figure 9 Failure of wood beams after flexure test

Figure 10: Load vs. Beam Deformation for wood specimen 1

Figure 11: Load vs. Beam Deformation for wood specimen 2

Part III- Moisture Content of Wood

1 65.93 48.38 17.55 36.28

Table 4: Classification of Wood Based on Moisture Content

Modulus of Rupture for Flexure Test (using beam theory):

Elastic Modulus for Flexure Test:

Moisture Content (%) = (Wfield – WOD) / (WOD) x 100

You might also like