Predicting Strength of Matched Sets of Test Specimens


  • Zhiyong Cai
  • George P. McCabe
  • Michael O. Hunt
  • James P. Bradtmueller
  • Kenneth J. Fridley
  • David V. Rosowsky


Predicting strength, edge-matching, distribution, regression, prediction limits


Five different methods for a priori estimating bending strength of wood and wood composite specimens are compared in this paper. They are: (1) edge-matching, (2) matching specimens by normal distribution, (3) matching specimens by log-normal distribution, (4) simple linear regression, and (5) multiple linear regression. It was found that the square root of mean square error (RMSE) of percent difference (PD) of predicted modulus of rupture (MOR) is the key measure in comparing the five methods. Multiple linear regression was found to be the best method to predict MOR of a specimen in an edge-matched set. Finally, how to create the prediction limits for mean MOR of a subgroup of specimens is discussed. The prediction limits for predicting MOR make it possible to quantitatively determine the effect of various treatments of wood materials.


American Society for Testing and Materials. 1994. Standard practice for evaluating allowable properties for grades of structural lumber. ASTM D 2915. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.nAmerican Society for Testing and Materials. 1996. Standard methods for evaluating properties of wood-based fiber and particle panel materials. ASTM D 1037. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.nBradtmueller, J. P. 1992. Evaluation of interlaminar shear moduli of structural wood composites via five-point bending test. Ph.D. dissertation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.nFoschi, R. O., and J. D. Barrett. 1982. Load-duration effects in western hemlock lumber. ASCE. J. Struct. Div. 108(7):1494-1510.nGerhards, C. C., 1976. Pair matching and strength prediction of lumber. Wood Sci. 8(3):180-187.nJohns, K., and B. Madsen. 1982. Duration of load effects in lumber, Part 1: A fracture mechanics approach. Can. J. Civil Eng. 9(3):502-525.nMcNatt, J. D. 1970. Design stresses for hardboard—Effect of rate, duration and repeated loading. Forest Prod. J. 20(1):53-60.nNeter, J., M. H. Kutner, C. J. Nachtsheim, and W. Wasserman. 1996. Applied linear statistical models, 4th ed. Richard D. Irwin Inc., Boston, MA.nSchniewind, A. P. 1967. Creep-rupture life of Douglasfir under cyclic environmental conditions. Wood Sci. Technol. 1(4):278-288.nSekino, N., and M. Okuma. 1985. Performance over time of construction particleboard I.—Fatigue behavior in bending. J. Jap. Wood Res. Soc. 31(10):801-806.nSoltis, L. A., and J. E. Winandy. 1989. Long-term strength of CCA-treated lumber. Forest Prod. J. 39(5):64-68.nTichy, R. J., 1976. Pairmatching and prediction models: their use is predicting particleboard properties. Wood Fiber 7(4):274-280.n






Research Contributions