Predicting Strength of Matched Sets of Test Specimens

Authors

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

Keywords:

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

Abstract

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.

References

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

Downloads

Published

2007-06-19

Issue

Number 4 / October 1998

Section

Research Contributions

License

The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:

1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.

2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.

3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.