Timber Talk 29 Sept

Timber, a reliable
structural material?
by:
Dr. Tan Yu Eng
Forest Products Division
Forest Research Institute
Malaysia (FRIM)
Presented in conjunction with MTC Talk Series
on the 29
th
. September 2010.
MS ISO 9001 : 2008 MS ISO 9001 : 2008
1990s
This PDF file is Created by trial version of DocSmartz PDF Creator.
Please use purchased version to remove this message
To share:
1. Background - Where we are in terms
of use of timber in construction
particularly for structural
application?
2. Key consideration in structural
application;
3. Is our timber construction reliable?
- Malaysian approach
4. - In a nutshell
5. Next course of action
6. Conclusion
Major materials used in construction:
1 Concrete
1 Steel
1 Timber
1 Others
Steel/ metal Concrete
Timber
Bamboo
1. BACKGROUND
Environmental Considerations
1 Structural Timbers from
2 Plantations and Managed Native Forests
1 All timber production forests are carbon sinks
2 growing trees fix carbon in wood
2 carbon exported from forest in timber
1. BACKGROUND
Energy of Production
1 Energy consumption releases CO
2
where fossil fuels are
burnt
1 Timber has low production energy
2 more carbon stored in wood than released due to
energy of production
2 carbon stored in structural timber
Light beam (1 metre) Heavy
beam
(1 metre) sheeting (1 m
2
)
Steel
200/19
purlin
Timber
300x50
Steel
310UB40
Glulam
550x135
Steel
0.5 mm
Plywood 12
mm
Mass (kg) 5.6 7.5 40.0 37.0 4.7 6.0
Prodn energy (MJ) 330 18 2360 333 173 113
Carbon released (kg) 6.0 0.3 42.8 5.9 3.2 2.1
Carbon stored (kg) 0 3.8 0 18.5 0 3.0
net Carbon (kg) 6.0 -3.4 42.8 -12.6 3.2 -0.9

1. BACKGROUND
Current LOCAL scenario
1 Limited use of timber in
construction sector esp. for
permanent STRUCTURAL use
2 "Poor & inconsistent
quality
2 High & fluctuating cost
2 Associate with low social
status (with few
exceptions)
2 Bye-laws; mixed species;
"durability, .
1 More & more are switching
over to other materials
Formwork for concrefe
Aqinq shop-houses
1. BACKGROUND
MS ISO 9001 : 2008 MS ISO 9001 : 2008
Various applications of wood and
wood-based timber products are
being promoted in the country BY
VARIOUS PARTIES
1. BACKGROUND
FRIM (R & D)
MTC (international)
MTIB (promotion/
marketing)
MTCC (Certification)
FD (resources)
Associations
- MWIA (timber & others)
- PEKA (timber & furniture)
- MFIC (furniture)
- MFEA (furniture)
- MPMA (Panel products)
- MWMJC (Moulding)
- MWPA (Preservation)
Current/ recent efforts include:
a) NCUTC - National Committee on the Use of Timber in
Construction (Current focus e.g. UBBL on Fire-related
issues & other coordinating initiatives);
b) Levy - Domestic promotion (image building)
c) Levy, Tebrau project & Glulam Interest
Group - Use of glulam in the country;
d) Levy - Industrial Building System
e) MTIB and other agencies incl. FRIM- Work
on various national standards etc.
f) Timber agencies, universities and industry players
- Waiving of JKR suspension on prefab. Timber roof truss
construction
1. BACKGROUND
Glulam
structures
Uncharred
portion Original
dimension
before
combustion
takes place
An experimental
work on strength
behaviour of
glulam in fire
FIRE performance/ requirement
1. BACKGROUND
Engineered applications:
means to make use of plantation grown timbers
Industrial Building
system
- e.g Light frame
timber structure
Multi-storey timber frame
structures above existing building
Collapse of a steel roof truss
system
In 2001, a national wide
suspension on all
prefabricated timber roof
truss construction for public
projects by JKR -- quality &
related problems!
Lifted 12 months later on
four approved system
providers after a series of
actions was taken.
Cold form steel roof truss
system dominated the
market since then.
Presently, major use of structural timbers is in
prefabricated timber roof truss construction.
BUT
Poor quality!
????
1 In overseas, success stories are even associated
with the use of younger and weaker timber
species such as radiata pine in advanced
applications (Why so?)
1 Collapse of a handful of prefabricated timber roof
truss system led to JKR suspension (2001-2002),
eventually market taken over by steel alternative.
1 Little or unheard incidence of collapses in timber
construction prior to that compared to many more
cases in the steel alternative since its introduction
1 The question is: How could we proceed with
MORE advanced applications in the country?
Is the material or construction Safe or Reliable or
not?
1. BACKGROUND
Uses of Timber
Exposed structural timber
appearance - colour, grain, finish
strength and stiffness
Exposed structural timber
appearance - colour, grain, finish
strength and stiffness
Decorative panelling
appearance / number of visible surfaces
Decorative panelling
appearance / number of visible surfaces
Stair detailing
structural performance
appearance - all surfaces
Stair detailing
structural performance
appearance - all surfaces
External timber
durability, treatments, maintenance
moisture - end grain
glues - weather resistant
External timber
durability, treatments, maintenance
moisture - end grain
glues - weather resistant
Ntdc/fwprdc 1999
2. KEY CONSIDERATION
Structural Performance
2. KEY CONSIDERATION
2 key technical areas of
concern
1 Strength of
material
(Structural
performance)
1 Durability
A Iook ut the current pructice:
Insteud of Heuvy HW, Medium HW, Liqht HW, Mied Medium
HW, Mied Liqht HW:
For structuruI uppIicutions, previousIy specifiers
were usinq cIussificution of Strenqth Sroup A, , C
& D
More recentIy, SS SYSTEM WAS INTRODUCED
SS1
SSZ
SS3
SS4
SSb
SS
SS7
Stronq
weuk
A number of StructuruI
Softwood commonIy
used overseus "foII
under" fhese
cofeqories
Specified
by JIP
3. Malaysian approach
1) Trees 3 natural variability 3 unlike steel and concrete
(homogenous);
2) Structural applications 3 safety comes first 3 legally
responsible
3 Hence: Variability must be "managed!
3) Concept of GUARANTEED minimum strength properties
comes in (irrespective of variability in wood!).
3 Unlike the normal concept of AVERAGE which is
more applicable to homogenous material like
steel and concrete!
4) Typical E.g.
Bending test on small clear specimen of Kempas.
IMPORTANT Concepts to be understood:
3. Reliable? 3. Malaysian approach
* Variability in timber + Safety!
1 SO, as for Strength -
The members supplied must possess (and
demonstrate) "minimum guaranteed strength
properties" as declared.
i.e. 99% chance (1% tile value) of satisfying
this minimum requirement.
3 Or at any 100 times, at least 99 times
that the strength of timbers are as declared
3 Implying SAFE Structure!
3. Reliable? 3. Malaysian approach

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
MODULUS OF RUPTURE ( MOR ), MPa
1% Lower
Probability
Limit
Mean, X
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
X - 2.33s
X - 2.33s
= 64.6
Reduction factor DOL, size &
safety factor
s = standard deviation
Test value
Its implication:
To tackle
"variability
in timber!
Mean
= 100 MPa
2x4 Kempas (SG2) bending strength (MPa):
-- Declared value : 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.6 MPa MPa MPa MPa
110 81 91 91 79 115 117 107 71 85
117 70 112 93 123 110 137 131 131 95
79 93 109 135 82 103 78 74 139 123
87 125 112 135 130 116 81 120 65 73
95 90 72 76 159 65 74 116 112 114
124 83 96 129 72 125 86 54 97 111
82 80 81 93 127 72 97 106 117 130
136 139 80 122 80 135 133 72 126 65
86 115 135 136 97 99 137 113 130 95
114 138 89 72 122 99 112 97 116 96
1 out of
100
Chance of
less than
the
"declared
value
This is applicable to:
a) Timber used:
Option 1: By species (e.g. shorea macrophylla <engkabang> or
shorea leprosula <meranti tembaga>
3 33 3 for non-mono species timbers, rather Impractical!
Option 2: By timber type (trade name), e.g. Keruing 3
Possible but large quantity supply may be a problem!
N.B. Weakest species tested represents the timber
type e.g. Keruing
Option 3: By Strength Group 3 MORE PRACTICAL
e.g. Strength group A, B, C or D;
NOW Strength Group 1,2,3.,7.
N.B. FRIM has 1%tile values for most commercial
timber types (unpublished)
1
1
But, commercial timbers are not PERFECT
b) Grade of Timber:
To account for natural characteristics or
strength-reducing elements in commercial
timber (knots, slope of grain, checks etc.)
2 Visual Strength Grade (by "specially
trained" timber graders, "V8")
3e.g. SG 3 - SELECT; STANDARD or COMMON
Grade (depending on the amount of
strength-reducing elements found)
3 33 3Species independent
VISUAL Strength Grading
2 VISUAL strength
grading - Select,
Standard & Common.
(NB. There is another
grading method for
non-structural
products)
- Taking into account
slope of grain, knot
ratio, wane etc.
3 33 3 TIME CONSUMING & LABORIOUS!
1 New Standard on Visual Strength Grading
(2004);
1 E.g. Wood - STANDARD grade
( Max. Slope of grain of 1 : 10.7);
Max knot ratio,
within 300 mm of length)
a
b
SLOPE OF GRAIN & KNOT RATIO
We have 3 visual strength grades : SELECT, STANDARD & COMMON
WORKING EXAMPLE
a) KEMPAS :
Average bending strength = 100 MPa (= 100 N/ mm2)
Standard deviation, S.D. = 15.19 MPa
Hence, 1 % tile value = 100-2.33*S.D = 64.6 MPa
99 % chance of getting a
strength of > 64.6 MPa;
And, Basic (defects-free) stress =
(100-2.33*S.D)/ 2.5 = 25.83 MPa
Note: Basic or defect-free stress
= stress which can be permanently
sustained with safety by an ideal
structural components containing no
strength-reducing characteristics
TEST value
3 33 3 Min.
guaranteed
value (1%)
Basic
Grade
Stress (for
defects-
free)

D ef le ct ion l

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
1% Lower
Probability
Limit
Mean, X
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
X - 2.33s
X - 2.33s
= 64.6
Reduction factor DOL, size &
safety factor
s = standard deviation
Test value
Its implication:
To tackle
"variability
in timber!
Mean
= 100 MPa
Basic Stress
(X-2.33s )/2.5
= 25.83
Reduction
factor =
2.5
IMPORTANT Relationship
1Basic grade relates to Defects-
free and straight-grained timber
(does not exist commercially)
Bending strength for commercial
grades (= Visual strength grade):
2 Select (80% of Basic grade)
2 Standard (63% of Basic Grade)
2 Common (50% of Basic Grade)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
1% Lower
Probability
Limit
Mean, X
Basic Stress
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
X - 2.33s
Strength Ratio;
0.8 for Select
0.63 for Standard
(Select)
20.7
Factor
= 2.5
(Standard)
16.3
( X - 2.33s ) ) ) ) / 2.5
= 25.83
X - 2.33s
= 64.6
Grade
Stresses
Reduction factor include
DOL, size & safety
factor, workmanship
Visual strength grades
Test value
Grade stresses
"Variability"
factor!
To tackle
"variability in
timber!
2x4 Kempas (SG2) bending strength (MPa):
-- Declared value : 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.6 MPa MPa MPa MPa
110 81 91 91 79 115 117 107 71 85
117 70 112 93 123 110 137 131 131 95
79 93 109 135 82 103 78 74 139 123
87 125 112 135 130 116 81 120 65 73
95 90 72 76 159 65 74 116 112 114
124 83 96 129 72 125 86 54 97 111
82 80 81 93 127 72 97 106 117 130
136 139 80 122 80 135 133 72 126 65
86 115 135 136 97 99 137 113 130 95
114 138 89 72 122 99 112 97 116 96
1 out of
100
Chance of
less than
the
"declared
value
a) Strength of material?
1 Permissible design approach
4 Using 1
st
. percentile approach - 1 % chance
of "failure" compared to an international
norm of 5 % - very conservative
4 High safety factor was included compared to
LIMIT-STATE design
4 Using weakest species to represent the
entire group of timber species. E.g.
o 10 species of Keruing were tested
5 The weakest of the lot was used to represent the
overall Keruing!
5 Classified under SG grouping - design value
further brought down by the Strength Group
4 Kempas - average bending strength of 100
MPa. Actual grade stress value used in
design is less than 20 MPa.
4. In a nutshell!
3 Provided stress graded timber is
used and designed accordingly,
the members used are MORE
THAN strong enough for the loads
assigned, as well as of the desired
appearance grade and dimension
> 99.99% success rate so far!!!
4In fact, there is still at least 20 %room for further
reduction of member dimension if mechanical stress
grading is applied in the near future
4. In a nutshell!
3 33 3 Provided durable
timber is used and for
non-durable timbers,
preservative treatment
of timber is done
accordingly, the long-
term performance of
structural members is
assured;
b) Durability?
4. In a nutshell!
a) Machine Strength Grading
1 A mechanical means to segregate the
"strength grouping of structural
timber!
5. Next course of
action
Principles
load
deflection
Timber in
motion
Note: Either load or deflection is usually held constant
Compute local modulus of elasticity
In ! Out !
4. The way forward
5. Next course of
action
Challenges:
a) For temperate softwood 3
Malaysian hardwoods;
b) More for mono-species 3Mixed
hardwood;
c) Planed 3un-planed ;
d) Dry 3Green (wet) timbers; and
e) Costly 3volume counts
< 3399 Kuning SG8 ?
> 3400 Biru Hijau Merah MSG7
> 5200 Biru Hijau MSG6
> 6300 Biru Merah MSG5
> 7600 Hijau Merah MSG4
> 10300 Biru MSG3
> 12600 Hijau MSG2
> 14000 Merah MSG1 (= SG1)
(MPA)
MOE** Colour codes Grade
< 800mm
Visual
override
< 800mm
Visual
override
4 6
5
7
6
4
4
e.g. - Strength grading practice for
prefabricated timber roof truss system
Possible Print-Out
1 Malaysian Standard stipulation:
6 Dimension used
6 Standard compliance
6 Graded MSG Dry; Wet or Surface Dry
6 Grading centre number/ Reference
6 Graders number
6 MSG grade (including colour
coding along and at the end
of the graded piece);
1 Additional?
6 Batch number
6 Graded planed or un-planed
6 ???
ABCD MSG4 50x200 57 TS
MS 1802-2008 MSGD
Grading
authority
Machine
strength
grouping
Dimension
declared
Grader
Regn. no.
Company
reference
Grading
authority
Timber condition
(MSGD/KD/SD)
5. Next course of
action
b) Full size testing
1 Structural testing on commercial
dimension timbers using the limit-
state design
i.e. 1%tile 3 5%tile
3 higher design values are expected
for each timber type, for e.g.
5. The way forward
5. Next course of
action
1 Current use of Malaysian timbers in structural
application of which strength is the major concern is
rather limited;
1 Malaysia practices a conservative approach in
structural application of timbers
2 Variability and safety concerns are taken care of using
the minimum guaranteed strength approach;
2 The commercial grades with strength-reducing
characteristics are addressed using visual strength
grading or machine strength grading
1 Provided all these are being adhered to, there is
room (at least 20%) for further reduction of timber
dimension without jeopardising the safety of the
structures built with our quality timber.
6. CONCLUSION

Timber Talk 29 Sept

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Timber Talk 29 Sept

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Timber, a reliable

You might also like