Processing

Developing high-mass laminated flooring products

from fibre-managed plantation hardwood

Project number: PNB387-1516 August 2019

Level 11, 10-16 Queen Street

Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia

T +61 (0)3 9927 3200 E info@fwpa.com.au

W www.fwpa.com.au

Developing high-mass laminated flooring products

from fibre-managed plantation hardwood

Prepared for

Forest & Wood Products Australia

by

H. Jiao, G. Nolan, M. Lee, N. Kotlarewski and M. Derikvand

Forest & Wood Products Australia Limited Level 11, 10-16 Queen St, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000 T +61 3 9927 3200 F +61 3 9927 3288 E info@fwpa.com.au W www.fwpa.com.au

Publication: Developing high-mass laminated flooring products from fibre-managed plantation hardwood

Project No: PNB387-1516

IMPORTANT NOTICE

This work is supported by funding provided to FWPA by the Department Agriculture.

© 2019 Forest & Wood Products Australia Limited. All rights reserved.

Whilst all care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication, Forest and Wood Products Australia Limited and all persons associated with them (FWPA) as well as any other contributors make no representations or give any warranty regarding the use, suitability, validity, accuracy, completeness, currency or reliability of the information, including any opinion or advice, contained in this publication. To the maximum extent permitted by law, FWPA disclaims all warranties of any kind, whether express or implied, including but not limited to any warranty that the information is up-to-date, complete, true, legally compliant, accurate, non-misleading or suitable.

To the maximum extent permitted by law, FWPA excludes all liability in contract, tort (including negligence), or otherwise for any injury, loss or damage whatsoever (whether direct, indirect, special or consequential) arising out of or in connection with use or reliance on this publication (and any information, opinions or advice therein) and whether caused by any errors, defects, omissions or misrepresentations in this publication. Individual requirements may vary from those discussed in this publication and you are advised to check with State authorities to ensure building compliance as well as make your own professional assessment of the relevant applicable laws and Standards.

The work is copyright and protected under the terms of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwth). All material may be reproduced in whole or in part, provided that it is not sold or used for commercial benefit and its source (Forest & Wood Products Australia Limited) is acknowledged and the above disclaimer is included. Reproduction or copying for other purposes, which is strictly reserved only for the owner or licensee of copyright under the Copyright Act, is prohibited without the prior written consent of FWPA.

ISBN: 978-1-920883-55-3

Researcher/s: H. Jiao, G. Nolan, M. Lee, N. Kotlarewski and M. Derikvand University of Tasmania

Final report published by FWPA in August 2019

i

Executive Summary

Australia had about 960,000 ha of hardwood plantations in 2013 and the majority of these were planted and are grown in unthinned and unpruned estates for pulpwood. As these plantations are reaching their commercial maturity, estate owners are seeking to diversify their product options by exploring means to convert this resource into viable solid wood products. This study investigated the structural performance of nail laminated (NLT) and glue laminated (GLT) commodity-based high mass timber floor products assembled from pulp-managed plantation Eucalyptus nitens and E. globulus.

The hardwood resources used in this project were 15 years old E. nitens and 26 years old E. globulus. Industrial standardised hardwood seasoning procedures were applied for the conversion of logs into boards. The logs were milled into 38mm thick hardwood boards using a back sawing strategy for volume recovery. Based on the small end diameters of the logs, the cutting pattern was confined to a limited number of sizes to create an adequate volume of timber in sizes for laminating end sections. The sapwood and log heart were retained.

The seasoned timber boards were nail or glue laminated to form floor panels. Bending tests were conducted to determine the MOE and MOR of the single boards and the laminated panels. All panels were formed with randomly selected boards with scattered MOE and MOR values. Test results revealed that although the wood has a F7 performance if used in a scantling product limited by MOR, the overall structural performance of the species was improved when the wood was used as laminated panels through nail or glue lamination method. The E. nitens and E. globulus panels could be classified as F8 and F11 respectively. The structural performance of the wood was further enhanced by forming timber-concrete composite panels. The composite panels showed structural properties equivalent to timber boards with a F14 performance.

The results proved that the current eucalypt plantations targeted at pulpwood production can be used as laminated floor panels to provide additional options in the building sector.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... i Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 2 

Milling of logs ........................................................................................................................ 2 Log measurement ............................................................................................................... 2 Log conversion ................................................................................................................... 3 

Grading of boards ................................................................................................................... 4 Board properties ..................................................................................................................... 6 Nail and glue lamination of boards ........................................................................................ 6 

Nail laminated samples ...................................................................................................... 7 Glue laminated samples ..................................................................................................... 8 Shear capacity between the laminated boards and concrete .............................................. 8 2.5m span nail and glue laminated panels for MOE and MOR testing .............................. 9 3.6m and 4.8m span nail laminated panels for MOE and MOR testing .......................... 10 

Results and discussion .............................................................................................................. 14 MOE and MOR of E. nitens and E. globulus single boards ................................................. 14 MOE and MOR of E. nitens and E. globulus laminated panels ........................................... 17 

Push through test results of nail and glue laminated samples .......................................... 17 MOE and MOR of 2.5m span nail and glue laminated panels ......................................... 18 MOE and MOR of 3.3m and 4.6m span nail and glue laminated panels with concrete cast on the top of the panels .................................................................................................... 22 Push through test results of laminated timber and concrete composite samples ............. 22 Bending tests results for MOE and MOR of timber-concrete laminated panels .............. 24 

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 28 Further work ............................................................................................................................. 30 References ................................................................................................................................ 31 Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 32 

1

Introduction The Australian government supported the extension of the commercial hardwood plantations to provide an additional, economically viable, reliable and high-quality wood resource for industry (ABARE 2013). The availability of plantation hardwood sawlogs is projected to increase over the next five to ten years. Currently, the majority of the plantation in the ground have been managed and grown predominantly for pulpwood. However, changes in the ownership structure of these plantation are leading to an increased recognition of the risk of exposure to a single, international market: export fibre. Potential exists to convert the current fibre grown eucalypt plantations to niche solid hardwood structural items for building systems (Hunt 2014) (Jenkin 2012). Among these hardwood resources, Eucalypt globulus and E. nitens are two important species planted in southern Australia. Most plantation processing trials conducted in commercial sawmills have involved these two species (Washusen 2013). In building design and construction, solid timber floor systems have the advantage of low structure depth and fast erection. They also tend to have better acoustic performance than a timber joist floor system due to their higher weight per unit area (Kolb 2008). The earliest form of solid timber floor was developed in the 1970’s. This consisted of sawn timber laid side by side, continuously nailed together to create solid structural elements around 600mm wide (Natterer 2015). In the 1980’s, a staggered mass timber system was developed at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Sandoz 2004). Due to its increased depth, this system achieved greater rigidity than standard mass timber panels while minimising the amount of timber required. This staggered configuration increased the achievable spans from 6 metres to 12 metres. With the addition of a concrete topping the span can be extended to 18m (Sandoz 2004). In recent years, a number of trial projects were conducted at University of Tasmania (UTAS) to develop low-grade solid-timber systems for residential construction (Baxter 2014; Hamilton 2014; Shanks 2014; Robertson 2015). To explore the stiffness performance of a nail laminated solid timber flooring component with and without plywood tensile load-path, a full-scale prototype was fabricated using commonly available materials, fasteners and clamps. Studies suggest that any of the adhesive systems conventionally used by the EWP industry could be used to produce fit-for-purpose products from plantation eucalypt resources with air-dry densities less than 650 kg/m3 (Hague 2013). In addition to pure timber floors, composite floor systems consisting of timber and concrete are of great interests to many researchers and designers. It was reported that timber-concrete composite floors represent an economic alternative to pure timber floors in terms of higher load carrying capacity, long spans, good sounds insulation and high fire resistance (Kolb 2008). The aims and objectives of this project were: To develop commodity-based high mass timber floor products from plantation E. nitens

and E. globulus To evaluate the effectiveness of using non-destructive methods in determining timber

structural performance To examine the structural performance of nail laminated and glue laminated floor panels

The hardwood resources used in this project were 15 years old E. nitens and 26 years old E. globulus. Industrial standardised hardwood milling and seasoning procedures were applied for the conversion of logs into dry boards. The timber boards were nail or glue laminated to form floor panels. Bending tests were conducted to examine the structural performance of the laminated floor panels. Results were compared with those of the single boards.

2

Methodology

Milling of logs Forico Pty. Ltd provided the E. nitens logs (15 years old) and E. globulus logs (26 years old) from the plantation sites in northern Tasmania. The E. nitens trees were planted in 2001, thinned in 2009 and unpruned before harvesting in May 2016, while the E. globulus trees were planted in 1990, and unthinned and unpruned before harvesting in May 2016.

Log measurement

The E. nitens and E. globulus logs were delivered to the Saw Mills of Britton Timbers in Smithton Tasmania by Forico Pty Ltd. in May 2016 and laid out on bolsters as shown in Figure 1. The small and large end diameters, and the log length were measured. They are listed in Appendix 1 and 2 for E. globulus and E. nitens logs respectively. The green density was measured from disks taken from the logs. Acoustic wave velocity (AWV) was measured on each log. Log MOE was calculated based on the green density and the measured AWV with the equation: AWV2*Density (Farrell & Nolan 2008).

Figure 1 E. globulus logs on site

Both ends of each log were painted with different colours and patterns for later board identification. The colour code established board traceability, so that the MOE of the boards can be assessed against the AWV of the corresponding logs. The aim was to examine the effectiveness of using the log AWV in determining structural performance of hardwood timber boards. Figure 2 shows the logs being colour coded at log ends.

3

   (a)  (b) 

Figure 2. Logs colour coded at log ends (a) strip pattern for E. nitens (b) Curved pattern for E. globulus

Log conversion

Sawing and conversion of the E. nitens and E. globulus logs were conducted in Britton Timbers, a mill for sawing conventional native forest logs. Target nominal board sizes were: thickness 38 mm with widths of 75 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm and 145 mm, and length of 5.5 m. Sapwood and log heart were retained. The cutting patterns are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Illustration of cutting patterns

The finished board sizes targeted were: 35mm in thickness (T) with varying width (W) of 70mm, 90mm, 120mm and 140mm, and length of 5.5m. The log volume, nominal board volume, the average small end diameter (SED) of the logs and the recovery rate are shown in Table 1. The recovery included all whole boards that could be recovered from the logs and potentially suitable for mass timber elements. The boards included features such as wane and limb trace. The sawing patterns generated boards contain different strength reducing features, such as knots (size and amount).

4

Table 1 Recovery data (Calculated from recovery of nominal board size) Species  E. nitens (15 years old)  E. globulus (26 years old) 

Board volume (m3)  7.56  9.24 

Log volume (m3)  29.30  29.08 

Average SED (mm)  345  403 

Recover rate (%)  25.8%  31.8% 

Britton Timbers seasoned the boards in standard production equipment using a conservative drying schedule.

Grading of boards The seasoned E. nitens and E. globulus boards were milled to the final target finish size. Each board was visually assessed and the following information was recorded: • The angle between the growth ring and the cutting plane: 90˚± 15˚as pure quarter sawn, mainly quarter sawn with more than 50% of the cross-sectional area 0˚ ± 15˚ pure backsawn mainly backsawn, i.e., more than 50% of the cross-sectional area

Figure 4 Boards in green packs after milling

Figure 5 Seasoning of boards in progressive predryers

5

45˚ ± 15˚ 4 for pure transitional sawn • Major knots on the widest surface: round or oval knots larger than W/4 spike knots larger than W/4. knot clusters or knot groups distributed along the length of the board that are larger

than W/4. combination of any of the different types of the major knots. clear wood (if a board is not included in the above groups).

• Major knots on the edge surface: round or oval knots on one edge, larger than T/4. round or oval knots on both edges, larger than T/4. spike knots ending at one edge (crossing only one edge of the board). spike knots starting from one edge and ending at the other edge. knots, larger than T/4, starting from the face and finishing at one edge of the board. combination of any of the different types of the edge knots. clear wood (if a board is not included in the above groups).

• The number of knots (with a width larger than W/7 on the face or T/7 on the edge of the boards) per unit metre of the board (on all faces). Since the measurement is based on the existence of knots along the length of samples, knots that are located next to each other across the width of samples were counted as one knot and the same applies to knot clusters and knot groups

• existence or absence of insect trace and/or holes (of any type) boards with insect trace. boards with other types of holes (e.g., knot holes, gum pocket, etc.). combination of the above two groups. clear wood, no insect trace or any other holes.

• General slope of grain • Different types of checks • End splits • Length of wane Based on these visual assessments, grade descriptions were developed to sort the boards into five nominal structural groups. The groups and their descriptions are shown in Table 2: Table 2 Grade description Group Grade description 1 Percentage of clear wood must be ≥80% to 100% in not more than three clear

pieces OR percentage of clear wood ≥60% in only one clear piece 2 Percentage of clear wood must be ≥60% to <80% OR percentage of clear wood

≥40% to <60% in only one clear piece. Any type of knot on the face and any type of knot on the edge is permissible. Surface checking is permissible

3 Percentage of clear wood must be ≥40% to <60% OR percentage of clear wood ≥35% to <40% in only one piece. Any type of knot on the face and any type of knot on the edge is permissible. Surface checking is permissible

4 Percentage of clear wood must be ≥20% to <40%. Any type of knot on the face and any type of knot on the edge is permissible. Surface checking is permissible

5 Percentage of clear wood must be ≥0% to <20%. Any type of knot on the face and any type of knot on the edge is permissible. Surface checking is permissible

6

Determining board properties Using these grading method, three 120 mm wide and three 140 mm wide boards of each grade and species were selected for MOE and MOR testing, except for grade 1 where there was insufficient boards. The details of the boards are listed in Appendix 3 and 4. Bending tests were conducted in accordance with AS4063.1 (SAA 2010b) on the selected boards in the Centre for Sustainable Architecture with Wood (CSAW) workshop. Figure 5 shows a board in testing. The MOE and MOR results are shown in Appendix 3 and 4 for the E. nitens and E. globulus boards respectively.

Determining properties of panels formed through nail and glue lamination E. nitens and E. globulus boards were randomly selected and vertically laminated into floor panels using nail and glue laminating methods. Standard 75mm nails and a nail gun were used to build the nail laminated panels. To determine the nail spacing, tests were conducted to check the splitting performance of the hardwood boards under nail drilling and the shear performance of the nails during push through tests. AD317 water resistant PVA wood glue was used for glue laminated panels. The bond performance between the boards was tested during push through tests. Six laminated floor panels (three for each resource) for each configuration were tested. Four-point-bending tests of the assembled panels were conducted under the serviceability and ultimate loading conditions. The MOE and MOR results were compared with those of the individual boards. To investigate the concrete toping in terms of

Figure 7 Bending test of an E. nitens board

Figure 6 Visual stress grading of boards

7

improving the structural performance of the floor panels, push through tests were conducted for the capacity of the shear connectors.

Nail laminated samples

To test the splitting performance, E. nitens and E. globulus boards were nail laminated for push through tests. Figure 8 shows the nail laminated samples.

   (a)  (b) 

Figure 8 Nail laminated samples for push through tests (a) Nailed samples (b) Laminating of a sample

with a nail gun 75mm x 3.06mm D-headed strip nails were used to assembled the samples. Nail rows were at 150mm centre to centre with 75mm offset on the alternative side. No splitting of the boards during assembly was observed. Push through tests were conducted. Figure 2 shows detailed dimensions and a sample after testing.

(a) 

 

 (b)  (c) 

Figure 9 . Push through test of nail laminated samples (a) Sample dimensions (b) nailing pattern (c) shear

failure of the nails in a push through test

8

Glue laminated samples

To test the suitability of the AD317 water resistant PVA wood glue, 8 push through samples were prepared with detailed dimensions shown in Figure 10. The load was applied in the same direction as the grains of the board.

 

 

(a)  (b) 

Shear capacity between the laminated boards and concrete

To test the capacity of screws as shear connectors for timber-concrete composite floors, eight push through samples were prepared. Countersunk Rig Head 10.8x75mm screws were used as shear connectors. Four samples were prepared for E. nitens and E. globulus respectively with different screw spacing and configurations. Figure 11 shows detailed configurations of the samples.

 

 

(a)

Figure 10 Push through test of glue laminated samples (a) Sample dimensions (b) push through test set up

9

   (b)  (c) 

Figure 11 Push through test samples with shear connectors for concrete top up (a) detailed dimensions (b)

with dimples and screws (c) samples ready for push through tests Screws as shear connectors were fixed on the samples on the alternative boards with a spacing of 100mm, 150mm and 200mm respectively. Dimples with 20mm in depth and diameter were drilled on one sample for each species with a spacing of 150mm and at the positions with a 50mm offset from the screw positions as shown in Figure 11(b).

2.5m span nail and glue laminated panels for MOE and MOR testing

To compare the structural performance of the nail limited floor panels with that of single boards, twelve 120mm wide x 2.5m long boards were nail laminated or glue laminated to form a panel. Three panels were nail laminated with another three being glue laminated for each species. The board details are listed in Table 3.

Table 3 Details of 2.5m span boards for lamination Species Section depth

(mm) Board length (mm)

Number of board pieces

Number of laminated samples

Lamination setup

Nitens 120 2500 48 6 Figure 12

Globulus 120 2500 48 6 Figure 12

Boards were randomly selected and cut to 2.5m long. Nail rows were installed at 150 mm centre to centre and offset 75mm for alternative boards in a panel as shown in Figure 12(c). 75mm x 3.06 mm nails and a nail gun were used for nail lamination. The AD317 water resistant PVA wood glue was used for glue lamination. Sufficient glue was applied on both the surfaces. Pressure was applied through a screw press. The clamp pressure was kept for more than 6 hours.

(a)

10

 

 (b)  (c) 

Figure 12 Configuration of nail and glue laminated panel (a) panel dimensions (b) cross-sectional

dimensions (c) nail pattern used for nail lamination Bending tests were conducted in accordance with AS/NZS4063.1 (SAA 2010a). The test setup is shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13 Panel bending test configuration Each sample were tested to failure with the loading rate making sure samples failed in 2 to 5 minutes. The load and the deflection in the mid-span were recorded. The MOE and MOR of the panels were determined.

3.6m and 4.8m span nail laminated panels for MOE and MOR testing

Twelve panels with the span of 3.6m and two panels with the span of 4.8m were nail laminated for MOE and MOR testing. The board dimensions and species details are listed in Appendix 5. The details of each sample are shown in Appendix 6. Nail rows were at 150 mm centre to centre and offset 75mm for alternative boards in a panel as shown in Figure 14. 75mm x 3.06 mm nails and a nail gun were used for nail lamination.

11

Samples S1-S4 were laminated with boards of 70mm and 90mm in width. Grade 32 concrete was casted on the top of the laminated samples to form timber-concrete composite beams. Figure 15 (a) shows the cross-sectional dimensions of Samples S1-S4. Samples S7-S8 and S11-S14 were laminated with boards of 140mm in width. Grade 32 concrete was casted on the top of the laminated samples to form timber-concrete composite beams. The cross-sectional dimensions of these samples is shown in Figure 15 (b).

Figure 14 Nail pattern used for nail lamination of 3.6m and 4.8m span samples

  

(a)  (b) 

Figure 15 Cross-sectional dimensions of timber-concrete composite panels (a) Samples S1 to S4 (b) Samples S7, S8 and S11 to S14

12

A single row of Rothoblaas VB connectors, 7.5x100x155mm, were installed on the panels in the range of 1/3 of the span from each end of a support. VB connectors were fixed at an angle of 45o with the spacing of 200mm.

Figure 16 Installation of VB shear connectors A layer of Bondall Bondcrete was painted on the top surface of the nail laminated panels to prevent moisture entering into the timber boards after concreting. A layer of steel mesh (150x150 spacing and 5mm in diameter) was fixed to the shear connectors. Figure 17 shows the panels after concrete was cast. They were cured inside for 28 days before MOE and MOR testing.

13

Figure 17 Timber-concrete composite panels

14

Results and discussion

MOE and MOR of E. nitens and E. globulus single boards The MOE and MOR results of the 26 pieces E. nitens and 30 pieces E. globulus boards are listed in Appendix 3 and 4 respectively, The MOE values for boards of both species are plotted versus the grade group number in Figures 18 and 19. Statistical analysis was conducted in accordance with AS/NZS 4063.2 (SAA 2010b), the MOE values of 10748MPa and 11075MPa were obtained for E. nitens and E. globulus respectively.

Figure 18 MOE of E. nitens boards vs the grade group

Figure 19 MOE of E. globulus boards vs the grade group

15

The MOR values for boards of both species are plotted in Figures 20 and 21 versus the grade group number. Based on the statistical analysis, the MOR values were 20.4MPa and 20.3MPa for E. nitens and E. globulus respectively. From the MOE and MOR values, the boards showed F7 performance limited by MOR. Although the boards were assessed as low grade timber based on the tested MOE and MOR results, the structural performance of the laminated panels with the blend of these boards were improved that can be seen from the laminated panel testing. The MOE data obtained were compared with those of laminated panels later in this report. No apparent correlation between the grade groups and the MOE or MOR was observed.

Figure 20 MOR of E. nitens boards vs the grade group

Figure 21 MOR of E. globulus boards vs the grade group

16

The MOE values obtained from the bending test were compared with the MOE values predicted using the log AWV in Appendices 7 and 8 for E. nitens and E. globulus respectively. Figures 22 and 23 show the ratios of (MOE)test / (MOE)AWV versus the grade group number for E. nitens and E. globulus boards respectively.

Figure 22 Ratios of (MOE)test / (MOE)AWV versus the grade group number for E. nitens

Figure 23 Ratios of (MOE)test / (MOE)AWV versus the grade group number for E. globulus

17

The average (MOE)test / (MOE)AWV ratios of 1.06 and 0.97 were obtained for E. nitens and E. globulus respectively with the standard deviation of 0.162 and 0.189. While log AWV and the green density can be used to predict the average MOE of a batch of boards, it has up to 40% potential error when using the AWV alone to predict the MOE of individual boards. Further testing is needed to compare the MOE values obtained from log AWV and from board bending tests. Figure 24 shows that the typical failure mode of the boards in bending was in tension on the underside of the board.

Figure 24 Typical failure mode of E. nitens and E. globulus single boards

MOE and MOR of E. nitens and E. globulus laminated panels

Push through test results of nail and glue laminated samples

Consistent shear capacity of the nails used for the nail lamination was obtained. The results are listed in Table 4. It can be seen that the shear capacity of each nail was about 2kN.

Table 4 Push through test results (nail laminated samples)

Label Species Number of Nails Maximum load (kN) Shear capacity (kN/nail)

G1 E. globulus 3x2 + 4x2 = 14 33 2.4

G2 E. globulus 3x2 + 4x2 = 14 31 2.2

N1 E. nitens 3x2 + 4x2 = 14 29 2.1

N2 E. nitens 3x2 + 4x2 = 14 32 2.3

18

All glue laminated samples failed inside the timber near the bond line rather than in the interface between the bonded boards. Figure 25 shows the failure mode of the samples. The test results are listed in Table 5. The PVA glue is suitable for this application as the wood failure percentage is 100%. Tests were also conducted on samples with a load being applied perpendicular to the wood fibres of the glued samples. No bond failure was observed.

   

Figure 25 Failure mode of glue laminated samples after push through test

Table 5 Push through test results (glue laminated samples)

MOE and MOR of 2.5m span nail and glue laminated panels

The MOE and MOR values of the tested panels are listed in Appendix 9, and plotted in Figures 26 and 27 respectively together with those of the single boards with the same span.

Label Species Board width

(mm) Bond length

(mm) Max load

(kN) Shear strength

(MPa)

G1 E. globulus 120 100 89.5 3.7 

G2 E. globulus 120 100 98.5  4.1 

G3 E. globulus 120 100 110.5 4.6 

G4 E. globulus 120 100 92 3.8 

N1 E. nitens 120 100 91 3.8 

N2 E. nitens 120 100 124 5.2 

N3 E. nitens 120 100 73 3.0 

N4 E. nitens 120 100 108 4.5 

19

Figure 26 Comparison of MOE of the laminated panels with the MOE of the single boards

20

Figure 27 Comparison of MOR of the laminated panels with the MOR of the single boards It can be seen from Figure 26 and 27 that the MOE and MOR of the laminated samples are more consistent than those the single boards for both species. It demonstrated that the lamination makes all the boards in a panel work together to carry the loads, i.e., the high-quality boards carry more load while the boards with strength reducing features carry less. As a result, the grade of each species is increased due to the increase of the overall performance in average effective stress. The range of MOE and MOR values of the boards and panels are listed in Table 6. It can be seen that the MOE is between 11.5 and 12.9GPa for E. globulus laminated panels, while the

21

MOE of globulus single boards are scattered between 5.9 and 15.6GPa. The MOE of E. nitens laminated panels is between 9.4 and 11.2GPa, while the MOE of E. nitens single boards is between 8.3 and 15.9GPa.

Table 6 Comparison of MOE and MOR of laminated panels and single boards

MOE (GPa) MOR (MPa) Stress

grade Min Max Mean COV Min Max Mean COV

E. globulus

Laminated panel

11.5 12.9 12.2 0.045 47.8 65.8 56.6 0.120 F11

Single boards

5.9 15.6 11.2 0.165 16.6 68.7 45.1 0.271 F7

E. nitens

Laminated panel

9.4 11.2 10.2 0.062 40.7 57.2 46.9 0.129 F8

Single boards

8.3 15.9 11.0 0.167 15.1 73.4 44.3 0.296 F7

From these test results, it is evident that the laminated panels improved the overall species performance when compared to single boards. The variability of individual boards is evened out through load sharing in the panel, resulting in a better panel stress grade. It should be noted that the panels were formed with randomly selected boards with greatly scattered MOE and MOR values. Based on the limited number of laminated panels tested, the E. nitens and E. globulus panels could be classified as F8 and F11 respectively controlled by MOE, while the single boards of both nitens and globulus were classified as F7 controlled by MOR. No significant difference in MOE and MOR was observed for panels laminated using the nail and glue laminated methods, except that the MOR of nail laminated E. nitens panels was smaller than that of glue laminated E. nitens panels. This may be due to the fact that failure happened along the nails with the current nail pattern and the spacing of 150mm. Figure 28 shows the failure mode of the panels.

(a)

22

(b)

Figure 28 Failure modes of 2.5m span laminated panels (a) Glue laminated E. globulus panel (b) Nail laminated E. nitens panel

MOE and MOR of 3.3m and 4.6m span nail and glue laminated panels with concrete cast on the top of the panels

Push through test results of laminated timber and concrete composite samples

Push through tests were conducted on the laminated samples as shown in Figure 29. Figure 30 shows the failure mode of the samples.

Figure 29 . Push through test for shear capacity between concrete and timber panels

23

   (a)  (b) 

Figure 30 Failure mode of samples (a) without dimples (b) with dimples

Table 7 Push through test results for shear capacity between concrete and timber panels (screw shear connectors)

Label Species Screw spacing (mm)

and configuration Max Load (kN) Shear

capacity/screw (kN/screw)

NC-1 Nitens 4@150 with dimple 126.2 5.3

GC-1 Globulus 4@150 with dimple 125.3 5.2

NC-2 Nitens 4@150 102.8 4.3

GC-2 Globulus 4@150 103.1 4.3

NC-3 Nitens 3@200 81.2 4.5

GC-3 Globulus 3@200 85.2 4.7

NC-4 Nitens 6@100 158.5 4.4

GC-4 Globulus 6@100 160.7 4.5

The shear capacities of the screws are shown in Figure 31. It can be seen from Figure 31 that the shear capacity is around 4.3kN per screw. The dimples increased the shear capacity by 20%.

24

Figure 31 Comparison of the shear capacity of the screws with different configurations

Bending tests results for MOE and MOR of timber-concrete laminated panels

Bending tests were conducted on the laminated panels with the spans of 3.3m and 4.6m. Figure 32 shows a panel in testing.

Figure 32 Bending test of timber-concrete composite panels

25

A dial gauge was fixed on each end of a panel to measure the slip between the concrete and the timber panel as shown in Figure 33. No slip between the concrete and the timber panels was observed when loading up to 40% of the ultimate load. Based on this observation, it is evident that the concrete and timber components work together as a composite beam through the VB shear connector under service loading condition. The MOE values were determined with the section dimensions: 280x200 (width x depth). The MOE and MOR results are listed in Table 8.

Figure 33 Dial gauge for the measurement of slip between concrete and timber panel

Table 8 MOE and MOR of 3.3m and 4.6m span laminated panels Label Species Span (m) Timber panel

depth (mm) Section type MOE

(MPa) MOR (MPa)

N140_NC_1 E. nitens 3.3 140 Timber 10942.3 34.5

N140_NC_2 E. nitens 3.3 140 Timber 11206.9 37.9

G140_NC_1 E. globulus 3.3 140 Timber 11929.8 48.1

G140_NC_2 E. globulus 3.3 140 Timber 10473.5 34.3

N140_C_1 E. nitens 3.3 140 Timber-concrete 13504.5 55.7

N140_C_2 E. nitens 3.3 140 Timber-concrete 13179.2 52.1

G140_C_1 E. globulus 3.3 140 Timber-concrete 15051.5 52.5

G140_C_2 E. globulus 3.3 140 Timber-concrete 14343.3 54.3

N70_90_1 E. nitens 3.3 70/90 Timber-concrete 12211.4 48.3

N70_90_2 E. nitens 3.3 70/90 Timber-concrete 12927.4 49.4

G70_90_1 E. globulus 3.3 70/90 Timber-concrete 12990.1 41.0

G70_90_2 E. globulus 3.3 70/90 Timber-concrete 13371.0 49.2

N140_C_4.6 E. nitens 4.6 140 Timber-concrete 13547.0 50.7

G140_C_4.6 E. globulus 4.6 140 Timber-concrete 13921.2 42.6

Note: Label N140 refers to E. nitens boards with the cross-sectional dimension of 140x35. Label G140 refers to E. globulus boards with the cross-sectional dimension of 140x35. Letter ‘C’ refers to Concrete. Letters ‘NC’ refer to without concrete. All concreted panels were 200mm deep.

26

The MOE values of the tested panels are plotted in Figures 34. Consistent with the other panels tested, it can be seen that the MOE of nail laminated panels without concrete was about 11.1GPa on average, while the MOE of the composite panels, that consist of nail laminated panels laminated with 140mm depth boards and 60mm thick concrete, is around 13.9GPa on average. The MOE of the composite panels was increased by 25% compared with the non-composite laminated panels. The MOE of the 200mm composite panels nail laminated with 70mm and 90mm boards is about 12.9GPa.

Figure 34 Comparison of MOE of timber-panels with and without concrete The load carried by the timber-concrete composite panels fluctuated when the Rothoblaas VB shear connectors reached their shear capacities, causing excessive shear slip between timber and concrete. The composite effect decreased as the load increased, until timber panels broke when the ultimate load was reached. Figure 35 shows the typical failure mode of timber-concrete composite panels, in which cracks were developed in the timber boards while separation between the timber panel and concrete can be clearly observed. Due to the composite effect, higher ultimate loads were achieved for composite panels than the timber panels without concrete. However, with the failure of VB connectors at the final stage of testing, only a certain percentage of the composite effect exists. The percentage of composite effect of the timber-concrete composite panels can be determined by comparing the MORs of both composite and non-composite panels. Figure 36 shows the MOR values of the tested panels with and without concrete. The MOR of the four 3.3m span panels with concrete was around 53.6MPa on average, while the MOR of the four 3.3m span panels without concrete was about 38.7 on average. The composite effect caused the MOR of the timber panels increased by around 39%. It should be noticed that while the MOE was calculated based on panel depth of 200mm, the MOR values listed in Table 7 and plotted in Figure 36 were calculated based on the section depth of 140mm, i.e., the timber panels only due to the failure of the shear connectors. With the increased MOE and MOR values, the timber-

27

concrete panels have the structural properties that are equivalent to timber boards with a F14 performance.

Figure 35 Typical failure mode of timber-concrete composite panels

Figure 36 Comparison of MOR of timber-concrete composite panels

28

Conclusions Based on the test results, the following conclusions are reached:

The 15 years old unthinned and unpruned plantation E. nitens and 26 years old E. globulus logs can be milled into 38mm thick hardwood boards using the back sawing strategy and industrial standardised seasoning procedures with the recovery rate of 25.8% and 31.8% respectively. As the cutting pattern for the trial was confined to a limited number of sizes to create an adequate volume of timber in sizes appropriate for testing the suitability of the fibre for laminating end sections for high mass flooring, the overall recovery from log was not a priority. Sawing equipment was not optimised for recovery.

No useful correlation between the grading system used and MOE and MOR was found. The MOE/MOR results from each grade groups suggest that visually grading of fibre-managed plantation eucalypt timber using conventional grading systems might not be a reliable method. In such a resource that is generally managed for pulp production, apart from any other strength-reducing features, factors such as density, slope of grain especially in long boards, and amount of juvenile wood can significantly impact the strength and stiffness of the boards. These factors are not easily visually measurable at the mill. Hence, when these factors are not considered, a timber board with a high percentage of clear wood will not guarantee a high strength or stiffness.

Based on statistical analysis, the MOE values of 10748MPa and 11075MPa were obtained for E. nitens and E. globulus respectively. The MOR values were 20.4MPa and 20.3MPa for E. nitens and E. globulus respectively. The wood has a F7 performance if used in a scantling product limited by MOR.

While log AWV and the green density can be used to predict the average MOE of a batch of boards it has however up to 40% potential error when using the AWV alone to predict the MOE of individual boards. Further testing is needed to compare the MOE values.

The E. nitens and E. globulus boards can be glue laminated to form GLT floor panels using the AD317 water resistant PVA wood glue. Push through test results showed that wood failure percentage is 100%, suggesting that glues from PVA up is suitable for glue lamination of the panels.

The nail and glue laminated E. nitens and E. globulus panels improved the average structural performance of the species. All panels were formed with randomly selected boards with scattered MOE and MOR values. Based on the limited number of laminated panels tested, the E. nitens and E. globulus panels could be classified as F8 and F11 respectively controlled by MOE.

The MOE and MOR of the timber-concrete composite panels were increased by 25% and 39% to 13.9GPa and 53.6MPa respectively when 60mm thick concrete was cast and VB shear connectors were fixed on the panels compared with those of the non-composite laminated timber panels. With the increased MOE and MOR values, the timber-concrete panels have the structural properties equivalent to timber boards with a F14 performance.

With these results and conclusions, the objectives set out in the beginning of this project were achieved that: plantation E. nitens and E. globulus boards are suitable to be used for the development of

commodity-based high mass timber floor products

29

there are limitations in using non-destructive methods (log AWV measurements) in determining timber structural performance

the structural performance of nail laminated and glue laminated floor panels outperformed the individual boards as the variability of individual boards is evened out through load sharing in a panel.

Nevertheless, there are observations in this project that brought about some other questions that need to be addressed. These are raised as future work in the next section.

30

Further work

The boards were visually graded and divided into five grade groups. However, no apparent correlation between the grade groups and the MOE or MOR was observed. Some features, such as live knots, did not appear to affect the strength of the boards as a group. More work needs to be done to find other effective grading factors, such as board density, to improve the grading rules.

All panels were laminated with randomly selected boards of full length. No docking on boards was conducted. It would be interesting to use clear boards though eliminating certain features by docking. The panels can be formed by finger joints.

The push through test did not indicate long term performance of the glue. Long term assessment of gluing approaches is needed.

31

References ABARE (2013). Australia’s State of the Forests Report. Five-yearly report, Prepared by the Montreal Process Implementation Group for Australia and the National Forest Inventory Steering Committee on behalf of the Australian, state and territory governments. Baxter, S. (2014). Low-grade solid-timber systems for residential construction. Honours Project thesis, University of Tasmania. Farrell, R. and Nolan, G. (2008). Sorting plantation Eucalyptus nitens logs with acoustic wave velocity. Project report: PN07.3810, Forest & Wood Products Australia. Hague, J. (2013). Utilisation of plantation eucalypts in engineered wood products. Forest & Wood Products Australia Ltd, Project No. PNB290-1112. Hamilton, J. (2014). Use of Low Grade Timber in Residential Flooring Systems. Honours Project thesis, University of Tasmania. Hunt, M. (2014). Overview of National Institute for Future Forest Industries projects and research. Forestry as a career (Tas Div) presentation, Institute of Foresters of Australia, http://www.forestry.org.au/ifa-events/forestry-as-a-career-event-presentations. Kolb, J. (2008). SYSTEMS IN TIMBER ENGINEERING : LOADBEARING STRUCTURES AND COMPONENT LAYERS. Natterer, J. (2015). What is Brettstapel? http://www.brettstapel.org/Brettstapel/What_is_it.html. Robertson (2015). Vibration Assessment of Lightweight, Composite Timber Slabs Without Auxiliary Supports. Honours Project thesis, University of Tasmania. SAA (2010a). Characterization of structural timber Part 1: Test methods, AS/NZS 4063.1. Standards Australia. SAA (2010b). Characterization of structural timber Part 2: Determination of characteristic values, AS/NZS 4063.2. Standards Australia. Sandoz, J. L. (2004). Horizontal timber slab from 4 m to 18 meters free span. The 8th World Conference on Timber Engineering, 89. Shanks, J. (2014). Developing low-grade solid-timber systems for residential construction. Centre for Sustainable Architecture with Wood, School of Architecture & Design, University of Tasmania. Washusen, R. (2013). Processing methods for production of solid wood products from plantation - grown Eucalyptus species of importance to Australia. Forest & Wood Products Australia Ltd, Project No. FWPA PNB291-1112A.

32

Appendix

Appendix 1 Log measurement data (E. globulus) Log No 

Length (m) 

SED (m) 

LED(m) 

AWV (km/s) 

Disk weight (kg) 

Disk thickness (m) 

disk volume (m3)  Green density (kg/m3)  log volume (m3)  Log end colour code 

1  5.54  0.403  0.482  3.27  12.4  0.09  0.011  1080.1  0.859  Orange/yellow 

2  5.51  0.354  0.403  3.46  12.2  0.09  0.011  1062.7  0.623  Orange/blue 

3  5.58  0.394  0.476  3.16          0.837  Orange/green 

4  5.56  0.535  0.714  3.13          1.738  Orange/white 

5  5.51  0.363  0.43  3.1  8.4  0.08  0.008  1014.6  0.685  Orange/black 

6  5.56  0.338  0.385  3.44  7.8  0.08  0.007  1086.6  0.573  Orange/silver(grey) 

7  5.55  0.497  0.651  3.15          1.462  Orange/purple 

8  5.55  0.389  0.438  3.07  10.6  0.08  0.010  1114.9  0.748  yellow/blue 

9  5.52  0.397  0.446  3.34          0.773  yellow/green 

10  5.54  0.331  0.382  3.38          0.556  yellow/white 

11  5.55  0.476  0.602  2.94          1.284  yellow/black 

12  5.51  0.379  0.437  3.44          0.724  yellow/pink 

13  5.53  0.437  0.478  3.68  18.8  0.1  0.018  1047.6  0.911  yellow/purple 

14  5.53  0.467  0.561  3.29          1.157  blue/green 

15  5.54  0.495  0.576  3.56          1.255  blue/white 

16  5.52  0.382  0.434  3.49          0.725  blue/black 

17  5.52  0.434  0.506  3.26          0.963  blue/pink 

18  5.54  0.464  0.629  3.43  13.4  0.08  0.014  990.6  1.329  blue/purple 

19  5.54  0.355  0.428  3.61          0.673  green/white 

20  5.51  0.417  0.464  3.69          0.842  green/black 

21  5.53  0.315  0.369  3.5          0.511  green/pink 

22  5.53  0.403  0.484  3.11  9.4  0.075  0.010  982.6  0.861  green/purple 

23  5.53  0.398  0.49  3.4  15.2  0.08  0.015  1007.6  0.865  white/black 

33

24  5.55  0.37  0.443  3.2          0.726  white/pink 

25  5.56  0.38  0.434  3.08          0.727  white/purple 

26  5.53  0.328  0.38  3.68          0.547  black/pink 

27  5.55  0.325  0.382  3.64  5.8  0.07  0.006  998.8  0.548  black/purple 

28  5.55  0.542  0.705  3.15          1.724  pink/purple 

29  5.55  0.364  0.437  3.25          0.705  black/no color 

30  5.55  0.359  0.422  3.51  8.2  0.08  0.008  1012.6  0.669  pink/no color 

31  5.5  0.444  0.51  3.2          0.988  blue/no color 

32  5.55  0.355  0.438  3.62          0.693  green/no color 

33  5.5  0.395  0.465  3.51          0.804  yellow/no color 

Appendix 2 Log measurement data (E. nitens) Log No 

Length (m) 

LED (m) 

SED (mm) 

Disk weight (kg) 

Log volume (m3)  AWV (km/s) 

Disk thickness (mm) 

Green density (kg/m3)  End colour code 

1  5.55  0.345  0.288    0.440  3.49      Orange 

2  5.41  0.384  0.322  10.6  0.534  3.35  80.8  1133.5  Yellow 

3  5.51  0.35  0.288    0.445  3.54      Blue 

4  5.55  0.39  0.293    0.519  3.28      Green 

5  5.55  0.424  0.35    0.659  3.36      Pink 

6  5.54  0.367  0.337    0.540  3.25      Black 

7  5.54  0.391  0.326    0.564  3.14      White 

8  5.56  0.403  0.332    0.595  3.41      Grey 

9  5.53  0.415  0.343    0.629  3.42      Orange/Yellow 

10  5.49  0.502  0.391    0.873  3.04      Orange/Blue 

11  5.56  0.389  0.347    0.593  3.56      Orange/Green 

12  5.53  0.404  0.315    0.570  3.16      Orange/Pink 

13  5.52  0.546  0.418    1.025  3.05      Orange/Black 

14  5.51  0.427  0.348    0.657  3.31      Orange/White 

15  5.51  0.422  0.331    0.622  3.33      Orange/Grey 

16  5.52  0.463  0.385    0.786  3.1      Orange/Gold 

17  5.49  0.405  0.314    0.566  3.53      Yellow/Blue 

34

18  5.535  0.477  0.368    0.789  3.27      Yellow/Green 

19  5.55  0.46  0.375    0.768  3.25      Yellow/Pink 

20  5.51  0.5  0.4    0.887  3.18      Yellow/Black 

21  5.52  0.39  0.303    0.529  3.08      Yellow/White 

22  5.52  0.45  0.321    0.662  2.9      Yellow/Grey 

23  5.52  0.403  0.312    0.563  3      Yellow/Gold 

24  5.49  0.454  0.38    0.756  3.09      Blue/Green 

25  5.52  0.471  0.343    0.736  3      Blue/Pink 

26  5.54  0.539  0.423    1.021  3.04      Blue/Black 

27  5.46  0.371  0.289  3  0.474  3.38  46.0  994.2  Blue/White 

28  5.5  0.416  0.359    0.652  3.51      Blue/Grey 

29  5.45  0.415  0.336  4.6  0.610  3.17  52.5  988.2  Blue/Gold 

30  5.51  0.468  0.358    0.751  3      Green/Pink 

31  5.47  0.341  0.297  3.6  0.439  3.26  50.0  1039.3  Green/Black 

32  5.51  0.412  0.325  3.8  0.596  3.07  41.5  1103.8  Green/White 

33  5.52  0.392  0.32    0.555  3.16      Green/Grey 

34  5.52  0.47  0.371    0.777  3.21      Green/Gold 

35  5.58  0.505  0.417    0.940  3.16      Pink/Black 

36  5.47  0.408  0.317  7.6  0.573  3.13  52.5  1107.2  Pink/White 

37  5.41  0.438  0.35  4.8  0.668  3.27  51.0  978.2  Pink/Grey 

38  5.48  0.416  0.327    0.603  3.01      Pink/Gold 

39  5.385  0.448  0.338  6.8  0.666  3.48  70.0  1082.6  Black/White 

40  5.44  0.398  0.325  4.4  0.564  3.29  52.0  1020.0  Black/Grey 

41  5.56  0.459  0.368    0.756  3.02      Black/Gold 

42  5.53  0.46  0.383    0.778  3.06      White/Grey 

43  5.485  0.484  0.377  5.4  0.811  3.29  50.0  967.5  White/Gold 

44  5.49  0.47  0.365    0.763  3.04      Grey/Gold 

35

Appendix 3 Bending test results (E. nitens boards)

Label  E (MPa)  fb (MPa)  Grade group 

N120_057_A  10854.8  44.3  1 

N140_217_A  11306.8  40.2  1 

N120_020_B  11985.1  56.9  2 

N120_013_B  8816.1  15.1  2 

N120_024_B  10867.3  56.8  2 

N140_151_B  10012.8  51.8  2 

N140_224_B  10943.6  36.3  2 

N140_192_B  12838.3  54.9  2 

N120_038_C  10147.6  49.1  3 

N120_019_C  9985.8  34.8  3 

N120_015_C  9538.5  22.5  3 

N140_125_C  11714.4  48.0  3 

N140_182_C  10141.5  56.7  3 

N140_231_C  10718.1  45.4  3 

N120_039_D  12840.5  58.4  4 

N120_043_D  15943.7  74.3  4 

N120_059_D  8323.9  24.1  4 

N140_223_D  10011.0  37.5  4 

N140_207_D  9528.1  39.9  4 

N140_194_D  12567.7  41.5  4 

N120_050_E  12249.5  50.9  5 

N120_055_E  12193.3  53.9  5 

N120_058_E  8269.5  30.2  5 

N140_222_E  15046.8  57.3  5 

N140_226_E  9346.8  30.3  5 

N140_227_E  9639.2  40.4  5 

Note: Label N120 refers to E. nitens boards with the cross-sectional dimension of 120x35

N140 refers to E. nitens boards with the cross-sectional dimension of 140x35

36

Appendix 4 Bending test results (E. globulus boards)

Label  E (MPa)  fb (MPa)  Grade group 

G120_065_A  12031.6  50.3  1 

G120_071_A  11053.2  47.1  1 

G120_051_A  10686.6  20.5  1 

G140_107_A  11024.2  47.9  1 

G140_073_A  13965.1  60.9  1 

G140_111_A  12588.7  46.2  1 

G120_088_B  10812.7  45.2  2 

G120_083_B  15563.0  68.7  2 

G120_082_B  5867.0  16.6  2 

G140_108_B  14444.6  68.1  2 

G140_106_B  13159.8  58.6  2 

G140_090_B  12563.4  55.6  2 

G120_089_C  11310.0  43.7  3 

G120_085_C  9457.0  24.6  3 

G120_092_C  9184.4  36.8  3 

G140_114_C  12649.9  30.4  3 

G140_99_C  12385.2  58.7  3 

G140_117_C  10894.2  52.6  3 

G120_091_D  9452.1  52.5  4 

G120_064_D  14949.2  64.1  4 

G120_086_D  10002.9  41.9  4 

G140_97_D  7877.4  32.1  4 

G140_101_D  10254.3  38.8  4 

G140_105_D  10597.9  49.0  4 

G120_074_E  10283.8  39.6  5 

G120_080_E  11674.2  48.6  5 

G120_090_E  10784.8  34.4  5 

G140_109_E  11712.5  49.4  5 

G140_113_E  12030.1  50.6  5 

G140_095_E  10867.0  43.4  5 

Note: Label G120 refers to E. globulus boards with the cross-sectional dimension of 120x35

G140 refers to E. globulus boards with the cross-sectional dimension of 140x35

37

Appendix 5 Board details for 3.6m and 4.8m span panels

species  Board width (mm) 

Board length (mm) 

Number of boards 

E. nitens 

70  3600  8 

90  3600  8 

140  3600  32 

140  4800  8 

E. globulus 

70  3600  8 

90  3600  8 

140  3600  32 

140  4800  8 

38

Appendix 6 Sample details of 3.6m and 4.8m nail laminated panels Label  Board 

widths Panel length (m) 

No of panels 

Configuration  No of connectors 

Panel depth (mm) 

N70/90  70 and 90  3.6  2  With concrete  40  200 

G70/90  70 and 90  3.6  2  With concrete  40  200 

N140_NC  140  3.6  2  No concrete    200 N140_C  140  3.6  2  With concrete  40  200 G140_NC  140  3.6  2  No concrete    200 G140_C  140  3.6  2  With concrete  40  200 N140_4.8  140  4.8  1  With concrete  30  200 G140_4.8  140  4.8  1  With concrete  30  200

Note: Label N70/90 refers to E. nitens boards with the cross-sectional dimension of 70x35 and 90x35. Label N140 refers to E. nitens boards with the cross-sectional dimension of 140x35. Label G140 refers to E. globulus boards with the cross-sectional dimension of 140x35. Letter ‘C’ refers to Concrete. Letters ‘NC’ refer to without concrete.

39

Appendix 7 Comparison of MOE values obtained from the bending test and the MOE values predicted using the log AWV (E. nitens) E. nitens  Stick  MOEtest (MPa)  fb (MPa)  Group  Board number  Depth  Log number  MOEAWV (MPa)  MOEtest/MOEAWV 

N120_057_A  6  10854.8  44.3  A  57  120  26  9625  1.13 

N140_217_A  16  11306.8  40.2  A  217  140  42  9752  1.16 

N120_020_B  1  11985.1  56.9  B  20  120  26  9625  1.25 

N120_013_B  11  8816.1  15.1  B  13  120  13  9688  0.91 

N120_024_B  13  10867.3  56.8  B  24  120  30  9373  1.16 

N140_151_B  14  10012.8  51.8  B  151  140  24  9944  1.01 

N140_224_B  21  10943.6  36.3  B  224  140  30  9373  1.17 

N140_192_B  25  12838.3  54.9  B  192  140  33  10399  1.23 

N120_038_C  7  10147.6  49.1  C  38  120  13  9688  1.05 

N120_019_C  8  9985.8  34.8  C  19  120  42  9752  1.02 

N120_015_C  12  9538.5  22.5  C  15  120  7  10268  0.93 

N140_125_C  15  11714.4  48.0  C  125  140  6  11000  1.06 

N140_182_C  19  10141.5  56.7  C  182  140  42  9752  1.04 

N140_231_C  23  10718.1  45.4  C  231  140  30  9373  1.14 

N120_039_D  3  12840.5  58.4  D  39  120  39  12612  1.02 

N120_043_D  4  15943.7  74.3  D  43  120  11  13199  1.21 

N120_059_D  5  8323.9  24.1  D  59  120  24  9944  0.84 

N140_223_D  17  10011.0  37.5  D  223  140  33  10399  0.96 

N140_207_D  20  9528.1  39.9  D  207  140  36  10203  0.93 

N140_194_D  24  12567.7  41.5  D  194  140  44  9625  1.31 

N120_050_E  2  12249.5  50.9  E  50  120  14  11410  1.07 

N120_055_E  9  12193.3  53.9  E  55  120  2  11688  1.04 

N120_058_E  10  8269.5  30.2  E  58  120  24  9944  0.83 

N140_222_E  18  15046.8  57.3  E  222  140  24  9944  1.51 

N140_226_E  22  9346.8  30.3  E  226  140  31  11068  0.84 

N140_227_E  26  9639.2  40.4  E  227  140  43  11273  0.86 

Mean                  1.06 

40

COV                  0.162 

Appendix 8 Comparison of MOE values obtained from the bending test and the MOE values predicted using the log AWV (E. globulus) E. globulus  Stick  E (MPa)  fb (MPa)  Grade  Board number  Depth    MOE AWV (Mpa)  MOEtest/MOEAWV 

G120_065_A  5  12031.6  50.3  A  65  120  31  10611  1.13 

G120_071_A  11  11053.2  47.1  A  71  120  23  11979  0.92 

G120_051_A  14  10686.6  20.5  A  51  120  15  13133  0.81 

G140_107_A  24  11024.2  47.9  A  107  140  29  10945  1.01 

G140_073_A  29  13965.1  60.9  A  73  140  17  11013  1.27 

G140_111_A  30  12588.7  46.2  A  111  140  11  8957  1.41 

G120_088_B  7  10812.7  45.2  B  88  120  32  13579  0.80 

G120_083_B  10  15563.0  68.7  B  83  120  33  12767  1.22 

G120_082_B  15  5867.0  16.6  B  82  120  29  10945  0.54 

G140_108_B  19  14444.6  68.1  B  108  140  33  12767  1.13 

G140_106_B  26  13159.8  58.6  B  106  140  4  10152  1.30 

G140_090_B  28  12563.4  55.6  B  90  140  17  11013  1.14 

G120_089_C  2  11310.0  43.7  C  89  120  32  13579  0.83 

G120_085_C  8  9457.0  24.6  C  85  120  30  12767  0.74 

G120_092_C  13  9184.4  36.8  C  92  120  31  10611  0.87 

G140_114_C  21  12649.9  30.4  C  114  140  29  10945  1.16 

G140_99_C  25  12385.2  58.7  C  99  140  26  14033  0.88 

G140_117_C  27  10894.2  52.6  C  117  140  24  10611  1.03 

G120_091_D  1  9452.1  52.5  D  91  120  31  10611  0.89 

G120_064_D  3  14949.2  64.1  D  64  120  26  14033  1.07 

G120_086_D  12  10002.9  41.9  D  86  120  24  10611  0.94 

G140_97_D  17  7877.4  32.1  D  97  140  24  10611  0.74 

G140_101_D  20  10254.3  38.8  D  101  140  29  10945  0.94 

G140_105_D  22  10597.9  49.0  D  105  140  30  12767  0.83 

G120_074_E  4  10283.8  39.6  E  74  120  29  10945  0.94 

41

G120_080_E  6  11674.2  48.6  E  80  120  30  12767  0.91 

G120_090_E  9  10784.8  34.4  E  90  120  32  13579  0.79 

G140_109_E  16  11712.5  49.4  E  109  140  30  12767  0.92 

G140_113_E  18  12030.1  50.6  E  113  140  29  10945  1.10 

G140_095_E  23  10867.0  43.4  E  95  140  32  13579  0.80 

MEAN                  0.97 

COV                  0.189 

42

Appendix 9 MOE and MOR of 2.5m span laminated panels Label Lamination method species MOE (Mpa) MOR(MPA)

P1 Glued E. globulus 11751.2 57.9

P2 Glued E. globulus 11679.2 47.8

P3 Glued E. globulus 12863.0 65.8

P4 Glued E. nitens 9409.7 46.4

P5 Glued E. nitens 10802.2 52.5

P6 Glued E. nitens 11191.5 57.2

P7 Nailed E. globulus 12851.4 64.3

P8 Nailed E. globulus 12267.4 49.8

P9 Nailed E. globulus 11496.0 54.1

P10 Nailed E. nitens 9638.9 42.4

P11 Nailed E. nitens 10170.3 40.7

P12 Nailed E. nitens 9824.4 42.2