Wood Science and Technology

, Volume 47, Issue 6, pp 1153–1165 | Cite as

Mill variation in bending strength and stiffness of in-grade southern pine No. 2 2 × 4 lumber

  • Joseph Dahlen
  • P. David Jones
  • R. Daniel Seale
  • Rubin Shmulsky


Visually graded southern pine (SP) has wide variability within grade. For 2 × 4 lumber, this variability has increased because it is harvested from both natural forests and plantation forests where trees contain high percentages of juvenile wood. To investigate resource variability, six kiln-dried No. 2 2 × 4 SP packages were acquired from six mills. From each package, 124 samples were destructively tested in bending. Mean modulus of elasticity (MOE15) ranged from 9.2 to 13.1 GPa, and three mills did not meet the design values (11.0 GPa). Bending strength (Fb) ranged from 7.6 to 11.9 MPa, and four mills did not meet the design values (10.3 MPa). Analysis of variance of MOE15 and Fb showed significant differences between mills. MOE15 explained from 33 to 51 % of the variability in Fb. These data suggest that variation between mills is high and destructive testing is critical for more accurate characterization of lumber properties.


  1. American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) (2005) National design specification (NSD) for wood construction with commentary and supplement: Design values for wood construction 2005 editionGoogle Scholar
  2. American Lumber Standards Committee (ALSC) (2012) American Standard Committee Board of Review: In the matter of the submission of the Southern Pine Inspection Bureau for Approval of Supplement 9. http://www.alsc.org/greenbook%20collection/ALSC_BOR_Notice_on_design_values.pdf. Accessed Feb 8, 2012
  3. ASTM International (2007) ASTM D1990–07: Standard practice for establishing allowable properties for visually-graded dimension lumber from in-grade tests of full-size specimens. West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM International (2009) ASTM D198–09: Standard test methods of static tests of lumber in structural sizes. West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM International (2010) ASTM D2915–10: Standard practice for evaluating allowable properties for grades of structural lumber. West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  6. Bendtsen BA (1978) Properties of wood from improved and intensively managed trees. Forest Prod J. 28(10):61–72Google Scholar
  7. Borders BE, Bailey RL (2001) Loblolly pine—pushing the limits of growth. South J Appl For 25:69–74Google Scholar
  8. Briggs D (2010) Enhancing forest value productivity through fiber quality. J Forestry 108:174–182Google Scholar
  9. Clark A III, Jordan L, Schimleck L, Daniels RF (2008) Effect of initial planting spacing on wood properties of unthinned loblolly pine at age 21. Forest Prod J 58(10):78–83Google Scholar
  10. Dahlen J, Jones PD, Seale RD, Shmulsky R (2012) Bending strength and stiffness of in-grade Douglas-fir and southern pine No. 2 2 × 4 lumber. Can J For Res 42:858–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunn MA, Shupe TF, Vlosky RP (2003) Homebuilder attitudes and preferences regarding southern yellow pine. Forest Prod J 53(4):36–41Google Scholar
  12. Evans JW, Kretschmann DE, Herian VL, Green DW (2001) Procedures for developing allowable properties for a single species under ASTM D1990 and computer programs useful for the calculations. USDA Forest Service. Forest Products Laboratory. FPL-GTR-126Google Scholar
  13. Forest Products Laboratory (2011) NONPAR: Nonparametric estimation program. http://www1.fpl.fs.fed.us/nonpar.html. Accessed Sept 26, 2011
  14. Glass SV, Zelinka SL (2010) Moisture relations and physical properties of wood. Wood Handbook. USDA Forest Service. Forest Products Laboratory. FPL-GTR-190Google Scholar
  15. Green DW, Evans JW (1988) Mechanical properties of visually graded lumber: Volume 1. A summary. National Technical Information Service. PB-88-159-389Google Scholar
  16. Howard J (2007) U.S. timber production, trade, consumption, and price statistics 1965 to 2005. USDA: Forest Products Laboratory. FPL-RP-637Google Scholar
  17. Jones E (1989) Sampling procedures used in the in-grade lumber testing program. In: Proceedings of workshop sponsored by in-grade testing committee and forest products society. Proceedings 47363. Madison, WI: Forest Products SocietyGoogle Scholar
  18. Jordan L, Re R, Hall DB, Clark A III, Daniels RF (2006) Variation in loblolly pine cross-sectional microfibril angle with tree height and physiographic region. Wood Fiber Sci 38(3):390–398Google Scholar
  19. Jordan L, Clark A III, Schimleck LR, Hall DB, Daniels RF (2008) Regional variation in wood specific gravity of planted loblolly pine in the United States. Can J For Res 38:698–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kretschmann DE (2010) Mechanical properties of wood. Wood Handbook. USDA Forest Service. Forest Products Laboratory. FPL-GTR-190Google Scholar
  21. Kretschmann DE, Bendtsen BA (1992) Ultimate tensile stress and modulus of elasticity of fast-grown plantation loblolly pine lumber. Wood Fiber Sci 24(2):189–203Google Scholar
  22. Kretschmann DE, Evans JW, Brown L (1999) Monitoring of visually graded structural lumber. USDA Forest Service. Forest Products Laboratory. FPL-RP-576Google Scholar
  23. Larson PR, Kretschmann DE, Clark III A, Isebrands JG (2001) Formation and properties of juvenile wood in southern pines. USDA Forest Service. Forest Products Laboratory. FPL-TR-129Google Scholar
  24. McAlister RH, Clark A III (1991) Effect of geographic location and seed source on the bending properties of juvenile and mature loblolly pine. Forest Prod J 41(9):39–42Google Scholar
  25. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2010) Voluntary Product Standard PS 20-10: American Softwood Lumber Standard. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  26. Pearson RG, Gilmore RC (1980) Effect of fast growth rate on the mechanical properties of loblolly pine. Forest Prod J 30(5):47–54Google Scholar
  27. Pillow MY, Terrell BZ, Hiller CH (1953) Patterns of variation in fibril angles of loblolly pine. U.S. Department of Agric., Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. Report No. D1935Google Scholar
  28. Southern Forest Products Association (SFPA) (2009) Annual Report. [White paper]Google Scholar
  29. USDA Forest Service (1988) The South’s fourth forest; alternative for the future. USDA Forest Service, Forest Resource Report 24. U.S. Government Print. Office. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Wear DN, Greis JG (2002) The southern forest resource assessment - summary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-54. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station and Southern RegionGoogle Scholar
  31. Zobel B (1984) The changing quality of the world wood supply. Wood Sci Technol 18:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Dahlen
    • 1
  • P. David Jones
    • 2
  • R. Daniel Seale
    • 2
  • Rubin Shmulsky
    • 2
  1. 1.Warnell School of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest ProductsMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA

Personalised recommendations