Sensitivity of acoustic tools to variation in equilibrium moisture content of small clear samples of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)

  • Charles Essien
  • Brian K. Via
  • Thomas Gallagher
  • Timothy Mcdonald
  • Lori Eckhardt
Original Article

Abstract

There are several types of acoustic tools commercially available for wood characterization, but they are generally classified into resonance and time-of-flight (ToF) tools. This classification is based upon the mode of velocity estimation for wood. In this study, we explored how the equilibrium moisture content of small clear wood samples (2.5 cm × 2.5 cm × 41 cm) affect the predictive capabilities of two types of acoustic tools namely a microsecond timer (ToF) and a resonance log grader (resonance). The results indicated the acoustic velocity is sensitive to equilibrium moisture content of loblolly pine, and sensitivity to EMC is similar for both type of tools. The acoustic velocity decreased by 32.9 and 28.8 m/s for ToF and the resonance acoustic tools respectively for a unit increase in EMC below fiber saturation point (FSP); 5.4 and 6.1 m/s respectively for a unit increase in EMC above FSP although the slope was statistically equivalent to zero. Also, the static MOE of the green samples was overestimated by 16% by both resonance and ToF tools with oven-dried density, while it was 72% when estimated with density at test. The insignificant slope coupled with better accuracy in MOE supports the hypothesis that the cell wall controls the acoustic velocity while the water in the lumen of the cell wall is insignificant. These results bring into question the standard use of green density to estimate acoustic MOE of live trees and oven dry density is instead recommended.

Keywords

Fiber saturation point Acoustic velocity Static modulus of elasticity Time-of-flight 

References

  1. ASTM Standard D 143-94 (2007) Standard test methods for small clear specimens of timber. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pa. Available at www.astm.org. Accessed 5 Jan 2014
  2. Beall FC (2002) Overview of the use of ultrasonic technologies in research on wood properties. Wood Sci Technol 36:197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bendtsen BA, Senft J (1986) Mechanical and anatomical properties in individual growth ring of plantation-grown cottonwood and loblolly pine. Wood Fiber Sci 18(1):23–38Google Scholar
  4. Bodig J, Jayne BA (1982) Mechanics of wood and wood composites. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc, NY, pp 584Google Scholar
  5. Butler MA, Dahlen J, Antony F, Kane M, Eberhardt TL, Jin H, Myers KL, McTague JP (2016) The relationship between loblolly pine small clear specimens and dimension lumber test in static bending. Wood Fiber Sci 48(2):81–95Google Scholar
  6. Chan MJ, Walker CJ, Raymond CA (2011) Effect of moisture content and temperature on acoustic velocity and dynamic MOE of radiata pine sapwood boards. Wood Sci Technol 45:609–626.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-010-0350-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chauhan S, Sethy A (2016) Differences in dynamic modulus of elasticity determined by three vibration methods and their relationship with static modulus of elasticity. Maderas Ciencia y Technologta 18(2):373–382.  https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-221X2016005000034 Google Scholar
  8. Chauhan SS, Walker JCF (2006) Variations in acoustic velocity and density with age, and their interrelationships in radiate pine. For Ecol Manag 229(1–3):388–394.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.04.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark A, Daniels RF, Jordan L (2006) Juvenile/mature wood transition in loblolly pineas defined by annual ring specific gravity, proportion of larewood, and microfibril angle. Wood Fiber Sci 38(2):292–299Google Scholar
  10. Essien C, Via BK, Gallagher T, McDonald T, Wang X, Eckhardt LG (2017a) Multivariate modeling of acousto-mechanical response of fourteen year old suppressed loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) to variation in wood chemistry, microfibril angle, and density. Wood Sci Technol 51:475–492.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-017-0894-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Essien C, Via BK, Acquah G, Gallagher T, McDonald T, Eckhardt LG (2017b) Effect of genetic sources on anatomical, morphological, and mechanical properties of 14-year-old genetically improved loblolly pine families from two sites in the southern United States. J For Res (in press) Google Scholar
  12. FPL (Forest Products Laboratory) (2010) Wood handbook—wood as an engineering material. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, p 508Google Scholar
  13. Gao S, Wang X, Wang L, Allison RB (2012) Effect of temperature on the acoustic evaluation of standing trees and logs: part 1—laboratory investigation. Wood Fiber Sci 44(3):286–297Google Scholar
  14. Gerhards CC (1975) Stress wave speed and MOE of sweetgum ranging from 150 to 15 percent MC. For Prod J 25(4):51–57Google Scholar
  15. Goncalves R, Leme OA (2008) The influence of moisture content on longitudinal, radial and tangential ultrasonic velocity for two Brazilian wood species. Wood Fiber Sci 40(4):580–586Google Scholar
  16. Harris PD, Andrews MK (1999) Tools and acoustic techniques for measuring wood stiffness. In: Proceedings of the 3rd wood quality symposium: emerging technologies for evaluating wood quality for processing, Forest Industry Engineering Association, Rotorua, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  17. Hasegawa M, Takata M, Matsumura J, Oda K (2011) Effect of wood properties on within-tree variation in ultrasonic wave velocity in softwood. Ultrasonics 52:296–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ilic J (2001a) Variation of the dynamic elastic modulus and wave velocity in the fiber direction with other properties during the drying of Eucalyptus regnans F Muell. Wood Sci Technol 35:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ilic J (2001b) Relationship among the dynamic and static elastic properties of air-dry Eucalyptus delegatensis R. Baker. Holz als Roh 59:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kang H, Booker RE (2002) Variation of stress wave velocity with MC and temperature. Wood Sci Technol 36:41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mora CR, Schimleck LR, Isik F, Mahon JM Jr, Clark A III, Daniels RF (2009) Relationship between acoustic variable and different measures of stiffness in standing Pinus taeda trees. Can J For Res 39(8):1421–1429.  https://doi.org/10.1139/X09-062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moya L, Laguarda ML, Cagno M, Cardoso A, Gatto F, O’Neill H (2013) Physical and mechanical properties of loblolly and slash pine wood from Uruguayan plantations. For Prod J 63(3/4):128–137.  https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-13-00024 Google Scholar
  23. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) (2016) State, regional and national monthly precipitation: area weighted monthly normal, 1981–2015. Historical ClimatographyGoogle Scholar
  24. Olivito RS (1996) Ultrasonic measurements in wood. Mater Eval 54:514–517Google Scholar
  25. Raymond CA, Joe B, Anderson DW, Watt DJ (2008) Effect of thinning on relationships between three measures of wood stiffness in Pinus radiata: standing trees vs. short clear specimens. Can J For Res 38(11):2870–2879.  https://doi.org/10.1139/X08-124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sandoz JL (1991) Nondestructive evaluation of building timber by ultrasound. In: 8th international symposium on non-destructive testing of wood. Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  27. Sobue N (1993) Simulation study on stress wave velocity in wood above fiber saturation point. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 39(3):271–276Google Scholar
  28. Via BK, So CL, Shupe TF, Groom LH, Wikaira J (2009) Mechanical response of longleaf pine to variation in microfibril angle, chemistry associated wavelengths, density and radial position. Compos A 40(1):60–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang X (2008) Effects of size and moisture content on stress wave E-rating of structural lumber. In: 10th world conference on timber engineering. Miyazaki, JapanGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang X, Ross RJ, Brashaw BK, Punches J, Erickson JR, Forsman JW, Pellerin RE (2004) Diameter effect on stress-wave evaluation of modulus of elasticity of logs. Wood Fiber Sci 36(3):368–377Google Scholar
  31. Wang X, Ross EJ, Carter P (2007) Acoustic evaluation of wood quality in standing tree. Part 1; acoustic wave behavior. Wood Fiber Sci 39(1):28–38Google Scholar
  32. Yang H, Yu L, Wang L (2015) Effect of moisture content on the ultrasonic properties of wood. J For Res 26(3):753–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yin Y, Jiang X, Wang L, Bian M (2011) Predicting wood quality of green logs by resonance vibration and stress wave in plantation-grown Populus x euramericana. For Prod J 61(2):136–142Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Wood Science 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Essien
    • 1
  • Brian K. Via
    • 1
  • Thomas Gallagher
    • 2
  • Timothy Mcdonald
    • 3
  • Lori Eckhardt
    • 2
  1. 1.Forest Products Development Center, SFWSAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  2. 2.School of Forestry and Wildlife SciencesAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  3. 3.Biosystems Engineering DepartmentAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations