Advertisement

Evaluation of Wooden Structures

  • Gülru KocaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 24)

Abstract

In order to preserve the architectural heritage and sustainability of cities, the accurate evaluation of the mechanical properties of existing buildings is crucial. While inorganic building materials such as natural stones can be evaluated more easily, it is difficult to accurately assess the mechanical properties of wood. Mistaken evaluations of structural wooden members may lead to large-scale replacements in the maintenance and restoration of buildings. The techniques used in the evaluation of wood are; destructive, semi-destructive and non-destructive tests. Although destructive tests give accurate information about the mechanical properties of wood, they are not preferred in the evaluation of the existing structures because they cause the loss of structural integrity. The semi-destructive and non-destructive methods are being widely used for the last decades in the evaluation of structural wooden members. As these techniques do not give harm to the structural members, they allow the in situ evaluation of wooden structures. While semi-destructive tests are carried out with the extraction of a small piece without influencing the mechanical properties of wood, non-destructive techniques are carried out with the help of small devices in order to detect the interior defect and deteriorations. In this study, it is aimed to give information about some of the most used semi-destructive and non-destructive test methods.

Keywords

Wooden structures Sustainability Ecology Non-destructive techniques Semi-destructive techniques 

References

  1. Addleson L, Rice C (1991) Performance of materials in buildings: a study of the principles and agencies of change. Butterworth & Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthony RW (2004) Condition assessment of timber using resistance drilling and digital radioscopy. APT Bull J Preservation Technol 35(4):21–26Google Scholar
  3. Asıf M (2009) Sustainability of construction materials. In: Khatib J (ed) Sustainability of timber, wood and bamboo in construction. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 31–54Google Scholar
  4. Astrubali F, Ferracuti B, Lombardi L, Guattari C, Evangelisti L, Grazieschi G (2017) A review of structures, thermo-physical, acoustical and environmental properties of wooden materials for building applications. Build Environ 114:307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldassino N, Piazza M, Zanon P (1996) In situ evaluation of the mechanical properties of timber structural elements. In: Proceedings of international symposium on non-destructive testing of wood, pp 369–377Google Scholar
  6. Berke PR, Conroy MM (2000) Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. J Am Plann Assoc 66(1):21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodig J, Jayne BA (1982) Mechanics of wood and wood composites. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Branco JM, Piazza M, Cruz PJS (2010) Structural analysis of two King-post timber trusses: non-destructive evaluation and load-carrying tests. Constr Build Mater 24:371–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. BS EN 1995-1-1 (2004) + A2 (2014) Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures General. Common rules and rules for buildings. British Standards Institute (BSI), UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Calderoni C, Matteis G, Zamperini E (2010) Experimental correlations between destructive and non-destructive tests on ancient timber elements. Eng Struct 2(32):442–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cruz H, Yeomans D, Tsakanika E, Macchioni N, Jorissen A, Touza M, Mannucci M, Lourenço PB (2015) Guidelines for on-site assessment of historic timber structures. Int J Archit Herit 9:277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davey N (1961) A history of building materials. Phoenix House, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. De Lumley H (1969) A paleolithic camp at nice. Sci Am 220(5):42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Derry TK, Williams TI (1960) A short history of technology: from the earliest times to AD 1900. The Clarendon Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Deuse M (2017) Non-destructive diagnostics for timber structures in historic buildings: investigation methods and testing tools. Master thesis, University of Cantabria, SpainGoogle Scholar
  16. EN 13183-1 (2002) Moisture content of a piece of sawn timber. Determination by oven dry method. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. EN 13183-2 (2002) Moisture content of a piece of sawn timber: part 2: estimation by electrical resistance method. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. EN 13183-3 (2005) Moisture content of a piece of sawn timber: part 3: estimation by capacitance method. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. Feio A (2006) Inspection and diagnosis of historical timber structures: NDT correlations and structural behaviour. PhD thesis, University of Minho, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  20. Feio A, Machado JS (2015) In-situ assessment of timber structural members: combining information from visual strength grading and NDT/SDT methods—a review. Constr Build Mater 101:1157–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fenger J (2009) Air pollution in the last 50 years—from local to global. Atmos Environ 43(1):13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glass SV, Zelinka SL (2010) Moisture relations and physical properties of wood. In: Ross RJ (ed) Wood handbook wood as an engineering material. FPL, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  23. Illston J, Domone P (2001) Construction materials: their nature and behavior. Taylor & Francis, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ISO 13822 (2016) Bases for design of structures—Assessment of existing structures. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  25. Jim CY (2014) Air-conditioning energy consumption due to green roofs with different building thermal insulation. Appl Energy 128:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kasal B (2003) Semi-destructive method for in-situ evaluation of compressive strength of wood structural members. For Prod J 53:55–58Google Scholar
  27. Kasal B (2004) Advances in in-situ evaluation of timber structures. Prog Struct Eng Mater 6:94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kasal B, Lear G (2010) Moisture measurement. In: Kasal B, Tannert T (eds) In situ assessment of structural timber. RILEM State of the Art Report. Springer, Nederland, pp 99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kasal B, Lear G, Tannert T (2010) Stress waves. In: Kasal B, Tannert T (eds) In situ assessment of structural timber. RILEM State of the Art Report. Springer, Nederland, pp 5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelley SJ, Loferski JR, Salenikovich AJ, Stern EG (2000) Wood structures: a global forum on the treatment, conservation and repair of cultural heritage. ASTM, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kloiber M, Tippner J, Drdachy M (2011) In: Proceedings of international conference on structural health assessment of timber structures, Portugal, Lisbon, June 2011Google Scholar
  32. Kloiber M, Drdachy M, Tippner J, Hrivnak J (2015) Conventional compressive strength parallel to the grain and mechanical resistance of wood against pin penetration and micro drilling established by in-situ semi-destructive devices. Mater Struct 48(10):3217–3229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Macchioni N (2010) Species identification. In: Kasal B, Tannert T (eds) In situ assessment of structural timber. RILEM State of the Art Report. Springer, Nederland, pp 105–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morales Conde MJ, Rodriguez Lińan C, Rubio de Hita P (2014a) Use of ultrasound as a non-destructive evaluation technique for sustainable interventions on wooden structures. Build Environ 82:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morales Conde MJ, Rodriguez Lińan C, Saporiti-Machado J (2014b) Predicting the density of structural timber in service. The combine use of wood cores and drill resistance data. Materiales de Construccíon 64(315):1–11Google Scholar
  36. Riggio M, Anthony RW, Augelli F, Kasal B, Lechner T, Muller W, Tannert T (2014) In situ assessment of structural timber using non-destructive techniques. Mater Struct 4(47):749–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ross RJ, Pellerin RF (1994) Nondestructive testing for assessing wood members in structures. USDA. FPL-GTR-70, Forest Product Laboratory, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  38. Senalik A, Schueneman G, Ross RJ (2015) Ultrasonic-based non-destructive evaluation methods for wood. In: Ross RJ (ed) Non-destructive evaluation of wood, 2nd edn. FPL, Madison, pp 21–51Google Scholar
  39. SIA 269/5 (2011) Existing structures—timber structures. Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  40. Sousa H (2013) Methodology for safety evaluation of existing timber elements. PhD thesis, University of Minho, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  41. Tannert T, Anthony RW, Kasal B, Kloiber M, Piazza M, Riggio M, Rinn F, Widmann R, Yamaguchi N (2014) In situ assessment of structural timber using semi-destructive techniques. Mater Struct 5(47):767–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tarım A, Hattap S (2016) In: Proceedings of adobe 2016, international conference on cultural landscape: rebuilding after decay, Istanbul Aydın University, Istanbul, 17–18 December 2016Google Scholar
  43. Tippner J, Kloiber M, Hrivnak J (2011) In: Proceedings of 17th international nondestructive testing and evaluation of wood symposium, Sopron, 14–16 September 2011Google Scholar
  44. UNI 11118 (2004) Cultural heritage: wooden artifacts: criteria for the identification of the wood species. Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione, MilanGoogle Scholar
  45. UNI 11119 (2004) Cultural heritage: wooden artifacts: load bearing structures: on-site inspections for the diagnosis of timber members. Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione, MilanGoogle Scholar
  46. URL 1. http://www.thesubversivearchaeologist.com/2014/05/. Access date: 18 July 2018
  47. Watt M, Garnett B, Walker J (1996) The use of the Pilodyn for assessing outerwood density in New Zealand radiate pine. For Prod J 46(11/12):101–105Google Scholar
  48. Watt J, Tidblad J, Kucera V, Hamilton R (2009) The effects of air pollution on cultural heritage. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Winandy JE, Lebow PK, Nelson W (1998) Predicting bending strength of fire-retardant-treated plywood screw-withdrawal test. FPL-RP-568, Forest Product Laboratory, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  50. Yamaguchi N (2010) Screw resistance. In: In situ assessment of structural timber. RILEM State of Art Reports, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yeang K (2006) Eco-design: a manual for ecological design. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Interior Architecture, Faculty of Fine ArtsIşık UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations