29.08.2013 Views

Proceedings e report - Firenze University Press

Proceedings e report - Firenze University Press

Proceedings e report - Firenze University Press

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

DIMENSIONAL CHANGE OF UNRESTRICTED WOOD AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE CONTENT<br />

Line drawings using AutoCAD were made when the samples were at 0% MC and at room<br />

temperature. Drawings were drawn using a scale of 10:1, for higher accuracy. All dimensions and<br />

grain orientations were measured and introduced into the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.<br />

The following two predictions were done:<br />

(i) Case 1: calculations based on literature data of Pinus eliotta (Slash pine). [8]<br />

(ii) Case 2: calculations based on experimental results.<br />

Table 2 shows the data used for these tests.<br />

Table 2: Data used for pine computer program<br />

DATA USED FOR PINE SAMPLE<br />

TEST<br />

INITIAL<br />

TEMP.ºC<br />

INITIAL<br />

RH %<br />

FINAL<br />

TEMP.ºC<br />

FINAL<br />

RH%<br />

PUBLISHED DATA FOR<br />

TAN% RAD% LONG% FSP%<br />

CASE 1<br />

CASE 2<br />

17.0 0.0 15.1 100.0<br />

7.6<br />

7.91<br />

5.4<br />

3.73<br />

0.1<br />

0.31<br />

30.0<br />

Fig. 3 shows the final drawings, where the resulting diagrams for both Case 1 and Case 2 were<br />

superimposed onto the true scanned images of the pine sample.<br />

Fig. 3 – Results of computer analysis carried out on the pine sample<br />

5.3.2. Test Limitations<br />

The samples were too small and therefore the margin of error in measurement results to be larger.<br />

There must have been greater error with the thickness measurements (c.11mm) when compared with<br />

those for the length (c.78mm) and the width (c.89mm).<br />

5.4. Presentation and analysis of the computer procedure<br />

As can be seen from Fig. 3, the computer procedure is quite accurate. Although slightly different from<br />

published values, experimental results were not very significant considering the sample was quite<br />

small, and subjected to extreme conditions (from 0 to 31% MC). As expected, due to the difference<br />

between experimental and literature data (7.91-7.60% tangential value higher by 0.31%) the<br />

40

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!