The differences in the MOE values from PSL are relatively consistent, with differences of 13.4 percent and 22.6 percent less than the plate testing values for the FPBT and ASTM D198 Bending, respectively.
Based on the comparison of the FPBT and ASTM D198 Bending tests, Hindman et al.
Table 6 presents the statistical comparison of the elastic modulus and shear modulus results comparing the FPBT and ASTM D198 Bending from Hindman et al.
ASTM D 198 Bending and FPBT for MSR lumber and PSL.
The test methods used in this research included ASTM D 198 (2004b) (both three-point bending and torsion testing) and the FPBT for shear modulus determination.
The FPBT method requires two consecutive flexural loading configurations per specimen, a quarter-point loading and a five-point loading (Fig.
The modulus of elasticity values from the LVL testing were 19.6 GPa from the ASTM D 198 Bending and 20.1 GPa from the FPBT, a difference of about 2.5 percent.
For the LVL, the shear modulus values were 0.724 GPa from ASTM D 198 Bending, 1.04 GPa from ASTM D 198 Torsion and 1.24 GPa from FPBT. For the MSR lumber, the shear modulus values were 0.903 GPa from ASTM D 198 Bending, 1.16 GPa from ASTM D 198 Torsion and 0.789 GPa from FPBT.
The FPBT used the simultaneous solution of bending and shear deformation equations from two different bending test configurations to evaluate true modulus of elasticity and shear moduli values.
Details of the FPBT protocol used were given above and in Hindman (2003).
Specimen loading for both ASTM D 198 and FPBT testing was conducted with a SATEC electromechanical universal testing machine (UTM) with associated MATS II integrated data acquisition system.
During P/[DELTA] data collection with two separate test setups, the researchers noted that the FPBT offers superior laboratory productivity.