COMPARISON OF TWO CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS (VISUAL AND VIBRATION) FOR STRUCTURAL TIMBER OF FIRWOOD (ABIES CEPHALONICA LOUD.)
Mousilopoulos Konstantinos, Ntalos Georgios, Miti Pantelis, Zachos Georgios, Skarvelis Michalis
Pages: 800-807
Published: 28 Jun 2014
Views: 2,762
Downloads: 654
Abstract: Sawn timber has to be classified by means of its mechanical properties before using it for structural purposes. The two most common methods used are visual classification and classification using vibrations. In present paper these two methods were used for classifying fir wood from Peloponnese, Greece and possible similarities are discussed. For visual classification the proInsta 142:2008 (Scandinavian) Standard was used and for vibration method the MTG system (according to EN 14081-1:2005 standard) was used respectively. Although there is only indirect correlation between these two methods, some first results show that there is a not so strong relation between them, depending very much from the wood moisture content of timber.
Keywords: visual classification, vibration, mtg system
Cite this article: Mousilopoulos Konstantinos, Ntalos Georgios, Miti Pantelis, Zachos Georgios, Skarvelis Michalis. COMPARISON OF TWO CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS (VISUAL AND VIBRATION) FOR STRUCTURAL TIMBER OF FIRWOOD (ABIES CEPHALONICA LOUD.). Journal of International Scientific Publications: Materials, Methods & Technologies 8, 800-807 (2014). https://www.scientific-publications.net/en/article/1000233/
Download full text
Back to the contents of the volume
© 2024 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This permission does not cover any third party copyrighted material which may appear in the work requested.
Disclaimer: The opinions and claims presented in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their affiliated organizations, the publisher, editors, or reviewers.