RESEARCH STUDY ON ENGINEERED WOOD; LAMINATED VENEER

LUMBER (LVL), GLUE-LAMINATED TIMBER (GLULAM) AND CROSS-

LAMINATED TIMBER(CLT)
AHMAD MAHYUDDIN BIN MOHAMED
DF160097
Faculty Of Civil Engineering And Environment
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia

ABSTRACT
The invention is a wane-free engineered wood product and the method of its manufacture. Lumber having wane along
one or more edges is first milled to produce rectangular notches along each of the four edges. The notches are sized
to remove all or most of the wane. The notched piece is then ripped lengthwise to produce two strips. These are rotated
180° and placed adjacently so that the notched edges face each other and form longitudinal channels. Strips of
oriented strand board or a similar material are then affixed into the channels, preferably by gluing, reuniting then again
into a unitary wane-free structural member.

1.0 INTRODUCTION stronger and more uniform. It is much less likely than
conventional lumber to warp, twist, bow, or shrink due to
Engineered wood is a range of derivative wood products its composite nature. LVL also has higher allowable
which are engineered to precise design specification stress than glulam.
which are tested to meet national or international
standards. These products are manufactured by fixing
the strands or binding, particles, fibers, boards or
veneers of wood, together with adhesives to form
composite materials. Engineered wood products
commonly are used in home construction, commercial
building construction and also as industrial products. The
products can replace steel in many building projects as
beams and joists.

1.1 Glue-laminated Timber (Glulam)

Glulam is a term of glue-laminated timber which is

multiple layers of solid wood lumber are bonded together
with durable, moisture-resistant and high-strength
adhesive. By laminating a number of smaller pieces of
lumber, a single large, strong, structural member is
manufactured from smaller pieces. These structural
members are used as vertical columns or horizontal
beams, as well as curved, arched shapes. Glulam is
readily produced in curved shapes and is available in a
range of species and appearance characteristics to meet
varied end-use requirements. Connections are usually
made with bolts or plain steel dowels and steel plates.
Figure 2: Laminated Veneer Lumber
1.3 Cross-laminated Timber (CLT)
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is a wood panel
product that manufactured from gluing layers of solid-
sawn lumber together. To make the outer layers have the
same orientation, each layer of boards is oriented
perpendicular to adjacent layers and glued on the wide
faces of each board in a symmetric way. Regular timber
is an anisotropic material that the physical properties
change depending on the direction at which the force is
applied. By gluing layers of wood at perpendicular
angles, the panel is able to achieve better structural
rigidity in both directions. It is similar to plywood but with
distinctively thicker laminations.

Figure 1: Glue-laminated Timber.

1.2 Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)

Laminated veneer lumber (LVL) is one of the engineered

wood products that typically is used for headers, beams,
rimboard and edge-forming material. LVL is
manufactured by using multiple layers of thin wood
assembled with adhesive. This product made in factory
under controlled specifications so that make it straighter, Figure 3: Cross-laminated Timber

1
2.0 PRODUCT USES FOR STRUCTURAL PURPOSE
All authors are responsible for obtaining written
permission to profile the project or subject matter in their
papers from any and all clients, owners or others who
commissioned the work.
The IGS and IGC-2018 assume that you have
obtained the proper permission(s) as well as the
permission of the coauthors, and assume no liability for
failure by the author(s) to do so.
2.1 Glue-laminated Timber (Glulam)
Glulam members can be used in a wide variety of
applications and for both indoor and outdoor projects.
Common forms include:
• Straight beams, including lintels, purlins, ridge
beams, and floor beams
• Columns, including round, square, and complex
sections
• Tied rafters
• Trusses
• Tied arches
• Arched bridge supports
• Curved beams
2.2 Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)
LVL is a versatile product with numerous
applications that take advantage of its unique and
predictable structural characteristics. Given LVL's
predictable strength and reduced variability, this material
has excellent working design stress values. Lumber
laminated from veneer can be manufactured in longer
desired lengths and greater widths and thicknesses from
short or small diameter logs.
The product is tested on a manufacturer specific
basis for targeted structural properties and requires code
acceptance for specific building applications.
Independent testing organizations provide product
evaluations to determine conformance to industry
standards, thus maintaining building code approvals.
The Droduct has been tested extensivelv since making
its first appearance commercially in 1971. Historically,
the early development of LVL can be traced back to 1944
when the ~roducwt as experimentally examined for
laminating Sitka spruce aircraft parts (Youngquist 1985).
Table 1: Summary of Laminated Veneer Lumber end-
uses
Figure 4: Major markets for structural LVL- 1992
(Leonard Guss Associates 1993).
LVL is used in many applications in conjunction
with other wood products such as glulam, lumber,
plywood, and OSR; but in other instances it competes
directly with these products. In the construction industry,
it is used in light construction applications where high
load bearing and minimal height requirements are
important. Its most common use is in interior
residential/commercial building applications including I-
joists, truss chords, headers, and beams (Fig. 2). The
prefabricated housing and the mobile home industries
are new markets that are reported to be increasing their
use of LVL in applications where strength and
dimensional stability are ofprimary importance. Other
uses are also being targeted including truckbed decking,
kiln stickers, concrete forms, and scaffolding.
As previously mentioned, the product has been
used by the furniture industry for many years to produce
curved furniture parts an now is being considered as a
large-scale replacement for materials currently being
used by the furniture industry. Recent increases in the
cost of solid lumber make LVL attractive as a structural
component in furniture. When engineered to meet
necessary requirements for strength, dimensional
stability, and appearance, it can be used almost
interchangeably with solid wood in the construction of
tables, upholstered furniture frames, chairs, kitchen
cabinets, shelving and bookcases, beds, and drawer
sides. Since LVL can be engineered for high grade
appearance on the exposed faces, it can be used in the
construction of high or lowend visual or nonvisual pieces.
Table 2 summarizes current LVL end uses (Eckelman
1993; Kunesh 1978; Youngquist 1985; Youngquist and
Bryant 1979).
2
2.3 Cross-laminated Timber (CLT)
The material consists of planks (or lamellas) of
sawn, glued, and layered wood, where each layer is
oriented perpendicular to the previous. By joining layers
of wood at perpendicular angles, structural rigidity for the
panel is obtained in both directions, similar to plywood
but with thicker components. In this way, the panel has
great tensile and compressive strength.
It's a sustainable material because it's
composed of wood, a renewable resource (usually from
reforestation), and doesn't require the burning of fossil
fuels during its production. It has been used for
infrastructure and support in large construction sites, as
forms for concreting bridges, or even as bases for
tractors in unstable terrain during the construction of
dams. Its potential for small constructions has been
noted because of its interesting appearance and
structural strength. Currently, there are even skyscrapers
being built with CLT parts.
The panels can function as walls, floors,
furniture, ceilings, and roofs; CLT's thickness and length
can be adaptable to the demands of each project.
Generally, panels made of CLT are assembled and cut
in their production, already foreseeing the joints,
openings, and drills specified in the design. The parts are
then transported to the site, and then assembly takes
place there. Silvio Lagranha Machado, a partner at
MAPA, points out that "since it is a solid panel composed
of a single material, the structure requires no cladding,
which reduces the need for labor and materials for its
final appearance. The same wall that receives the
structural stresses of the roof remains exposed, but there
is still the option to cover it without any major problems."
Generally, the surfaces are only given the application of
a transparent waterproofing, making the natural designs
of the fibers of the wood evident.
In projects with CLT, construction on site
doesn't last more than a few days. It is a quick and dry
process, with very little waste generation. Of course, the
project should be cautious. More time in design results in
less time working on site. And this should be the
reasoning for all materials.
Although the cost of the material is high, factors
such as shorter construction time, greater quality control,
and cleaning can be taken into account when making
your choice. Another issue is cultural. Wooden houses
are still stigmatized as a less noble material. However,
considering that the construction industry still relies
heavily on non-renewable resources, Laminated Cross
Timber can be an excellent choice for building material.
3.0 Advantages and Disadvantages
All of these products have their own advantages and
disadvantages due to their materials and properties of
manufacturing.
3.1 Glue-laminated Timber (Glulam)
Glulam is an innovative laminated timber structural
solution used in a wide variety of commercial and
residential projects. Perfect for long span and curved
designs, glulam is the construction material that offers
strength without aesthetic compromise.
Advantages:
• Appearance: Glulam is often chosen over steel
or concrete for its appearance, and is often
credited with creating a warm and comfortable
feel to a building. There are many different
species and treatments available all with their
own character that can be tailored to suit
requirements.
• Excellent strength to weight ratio: Timber has a
good strength to weight ratio in comparison with
steel and concrete. If you consider equivalent
beam sizes for the same load bearing capacity
in glulam and steel, glulam has approximately
1.5 – 2 times the strength to weight ratio of
steel. This means there is a benefit in the
buildability of glulam structures – this could be
that it becomes possible to manhandle a beam
into a roof space, or on a larger scale, craning
of large prefabricated roof elements becomes
feasible. Another advantage is that smaller
foundations are needed for a reduced structure
weight.
• Durability: The durability of glulam will depend
on its specification. Species of timber, type of
glue and preservative type and application are
all factors in the durability of glulam. Given the
correct specification glulam can be used for the
most onerous of conditions. One instance
where glulam is chosen for its durability is in
swimming pool structures – this is a particularly
corrosive environment with high humidity and
chlorine levels and glulam provides a durable
low maintenance solution. Glulam is designed
to last for decades with a minimum of
maintenance.
• High strength and dimensional stability:
Laminated timber is far superior to solid timber
due to its high strength and dimensional
stability. Where solid timber posts & beams will
crack and twist, a glulam member in the same
size (and often smaller) will remain stable for
many years as well as retaining its aesthetic
appeal.
• Environmental performance: Glulam beams are
very efficient to produce. The energy required
to produce a glue-laminated beam from the log
is only a fraction of the energy required to
produce steel or concrete. Glulam has superior
earthquake resilience and greater resistance to
fire than any other structural construction
material.
3.2 Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)
LVL possesses a number of qualities that position it
favorably relative to solid-sawn wood products. These
characteristic advantages can be divided into two main
categories: I) strength and physical properties, and 2)
economic factors.
Strength and physical properties:
A major advantage for the small custom builder is the
uniformity of veneer lumber. Because the products are
composed of layers of veneer, defects in the wood are
dispersed. Natural defects such as knots, holes, cross-
grain, cracks and splits, common in sawn lumber are
distributed randomly among the many veneer plies. As a
result, there is much less variation in strength, with
corresponding allowable design stresses and higher
dimensional stability than sawn lumber (Hsu 1988). Each
piece of LVL, whether in an I-beam or header, has been
engineered to meet specific and stringent design
3
requirements. The closest analogy in solid lumber is
machine stress rated (MSR) lumber with which LVL
compares favorably with regard to physical strength
characteristics (Kunesh 1978). Echols and Currier (1973)
found that 1- by 6-in. board fabricated from Douglas-fir
veneers compared favorably with clear vertical-grain,
solid boards for modulus of elasticity, modulus of rupture,
and maximum load at failure. Because the manufacturing
process is so tightly controlled, product performance is
very predictable.
Depending on the intended end-use, additional
advantages of LVL over solid lumber have been
identified. For example, because the product
is available in 60-804 lengths, joists can often reach from
one side of a foundation to another without the need for
a center support. Another advantage is the fact that
lengths of LVL I-beams are relatively light in weight, so
one person can often handle a length that would be too
cumbersome to maneuver if it was solid lumber. A
potential disadvantage of a lightweight flanged shape is
that it makes an effective wind catcher, which may cause
framing crews to encounter problems in windy
conditions.
Compared to solid lumber, wood I-beams are
relatively easy to run plumbing and electrical lines
through. Pre-scored knockout holes are typically located
every 12 in. along the web, and it takes only a hammer
blow to create a uniform 1/2-in. diameter hole for wiring
and water lines. An additional advantage of LVL is that a
contractor does not need to sight down the length of a
wood I-beam to spot a crown; I-beams and laminated
headers are designed to be straight in any length
Economic factors:
A perceived disadvantage of LVL is its high per
unit price relative to alternatives. One approach to
overcoming this perception is for suppliers to educate
buyers in applications where strength is required and
where the installed costs can be shown to be lower. A
1990 study by Durand-Raute supplied the following
comparative market values (F.O.B. mill) for LVL and
other wood products (Fig. 5) (Durand-Raute 1990). LVL
clearly has the highest market value which, given its
competitive cost structure and present non-commodity
status, generates higher than average industry profit
margins.
Figure 5: F.O.B mill market values for various wood
products (Durand-Raute 1990)
Some LVL manufacturers tout the cost
advantages of their products, particularly wood I-beams.
But actually, on a lineal foot basis, wood I-beams are
more expensive than solid lumber and LVL has almost a
3: 1 ratio in price compared to kiln-dried softwood lumber
(Fig.5). In this context, the rationale for using higher
price substitutes is the value one receives. Value can be
defined as the relationship of price to performance as
perceived by buyers. One source of value enhancement
from substituting LVL for solid wood occurs during
installation because less time is typically spent in
handling the product, including time required to drill for
water and electrical lines. This savings most likely is
accrued to builders who specialize in speed and quantity
installations. An additional value advantage for custom
builders relates to lengths purchased. Whether a 6-ft
length or a 60-ft length is purchased, the price per lineal
foot often remains the same. The price point is
considered high enough to justify transportation costs
from manufacturing regions to distant demand markets
(Durand-Raute 1990). The following ad ditional cost
factors favor LVL over solid wood; 1) prices have
exhibited greater price stability relative to dimension
lumber due to the ready availability of small diameter
logs; 2) customer complaints are reported to be less
frequent; 3) worker injuries are reduced with lighter
product installations; and 4) job site waste is typically
reduced from approximately 11% with lumber to less
than 1% with LVL (Anon. 1993).
Figure 6: 1992 U.S LVL manufacturers (Leonard Guss
Associates 1993).
3.3 Cross-laminated Timber (CLT)
A cross-laminated timber panel (aka 'Crosslam'
or 'Xlam') is a method of construction that uses timber to
form load-bearing solid timber wall, floor and roof panels.
Structural openings, such as doors and windows, are
incorporated within the panels. In many cases only
insulation and cladding is added to the external face to
achieve high standards of thermal performance.
The methodology of layering, stacking and
fastening softwood boards to create panels is what
differentiates the members of the SWP family. The more
common cross-laminated panels are characterised by
placing and gluing boards across each other in layers;
Another, visually distinctive, technique is to assemble a
solid panel through gluing or dowelling together a series
of timber ‘posts’.
Panels are commonly fabricated up to around
4m in width and 15m in height, according to technique
and manufacturer. The panels can be assembled to
create most types of building including housing, which at
Murray Grove in London reaches a record nine storeys.
The traditional key advantages of prefabricated
components are speed, efficiency and precise
tolerances. SWPs tick-off these features and combine
them with attractive environmental and energy-efficient
attributes such as use of a renewable resource, carbon
4
sequestration, low waste, relatively low embodied energy
and an inherent high standard of airtightness.
Advantages:
• Can replace structural concrete, masonry or
steel
• Timber is renewable and sequesters carbon
during growth
• Construction time is very fast - services can be
installed and finishes applied whilst panel
installation continues.
• Higher tolerances achievable through
prefabrication
• Relatively light weight of panels allows
reduction in the size of the foundations
compared with traditional construction.
Reduced concrete equates to reduced
embodied energy
• Avoidance of noise and dusts associated with
traditional construction
• Can provide thermal mass if exposed
• High level of decrement delay is possible to
shield from summer heat
• Airtightness is easily achievable
• Thermal bridging is very much reduced or
eliminated entirely
• Requires only limited site skills
• 'Dry' construction prevents moisture from being
admitted into the building
• Exact dimensions can be provided for custom /
non-standard window and door openings
• Loads such as wall cabinets can be located
without the restrictions associated with other
forms of construction
• Prefabrication reduces the quantity of waste
associated with onsite fabrication
Disadvantages:
• Inflexibilitly- all design issues need determining
ahead of fabrication. Any variations on site are
very difficult and expensive to resolve.
• Not usually for the inexperienced designer -
however manufacturers usually provide
considerable support
• Inflexibility - future transformation of structure is
more difficult than traditional construction
• Requires external cladding and, usually, added
insulation.
• Longterm stability / movement needs needs
early consideration
• Services need careful consideration ahead of
fabrication if exposed surface finish is used /
routing is required. Service are difficult to
relocate once the panel is installed.
• Current overseas fabrication requires road
transport over distance, adding significant
embodied energy
• Site usually requires crane access which might
be difficult on tighter sites
• High environmental impact glues tend to be the
norm - but more benign options are available
• Material cost - CLT floor slab can be around 2x
expensive than a pre-stressed concrete hollow
floor slab
4.0 LABORATORY RESEARCH
Laboratory research need to be don to prove the
strength of all of these engineered woods product.
4.1 Glue-laminated Timber (Glulam)
Laboratory tests were conducted to confirm the
results of the model. Five configurations were chosen for
testing to check the validity of the models. The beams
were tested in bending until failure.
Configuration and material:
Figure 7: Reinforcement configurations.
The five configurations tested are shown in Figure 7.
The beams were of the dimension 115 x 200 x 4000 mm.
Two un-reinforced beams were tested to obtain a
reference value for the strength and stiffness. The
reinforcement was placed along the total length of the
beams, i.e. continuing over the support. Two
configurations with steel as strengthening material were
tested, both with a reinforcement percentage of 2% of the
cross-section area. Two beams were tested with all the
steel reinforcement on the tension side and two beams
with 50% of the reinforcement on the tension side and
50% on the compressive side of the beam. Two different
types of CFRP were tested, one with high strength and
one with high stiffness. Two beams were tested with 50%
of the reinforcement in tension and 50% of the
reinforcement in compression. The last beam was tested
with 33% of the reinforcement on the compression side
and 67% of the reinforcement on the tension side. All the
reinforcement was placed vertically in the beam, this was
done to maximise the shear area between the wood and
the reinforcement and to make the reinforcement less
visible. The adhesives used were epoxy based
adhesives. Two different types were used; the main
difference was in their viscosity before hardening. Details
about the material properties can be found in Figure 5.
Preparation of the beams and loading arrangement:
The glulam beams were taken from a glulam
manufacturer where also the groves for the
reinforcement were made. The slots were cleaned to
ensure dust free bonding. The slots were made 2 mm
wider than the reinforcement to achieve good bonding.
The steel reinforcement was sand blasted to receive a
rough surface and treated with acetone to remove dirt. A
primer was applied to act as a base for the adhesive. The
slots were filled about 75% full with adhesive then the
5
reinforcement was pressed into the groves. Spacers
were placed on the reinforcement to ensure an adhesive
cover between the glulam and reinforcement. The beams
were left to cure for five days before loading. The beams
were tested in four point bending according to standard
(Anon), see Figure 8. Lateral support was provided to
prevent lateral distortions. The loading speed was 0.001
mm per second. The midpoint deflection and load was
measured every second. A total of 10 strain gauges
(length 60 mm) were attached to the beam at mid-span
to measure the strains. One strain gauge was placed on
the top and bottom surface of the beam and the
remaining 8 were placed at different heights along the
lateral face of the beam.
Figure 8: Load configuration and distribution of the
strain gauges over the cross-section (in the mid-span of
the beam)
Results of the Laboratory Tests:
For comparison purposes the load-deflection curves
were plotted for one beam from each reinforcement
configuration, see Figure 9. It can be seen from the
curves that all types of strengthening increased both the
ultimate moment capacity and the ultimate load. For the
global stiffness the main observation is that the stiffness
increase was according the amount as well as the
stiffness of the reinforcement introduced. The highest
stiffness was achieved for the beam reinforced with the
stiffest material (CFRP - stiffness 300 GPa, beam 7). It
was possible to see a small increase in stiffness between
configuration b and c (beams 3 and 5). Beam type c with
reinforcement both on the compression and tension side
has a slightly higher stiffness than beam type b with
reinforcement only on the compression side. It can also
be seen that the beams reinforced with CFRP has a
higher stiffness, the beams reinforced with steel show a
considerable reduction in stiffness also at low load levels
due to the yielding of the steel.
Figure 9: Load-deflection curves for one beam from
each configuration.
Figure 10: Fibre buckling for both timber and CFRP
laminates in the compressive zone.
The increase in ultimate moment capacity was
between 57% and 95.8%. The maximum moment
capacity increase was seen in beam 3 which was
reinforced with steel (only in the tension zone, 2% of
gross cross section). The tests show that the introduction
of reinforcements in the cross section reduces the
variability in results. The un-reinforced sections vary a
great deal in their stiffness (almost 15%) as well as
ultimate load carrying capacity (about 17%). But when it
comes to reinforced sections, the variability is
diminishing, as the reinforcements takes over and are
now responsible for the key properties. The two beams
reinforced with CFRP (configuration d) show excellent
similarity in their properties. The stiffness varies with less
than 1% while the ultimate loading capacity varies with
8%. All the reinforcing schemes had a positive effect on
the overall ductility of the beams. The ductility is
introduced in two ways, a) due to the use of yielding
reinforcement b) controlling the reinforcement
percentage in the compressive zone so that the
compressive failure is induced in the timber. The ultimate
failure was in tension for almost all beams when the
timber reached its tensile limit, except for heavily
reinforced sections where the failure was in shear, such
as beam 9 in Figure 9.
4.2 Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)
Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) made from rubber
wood veneer treated with fixed types of preservatives,
dried and bonded together with BWP Phenol
Formaldehyde synthetic resin adhesive at high
temperature and pressure, having grains of all the
veneers in one direction (Anon 1993) was received from
a private company for testing.
6
 Different types of tests for moisture content, Table 1: Physical and mechanical properties of LVL
shrinkage, density, static bending, compression strength from rubber wood along with the properties of solid teak
parallel and perpendicular to grain (parallel and wood
perpendicular to glue line), as well as shear parallel and
perpendicular to glue line, tension parallel to glue line,
screw and nail holding properties parallel and
perpendicular to glue line, were carried out as per the
procedure given in the Bureau of Indian Standard IS
1708(1986). The block shear test was conducted
according to the procedure described in ASTM D 3110-
72(1974). Other tests carried out were the adhesion of
plies test as per IS 1734 part V(1983) and the resistance
to delamination test by the method described in the
Bureau of Indian Standard IS 9188(1979).

Strength properties:
Multilayered (17 plies) LVL made from tested rubber
wood following different procedures as mentioned above
are presented in Tables 1 and 2. In Table 1 the physical
and mechanical properties of LVL are given along with
values of teak for comparison. As shown in Table 1, 4.3 Cross-laminated Timber (CLT)
strength properties of LVL from rubber wood compare
favourably with those of Tectona grandis (teak), a Small-scale fire tests on timber panels (ETH Zurich):
favoured structural timber approved for doors and During an ongoing research project carried out at the
windows as per IS 12896-1990. Also, the specific gravity, Institute of Structural Engineering of ETH Zurich the fire
moisture content and strength values of LVL in Table 1 behaviour of timber panels and gypsum plasterboards
tally with the values recommended by Central Pubic has been analysed with an extensive fire testing program
Works Department in India (CPWD IS:-1994). (Schleifer, V., Frangi, A. and Fontana). All fire tests were
performed with unloaded specimens at the Swiss
Block shear test: Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research
The block shear strength test as per IS 1734 (part-V)- (EMPA) in Dubendorf using ISO-fire exposure. The tests
1983 (test method for plywood) was specifically designed were carried out on the small furnace with the
for plywood, where the grain of the adjoining veneer dimensions of 1.0x0.8m. The fire test V12 permitted the
layers is perpendicular to each other, whereas in LVL the direct comparison between a 54 mm thick homogeneous
grain of all the veneer layers are unidirectional. Hence timber panel and a 3-layered timber panel with the same
the test method for plywood is not applicable to LVL. total thickness (with 3x18 mm thick layers). The fire test
Therefore, the block shear test was conducted as per V13 was similar to fire test V12, however two
ASTM D 3110- 72(1974), “Specification for adhesives homogeneous timber panels as well as two 3-layered
used in glued lumber timber panels (with 3x9 mm thick layers) were tested.
products” (lumber joints).
Results on samples of the block shear test are given
in Table 2 along with those of solid rubber wood taken
for comparison.
All the LVL samples passed the test as per the
requirement specified in ASTM D 3110-72(1974), i.e.
60% of wood failure and 60% of shear strength. The
samples actually showed higher values.
The average shear strength percentage of rubber
wood attained by LVL samples comes close to the
minimum required as per ASTM D 3110-72(1974). Also,
Table 2 shows that shear strength of LVL comes close to
the shear strength of solid rubber wood.

Adhesion of plies:
(i) Dry condition: In over 95% of the attached
surfaces the fibres of the test samples
cohered with a barely visible glue line. To
seperate these veneers, more force was
required.
(ii) After 72 hours boiling in water (water
resistance), the fibres cohered very closely
over 70±80% of the surface. Considerable
force was required to separate glued
veneer layers with the knife. It was difficult
to find the glue line.
Figure 11: Plan and cross-section of the test specimen
V12(left) and V13(right).
The test specimens consisted of timber panels
made of spruce with a mean density of 420 kg/m3 and
an average moisture content of 11%. The adhesive
used for bonding of the 3-layered timber panels was a
polyurethane adhesive. During the fire test V12, the fire
exposed 18 mm thick charred layer of the 3- layered
timber panel (with total thickness of 54 mm) started
falling off after about 26.5 minutes. After about 28

7
minutes the fire exposed charred layer has completely
fallen off. According to the FE-thermal analysis the
temperature at the interface between the first and
second layer reaches 300°C after about 25 minutes
(see Fig. 7 left), i.e. at that time it can be assumed that
the first layer is completely charred. Thus, the charcoal
of the first layer started falling off almost immediately
after charring. Falling of charred layers of the 3-layered
timber panels was also clearly observed during the fire
test V13.
Figure 12: Residual cross-section of the test specimen
V12 and V13 after the fire tests. The fire test V12 had a
duration of 38 minutes, the duration of the fire test V13
was 28 minutes
The fire test V12 was stopped after 38 minutes, fire test
V13 after 28 minutes, in both cases due to failure of the
separating function at the joints. Figure 6 shows the
typical residual cross-sections of both specimens after
the fire tests. Table 2 gives the measured average
charring depths and the resulting charring rates of the
timber panels tested. The charring rate of the first fire
exposed 3-layered timber panel of test V13 was 1285
calculated using temperature measurements. It was
assumed that the fire exposed 3-layered timber panel
was completely charred when the temperature of 300°C
was measured at the interface between the first and
second panel. The time difference Δtpanel given in Table
2 represents the time of fire exposure of each panel.
Figure 6 and Table 2 show that the measured charring
depth of the 3-layered solid timber panel is higher than
for the homogeneous timber panel. The resulting
average charring rate of the homogeneous timber panels
was 0.66 mm/min (fire test V12) and 0.62 mm/min (fire
test V13). The measured charring rates agree well with
the one-dimensional charring rate of 0.65 mm/min for
solid timber according to EN 1995- 1-2. The resulting
average charring rate of the 3-layered timber panels was
0.84 mm/min (fire test V12) and 1.05 mm/min (fire
exposed panel of fire test V13).
Table 2: Measured charring depth and charring rates
for the fire tests V12 and V13 with homogeneous timber
plates and cross-laminated timber panels consisting of
3 layers.
Figure 13: Comparison between measured and
calculated charring depth for the 54mm thick 3-layered
cross-laminated timber panel of fire test V12(left) and
the 2x27mm thick 3-layered cross-laminated timber
panels of fire test V13(right).
Figure 13 compares the measured charring depth of the
3-layered timber panels with the charring depth
calculated according the FE-thermal analysis. The
charring depth was calculated as the position of the
300°C isotherm. Further, for the FE-thermal analysis it
was assumed that the charcoal falls off after the layer is
completely charred, i.e. when the temperature at the
interface between the layers reaches 300°C. There is a
good agreement between the fire test V13 (2x27 mm
thick 3-layered timber panels) and the FE thermal
analysis, confirming the expected increased charring
after each charred layer has fallen off. For the fire test
V12 the FE-thermal analysis overestimated the
calculated charring depth of the 54 mm thick 3-layered
timber panel after the first fire exposed 18 mm thick layer
was completely charred. The reason is that the second
layer was protected by the remaining charcoal of the first
layer during more time than assumed in the FE-thermal
analysis. However, as the fire progresses, the charcoal
of the first layer fell off, leading to an increased charring
of the second layer. At the end of the fire test the
difference of the measured charring depth between fire
test and FE-thermal analysis was small.
The fire tests showed that the measured
charring rate of 3-layered timber panels was higher than
for homogeneous timber panels, as the charcoal of the
charred layers fell off earlier than in the case of
homogeneous timber panels. Further the timber panel
with 3x9mm thick layers showed a higher charring rate
than the timber panel with 3x18mm thick layers,
confirming that the fire behaviour of multilayer timber
panels can be strongly influenced by the thickness of the
layers.
8
5.0 EXAMPLE OF REAL STRUCTURE • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fS8sr
QNmpA
5.1 Glue-laminated Timber (Glulam)

7.0 REFERENCES

• HOOVER, W. L., J. M. RINOEC, . A.

ECKELMAANN, D I. A. YOUNGQUIST. 1987.
Material design factors for hardwood laminated-
veneer-lumber. Forest Prod. J. 37(9): 15-23.

• American National Standards Institute. (ANSI).

2011.
• Standard for Performance-Rated Cross-
Laminated
• Timber. ANSI/APA PRG 320-2011. APA.

Figure 14: The Malaysia Pavilion at Expo Milano 2015 • Anon "prEn 408 - Timber structures - Structural
in Milan, Italy timber and glued laminated timber -
Determination of some
5.2 Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) • physical and mechanical properties." prEn
408:1994.

• Granholm, H. (1954). Armerat trä: Reinforced

timber. Göteborg, Gumpert.

• Hernandez, R., J. F. Davalos, et al. (1997).

Strength and Stiffness of Reinforced Yellow-
poplar Glued-laminated
• Beams. USDA Forest service, Forest Products
Laboratory. Research paper FPL-RP-554,
Madison,
• USA.

• Schleifer, V., Frangi, A. and Fontana, M.,

Figure 15: Toranoko Nursery Laminated Veneer “Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum
Lumber Roof in Fujikawaguchiko, Japan Brandverhalten
• von Plattenelementen”, IBK-testing report no.
5.3 Cross-laminated Timber (CLT) 302, Institute of Structural Engineering (IBK),
ETH
• Zurich, 2007

• Hsu, W. E. 1988. Laminated veneer lumber

from aspen.
• Pages 257-269 in Proceedings, 22nd
International Particleboard/
• Composite Symposium. Washington State
• University. Pullman, WA.

• Frangi, A. and Fontana, M., (2003) Charring

rates and temperature profiles of wood
Figure 16: New Springfield, USA sections,
• Fire and Materials 27: 91-102,
doi:10.1002/fam.819

6.0 URL OF VIDEOS

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUlkX-
NknEA
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM-
iQjF-H1k&t=1s
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaUpt
sqE1KI
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poBtA
mMwXzE
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jokkqS
TtM74