Compressive strength properties of

Malaysian tropical timber in structural size:

Timber strength grading
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2020, 020034 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062660
Published Online: 05 October 2018

H. M. Azlan, M. B. F. M. Puaad, Z. Ahmad, A. R. A. Talip, and M. H. Yasin

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Tensile strength/yield strength (TS/YS) ratios of high-strength steel (HSS) reinforcing bars
AIP Conference Proceedings 1964, 020036 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5038318

Effects of palm oil fuel ash (POFA) towards consistency and setting time properties of
concrete
AIP Conference Proceedings 2020, 020035 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062661

Overall assessment on flexible pavement maintenance activities along North South

Expressway Northern Region: From Alor Setar KM51.40 to Sungai Petani KM 107.90
AIP Conference Proceedings 2020, 020023 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062649

AIP Conference Proceedings 2020, 020034 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062660 2020, 020034

© 2018 Author(s).
 Compressive Strength Properties of Malaysian Tropical
Timber in Structural Size: Timber Strength Grading
H. M. Azlan1,a), M. B. F. M. Puaad 2,b), Z. Ahmad 3,, A. R. A. Talip2, and M. H.
Yasin 2,
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Johor, Malaysia
3
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
a
hafizahazlan@ppinang.uitm.edu.my
b
bazli94949@yahoo.com

Abstract. Nowadays, there are no data provided regarding compressive strength of structural size timber in Malaysia. The
mechanical properties presented in the code of practice MS544: PART 2: 2001 such as tension, compression, and bending
stresses, given in Table 1 and 2 of the code were obtained from tests of small pieces of timber as known as clear specimen.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the timber compressive strength properties for eight selected Malaysian timber of
different strength grouping and the results of small clear specimens were statistically correlated with the results from the
structural size specimens. The application of structural size specimen data can be used to predict the much higher quality
and the strength of timber to be used in construction field and it also can be at published in the Malaysian code of practice.

INTRODUCTION

Sawn timber from log, regardless of species and size, have its variability in mechanical properties. Pieces may
differ in strength by several hundred percent. For simplicity and economies use, pieces of lumber of similar mechanical
properties are placed in categories called stress grades. The stresses are derived so that the designer can confidently
design structures with safety, economy and beauty according to the timber species suitabilitygroup namely SG1 to SG
7 and this new system of strength grouping are still use by the engineer for structural timber work by referring to the
codes of practice for structural use of timber MS 544: Part 2: permissible stress design of solid timber (MS 544: part
2). However, the grade stresses in Tables 1 and 2 given in MS 544 Part 2: 2001 such as tension, compression and
bending stresses were obtained as a factor of small clear timber stresses. Clear wood refers to clears and defect-free
small size timber, usually used in laboratory investigations for standard tests.
According to [5] cited in [6] mention that other country such as United Kingdom, the concept of basic stresses has
been abandoned and the new approach for assessing the strength of timber appears to be in line with the limit ‘limit
stress’ design philosophy. Furthermore [2], noted that the mechanical properties of timber in European standard (EN
338) are derived from the structural size specimen. [7], done a studies on strength grading of European structural
timber species, concluded that the research define necessary corrections as well as better production follow-up and
quality management regarding structural size timber.
The process would first involve grading structural timber into various stress grades. There are also problem for the
full size test properties from dimensional lumber. Such fullsize tests involve hundreds of specimens to get a predictable
result, and statistical approach to brittle fracture is used to analysis lumber properties. A statistical distribution model
is chosen to fit the distribution of data and the introduction of a calibration is then necessary. The result are used to
determined the characteristic stress, which is taken to be the value below which not more than 5% of the test result
falls.

Advances in Civil Engineering and Science Technology

AIP Conf. Proc. 2020, 020034-1–020034-8; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5062660
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1738-0/$30.00

020034-1
 Therefore [8] concluded that it is important to have direct measurements of the actual physical strength of the
structural timber. Structural uses of solid timber products require the knowledge of physical and mechanical properties
of timber as a basis for design criteria.
It is highly time for a study to be carried out to produce the actual strength properties structural size timber in order
to ensure safety and that proper usage structural size timbers in construction industries.

METHODOLOGY

A. Materials
All timber materials used in this project were selected on one occasion in order to obtain a test material without
too high a variation in strength which could be arisen from different growth condition. The timbers used for this study
were sourced from reserved forest in UiTM Jengka as shown in Table 1. Based on MS544 Part 2, these species are in
the different strength group. The total number of specimens in structural size was 160 (20 sample for each species)
and the total number of specimens for small clear was 240 (30 sample for each species).
TABLE 1. Timber Species
Strength
Species Family Grouping
(SG)
Kapur Dipterocarpaceae SG 4
Merpauh Anacardiaceae SG 4
Resak Dipterocarpaceae SG 4
Bintangor Guthiferea SG 5
White Meranti Dipterocarpaceae SG 5
Jelutong Apocynaceae SG 6
Kelempayan Rubiaceae SG 7
Sesensdok Euphorbiaceae SG 7

B. Specimens Preparations and Measurements

The specimens were prepared according to ASTM D-198 and ASTM D-143. The specimens were planned on four
sides to the size of 50 mm x 50 mm x 1500 mm (structural size) and 50 mm x 50 mm x 200mm. These specimens
were kiln dried to attain a moisture content less than 19% or dry condition. Then the specimens were visually stress
graded and the standard and better grade was selected for the study.

C. Grading of Timber Strength

In timber, the variability is considerable. Both from one species to another and even within a given species. This
is because timber is biology material and human effort has practically no control over growth. However it should be
emphasized that variability in strength in any timber species is predictable and can be established by statically
methods. It is necessary to decide whatis reasonable probability to use in the calculation of a statically estimated
minimum strength.

i. Small Clear Specimen

In Malaysia, probability of 1 in 100 (1 percentile) that the minimum strength is exceeded is chosen for bending,
tension, compression parallel to the grain shear and modulus of elasticity (small clear specimen). Therefore, for small
clear specimen, the stress at 1 percentile will be used. All the bending strength and stiffness of timbers were analysed
using cumulative distribution function. In performing cumulative distribution function, the set of data for ultimate
compressive strength are needed to produce the s-curve graph and from the graph, the 1 percentile value can be
determined.
Cumulative distribution function were plotted using Minitab v 16.0 software as shown in Figure 1. In order to
compare the strength grouping of the timber studied with the strength grouping published in MS 544 Part 2, the basic
stress and grade stress shown need to be determined. Basic stress is the stress that would be safely permanently
sustained by the timbers. The basic stress is determined by first determined the stress which is given in Table 1. For
different types of stress, MS 544 Part 2 used different probability value.

020034-2
 In statistics, for a probability of 1 in 100, the minimum value is estimated then divided by factor of safety according
to the type of test, as shown in Table 2.

AT 1 PERCENTILE

FIGURE 1. Cumulative Distribution Function Graph Showing The Stress at 1 Percentile

TABLE 2. Formula for Determining Basic StressesChu et al1999)

Probability Factor of Formula
Property
value safety

Bending and
X 2.33
shear 1 in 100 2.5
2.5

Compression
parallel to the X 2.33
1 in 100 1.5
grain 1.5

Compression
perpendicular to X 1.64
1 in 20 1.3
the grain 1.3
*
This stress is called characteristic stresswhere,

X = Strength value at 1 percentile

2.3 = 1 percentile coefficient
1.64 = 5percentile coefficient
= Standard Deviation

To determine the grade stress, the basic stress will be multiplied by the strength ratio which related to the
percentage of defects in the timbers. There are three stress grades of timber that are associated with the different limits
of strength reducing characteristics they are Common, Standard and Select. The strength ratios for the three grades of
each strength property are given in Table 3. Design engineer are supposed to make use of the design values correspond
to the stress grade of timber in their calculations. This open up the use of lower grade timber for use in the industry.
For this study the grade is standard and better. Therefore the strength ratio used in 63%.

020034-3
 TABLE 3. Strength Ratio
Property Select (%) Standard (%) Common (%)
Bending, Tension
and Compression to 80 63 50
Grain

Shear 72 56 45

Same as the Same as the Same as the basic

Modulus of Elasticity basic values basic values values for all
for all grades for all grades grades

ii. Structural Size Specimen

For structural size specimen, the timber were not sorted to select, standard or common categories as need for
determining the grade stress for small clear specimen. The grade stresses for structural size specimens will be based
on timbers visually graded as standard and better similar to BS 5268 and also MS 544 Part 3. This is the reason why
the grade stresses for small clear specimen studied here were chosen from standard and better.
For the structural size specimen, the percentile used is not 1 percentile as for small clear specimens. This is because
for the large size specimen, the confidence level for free from defects is less than small clear specimen. [14,15,16]
mentioned that the probability of 1 in 20 that the minimum strength is chosen for structural size specimen. Therefore
in this case, 5th percentile will be used. Those values of characteristic strengths were determined directly from the s-
curve graph (without multiplying with reduction factor in Table 2) of form the cumulative distribution function. The
cumulative distribution function were plotted using Minitab v 16.0 software as shown Figure 2 respectively.

Mean 116.9
100
StDev 17.09
N 20

80
Percent (%)

60

40
88.77 MPa

20

0
5 AT 5 PERCENTILE
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Stress (MPa)

FIGURE 2. Cumulative Distribution Function Graph Showing the Stress at 5 Percentile

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A. Compression Failure Characteristics (Small Clear Specimen)

The value of one percentile for compression parallel to the grain is shown in Figure 3 which sorting the data
from weakest to strongest, plotted as a cumulative distribution function. It shows that the Resak and Bintangor have
greater separation in the distribution of strength between each group. Bintangor distribution of strength tends to
move towards the species in SG 4 which mean in higher strength grouping.
It can also be seen that Resak has shifted away from Merpauh but to a side of higher grade whereby in bending the
distribution for Resak and Merpauh there is nearly to no differences.

020034-4
 CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION
Normal
Variable

BNTGR 45.62
100
KPR
MRPH
RSK
80 BNTGR
WM
JLTNG

Percent (%)
60 KLPYN
SSDK

MRPH 45.69
40

KPR 37.97
JLTNG 15.40

RSK 48.29
W.M 35.92
SSDK 14.87

KLPYN15.60
20

0 1 AT 1 PERCENTILE
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Stress (MPa)

FIGURE 3. Distributions of Strength at 1 Percentile of Species as a Cumulative Distribution Function for Compression Parallel
to the Grain

For Jelutong, Sesendok and Kelempayan, their distribution function almost coincide which proves that they are in
the same strength grouping and this finding is the same as stated in MS 544 Part 2 should has the higher grade.
Table 4 shows the moisture content and density of the small clear specimen. The density of Resak is high compared
to other species in SG 4 even though Resak is in the same SG 4 group.

TABLE 4. M.C and Density for Compression Parallel to the Grain for Small Clear Specimen
Moisture
Strength Density
Species Content
Group (kg/m)
(%)
Kapur SG 4 10.83 746
Merpauh SG 4 10.51 753
Resak SG 4 10.56 970
Bintangor SG 5 11.56 685

WhiteMeranti SG 5 10.91 610

Jelutong SG 6 10.50 436

Kelempayan SG 7 9.84 440
Sesendok SG 7 10.77 468

One difficulty in predicting the strength of Malaysia timbers, under the same species the density may varies in the
wide range. The grade stress stated in MS 544 Part 2 group with minimum properties including the density. This may
explained the shift in the Resak to the higher grade due to the higher density. Within the range of density of Resak is
between 655 – 1155 kg/m3 (100 Malaysian Timbers). The density of Resak in this study is with mean 970 kg/m3. The
compressive grade stresses were determined using the following example calculation:

i. Compressive grade stress (Resak) = 1 percentile x grade stress ratio

Stress at 1 percentile
= x 0.63
1.5
48.29
= 0.63
1.5
= 20.2 MPa

B. Compression Failure Characteristics (Structural Size)

Table 5 shows the moisture content and density of the small clear specimen. Figure 4 shows the compressive
strength data at fifth percentile after sorting from weakest to strongest, plotted as a cumulative distribution function
and it shows that the Resak and Bintangor have greater separation in the distribution of the species in their strength
group.

020034-5
 TABLE 5. M.C and Density for Compression Parallel to the Grain for Structural Size Specimen
Strength Moisture Density
Species
Group Content (%) (kg/m)
Kapur 12.12 12.12 795
Merpauh 8.99 8.99 747
Resak 10.86 10.86 974
Bintangor 13.14 13.14 701
WhiteMeranti 11.17 11.17 645
Jelutong 10.58 10.58 421
Kelempayan 9.74 9.74 425
Sesendok 10.18 10.18 457

Bintangor distribution of strength tends move towards the SG 4 species which mean higher in strength grouping.
But in other hand, Resak distribution of strength is greater than Kapur and Merpauh, but since the highest strength
group had been tested is the SG 4, it cannot be specified in what strength group that Resak shifted to. As for the species
include in SG 6 and SG 7, it shows that there are change in strength distribution where Kelempayan is still the lowest
strength distribution, while Sesendok is moving towards strength distribution of White Meranti in SG 5 even though
these two specimen suppose to be in the same strength grouping.

100

80

Mrph 43.64
Kpr 41.81

Species
KPR
60 MRPH
Percent

RSK
BNTNGR
Ssdk 24.76

WM
Bntgr 38.56

40
Klmpyn 10.73

JLTNG
Jltng 17.84

W.M 27.00

KLPYN
Rsk 44.76

SSDK

20

5 AT 5 PERCENTILE
0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Strength

FIGURE 4. Distributions of Strength at 5 Percentile of Species as a Cumulative Distribution Function for Compression Parallel
to the Grain

In general, there are slight changes for strength grouping distribution in large size specimen because it shows
several species are tends to undergo the strength group changes by referring to the strength group data given in MS
544: Part. So this is important information regarding large size specimens which may be useful information for the
development of timber grading based on large size specimen for MS 544 Part 3
The grade stresses structural size specimens were determined using the following example calculation:

i. Compressive grade stress (Resak) = Characteristic strength 5 percentile

Stress at 5 percentile
=
1.5
48.3
=
1.5
= 29.8 MPa

C. Compressive Strength Properties

Table 6 show the comparison of mechanical properties in compression parallel to the grain between structural size
and small clear specimen. It can be seen, that the UCS value given in structural size is much lower than small clear
specimen except for Sesendok. In general, there are slight changes for strength grouping distribution in large size
specimen because it shows several species are tends to undergo the strength group changes by referring to the strength
group data given in MS 544: Part. So this is important information regarding large size specimens which may be useful
information for the development of timber grading based on large size specimen for MS 544 Part 3[20].

020034-6
 The comparison of small clear specimen and structural in term of characteristic strength, mostly all of the stresses
provided by structural specimen calculated are lower than small clear specimen except for Sesendok. Although, the
characteristic strength of small clear specimen are higher than structural, when the value of characteristic stress were
multiplied by the reduction ratio stated by [4] according to timber grade (standard and better were used in this studies)
all the grade stress of small clear specimen are much more lower than provided by the actual structural size timbers.
It can be concluded that, the application of grade stress reduction ratio given by [4] might be in doubt as the grade
stress provided by small clear specimen and MS 544: Part 2 produced a lower compressive strength than structural
size specimen.

TABLE 6. Summary Statistics for Compressive Strength

Small Clear Specimen Large Size Specimen
Compressive strength Compressive strength
Grade Stress = Grade Stress
Grade Stress = Grade Stress
Species Mean Species Mean =
. .
(MPa) . 1% x 0.63 (MPa) = At 5tPercentile
. . 1.5
1.5
Kapur 54.3 15.9 15.8 Kapur 51.0 27.9 27.8
Merpauh 55.2 19.1 19.1 Merpauh 51.9 29.1 29.0
Resak 64.6 20.2 20.2 Resak 57.6 29.8 29.8
Bintangor 52.3 19.1 19.1 Bintangor 49.5 25.7 25.7
White White
44.8 15.0 15.0 38.2 18.0 18.0
Meranti Meranti
Jelutong 26.1 6.4 6.4 Jelutong 24.6 11.9 11.8
Kelempayan 23.6 6.5 6.5 Kelempayan 20.2 7.1 7.1
Sesendok 26.8 6.2 6.2 Sesendok 31.0 16.5 16.5

CONCLUSION

The investigation on the grade stress of the timber used in this study will not be able to provide the overall strength
grouping since more information are needed such as tensile strength and shear strength parallel to the grain as well as
compression perpendicular to the grain.
Table 5 can provide same indications that the strength grouping based on small clear specimen may be different
than the strength grouping based on the large size.Based on the large size specimen, Bintangor should not be in the
same strength grouping as W.Meranti since the strength is about the same Resak, Kapur and Merpauh. As for Sesendok
is currently in the strength group 7 but from this investigation, Sesendok strength upraise to almost the same strength
grouping as W.Meranti in SG 5. Meanwhile for small clear specimen, Merpauh, Resak, and Bintagor should be in the
same strength group. Kapur and White Meranti together in another group.
It can be concluded that, the result found in this study as shown in Table 5 indicates that the strength grouping
given in MS 544 Part 2 need to be re-examined as the data established was conducted using the small clear specimen.
Furthermore, the application of grade stress reduction ratio given by Chu et al., (1999) might be doubtful as the grade
stress provided by small clear specimen and MS 544: Part 2 produced a lower value in term of strength than the actual
strength of structural size specimen.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank the technicians of Civil engineering Faculty and Faculty of Mechanical for their assistance and
support. The work reported here was financially supported by the UiTM Pulau Pinang and Malaysian Timber Industry
Board.

020034-7
 REFERENCE

1. H. J. Burgess (1956). Strength grouping of malayan timbers. Malayan Forester, 19(1), 33-36.
2. M. J. A. Wahab, M. Z. Jumaat, M. O. M. Khaidzir (2012). Statistical Technique for Grouping Tropical Timbers
into Similar Strength Groups. Modern Applied Science Vol. 6, No. 3; March 2012.
3. C. E. A. Rahman (1971). Basic and Grade Stresses for Some Malaysian Timbers. Malayan Forester, 34(4), 131-
134.
4. Y. P. Chu, K. S. Ho, M. S. Midon, A. R. A. Malik (1997). Timber design handbook. FRIM, Malaysia, Kepong
5. C. Arya (1994). Design of structural elements. E and FN SPON, London.
6. R. Hassan, Z. Ahmad, A. Ibrahim,M. S. Noh (2004). Compresisive strength properties of structural size timber
made from selected malaysian tropical timber. Institute Penyelidikan, Pembangunan Dan Komersilan, Universiti
Teknologi Mara, Shah Alam, Malaysia.
7. A. BDOWUXãDLWLV 9 3UDQFNHYLþLHQơ (2003). Strength grading of the structural timber. Materials Science
(MEDŽIAGOTYRA). Vol. 9, No. 3. 2003
8. Z. Ahmad, Y. C. Bon, E. S. A. Wahab (2003). Tensile strength properties of tropical hardwoods in structural
size testing. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences IJBAS-IJENS Vol: 10 No: 03.
9. ASTM D198: 2009. Standard Test Method for Static Test of Lumber in Structural Sizes : Annual Book of ASTM
Standard Volume 04. 10.
10. ASTM D143: 2009. Standard Test Methods for Small Clear Specimens of Timber.
11. MS 544 Part 2: 2001. Code of Practice for Structural Use of Timber. Department of Standard. Malaysia.
Department of Standard. Malaysia.
12. BS 5268-2: 2002, Structural Use of Timber-Part 2: Code of Practice for Permissible Stress Design, Materials and
Workmanship
13. MS 544 Part 3: 2001. Code of Practice For The Structural Use Of Timber Part 3: Permissible stress design of
glued laminated timber.
14. H. P. San (2003). Basic engineering properties of laminated veneer lumber (lvl) produced from tropical hardwood
species. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis. Faculty of Forestry Universiti Putra Malaysia. Selangor. Malaysia.
15. NZW. (2007). Information Sheet. Grading Systems for Structural Timber.
16. H. Säll, B. Källsner, A. Olsson (2007). Bending strength and stiffness of aspen sawn timber. COST E 53
Conference - Quality Control for Wood and Wood Products. 15th – 17th October 2007, Warsaw, Poland.

020034-8