Data

𝜎𝐵 = 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 1200 𝑝𝑠𝑖

𝜏 = 𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 180 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐸 = 1200 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝑇𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑙 = 100 𝑙𝑏

Load (lb) Position (in) Time (min)

27 0.0009 0.0008
28 0.0017 0.0017
28 0.0026 0.0025
28 0.0035 0.0033
23 0.0043 0.0042
34 0.0052 0.005
28 0.0061 0.0058
32 0.007 0.0066
… … …
762 2.1187 1.9623
764 2.1196 1.9631
767 2.1205 1.964
767 2.1214 1.9648
763 2.1223 1.9656
765 2.1232 1.9665
765 2.1241 1.9673
771 2.125 1.9681

Calculations

1
 Force vs Displacement
900

800

700

600
Force (lb)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement (in)

2
 Forces for Yield Point
P of Column Buckling 5929.8 lb
P of Shearing Beam 1260 lb
P of Bending Beam No Pullout 175 lb
P of Bending Beam Nail Pullout 143.75 lb

Forces for Ultimate Point

P of Column Buckling 5929.8 lb
P of Shearing Beam 1260 lb
P of Bending Beam No Pullout 262.5 lb
P of Bending Beam Nail Pullout 237.5 lb

Force vs Displacement
900

800

700

600
Force (lb)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement (in)

ww

3
Analysis and Discussion
There is a drastic difference between the predicted and measured force capacities of
the frame. From the measured data, the member failed at a force of 771 lbs. The
calculated expected vertical force at failure considering bending moments, shears and
nail pull-out it was determined to be 262.5 lbs. While these numbers are drastically
different, it has a lot to do with elastic theory and the variability of wood.

Through compression, the frame member cracked and experienced some nail
deformation. However, these aren’t the only factors that affected the outcomes. It was
obvious from looking at the frame after loading it that the fracture point was offset
from the center. While that could imply the frame was not symmetrically loaded, it also
happened to fail at the end of a knot in the wood. If the frame was not correctly loaded,
this can be attributed to the member not being perfectly centered in the machine
before loading, causing the symmetry to be off balance, which can cause the frame to
rotate. While there was some sway during loading, there was not enough to imply the
frame had been incorrectly loaded.

According to calculations, the predicted ultimate shear stress capacity of the member is
1260 lbs. The force required to fail the beam by buckling is 5929.8 lbs. The bending
failure without nail pullout is 262.5 lbs. The bending failure of the member with nail
pullout is 237.5 lbs. According to these calculations, and the outcome of the
experimentation, it is evident that bending stresses were the source of failure.

Possible errors in this lab include not perfectly centering the frame in the compression
machine causing the lack symmetry during compression, resulting in the frame not
experience the force evenly. With our experiment the frame was loaded pretty closely
aligned with the center. The actual cause of the break to occur off to one side was a
large knot in the wood directly in the center of the top piece of wood.

As with all experiments with wood, it must be taken into account that wood is a highly
variable material and the yield stress is known to fluctuate. A lack of consistency in the
wood could be due to many variables, including humidity/ moisture, the actually
structure of the wood, in our case a knot, or numerous other variables. These variable
differences could cause major changes to the failure strength of the member. Another
source of error is that it was assumed that the nails pulled out straight once pullout
started; however, as the member began to bend the nails were still embedded in both
members, meaning they retained some capacity.