PSI - Issue 37

Nsouami et al. 2021/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2021) 000 – 000

Valérie Nsouami et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 37 (2022) 576–581 Figure 4 presents the Force – displacement curves for the three environments posted in Fig 1. The considered specimens have defined in the nomenclature section and have been chosen in the same vertical zones (upper (a), middle (b) lower (c)), according to Fig 2 c. It s shown that in midd e zone (or portion), the maximal forces are similar in the three environments. However, the maximal force is noted in Air-conditioned atmosphere for upper zones in compression. Simultaneously, the maximal force occurs in sheltered environment for lower zone in tensile. 3.2. Results of bending tests The results of bending tests presented in Fig. 4 are discussed in this section in order to investigate the impact of physico-mechanical parameter. Table 1 summarizes the experimental results per zone and the mean value per beam. The coefficient of variation (Cov) concerns the beam and was estimated from 27 samples. Figure 4 presents the Force – displacement curves for the three environments posted in Fig 1. The considered specimens have defined in the nomenclature section and ave been chose in the same vertical zones (upper (a), middle (b) lower (c)), according to Fig 2 c. It is shown that in middle zone (or portion), the maximal forces are similar in the three environments. However, the maximal force is noted in Air-conditioned atmosphere for upper zones in compression. Simultaneously, the maximal force occurs in sheltered environment for lower zone in tensile. 3.2. Results of bending tests The results of bending tests presented in Fig. 4 ar discussed in this section in order to investigate the impact of physico-mechanical parameter. Table 1 summarizes the experimental results per zone and the mean value per beam. The coefficient of variation (Cov) concerns the beam and was estimated from 27 samples. Nsouami et al. 2021/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2021) 000 – 000 Figure 4 presents the Force – displacement curves for the three environments posted in Fig 1. The considered specimens have defined in the nomenclature section and have been chosen in the same vertical zones (upper (a), middle (b) lower (c)), according to Fig 2 c. It is shown that in middle zone (or portion), the maximal forces are similar in the three environments. However, the maximal force is noted in Air-conditioned atmosphere for upper zones in compression. Simultaneously, the maximal force occurs in sheltered environment for lower zone in tensile. 3.2. Results of bending tests The results of bending tests presented in Fig. 4 are discussed in this section in order to investigate the impact of physico-mechanical parameter. Table 1 summarizes the experimental results per zone and the mean value per beam. The coefficient of variation (Cov) concerns the beam and was estimated from 27 samples. Nsouami et al. 2021/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2021) 000 – 000 Figure 4 presents the F ce – displacemen curves for the three environments posted in Fig 1. The considered specimens ave defined in th nomenclatu e section and have bee chosen in the same v rtical zon s (upper (a), middle (b) lower (c)), according t Fig 2 c. It is shown that in middle zone (or portion), the maximal forces are similar in the three environments. However, the maximal force is noted in Air-conditioned atmosphere for upper zones in compression. Simultaneously, the maximal force occurs in sheltered environment for lower zone in tensile. 3.2. R sults of bendi g tes s The results of bending tests presented in Fig. 4 are discussed in this section in order to investigate the impact of physico-mechanical parameter. Table 1 summarizes the experimental results per zone and the mean value per beam. The coefficient of variation (Cov) concerns the beam and was estimated from 27 samples. Nsouami et al. 2021/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2021) 000 – 000 F gure 4 presents the Forc – displacem nt curves for the thr enviro ments posted in Fig 1. The considered specimens have defined in the nomenclature section and have been chosen in the same vertical zones (upper (a), middle (b) lowe (c)), according to Fig 2 c. It is shown that in middl zo e (or portion), the maximal forces are similar in the three environments. However, the maximal force is noted in Air-conditioned atmosphere for upper zones in compression. Simultaneously, the maximal force occurs in sheltered environment for lower zone in tensile. 3.2. Results of bending tests The results of bending tests presented in Fig. 4 are discussed n this section in order to investigate the impact of physico-mechanical par meter. Table 1 summariz s the experimental results per zone and the mean value per beam. The coefficient of variation (Cov) concerns the beam and was estimated from 27 samples. Nsouami et al. 2021/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2021) 000 – 000 Figure 4 presents the F ce – displacemen curves for the three environments posted in Fig 1. The considered specimens ave defined in th nomenclature section a d ve bee chosen in the same vertical zon s (upp r (a), middle (b) lower (c)), accordi g t Fig 2 c. It is shown that in middle zone (or portion), the maximal forces are similar in the three environments. However, the maximal force is noted in Air-conditi ed atm spher for upper zones in compression. Simultaneously, the maximal force occurs in sheltered environment for lower zone in tensile. 3.2. R sults of bendi g tes s The results of b nding tests p esented in Fig. 4 ar discussed n thi section in order to investigate the impact of physico-mechanical parameter. Table 1 summarizes the experimental results per zone and the mean value per beam. The coefficient of variation (Cov) concerns the beam and was estimated from 27 samples. Table 1. Results of physico-mechanical bending parameters Table 1. Results of physico-mechanical bending parameters

580

Exposures Exposures Table 1. Results of physico-mechanical bending parameters Table 1. Results of physico-mechanical bending parameters Table 1. Results of physico-mechanical bending parameters Table 1. Results of physico- echanical bending parameters Exposures Parameters Parameters Density (kg/m3) Density (kg/m3)

MOE (MPa) MOE (MPa) 14 871 14 871 27 MOE (MPa) MOE (MPa) MOE (MPa) MOE (MPa) 27 27

FS (MPa) FS (MPa) 122.33 122.33 FS (MPa) FS (MPa) FS (MPa) 11.04 11.04 122.33 122.33 122.33 122.33 9.0 9.0 11.04 11.04 11.04 FS (MPa) 9.0

Number of specimens Number of specimens Parameters Parameters Standard deviation Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Number of sp cimens Average Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Number of specime s Average Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Number of specimens A e age Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Number of sp cimens Average Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Coef of variation (%) Number of specimens Number of specimens Average Average Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Number of sp cimens Average Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Number of specime s Average Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Number of specimens Average Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Number of sp cimens Average Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Number of specimens Number of specimens Average Average Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Number of sp cimens A erage Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Number of specime s Average Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Number of specimens A e age Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Number of sp cimens Average Standard deviation Coef of variation (%) Average Average Parameters Paramet rs

756.16 756.16 Density (kg/m3) Density (kg/m3) Density (kg/m3) Density (kg/m3)

Air conditioned Air conditioned Exposures Exposures Exposures Air conditioned Air conditioned Air conditioned Air conditioned

24.57 24.57 756.16 756.16 756.16 756.16 3.2 3.2 24.57 24.57 24.57 24.57 732.07 732.07 3.2 3.2 3.2 32.64 32.64 732.07 732.07 732.07 732.07 4.5 4.5 32.64 32.64 32.64 32.64 749.27 749.27 4.5 4.5 4.5 32.91 32.91 749.27 749.27 749.27 749.27 4.4 4.4 32.91 32.91 32.91 32.91 3.2 4.5 4.4 4.4

1 131 1 131 14 871 27 14 871 27 14 871 27 14 871 7.6 7.6 1 131 1 131 1 131 27 27 14 180 14 180 27 7.6 7.6 131 7.6 1 519 1 519 14 180 27 14 180 27 14 180 27 14 180 10.7 10.7 1 519 1 519 1 519 27 27 17 195 17 195 2 10.7 10.7 51 1 096 1 096 17 195 27 17 195 27 17 195 .7 27 17 195 6.4 6.4 1 096 1 096 1 096 1 096 7.6 10.7 6.4 6.4

99.84 11.61 99.84 11.61 99.84 11.61 9.0 99.84 11.61 9.0 99.84 11.61 11.0 9.0 99.84 11.6 11.6 114.06 114.06 11.6 11.6 .61 11.6 7.05 7.05 114.06 114.06 114.06 114.06 6.2 6.2 7.05 7.05 7.05 7.05 11.6 6.2 6.2

Unsheltered Unsheltered Unsheltered Unsheltered Unsheltered Unsheltered

Sheltered Sheltered Sheltered Sheltered Sheltered Sheltered

In view of the results obtained in Table 1, the physio-mechanical parameters of the specimens from different environments clearly illustrate a real variability depending on the exposure medium. Although, we observe that the modulus of elasticity of the protected medium is higher than the other two. This can be explained, for example, by its larger density (Jodin 1994; Natterer, Sandoz, et Rey 2004) even though it is in a sheltered outdoor environment. Other parameters can also explain this phenomenon such as the humidity rate, temperature, etc. In a sheltered and unsheltered outdoor environment, the strength and modulus of elasticity of the upper and middle specimens are greater than those calculated in the lower part. This observation is particularly pronounced for the unsheltered outdoor environment. This can be explained by the high exposure of the upper part of the beams to the weather compared to the lower part which is less exposed to run and solar radiation. Concerning mean values of MOE, Manfoumbi (2012) reported the following values for this kind of timber: 17400 MPa (air-conditioned), 21400 MPa (unsheltered) and 24600 MPa (Sheltered). We found a decrease in beam stiffness for all environments varying from (14.5% to 33.7%). This loss in beam stiffness could be due to environmental effects, loading duration, material aging and wood density. Saifouni (2014) reported that the mechanical behavior is impacted by wood density. On the other hand, the coefficients of variation (Cov) vary between 0.01 and 0.10. The larger Cov correspond the unsheltered conditions where the environmental exposure could affect the microstructure of the timber increasing the variability of mechanical properties. 4. Conclusion The 3-point bending tests applied on tropical specimens of Moabi ( Baillonella toxisperma ) have been investigated in the work. The specimen are debited on beams previously exposed in three different tropical environments (air-conditioned, unsheltered and sheltered). Based on the experimental results obtained, we In view of th results obtained in Table 1, the physio-mechanical arameters of the specimens fr m different environments cle rly illustrate a real variability depending on the exposure medium. Although, we observe that the modulus of elasticity of the protected medium is higher than the other two. This can be explained, for example, by its larger density (Jodin 1994; Natterer, Sandoz, et Rey 2004) even though it is in a sh ltered outdoor environment. Other parameters can also explain this phenomenon such as the humidity rate, temperature, etc. In a sh ltered and unsheltered outdoor environment, the strength and modulus of elasticity of the upper an middle specimens are great r than those calculated in the lower part. This observation is particularly pronounced for the unsheltered outdoor environment. This can be explained by the high exposure of the upper part of the beams to the weather compared to the lower part which is less exposed to run and solar radiation. Concerning mean values of MOE, Manfoumbi (2012) reported the following values for this kind of timber: 17400 MPa (air-conditioned), 21400 MPa (unsheltered) and 24600 MPa (Sheltered). We found a decrease in b am stiffness for all environments varying from (14.5% to 33.7%). This loss in beam stiffness could be due to environmental effects, loading duration, material agi g and wood density. Saifouni (2014) reported that the mechanical behavior is impacted by wood density. On the other hand, the coefficients of variation (Cov) vary between 0.01 and 0.10. The larger Cov correspond the unsheltered conditions where the environmental exposure could affect the microstructure of the timber increasing the variability of mechanical properties. 4. Conclusion The 3-point bending tests a plied on tropical specimens of Moabi ( Baillonella toxisperma ) have been investigat d in the work. The specimen are debited on beams previously e osed in three different tropical environments (air-conditioned, unsheltered and sheltered). Based on the experimental results obtained, we In view of the results obtained in Table 1, the physio-mechanical parameters of the specimens from different environments clearly illustrate a real variability depending on the exposure medium. Although, we observe that the modulus of elasticity of the protected medium is higher than the other two. This can be explained, for example, by its larger density (Jodin 1994; Natterer, Sandoz, et Rey 2004) even though it is in a sheltered outdoor environment. Other parameters can also explain this phenomenon such as the humidity rate, temperature, etc. In a sheltered and unsheltered outdoor environment, the strength and modulus of elasticity of the upper and middle specimens are greater than those calculated in the lower part. This observation is particularly pronounced for the unsheltered outdoor environment. This can be explained by the high exposure of the upper part of the beams to the weather compared to the lower part which is less exposed to run and solar radiation. Concerning mean values of MOE, Manfoumbi (2012) reported the following values for this kind of timber: 17400 MPa (air-conditioned), 21400 MPa (unsheltered) and 24600 MPa (Sheltered). We found a decrease in beam stiffness for all environments varying from (14.5% to 33.7%). This loss in beam stiffness could be due to environmental effects, loading duration, material aging and wood density. Saifouni (2014) reported that the mechanical behavior is impacted by wood density. On the other hand, the coefficients of variation (Cov) vary between 0.01 and 0.10. The larger Cov correspond the unsheltered conditions where the environmental exposure could affect the microstructure of the timber increasing the variability of mechanical properties. 4. Conclusion The 3-point bending tests applied on tropical specimens of Moabi ( Baillonella toxisperma ) have been investigated in the work. The specimen are debited on beams previously exposed in three different tropical environments (air-conditioned, unsheltered and sheltered). Based on the experimental results obtained, we In view of the results b ained in Table 1, the physio-mechanical pa ameters of the p cime s from different environm ts clearly illustrate a real variability dependi g on the exposure medium. Although, we observe that the modulus of elasticity of th protected medium is higher than the other two. This can be explained, for example, by its larger density (Jodin 1994; Natterer, San oz, et Rey 2004) even though it is in a shel ered outdoor environment. Other parameters ca also explain this phenomenon such as the humidity rate, temperature, etc. In a shelt ed and unsheltered outdoor environment, the strength and m dulus of elasticity of the upper and middle specimens are greater than those calculated in the low r part. This observation is particularly pronounced for the unsheltered outdoor environment. This can be explained by the high exposure of the pper part of the beams to the weather compa ed to the lower part which is less exposed to run and solar radiation. Concerning m an values of MOE, Manfoumbi (2012) reported the f llowing values for this kind of timber: 17400 MPa ( ir-conditione ), 21400 MPa (unshel ered) and 24600 MPa (Sheltered). We f und a decrease in be m stiffness for all environments varying from (14.5% to 33.7%). This loss in beam stiffness could b due to environmental effects, loading duration, material aging and wood density. Saifouni (2014) repor ed that the mechanical behavio is impacted by wood density. On the other hand, the coefficients of variation (Cov) vary between 0.01 and 0.10. The larger Cov correspond the unsheltered conditions where the environmental exposure could affect the microstructure of the timber increasing the variability of mechanical properties. 4. Conclusi n The 3-point bending tests applied on tropical sp cimens of Moabi ( Baillonella toxisperma ) hav been investigated in the work. The specimen are debited on beams previously exposed in three different tropical environments (air-conditioned, unsheltered and sheltered). Based on the experimental results obtained, we 4.4 6.4 6.2 In view of th results obtained in T ble 1, he physio-mechanical parameters of the specimens from different environments cle rly illustrat a real variabil ty depending on the exposure medium. Although, we obs rve that the modulus of elasticity of the protected medium is higher than the other two. This can be explained, for example, by its larger density (Jodin 1994; Natterer, Sandoz, et Rey 2004) even though it is in a sh ltered outdoor environment. Other parameters can also explain this phenomenon such as the humidity rate, temperature, etc. In a sheltered and unsheltered outdoor environment, the strength and modulus of elasticity of the upper and middl specim ns are great r than those calculated in the lower part. This observati n is particularly pronounced f r the unsheltered outdoor environment. This can be explained by the high exposure of the upper part of the beams to the weather compared to the lower part which is less exposed to run and solar radiation. Concerning mean values of MOE, Manfoumbi (2012) reported the following values for this kind of timber: 17400 MPa (air-conditioned), 21400 MPa (unsheltered) and 24600 MPa (Sheltered). We fou d a decrease in beam stiffness for all environments varying from (14.5% to 33.7%). This loss in beam stiffness could be due to environmental effects, loading uration, material agi g and wood density. Saifouni (2014) rep rted that the mechanical behavior is impacted by wood density. On the o her hand, the coefficients of variatio (Cov) vary between 0.01 and 0.10. The larger Cov correspond the unsheltered conditions where the environmental exposure could affect the microstructure of the timber increasing the variability of mechanical properties. 4. Conclusion The 3-poi t b nding tests a plied on tropical specim ns of Moabi ( Baill nella toxisperma ) have been investigated in the work. The specimen are debited on beams previously osed i thr e different tropical 4.4 6.4 6.2 In view of th results ob ained in T ble 1, he physio-mechanical parameters of the specime s from differen environments clearly illustrate a real variability depending on the exposure medium. Although, we obs rve that the m dulus of elasticity of he protected medium is higher tha the other two. This can be explained, fo example, by its larger density (Jodin 1994; Natter r, Sa doz, e Rey 2004) even though it is in a shel ered outdoor environm nt. Other parameters can als explain this phenomeno such as the h midity r te, temperature, etc. In a h lter d and unsheltered outdoor environm nt, the strength and modulus of elasticity of the upper nd middle specimens are greater than those calcul ted in the low r part. This observation is particularly pronounced f r the uns ltered outdoor envir nment. This can be explain d by the high exposure of the upper part of the beams to the w ather compared to the lower part whic is l ss exposed to run nd sola radiation. Concerning m an valu s of MOE, Manfoumbi (2012) reported t e following valu s for this kin of timber: 17400 MPa ( ir-conditioned), 21400 MPa (unsheltered) and 24600 MPa (Sheltered). We found a decrease in beam stiffness for all environments varying from (14.5% to 33.7%). This loss in beam stiffness could be due to enviro mental effects, loading duration, material aging and wood density. Saifouni (2014) rep r ed that the mechanical behav o i impacted by wo d density. On the o her hand, h coefficients of variatio (Cov) va y between 0.01 and 0.10. The larger Cov correspond the unsheltered conditions where the nvironmental exposure could affect the microstructure of the timber incre sing the variability f mech nical properties. 4. Conclusi n The 3-point b nding tests applied on tropical sp cim ns of Moabi ( Baillonella toxisperma ) hav been