Ibee Physiology 3, 355-364 (1987).

0 1987 Heron Publishing-Victoria,

Canada.

Youngs modulus of sections of living branches and tree trunks

M. G. R. CANNELL

and J. MORGAN2

I Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 OQB, Scotland
2 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Kings Buildings,
Edinburgh EH9 3JU, Scotland
Received May 13, 1987

Youngs modulus along the grain (elasticity, E) was measured on 10 sections of branches and three
tree trunks, with bark, of Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr., Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud., Lark
decidua Mill. and Betula pendula Roth. syn. verrucosa Ehrh. The sections were simply supported
and corrections were made for taper and deflection due to shear. The E values for trunks were at the
lower end of the range reported for green timber (2.4-7.5 GPa), and those for branches were still
lower (0.7-4.6 GPa). Values of E for branches decreased with decrease in specific gravity, which
corresponded with an increase in percentage water content. When E values were calculated using
underbark diameters they fell more closely within the range reported for green timber.

Introduction
During the last decade there has been increasing interest in the biomechanical
design of trees, and other plants, in relation to (a) their stability (Leiser and
Kemper 1973, Petty and Worrell 1981, Mamada et al. 1984, Nakatani et al. 1984,
King 1986), (b) the dimensions and tapering of stems and branches (Leiser and
Kemper 1973, McMahon and Kronauer 1976, King and Loucks 1978), and (c) the
support costs of branching structures with different geometries (Borchert and
Tomlinson 1984, Ford 1985, Givnish 1985, Chazdon 1986).
A critical parameter in models of tree biomechanics is Youngs modulus in
bending along the grain (E), which is a measure of effective rigidity or resistance
to deflection. The larger the E value, the more rigid the material. Youngs
modulus in bending, and other mechanical properties, are well known for both airdried timber (lo-15% water, on a dry weight basis) and so-called green or unseasoned timber (Hearmon 1948, Kollman and Cote 1968, Sunley 1968, USDA 1974,
Bodig and Jayne 1982). Figure 1 presents the range of mean E values for the
timbers of tree species grown in the USA. These values apply to clear sections of
wood cut from mature trees. The mean values for air-dried timbers are 9.6 and
11.4 GPa for softwoods and hardwoods, respectively, and for green timbers, 7.6
and 8.9 GPa, respectively.
Most workers studying the biomechanics of living trees have assumed that the E
values for green timber also apply to living branches and trunks with bark. Thus,
Petty and Worrell (1981) used minimum and mean values of 3.5 and 7.0 GPa for
trunks of Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Car-r, and King and Loucks (1978) used 5.9
GPa for Populus tremuloides L. Only a few workers have measured the E values

Downloaded from http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2016

Summary

356

CANNELL

AND MORGAN

5-

I
0

?)WQL+SG!
5
Youngs

:
10
modulus

15

I
:

I-

20

(GPa)

Figure 1. Frequency distributions of Youngs modulus (in bending along the grain) of unseasoned
green sawn timber (shaded) and air-dried timber (12% water on a dry weight basis) (unshaded) of US
timbers, listed by Bodig and Jayne (1982).

of intact living trunks, and their results give somewhat smaller values than those
for green timber (Vafai and Farshad 1979, Mamada et al. 1984, Nakatani et al.
1984) (see later, Table 2).
In this paper, we report E values in bending (along the grain) of fresh, living
sections of branches and trunks, including the bark, for four tree species growing
in Scotland.
We appreciate that the measurement of E values of wood is fraught with complications. Wood is only approximately elastic, it is not homogenous, it is subject to
creep under a sustained load, and simple bending introduces a complex pattern of
axial strains (tension and compression) and longitudinal shear strains. The
measurements reported here were taken under conditions similar to those recommended for testing timber (British Standards Institution 1979, American Society
for Testing and Materials 1980), but the shape of the specimens was (obviously)
approximately cylindrical, and it was not always possible to find lengths of clear
branchwood with a length/diameter ratio > 20. Consequently, it was necessary to
take shear strains into account in the calculations (see below). However, it is
assumed that the theory for uniform, elastic materials applies to branches and
trunks, and the time-dependent behavior of wood is not considered (Bodig and
Jayne 1982).
The E values reported here will be inputs to models of branch and stem
mechanics and growth, which will be reported in subsequent papers.
Plant material for bending tests
The study was done on young trees of Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr, Pinus
contorta Dougl. ex Loud., Larix decidua Mill. and Betula pendula Roth. syn.

Downloaded from http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2016

O-

YOUNGS

MODULUS

OF SECTIONS OF BRANCHES

AND TRUNKS

351

Test conditions

The apparent modulus of elasticity (EaPP,otherwise known as MOE) of the branch

and trunk sections was measured by bending, which included deflection due to
shear. The true Youngs modulus (E) was derived from Eappassuming E/G = 17,
where G is the modulus of rigidity (Kollman and C&C 1968, see below).
Needles were removed from the conifer branch sections. All sections were
measured with bark at room temperature (-20 C). The sections were bent as
simply supported beams (i.e., supported at each end) by applying a concentrated
load at the center, using standard engineering rigs (for branches, Instron Universal
Testing Instruments, Model TT-D; for trunks, Avery-Denison, Type 7104 DCJ).
The branch sections spanned 102-203 mm between the supports (4-8 inches) and
varied from 5.1 to 15.5 mm in overbark diameter. The ratio of span, L, to
overbark diameter, d, varied from 11 to 40 (mean 21). The trunk sections spanned
1.45-1.68 m, were 90-225 mm in overbark diameter, and had L/d ratios of 15 to
37 (mean 26). l Any slight curvature in the sections pointed downward so the
sections did not roll, and a blunt cylindrical loading point was used (diameter 10
mm for branches, 50 mm for trunks).
The sections were assumed to be uniformly tapered. Taper was defined by the
dimensionless parameter KL, where K = (IB - TA)/(TAL), and r~ and ra are radii
at the thin and thick ends, respectively (after Leiser and Kemper 1973). The mean
values of KL for the trunks and branches were 0.08 and 0.07, respectively.
The branch sections were loaded at a constant rate, c, of 1 or 5 mm min-l; the
trunks were loaded at 20 or 40 mm min- l. These rates of loading gave strain rates,
z, averaging 0.010 (mm mm-) min-1 for branches, and 0.003 min-l for trunks,
where z = 6cd/Lz (Bodig and Jayne 1982).2
The loads and deflections were measured at the midpoints of the sections, using
1 The standard L/d ratios recommended to measure .I?,, of wood are 18 in Britain (British Standards
Institution 1979) and 14 in the USA (American Society for Testing and Materials 1980). We found
that variation in Eapp measured on the same specimens over the range L/d = 10 to 30 gave similar
values of E when corrected for deflection due to shear.
z The standard recommended strain rates to measure E,, of wood are 0.003 min- in Britain and
0.001-0.006 min- in the USA (10~s. cit. in footnote 1). We tested specimens over the range 0.002
to 0.020 min- and found no systematic effect on E.,,.

Downloaded from http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2016

verruc~xz Ehrh. The trees were growing in plantations at about 2 m spacing at the
Bush Estate near Edinburgh, Scotland. Measurements are reported here for (a) ten
branch samples per species, cut from 12-16-year-old trees, from knot-free portions of branches at different positions within the crowns, and (b) three trunk
sections per species (one trunk per tree), cut from the least-tapered portions of the
trunks below the crowns of 16-3%year-old trees. All samples were taken during
the winter months (December-February)
to avoid complications arising from
seasonal variation, and were tested within 24 hours of sampling. Sections were
weighed fresh and oven-dry to determine wood plus bark specific gravities and
water contents (on a dry weight basis).

CANNELL

358

AND

MORGAN

load cells and linear transducers output to chart recorders. The apparent Youngs
modulus in bending (Eapp) was calculated from the linear regions of the loaddeflection (stress-strain) relationships.
The theory used to calculate E is given in the Appendix.
Results

E = -5.20

+ 16.3 (+ 2.4) sp. gr.

Specific gravity and percentage water content together account for 64% of the
variation-a
statistically significant increase from 53% (P < 0.05); the multiple
regression was:
E = 0.53 + 10.7 (sp. gr.) - 0.027 (% water)
Branches of Pinus contorta tended to have small E values (i.e., to be flexible)
compared with the other species, taking their specific gravity and percentage water
content into account (Table 2, Figure 2). The relatively small E values of Larix
decidua could be attributed to their high water content, whereas the large variation
among the specimens of Picea sitchensis could be attributed to variation in their
specific gravity and percentage water content (Figure 2).
Values of E calculated on the basis of underbark diameters (assuming the bark
provided no mechanical support) were about 150% greater for branches, and 50%
greater for trunks, than values calculated on the basis of overbark diameters. The
ranges were 2.9 to 14.4 GPa for branches and 3.3 to 11.6 GPa for trunks.
Discussion
The main finding of this study was that the E values along the grain of young,
living tree trunks and branches are smaller than those of green sawn timber cut
from mature trees. Thus, the values for trunks in Table 1 all fall at the lower end of

Downloaded from http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2016

When calculating E values, corrections for taper (Appendix Equation 5) increased

Eappby less than 3% on average, because the sections were only slightly tapered.
Corrections for bending due to shear (Appendix Equation 8) increased Eappvalues
by up to 21% for specimens with low L/d ratios (Bodig and Jayne 1982). However, the calculation of E was most sensitive to the value of d, which is raised to
the fourth power in Appendix Equation 2. The E values were therefore calculated
on the basis of both overbark and underbark diameters.
The E values calculated using overbark diameters varied from 0.7 to 4.6 GPa
for branches (Figure 2), and from 2.4 to 7.5 GPa for trunks (Table 1). Individual
specimens differed greatly within species. Insufficient trunk samples were tested
to permit any statistical analysis of species differences or causes of variation in E.
About half of the variation in E among the branch specimens could be
accounted for by either their specific gravity (r2 = 0.53) or percentage water
content (rZ = 0.49). The regression for specific gravity over the range 0.3-0.6 g
cmw3 was:

YOUNGS

MODULUS

OF SECTIONS OF BRANCHES

AND TRUNKS

t,

0
0

AA0
0

I
o-3

04

0.5

Specific

gravity

0.6

(g cm*)

60

90
Water

120
content

(%

dry

150
weight)

Figure 2. Youngs modulus in bending (E) of ten individual sections of branches of four species,
related to specific gravity (dry weight/volume) (r * = 0.53) and percentage water content (on a dry
weight basis) (rz = 0.49). The E values were measured overbark, and were calculated using overbark
diameters. (A) Picea sitchensis;
(m) Pinus contorta;
(A) Larix decidua; (0) Beth
pendulu.

the frequency distribution for green timbers given in Figure 1. Our values do,
however, correspond with the low values reported for young living trunks in three
other studies (see Table 1). The E values for living branches with bark are substantially less than those for green timber, especially for vigorous branches with a
low specific gravity and a high water content (Table 2, Figure 2).
There are two possible explanations for the low E values reported here. First,
the bark may not have contributed much to the rigidity of the sections. When
calculated on underbark diameters, the E values fell more closely within the range
reported for green timber, both for trunks and branches (Tables 1 and 2). As
expected, the difference between overbark and underbark calculations was

Downloaded from http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2016

0
22.

359

CANNELL

360

AND MORGAN

Table 1. Range of values of Youngs modulus in bending (E) measured on tree trunks with bark.
Species

Age No. of Midpoint diameter

samples

Specific Water content Range of E values

(% dry weight) based on diameters
Overbark Underbark
GW
GW

Picea sitchensis
Pinus contorta
Larixdecidua
Bet&a pendula

35
14
35
18

3
3
3
3

170

154

109

103

161
102

144

20

11

176

14

32

170

10

190

0.50
0.40
0.46
0.50

92

92
152
66
75

3.9-6.7
3.2-3.4
2.4-5.0
4.0-7.5

5.7-10.0
3.84.3
3.38.6
5.8-11.6

-0.40

2.4-4.8

-0.40

3.25

122

4.1-5.2

Ciyptomeria

0.38

1 Underbark diameters were used to calculate the E values, but stress-strain measurements were all
made with bark.
z Mamada et al. (1984).
3 Nakatani et al. (1984).
4 Vafai and Farshad (1979).
5 Mean value with coefficient of variation of 33%.
Table 2. Mean Youngs modulus in bending (E) of branches of four species, measured with bark (see
also Figures 2 and 3).
Species

Picea sitchensis
Pinus contorta
Larix decidua
Betula pendula

Midpoint diameter
Overbark
(mm)

Ey

Specific
gravity
(gem-3)

9.3
9.9
7.6
8.2

7.3
7.6
5.9
7.0

0.49
0.44
0.51
0.54

Water
content

Mean Youngs modulus

based on diameters

(% dry wt)

Overbark
GW

Underbark*
Wa)

106
121
129
85

3.6
1.5
2.3
4.1

9.6
4.5
6.4
8.0

r Means of 10 samples per species.

2 Underbark diameters were used to calculate E, but stress-strain measurements were all made with
bark.

greatest for small branches where the bark accounted for the greatest proportion of
the cross section. However, in our view, the bark cannot be ignored as a part of
the structure of living trees, and will be included in the estimation of E in our
future work.
Secondly, our measurements were made on much younger (juvenile) wood than
used to give the values in Figure 1. Schniewind and Gammon (1986) reported that
wood from 5 and 13-year-old pine trees had E values averaging only 1.9 GPa; the
average value predicted from their low specific gravities was 4.8 GPa, which was
still much below the mean of 9.2 GPa found for mature trees. They attributed the
low E values of juvenile wood to large fibril angles.

Downloaded from http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2016

japonica2
Cryptomeria
japonica
Platanus
occidentali

YOUNGS

MODULUS

OF SECTIONS OF BRANCHES

361

AND TRUNKS

I
120

I'

20
Air-dried

timber

Carrington

01

'
0

(1922)

1
40

I
Water

content

I
60
(%

dry

I
160

weight)

Figure 3. Youngs modulus (in bending along the grain) as a function of water content for:
(a) air-dried timbers (shaded area), taken from Hearmon (1948), Sunley (1968), USDA (1974) and
Bodig and Jayne (1982);
(b) unseasoned, green timber (open points = hardwoods, closed points = conifers), taken from
USDA (1974);
(c) branch samples in this study (vertical lines spanning values based on overbark and underbark
diameters).
The effect on Youngs modulus of Picea sitchensis of water uptake by air-dried timber is shown by
the relationship taken from Carrington (1922).

Downloaded from http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2016

The low values of E reported here cannot be attributed to high strain rates in the
tests, which tend to give high rather than low E values (Bodig and Jayne 1982).
Good linear stress-strain relationships were obtained, these relationships were
similar on loading and unloading (i.e., there was little stress-strain hysteresis) and
they were repeatable on the same specimens.
It is well known that E increases with specific gravity (Kollman and C&C 1968,
Schniewind and Gammon 1980, Bodig and Jayne 1982); the USDA Wood Handbook (1974) suggests that E m (specific gravity).25.
It is also well known that E values for timber decrease with increase in water
content, but only up to a notional fiber saturation point of 20-30% water (on dry
weight) (e.g., Carrington 1922, Figure 3). In this study, E appeared to decrease
with increase in water content over the range 60-150% (Figure 2). This relationship was probably not causal, because percentage water content and specific
gravity
were negatively
related (1-2 = 0.82). Specific gravity alone accounted for
53% of the variation in E among branch samples, and the addition of percentage
water content in a multiple regression accounted for only an additional 11% of the

362

CANNELL

AND MORGAN

variation (although this was significant). The points in Figure 3 show that there is
little relationship between E and percentage water content for green timbers over
the range 40-120% water content. The lines in Figure 3 mark the underbark and
overbark values obtained for each of the branch specimens in this study.
It is recommended that researchers studying the biomechanics of young, living
tree trunks use E values at the lower end of the distribution of values published for
green timber of the species in question, and that values for young branches be
measured directly, or roughly estimated as a function of wood specific gravity
from the equations given in this paper.

American Society for Testing Materials. 1980. Standard methods of testing small clear specimens of
timber. D 143-152 (72).
Bodig, J. and B.A. Jayne. 1982. Mechanics of wood and wood composites. Reinhold Company,
New York.
Borchert, R. and P.B. Tomlinson. 1984. Architecture and crown geometry in Tabebuiu
rmea
(Bignoniaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 71:958-969.
British Standards Institution. 1979. Determination of certain physical and mechanical properties of
timber in structural sizes. (BS 5820). BSI. 2 Park Street, London.
Carrington, H. 1922. The elastic constants of spruce as affected by moisture content. Aeronaut. J.
26:462-483.
Chazdon, R.L. 1986. The costs of leaf support in understory palms: economy versus safety. Amer.
Naturalist 127:9-30.
Ford, E.D. 1985. Branching, crown structure and the control of timber production. In Trees as Crop
Plants. Eds. M.G.R. Cannel1 and J.E. Jackson). ITE, Monks Wood, Huntingdon, UK. pp
228-252.
Givnish, T.J. 1985. Biomechanical constraints on crown geometry in forest herbs. In On the Economy of Plant Form and Function. Ed. T.J. Givnish. Cambridge University Press, London. pp
525-583.
Hearmon, R.F.S. 1948. The elasticity of wood. Forest Products Research. Special Report No. 7.
H.M.S.O., London.
King, D. 1986. Tree form, height growth and susceptibility to wind damage in Acer saccharum.
Ecology 67:980-990.
King, D. and O.L. Loucks. 1978. The theory of tree bole and branch form. Rad. Environ. Biophys.
15141-165.
Kollman, F.F.P. and W.A. Cdte. 1968. Principles of wood science and technology. George Allen &
Unwin, London; Springer, Berlin.
Leiser, A.T. and J.D. Kemper. 1973. Analysis of stress distribution in the sapling tree trunk. J. Amer.
Sot. Hort. Sci. 98:164-170.
Mamada, S., Y. Kawamura, M. Yashiro and T. Tangicuchi. 1984. The strength of plantation sugi
trees. J. Jap. Wood Res. Sot. 30:530-537.
McMahon, T.A. and R.E. Kronauer. 1976. Tree structures: deducing the principles of mechanical
design. J. Theor. Biol. 59:443-466.
Nakatani, H., A. Kato, H. Taira, Y. Ijima and M. Sawada. 1984. Deflection and resistance performance of tree stems subjected to snowloads in sugi stands. J. Jap. Wood. Res. Sot. 30:886-893.
Petty, J.A. and R. Worrell. 1981. Stability of coniferous tree stems in relation to damage by snow.
Forestry 54:115-127.
Schniewind, A.P. and B. Gammon. 1980. Strength and related properties of Bishop pine. I Strength
of blue race Bishop pine from three locations. Wood and Fiber Science 12:131-141.
Schneiwind, A.P. and B. Gammon. 1986. Strength and related properties of Bishop pine. II Properties of juvenile wood from young stems of various provenances. Wood and Fiber Science
18:361-368.

Downloaded from http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2016

References

YOUNGS

MODULUS

OF SECTIONS OF BRANCHES

AND TRUNKS

363

Sunley, J.G. 1968. Grade stresses for structural timbers. Forest Products Res. Bull. No. 47.
H.M.S.O., London.
USDA. 1974. Forest Products Laboratory. Wood Handbook. USDA Agric. Handbook No. 72
(revised). Madison, Wisconsin.
Vafai, A. and M. Farshad. 1979. Modulus of elasticity of wood in standing trees. Wood Sci.
12:93-97.

Appendix

E aPP = APL

48

61

where P is the load (mass X 9.81 ms-),

the second moment of area, given by:

+d

6 is the deflection at the center, and I is

(2)

64.

However, for tapered sections:

E

I 6 = Ps*x(3 + KS) _
~PP A

12(1 + Ks)~

Px3
12(1 + Kx)*

(3)

where x is the distance from the thin end, IA is the second moment of area at the
thin end, K is defined in the text, and s is the distance from the thin end to the
position of maximum deflection, given by:
S=

L
1 + (r&-B).

When x = L/2 (i.e., when the deflection is measured at the center):

Eapp

s[

[(;;:;)3]-

2(1

;K$,2],

(%

However, the total deflection, 6, is a combination of deflection due to bending

(&) and to shear (8). For a tapered cylinder at the center:
6=&+&
= iii&

[;I

(f::)3)-

2(1 -I$,;]+

,,,A*;+

K$)

(@

where G is the modulus of rigidity and AA is the cross-sectional area of the thin
end given by ?rdi/4, where dA is the diameter of the thin end. Thus:
+!.E.
di
9 G L*(l+K$),

1
(7)

Downloaded from http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2016

For a cylinder of homogeneous elastic material, simply supported and loaded at

the center:

364

CANNELL

AND

MORGAN

Therefore the true value of E is given by:

E = Eapp + 4:a

[%,,:

K$l].

03)

In this study, Equation 8 was used to correct for shear assuming E/G = 17
(Kollman and C&C 1968).

Downloaded from http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 16, 2016