Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Assessment of Fracture Moment and Fracture Angle in 25 Tree Species in The United States using the Fractometer

Nelda P. Matheny, James R. Clark, Donna Attewell, Kevin Hillery, A. William Graham and Gerald Posner
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) January 1999, 25 (1) 18-23; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1999.003
Nelda P. Matheny
1HortScience, Inc., P.O. Box 754, Pleasanton, CA 94566
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
James R. Clark
1HortScience, Inc., P.O. Box 754, Pleasanton, CA 94566
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Donna Attewell
2Whole Tree Works, 2822 S.E. Belmont, Portland, OR 97214
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Kevin Hillery
2Whole Tree Works, 2822 S.E. Belmont, Portland, OR 97214
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
A. William Graham
3Morris Arboretum of the University of Pennsylvania, 9414 Meadowbrook Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19118
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Gerald Posner
4Arbor-Cultural Consultants & Associates, 328 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11238
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

The fracture moment and fracture angle of core samples from the lower trunk of 25 tree species were evaluated using the Fractometer, a device developed at the Nuclear Research Institute, Karlsruhe, Germany. In 6 additional species, core segments broke upon initial loading in the Fractometer and values could not be obtained. Fracture moments and angles were recorded for trees located in California, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. Results varied by species, core segment, and location of tree. Application of the Fractometer to tree hazard evaluation procedures is discussed.

The evaluation of structural defects in trees and the assessment of failure potential often involves detecting decay and evaluating the resulting loss of wood strength. Arborists can readily observe advanced decay by noting changes in wood color and texture. The early and incipient stages of decay, however, are generally impossible to detect visually. In these stages wood may appear normal, with little or no change in color or texture, yet wood strength may be significantly reduced (Wilcox 1978). Therefore, techniques that would permit assessment of wood strength before visual changes occurred would increase the accuracy of decay detection.

The Fractometer is an instrument that measures the elasticity and fracture strength of wood and may be used in evaluating the presence of decay in the trunk and other woody parts (Mattheck et al. 1994, 1995). An increment core is removed from the tree and placed in the Fractometer. The sample is stressed to the point of failure by increasing the force pushing against it. The Fractometer provides the fracture moment (M) and angle of failure (φ) for the sample. These can be then compared to known standards (Mattheck et al. 1994, 1995) and to decay-free samples taken from the same tree. Mattheck et al. (1994) presented results for a number of European genera. There was a wide range in values, particularly for fracture moment. As an example, results for Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) ranged from 5 to 9, whereas results for ash (Fraxinus spp.) ranged from 7 to 120.

Mattheck et al. (1994) concluded that large fracture moments and small fracture angles were indicative of sound wood, not acted upon by decay. Deviations from this situation, such as decrease in fracture moment, increase in fracture angle, or a combination of the two, were due to the presence of decay. Moreover, the relative values of fracture moment and angle were indicative of the general type of decay present, either white or brown rot. In a subsequent analysis, Mattheck et al. (1995) proposed interpretive guidelines for Fractometer results, suggesting that reference values for genera could be used to determine the failure potential.

Application of these results and use of the Fractometer in the United States and Canada have been limited by the lack of both experience with the device and the availability of comparative standard results. The research described in this paper addresses these issues.

Materials and Methods

Listen

Thirty-one tree species were sampled in the following locations:

California:Street and park trees, cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Francisco
Illinois:Morton Arboretum, Lisle
Oregon:Hoyt Arboretum, Portland; Lone Fir Cemetery, Portland; Jenkins Estate, Portland
Pennsylvania:Morris Arboretum, Philadelphia

In general, sampled trees were healthy and free from known trunk defects. Increment cores were taken from the windward and leeward sides of the trunk, at a height from 1 to 1.5 m (3.3 to 5 ft) above ground. Cores were 4.3 mm (0.16 in.) wide and ranged from 20 to 30 cm (8 to 12 in.) in length. Upon removal from the tree, the entire core was inserted into the Fractometer with 2 to 3 cm (0.8 to 0.12 in.) protruding from the device’s lever arm. The load on the lever arm was quickly increased to the point of core breakage, whereupon the fracture moment and angle were recorded. The procedure was repeated at 2- to 3-cm increments along the length of the core segment. In general, each increment core yielded 5 samples. Each segment with the core was numbered corresponding to its position relative to the bark. Core segment #1 was closest to the bark and #5 was the most interior.

Results

Listen

Fractometer readings could not be obtained for 6 species: Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). In these species, core segments broke when the lever arm was initially placed against the ‘sample. No measurable results could be obtained. For Monterey pine, fracture moment readings were recorded but fracture angles were not obtained.

Fractometer readings were obtained from 25 species (Table 1). In some cases, the first segment in the core (adjacent to the bark) broke before any readings could be obtained (see “No. of samples” column in Table 1). As a result, readings were obtained from a total of 647 core segments.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Fractometer readings (fracture moment and angle) for 25 species.

Standard methods of statistical analysis are based upon the assumption that data points are distributed normally around a mean. Before applying any statistical tests to the data, we determined whether results obtained with the Fractometer were normally distributed. To do so, we plotted the results as frequency distributions (Figures 1 and 2). Although no specific quantitative tests were performed to evaluate normality, cumulative percentage plots are an accepted method of doing so (Sokal and Rohlf 1969). Results for the fracture moment values did not adhere to the S-shaped curve expected from a normal distribution (Figure 1). Fracture moment data were strongly skewed to the right or lower values. As a result, only the range of fracture moment results are presented. In contrast, fracture angle data appeared normally distributed (Figure 2) and estimates of sample variation were made (Table 1).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Frequency and cumulative percentage of fracture moment results.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Frequency and cumulative percentage of fracture angle results.

Fracture Moments

Fracture moment measurements were highly variable (Table 1). Values ranged from 2 to 14 for littleleaf linden (Tilia cordata) and from 13 to 191 for sugar maple (Acer saccharum). Fracture moment values for a single species measured in different locations also varied widely. For example, we obtained results for Norway maple (Acer platanoides) in 3 locations; the values ranged from 5 to 38 in Illinois, 9 to 48 in Oregon, and 24 to 99 in Pennsylvania. Similar variation was obtained in tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), European ash (Fraxinus excelsior), London plane (Platanus × acerifolia), and littleleaf linden. In contrast, fracture moment values for sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifua) were similar between Oregon and Pennsylvania.

Fracture Angle

Fracture angle results were less variable than those for fracture moments (Table 1). Average values for individual species ranged from a low of 15.5° in white oak (Quercus alba) to a high of 34.4° in American elm. Results for a single species growing in different locations were also quite variable (compare sweetgum in Oregon and Pennsylvania, Table 1). However, in some species, fracture angles were consistent between locations (compare Norway maple [Acer platanoides] in Illinois, Oregon, and Pennsylvania).

Unlike the fracture moment, fracture angles decreased with increasing depth of the core (Figure 3, average values for all species). Core segments from just beneath the bark had a higher fracture angle than segments taken at greater depth (compare segment 1 to segment 4, Figure 3). The absolute difference in angle was very small, less than 0.3°.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Fracture angle results by core segment. Average of all species. Segments are numbered from exterior (1) to interior (5).

Statistical analysis of the fracture angles was complicated for 2 reasons. First, samples were not independent of each other. Second, the sample population for each core segment varied between 121 (segment 1) and 142 (segment 3) with numerous missing values. We choose not to estimate missing values. The standard errors of mean for each core segment (standard deviation/square root of N) were large enough to suggest that there were not significant differences among core segments (data not presented).

Discussion

Listen

The goal of this project was to survey a range of North American trees species for results using the Fractometer. We measured the fracture moment and fracture angle for 25 taxa growing in the United States. The range in values found in testing is broadly comparable to those of Mattheck et al. (1975).

However, there are several important differences between our 2 surveys. First, samples from 6 species broke before readings could be obtained. Included in this group were 2 species, Douglas-fir and black cottonwood, assessed by Mattheck et al. (1994). Second, results from individual species were not always similar. For example, Mattheck reported that London plane had fracture moments ranging from 88 to 120 and bending angles from 10° to 23°. Our results for this species were 8 to 97 and 10° to 29° (in California and Pennsylvania). Similarly, with 2 species of elm in our study, we found fracture moments of 2 to 18 and fracture angles of 17° to 55°. Mattheck found fracture moments and fracture angles ranging from 23 to 78 and 10° to 22°, respectively.

Some of this variation might be associated with testing different species within a genus. Mattheck identified trees tested only by genera. In addition, there appeared to be significant variation in Fractometer results due to location. Factors such as climate, soil, available moisture, exposure to wind, past loading by snow and ice, and growth rate could be the source(s) of such variation. Mattheck (personal communication) has also observed results to be location dependent.

Given the variation in results among geographic locations and within individual species, arborists using the Fractometer must focus on samples taken from individual trees rather than on tables of standardized results. In evaluating the strength loss associated with decay, Fractometer values must be compared to results from decay-free samples taken from the same tree. In this case, results from sound wood can be compared to those from wood acted upon by decay fungi. Arborists must be cautioned that use of the Fractometer in evaluating strength loss, structural stability, and application of abatement and remedial treatments must be based upon results obtained from individual trees.

Because of the variable nature of the data and its lack of normality, we were reluctant to apply statistical analysis to the results. For this reason, some observations could not be adequately interpreted. For example, fracture moment appeared to vary by location within the core with the segment nearest the bark having a lower value than the 4 segments interior to it (data not presented). Additionally, in species such as American elm (Ulmus americana) and tuliptree, interior segments from several samples were discolored. We were not able to determine if this discoloration was associated with strength loss as measured by the Fractometer.

Acknowledgements

Listen

Authors appreciate the cooperation of Ed Murdock (Livermore, California), Mike Fulford (Pleasanton, California), Fred Nilsen (Portland, Oregon), Stephen Peacock (Portland, Oregon), and Alan Wells (Portland, Oregon) in providing trees used for analysis. We also acknowledge the support of Ed Brennan and Elinor Goff in collecting data. Reviews by Claus Mattheck and 2 anonymous reviewers were particularly helpful. The assistance of Dan Struve in discussing appropriate statistical analysis was greatly appreciated. The Fractometer was kindly provided by Dr. Mattheck. This project was funded in part by the Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Center, Karlsruhe, Germany.

  • © 1999, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

Listen
  1. ↵
    1. Mattheck, C.,
    2. H. Breloer, and
    3. K. Bethge
    . 1994. A guide toFractometer tree assessment. Arb. News 3(2):9–12.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Mattheck, C.,
    2. H. Breloer,
    3. K. Bethge,
    4. W. Albrecht, and
    5. A. Zipse
    . 1995. Use of the Fractometer to determine the strength of wood with incipient decay. J. Arboric. 21(3):105–112.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Sokal, R., and
    2. F Rohlf
    . 1969. Biometry. The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. WH. Freeman, San Francisco, CA. 776 pp.
  4. ↵
    1. Wilcox, W
    1978. Review of literature on the effects of early stages of decay on wood strength. Wood Fiber 9(4): 252–257.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 25, Issue 1
January 1999
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Assessment of Fracture Moment and Fracture Angle in 25 Tree Species in The United States using the Fractometer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Assessment of Fracture Moment and Fracture Angle in 25 Tree Species in The United States using the Fractometer
Nelda P. Matheny, James R. Clark, Donna Attewell, Kevin Hillery, A. William Graham, Gerald Posner
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 1999, 25 (1) 18-23; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1999.003

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Assessment of Fracture Moment and Fracture Angle in 25 Tree Species in The United States using the Fractometer
Nelda P. Matheny, James R. Clark, Donna Attewell, Kevin Hillery, A. William Graham, Gerald Posner
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 1999, 25 (1) 18-23; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1999.003
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Literature Cited
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
  • Thiabendazole as a Therapeutic Root Flare Injection for Beech Leaf Disease Management
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire