Structural Yield of Fast-Growing Hardwood vs. Softwood Glulam Beams

This paper focuses on analysing the structural performance of fast-grown hardwood versus softwood glued laminated timber (GLT or glulam) beams with the aim to evaluate the potential structural use of the two main species planted in the country. In Uruguay, the first forest plantations date from the 1990s and are comprised mainly of Eucalyptus ssp. and Pinus spp. No one species were planted for a specific industrial purpose. However, while eucalyptus was primarily destined for the pulp industry, pine, which is now reaching its forest rotation, had no specific industrial destination. Timber construction worldwide is mainly focused on softwood species with medium and long forest rotation. The objective of the present work is, therefore, to analyse and compare the potential of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus grandis) and loblolly/slash pine (Pinus elliottii/taeda) to produce glulam beams for structural purposes. Experimental tests were made on sawn timber and GLT beams manufactured under laboratory conditions for both species. The relationship between the physical and mechanical properties of sawn timber showed that, for similar characteristic values of density (365 kg/m3 for pine and 385 kg/m3 for eucalyptus), and similar years of forest rotation (20–25 years for pine and around 20 years for eucalyptus) and growth rates, the structural yield of eucalyptus was higher compared to that of pine. The superior values of modulus of elasticity found in the hardwood species explained this result. Since there is no strength classes system for South American wood species, the European system was the basis for estimating and assigning theoretical strength classes from the visual grades of Uruguayan timbers. For sawn timber, a C14 strength class for pine and C20 for eucalyptus were assigned. Results showed that pine GLT could be assigned to a strength class GL20h, and eucalyptus glulam to GL24h and GL28h, demonstrating the potential of both species for producing glulam beams. Even though eucalyptus showed a better yield than pine, the technological process of manufacturing eucalyptus glulam was more challenging in terms of drying time and gluing than in the case of pine, which derivates in higher economic costs.