Next Article in Journal
Roe Deer, Lithuania’s Smallest and Most Abundant Cervid
Previous Article in Journal
Distribution Dynamics of Diplopanax stachyanthus Hand.-Mazz. (Mastixiaceae) and Its Implications in Relict Mastixioid Flora Conservation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Trees Adjust the Shape of Branch Unions to Increase Their Load-Bearing Capacity
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Do Sonic Tomography and Static Load Tests Yield Comparable Values of Load-Bearing Capacity?

1
Faculty of Resource Management, University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Büsgenweg 1a, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
2
Brudi & Partner TreeConsult Baumsachverständige, Berengariastr. 9, 82131 Gauting, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2024, 15(5), 768; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15050768
Submission received: 24 April 2023 / Revised: 20 December 2023 / Accepted: 24 April 2024 / Published: 27 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tree Stability and Tree Risk Analysis)

Abstract

We tested the hypothesis that the loss of load-bearing capacity, as estimated by means of static load tests and from sonic tomography, is comparable. This is of practical importance for arborists when they have to assess results reported by different consultants or when they have to choose between applying one of these two methods in a specific case. A total of 59 trees, primarily Fagus sylvatica and Quercus robur, were subjected to static load tests and sonic tomography. The pulling test method yielded the residual stiffness of the stem at every position tested with a strain sensor as an intermediate quality parameter used to merely validate the actual estimations of safety against fracture. Based on the shape of the parts of the stem cross-section that are considered load bearing, sonic tomograms can be further processed in order to assess the loss of load-bearing capacity from defects like decay. We analyzed the correlation of these biomechanically equivalent parameters. This was only the case to a very limited extent. Sonic tomography and static load tests cannot replace each other, but they can complement each other.
Keywords: tree risk assessment; sonic tomography; image analysis; cross-sectional geometry; decay; strength loss; load bearing capacity; static load test tree risk assessment; sonic tomography; image analysis; cross-sectional geometry; decay; strength loss; load bearing capacity; static load test

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rust, S.; Detter, A. Do Sonic Tomography and Static Load Tests Yield Comparable Values of Load-Bearing Capacity? Forests 2024, 15, 768. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15050768

AMA Style

Rust S, Detter A. Do Sonic Tomography and Static Load Tests Yield Comparable Values of Load-Bearing Capacity? Forests. 2024; 15(5):768. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15050768

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rust, Steffen, and Andreas Detter. 2024. "Do Sonic Tomography and Static Load Tests Yield Comparable Values of Load-Bearing Capacity?" Forests 15, no. 5: 768. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15050768

APA Style

Rust, S., & Detter, A. (2024). Do Sonic Tomography and Static Load Tests Yield Comparable Values of Load-Bearing Capacity? Forests, 15(5), 768. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15050768

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop