Wood Sci Technol (2013) 47:965–975

DOI 10.1007/s00226-013-0552-9

ORIGINAL

Acoustic measurements on trees and logs: a review

and analysis

Xiping Wang

Received: 4 May 2012 / Published online: 14 May 2013

Ó Springer-Verlag (outside the USA) 2013

Abstract Acoustic technologies have been well established as material evaluation

tools in the past several decades, and their use has become widely accepted in the
forest products industry for online quality control and products grading. Recent
research developments on acoustic sensing technology offer further opportunities to
evaluate standing trees and logs for general wood quality and intrinsic wood
properties. Although the concept of using acoustic velocity as an effective measure
of stiffness applies to both standing trees and felled logs, the method typically used
to measure acoustic velocity in trees is different from that used in logs. Conse-
quently, there is a significant difference in measured velocity values between trees
and logs. Other factors affecting tree–log velocity relationships include tree diam-
eter, stand age, operating temperature, and wood moisture content. This paper
presents the fundamentals of acoustic wave propagation in trees and logs and dis-
cusses two different mechanisms of acoustic velocity measurement, time-of-flight
for standing trees and resonance for logs. Experimental data from previous studies
are reviewed and analyzed to examine the strength of the tree–log velocity rela-
tionships and discuss the factors that influence tree velocity deviation.

Introduction

Acoustic technologies have been well established as material evaluation tools in the
past several decades, and their use has become widely accepted in the forest
products industry for online quality control and products grading. Recent research
developments on acoustic sensing technology offer further opportunities to evaluate
standing trees and logs for general wood quality and intrinsic wood properties
(Wang 1999; Carter et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2007). Although the concept of using

X. Wang (&)
USDA Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

123
966 Wood Sci Technol (2013) 47:965–975

acoustic velocity as an effective measure of stiffness applies to both standing trees

and felled logs, the method typically used to measure acoustic velocity in trees is
different from that used in logs. Consequently, there could be a significant
difference in measured velocity values between trees and the logs cut from the trees.
This paper presents the fundamentals of acoustic wave propagation in trees and logs
and discusses two different mechanisms of acoustic velocity measurement—time-
of-flight (TOF) approach for standing trees and resonance-based approach for logs.
Other factors affecting tree–log velocity relationships are also discussed. Experi-
mental data from previous studies are summarized and used to examine the
effectiveness of the empirical and theoretical models for converting tree acoustic
velocity to resonance-based log velocity.

Fundamentals of wave propagation in wood

When stress is applied suddenly to the surface of wood, the disturbance that is
generated travels through the wood as stress waves. In general, three types of waves
are initiated by such an impact: (1) longitudinal wave (compressive or P-wave),
(2) shear wave (S-wave), and (3) surface wave (Rayleigh wave) (Fig. 1). A
longitudinal wave corresponds to the oscillation of particles along the direction of
wave propagation such that particle velocity is parallel to wave velocity. In a shear
wave, the motion of the particles conveying the wave is perpendicular to the direction
of the propagation of the wave itself. A Rayleigh (surface) wave is usually restricted
to the region adjacent to the surface; particles move both up and down and back and
forth, tracing elliptical paths. Although most energy resulting from an impact is
carried by shear and surface waves, the longitudinal wave travels the fastest and is the
easiest to detect in field applications (Meyers 1994). Consequently, the longitudinal
wave is by far the most commonly used wave for material property characterization.

One-dimensional wave equation

A basic understanding of the relationship between wood properties and longitudinal

wave velocity (hereafter referred to as wave velocity) can be acquired from

Fig. 1 Types of stress waves in semi-infinite elastic material

123
Wood Sci Technol (2013) 47:965–975 967

fundamental wave theory. In a long, slender, and isotropic material, strain and
inertia in the transverse direction can be neglected and longitudinal waves propagate
in a plane waveform (wave front) (Fig. 2). In this case, the wave velocity is
independent of Poisson’s ratio and is given by the following equation (hereafter
referred to as a one-dimensional wave equation):
sffiffiffiffi
E
C0 ¼ ð1Þ
q

where C0 is longitudinal wave velocity, E is longitudinal modulus of elasticity, and

q is mass density of material.

Three-dimensional wave equation

In an infinite or unbounded isotropic elastic medium, a triaxial state of stress is

present. The wave front of the longitudinal wave propagating through such a
medium is no longer a plane. The wave propagation is governed by the following
three-dimensional longitudinal wave equation (Meyers 1994):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1m E
C¼ ð2Þ
ð1 þ mÞð1  2mÞ q

where C is longitudinal wave velocity in unbounded medium and m is Poisson’s ratio

of the material. To differentiate from the longitudinal wave velocity in a slender rod,
the term ‘‘dilatational wave’’ will be used for unbounded medium. The wave
velocity is dependent on density and two elastic parameters, modulus of elasticity
(E) and Poisson’s ratio (m).

Wave propagation in logs and standing trees

The direct application of fundamental wave equations in wood, particularly in

standing trees and logs, has been complicated by the fact that wood is neither
homogeneous nor isotropic. Wood properties in trees/logs vary from pith to bark as
wood transforms from juvenile wood to mature wood. Properties also change from
butt to top within a tree and differ between trees. Species, soil conditions, and
environmental factors all affect wood characteristics in both microscopic and
macrostructure levels.
In spite of these natural variations, studies have shown that the one-dimensional
wave equation is adequate to characterize the wave propagation behavior in logs
that are in a long, slender form (Wang et al. 2004). The modulus of elasticity of the
logs predicted by this fundamental equation generally has a high accuracy.

Fig. 2 Longitudinal waves traveling in a long, slender material as plane waves

123
968 Wood Sci Technol (2013) 47:965–975

Consequently, log grading or sorting using acoustic wave technology has been very
effective and widely adopted in the wood industry.
For standing trees, the acoustic measurement approach is completely different
from that in logs. Because there is no access to an end surface (in contrast to a log)
in a standing tree, acoustic waves have to be introduced from the side surface of the
trunk, which results in a non-uniaxial stress state in the stem. One-dimensional wave
equation is therefore no longer valid for trees. If the dilatational wave is considered
for acoustic measurement in standing trees, Poisson’s ratio (m) of wood is needed to
describe the relationship between wave velocity and modulus of elasticity as shown
in Eq. (2). Dilatational wave velocity is generally higher than C0 (Eq. 1) (Meyers
1994; Wang et al. 2007). As Poisson’s ratio increases, the deviation of dilatational
wave velocity from C0 gets larger. For instance, the ratio of dilatational wave
velocity to C0 is 1.16 for m = 0.30. The velocity ratio becomes 1.46 as m increases to
0.40.
The Poisson’s ratio of green wood is not explicitly known. Bodig and Goodman
(1973) and other investigators obtained Poisson’s ratios through plate or compres-
sion testing for dry wood. Poisson’s ratio appears to change with species and
material sources. However, statistical analysis by Bodig and Goodman (1973)
indicated that Poisson’s ratios do not seem to vary with density or other anatomical
characteristics of wood in any recognizable fashion. Therefore, an average value of
0.37 (mLR) has been suggested for both softwoods and hardwoods (Bodig and
Goodman 1973; Bodig and Jayne 1982). This could translate into a dilatational
wave velocity that is 1.33 times that of the one-dimensional longitudinal wave
velocity, which is apparently in agreement with previous experimental results
(Andrews 2003; Wang et al. 2001).

Acoustic measurements in trees and logs

The use of longitudinal acoustic wave techniques for wood quality assessment is
based on the accurate measurement of the propagation velocity of a stress wave
generated by a mechanical impact. The success of any field application of this
technique is directly related to understanding stress wave behavior in wood
materials and the physical and geometrical characteristics of wood itself. Wood, in
the form of trees and logs, tends to have variable external and boundary conditions
that create technical challenges for measuring acoustic velocities. This is
particularly true in trees, where a stress wave has to be initiated from the surface
of the trunk, and acoustic sensors need to be attached to the trunk through the
spikes.

Trees—time-of-flight (TOF) approach

A typical approach for measuring acoustic velocity in trees involves inserting two
sensor probes (transmit probe and receiver probe) into the sapwood and introducing
acoustic energy into the tree through a hammer impact. TOF essentially measures
the time for the stress wave to travel from the transmit probe to the receiver probe.

123
Wood Sci Technol (2013) 47:965–975 969

The acoustic velocity is subsequently calculated from the span between two sensor
probes and the TOF data using Eq. (3).
S
CT ¼ ð3Þ
Dt
where CT is tree acoustic velocity (m/s), S is distance between the two probes
(sensors) (m), and Dt is time-of-flight (s).
During field acoustic measurement, the probes are inserted into the tree trunk
(probes pierce bark and cambium and extend into sapwood) and aligned within a
vertical plane on the same face. The lower probe is placed about 40–60 cm above
the ground. The span between the probes is determined from a practical standpoint,
typically set as 1.22 m; the probes need to be positioned at a comfortable height for
the person who takes the measurements.

Logs—resonance-based approach

Acoustic velocities in logs and long stems are typically measured using a resonance-
based approach. In log acoustic measurement, an acoustic sensor is mounted on one
end of a log. A stress wave is initiated by a mechanical impact on the end, and the
stress waveforms are subsequently recorded by an electronic unit. This acoustic
approach is based on the observation of hundreds of acoustic pulses resonating
longitudinally in a log and provides a weighted average acoustic velocity. Most
resonance-based acoustic tools have a built-in fast Fourier transformation program
which can analyze the acoustic signals. Log acoustic velocity is then determined
from the following equation:
CL ¼ 2f0 L ð4Þ
where CL is acoustic velocity of logs (m/s), f0 fundamental natural frequency of an
acoustic wave signal (Hz), and L log length (end-to-end) (m).
The resonance-based acoustic method is a well-established nondestructive
evaluation (NDE) technique for measuring long, slender wood members such as
logs, poles, timber (Harris et al. 2002; Andrews 2003; Wang et al. 2004). The
inherent accuracy and robustness of this method provide a significant advantage
over TOF measurement in applications such as log measurement. In contrast to TOF
approach, the resonance method stimulates many, possibly hundreds, of acoustic
pulse reverberation in a log, resulting in a very accurate and repeatable velocity
measurement. Because of this accuracy, the acoustic velocity of logs obtained by
the resonance-based measurement has served as a standard to validate the TOF
measurement in standing trees (Wang et al. 2001; Andrews 2003; Carter et al.
2005).

Summary of research results

Many field studies have been conducted in different parts of the world to evaluate
the effectiveness of TOF acoustic approach in standing trees. Field data from trees

123
970 Wood Sci Technol (2013) 47:965–975

of different species and different stand ages were used to examine the relationships
between tree acoustic velocities measured by TOF tools and log velocities measured
by resonance tools. Table 1 is a summary of the results from these studies showing
measured tree velocities, log velocities, their correlation, tree-to-log velocity ratios,
as well as the Poisson’s ratio estimated based on acoustic measurements.
In a laboratory experiment, Wang (1999) simulated tree acoustic measurements
with ten 2.74 m-long green red pine logs as tree samples using a TOF method with a
span distance of 1.2 m, then compared with the log velocities measured using a
resonance technique. He found that the tree velocity was strongly correlated with
the log velocity (R2 = 0.88), but was on average about 10 % higher than the log
velocity. The red pine logs used in the study came from a local sawmill, and the
stand age for these logs was not known.
Grabianowski et al. (2006) performed similar measurements on 43 straight-
stemmed butt logs that were taken from two young radiata pine stands aged 8 and
11, growing in Canterbury, New Zealand. The TOF readings were taken from two
opposite sides (A and B) of each log, and the ‘‘tree’’ velocities were averaged before
compared with the resonance value. The TOF ‘‘tree’’ velocities were found greater
than those for resonance by 270 m/s, which was 12 % higher. In the same study,
Grabianowski et al. also evaluated 150 radiata pine trees in stands aged 8, 16, and
26 years using a TOF tool. They reported an increasing trend of tree velocity with
stand age. They did not find statistical or systematic difference in tree velocities
between two opposite sides of the stem.
Wang et al. (2007) measured acoustic velocities in trees of five species (Sitka
spruce, western hemlock, jack pine, ponderosa pine, radiata pine) using the TOF
method. Observed tree velocities were compared with acoustic velocities measured
in corresponding butt logs by a resonance acoustic method. They found a skewed
relationship between tree and log acoustic measurements. Observed tree velocities
were significantly higher than log velocities for most trees tested. They also reported
that average ratio of tree-to-log velocity ranged from 1.07 for radiata pine to 1.36
for ponderosa pine. Velocity ratios for Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and jack pine
were very close, in the range of 1.22–1.24.
Chauhan and Walker (2006) used TOF acoustic velocity to estimate outerwood
stiffness of trees within stands and between stands of different age classes (ages 8,
16, and 25 years). They found a good positive correlation (R2 = 0.75–0.91)
between acoustic velocity measured on trees using the Fakopp instrument and the
Hitman velocity (resonance) measured on butt logs of the corresponding trees after
felling. The Fakopp velocity was on an average higher by 9 % in 8- and 16-year-old
trees, while 17 % higher in 25-year-old trees. They observed that Fakopp velocity
was lower than the Hitman velocity in only three 8-year-old trees. These trees had
huge branch-whorls near breast height. They believed that the presence of the
excessive branches and distorted grain within the short TOF path (1.5 m) would
reduce significantly the measured TOF velocity of the trees.
In a field tree study in the Southeastern United States, Mora et al. (2009) first
tested 60 loblolly pine trees of 14–19 years old using the TreeSonic tool (Fakopp
Enterprise, Agfalva, Hungary). Acoustic velocities were then measured in the butt
logs cut from the same trees using the Director HM200 tool (Fibre-gen, Christchurch,

123
 Table 1 Research summary on acoustic velocity measurement in standing trees
Reference Species Country Stand Number Average Mean tree Mean log Correlation Velocity Estimated Acoustic measurement tool
age of trees DBH velocity velocity R2 ratio k Poisson’s
(cm) (m/s) (m/s) ratio va Trees Logs

Wang (1999) Red pine US n/a 10 22.2–33.7 3,631 3,289 0.88 1.10 0.255 Digital Digital
oscilloscope oscilloscope
Chauhan and Radiata pine NZ 8 50 16.4 1,880 1,730 0.89 1.09 0.245 Fakopp 2D Hitman
Walker (2006) HM200
16 50 36.3 2,380 2,190 0.91 1.09 0.245
25 50 53.1 2,880 2,450 0.75 1.18 0.312
Grabianowski Radiata pine NZ 8& 43 n/a 2,466 2,202 0.92 1.12 0.272 Fakopp WoodSpec
Wood Sci Technol (2013) 47:965–975

et al. (2006) 11
8 50 n/a 2,020 n/a n/a n/a n/a
16 50 n/a 2,390 n/a n/a n/a n/a
26 50 n/a 2,870 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wang et al. Sitka spruce US Mixed 30 20.7 3,892 3,198 0.93 1.22 0.331 Flukemeter Director
(2004, 2007) HM200
Western US Mixed 31 18.3 3,721 3,004 0.85 1.24 0.340
hemlock
Jack pine US 40 27 20.9 4,218 3,480 0.71 1.21 0.327
Ponderosa US 43 114 23.6 2,700 1,982 0.83 1.36 0.378
pine
Radiata pine NZ 8 50 16.4
Radiata pine NZ 16 50 36.3 2,277 2,120 0.90 1.07 0.222
Radiata pine NZ 25 50 53.1
Lasserre et al. Radiata pine NZ 11 30 1.16–1.31 0.300–0.364 Fakopp Director
(2007) HM200
Mora et al. Loblolly pine US 15 10 18.6 2,494–4,484 1,910–3,228 0.81 1.29 0.358 TreeSonic Director
(2009) (Pinus HM200
taeda)
16 10 19.0 1.35 0.374
971

123
 Table 1 continued
972

Reference Species Country Stand Number Average Mean tree Mean log Correlation Velocity Estimated Acoustic measurement tool
age of trees DBH velocity velocity R2 ratio k Poisson’s
Trees Logs

123
(cm) (m/s) (m/s) ratio va

14 10 22.7 1.30 0.360

15 10 23.9 1.33 0.369
18 10 23.9 1.29 0.358
19 10 22.2 1.35 0.376
a
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
The value of estimated Poisson’s ratio was calculated from the tree–log velocity ratio based on the following equation (Wang et al. 2007): k ¼ ð1  mÞ=½ð1 þ mÞð1  2mÞ where

k ¼ cTree cLog
Wood Sci Technol (2013) 47:965–975
Wood Sci Technol (2013) 47:965–975 973

New Zealand). They also observed a strong but biased relationship between tree and
log velocities, with tree velocities being 32 % higher (on average) than the
corresponding log velocities. They found that the velocity deviation from the line of
equivalence increased as tree velocity increased. To explore the tree–log relationship
further, Mora et al. added 69 data points obtained from the work of Mahon et al.
(2009) to the 60 trees in their study. The combined data set consisted of acoustic
velocities on loblolly pine trees ranging from 13 to 22 years old and velocities
measured on butt logs cut from the same trees. The relationship between tree and log
acoustic velocities for the combined data set (n = 129) was similar to that found for
the original 60 trees, with an R2 = 0.81 and a mean difference of 32 % between TOF
and resonance-based measurements.

Discussion

There have been different explanations on why tree velocities are so significantly
deviated from log velocities. One explanation discussed in many papers is related to
the stiffer wood zones in outerwood of the tree stems (Chauhan and Walker 2006;
Grabianowski et al. 2006; Mora et al. 2009). For example, Chauhan and Walker
(2006) stated that the higher velocity measured by TOF tool is attributed, in part, to
the fact that single-pass transit-time velocities are sensitive to the high localized
stiffness of the outerwood lying in the ‘‘flight path’’ between the two probes.
Although the deviation between tree velocity and log velocity seems to be linked to
the high stiffness of the outerwood layers, the fundamental cause of this deviation
stems from the different wave propagation mechanism of the two acoustic approaches.
The experimental data indicated that TOF measurement in standing trees is likely
dominated by dilatational waves rather than one-dimensional plane waves (Wang
et al. 2007). To further explain the fundamental cause of tree velocity deviation, Wang
introduced the concept of estimating Poisson’s ratio based on acoustic measurements
on trees and logs. Because there is no way to determine the Poisson’s ratio of green
wood in the form of tree trunks, Wang et al. derived the v value based on empirical data
under the assumption that wave travels within a trunk as a dilatational wave. The
velocity ratios observed for five softwood species (Sitka spruce, western hemlock,
jack pine, ponderosa pine, and radiata pine) corresponded to Poisson’s ratio values in
the range of 0.222–0.378, with an average value of 0.322. Adjustment of tree velocity
based on species-dependent Poisson’s ratios was found effective, indicating that the
acoustic velocities measured by TOF method are dilatational wave velocity.
Studies indicated that the application of dilatational wave equation for tree
evaluation was actually not a straightforward procedure. The use of dilatational
wave equation is affected by the diameter of the trees measured. Based on
experimental data summarized in Table 1, it is speculated that the acoustic waves
may travel in a tree as a quasi-plane wave when tree diameter is small, or as a
dilatational wave when tree diameter is large. No diameter threshold has been
discussed or proposed to differentiate two types of wave velocity measured in trees.
The tree velocity deviation seems also affected by the stand age of the trees
evaluated. Studies showed that tree–log velocity ratio increased as stand age

123
974 Wood Sci Technol (2013) 47:965–975

increased. Wang et al. (2007) observed that younger age and smaller diameter of the
radiata pine trees resulted in tree velocities that were much closer to log velocities
compared with the 43-year-old ponderosa pine. A similar trend was also reported by
Chauhan and Walker (2006). This trend is in agreement with the current knowledge
on tree growth; that is, as trees age, the outerwood gets stiffer because of the
decreasing microfibril angle, and the proportion of mature wood in the cross section
of a tree increases. As such, the overall mechanical properties improve with aging.
When comparing velocity ratios or estimated Poisson’s ratios from different studies,
it is also important to recognize that acoustic instruments used for tree measurements
also play a critical role in data analysis. Different acoustic measurement tools may
have different algorisms to determine the TOF data from two received signals. Even
for the tools that use the same algorism for TOF determination, tree measurements
could result in different readings because of different trigger settings. When an
acoustic measuring tool functions normally, one expects certain variations on
measurement results even from the same type of tool. Repeatability of the TOF reading
in trees is typically lower than that of resonance readings in logs. Studies showed that
variations of TOF readings exist in terms of the acoustic tool used and how the probes
were positioned in the stem (Lasserre et al. 2007; Mahon et al. 2009; Raymond et al.
2008). There are some variations in the recorded TOF, due in part to inconsistency in
hammer tapping (Harris and Andrews 1999). This can be minimized by making
multiple tapping measurements and using the average value for a tree.

Conclusion

The experimental data from both laboratory and field studies all indicated a biased
relationship between tree and log acoustic measurements. Observed tree velocities
were found to be significantly higher than log velocities. Consequently, tree velocity
measured by the TOF methods needs to be interpreted differently when assessing
the wood properties of standing trees. Although deviation between tree velocity and
log velocity seems to be linked to the high stiffness outerwood layers, the
fundamental cause of this deviation stems from the different wave propagation
mechanism of the two acoustic approaches. Some empirical models have been
developed for certain species to convert measured TOF-based tree velocities to
equivalent resonance-based log velocities. But the application of these models has
been complicated by many factors such as species, stand age, tree DBH, and the
instrument used. Comprehensive research is needed to systematically address the
inter-effects of these factors on tree acoustic measurement and develop analytical
models for converting apparent tree velocity to equivalent log velocity.

References

Andrews MK (2003) Which acoustic speed? In: Proceedings, 13th international symposium on
nondestructive testing of wood, 19–21 Aug 2002, Berkeley, CA. pp 159–165
Bodig J, Goodman JR (1973) Prediction of elastic parameters for wood. Wood Sci 5(4):249–264

123
Wood Sci Technol (2013) 47:965–975 975

Bodig J, Jayne BA (1982) Mechanics of wood and wood composites. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company
Inc., New York
Carter P, Briggs D, Ross RJ, Wang X (2005) Acoustic testing to enhance western forest values and meet
customer wood quality needs. PNW-GTR-642. In: Harrington CA, Schoenholtz SH (eds)
Productivity of western forests: A forest products focus. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, Portland, pp 121–129
Chauhan SS, Walker JCF (2006) Variation in acoustic velocity and density with age, and their
interrelationships in radiata pine. Forest Ecol Manag 229:388–394
Grabianowski M, Manley B, Walker JCF (2006) Acoustic measurements on standing trees, logs and green
lumber. Wood Sci Technol 40:205–216
Harris PD, Andrews MK (1999) Tools and acoustic techniques for measuring wood stiffness. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd wood quality symposium: emerging technologies for evaluating wood quality
for processing, Forest Industry Engineering Association, Rotorua, New Zealand
Harris P, Petherick R, Andrews M (2002) Acoustic resonance tools. In: Proceedings, 13th international
symposium on nondestructive testing of wood, 19–21 Aug 2002, Berkeley, CA. pp 195–201
Lasserre JP, Mason EG, Watt MS (2007) Assessing corewood acoustic velocity and modulus of elasticity
with two impact based instruments in 11-year-old trees from a clonal-spacing experiment of Pinus
radiata D. Don. Forest Ecol Manag 239:217–221
Mahon JM Jr, Jordan L, Schmileck LR, Clark A III, Daniels RF (2009) A comparison of sampling
methods for a standing tree acoustic device. South J Appl For 33(2):62–68
Meyers MA (1994) Dynamic behavior of materials. Wiley, New York
Mora CR, Schimleck LR, Isik F, Mahon JM, Clark A III, Daniels RF (2009) Relationship between
acoustic variables and different measures of stiffness in standing Pinus taeda trees. Can J For Res
39:1421–1429
Raymond CA, Joe B, Anderson DW, Watt DJ (2008) Effect of thinning on relationships between three
measures of wood stiffness in Pinus radiata: standing trees vs. logs vs. short clear specimens. Can J
For Res 38:2870–2879
Wang X (1999) Stress wave-based nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods for wood quality of
standing trees. Dissertation, Michigan Technological University, Houghton
Wang X, Ross RJ, McClellan M, Barbour RJ, Erickson JR, Forsman JW, McGinnis GD (2001)
Nondestructive evaluation of standing trees with stress wave method. Wood Fiber Sci
33(4):522–533
Wang X, Ross RJ, Brashaw BK, Punches J, Erickson JR, Forsman JW, Pellerin RF (2004) Diameter effect
on stress-wave evaluation of modulus of elasticity of small-diameter logs. Wood Fiber Sci
36(3):368–377
Wang X, Ross RJ, Carter P (2007) Acoustic evaluation of wood quality in standing trees. Part 1. Acoustic
wave behavior in standing trees. Wood Fiber Sci 39(1):28–38

123