History of Lumber 

Submissions under 

ASTM D 1990 since the 

North American In-Grade 

Testing Program 

David E. Kretschmann

James W. Evans

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Forest

Products

Laboratory

General 

Technical

Report

FPL–GTR–189
January 2010

Kretschmann, David E.; Evans, James W. 2010. History of lumber submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade testing program. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-189. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 52 p.

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the 

public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, 

Madison, WI 53726–2398. This publication is also available online at 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds of libraries 

in the United States and elsewhere.

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the 

University of Wisconsin. 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) of any product or service.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 

(voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.

Abstract

The framework of ASTM D 1990 has been used numerous 

times to determine design values for development of 

imported and domestic species since ASTM D 1990 was 

first utilized in 1991 to determine allowable properties 

for the major commercial species in North America. The 

interpretations of this standard and judgments applied to 

these submissions are described in this report. The major 

issues that have been sources of controversy in D 1990 are 

also summarized.

Keywords: American Lumber Stancard Committee, 

In-Grade Testing, Foreign Species Submissions, Design 

Value Calculations.

Contents

Page

Introduction..........................................................................1

Background..........................................................................1

Chronologic History of Non-North American In-Grade 

Testing Program Submissions under ASTM D 1990...........2

 WCLIB Douglas-fir from New Zealand (1992) ..............2

 WCLIB Submission on Siberian Species (1992).............2

 NeLMA Russian Spruce Submission (1994–1995).........4

 WCLIB Norway Spruce from Sweden (1994–1999).......9

 European Submissions (1995–2004) ............................. 14

 WCLIB Austrian Whitewood and Scotts Pine from 

 Austria and Czech Republic (1995)............................... 14

 Norway Spruce and Scots Pine from Lithuania, 

 Estonia, Latvia (1997–2006).......................................... 16

 Douglas-Fir and European Larch from Austria, Czech

 Republic, and Federal Republic of Germany (1999)..... 17

 Norway Spruce and Scots Pine from Finland

 (1999–2000)................................................................... 18

 Spruce and Pine from Germany, Switzerland, and 

 France (1999–2005)....................................................... 18

 Scots Pine from Sweden (2000–2001)........................... 20

 Silver Fir from Austria and Czech Republic 

 (July 2001) ..................................................................... 21

 Silver Fir from Germany Switzerland and France

 (October 2001–2004)..................................................... 21

 Southern Pine Species Grown in South Africa 

 (2002–2004)................................................................... 21

 Southern Pine Species Grown in Argentina (2003)....... 24

 Alaska Yellow Cedar, Hemlock, and Spruce 

 (2003–2004)................................................................... 24

 Scots Pine and Norway Spruce from Romania and 

 Ukraine (2003–2004)..................................................... 26

 NeLMA Eastern Spruce Balsam Fir Species Group 

 (2005–Present)............................................................... 27

 Yellow Cedar, Sitka Spruce, and Northern Species 

 (2005–present) ............................................................... 30

 Douglas Fir from France and Germany 

 (July 6, 2006) ................................................................. 32

 Scots Pine Sweden (2006–2007) ................................... 33

Recurring Issues with Implementation of D 1990 ............. 34 

 A Logical Order of Adjustment Procedures Has 

 Developed ...................................................................... 34 

 Grade Quality Index....................................................... 34

 Grouping Concerns........................................................ 38

 Collection of Additional Data ........................................ 42

 Withdrawal of Species from Existing Species Group.... 42 

 Quality Control Monitoring to Verify Sampling............ 43

Final Comments................................................................. 44

References.......................................................................... 44 

Appendix A—Derivation of Equations 5, 6, and 7 Grade 

Effect Models..................................................................... 49

Appendix B—Board of Review Opinion .......................... 51
History of Lumber Submissions under 

ASTM D 1990 since the North American 

In-Grade Testing Program

David E. Kretschmann, Research Engineer

James W. Evans, Mathematical Statistician

Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

Introduction

The North American In-Grade Testing Program—begun 

in the mid-1970s and completed in the mid-1980s—tested 

more than 70,000 full-size specimens of production lumber 

(Fig. 1). Sampling material that was representative of the 

total population of material over the entire geographic range 

of production in the grade for which it was produced commercially, lumber “In-Grade” was a key guiding principle 

of this program. A detailed summary of the objectives and 

procedures of this program can be found in the In-Grade 

Testing of Structural Lumber Proceedings (Green and others 

1989). The North American In-Grade Testing Program Technical Committee that oversaw the execution of the program 

reached agreement on many of the fundamental issues with 

full-size In-Grade lumber testing. Most of these decisions 

ended up in two new ASTM International (formerly the 

American Society for Testing and Materials) standards—

D 4761 and D 1990 (adopted in 1988 and 1991, respectively)—to govern how allowable properties for dimension lumber would be developed according to PS 20 (DOC 2005). 

These standards have become the template by which allowable properties for visually graded dimension lumber are 

developed. ASTM D 1990, however, as the word template 

implies, had a few holes in it. Some areas in the standard 

were intentionally left vague at the time of adoption, and 

other sections did not anticipate future varied uses of this 

standard. As a result, a number of interpretations have been 

required over the past 18 years of use.

In 2008, the American Lumber Standard Committee Board 

of Review (ALSC BOR) contracted with U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory 

(FPL), to compose a General Technical Report that chronicals the history of submissions to the ALSC BOR since the 

adoption of D 1990. The resulting report presented here is 

divided into two sections. The first section contains a chronological history of interpretations of allowable property 

development for submissions before the American Lumber 

Standard Committee Board of Review that have occurred 

since D 1990 was adopted. It discusses the unique analysis 

and technical judgments that were made when guidance was 

not provided explicitly from D 1990. The second section, 

while repetitious, addresses major issues that have occurred 

multiple times and have been sources of controversy in 

D 1990 and the Forest Products Laboratory’s positions on 

them. For individuals not familiar with ALSC BOR submissions, it may be best to start with the recurring issues section 

of the paper for an overview of the issues and then proceed 

with the chronological history of submissions.

Background

ASTM D 1990 was first utilized in 1991 to determine allowable properties for major commercial species in North 

America. The framework of ASTM D 1990 has been used 

numerous times since it was first approved in 1991 to determine design values for development of imported species. 

Interpretations of this standard and judgments applied to 

these submissions addressed various unique circumstances 

that were presented with each new imported species 

submission.

In the early 1990s, the cut of timber from Federal lands 

in the West was substantially reduced following the spotted owl habitat controversy. This reduction, coupled with 

a desire for trade with Eastern European countries whose 

currency had little value, created a demand by U.S. industry 

for the importation of lumber from foreign countries to be 

used as structural lumber. At that time no adequate approval 

procedure existed for assigning allowable properties to lumber from non-Canadian foreign sources. Based on D 1990 

principles and known property relationships, guidelines 

Figure 1—In-Grade testing using portable equipment in 

1980.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

2

were developed for applying D 1990 to foreign species—

Guidelines for Assigning Allowable Properties to Visually 

Graded Foreign Species Based on Test Data from Full Sized 

Specimens (Green and Shelley 1992)—referred to as VSR 

Guidelines in the rest of this report.

The use of grade quality index (GQI) adjustments for Russian Spruce in 1994 for submitted data and grouping techniques are two examples of how interpretation of D 1990 

has evolved since its first application in 1991. The North 

American In-Grade Program was developed on the basis of 

established commercial grading practices throughout the 

United States and Canada that had a long-established track 

record of yields and market mixes. Later, as potential graded 

lumber from other sources became available for testing, 

there was some uncertainty about how this production from 

smaller geographic regions and sub-regions would relate to 

North American practices. In some cases, limited inventory 

was available for selection of test samples or incomplete 

testing matrixes. Therefore, it was thought necessary to reexamine some of the resource and grade quality assumptions 

as well as the analysis approaches. A chronology of foreign 

and domestic lumber submissions involving D 1990 that 

have been put before the ALSC BOR is shown in Table 1.

Some of the procedures that were developed over the course 

of these submissions have been incorporated into ASTM 

D 1990; for example, a consensus procedure for GQI adjustment procedures has now been added, and cell-by-cell 

analysis of each grade size GQI is now believed to be a 

necessary method for ensuring representativeness of a given 

sample (ASTM D 1990–07). Work is continuing on revising 

the language of the grouping procedure. The authors hope 

that this report will provide valuable background information on the rationale behind previous decisions that were 

made by the ASLC BOR to permit commerce to continue 

while standards were being developed.

Chronologic History of Non-North 

American In-Grade Testing Program 

Submissions under ASTM D 1990

Almost immediately after the initial domestic values for 

allowable properties from the North American In-Grade program were adopted, West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau 

(WCLIB) in March 1992 submitted a request for developing allowable properties for Douglas-fir from New Zealand 

(WCLIB 1992a). This would be the first of more than 

35 subsequent submissions. The following section presents 

discussion of the various submissions that have occurred 

over the past 17 years. They are organized primarily chronologically based on the date of submission of the initial 

sampling plan for a given species and country. Within each 

section, the principal issues raised by the submissions are 

highlighted in an introductory paragraph, followed by a 

more in-depth discussion of these issues.

WCLIB Douglas-fir from New Zealand (1992)

In March 1992, WCLIB asked for approval to visually grade 

Douglas-fir from New Zealand with a 2 year monitoring 

program that involved determination of specific gravity 

and modulus of elasticity (MOE) (WCLIB 1992a). In April 

1992, the BOR approved the sampling plan and required 

that WCLIB monitor production of lumber under the proposed program and that they submit the results of a monitoring program to the BOR (at the end of the 2-year period) 

to verify the initial sampling and approved properties. This 

test program was never completed, but it set the precedent 

for submitting sampling plans to the ALSC BOR before a 

foreign lumber property submission. The primary issue that 

came out of this submission was the importance of approval 

of sampling plans by the Board of Review (BOR) of the 

American Lumber Standard Committee (ALSC).

The Douglas-fir from New Zealand submission pointed out 

the need for some type of guideline to act as a blueprint for 

development of allowable properties for foreign lumber 

species based on D 1990 principles. In March 1992, David 

Green from the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) and Brad 

Shelley from the West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau 

(WCLIB) produced the VSR Guidelines. After revisions, 

this guideline was adopted by the ALSC BOR in 1992 as a 

method for developing allowable properties for non-North 

American species (Green and Shelley 1992). This guideline 

provided the mechanism that allowed free trade of foreign 

lumber into the United States yet assured the U.S. consumer 

that structural lumber from foreign species would meet 

requirements equivalent to those demanded of domestic 

species. A summary of the purpose and procedure was presented to the broader wood products community through 

the Forest Products Society in November 1994 (Shelley 

and Green 1994). The VSR Guideline was updated in 2006 

(Green and Shelley 2006).

WCLIB Submission on Siberian Species 

(1992)

In June 1992, WCLIB submitted another sampling plan 

for the development of design values for Siberian lumber 

(WCLIB 1992b). Siberian species were to be evaluated according to provisions given in the draft VSR Guidelines. A 

review of the letters from FPL sent to the the ALSC BOR 

on the Siberian Submission to the ALSC BOR showed that 

the letters were different in tone than those that were made 

in the case of the WCLIB submission the year before for 

Douglas-fir from New Zealand. This time there were two 

principal issues of concern:

•	 Ensuring the representativeness of samples

•	 Monitoring

Ensuring Representativeness of the Sample—In the 

case of the Douglas-fir from New Zealand, much more 

information about the testing sample had been obtained in 
History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

3

advance by WCLIB, so there were fewer questions about the 

“representativeness” of the sample that would be collected. 

In the proposed sampling plan for material from Russia, 

it was much more difficult for WCLIB to specify exactly 

where the sample lumber would come from and how many 

geographic locations would be represented. This difficulty 

was reflected in the approach WCLIB took with this submission. It was felt that once WCLIB actually had the sample 

in hand they may be able to say more about it. However, 

because it was apparently not practical for WCLIB to take a 

specific sample in Russia to help ensure representativeness, 

questions were raised that may have become moot once a 

sample arrived in the United States.

Table 1—Chronology of D 1990 lumber submission after 1992

Meeting date Request topic Agency 

April 1992 Sampling plan design values for Douglas-fir from New Zealand WCLIB 

June 1992–1993 Request for testing and monitoring program for Siberian species WCLIB 

June 1994 Sampling plan for Archangel Russian Spruce NeLMA 

October 1994 Sampling plan for Norway spruce from Sweden WCLIB 

July 1995 Austrian Whitewood (spruce) from Austria and Czech Republic WCLIB 

April 1997 Norway spruce from Lithuania WCLIB 

April 1998 Sampling plan for Romanian spruce WCLIB 

July 1998 Swedish retest WCLIB 

October 1998 Scots pine from Lithuania WCLIB 

January 1999 Sampling plan Douglas-fir larch and European larch from Austria, Czech Republic, FRG WCLIB 

April 1999 Sampling plan 2 by 4 Norway spruce and Scots pine from Germany, except BadenWurttemberg and Saarland 

WCLIB 

April 1999 Sampling plan Scots pine from Sweden WCLIB 

July 1999 Scots pine 2 by 4 from Germany, except Baden-Wurttemberg and Saarland WCLIB 

October 1999 Sampling plan for Norway spruce from Karelia region of Russia NeLMA 

October 1999 Sampling plan for Norway spruce and Scots pine from Latvia WCLIB 

October 1999 Norway spruce 2 by 4 from Germany, except Baden-Wurttemberg and Saarland WCLIB 

January 2000 Sampling plan 2 by 6 Norway spruce and Scots pine from Germany, except BadenWurttemberg and Saarland 

WCLIB 

July 2000 Norway spruce and Scots pine from Finland WCLIB 

October 2000 Scots pine from Kingdom of Sweden WCLIB 

October 2000 Scots pine from Estonia WCLIB 

April 2001 Norway spruce from Estonia WCLIB 

July 2001 Silver fir from Austria and Czech Republic WCLIB 

October 2001 Sampling plan silver fir from Germany, Switzerland, and France WCLIB 

October 2001 Sampling plan spruce and pine from Germany, Switzerland, and France WCLIB 

January 2002 Sampling and testing request for three pine species grown in South Africa WCLIB 

July 2002 Allowable properties for Norway spruce from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania WCLIB 

February 2003 Sampling and testing plan for Southern Pine from Argentina SPIB 

October 2002 Alternate GQI adjustment models WCLIB 

July 2003 Sampling plan for spruce from Romania and Ukraine WCLIB 

February 2004 Montane pine from South Africa (approved) WCLIB 

April 2004 Scots pine and Norway spruce from Romania and Ukraine (2003–2004) WCLIB 

April 2004 Southern Pine from Misiones Argentina SPIB 

February 2005 Determination of NGR grade lumber design values for Alaska yellow-cedar WWPA 

February 2005 Determination of NGR grade lumber design values for Alaska hemlock WWPA 

February 2005 Determination of NGR grade lumber design values for Alaska spruce WWPA 

March 2005 NeLMA eastern spruce balsam fir species group NeLMA 

November 2005 Pinus Sylvestris for Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia WCLIB 

November 2005 Yellow-cedar and Sitka spruce in Canada NLGA 

December 2005 Northern species recalculation NLGA 

January 2006 Norway spruce from Estonia, Latvia, and Estonia WCLIB 

July 2006 Sampling plan Douglas-fir from France and Germany WCLIB 

February 2007 Swedish Scots pine recalculation WCLIB 
4

This submission was the “worst case” situation that David 

Green and Brad Shelley envisioned when they wrote the 

VSR Guidelines. It was a situation in which little is known 

about the properties in advance, and there is little ability to 

know where the sample originates. It was felt at that time 

that the procedure outlined in the Siberian submission by 

WCLIB was a reasonable approach, given the situation. 

There was, however, a real concern about the “representativeness” of the initial sample. In letters to the ALSC BOR, 

Dave Green discussed at length the importance of representativeness. These letters are summarized in the following 

paragraphs.

Representativeness is a critical concern in D 1990 because 

all other calculations and procedures are based on the assumption that the lumber being tested is representative of 

future production. For the special case of a foreign species, 

VSR Guidelines attempt to compensate somewhat for our 

possible lack of knowledge about how representative the 

sample might be by requiring a wider range of quality in 

the lumber to be tested than just the grades to be produced. 

However, the VSR Guidelines state that at least two geographic locations should be sampled. In FPL’s discussions 

with WCLIB, Brad Shelley indicated that he did not know 

if he would be able to tell if there were more than one geographic location represented in the original sample. FPL 

encouraged WCLIB, if at all possible, to have more than one 

location represented. However, if WCLIB could not determine this information on the first shipment, then FPL suggested WCLIB also test some light-framing grades and have 

a more extensive monitoring program for the first 2 years as 

reasonable.

Although not specifically stated in the testing proposal, 

FPL assumed that MOE and modulus of rupture (MOR) 

measurements will be taken on all lumber tested. If not, 

FPL urged the ASLC BOR that this be made a requirement. 

Otherwise, no estimate of the average MOE of the lumber 

would be available.

Monitoring—The proposal from WCLIB stated that the 

grading agency would monitor the quality control data every 

6 months and would discontinue the added monitoring after 

2 years if there were no substantial deviations from the original sample. FPL suggested that because of the nature of the 

source of lumber and our lack of knowledge, the WCLIB 

should submit a summary of the quality control data to the 

BOR and request permission to discontinue the accelerated 

monitoring program.

FPL also pointed out that the proposed monitoring program 

suggested by WCLIB did not appear to require that any 

pieces be broken and only monitored physical properties. 

This type of program would not let FPL judge the adequacy 

of the property assignment at the end of the 2-year period. 

Given the uncertain nature of the original shipment and the 

proposed 2-year intensified monitoring program, FPL suggested that some specimens be tested to failure to give better 

data on which to make judgments during the 2 years. FPL 

did not believe that all specimens needed to be broken for 

all test modes to provide the needed information. It was felt 

at the time that it would be adequate to break samples only 

in bending. Further, it was suggested that only 2 by 8’s, or a 

smaller width closest to 2 by 8, be broken. The rationale for 

this was that 2 by 8 is the size closest to the “characteristic 

size” specified in D 1990. Because this was part of the interim monitoring program, it would also seem acceptable 

to collect the specimens over a period of time (perhaps 

6 months) and then break the specimens all at once.

Even though considerable discussions about sampling and 

monitoring took place during 1993, allowable property 

values for Siberian lumber were never developed. Allowable properties for another Russian submission involving 

Norway spruce lumber from the Archangel region of Russia, 

however, would be the first foreign lumber properties that 

would be developed and approved by the ALSC BOR.

NeLMA Russian Spruce Submission

(1994–1995)

The first foreign dimension lumber submission that completed the process of development of allowable properties 

by using the VSR Guidelines was a submission by the 

Northeast Lumber Manufacturers Association (NeLMA) for 

Russian Spruce from the Archangel region of Russia tested 

in MOR and MOE. In spring 1994, Wood Advisory Services 

(WAS), on behalf of NeLMA, submitted a “Request for Approval of the Procedures for Assigning Allowable Properties 

to Russian Spruce (Picea abies)” (WAS 1994a). This request sought to develop allowable properties for 2 by 4 and 

2 by 6 spruce lumber from the Archangel region of Russia. 

This submission laid the groundwork for how many subsequent submissions would be handled. It raised nine principal 

issues:

•	 Sample size of size–grade cell

•	 Representativeness of sample

•	 Use of D 1990 Ft and Fc equations on foreign temperate 

softwoods

•	 Not a full test matrix

•	 Data failed the GQI tests, so something needed to be 

done

•	 Elimination of pieces with 100% strength ratios in GQI 

evaluations

•	 Quality control program

•	 Dry/green ratio adjustments for clearwood strength 

values

•	 Correct adjustment for randomly oriented c-perp 

specimens

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189
5

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

The Wood Advisory Services allowable property calculations were submitted first on September 19, 1994, and then 

revised two more times after comments (WAS 1994b,c, 

1995).

Sample Size of Size–Grade Cells—WAS had proposed 

to sample 360 pieces per grade–size cell for the Russian 

Spruce material. This sample size was similar to the target 

sample sizes for major domestic North American species.

FPL made a judgment that the proposed sampling matrix 

(360 pieces each of S.S. and No. 2 grade 2 by 4 and 

2 by 6 lumber) was sufficient for establishing flexural properties of 2 by 4 and 2 by 6 lumber according to procedures 

given in ASTM D 1990. It was noted by FPL, however, 

that allowable properties could be assigned only to these 

two sizes (approval of only two sizes was requested by 

NeLMA). This submission points out one of the areas for 

which procedures are not provided in the current language 

of standard D 1990. The only clear way to assign properties 

to all sizes of lumber in D 1990 is to have a “full” matrix of 

two grades and three sizes.

Representativeness of Sample—WAS felt that the 

proposed sampling procedure presented would provide 

a representative sample of Russian Spruce from western 

Russia as discussed in VSR Guidelines. WAS argued that 

although the lumber was to be obtained from one mill, it 

was determined that the logs were obtained from throughout 

the sampling region by floating or barging the logs down 

the river drainage basin shown in the proposal (Fig. 2). FPL 

stated that this type of sample might not be appropriate for 

the entire growth range of the species group but should be 

adequate for the reduced sampling and production range 

proposed. The sampling plan for Russian Spruce was approved at the July 21 meeting of the ALSC BOR.

Only bending tests of lumber were to be conducted in this 

testing program. Therefore, tension and compression values 

for lumber properties would have be inferred from bending 

test results. Questions arose about the applicability of the 

compression and tension from bending test equations available in D 1990.

Use of D 1990 Ft and Fc Equations on Foreign Temperate Softwoods—The geographic distribution of the species 

suggested that this submission be classified as a “temperate 

softwood” as discussed in the VSR Guidelines. Clear wood 

test data obtained from the Russian Spruce lumber indicate 

Figure 2—Location of logs collected for Archangel Russian Spruce Sample (figure from WAS 1994b).
6

that the properties are typical of that reported by the Building Research Establishment (BRE 1977) and are similar to 

those of North American spruces. These data added further 

confidence to the conjecture that D 1990 procedures are applicable to Russian Spruce. FPL therefore believed that it 

was appropriate to use the conservative equations of ASTM 

D 1990 to estimate Ft and Fc from the bending information. 

The data for this submission were submitted in December 

1994 (WAS 1994c).

Not Full-Size Test Matrix—The data being collected for 

this submission were for only two grades and two sizes and 

not a full test matrix of two grades and three sizes. In discussing this submission with the ALSC BOR, FPL pointed 

out that the cell-by-cell approach used by WAS for NeLMA 

is acceptable under D 1990. There was, however, an alternative approach that could have been employed in calculating the number that would have been just as acceptable—a 

matrix approach, whereby the two sizes for a given grade 

would be combined to establish the characteristic value. 

This is similar to the method that is employed with a full 

matrix of three sizes and two grades. A comparison of 

2 by 4 allowable properties determined by these two methods (cell-by-cell and matrix) shows that the two methods 

produced allowable properties for the two sizes with little 

difference. There were several advantages, however, to the 

matrix approach outlined to the ALSC BOR by FPL:

•	 The MOE properties in the NeLMA submission had a 

size effect for MOE. A great deal of data suggests that 

there is no consistent size effect related to MOE. The 

matrix approach eliminates any apparent size effect created in MOE as a result of calculating MOE on a cell by 

cell basis.

•	 The matrix approach would moderate the shift in 2 by 4 

and 2 by 6 values that would occur if in the future one 

or more additional size is added.

•	 The matrix approach increases the sample sizes and 

therefore the stability of the tails of the data.

•	 Finally, the size models in ASTM D 1990 were a compromise across species. Data checks were incorporated 

in the standard to help moderate differences between 

species. A cell-by-cell approach to developing allowable properties for test data with two grades and two 

sizes renders the 9.3 and 12.6 data checks to be 

meaningless.

In their response back to ALSC BOR, FPL also pointed 

out that the current version of ASTM D 1990 was clear on 

how to handle development of allowable properties from 

an individual cell and a full matrix of three sizes and two 

grades. No clear guidance, however, was given for handling 

two sizes and two grades. In their opinion, the committee on 

wood D07’s section ASTM D 07.02.01 “solid sawn lumber” 

should consider a modification of ASTM D 1990 standard 

to clarify which method should be employed. FPL recommended that in the interim the matrix approach be used for 

this submission. NeLMA agreed to calculate their allowable 

properties using the matrix approach, and test data were 

adjusted to a 2 by 12 “base allowable property” and then 

moved back to 2 by 4 and 2 by 6 by the appropriate size 

factor.

GQI Adjustment—The submission for spruce from the 

Archangel region of Russia was the first time that GQI calculations became an issue. This was also the first time that 

the order of application of the GQI reduction was suggested. 

GQI was introduced into the ASTM D 1990 to calibrate 

the test sample results to the National Grading Rule (NGR) 

grade description. It is used to check the representativeness 

in all In-Grade sampling programs.

When the submission Recommended Allowable Properties for Russian Spruce (Picea abies) by NeLMA dated 

September 19, 1994, was reviewed, FPL commented, “First 

and most significantly, there appeared to be a Grade Quality 

(GQI) calculation error in pieces that have a failure code 20 

(combination knots). For example a failure code of 2015 is 

listed in the submission to have a GQI of 80.2 while FPL 

determined the GQI to be 87.5. The conversion of all the 

failure code 20 combination knots will result in an overall 

increase in the 5th percentile point estimate GQI for two 

of the four test cells calculated. The increased GQI meant 

that three of the four cells tested are now outside of the allowable range and require adjustment.” (FPL 1994) This 

original and recalculated GQI values are given in Table 2. 

The failure code information was corrected, and a revised 

version was submitted (WAS 1994c). In this newly revised 

submission, some differences between the 2 by 4 and 2 by 

6 data, as pointed out by WCLIB in their January 23, 1995, 

letter, were also observed by FPL. FPL assumed that perhaps there was some “source” effect between the 2 by 4’s 

and 2 by 6’s. FPL suggested that perhaps this illustrates the 

need for continued quality control.

Table 2—Observed and recalculated GQI and minimum allowable

for each grade–size combination 

Size Grade Submission Recalculated 

Allowable

range Adjustment

2 by 4 SS 64 73 (60)–65–(70) 0.959 

 No. 2 54 54 (40)–45–(50) 0.926 

2 by 6 SS 71 74 (60)–65–(70) 0.946 

 No. 2 46 46 (40)–45–(50) — 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189
7

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

WCLIB also correctly pointed out in their January 23 letter 

that ASTM D 1990 does not give specific directions on how 

to make adjustments to strength properties if the GQI differs 

significantly from the minimum value stated in the NGR 

(note 7 of D 1990). Sampling of lumber in the In-Grade program for domestic species was based on the grades “as produced.” Therefore, it was possible for specimens to be in the 

grade for non-strength-reducing reasons. Initial analysis of 

the strength ratios associated with the in-grade data yielded 

5th percentile strength ratios (the appropriate GQIs, in this 

case) that were higher than would have been observed if 

we had sampled pieces on grade just for strength-reducing 

reasons. Further discussion led to the conclusion that it was 

more appropriate to discard those pieces that had 100% 

strength ratio. Analysis of this reduced data set indicated 

that all grade–size combinations had a 5th percentile GQI 

that was no higher than 5% above the minimum specified 

for the grade (there were some data sets that were exactly 

5% above grade minimum), thus the recommendation in 

paragraph 8.2 (and note 7) of D 1990. But as WCLIB pointed out, the ASTM committee was unable to agree further on 

what to do if a future sample were outside the 5% limit.

The NeLMA-presented sample was taken with the same 

philosophy as that of the U.S. data: pieces accepted as on 

grade for all reasons, not just strength-reducing reasons. In 

three of four test cells, however, the GQI was above the 5% 

allowed by paragraph 8.2 of D 1990. Therefore, a method 

for adjusting the data was required.

Two methods for calculating the adjustment factor for GQI 

were discussed—mean strength ratio adjustment, which 

reduced the data by a factor determined using the mean 

target GQI values, and upper bound strength ratio adjustment, which reduced the data by a factor determined using 

the mean target GQI value plus 5%. Both methods used the 

equation, Target GQI/Test, but involved different choices for 

the target.

In both cases, the actual GQI for the sample was the Test in 

the equation. For the mean strength ratio adjustment method, the Target GQI in the equation was the mean GQI for 

the target grade. For the upper bound strength ratio adjustment method, the Target GQI in the equation was the mean 

GQI for the grade plus 5%. So, for example, if a sample was 

determined to have a Test GQI of 71 for an expected mean 

GQI of 65, the mean strength ratio adjustment would be 

65/71 = 0.92, and the upper bound strength ratio adjustment 

would be 70/71 = 0.99. FPL pointed out that one interpretation of adjusting GQI would be a more conservative number 

by adjusting to the middle of the GQI range (minimum GQI 

of the grade); “evidence” from D 1990 is somewhat ambiguous. Two different arguments were put forth for choosing 

one over the other. On the one hand, ASTM did not require 

adjustment of previous In-Grade data for a grade–size combination GQI that was exactly at the limit of the GQI range. 

Thus, it could be argued that it is harsh to adjust a GQI that 

was 6% higher than the grade mean GQI to the grade mean 

GQI when a data set that was 5% high had no adjustment 

required. But on the other hand, when determining allowable properties for grades with little or limited data, D 1990 

uses the minimum strength ratio for the grade, not 5% over 

the value for Construction, Standard, and Utility. For No. 

1 grade, 80% of the interpolated value was used (the No.1 

value could also be set equal to the No. 2).

After all the discussion of GQI, it was decided that GQI 

reductions should occur before the adjustments of ASTM D 

1990 section 8.3 to all the data. It was also decided that reduction in GQI must be applied to the MOE data, which was 

not the case in the originally submitted data. The interpolation of No. 1 values for tension and compression calculated 

by NeLMA was also found to be inconsistent with previous 

D 1990 submissions. The method for adjusting data would 

be based on an adjustment factor going to the upper bound 

of the GQI limit. The No. 1 values for tension needed to be 

multiplied by 0.85 and compared with the No. 2 value. If 

it is lower than the No. 2 value, the No. 2 value should be 

used. The No. 1 value for compression needed to be multiplied by 0.95 and compared in the same manner against the 

No. 2 value. In its original submission, NELMA had done a 

straight line interpolation.

Quality Control Procedures—As with foreign lumber submission discussed previously, FPL expressed a concerned 

about the need for quality control procedures for the Russian Spruce allowable property values. The VSR Guidelines require some additional quality control of shipments 

to ensure that lumber quality is similar to that used in the 

original qualification sample. This was included because 

it was recognized that we might not be able to ensure the 

representativeness of a sample from a foreign country with 

the same confidence that we could for U.S. species. The test 

results for Select Structural grade (SS) 2 by 4 (not 2 by 6) 

in the Russian Spruce are comparable to those seen in the 

U. S. In-Grade test program for Eastern spruces, but the No. 

2 results were considerably different than the spruce values 

observed in the In-Grade program (Table 3). It was suggested by NeLMA that this was because much of the No. 2 material was placed in the grade due to non-strength-reducing 

defects. FPL pointed out that this difference, however, is not 

contrary to the In-Grade testing philosophy. Presumably all 

the No. 2 material was placed in the No. 2 grade according 

to the NGR.

Some further analysis of the submitted data investigated the 

reason for material being placed into the No. 2 grade. For 

the No. 2 grade 2 by 4 and 2 by 6 lumber, 56% and 44%, respectively, were placed in No. 2 because of wane and warp, 

whereas the strength-reducing defect for this material was 

in almost all cases SS. It is, therefore, not surprising that 

little difference exists between the Russian Spruce allowable 

property results for SS and No. 2 results. In addition, this 

material was very slow grown and dense. A question was 
8

raised about the possibility of future material having much 

larger proportions of the grade having more severe strengthreducing defects.

In their response, FPL commented that as long as this quality level is maintained there is no technical reason for disputing the No. 2 values as long as a rigorous quality control 

effort was undertaken on the first few shipments. NeLMA 

was asked to propose a quality control program to monitor incoming shipments during an initial period. After the 

completion of this period, the BOR would reevaluate the 

frequency and complexity of the monitoring effort. At the 

point at which the sampling plan was proposed, no lumber 

had been produced from a foreign species, so we had no real 

data to use to evaluate monitoring needs. For consistency, it 

was suggested that the ALSC BOR may consider previous 

requirements for monitoring properties assigned to visually 

graded foreign species.

As discussed previously, in 1992 WCLIB had asked for 

approval to visually grade Douglas-fir from New Zealand 

and Russian species from Siberia with a 2-year monitoring 

program that involved determination of specific gravity and 

MOE. In April 1992, the BOR approved these sampling 

plans and required that WCLIB monitor production of lumber under the proposed program and that they submit a monitoring program to the BOR to verify the initial sampling 

and approved properties. As a first position on monitoring 

for the Archangel region, FPL suggested that the monitoring 

program follow previous BOR decisions.

FPL suggested that questions concerning shipments from 

other geographic areas besides the Archangel region of Russia be considered in a future BOR submission. The present 

submission raised several questions about possible shipments from alternative geographic regions. It was felt that 

once the exact nature of possible shipments in the future are 

known, FPL would be in better shape to comment on proposed procedures for sampling and analysis.

In response to FPL’s initial concerns about monitoring 

material, NeLMA proposed a quality control program that 

would destructively test material for the first year of production of the December 28, 1994, submission material. It was 

agreed upon by NeLMA and FPL that the purpose of the 

quality control program was to ensure that the design values 

obtained from the qualifying sample were truly representative of future shipments. FPL also agreed that destructive 

tests on each shipment should be conducted for some initial 

time period. It was believed that because there was a lack of 

knowledge about the potential variability of lumber coming 

from foreign sources compared with material from domestic 

production, collecting some additional data over a period of 

time was a prudent suggestion. However, FPL preferred to 

see a more straightforward quality control program than the 

one suggested in the NeLMA submission.

In their submission of December 27, 1994, NeLMA proposed some destructive testing for an initial period. NeLMA 

proposed to accumulate data for at least 1 year, or until at 

least 360 specimens had been accumulated per grade–size 

cell, whichever took longer. FPL commented that the target 

sample size for a single species is 360 per cell. But cutting 

locations could change with the season of the year. Thus, 

sampling for at least 1 year would help ensure that this variability is included in the eventual property estimate.

NeLMA proposed that at the end of the initial monitoring 

period they use the data from the initial qualifying sample 

plus the data taken from the first 20 pieces in each shipment 

to evaluate the need to revise the design values. FPL commented that depending upon the rate with which data were 

accumulated; NeLMA could provide informational data to 

the BOR at an interim period, say half way through.

NeLMA proposed that after the data had been evaluated at 

the end of the initial quality control period, then they only 

monitor the quality of incoming shipments nondestructively—unless NeLMA detects a need to requalify. FPL commented that, for example, rings per inch or MOE could be 

monitored as potential indication of a reduction in material 

quality from that seen in the initial period.

Many comments were generated by NeLMA’s proposed 

monitoring program. FPL’s letter to the BOR of January 

19, 1995, recommended a quality control program that we 

felt was more in line with NeLMA’s objective of validating the representativeness of the original sample. A January 

23, 1995, letter from WCLIB expressed concern that the 

proposed destructive testing of the December 27 NELMA 

Table 3—Comparison of Russian Spruce to In-Grade Eastern Spruce

Russian Spruce Eastern Sprucea

Size Grade 

Fb

(lb/in2)

Specific 

gravity

MOE

(×106

lb/in2

)

Rings

per in. 

Fb

(lb/in2)

Specific

gravity

MOE

(×106

lb/in2

)

Rings

per in. 

2 by 4 SS 2,300 0.43 1.5 28.6 2,150 0.42 1.45 12.5 

 No. 2 1,750 0.41 1.3 21.9 1,150 0.41 1.22 14.6 

2 by 6 SS 1,950 0.44 1.4 18.1 1,500 — 1.41 11.6 

 No. 2 1,450 0.42 1.4 15.7 1,100 — 1.18 12.4 

a

15% moisture content (MC) values from Mechanical Properties of Visually Graded Lumber:Volume 1, A 

Summary; 2 by 4 values adjusted to 2 by 4 at 149 in. and divided by 2.1; 2 by 6 values adjusted to 2 by 6 at 

162 in. and divided by 2.1; MOE values adjusted to uniform load by multiplying by 1.024.

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189
9

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

submission was excessive, whereas a January 27, 1995, letter from Western Wood Products Association (WWPA) felt 

the opposite and suggested even larger samples sizes for 

destructive testing as being necessary.

The WWPA letter of January 27, 1995, suggests the need for 

a uniform and consistent sample size to be collected on each 

shipment for an extended period of time. FPL agreed (and 

proposed this in its January 19 letter) that the quality control program should continue for at least a year and should 

contain a minimum of 360 pieces. FPL’s letter suggested 

20-piece samples be used as a minimum. WWPA’s letter 

suggested a sample size of 40. FPL commented that if there 

is a desire to get some idea of a tolerance limit for a given 

shipment, then a compromise of 30 pieces could be used. 

(ASTM D 2915 table 2 shows that 28 pieces are required to 

calculate a 75% tolerance limit. A 30-piece sample would 

allow for an occasional “lost” piece.)

After considering all the various parties’ concerns with monitoring, the ALSC BOR approved the following monitoring 

provisions for Russian Spruce from the Archangel region of 

Russia at its February 1995 meeting. NeLMA accepted sampling 10 bundles of each width of lumber from throughout a 

shipment to represent the anticipated range of quality of 

the lumber in the shipment by removing two pieces of 

“on-grade” lumber from each bundle for testing for each 

grade–size–test mode category (therefore a minimum of 

30 pieces per shipment). The two pieces should not be selected from the top or bottom rows (to avoid pieces with 

shipping damage) and should not be within two boards of 

each other (to avoid consecutive samples). These data would 

be accumulated for at least 1 year, or until 360 specimens 

per grade–size cell have been accumulated, whichever takes 

longer. At the end of the initial monitoring period, the data 

from the initial qualifying sample plus the data from the 

first 20 pieces in each shipment would be used to evaluate 

the need to revise the design values. After the data from the 

initial quality control period had been evaluated and passed, 

then and only then could incoming shipments be nondestructively monitored for quality—unless NeLMA detected 

a need to requalify.

Discussion of Dry/Green Ratio for Clear Wood Properties—Another issue raised with this submission was whether 

the dry/green ratio for clear wood test data could be used 

for adjusting shear and compression perpendicular values. 

WCLIB’s January 23, 1995, letter expressed concern about 

the use of average dry/green ratios in adjusting shear and 

compression-perpendicular-to-grain data. The WCLIB compression perpendicular submission of December 19, 1991, 

used a dry/green ratio for all MSR species, DF, HF, ES, and 

Southern Pine in developing predictive equations (WCLIB 

1991). It was also noted that the average trend of dry/green 

ratios listed in D 2555 have a well-behaved and consistent 

pattern, which seems to be appropriately applied and is not 

unlike the philosophy previously used in determining MSR 

c-perp relationships. The ALSC BOR accepted the use of 

dry/green ratios for adjusting c-perp and shear based on 

tabulated spruce values.

Appropriateness of 1.67 Factor for c-perp—The WCLIB 

letter of January 23, 1995, raised questions about the appropriateness of the 1.67 factor for adjusting the compression-perpendicular-to-the-grain data. It was pointed out by 

BOR member Dr. Ethington that when calculating allowable properties for Duhurian larch data, obtained by Dr. 

Ethington, the 1.67 factor was not needed for samples cut in 

random orientation. Therefore, the application of the factor 

by NeLMA to their data would be conservative. Hence, the 

1.67 factor usage was allowed.

Final ASLC BOR Decisions—At the February 3, 1995, 

meeting of the ALSC BOR, after all these issues were discussed in great detail over the course of a little over a year, 

the BOR rendered the following decisions with regard to the 

NeLMA Russian Spruce submission:

•	 The 2 by 4 and 2 by 6 lumber from the Archangel region 

of Russia will be called Russian Spruce (Archangel).

•	 Adjust for high GQI using an adjustment factor calculated by the formula shown below proposed by Wood 

Advisory Services:

New property value = ((GQI target + 5%)/

 (Actual test cell GQI)) Eq. (1)

 × (Current property value)

•	 Request that ASTM task group investigate filling in holes 

in ASTM D 1990.

•	 The monitoring program will be destructive, with 

30-piece sample size until 360 or 1 year, whichever is 

longer.

•	 The dry/green ratio adjustment will use only spruces.

•	 The 1.67 factor will be used to adjust c-perp data.

With these decisions, the era of foreign lumber submission 

based on the VSR Guidelines began. Note: No lumber was 

ever sold using this approach, because changing economic 

conditions in Russia made it easier to ship material to Japan.

WCLIB Norway Spruce from Sweden

(1994–1999)

At the same time much of the discussion of Russian Spruce 

was going on, a wave of foreign lumber submissions by 

WCLIB began that would continue for 10 years. On October 11, 1994, a sampling plan was submitted by WCLIB 

to determine allowable properties for Norway spruce from 

Sweden (WCLIB 1994). Testing and review of this program 

took over 2 years. Some of this was caused by the delay in 

determining how to handle a lack of failure code information in the test data that were submitted. The other 

major factor causing a delay in acceptance of allowable 

properties for spruce from Sweden was the lengthy 
10

discussion of grouping test results for foreign species. When 

the allowable properties for Swedish Spruce were first calculated by WCLIB, they were based on grouping test information from Sweden and the Archangel region of Russia. 

This was the first time that the issues of grouping of foreign 

species and collecting additional data were brought before 

the ALSC BOR. It resulted in extended discussions of concerns with grouping. Allowable properties for the Swedish 

Spruce would not be approved by the ALSC BOR until July 

1999. They were further revised in 2007 after new equations 

for GQI adjustment were adopted in D 1990. The principal 

issues raised with the Swedish Spruce were the following:

•	 Sampling plan

•	 Lack of failure code information

•	 Grouping with an existing species group

•	 Collection of additional data

•	 Originally proposed GQI adjustment procedure

•	 Assigning 100% GQI to missing GQI data

•	 Too small a sample size for individual cell data

Sampling Plan—The major comments FPL had on the 

Swedish sampling plan were that (1) a discussion should be 

included in the sampling plan explaining the documentation 

of and procedures to be used for testing machine calibration because some type of a machine adjustment may be 

required; (2) additional data should be collected during testing: strength-reducing defect codes and pith or no pith (also, 

moisture content (MC) should, if at all possible, be based 

on ovendry evaluation, not a moisture meter reading); and 

(3) there should be more discussion about how the development of shear and compression perpendicular to grain 

results will be handled. These comments reinforced the 

minimum information that is required in a proposed sampling plan.

Lack of Failure Code Information—The primary difficulty 

faced with WCLIB’s Swedish submission was the lack of 

good failure code information. WCLIB’s cooperators in 

Sweden failed to obtain a failure code at point of failure on 

a high percentage of the lumber tests (page 8 of the submission, WCLIB 1997). Instead, they obtained a failure code 

at the location of the minimum MOE as determined by the 

Cook–Bolinder grading machine. Only when the minimum 

MOE location coincided with the failure location could the 

specified GQI be obtained. In past submissions, a failure 

code for a specimen may have occasionally been lost, but 

the percentage of pieces without failure codes was small. 

In this submission the percentage of pieces with no failure 

code is substantial (Table 4).

This lack of failure code information presented a major 

problem in determining allowable property values for the 

Swedish Spruce as the failure information is used in ASTM 

D 1990 to calculate a GQI which is normally used to measure the grade representativeness of the sample. Without 

adequate failure code information, it is impossible to get a 

good sense of the representativeness of the sample. WCLIB 

recognized this problem and proposed an adjustment to the 

GQI after the missing grade quality indexes were assigned a 

value of 100%.

When WCLIB supplied a report to the BOR in 1996, FPL 

still had concerns about the report and the analysis of these 

data, expressed in a letter discussing the WCLIB submission 

“Proposed Design Values for Norway Spruce (Picea abies) 

from Sweden” in September 1996. FPL expressed frustration with the lack of failure information (985 specimens 

were tested in MOE, but only 195 had GQI information) and 

considered it to be a serious failure to follow past practices 

and the spirit of ASTM D 1990. The authors of this report 

recognized this problem and proposed an adjustment to the 

GQI values calculated. In such circumstances, FPL believed 

that only a very conservative procedure different from the 

one proposed by WCLIB could be justified. It was felt that 

the concerns about representativeness were sufficiently severe to cause FPL to report to the ALSC BOR that the initial 

design values for Swedish Spruce proposed by WCLIB were 

not appropriate based on the information provided with the 

report. Struggles with how to deal with these GQI concerns 

continued on for three more years.

Grouping with an Existing Species Group—As a way to 

handle the lack of GQI information in their submission, 

WCLIB proposed grouping the Swedish test data with already approved Russian Spruce data from the Archangel 

region. As submitted and using the revised data, FPL did not 

believe the properties derived from the grouped data met the 

same interpreted requirements of D 1990, as was previously 

applied to domestic species. Because these interpretations 

are not all specifically addressed in D 1990 section 10, FPL 

included some background information following in their 

“responses” to the BOR.

As interpreted by FPL, for domestic species, D 1990 procedures do not allow a small data set for a weaker “species” to 

be grouped with a large data set for a stronger “species” and 

assigned two design values for the two subsets. Although 

not intended in this submission, such a procedure could result in sample sizes much less than those judged necessary 

to obtain a “representative” sample for domestic species 

under D 1990. FPL felt that allowing such a procedure could 

allow future submissions to group some species with an 

existing species just to avoid obtaining a larger, more representative, data set.

It was pointed out by FPL that if the Swedish and Russian 

data were to be grouped, the MOR values would be controlled by the Swedish data. For the data provided, the MOR 

point estimates and tolerance limits for the data adjusted to 

the “characteristic size” of 2 by 8, with a span of 144 inches, 

the group value should be based entirely on Swedish Spruce 

values because the Swedish Spruce values were highly 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189
11

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

significantly different from the Russian values. Thus, no 

matter how FPL looked at the chi-squared values for grouping, the same conclusion was drawn: MOR, UTS, and UCS 

design values would be calculated using the Swedish data.

The following background information on grouping was 

supplied to the BOR at the time of the Swedish Spruce submission. Allowable property calculation sample sizes for 

species groupings or individual species to this point in the 

United States have been about 360 pieces per grade–size 

cell for domestic species. There were two major groupings 

that were done with U.S. In-Grade data: SPF(S), where all 

species in the grouping were grouped together grouped, 

and Western Woods, where four species were used to establish the properties for the group and additional species of 

demonstrably higher properties were added for marketing 

convenience.

FPL felt, as D 1990 was written in the standard book of 

1996, there were just three ways to get allowable properties 

for foreign species:

•	 Sample a full matrix with 360 pieces per size–grade cell 

(smaller if restricted geographic region involved).

•	 Sample a full matrix and show that your values are 

higher than those of some species group to which you 

would be added (DF in Western Woods grouping is an 

example).

•	 Form a marketing group using the grouping criteria in 

ASTM D 1990, which requires that all species used to 

create it take on the design values of the grouped 

species.

FPL was very concerned about grouping two species and 

letting each claim different design values. It was believed 

that this was not equivalent to the way U.S. species had 

been handled.

It was pointed out that in past submission, when the intent 

was to market a species by itself, U.S. species had to meet a 

minimum sample size (suggested as 360 for major species 

having a large geographic distribution, as stated in note 6 of 

D 1990). FPL also reminded the BOR that it had historically 

suggested shooting for a minimum of about 200 if there 

is a reduced geographic area (or limited standing timber 

volume). DF(S) and minor Southern Pines constitute the 

absolute minimums accepted for a species intended to be 

marketed alone. When “grouped,” approximately 60 pieces 

were allowed per individual species, size, and grade cell. 

But if a species in the group were to be listed separately, 

its design value is that of the group. To allow a group to be 

formed while not require all species used to create the group 

to take on the grouped values could create an inequity with 

the current U.S. species groups. Any species with 60 pieces 

per size–grade cell could find another species to group with, 

do the grouping, and perhaps get a higher design value than 

it would get by itself. When this species is sold as the only 

member of this “group,” the design value it uses would not 

meet the requirements that were met by existing species 

groups.

Another concern involves potential problems when a larger 

data set is grouped with a small data set. In this case the 

properties of the small data set may have little effect on the 

properties of the larger data set, so the small set could get 

an artificial boost in properties. All grouping of U.S. species 

to this point had been done with data sets of approximately 

equal sample sizes. In the extreme, the chi-squared test may 

not be sensitive enough to protect against potential problems 

of grouping vastly different size samples. We did not want 

to encourage someone in the future to start “looking” for a 

domestic data set that would group and provide the largest 

possible “boost” to the properties of the smaller set, especially if there was no real intent to market the two species 

under one name.

Collection of Additional Data—When additional data are 

collected, a decision needs to be made about whether this 

additional data verifies original results, should be pooled 

with original data, or will replace original results. FPL recognized that in this particular instance, the material being 

grouped is indeed the same botanical species, and WCLIB 

had made a special effort to obtain a sample with the maximum strength-reducing defect for SS and No. 2 grade, so it 

was felt that the resulting design values calculated based just 

on the Swedish data alone were most likely conservative. 

Therefore, FPL felt that these data could be pooled with 

Table 4—Tabulation of percentage of pieces with no failure 

information

Grade Size

This

submission

In-Grade

Douglas

Fir

In-Grade

Southern Pine

In-Grade

Hem–Fir

SS 2 by 4 59.5 0 0 0

2 by 6 37.6 — 0 —

2 by 8 50.6 0 0 0

2 by 10 — 0 0.2 0

No. 2 2 by 4 50.5 0 0 0

2 by 6 49.8 — 0 —

2 by 8 37.8 0.2 0 0

2 by 10 — 0 0 0
12

the original data in order to make the sample more 

representative. FPL proposed one possible alternative: to 

allow WCLIB to calculate properties based on the Swedish 

numbers alone (which the FPL could check). It was suggested that WCLIB could calculate allowable property values under the condition that they continue to collect and test 

material for a minimum of 1 year or until an additional 

360 pieces were tested, similar to what was agreed to by 

NeLMA for its Russian Spruce lumber in its letter to the 

ALSC BOR dated January 30, 1995. The sample size for 

destructive monitoring of each shipment should be 30. 

Then, at the end of the monitoring period, a new submission 

to the BOR should be made that either verified the existing 

numbers or calculated new numbers using a sample size 

sufficient to meet ASTM D 1990 criteria for an individual 

species.

Originally Proposed GQI Adjustment Procedure—In their 

original submission, WCLIB chose to develop an adjustment to the GQI values for each size–grade cell. WCLIB 

assumed 100% strength ratios for pieces with missing information. The submission proposed an interpolation procedure 

between the calculated GQI cell values and those pieces 

with 100% strength ratio. FPL pointed out that past practice 

would allow exclusion of clear wood failures and pieces 

with failure codes for which we cannot calculate a strength 

ratio. There is no way to tell if an interpolation procedure 

would give us a value similar to what would have been obtained if failure codes were available on all pieces.

FPL pointed out that even if the philosophy of the WCLIB 

procedure were accepted, it appears to FPL that the weighting scheme used is applied backward. For example, in the 

2 by 4 SS cell used as the example in the report, 61.9% of 

the pieces in the bottom 10% of MOR data had a failure 

code and 38.1% did not. This means that most of the pieces 

without failure codes have MOR values above the bottom 

10% of the data and hence should have higher strength 

ratios on average than those with the failure codes. Higher 

GQIs calculated from failure codes, but with a GQI less than 

100, added to a sample lead to higher cell GQI values which 

in-turn can cause greater reductions in design values. A 

better weighting scheme would be to use the percentage of 

pieces outside the bottom 10%. A weighting scheme based 

on the percentage of pieces with and without a failure code 

may be another approach to weighting. Unfortunately, there 

is no way to know if any of these weighting schemes protect us from underestimating the cell GQI value we would 

have gotten if we had taken the failure information on every 

piece. FPL recognized that GQI (strength ratio) may not 

be the strongest predictor of strength properties , but it was 

thought that the calculation method WCLIB proposed could 

be overestimating property values. The ALSC BOR rejected 

this method for calculating the GQI adjustment.

Assigning of 100% to Missing Data—ASTM D 1990, section 8.2, requires a test of the representativeness of lumber 

quality based on failure code information (GQI). If the 

average GQI of the grade is more than 5 points above the 

minimum grade GQI, then an adjustment must be made. 

Thus, a sample with too high a GQI will have the allowable 

property adjusted downward. The report assigns a GQI of 

100% to any piece failing in clear wood. This is consistent with past practice. However, any piece without failure 

code information is also assigned a GQI of 100%. This is 

inconsistent with past practice. FPL disagreed with the assignment of a 100% GQI for pieces with missing failure 

information or for pieces with failure information that does 

not allow calculation of a strength ratio. Since pieces with 

100% strength ratio are excluded when looking at the representativeness of the sample, the assignment of 100% GQI 

values to these specimens will eliminate them and force an 

assumption to be made that the pieces that remain with failure information are a random sample of all the pieces tested. 

In tables 5 and 6, the WCLIB report shows clearly that the 

pieces with failure information tend to fall in the bottom 

of the MOR distribution. If we had failure information on 

the pieces where it is missing, one would expect them, on 

average, to have higher strength ratios, which would raise 

the 5th percentile strength ratio that we use to assess the 

representativeness of the sample. A 5th percentile GQI over 

5% above the assumed grade GQI value requires the lowering of MOR and MOE values; therefore, any procedure that 

underestimates the actual 5th percentile GQI of the whole 

sample could produce higher design values than warranted. 

FPL thought that the lack of failure information was a serious failure to follow past practices and the spirit of ASTM 

D 1990. In such circumstances, we believed that only a 

conservative procedure could be justified. In this case a conservative procedure was to retain all pieces without failure 

information in the GQI representativeness determination by 

assigning those pieces a strength ratio of 99%. This was the 

method approved by the ALSC BOR for calculating the GQI 

for pieces with no failure code information.

WCLIB’s GQI Adjustment Procedure— WCLIB proposed 

an interpolation procedure to develop an adjustment to the 

GQI values for each size–grade cell. FPL thought that this 

method was weighted incorrectly. After assuming 100% 

strength ratios for pieces with missing information, WCLIB 

proposed an interpolation procedure between the calculated 

GQI cell values and those that would be obtained if all pieces with 100% strength ratio were left in the data set.

FPL noted that there is no way to tell if any interpolation 

procedure would give us a value similar to what would have 

been obtained if failure codes were available on all pieces. 

In any case, if one were to propose such an interpolation 

scheme, the weighting scheme used is backward. FPL also 

expressed concern that even if weighted differently, it would 

be difficult to show this adjustment was appropriate.

In a September 29, 1998, letter to the ALSC BOR, FPL 

discussed why they thought the scheme was backward and 

proposed an alternative scheme. Later FPL provided a hypothetical example to the ALSC BOR: “Suppose in a cell, 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189
13

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

only 10% of the pieces had failure information and that 

these 10% of pieces were the bottom 10% of the cell’s MOR 

values. We could assume that the pieces with no failure information and higher MOR values probably had on average 

higher strength ratios and the 5th percentile strength ratio 

of these specimens would be higher. Thus if we had failure 

information on all the specimens, the 5th percentile strength 

ratio would be higher than the 5th percentile strength ratio 

of the bottom 10% of the MOR specimens. The WCLIB 

weighting scheme would cause one to use the 5th percentile 

strength ratio of the bottom 10% of the specimens, thus underestimating the true 5th percentile. Since you lower MOR 

and MOE values only if you get values more than 5 points 

above the assumed grade GQI, any procedure that underestimates the GQI of the whole sample can overestimate 

design values. If the weighting scheme were reversed, as we 

proposed, the GQI in this example would have been the one 

calculated with all the pieces.”

WLICB also provided a report to the ALSC BOR which 

compared their Swedish results with other spruce test results 

(WCLIB 1998b). In the section beginning on page 22 of 

the report “Comparison of ALSC-Approved Design Values 

for Picea abies and Picea excelsa,” the WCLIB submission 

attempted to show that 2 by 4 from this submission and its 

calculation methods would be in the range of values approved by the BOR in previous submissions. FPL pointed 

out that, as discussed in their letter of September 29, 1998, 

if the conservative approach of using 99% GQI values for 

specimens missing failure information were followed, the 

values would also be in the range of the other submissions 

with values very near the Lithuania Spruce submission. 

There is no indication in this section on why being at the 

lower end of the range would be inappropriate.

To better get an idea about how conservative this procedure 

might be, FPL calculated design values using several procedures to investigate how sensitive the final results are to 

the methods used. Table 5 presents design values calculated 

several different ways. The first data column (column 3) 

gives the values in the WCLIB submission. Column 4 gives 

values using the conservative procedure suggested by FPL 

of assigning a 99% strength ratio to any piece without failure information. Column 5 give values if FPL only used the 

pieces with failure information to calculate design values. 

This method was devised by looking at MOR versus MOE 

plots where we identified which pieces had failure information. In every size–grade cell, the pieces with failure information were scattered throughout the plot, with a slightly 

heavier concentration at the lower end. This showed that this 

procedure might be a little conservative for all the data, even 

if it did potentially underestimate the GQI value. Column 6 

is WCLIB’s weighting procedure with the corrected weighting scheme that we proposed. Column 7 is the values FPL 

got when using the WCLIB data provided and the procedure 

exactly as they proposed.

The numbers calculated using the conservative procedure 

of putting a 99% strength ratio in for pieces with no failure 

information does not appear overly conservative when compared with the other procedures. FPL argued that because 

this method can be shown to be conservative, it provides 

values that would be easier to defend and yet do not greatly 

lower values from other procedures. Failure to follow a 

conservative procedure would appear to require a more 

extensive monitoring program than the one proposed (that 

is, one that requires some testing of the strengths of specimens sampled in the monthly checks proposed). This would 

be consistent with the Russian Spruce submission, which 

proposed a more extensive monitoring program to validate 

design values that might have been lower if a full matrix 

had been tested. The discussions for determining allowable 

properties for Swedish Spruce would continue for a number 

of more years. The method that was finally used to calculate 

the GQI adjustment factor for this submission was the conservative procedure of putting a 99% strength ratio in for 

pieces with no failure information and the upper bound adjustment procedures using a factor calculated by adding 5% 

to that target GQI for the size–grade cell and dividing that 

number by the actual GQI for the size–grade cell.

Too Small a Sample Size for Individual Cell Data—At the 

October 30, 1996, ALSC BOR meeting, the BOR in executive session thoroughly discussed the status of the WCLIB 

Swedish Norway spruce proposal. The BOR took into consideration the points presented by WCLIB supporting their 

position to group the data from Swedish Norway spruce 

with the data from Archangel Norway spruce. The Board 

also considered the position of the FPL on grouping the data 

from the two regions. The BOR unanimously declined to 

accept the WCLIB proposal to group the Swedish Norway 

spruce data with Archangel Norway spruce data to derive 

allowable design values for the group. The board also considered alternative methods presented and discussed by FPL 

and WCLIB to develop allowable design values. The BOR 

noted the concern of FPL that the Swedish Norway spruce 

data did not contain enough pieces in certain test cells because GQI information was missing. WCLIB was given permission to test additional pieces to meet the required number of samples per test cell. The additional data obtained 

would then be added to the original data set and adjustments 

made if necessary. The BOR unanimously approved this 

procedure permitting WCLIB to develop design values from 

existing data of Swedish Norway spruce to be submitted to 

the BOR for approval with the understanding that WCLIB 

agreed to sample and test enough pieces to bring each test 

cell up to 200 pieces if WCLIB could demonstrate Sweden 

is a limited geographic area. Supplemental data were collected and pooled with original Swedish.

On October 22, 1998, the ALSC BOR finally adopted values 

for Swedish Spruce.
14

European Submissions (1995–2004)

While discussion continued to decide how to deal with 

troublesome Swedish test data, a number of sampling plans 

and submissions were introduced and allowable properties 

developed for other European countries. Values for Spruce 

from Austria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, 

Estonia, Romania, and Ukraine; Pine from Lithuania, Germany, Finland, Estonia, Romania, and Ukraine; Silver fir 

from Germany, France, and Switzerland; and Douglas-fir 

from Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, and France would 

eventually be developed. During this time, consensus was 

developing on how to make GQI adjustments and grouping 

of new data with existing data sets. Subtle modifications 

were also made to the methods for calculating allowable 

properties with D 1990 to suit these later submissions.

WCLIB Austrian Whitewood and Scotts Pine 

from Austria and Czech Republic (1995)

In spring 1995, FPL was asked to review a sampling plan 

from WCLIB for 2 by 4 Austrian Whitewood (spruce). The 

methods of this sampling plan would be used later for 2 by 4 

Austrian Scots Pine. In a letter dated July 17, 1995, FPL expressed concern about the representativeness of the material 

that would be tested. FPL had several phone conversations 

with WCLIB about this concern. WCLIB contacted the supplier and obtained more detailed information of the source. 

The principal issues raised with these submissions were as 

follows:

•	 Representativeness of the sample

•	 Quality control program

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

Table 5—Calculated allowable properties by various 

methodsa

Grade

October 20

submission 

Using

99%

SR

Pieces

with

SR

Reverse

weighted 

WCLIB 

weighted 

MOR (lb/in2)

SS 1,300 1,250 1,250 1,300 1,300 

No. 1 850 825 800 850 850 

No. 2 700 700 600 700 700 

No. 3 400 400 350 400 400 

Stud 550 550 475 550 550 

CONST 800 775 700 800 800 

STD 450 450 375 450 450 

UTIL 200 200 175 200 200 

UTS (lb/in2

)

SS 575 575 575 575 575 

No. 1 375 375 350 375 375 

No. 2 325 300 275 325 325 

No. 3 175 175 150 175 175 

Stud 250 250 225 250 250 

CONST 350 350 300 350 350 

STD 200 200 175 200 200 

UTIL 100 100 75 100 100 

UCS (lb/in2

)

SS 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 

No. 1 1,050 1,050 1,000 1,050 1,050 

No. 2 925 925 850 925 950 

No. 3 550 525 500 525 550 

Stud 600 575 550 600 600 

CONST 1,150 1,150 1,100 1,150 1,150 

STD 975 950 875 950 975 

UTIL 625 625 575 625 625 

MOE (×106 lb/in2)

SS 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 

No. 1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 

No. 2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 

No. 3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 

Stud 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 

CONST 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 

STD 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 

UTIL 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

a

MOR, modulus of rupture; UTS, ultimate tensile stress; UCS, ultimate 

compressive stress; MOE, modulus of elasticity; SR, strength ratio. 
15

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

•	 GQI calculation method

•	 Moisture corrections for moisture meter for Scots pine

•	 Failure code issues

•	 Collection of additional data

Representativeness of Sample—The original WCLIB sampling scheme detailed in their June 10, 1995, proposal discussed sending a Quality Supervisor to Houston, Texas, to 

select SS and No. 2 specimens from a boat-load of material 

stored there. The supplier instead sent three units of material to Portland, Oregon, before the WCLIB inspector saw 

the material. The supplier sold off the rest for nonstructural 

purposes. After inspection of the three units by a Quality 

Supervisor, WCLIB determined that 250 were SS, 200 were 

No. 1, and 100 were No. 2. It was felt that there was a need 

to sample another boat-load of lumber to obtain enough additional material to complete a 360 sample for SS and No. 2 

grade lumber. Both WCLIB and FPL agreed that this should 

be done to ensure the representativeness of the quality of the 

sample with respect to grade. The second sample also had 

the advantage of giving additional information on the variation in properties for a later sample. ALSC BOR approved 

this sampling method. It was not until July 1996 that the 

second set of 2 by 4 data was available for analysis.

Quality Control—It was pointed out in a July 24, 1996, FPL 

response letter to the ALSC BOR that WCLIB proposed that 

no monitoring (physical or mechanical) be conducted on 

lumber received into the U.S. because the geographic range 

is limited and the property assignments are believed to be 

conservative. FPL’s interpretation of the BOR’s Guidelines 

for Assigning Allowable Properties to Visually Graded Lumber ... was that waiving some sort of monitoring is not an 

option. Quoting from the Quality Control section, “In general, visual grading alone is not considered sufficient to assure 

consistency in lumber quality from an unknown source. The 

guiding principle in this guideline has been that at least one 

grade-size combination must be monitored at all times that 

lumber is being graded.”

It was clearly FPL’s feeling at the time that some sort of 

quality control is desirable for any foreign species in the initial stages of production. At the point of acceptance of a submission by the BOR, only the assigned properties are known 

to be conservative relative to the properties of the samples 

that were tested. FPL pointed out that although it is true that 

Austria and Czech Republic is a relatively small geographic 

area, it is also a very mountainous area and we lack the 

degree of knowledge about the origins of the tested sample 

that we have for U.S. data. Some monitoring of physical or 

mechanical property quality therefore seems desirable for an 

initial period of time. At a minimum, FPL suggested records 

be kept on growth rate and rings per inch for 1 year, or until 

a minimum of 360 pieces have been monitored. This degree 

of intensity would be consistent with that approved for Russian Spruce from the Archangel region of Russia.

WCLIB proposed the monitoring of rings per inch, percentage summerwood, and visual strength-reducing characteristics in a letter dated January 14, 1997. It was felt by FPL 

that this monitoring would be in compliance with the VSR 

Guidelines. At the January 30, 1997, ALSC BOR meeting, 

the BOR approved the design values for 2 by 4 white spruce 

from Austria and Czech Republic because WCLIB had developed a monitoring program.

In February 1998, WCLIB reported results for their resource 

monitoring program for 2 by 4 Austrian spruce (Piecea exelsa). FPL reviewed the report and indicated in a letter 

back to the BOR that the data sampled over the course of 

1 year supplied by WCLIB indicated that the resource was 

as good as or better than the material originally used for design value calculation. It was felt that the requirements 

of ALSC VSR Guidelines had been met.

Moisture Meter Correction for Scots Pine—There were 

not the same issues with sampling for the Scots pine material from Austria. The method of moisture meter correction, 

however, was a concern. The species-specific moisture meter correction used in the report was for Redwood. This was 

originally suggested by Delmhorst, but later conversations 

with Delmhorst confirmed that this was likely California 

Redwood not “Scots Pine,” also known as “Redwood” in 

Europe. After further discussions with WCLIB, FPL agreed 

the most appropriate species correction would be a combined curve fit to the Delmhorst hard pine corrections. This 

approach is similar to the approach previously taken with 

foreign spruce submittals where domestic species that are 

expected to be similar are combined to produce an estimate 

of the species correction.

Failure Code Issues—There were also subtle failure code 

issues with these submissions, but they were less detrimental than those found in the Swedish Norway spruce data. 

The original failure code information supplied by WCLIB 

would not allow for calculation of the GQIs. The failure 

codes were not expressed in the format associated with D 

4761. Conversions of coded information were required. 

WCLIB supplied corrected failure codes. Looking at these 

results for cell by cell GQI values, it was apparent that all 

GQIs were above the 5% upper boundary on the target grade 

GQI provided for in section 8.2 of D 1990 and therefore 

required adjustment. The data suggested a problem with the 

GQI information for No. 2 grade 2 by 4. When adjusted to 

2 by 8, this cell had the highest GQI but the lowest properties for the No. 2 grade.

During telephone conversations between FPL and WCLIB, 

WCLIB indicated that this cell’s failure coding was not done 

by a WCLIB grader. FPL proposed, and WCLIB accepted, 

the alternative for GQI calculation: Calculate the suggested 

combined 5th percentile GQI from 2 by 6 and 2 by 8 and 

use this as an estimate of the 2 by 4 cell GQI. Then, similar 

to the previous Russian and Swedish Spruce submission, the 
16

GQI adjustment used on the 2 by 4 data was based on this 

GQI estimate and the ratio from Equation (1).

Collection of Additional Data—In October 1997, WCLIB 

proposed a sampling plan to gather data for an expansion of 

the previous WCLIB submission for 2 by 4 Austrian Spruce 

to include National Grading Rule (NGR) grades and sizes 

for Austrian Spruce and Scots pine from Austria and the 

Czech Republic. As noted in the Swedish Spruce submission, when additional data are collected, a decision needs to 

be made about whether these additional data verify original 

results, should be pooled with original data, or will replace 

original results. The ALSC BOR unanimously approved 

the sampling plan, which suggested pooling the additional 

data with the original data, on October 23, 1997. WCLIB’s 

proposed design values for NGR grades and sizes for Scots 

pine and for Norway Spruce from Austria and the Czech 

Republic were approved by the ALSC BOR in April and 

July of 1998, respectively.

Norway Spruce and Scots Pine from Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia (1997–2006)

The original sampling plan for Lithuania was submitted in 

April 1997. This was the first of a series of submissions for 

the Baltic Countries of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia involving Norway spruce and Scots pine. The allowable properties for Lithuanian Norway spruce were approved in July 

1998, followed in October by Scots pine from Lithuania.

In October 1999, the ALSC BOR approved a sampling and 

testing plan to develop allowable properties for Norway 

spruce and Scots pine NGR grades and sizes from Estonia 

proposed by WCLIB. The collection of Estonian test data 

presented WCLIB with an opportunity to group an existing 

species from one country with a new set of data for another 

country. This combination of data sets from Lithuania and 

Estonia started a series of discussions that would eventually 

establish the precedence for how the ALSC BOR would 

handle grouping species from different countries. Allowable 

properties for Estonian Norway spruce and Scots pine were 

approved in 2001 (WCLIB 2001a,c), and for Latvian Spruce 

and Scots pine in 2004 and revised in 2005 and 2006, respectively (WCLIB 2004a, 2005c, 2006a). The principal 

issues encountered with these submissions were as follows:

•	 Grouping

•	 Treatment of GQI for species being combined

Grouping—In their initial grouping proposal, WCLIB 

wanted to consider Lithuanian Spruce as an existing species 

group and compare the Estonian data to it using sections 

10.2.2 and 10.3.2 in ASTM D 1990. The properties that 

WCLIB wished to claim were developed from characteristic 

values for Lithuanian Spruce, which had gone through the 

section 9.3 and section 12.6 data checks, whereas the report 

as written compares pre-data-checked characteristic values. 

In reviewing the WCLIB approach, FPL commented that 

because the primary reason for failing the 9.3 and 12.6 data 

checks is a sample that does not have a GQI within 5% of 

what is claimed for a cell, it seems reasonable and logical 

that for the comparison WCILB is attempting, the comparison should be conducted with Estonian Spruce characteristic 

values that have also undergone the same data checks. Otherwise, we might be allowing a set of allowable properties 

for a species that are substantially higher than the allowable 

properties that the data for the species alone would produce. 

In the Estonian Pine submission, this concern made no difference in the 10.2.2 and the 10.3.2 comparisons. In the Estonian Spruce case, however, it did.

The characteristic values for Lithuanian spruce used to develop the Lithuanian Spruce properties are shown in Table 

6. The characteristic values that would be developed for the 

Estonian Spruce data with the 9.3 and 12.6 checks are also 

given in Table 6. Given the expressed desire in the standard 

(section 9.3.1) to “minimize the probability of developing 

non-conservative property estimates,” it appeared to FPL 

that the standard’s intent is to compare characteristic values 

after the data checks have been performed in the case of 

adding a new species to an existing species group. FPL felt 

that when done in this manner, the 10.3.2 criteria for grouping a new species with an existing species were not met. Allowable properties for Estonian Spruce are lower in 10 cells 

than the existing Lithuanian Spruce allowable properties 

(see Table 7). FPL reminded WCLIB that they could still 

use 10.3.1 grouping to try to recover the higher Lithuanian 

Spruce values. WCLIB agreed to compare the characteristic 

values after the data checks had been performed. WCLIB 

received approval from ALSC BOR for Estonian and Lithuanian Norway spruce values on July 26, 2001. The final 

values for a similar combination of Estonia and Lithuanian 

Scots pine were approved on February 8, 2001.

The proposal for sampling and testing material from Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia was approved in October 2001. The 

data for developing allowable properties for Latvia with Estonia and Lithuania Norway spruce were submitted in spring 

2002. FPL indicated that the methodology for combining 

species from the Baltic had already been addressed in spring 

2001 with the Estonia and Lithuania grouping. The 2001 

Submission for Estonia and Lithuania values approved by 

Table 6—Characteristic 

values of Norway sprucea

Grade

MOR 

(×103

lb/in2

)

MOE

(×106

lb/in2

)

SS 

 Lith. 3.099 1.506 

 Esto. 3.067 1.549 

No. 2 

 Lith. 1.777 1.184 

 Esto. 1.725 1.193 

a

MOR, modulus of rupture; MOE, 

modulus of elasticity. 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189
17

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

the BOR were calculated using section 10 of ASTM D 1990. 

The method outlined by WCLIB for determining the allowable properties for Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia originally 

did not follow the methods of section 10 of ASTM D 1990.

FPL felt that it was inconsistent that this method would 

have been used for Estonia and Lithuania being combined, 

but not for all three. It was their belief that the three species 

should be grouped according to section 10.

It was argued by WCLIB that the method being applied to 

the Baltic data is no different than that used in to produce 

Douglas-fir, Hem-fir, and SPF numbers in North America. 

FPL pointed out that there was, however, a major difference 

in how the sampling was conducted in the North American 

In-Grade program. The sampling of Douglas-fir, Hem-fir, 

and SPF was done in proportion to production, whereas the 

sampling in Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia was not. The 

BOR in executive session accepted the advice of the FPL 

and requested that WCLIB resubmit allowable properties 

for NGR grades and sizes for Norway spruce (Picea abies) 

from the countries of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia utilizing D 1990 section 10 methodologies.

Treatment of GQI Values for Species Being Combined—

The treatment of GQI values from each species being combined was reemphasized with all these submissions. WCLIB 

originally did not treat GQI for the samples from the three 

countries separately. FPL pointed out that this check is important to help identify sampling and testing differences 

between countries and test labs for species being grouped. 

FPL pointed out that just looking at the differences in GQI 

values for the Russian or Swedish samples shows the significance of GQI checks. In the end, GQI values for each of 

the countries were examined.

The final values for the combined data of Lithuania, Estonia, 

and Latvia Norway Spruce were finally approved by the 

ALSC BOR at the July 25, 2002, BOR meeting.

Douglas-Fir and European Larch from Austria, 

Czech Republic, and Federal Republic of 

Germany (1999)

In April and March 1999, FPL reviewed WCLIB’s proposed 

design values for two species, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsug menziesii) and European Larch (Larix decidua) from Austria, 

the Czech Republic, and the state of Bavaria in the Federal 

Republic of Germany. There was one princpal issues with 

this submission: 

•	 Implied length and size factors

Implied Length and Size Factors—Historically, with InGrade data, all agencies except SPIB used a calculated 

2 by 12 “base allowable property” design values approach 

where “size factors” were applied to published values to 

obtain design values at specific widths and implied lengths. 

Implied length is relevant for submissions that use this base 

allowable propety approach. FPL agreed with the characteristic values calculated by WCLIB at a 144-inch length 

resulting from a revised version of tables 7 and 8 of the submission supplied by WCLIB in a fax dated March 31, 1999. 

Previous submissions for full matrix samples had adopted 

the approach for tabulating allowable properties at a the 

2 by 12 size and applying size factors to these values to 

adjust to other sizes. FPL raised concerns that the implied 

lengths associated with size factors tabulation methods were 

not followed in this submission.

FPL noted that the length at which the unrounded 2 by 4 

allowable properties in the WCLIB March 31, 1999, fax 

were calculated was not consistent with previous submissions on domestic or foreign species. Historically, with 

In-Grade data, all agencies except SPIB calculated design 

values using the approach where “size factors” were applied 

to published values. For SS, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 grade 

lumber the published allowable properties were for 2 by 12 

at a length of 240 inches. The use of size factors resulted in 

implied lengths for design values that varied by width. 

For 2 by 4’s, applying a factor of 1.5 to 2 by 12 values at 

240 inches results in an implied length of 149 inches. Southern Pine did not use the “size factor” approach in deriving 

design values. Southern Pine allowable properties for 

2 by 4’s are based on 2 by 4’s at a length of 144 inches.

FPL informed the ALSC BOR that to this point all “full matrix” submissions for foreign species had used the size factor 

approach, with implied lengths. The NeLMA submission for 

Table 7—Rounded properties for Norway 

spruce based on characteristic valuesa

Grade

Fb

(lb/in2)

Ft

(lb/in2)

Fc

(lb/in2)

MOE

(×106 lb/in2)

SS — — — — 

 Lith. 1,200 550 1,200 1.5 

 Esto. 1,200 550 1,200 1.6 

No. 1 — — — — 

 Lith. 800 375 1,050 1.4 

 Esto. 800 350 1,000 1.4 

No. 2 — — — — 

 Lith. 700 300 925 1.2 

 Esto. 675 300 900 1.2 

No. 3 — — — — 

 Lith. 400 175 525 1.1 

 Esto. 400 175 525 1.1 

CONST — — — — 

 Lith. 800 350 1,150 1.1 

 Esto 775 350 1,150 1.1 

STD — — — — 

 Lith. 450 200 950 1.0 

 Esto. 425 200 950 1.0 

UTIL — — — — 

 Lith. 200 100 625 1.0 

 Esto. 200 100 600 1.0 

Stud — — — — 

 Lith. 550 250 600 1.1 

 Esto. 525 225 575 1.1 

a

Fb, bending stress; Ft, tensile stress; Fc, compressive 

stress; MOE, modulus of elasticity. 
18

the Archangel Region of Russia, which was for two sizes, 

also used the size factor approach. For consistency with past 

submissions, FPL expressed a preference for calculating 

values based on an implied length of 149 inches. WCLIB 

argued that the use of 149 inches implied length as proposed 

by the FPL was used in only the Norway spruce from the 

Archangel region of Russia submission and indicated for 

most of the submission the length does not have any effect 

on the recommend design values.

The ALSC BOR met in executive session and approved the 

values for the WCLIB submission as revised April 22, 1999, 

using 144-inch length as presented by WCLIB. The BOR 

asked that in future submissions the length of 144 inches be 

used on 2 by 4 for consistency.

Norway Spruce and Scots Pine from Finland 

(1999–2000)

Proposed design values for Norway spruce (Picea abies) 

from Finland were submitted by WCLIB on September 20, 

1999. By October 20, 1999, FPL had reached agreement 

with WCLIB on the data and procedures to be used to calculate allowable properties for bending, compression, tension 

and MOE. There were no significant issues with this submission. WCLIB followed up the spruce submittal from Finland with a submission, “Proposed design values for Scots 

pine (Pinus sylvestris) from the Country of Finland,” on 

December 17, 1999. By January 11, 2000, FPL had reached 

agreement with WCLIB on the data and procedures to be 

used to calculate allowable properties for bending, compression, tension, and MOE. The procedures used to calculate 

the allowable properties followed ASTM D 245, ASTM D 

1990, and other technically sound criteria using methods 

that had been worked out in prior submissions. The BOR at 

its meetings in executive session approved the WCLIB submissions for Scots pine and Norway spruce from Finland on 

January 20 and July 27, 2000, respectively.

Spruce and Pine from Germany, Switzerland, 

and France (1999–2005)

The development of allowable properties for Norway 

Spruce and Scots pine from Germany was achieved in 

many steps. Initially, base values were developed only for 

2 by 4 dimension lumber for the entire country of Germany 

except for the German States of Baden-Wurttemberg and 

Saarland in Southwest Germany (Fig. 3; WAS 1999a,b). 

The 2 by 4 material was tested by Wood Advisory Services 

of Millbrook, New York. The results of these tests were approved by the BOR at the July 29 and October 21, 1999, 

BOR meetings, respectively. Further testing of 2 by 6 were 

then conducted (WCLIB 2000a,b) New design values were 

calculated for 2 by 4 and 2 by 6 using the same method used 

to determine allowable properties for spruce from the Archangel region of Russia and approved at the April 2000 BOR 

meeting. Allowable property values for both of these species 

were adopted first for a combination of 2 by 4 and 2 by 6 

lumber and then for the full test matrix of 2 by 4, 2 by 6, and 

2 by 8 lumber once 2 by 8 testing was completed (WCLIB 

2000c,d). In the course of developing design values for the 

2 by 6 submissions, a lengthy discussion of implied lengths 

for lumber occurred between the FPL, the BOR and the 

rules-writing grading agencies.

The exclusion of Norway spruce in certain regions of Germany was problematic for mills in those region of Germany. 

The Association of the German Sawmill Industry (VDS) 

contracted with WCLIB to develop design values for the entire country of Germany in July 2001. In October 2001, FPL 

reviewed WCLIB’s proposal for the sampling and testing 

of Norway spruce (Picea abies) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) from portions of France, Switzerland, and the states 

of Baden-Wurttemberg and the Saarland in the Country of 

Germany (WCLIB 2001d) (Fig. 3). The collection of these 

samples and subsequent calculation of allowable properties 

posed unique problems for allowable property calculations. 

Two principal issues were addressed over the course of developing the German allowable properties:

•	 Implied length

•	 Addition of data to existing design values by Grouping

Implied length—Historically, with In-Grade data, all agencies except SPIB calculated a 2 by 12 “base allowable 

property” design values approach where “size factors” were 

applied to published values to obtain design values at specific widths. For SS, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, the published 

allowable properties were for 2 by 12’s at a length of 

240 inches. The use of these size factors could suggest the 

acceptance of implied lengths for design values that varied 

by width if the size adjustment adopted in D 1990 was applied literally to test matrix material. For example, if lumber 

is converted from 2 by 12 values at 240 inches to 2 by 4’s, 

by applying a factor of 1.5 to the 2 by 12 values, then an 

implied length of 149 inches is suggested by the volume 

adjustment formula in D 1990. For 2 by 6 lumber the agreed 

upon size adjustment factor of 1.3 would suggest an implied 

length of 162 inches.

All “full matrix” submissions for foreign species analyzed 

by FPL to this point in time had used the 2 by 12 and size 

factor approach, with its associated implied lengths. The 

NeLMA submission for the Archangel region of Russia, 

which was the only other example of both 2 by 4 and 

2 by 6 cells being tested (Russian Spruce 1995), also had 

used the size factor approach and was evaluated with the 

associated implied length. In the Archangel submission, 

the test data were adjusted to a 2 by 12 “base allowable 

property” and then moved back to 2 by 4 and 2 by 6 by the 

appropriate size factor. The issue of implied lengths became 

important in this report because WCLIB and FPL values for 

2 by 4 differed because of the lengths they chose to adjust 

their data. The small differences in length that occurred 

in previous 2 by 4 calculations had rarely created a difference in an allowable property calculated. The most notable 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189
19

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

exception was the German Douglas-fir Larch. WCLIB had 

typically made its computations using a standard length of 

144 inches, whereas FPL had consistently checked the submissions using an implied length suggested by the size 

factors. The lengths at which the unrounded 2 by 4 and 

2 by 6 allowable properties calculated by WCLIB were not 

consistent with FPL’s previous treatment of length in prior 

submissions on domestic or foreign species.

FPL maintained that using the agreed-upon size factors 

produces the most consistent allowable property when compared to previous submissions. ASTM D 1990 contains specific procedures for adjusting properties for volume. If the 

different approach used by the two parties resulted in differences greater than allowed by the rounding rule, then FPL 

believe the differences were significant within the context 

of the standard. FPL felt that any acceptance of deviations 

from the standard should properly be made by a consensus 

body such as ASTM or the BOR. In the case of the 2 by 4 

and 2 by 6 lumber submissions, calculating the allowable 

properties with implied lengths results in four occasions 

where the choice of length affects the allowable property 

by one rounding rule.

WCLIB argued that it is much more practical for the adjustments to be made to an even production length. The last 

time this issue arose at the April 22, 1999, BOR meeting, 

the BOR in Executive Session approved using 144-inch 

length for future 2 by 4 submissions for consistency. In the 

current submission, however, both 2 by 4 and 2 by 6 lengths 

were tested. In this submission, 144 inches is used for the 

2 by 6 calculations, which is different than any previous 

practice. FPL and WCLIB advised the BOR that ASTM 

D 1990 is silent on this issue and recommended that the 

BOR select one alternative to guide rules-writing agencies 

in calculating allowable properties. In executive session at 

the April 27, 2000, meeting the BOR approved the set of 

lengths given in Table 8.

Using these agreed-upon lengths, the addition of the 2 by 6 

lumber was approved at the April 27, 2000, meeting with 

the provision that the stability of these values would be 

Figure 3—Excluded sampling areas for original 2 by 4 and 2 by 

6 German samples, Baden-Wurttemberg (1) and Saarland (2) and 

sawmill locaiton in Friesau, Thuringen, for second sampling (figure from WCLIB 1999).
20

monitored. These lengths were then to be used for the evaluation of future submissions. The data from testing of additional data for 2 by 8 Norway spruce and Scots pine lumber 

to complete the three-size two-grade full matrix were submitted in June 2000 (WCLIB 2000b,c) and approved at the 

July 27, 2000, BOR meeting the using the lengths shown in 

Table 8.

Addition of Data to Existing Design Values by Grouping—

To establish properties for Norway spruce and Scots pine for 

all of Germany, additional samples were collected in 2 by 4, 

2 by 6, and 2 by 8 sizes of these species and tests conducted 

to complete the NGR grade–size matrix for the entire country of Germany.

The initial sampling plan for the addition of data from the 

southwest part of Germany, northeast France, and Switzerland developed by WCLIB was built on the assumption that 

the new data will group with the existing data set without 

changing the current allowable property value. FPL pointed 

out that if the assumption was correct, there would be no issues with the resulting allowable properties; however, there 

is a possibility that the existing allowable property values 

could be lowered as a result of this testing. In this case the 

new data will need to be combined with the old data set using the grouping procedures of section 10.2 and 10.3 of 

D 1990.

The test data for Norway spruce from the States of BadenWurttemberg and Saarland in the Country of Germany, the 

country of Switzerland, and portions of France were submitted in September 2004. Initially there was a difference 

of opinion about how this data should be combined with 

existing results. FPL wanted the allowable properties to be 

calculated by treating the new data set as a new species to 

be added to the existing Norway spruce data. It was not until 

WCLIB’s revised report “Proposed design values for Norway spruce (Picea abies) from the countries of Switzerland, 

Northeast France (Alsace, Lorraine, and Franche-Comte), 

and Germany,” dated January 21, 2005, was prepared treating the new data sets as new species that FPL and WCLIB 

agreed upon calculated allowable properties. The allowable 

properties for Norway spruce for this expanded region were 

approved by the BOR at the February 3, 2005, meeting.

Scots Pine from Sweden (2000–2001)

“Proposed Design Values for Scots Pine (Pinus Sylvestris)

from the Kingdom of Sweden” were submitted by WCLIB 

on September 26, 2000 (WCLIB 2000c). The development 

of these design values were less problematic than the design 

values determined for Norway spruce from Sweden. FPL 

did, however, find a number of inconsistencies in the data 

that required further clarification from WCLIB. Duplication 

errors occurred in spreadsheet, and that all MOE values are 

miscalculated. WCLIB made corrections and recalculated 

the MOE values. The principle issues encountered with this 

submission were as follows:

•	 Missing failure codes

•	 Inconsistent GQI values

•	 Inconsistent measurement of load and displacement

Missing Failure Codes—Failure code information was 

missing for a number of pieces for this Swedish submission 

but not nearly to the extent of the prior spruce submission. 

Eventually, WCLIB was able to supply the correct failure 

code info for these pieces.

Inconsistent GQI Values—The GQI values calculated from 

the failure code information and the GQI column provided 

for the grade–size cells in the appendix of the WCLIB submission produced different values from each other and the 

GQI values reported in table 3, page 4 of 18 of the report. 

When FPL tried to calculate strength ratios from the failure 

code information provided, there were more than 310 pieces 

that differed by more than 1%. In the 2 by 6 Select Structural data alone, FPL found 252 pieces that differed. If the 

GQI column given in the report is used, the Select Structural 

2 by 6 is considerably off from that reported in table 3 of the 

submission. WCLIB was able to identify which of the GQI 

values were correct.

Inconsistent Measurement of Load and Displacement—

After examining further the MOE calculations provide by 

WCLIB, FPL noted that there seemed to be an inconsistency 

in how the P1 and P2 loads and D1 and D2 displacements 

were measured. WCLIB contacted Tratek to clarify why the 

methodology appears to have changed in the middle of 

testing.

By December 27, 2000, FPL had received WCLIB’s revised 

Proposed Design Values for Scots Pine (Pinus Sylvestris)

from the Kingdom of Sweden Final Report dated December 

21, 2000. FPL was now in agreement with the allowable 

properties tabulated in Proposed Allowable Base Values for 

Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) from Sweden. Swedish Scots 

pine values were approved by the BOR on January 23, 

2001. WCLIB would later revise this submission using the 

recently approved ASTM consensus methods for calculating 

GQI adjustments in February 8, 2007.

Table 8—Lengths to be 

used in calculating ASTM 

D 1990 submission 

Nominal width 

(in.)

Length

(in.)

4 144 

5 144 

6 144 

8 144 

10 192 

12 240 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189
21

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

Silver Fir from Austria and Czech Republic 

(July 2001)

In July 2001, WCLIB proposed a method for the Sampling 

and Testing of Silver fir (Abies alba) from the countries of 

Austria and the Czech Republic for establishment of Allowable properties for NGR Grades. In their review of the 

sampling plan, FPL expressed concern that the sampling 

plan did not provide information that described the methods 

needed to determine allowable properties for NGR Grades 

for these countries according to D 1990 and D 2915. The 

discussion describing the sampling was not detailed enough 

and caused serious reservations about the representativeness 

of the samples that will be collected.

Representativeness of the Sample—Questions about representativeness of concern to FPL were where will the test 

materials be coming from in Austria and the Czech Republic, and how will the proportions of such a sample, if taken, 

be established. There was no indication in the original sampling plan of the effort being made to ensure that the samples are representative of the entire region for which properties are being claimed. It seemed to FPL that at a minimum, 

more information needed to be added that indicates the 

geographic locations from which the test specimens will be 

sampled and how the proportioning and distribution of these 

test specimens had been or would be determined to ensure 

representativeness.

In October 2001, WCLIB supplied a revised proposal for 

the Sampling and Testing of Silver fir (Abies alba) from the 

countries of Austria and the Czech Republic for establishment of allowable properties for NGR grades dated. Data 

for this sampling plan was never submitted.

Silver Fir from Germany Switzerland and 

France (October 2001–2004)

On July 12, 2001, WCLIB presented a proposal to the ASLC 

BOR for the Sampling and Testing of European Silver fir 

(Abies alba) from the countries of Germany, Switzerland, 

and portions of France for establishment of allowable properties for NGR grades and sizes. The plan for sampling 

Silver Fir from Germany raised questions about the representativeness of the sample and was not accepted until the 

October 17, 2001, BOR meeting. The test data were not submitted until 2004. Principal issues raised in this submission 

were as follows:

•	 Representativeness of the sample

•	 Data checks

Representativeness of the Sample—In a letter from FPL 

dated October 23, 2001, questions were raised about discrepancies in samples from different countries and the 

representativeness of the sample. The discussion describing 

the sampling was not detailed enough and as then written 

caused us to have serious reservations about the representativeness of the samples to be collected. Questions of 

concern to FPL were as follows: Will any of the test material be coming from Switzerland or France, and how will 

the proportions of such a sample, if taken, be established? If 

no samples are taken from these countries, then what justifies the expansion to regions not tested? It seemed to FPL 

that at a minimum more information needed to be included 

in the sampling plan that indicated the geographic locations 

from which the test specimens would be sampled and how 

the proportioning/distribution of these test specimens had 

been or would be determined to ensure representativeness. 

WCLIB provided additional background information.

Data Checks—Data checks significantly reduced the allowable properties calculated for Silver fir from Germany. 

The design values for Silver fir were lowered by the data 

checks on the two 2 by 6 cells. The data for these cells were 

the most questionable for the sample collected. Further examination of the rest of the data indicated that the sample 

provided, while not the most ideally representative, was 

most likely a conservative method of estimating allowable 

properties for Silver fir in the limited region of Switzerland, 

Northeast France (Alsace, Lorrain, and Fanche-Comte), and 

Germany.

The allowable properties for Silver fir from Switzerland, 

Northeast France, and Germany were approved by the 

ALSC BOR in Ocotber 21, 2004.

Southern Pine Species Grown in South Africa 

(2002–2004)

A sampling and testing plan for determining allowable properties for Southern Pine from South Africa was submitted to 

the ALSC BOR in January 2002, and a revised version on 

February 11, 2002. As with all sampling plans before it, FPL 

had concerns about the representativeness of the sample 

being collected and the locations from which the samples 

would be obtained.

Representativeness of the Sample—FPL raised concerns 

that the sample might not be representative of all the regions 

over which the species might be produced in the future. 

map 4 in the submission (Fig. 4a) showed the regions over 

which there are commercial plantations, and map 3 (Fig. 4b) 

showed the location of the two regions to be sampled. Map 

1 (Fig. 5) of the submission showed that much of the eastern 

region to be sampled is classified as mountain (Montane) 

grasslands, while the regions in the south and east are Mediterranean scrub. This suggested to FPL the possibility of 

different climates across the growth range.

Figure 6 shows a map from a reference found in the FPL 

library (USDA 2002). The dark green dots represent the 

locations of forests. Although this map is from 1980, these 

locations generally correspond with those shown in the 

submission. The light green shaded areas show regions with 

annual rainfalls of 800 mm (31.5 inches). This indicated that 

annual rainfall would appear to be similar throughout the 

forested regions.
22

Figure 4—(a) Growth plantations in South Africa, (b) Location of proposed WCLIB 

sample (figure from WCLIB 2002a).

Figure 5—Vegetation climate classification (figure from WCLIB 

2002a).

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

(a) (b)
23

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

FPL further presented to the Board information on the temperature and rainfall for three towns—Cape Town, Johannesburg, and Durban (Fig. 7). Temperatures are similar in 

Johannesburg and Cape Town and slightly higher in Durban. 

However, the pattern of rainfall in Cape Town is much different than that in Johannesburg and Durban. Most of the 

rainfall in Johannesburg and Durban is during the summer 

growing season (November through March), whereas that 

in Cape Town is during the winter months (April through 

October) (Fig. 7). Thus FPL wondered if this difference in 

rainfall patterns might not effect tree growth and properties.

From this gathered information, FPL expressed concern 

that the proposed sampling sites may not be adequate to 

characterize the properties of the South African pines for the 

whole country. FPL suggested that WCLIB collect part of 

the sample from the area from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth. 

This would help to alleviate FPL’s concerns about the representativeness of the sample.

WCLIB responded back to FPL’s concerns at the April 25, 

2002, ALSC BOR meeting, indicating the WCLIB felt the 

proposed sampling and testing plan was sufficient as stated 

in the WCLIB letter dated February 11, 2002. WCLIB did, 

however, agree to obtain sample from these areas if the 

BOR felt it was necessary. The ALSC BOR met in executive 

session and unanimously approved the WCLIB request as 

submitted in its letters of January 8 and February 11, 2002, 

contingent upon WCLIB including in the sampling and 

testing plan samples from the areas of Cape Town and Port 

Elizabeth. Samples from across South Africa were collected. 

The final values for allowable properties for Southern Pine 

grown in South Africa were approved at the January 29, 

2004, ALSC BOR meeting.

Figure 6—Forest economic map of South Africa (figure from USDA 2002).

Figure 7—Temperature, rainfall, and humidity for Capetown, Johannesburg, and Druban (figure from 

USDA 2002).
24

Southern Pine Species Grown in Argentina 

(2003)

The sampling and testing plan for determining allowable 

properties for Southern Pine from Argentina was submitted to the board on December 17, 2002 (WAS 2002). In its 

January 17, 2003, letter back to the board FPL indicated it 

had reviewed the proposed sampling plan for “assigning 

properties to imported southern pine dimension lumber from 

the Misiones Province of Argentina” submitted by Wood 

Advisory Services, Inc. (WAS), on behalf of Southern Pine 

Inspection Bureau (SPIB). It was determined that the proposed sampling procedures for grades, sizes, and number 

of samples to be tested conformed to the requirements of 

ASTM D 1990 and BOR guidelines for Foreign Species 

and should yield a representative sample of the lumber that 

could be produced from the Misiones Province. The principal issues addressed by these submissions were as follows:

•	 Free of heart and medium grain material

•	 Representativeness of the sample

•	 Specific gravity calculation method

Free of Heart and Medium Grain— The ALSC BOR approved the sampling plan for two groups of lumber, “A” and 

“B.” Group A was to be lumber conforming to NGR as well 

as being free of heart center and medium grain as defined in 

the grading rules of WCLIB and WWPA; group B was to be 

lumber conforming to the NGR.

Representativeness of the Sample—Initially, it was unclear 

in the sampling plan whether sample groups designated as 

A and B were distinctly different pieces of lumber. FPL confirmed with WAS that the A and B sample groups would be 

composed of distinctly different pieces of lumber, each with 

a target sample size of 360 pieces per grade–size combination. FPL also confirmed that the edge of the lumber to 

be stressed in tension will be selected by a randomized 

procedure.

In March 2004, Wood Advisory Services (WAS) submitted 

“The Recommended Allowable Properties For Southern 

Yellow Pine (Pinus taeda & Pinus elliottii) from Misiones, 

Argentina” dated March 9, 2004. Wood Advisory Services 

also was interested in determining allowable properties for 

a specialty grade Free of Heart Center and Medium Grain 

Density from Misiones, Argentina. In May 2004, FPL reviewed Wood Advisory Services Recommended Allowable 

Properties for Southern Yellow Pine (Pinus taeda & Pinus 

Elliottii) “Free of Heart Center and Medium Grain Density” 

from Misiones, Argentina dated May 20, 2004. FPL found 

typographical errors and some calculation errors in the data 

that were originally supplied by WAS, and these were corrected. FPL was in agreement with the allowable property 

values calculated, with the exception of the bending value 

for Standard Grade in the Free of Heart Center (FOHC) 

and Medium grain submission, for both reports. The allowable properties appeared to be derived in accordance with 

the appropriate ASTM standards or other technically sound 

criteria.

Specific Gravity Calculation Method—Recent In-Grade 

testing submissions to the board have contained summaries 

of the specific gravity (based on ovendry weight–ovendry 

volume) estimates for the tests conducted. The data provided to FPL by WAS for analysis contained information on 

the specific gravity of the pieces tested. These data indicated 

that the average ovendry weight–ovendry volume specific 

gravity value was 0.45. The appendix V contained summaries by grade size of the specific gravity; the main body of 

the submission, however, contains no summary information 

on the specific gravity for the tests. For consistency, it was 

recommended that a summary of ovendry weight –ovendry 

volume specific gravity values be included in the main body 

of the report.

The values calculated by WAS were judged to be developed 

in accordance with ASTM D 1990, D 245, and the current 

policies of the ALSC BOR, and values for Southern Pine 

from Misiones were approved for the FOHC and Medium 

material “B” sample at the April 29, 2004, meeting and 

for the NGR “A” sample at the July 22, 2004, ALSC BOR 

meeting.

Alaska Yellow Cedar, Hemlock, and Spruce 

(2003–2004)

Sampling and testing plan for determining allowable properties for Alaska Yellow Cedar, Hemlock, and Alaska Spruce 

was submitted by Western Wood Products Association 

(WWPA) on July 6, 2001, and approved at the July 26, 

2001, meeting of the ALSC BOR. FPL was directly involved in the development of the sampling and testing program to determine allowable properties for Alaskan species. 

A great deal of effort was put forth in sampling procedures 

to ensure a representative sample.

Dave W. Green from FPL, along with Kevin Cheung from 

WWPA, visited the Ketchikan Wood Technology Center 

(KWTC) during the initial stages of testing to make sure 

that bending and tension test procedures were similar to 

those used in the previous North American In-Grade testing 

program. They also discussed how data should be analyzed.

FPL reviewed WWPA’s Determination of NGR Grade Lumber Design Values for Alaska Yellow Cedar (Chamaecyparis 

nootkatensis) by In-Grade Testing of Full-Size Lumber 

Specimens in 2003; FPL found typographical errors and 

some calculation errors in the Yellow Cedar data set that 

was originally supplied to us for calculating allowable 

properties. After several discussions with WWPA and the 

KWTC, FPL reached agreement on the corrections to the 

data. WWPA recalculated and provided the ALSC BOR with 

a revised report dated October 9, 2003. The ALSC BOR approved these values at the October 16, 2003, meeting.

In April 2004, WWPA submitted the Determination of NGR 

Grade Lumber Design Values for Alaska Hemlock (Tsuga 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189
25

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

Species) by In-Grade Testing of Full-Size Lumber Specimens, mistakenly dated January 13, 2003. The ASLC BOR 

approved these values at their April 29, 2004, BOR meeting. In late November 2004, FPL reviewed KWTC submission Determination of NGR Grade Lumber Design Values 

for Alaska Spruce (Picea glauca and Picea sitchensis) by 

In-Grade testing of full-size lumber specimens dated November 12, 2004. The ALSC BOR approved Alaska Spruce 

values at the February 3, 2005, meeting contingent upon 

WWPA addressing all points raised in the January 25, 2005, 

FPL letter. The principal issues raised with these submissions were as follows:

•	 High shear stress values in Yellow Cedar

•	 Items needed to complete report

•	 Comparison of Alaska Hemlock and Hem-fir

•	 Cell by cell GQI check

High Shear Stress Values—FPL noted that for the Alaskan 

cedar data, the calculation process for determining the allowable shear strength appears to be correct but the resulting 

Fv value is quite high. The allowable property of 225 lb/

in2 would be the highest shear strength given in the current 

NDS for any species. The average shear strength of the dry 

specimens tested by KWTC was 1,445 lb/in2 at an average 

MC of 14.7%. This was not that far off from the average 

value of 1,413 lb/in2 at 11% MC reported for Alaskan cedar 

in USDA FS Bulletin 479 (Markwardt and Wilson 1935). It 

seemed to FPL that it would be worthwhile for WWPA to 

review the raw data to be sure the calculated shear values 

are correct. WWPA reviewed the data and found no reason 

for correction.

Items Needed to Complete Report—In reviewing the 

submissions for yellow cedar and Hemlock, FPL found a 

number of things that were missing from the report that had 

been provided by others to the ALSC BOR in previous submissions. Information that was requested to be included by 

WWPA in a revised report is listed below. This information 

was requested to make it easier for someone in the future to 

understand what was done in their program and is included 

in this report as a guide for what others should be sure to 

include in future programs.

•	 The raw MOE value used for calculations should be 

included in the appendix data set, and then a thorough 

explanation of how adjustments are made to get the test 

results to 17 to 1 should be given in the main body of 

the submission. This explanation should have the equations used for adjustments spelled out.

•	 Discussion of the span used in the tension testing needs 

to be included so that someone can know what portion 

of the full-length piece was actually being tested.

•	 During the testing, failure codes that were outside of 

those given in ASTM 4761 were applied. Their meaning needs to be explained in the submission.

•	 WWPA’s explanation of how MC was determined for 

each piece should be expanded. They should explicitly 

state ovendry MCs were not available for all specimens tested. WWPA used moisture meter values as the 

actual MC of the specimens for some of their calculations. Information should be included in the report that 

explains in more detail the conservative nature of this 

decision. WWPA supplied a plot to the BOR to demonstrate the conservative nature of this decision. It was 

recommended that plots like this should be included in 

the submission text.

•	 The MOE values are calculated using both the bending and tension results. A summary table showing the 

GQI values for size and grade of this combined data set 

should be added.

•	 It has been traditional to include the 5th percentile, 

75th tolerance limit, 75% upper confidence limit 

(UCL), and 75% lower confidence limit (LCL) for 

MOE in the submission. This allows for flexibility in 

future years if a tail property is proposed for MOE calculation.

•	 Recent In-Grade testing submissions to the BOR have 

contained summaries of the specific gravity (based on 

ovendry weight–ovendry volume) estimates for the 

tests conducted. The data provided to us by KWTC for 

analysis contained information on the specific gravity 

of the pieces tested. It would be good to include the 

specific gravity summary and size grade statistics in the 

appendix.

•	 When there are some obvious outliers in the data set, 

an explanation indicating outliers were investigated 

and that there was no reason to throw out these points 

should be voiced.

•	 The report needs to have more detail added that explains the formulas that were applied to the raw data to 

determine the allowable properties. With this information someone looking at the report in 20 years can have 

a hope of reproducing the same results. Also, in the 

future, adjustments may change and methods may be 

revised. Without a detailed description of how calculations were made it becomes impossible to fully utilize 

the raw data.

Comparison of Alaskan Hemlock with Hem-fir—In reviewing the Hemlock data, FPL also commented that there 

may be some concern by future readers that the values determined by the KWTC for Alaska Hemlock are less than 

those given for Hem-fir in the NDS (table 9). FPL had just 

completed testing hemlock lumber from Alaska and test 

data of their own on full-size hemlock lumber from Alaska 

(Green and others 2000). Although these data are for only 

one location in Alaska, they do allow for another check on 

the expected bending properties of Alaskan hemlock.

A comparison of FPL data with KWTC data for WWPA is 

shown in Table 10. For MOE, KWTC results are greater 
26

than the NDS and FPL-RP-583. For the 5th percentile 

MOR, KWTC results are less than the Hem-fir in the NDS 

but are greater than the FPL-RP-583 results. For mean 

MOR, the KWTC results are also greater than the FPLRP-583 results. Given that the KWTC sample is large and 

more representative, there is nothing in the existing data set 

indicating that there is anything unusual about the values 

determined by KWTC for WWPA.

Cell-by-Cell GQI Check—For all the Alaska submissions,

KWTC believed that the relevant GQI check is a check performed on each grade as a whole, including all sizes. FPL 

felt that this was inconsistent with all previous In-Grade 

analysis. For all submissions that have been reviewed since 

the original In-Grade test program, the GQI check has been 

performed on the grade–size cell values. FPL strongly felt 

that the appropriate GQI check to be used on submissions is 

to look at the combined MOE grade–size cell values. This is 

the method that was suggested in print in the discussion of 

GQI on page 3 of FPL-GTR-126 (Evans and others 2001). It 

is worth noting, however, that in this case the final result is 

not affected by the method of data check. The ALSC BOR 

requested that in the future, WWPA conduct the GQI check 

on a cell-by-cell basis.

In the Alaska spruce report that followed from KWTC, the 

calculations to determine GQI were again done by lumping 

the relevant GQI values together by grade and performing 

the check on each grade as a whole, including all sizes. FPL 

reminded KWTC that this is incorrect and reminded them 

of FPL’s April 8 and April 28, 2004, letters to the BOR concerning Alaskan Hemlock that for all submissions that have 

been reviewed since the original In-Grade test program, the 

GQI check has been performed on the grade–size cell values. Again, the ALSC BOR concurred that the appropriate 

GQI check for MOE is to look at the MOE grade–size cell 

values. In the Alaska Hemlock submission, the method of 

GQI check did not matter; for the Alaskan spruce data, it did 

when determining the characteristic value for MOE. WWPA 

recalculated the data based on a grade–size cell check.

Scots Pine and Norway Spruce from Romania 

and Ukraine (2003–2004)

On October 16, 2003, the ALSC BOR approved the sampling and testing program for Scots pine from the countries 

of Romania and Ukraine. This sampling plan would also 

be used for Norway spruce from the countries of Romania 

and Ukraine. The intention of this plan was to collect data 

that could be grouped with existing spruce and pine data 

for Austria and the Czech Republic using section 10.2 and 

10.3 of D1 990. In January 2004, FPL started their review 

of WCLIB’s January 2004 proposal for developing design 

values applicable to Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) for the 

counties of Romania and the Ukraine by grouping with Austria and Czech Republic Scots Pine. FPL made a number of 

comments on and suggestions for corrections to the report 

to WCLIB. FPL received an electronic draft of a revised 

report from WCLIB on February 29, 2004. More issues still 

needed to be resolved. The values for Scots pine from Austria, Czech Republic, Romania, and Ukraine were approved 

at the April 29, 2004, BOR meeting. The values for Norway 

spruce for Austria, Czech Republic, Romania, and Ukraine 

were approved by the ALSC BOR on July 22, 2004. There 

was a considerable time between the first approval of a Romanian spruce sampling plan by the ALSC BOR in 1998 

and the final approval of an allowable property for Romanian and Ukraine spruce. There were two principal issues 

with this submission:

•	 Calculation of moisture content

•	 Test Span

Calculation of Moisture Content—FPL determined that the 

initially presented MCs of the specimens in this submission 

were calculated incorrectly. In the spreadsheets that contain 

the test data, MC appeared to be calculated as initial weight 

minus final weight divided by initial weight, instead of initial weight minus final weight divided by final weight. Because MC is used in adjusting all test data, all the calculated 

values had to be corrected. WCLIB made these corrections.

Test Span—The test span of the test data supplied by 

WCLIB were a cause for concern. Some of the test materials were extremely short in length. FPL later confirmed 

with WCLIB that the length of the test specimens for the 

Ukrainian and Romanian were in fact 118 inches with a 

116.1-inch test span even though 118 inches seemed to leave 

virtually no overhang of the specimen for testing.

The test data from Romania and Ukraine were grouped with 

existing test data from Austria and Czech Republic 

Table 9—Comparison between WWPA Alaska Hemlock and Hem–Fir in NDS 

Fb

(lb/in2

)

Ft

(lb/in2

)

Fc

(lb/in2

)

MOEa

(×106

 lb/in2)

Fv

(lb/in2

)

Fcp

(lb/in2

)

Grade name WWPA NDS WWPA NDS WWPA NDS WWPA NDS WWPA NDS WWPA NDS

SS 1,300 1,400 825 925 1,200 1,500 1.7 1.6 185 150 440 405 

No. 1 900 975 550 625 1,100 1,350 1.6 1.5 185 150 440 405 

No. 2 825 850 475 525 1,050 1,300 1.5 1.3 185 150 440 405 

No. 3 475 500 275 300 600 725 1.4 1.2 185 150 440 405 

CONST 950 975 550 600 1,250 1,550 1.4 1.3 185 150 440 405 

STD 525 550 300 325 1,050 1,300 1.3 1.2 185 150 440 405 

UTIL 250 250 150 150 700 850 1.2 1.1 185 150 440 405 

Stud 650 675 375 400 650 800 1.4 1.2 185 150 440 405 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189
27

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

using section 10.2 and section 10.3 methodology by treating 

each country as a separate species group. By this time, after 

the struggles with grouping the Lithuanian, Estonian, and 

Latvian data, there had been a procedure agreed upon how 

to group additional species data from other countries with 

existing species data.

NeLMA Eastern Spruce Balsam Fir Species 

Group (2005–Present)

In March 2005, Northeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association, Maritime Lumber Bureau, and Quebec Forest Industry Council submitted a sampling plan entitled “Proposed 

Sampling and Testing Plan for Assigning Design Properties 

of Eastern Spruce–Balsam Fir Species Group.” This sampling plan was the first submission involving the application 

of D 1990 that raised the issue of withdrawal of species 

from an existing species group, SPF(S). Concern was expressed about how the withdrawal of balsam fir and eastern 

spruces for a limited geographic region would effect the allowable properties for the remaining species in SPF(S). This 

sampling plan generated considerable discussion.

In their response to ALSC BOR dated March 28, 2005, in 

regards to the NeLMA submission, FPL believed that the 

program outlined follows the practice used in previous submissions and should be able to accomplish the objective of 

developing design properties for eastern spruce–balsam fir. 

The major comments expressed by FPL were as follows:

•	 It was unclear from the write-up how the clear wood 

properties (shear parallel and compression perpendicular to grain) for the species group would be developed.

•	 There was no listing of the data they are going to be 

collecting. In other sampling plans it has been useful to 

have the test variables spelled out (dimension, mc, mor, 

moe, failure code, grade, etc.).

•	 The sub-sample to provide factors to convert the 

D 4761 information to D 198 17 to 1 may be useful to 

answer some outstanding questions about MOE difference because of test setup, but they also have the potential of raising more questions than answers with the 

small sample size being used.

•	 The method used to sample from the three mill categories based on production will raise questions that otherwise might not have been discussed. In-grade sampling 

plans in the past had homogeneous regions that had 

mills randomly sampled, with the number of lots in a 

region determined by production, but the samples for 

that region were not based on individual mill production within a homogeneous region. The argument is 

being made that the area being sampled represents a 

small geographic area that is homogeneous, but the mill 

sampling is specifically by production. Perhaps this was 

done as a means of sharing the load amongst interested 

parties, but it introduces a level of complexity that is 

not needed and again will have the potential raising 

more questions than answers.

•	 Most importantly, the grading agencies involved need 

to be thinking about how they are going to handle 

“withdrawal issues” when a submission on design values is presented. What will be the impact of this grade 

on the rest of SPF (S)? For example, if the specific mill 

in a region identified in this sampling plan starts to produce eastern spruce–balsam fir will that mill be allowed 

to still have an SPF (S) stamp? The approach that will 

be taken will need to be part of the design value 

submission.

After a lengthy discussion, ALSC BOR in executive session 

approved the sampling plan proposed by NeLMA at its Apri 

28, 2005, meeting. The sampling and testing for this program took a little less than a year.

A proposal by NeLMA, MLB, and QFIC for “Proposed 

Design Values for Eastern Spruce–Balsam fir Structural Dimension Lumber” was submitted to the board on March 1, 

2006. In their March 27, 2006, response, FPL raised significant question about the submission. FPL indicated that there 

had been no attempt to group the two species together to see 

if it made a difference in calculated allowable properties. 

FPL noted that in the submission these species are treated 

only as an existing species group. FPL felt that they were 

really a new group being created. Also, during the sampling 

section of the report, FPL noted that there was no indication 

that previous in-grade samples for these species exist. FPL 

felt that it was important to look at how the new information related to the previous in-grade sample. FPL felt that at 

the very least an explanation needed to be provided for why 

it was not there or how the properties of the new sample 

differ. Finally, FPL noted that the methods used in the submission to develop the adjustment factors converting the D 

4761 MOE values to D 198 values were different than those 

used in the past. The discussion provided was insufficient to 

determine why the method used was chosen. The concerns 

with implications of this submission were sufficient to cause 

a meeting on the subject to be held at the Forest Products 

Laboratory in Madison on May 23, 2006. The principal issues with the Balsam Fir–Eastern Spruce submittal were as 

follows:

•	 Conversion of D 4761 based MOE to D 198 based 

MOE

•	 Grouping criteria

•	 Representativeness of the sample

•	 Collection of additional data

•	 GQI cell-by-cell data check

Conversion of D 4761 based MOE to D 198 based 

MOE–At this May 23 meeting with NeLMA, MLB, CWC, 

and NLGA, FPL mentioned that they were still looking at 

the proposed equations to convert MOE measured at D 4761 

(head displacement) to D 198 (yoke based). The equations 

proposed in the NeLMA submission were developed in a 

different manner than the previous equations used to make 

this adjustment. FPL pointed out that there were now three 
letter of June 19, 2006. There still were four issues that were 

outstanding with the NeLMA submission: grouping criteria, 

sampling, D 4761 to D 198 MOE adjustment, and GQI 

adjustments.

Grouping Criteria—FPL recognized that NeLMA was 

interested in determining design values for Eastern Spruce–

Balsam fir as a grouping. The difference between NeLMA 

and the FPL position was the manner in which the allowable 

properties are determined. NeLMA believed that these two 

species were treated as one existing species group. In FPL’s 

view NeLMA was creating a new grouping.

FPL agreed with NeLMA that there is a long history of marketing and shipping Eastern Spruce–Balsam-fir (ES–BF) 

as a commercial combination sold in the marketplace. FPL, 

however, still disagreed on the determination of the design 

values for ES–BF, because ES–BF had never been treated as 

an existing species group.

The title of a NeLMA grading rule book from the 1930s , 

“Standard Grading Rules for Eastern Spruce and Balsam 

Fir,” indicates the importance of these species commercially 

to the region. A closer look at the design values presented in 

this rule book, however, suggest a clear understanding that 

from a design point of view, Eastern spruce and Balsam fir 

are different. In this publication, allowable property information was given only for Eastern Spruce, and Balsam fir 

was not assigned allowable structural properties.

In the 1970s NeLMA Standard Grading Rules for Northeastern Lumber, separate allowable property values are presented for Eastern Spruce and Balsam fir, with a footnote that 

different methods for adjusting D 4761 to D 198 proposed:

•	 That used to correct the original NLGA in-grade 

submission

•	 The method recommended by Dr. David Barrett in the 

NLGA Yellow Cedar, Sitka Spruce submission submitted November 25, 2005

•	 The new method used in this submission, where a relationship between D 198 and D 4761 is calculated with 

an intercept term

All these methods are outside an ASTM standard.

FPL believed that it would make more sense to calculate the 

relationships for the NeLMA correction using the method 

suggested by Dave Barrett in appendix E of the recent 

NLGA Yellow Cedar, Sitka Spruce, where this relationship 

is forced through zero and the slope is reduced so that 95% 

of the data points are above the slope, rather than introducing a new method. Figure 8 shows the various families of 

lines resulting from forcing the relationship through zero. 

The summary of the slopes for these fits (A) from the raw 

data supplied by NeLMA are given in column 2 of Table 10. 

The slopes are close to 1. Column 3 shows the slopes for a 

summary of the slopes (A95) when 95% of the MOE data lie 

above the regression line. Figure 9 shows the comparison of 

all the family of curves from Table 11. The results presented 

in Table 11 indicate that all the slopes calculated result in a 

small reduction in MOE. FPL felt that these results indicate 

that no adjustment to MOE is required in this instance.

In July 2006, FPL wrote a letter to follow up on the status of 

the NeLMA submission and indirectly respond to a NeLMA 

Figure 8—Family of curves fit through the Forintek and UNB MOE comparison 

data.

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

28
reminds the user that the lower Balsam fir allowable property values are used for design calculations when the shipping 

combination of Eastern Spruce–Balsam fir is purchased.

Even for the short period of time (1989–1990) when the 

Eastern Spruce–Balsam fir combination had a design value 

assigned to it, the values were those developed for SPF eastern using clear wood information and the grouping criteria 

outlined in D 2555 to establish values for an SPF eastern 

group. In this case again, Balsam fir and the Eastern spruces 

were treated as separate species that were grouped together 

for design value calculation.

Finally, after the In-Grade program was completed, Eastern 

spruce–Balsam fir was assigned the design value established 

for the SPF(S) based on test data that was a grouping of InGrade “track B” species, which had Balsam fir in the controlling subgroup.

In response, NeLMA’s June 19, 2006, letter asked the question “When does a species combination become an ‘existing’ species group?” FPL indicated to NeLMA that there 

is no guidance or criteria given in D 1990 for this. D 1990 

only lists in note 3 the commercial species groups for the 

North American In-Grade program as Douglas-fir Larch, 

Hem-Fir, and Southern Pine from the United States and 

Spruce–Pine–Fir, Douglas fir(N), and Hem-Fir(N) from 

Canada. As such, the approach FPL preferred to take for this 

submission was to treat Balsam fir and the eastern spruces 

according to the “track B” approach for grouping, regardless 

of the large number of samples tested.

Starting on page 3 of the NeLMA submission, FPL felt 

that the individual species information should be presented 

separately, table 1 of the submission should contain information about the sample size by species, and the allowable 

Table 10—Flexural properties of Alaskan Hemlock 

Variable Reference 

2 by 4 2 by 6 2 by 8 

Select 

Structural No. 2 

Select 

Structural No. 2 

Select 

Structural No. 2 

Sample size FPL–RP–583 110 202 203 291 — — 

KWTC (for MOR) 364 449 374 371 352 317 

Specific 

gravity

FPL–RP–583 0.477 0.468 0.476 0.460 — — 

KWTC (for MOR) 0.464 0.455 0.461 0.451 0.463 0.452 

Moisture

content (%) 

FPL–RP–583 14.1 13.7 13.5 13.1 — — 

KWTC (for MOR) 14.7 14.2 14.7 14.7 15.1 14.6 

Mean MOE 

(×106

 lb/in2)

FPL–RP–583 1.756 1.508 1.998 1.819 — — 

KWTC (for MOR 

and UTS samples) 

1.711 1.528 1.658 1.460 1.620 1.438 

Mean MOR 

(×103

 lb/in2)

FPL–RP–583 7.827 6.156 7.216 5.127 — — 

KWTC (for MOR) 8.945 6.897 7.486 5.770 6.446 4.899 

5th MOR 

(×103 lb/in2)

FPL–RP–583 4.796 2.358 3.759 2.174 — — 

KWTC (for MOR) 4.802 2.950 4.045 2.603 3.337 2.340 

Figure 9—The two regression lines middle trend and with 95% of data above 

line. 

29

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program
properties for Eastern Spruce–Balsam fir should be determined using the D 1990 grouping procedure. There has been 

no definitive ruling on this yet.

Representativeness of Sample—At a July 30, 2002, meeting 

in Bangor, Maine, James Evans and David Green advised 

NeLMA to take sufficient samples of each species to allow 

the flexibility to develop design values for the individual 

species in addition to developing values for the Eastern 

Spruce–Balsam fir grouping. This suggestion resulted in 

the large sample sizes being collected. The language of the 

NeLMA sampling plan outlined a program that would allow 

the development of allowable properties for Eastern Spruce–

Balsam fir species through grouping and development of 

individual species design values. It did not specifically state 

their intention of treating Eastern Spruce–Balsam fir as an 

existing species group.

Collection of Additional Data—When additional data are 

collected, a decision needs to be made about whether these 

additional data verify original results, should be pooled 

with original data, or will replace original results. In their 

submission, NeLMA had removed some of the original InGrade SPF(S) test results. NeLMA agreed that the reason 

for eliminating the previous data that were collected for 

the SPF(S) grouping should be included in the report. The 

information provided by NeLMA in an April 12, 2006, letter gave the information FPL requested on the rationale for 

eliminating the previous In-Grade data. Even given this 

explanation, FPL still feels that the previous In-Grade data 

should be utilized in evaluating the impact of withdrawing 

the material from New England on SPF(S).

Data Adjustments for D 4761 and D 198 MOE values—

FPL reached an agreement with NeLMA on the correction 

factors that are applied to the different MOE values from the 

two test machines. The curve fitting of the test data from the 

two laboratories was forced to go through the origin, which 

was similar to the approach taken by Dr. David Barrett in 

the NLGA Yellow cedar and Sitka Spruce submission. The 

curve fits indicate that no correction is necessary for the 

FCC laboratory test data, whereas the WSTC lab test data 

will have a correction factor of 1.02 applied.

Cell-by-Cell Data Check—FPL firmly believes GQI for the 

individual grade–size cells should be done on a cell-by-cell 

basis. A check on the representativeness of the sample is 

done by looking at GQI. Although it is true that the original 

in-grade material was assessed by grouping all the GQI for 

the various sizes together, starting with the Russian spruce 

submittal of 1994, all subsequent submissions have now 

been analyzed by looking at the cell-by-cell GQI data. In 

the cell-by-cell data check, it is worth noting that sample 

sizes can become small when individual species have small 

cell-by-cell sample sizes. This adds to the uncertainty of the 

estimate, but it is still important to try to assess the representativeness of all cells of all species.

Discussion in In-Grade Test Program Technical Committee 

meetings, leading up to the original In-Grade submissions of 

1991, investigated the representativeness of the individual 

size–grade cell for the samples collected. It was concluded 

that for the samples collected, the individual size–grade 

sells were representative of the grades that were targeted. 

Therefore, the difference between the grade level and cellby-cell level evaluation of the GQI values was not a concern 

with the 1991 submissions. Such discussion could not occur 

with subsequent submissions. The current version of ASTM 

D 1990 (ASTM 2009) also specifies that a cell-by-cell data 

check is the appropriate method for assessing GQI.

To date, no design values for a separate species group of 

ES–BF have been approved.

Yellow Cedar, Sitka Spruce, and Northern 

Species (2005–present)

In November 2005, NLGA submitted a proposal for “Design 

values for NLGA Northern Species Structural Dimension 

Lumber” and “Proposed Design Values for NLGA Coast 

Sitka Spruce and Yellow Cedar Structural Dimension Lumber” dated November 25, 2005. There were two principal 

issues with this submission:

•	 Failure code information

•	 Withdrawal of species from existing species group

Failure Code Information—FPL struggled to convert the 

failure code information supplied in the submission with the 

accompanying GQI values submitted. The failure codes for 

the original in-grade tests, new test information for Yellow 

Cedar and Sitka Spruce, and recently supplied information 

with the white-bark pine did not follow the failure code 

system established in table X1.1 of D 4761 (ASTM 2009). 

The original northern species in-grade test data followed a 

failure code convention agreed upon when FPL agreed to review the original calculations of SPF for the April 26, 2001, 

BOR meeting. At that time an agreement was reached for 

interpretation and conversion of the NLGA more detailed 

Table 11—Slopes for various 

combinationsa

Size Combination A A95

2 by 4 WSTC 1.034 — 

 FCC 1.016 — 

 Both 1.024 0.975 

2 by 6 WSTC 1.028 — 

 FCC 1.008 — 

 Both 1.019 0.968 

2 by 8 WSTC 1.033 — 

 FCC 1.024 — 

 Both 1.029 0.990 

 All 1.024 0.975 

a

Determined by method suggested by Dave 

Barrett in appendix E of November 25, 

2005, Sitka spruce and yellow-cedar 

submission. 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

30
failure code, based on knot data collected by NLGA 

using the knot coding scheme described in figure X1.1 

(Fig. 10), to the failure codes system described in table X1.1 

of D 4761. A Class 1 knot code was treated as 17 edge of 

wide face (ewf) knot, a Class 2 knot code was a 17 ewf, a 

Class 3 knot code was a 14 center-line knot, a Class 4 knot 

code was an 11 narrow face knot (nf), a Class 5 knot code 

was an 11 nf, a Class 6 knot code was an 11 nf, a Class 7 

knot code was a 17 ewf, a class 8 knot was a 17 ewf, and 

a class 9 knot code was a 17 ewf. There were no class 10 

knots.

The new failure code information provided in the Yellow 

Cedar and Sitka Spruce submission did not in all cases 

match up with this previously agreed upon system. First, 

Class 1 knot codes were now treated as narrow-faced knots 

and no reason for the change was provided. Second, a large 

number of Class 10 knot codes were now present in the new 

data for Sitka Spruce and Yellow Cedar and the White-bark 

pine data. According to the new submission, the new Class 

10 knot codes now had three sub classes, 13, 08, and 09 

(Fig. 11). Each of these subclasses was converted to Class 

03 centerline knot codes for GQI determination, but no 

information was provided discussing the rationale for this 

conversion. It seemed to FPL that a more logical conversion 

would have been to treat the subclass 13 to a class 03, the 

subclass 08 to a class 2, and the subclass 09 to a class 06 

knot.

Also a new dimensional basis for measurement—1/16 

inch versus 1/8 inch—and new failure codes showed in the 

white-bark pine failure code data.

It took until July 2006 for FPL’s review of the submission to 

be completed. A great deal of extra time was required trying 

to sort out which codes are appropriate for which species. In 

some cases multiple codes needed translation for one species. Eventually, a translation between the two failure code 

systems was developed. Once the failure code issues were 

resolved, FPL and NLGA agreed on the calculated allowable 

properties for Yellow Cedar and Sitka Spruce.

Withdrawal of Existing Species—There was, however, a 

disagreement about how Northern species allowable properties should be calculated. NLGA had concerns with how 

FPL calculated the new allowable properties for Northern 

species once Yellow Cedar and Sitka Spruce were removed. 

The reason for the concern was a difference of opinion on 

how to handle withdrawals. NLGA felt that when FPL recalculated the allowable properties for the Northern species 

group, they used methods that were different from those 

used on the original D 1990 Northern species grouping 

calculation. NLGA reported that the allowable properties 

for Northern species were impacted by how FPL handled 

GQI calculations and sample size. FPL responded that the 

methodology it used for this submission had been used 

since 1994 and stated that, in its view, D 1990 requires that 

a reassessment of allowable properties for Northern species 

is necessary with the withdrawal of coast Sitka Spruce and 

Yellow Cedar from the grouping.

The BOR in executive session discussed the NLGA proposal, reviewed the requirements of PS 20, and considered 

the discussions that took place during the July 27, 2006, 

BOR meeting and all the letters from NLGA and FPL. After 

this discussion, the BOR unanimously approved allowable 

properties for Yellow Cedar, Sitka Spruce, and the Northern 

Species Group with recalculation after withdrawal.

Figure 10—Knot codes from D 4761 figure X1.1.

31

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program
Douglas Fir from France and Germany 

(July 6, 2006)

In July 2006, WCLIB submitted a “Proposal for Sampling 

and Testing of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) from 

the Countries of France and Germany for the Establishment 

of Allowable Properties for NGR Grades.” FPL reviewed 

the proposal and indicated that according to table no. 2 of 

the submission, there appears to be an adequate number 

of samples being collected to determine a design value for 

Douglas-fir from the countries of France (202 per grade size 

cell) and Germany (165 per grade size cell). FPL did have 

some concerns with how the analysis of this test data will be 

conducted. The principal issues with this submission were 

as follows:

•	 Representativeness of the sample

•	 Bavarian Douglas-fir

Representativeness of the Sample—FPL felt that the grouping approach should be applied to the material from France 

and Germany when looking at the French and German data. 

It was WCLIB’s intention to not use the grouping criteria in 

the analysis of the test data. In looking at the maps presented (figs. 1 and 2), which show the locations of the Douglas 

Fir resource in France and Germany, there seems to be a 

clear separation between where the French material is growing and where the German material is growing. There was 

no technical justification given for choosing to automatically group material from the two countries together. FPL 

felt that because France is slightly larger than California and 

Germany is about the size of Montana, it would seem more 

prudent to take the material from each country being collected, labeled, and tracked from each region throughout the 

sampling process and treat them as individual samples from 

the two countries and apply the grouping procedure.

FPL pointed out that WCLIB had been willing to take this 

approach in the past with other foreign sampling submissions, and WCLIB has indicated that it will be conducting 

the grouping procedure on the Austrian–Czech–Bavarian 

2 by 4 SS and No. 2 material as an additional analysis of test 

results from this submission.

Finally, FPL stressed that every effort should be made to get 

material from the full geographic range of the resource that 

will be processed by each of the four sawmills. FPL was 

concerned that the method used by WCLIB to determine the 

allowable properties for Douglas Fir from France and Germany may not take into account the geographic differences 

in the material. This is not a new concern.

In their July 10, 2006, response, WCLIB provided geographic and topographic detailed information to justify treating the areas as one group. This information was judged to 

be sufficient by the BOR to allow for one grouped sample. 

WCLIB proceeded to collect samples and treat the data as 

one large sample while still maintaining information that 

allows for looking at the individual mills.

Figure 11—Class 10 knot description.

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

32
In the end of their July 27, 2006, meeting, the ALSC BOR 

decided to approve the previously approved sampling plan 

and allow Douglas Fir values to be calculated by combining 

all the test data together. The allowable properties developed 

were allowed to be applied to the region of Bavaria.

In October 2007, after FPL examined the data collected 

from this sample, FPL reported to the BOR that the material from the four mills sampled seemed to be considerably 

different depending on latitude. FPL recommended, in light 

of the differences in latitude shown in the test data, that a 

more appropriate approach to analyzing the collected data 

would be grouping the test results from France with the test 

results from Germany and determining the design values 

using this method. Grouping the data showed France to be 

significantly different from Germany controlling the design 

values for both MOE and MOR in SS and for MOE in No. 

2. The design values that were determined using this grouping method would be slightly lower for these properties. 

There was also a concern raised by FPL with how to handle 

Bavarian Douglas Fir. A lengthy discussion occurred to 

resolve these concerns about Bavarian Douglas Fir at the 

ALSC BOR meeting.

Bavarian Douglas Fir—FPL reported to the BOR that there 

was no discussion in the WCLIB submission indicating how 

the region of Bavaria would be dealt with. Bavaria already 

had allowable properties for 2 by 4 Douglas Fir–Larch. FPL 

stressed that the 2 by 4 Douglas Fir data from the Czech Republic, Austria, and Bavaria should be examined to see how 

they compare to the values that would be adopted if Bavaria 

received the new German–French Douglas Fir number.

When trying to decide what to do with the Bavarian region 

of Germany, the lack of country of origin information in the 

original 1999 submission for Douglas Fir was problematic. 

FPL reported that the information shown in Table 12 shows 

the characteristic value for two methods of determining allowable properties for France and Germany and the original 

Bavarian, Czech Republic, and Austrian characteristic value. 

The test data from the 1999 submission seem to indicate that 

it was a considerable stretch to assign the allowable property 

number from German–French treated as one sample to the 

area of Bavaria. The 2 by 4 Douglas-fir data from Bavaria, 

Czech Republic, and Austria are much more in line with the 

grouped Douglas-fir values. FPL suggested that perhaps the 

assignment of allowable properties to Bavaria based on the 

grouped German–French number could be a possibility.

At the November 1, 2007, ALSC BOR meeting, WCLIB 

presented rationale for applying the proposed allowable 

properties to Douglas-fir lumber from Bavaria. The ALSC 

BOR in executive session reviewed all the information presented and concluded that the WCLIB proposal was consistent with the prior approved testing and sampling plan and 

unanimously approved the allowable properties proposed by 

WCLIB, noting that these properties are also applicable to 

lumber from the state of Bavaria.

Scots Pine Sweden (2006–2007)

In December 2006, WCLIB’s proposed revised design values for Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) from the Kingdom of 

Sweden dated December 20, 2006. The only difference in 

the test data analysis in this report compared to the 2000 report is the way the GQI adjustment factors were determined. 

By the time of this submission, the upper bound adjustment 

factor for GQI and equation 7 method for adjusting MOE 

had become the accepted method for GQI adjustment calculation. The principal issues with this resubmission were as 

follows:

•	 New GQI adjustment calculations

•	 Rounding of GQI values

New GQI Adjustment Calculations—The GQI adjustment 

factor for the modulus of rupture in this report was derived 

for a grade–width test sample “cell” using the procedures 

adopted by consensus in ASTM. When the test sample GQI 

exceeds the assigned grade GQI by more than 5%, the GQI 

adjustment factor was 

(Grade GQI + 5%)/(Test sample GQI)

The MOE adjustment factors were recalculated using a secondary MOE GQI adjustment factor calculation method adopted by the ALSC BOR in March 2003. Using the Swedish 

Scots Pine data provided in 2000 and the methods proposed 

in the 2007 WCLIB submission, FPL was able to calculate 

all but two of the allowable property values shown in Table 

13 of WCLIB’s submission. The values for No. 2 bending 

and tension calculated by FPL differed by one rounding rule 

from those presented.

FPL and WCLIB investigated the reason for the difference. 

FPL was in agreement with the data that WCLIB was using for their calculation. The difference occurred in the 

calculated 5th percentile GQI size–grade cell values when 

GQI values for the individual samples were rounded. The 

Table 12—2 by 8 144-in. characteristic values 

Germany and 

France treated 

as one sample 

Germany and 

France grouped 

Bavarian,

Czech, 

Austrian, DF 

SS No. 2 SS No. 2 SS No. 2 

MOE (×106 lb/in2) 1.875 1.453 1.759 1.389 1.782 1.546 

MOR (×103 lb/in2) 3.794 2.103 3.497 2.103 3.040 1.991 

33

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program
different GQI values result in differences in the adjustment 

factors being used to adjust test data. These GQI differences 

were a result of different approaches to rounding.

Rounding of GQI Values—In their submission, WCLIB 

chose to round to the nearest integer immediately after calculation of GQI for each specimen by dropping all the numbers to the right of the decimal point and using those GQI 

values to determine the 5th percentile GQI. FPL explained 

to the ALSC BOR that in all previous submissions before 

the board, FPL had consistently calculated GQI values from 

the failure code and carried the unrounded values forward 

until the 5th percentile for each cell GQI was determined. 

That value was then rounded up to the nearest tenth.

The difference in the calculation methods was just enough 

to result in the calculated values for No. 2 bending and tension determined by WCLIB and FPL to be on opposite sides 

of a rounding rule. The ALSC BOR approved the newly calculated values based on prior GQI calculations and rounding methods for Scots Pine from Sweden at its February 8, 

2007, meeting.

Recurring Issues with 

Implementation of D 1990

Multiple recurring issues have been caused by the ambiguities in D 1990. Of particular concern has been a logical 

order of adjustments, grade quality index (GQI), grouping, 

collection of additional data, withdrawal of species from 

existing species groups, quality control monitoring to verify 

sampling, and reassessment of allowable properties once 

established. Several interpretations and decision have been 

made by the BOR regarding these issues. The following 

discussion outlines FPL’s review of these decisions and 

our position on them.

A Logical Order of Adjustment Procedures 

Has Developed

Early on, while evaluating foreign submissions, FPL found 

that a document was needed to outline a logical order of 

adjustments that took into account the study parameters that 

were assumed in studies and used to create the adjustments. 

Some calculations are clearly specified in the D 1990 standard. However, in some cases the standard merely indicates 

a need to make an adjustment but does not specify how to 

do so. In addition, 18 years have elapsed since the original 

submissions were made under ASTM D 1990. Part of any 

system of developing allowable properties should be consistency in calculations across species. That becomes more 

difficult as more people become involved in performing 

the calculations. In most cases, the calculations for recent 

D 1990 submissions were performed by individuals who did 

not participate in the original submissions or the In-Grade 

Program. Confusion over the order in which data adjustments are to be applied to In-Grade data has resulted, on 

several occasion, in different values for allowable properties 

between grading agencies and FPL.

For example, in the original In-Grade program, testing was 

done at ambient temperature and MC. However, moisture 

models were established by laboratory testing at room 

temperature with a span to depth ration of 17 to 1, it makes 

sense to correct for temperature and span before MC adjustments are made. Another subtly is that the original In-Grade 

testing MC corrections for MOE values were based on MOE 

values determined with deflections measured at the load 

head. Before MC correction, MOE values should be adjusted to a value determined by deflections measured at the 

load head. The order in which the data checks are applied is 

significant. It only makes sense that data checks are applied 

on a cell-by-cell basis because the difference in individual 

sample cells can be disguised.

A guide has been prepared to provide agencies with the preferred logical order of adjustments (Evans and others 2001). 

This guide provides a step-by-step “walk through” of the 

standard for a single species. This walk through follows the 

pattern of the most recent submissions to the ALSC BOR in 

that it assumes the specimens were tested in bending only. 

Finally, many of the calculations in the standard are difficult, and mistakes are easily made, particularly when trying 

to integrate the calculations in a spreadsheet, as most recent 

submissions have done. The development of computer programs to perform some of the calculations has simplified the 

process and eliminates some potential errors. The 2001 procedures general technical report FPL-GTR-126 (Evans and 

others 2001) and historic background information presented 

here should provide sufficient information for a consistent 

order of adjustment.

Grade Quality Index

The most frequent principal issue brought up as a concern 

in the chronology above was GQI. GQI was introduced into 

the standard to calibrate the test sample results to the NGR 

grade description. GQI may not be needed if the NGR grade 

description can be changed to match the characteristics of 

the sample tested. At this time, GQI is the only recurring 

issue that has been resolved by consensus in ASTM. Background information for the consensus decisions is provided 

below.

In section 8.2 of the original version of D 1990, very limited 

guidance of what to do about being outside the 5% tolerance 

Table 13—Differences in 

calculated GQI 

Size Grade WCLIB FPL 

2 by 4 SS 67.0 67.5 

 No. 2 52.1 52.4 

2 by 6 SS 65.0 65.2 

 No. 2 49.0 49.3 

2 by 8 SS 65.0 65.2 

 No. 2 54.0 53.8 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

34
was given. The last sentence of that section stated that “If 

the sample GQI varies from the assumed minimum GQI for 

the grade by more than the 5% tolerance, the samples and 

the GQI shall be re-evaluated for appropriateness (Note 9).

Note 9—Failure of the sample to meet 8.2 may be due to 

any of several causes, some of which may be acceptable or 

correctable. For example, it may be possible to bring the 

samples into compliance by resampling the necessary test 

cells. It may also be desirable to reassess the appropriateness of the GQI scale used. A modification of the GQI scale 

or calculation methodology may be appropriate. If the GQI 

procedures are modified, use the modified procedures to reevaluate all test cells and the assumed minimum GQI of the 

grades for compliance with 8.2.”

Unfortunately there was not any specific recommendation 

given in note 9 for what that re-evaluation should be. For 

the past 17 years, submissions have approached this re-evaluation by applying a correction factor adjustment to the test 

data that were collected. Another option suggested in note 9 

of D 1990 is to bring the sample into compliance by resampling. To date, no one has chosen this option.

As detailed in the chronology, when NeLMA submitted design values for spruce from the Archangel region of Russia, 

GQI adjustments became a significant point of contention 

(WAS 1994a) The WCLIB letter of January 23, 1995, discussing the NeLMA Archangel spruce submission correctly 

pointed out that ASTM D 1990 did not give specific directions on how to make adjustments to strength properties 

if the GQI differs significantly from the minimum value 

stated in the National Grading Rule (note 7 of D 1990). The 

NeLMA submission for Norway spruce from the Archangel 

region of Russia forced the ALSC BOR to make a decision 

on what could be done to adjust for test cells that were outside the 5% limit.

The NELMA sample for Norway spruce from Archangel 

Region of Russia was taken with the same philosophy as 

that of the U.S. data: pieces accepted as on grade for all reasons, not just strength-reducing reasons. In 3 of 4 test cells, 

however, the GQI was above the 5% allowed by paragraph 

8.2. Although FPL agreed in principle with getting a more 

conservative number by adjusting to the middle of the GQI 

range (minimum GQI of the grade), FPL did not require 

adjustment of previous In-Grade data for a grade–size combination GQI that was exactly at the limit of the GQI range. 

Thus, it would seem hard to argue that for a GQI that was 

6% higher than the grade minimum GQI, the data would 

have to be adjusted to the grade minimum GQI when a data 

set 5% high had no adjustment required. The approach that 

was accepted for adjusting the Norway spruce from Russia 

was to calculate the adjustment factor based on (target GQI 

+ 5%)÷(sample GQI).

When the Swedish spruce submission arrived in 1998, it too 

had GQI issues. To develop an adjustment to the GQI values 

for each size–grade cell, WCLIB proposed an interpolation 

procedure based on weighting of GQI values. In letter to 

the board on September 29, 1998, FPL discussed why they 

thought the scheme was backward and proposed an alternative scheme. FPL did not receive any response from WCLIB 

on their reasoning, possibly because FPL’s discussion was 

not very clear. They then provided a hypothetical example: 

Suppose in a cell, only 10% of the pieces had failure information and that these 10% of pieces were the bottom 

10% of the cell’s MOR values. We could assume that the 

pieces with no failure information and higher MOR values 

probably had on average higher strength ratios and the 5th 

percentile strength ratio of these specimens would be higher. 

Thus, if we had failure information on all the specimens, 

the 5th percentile strength ratio would be higher than the 

5th percentile strength ratio of the bottom 10% of the MOR 

specimens. The WCLIB weighting scheme would cause one 

to use the 5th percentile strength ratio of the bottom 10% of 

the specimens, thus underestimating the true 5th percentile. 

Because you lower MOR and MOE values only if you get 

values more than 5% above the assumed grade GQI, any 

procedure that underestimates the GQI of the whole sample 

can overestimate design values. If the weighting scheme 

were reversed, as we proposed, the GQI in this example 

would have been the one calculated with all the pieces.

FPL concluded that even if weighted differently, the method 

would have been difficult to be shown appropriate

Also with the Swedish spruce, WCLIB presented an interpretation of how to calculate GQI values by assigning 100% 

GQI to those pieces with a failure code where a GQI cannot 

be calculated. FPL objected to this method because no information existed to suggest that these pieces were in fact clear 

material. The ALSC BOR decided that the assignment of 

99% was an appropriate method for incorporating data with 

no GQI information.

In October 2002, WCLIB continued the discussion of GQI 

by providing proposed alternative procedures for adjusting 

MOE lumber test data for compliance with Grade Quality Requirements of D 1990. FPL reviewed the “Proposed 

Alternative Procedure for Adjusting Lumber Test Data for 

Compliance with Grade Quality Index (GQI) Requirements 

of D 1990” (WCLIB 2002c). In this review FPL expressed 

the point of view that ASTM D 07 committee on wood’s 

section ASTM D 07.02 (solid-sawn lumber) was the appropriate place to make decisions on GQI adjustment procedures. However, FPL was also aware that it is often difficult 

to get an ASTM task group to focus on such technical minutia as GQI adjustment procedures. The WCLIB proposal 

identified a significant problem with GQI adjustments for 

MOE and proposed an approach to solving the problem. 

FPL had some technical problems with the equations currently being proposed, but agreed that there was a need 

to have a better approach for MOE than the one that has 

been used in the past. FPL recommended using the WCLIB 

35

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program
proposal as a starting point, to see if all the agencies could 

develop and agree upon a procedure for adjusting MOE for 

GQI and, if necessary, another for MOR. It was suggested 

that these procedures could be then be adopted as a BOR 

guideline and also submitted to ASTM. The discussion of 

proposed alternative procedures is summarized below.

Summary Technical Review of WCLIB Proposed Alternative GQI Procedures—In their 2002 proposal, WCLIB 

pointed out that D 1990 requires something be done if the 

quality of the lumber sampled was outside the GQI limit 

specified in the standard. Other than allowing additional 

samples to be taken (always an option), the standard provided little other guidance on what should be done. To that 

point in time, at least four different ways had been used in 

BOR foreign species submissions to make analytical adjustments for GQI problems. By far the most common adjustment method was the ratio calculated by taking a target 

GQI value and dividing it by an actual test value. WCLIB 

recommended that the procedure presented in their proposal 

be approved as an “optional procedure.” FPL in its initial 

review of the proposal expressed concern that there were 

already too many “options” and recommended that the BOR 

adopt one procedure, or at least identify one procedure as 

preferred.

In a February 5, 2003, letter FPL continued the discussion 

of GQI with the ALSC BOR (FPL 2003). They stressed that 

there were currently mainly two procedures (described in 

the letter as equations 1 and 2) that had been used to adjust 

data to bring it into compliance with the requirement of section 8.2 of D 1990:

Current model to the claimed GQI for the grade (that is, target for grade 2 is 45)

Etarget = ET = [GQItarget/GQIactual]Eactual = 

 [QT/QA]EA Letter eq. 1

Current model to the upper limit GQI for the grade (that is, 

target for grade 2 is 50)

Etarget = ET = [GQItarget/GQIactual]Eactual = 

 [QT/QA]EA Letter eq. 2

FPL stressed to the ALSC BOR that the second of these two 

equations is the one virtually all submissions for foreign 

species had used to this point. WCLIB did respond that 

some previous foreign species submissions had adjusted the 

data to the target GQI of the grade (for example, 45 for No. 

2 dimension lumber) and others to the upper bound (50 for 

No. 2 grade). The difference between the adjustment factors 

for these two alternatives for No. 2 grade lumber presented 

to the BOR is shown in Figure 12, in which adjusting to the 

mean target GQI of 45 is shown as equation 1 and adjusting to the upper bound is equation 2. For comparison, the 

WCLIB model for MOE from the bottom of page 8 of their 

October 7, 2002, WCLIB submission is given below as 

equation 3 and shown in Figure 12 as equation 3.

WCLIB proposed model for MOE adjustment

((0.0047(SR2)+0.531) ÷

(0.0047(SR1)+0.531))MOE1 = MOE2 Letter eq. 3

Also for comparison, the D 24 5 model as is included as 

equation 4.

ASTM Model

((100 – (Target grade level in % – Actual GQI in %)) ÷

 100)MOE1 = MOE2 Letter eq. 4

Equation 4 adjusts from a GQI that is too high for the grade 

to a target grade level. Thus for No. 2 grade lumber with an 

actual GQI of 60, this would be a 10% reduction. The 

D 245 boundaries do not correspond with those of D 1990, 

so a piece with a GQI of 53 would require no adjustment by 

D245 (4)

WCLIB (3)

Current to top

Current (1) (2)

Observed GQI

Factor

1.05

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70

45 50 55 60 65

Figure 12—Comparison of current GQI options with WCLIB proposal 

(No. 2 Grade).

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

36
D 245, although D 1990 says there must be an adjustment. 

So we cannot actually use the D 245 model, except for 

comparison.

FPL suggested in a letter response to the ALSC BOR in 

October 2002 that there could be at least three other approaches to getting GQI MOE adjustments that were either 

based on an accepted D 1990 concept, such as the grade 

model for MOE, or were somehow based on the major ingrade species that were deemed to not have a GQI problem. 

These three approaches were presented as examples in the 

February 5 letter and are illustrated in Figure 13 and 14. The 

detailed derivations for equations 5, 6, and 7 shown in Figures 13 and 14 are given in Appendix A.

The first alternative equation explored by FPL, labeled 

equation 5, was a model based on the grade model concept 

of determination of slopes for MOEs referenced to GQIs of 

65 (Select Structural), 45 (No. 2), and 9 (Utility). For No. 

2 grade lumber that might have to be adjusted for GQI, the 

curve is shown in Figure 13. The actual MOE value would 

be that resulting from the test of a foreign species, called 

“EA” in the model. Because FPL needed real numbers for 

MOE, FPL chose two examples. Species “A” in Figure 13 

is a large knotted species with a distinct difference between 

earlywood and latewood. Species “B” is the opposite. For 

comparison, FPL included the “current model” (1) and the 

WCLIB model (3). FPL stressed that a future species “C” 

could be anywhere on this plot, and generalization of this 

model for all GQIs gets “messy.”

The second equation type examined by FPL, labeled 

equation 6, used characteristic MOE values from the major 

in-grade species for Select Structural and No. 2 grade lumber to establish the “slope.” The “EA” values would be from 

the foreign species tests. FPL pointed out that a number of 

options are possible with this approach, a few of which are 

shown on Figure 14. For example, one could chose Select 

Structural as the basis and determine the slope between 

that and No. 2. These slopes are shown in the Table A2 of 

Appendix A (Douglas Fir = 0.00770, for example). For the 

same species used in Figure 13, the curves are shown as “A 

SS” and “B SS”. The curves change if one were to use No. 

2 as the base. For species A, this is shown in Figure 14 as 

“A No. 2”. The current equation 1 and WCLIB equation 3 

curves are given as reference. One could also use the average of the slopes for the group of four species having the 

steepest slope (0.00770, 0.00715, 0.0074, and 0.00735 in 

Table A2 of Appendix A). This curve is shown as “Avg (6)” 

in Figure 14. FPL advised that the fact that the selection of a 

either Select Structural or No. 2 as a base effects the adjustment could be viewed as a problem with using equation 6 

from Appendix A.

The final equation, labeled equation 7 in Figure 15, solves 

this problem. In Figure 15, the adjustment for No. 2 grade 

lumber is shown with the assumption of a slope of 0.0077 

(other slopes could be chosen). FPL felt that of all the methods presented, equation 7 would be an appropriate interim 

procedure for adjustment of MOE lumber test data for compliance with GQI requirements of ASTM D 1990.

Letter eq. 7

Figure 13—Comparison of GQI models for equation 5.

37

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program

Current (1)

A (5)

B (5)

WCLIB (3)

Observed GQI

1.05

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70

45 50 55 60 65

Factor
FPL also emphasized that other models are possible. For 

example, there is a possibility for using the in-grade model 

to re-establish the D 245 model, perhaps using the major 

species in-grade pieces that had 100% strength ratio as one 

anchor and then using the remaining pieces at each grade to 

determine a ratio with the value for the 100% strength ratio 

pieces. This model was never developed.

For FPL, the bottom line was that many options are possible, only some of which are given here. In the absence 

of more clear-cut technical data and little guidelines from 

D 1990, it would seem that a consensus of knowledgeable 

experts is needed. FPL felt that if a consensus among the 

grading agencies could be reached, a decision might be possible at the BOR. If there is no consensus, then an ASTM 

task group would seem to be a more appropriate place for 

this discussion.

It took many months and considerable discussion to reach 

a decision on alternative MOE GQI adjustments methods. 

The WCLIB proposal was first included in the agenda of 

the October 31, 2002, BOR meeting and was considered at 

that meeting, but no final decision was reached until March 

2003. At the October meeting, the BOR accepted the FPL 

recommendation made in the FPL comments that all the 

agencies and FPL confer to try to develop and agree upon a 

procedure for adjusting MOE for GQI, and if necessary another for MOR, and that those procedures could be adopted 

as a BOR guideline and also be submitted to ASTM. In the 

following months, comments were received from the Canadian Wood Council, WWPA, WCLIB, and FPL. Following 

the further consideration of this proposal at the February 6 

BOR meeting, the BOR on March 5, 2003, announced its 

acceptance of the advice of the FPL given during the February 6 BOR meeting that FPL “equation 7” as presented in 

the FPL letter of February 5, 2003, would be an appropriate 

interim procedure for adjustment of MOE lumber test data 

for compliance with GQI requirements of ASTM D 1990 

pending consideration of this matter by the appropriate 

ASTM committee. WWPA made an appeal of this decision. 

The decision to use equation 7 was upheld at an April 24 

hearing of an appeal brought by WWPA. The complete rationale for this opinion is given in Appendix B

In their final decision on the appeal, the BOR reaffirmed its 

March 5, 2003, decision. On consideration of the WWPA 

appeal and the issues raised, the BOR was of the view that 

it was appropriate to accept the advice of the FPL that FPL 

equation 7 could be utilized as an interim procedure for 

adjustment of lumber test data for compliance with grade 

quality index requirements of ASTM D 1990 pending action by ASTM. As noted above, that advice was given to the 

BOR as “other technically sound criteria” per section 6.3.2.1 

of PS 20. The BOR emphasized its view that this was an 

interim decision and, on the basis of representations made, 

expected the appropriate ASTM body to develop and standardize a process for making these adjustments. It would 

take another 4 years for these changes to work their way 

through the ASTM consensus process. In December 2007, 

GQI adjustments using equation 2 for MOR and equation 2 

or the alternative equation 7 for MOE were incorporated by 

consensus in D 1990 (ASTM 2007).

Grouping Concerns

The second most significant issue that has been addressed 

with submissions to the ALSC BOR has been “grouping” 

Figure 14—Comparions of GQI Models for equation 6.

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

38

WCLIB (3)

A SS (6)

Current (1)

A No. 2 (6)

Avg (6)

B SS (6)

Observed GQI

Factor

1.05

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70

45 50 55 60 65
of data within D 1990. Grouping was first raised as an issue 

with the July 1996 submission for Swedish and Archangel 

spruce data and continued with the majority of submission 

throughout the next 13 years. The ALSC BOR has accumulated a number of precedents with regard to grouping. 

In submissions such as combining Swedish Spruce and 

Archangel Spruce, the ALSC BOR has commented on the 

appropriate sample sizes required for grouping. The ALSC 

BOR has also made ruling on methods for adding in supplemental data to existing data, such as for Swedish Spruce and 

the German, French, and Swiss Spruce and Pine submissions. The ALSC BOR has also put forth rulings on how to 

add in similar species from neighboring countries to existing 

species groups, such as Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian, 

and the Austrian, Czech Republic, Romania, and Ukraine 

species. There have also been extensive discussions on how 

grouping should be conducted on species that remain after 

withdrawal of existing species, such as the Eastern Spruce 

Balsam-Fir and Northern Species submissions. The issues 

with withdrawal still need to be resolved. This section documents what FPL feels are the current precedents or preferred 

procedures for grouping of species with these various cases.

Lessons Learned while Trying to Group Small Sample 

Size Swedish Data with Archangel Spruce—In the original 

submission for Swedish spruce WCLIB proposed grouping 

a small data set of Swedish Spruce data directly with the 

Archangel Russian Spruce data while maintaining the larger 

strength value for the Russian Spruce. FPL and WCLIB 

disagreed with how grouping of these two species should 

be performed. FPL believed that if there was a significant 

difference between the MOR values for No. 2 grade 2 by 

4’s and 2 by 6’s, then the Swedish data would “control” the 

group property for that grade. It was pointed out by FPL 

that D 1990 only makes provisions for considering grouping 

within a given grade. It makes no provisions for getting a 

higher number if properties are similar for six of eight comparisons. Thus for U.S. species, if all species grouped for 

Select Structural, then the combined number controlled the 

property. But if one species was significantly lower in properties, as defined in D 1990, then the properties of the low 

species controlled the group property for No. 2.

FPL did not believe the properties derived from the grouped 

data as proposed by WCLIB met the same interpreted requirements of D 1990 as previously applied to domestic 

species. As interpreted by FPL, for domestic species, 

D 1990 procedures do not allow a small data set for a weaker “species” to be grouped with a large data set for a stronger “species” and assigned two design values for the two 

subsets. Although not intended in this submission, such a 

procedure could result in sample sizes much less than those 

judged necessary to obtain a “representative” sample for 

domestic species under D 1990. Allowing such a procedure 

could allow a future submission to group some species with 

an existing species just to avoid obtaining a larger, more 

representative, data set.

FPL argued that if the Swedish and Russian data were to be 

grouped, the MOR values would need to be controlled by 

the Swedish data. For grouping SS pieces, the chi-squared 

value we get is 12.723, which is significant at the 0.001 

(or lower) level. This means that the group value would be 

based entirely on Swedish spruce values. For No. 2 in Table 

2, the chi-squared number is also highly significant. Thus, 

no matter how we look at the chi-squared values, we draw 

the same conclusion: MOR, UTS, and UCS design values 

would be calculated by the Swedish data.

Observed GQI

1.05

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70

45 50 55 60 65

Factor

Current (1)

WCLIB (3)

Equation (7)

Figure 15—Comparions of GQI Models for equation 7.

39

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program
FPL identified three alternatives for deriving allowable 

property values for Swedish spruce as D 1990 currently 

exists:

1. Sample a full matrix with 360 pieces per size–grade cell 

(smaller if restricted geographic region involved).

2. Sample using a smaller sample size for every size–grade 

cell and show that your values are higher than those of 

some species group to which you would be added (DF 

in Western Woods grouping is an example).

3. Form a marketing group using the grouping criteria in 

ASTM D 1990, which requires that all species used to 

create it take on the design values of the grouped 

species.

Each method had issues when applied to the Swedish spruce 

data. The first method, calculating an independent value for 

Swedish Spruce by the full matrix approach, was not possible because of limited sample size. With only 82 pieces in 

No. 2 grade 2 by 4 and 89 in No. 2 grade 2 by 6, there were 

not enough pieces to get independent values for Swedish 

spruce. Additional sampling would be required. The second 

method, demonstrating Swedish spruce was stronger than 

Archangel spruce, did not fit the Swedish spruce data. The 

values for No. 2 grade Swedish spruce were lower than 

those of No. 2 grade Russian spruce, so the Swedish data 

could not be “added” to the Russian data and the Russian 

values used for both. The third method, using the provisions 

of section 10.2 and 10.3 of D 1990, was a possibility, but the 

Swedish numbers would control. FPL felt that this was valid 

only if both species are assigned the same design value. FPL 

had major concerns about grouping two species and letting 

each claim different design values. FPL believes this is not 

equivalent to the way U.S. species have been handled. Also, 

MOE values for the Swedish data appeared to be higher 

than those of the Archangel data. Thus, D 1990 would suggest that the Archangel E-values should be used for the 

Swedish data.

Because in this particular instance the material being 

grouped was indeed the same botanical species and because 

WCLIB made a special effort to obtain a sample with the 

maximum strength-reducing defect for SS and No. 2 grade, 

FPL felt that the resulting design values calculated based 

just on the Swedish data alone would most likely be conservative. A possible alternative suggested by FPL was to allow 

WCLIB to calculate properties based on the Swedish numbers alone (which the FPL can check), under the condition 

that they continue to collect and test material for a minimum 

of 1 year or until an additional 360 pieces are tested, similar to what was agreed to by NeLMA in its for Archangel 

spruce. The sample size for destructive monitoring of each 

shipment should be 30. Then, at the end of the monitoring 

period, a new submission to the BOR could be made that either verifies the existing numbers or calculates new numbers 

using a sample size sufficient to meet ASTM D 1990 criteria 

for an individual species.

None of the above approaches were desirable to WCLIB. 

WCLIB instead chose to collect additional data and calculated an individual Swedish number.

Historic Sample Sizes—FPL has repeatedly pointed out 

during the past 18 years that allowable property calculation 

sample sizes for species groupings or individual species be 

approximately 360 pieces, if possible. This is based on the 

fact that to this point sample sizes for the major domestic 

species have been at least 360 pieces per grade–size cell. 

When the intent was to market a species by itself, U.S. species have had to meet a minimum sample size (suggested as 

360 for major species having a large geographic distribution 

as stated in note 6 of D 1990). FPL has also over the past 

18 years repeatedly recommended a minimum sample size 

of about 200 per grade–size cell if there is a reduced geographic area (or limited standing timber volume). DF(S) and 

minor Southern Pines constitute the absolute minimums accepted for a species intended to be marketed alone.

Two major groupings were done with U.S. In-Grade data: 

SPF(S), where all species grouped together, and Western 

Woods, where four species were used to establish the properties for the group and additional species of demonstrably 

higher properties were added for marketing convenience. 

Each of these groupings ended up with sample sizes of at 

least 360 pieces in the grade–size cell. When “grouped,” approximately 60 pieces were allowed per individual species. 

But if a species in the group were to be listed separately, 

its design value is that of the group. To allow a group to be 

formed while not requiring all species used to create the 

group to take on the grouped values could create an inequity with the current U.S. species groups. Any species with 

60 pieces per size–grade cell could find another species to 

group with, do the grouping, and perhaps get a higher design value than it would get by itself. When this species is 

sold as the only member of this “group,” the design value it 

uses would not meet the requirements that were met by existing species groups.

Extreme Differences in Samples Sizes of Species Being 

Grouped—There are potential problems when a larger data 

set is grouped with a small data set. In this case the properties of the small data set may have little effect on the properties of the larger data set, so the small set could get an artificial boost in properties. All grouping of U.S. species has 

been done with data sets of approximately equal sample sizes. In the extreme, the chi-squared test may not be sensitive 

enough to protect against potential problems of grouping 

vastly different size samples. And we do not want to encourage someone to start “looking” for a domestic data set that 

would group and provide the largest possible “boost” to the 

properties of the smaller set, especially if there was no real 

intent to market the two species under one name. Grouping of Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian spruce and pine 

partially addressed the sample size challenge. The grouping 

of data from these countries established the precedent for 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

40
adding new data sets with limited sample size from adjacent 

countries to an existing species groups using sections 10.2 

and 10.3 of ASTM D 1990.

Grouping of Species from Baltic Countries—In October 

2000, WCLIB proposed developing allowable properties for 

Estonian species with Lithuanian species using limited data 

sets. ASTM D 1990 includes a grouping procedure for combining “two or more species into a single marketing group” 

(sections 10.2.1 and 10.3.1). It also provides for adding a 

new species to an existing species group if the new species 

properties are greater than or equal to the exiting species 

value (sections 10.2.2 and 10.3.2). When FPL applied the 

grouping criteria of sections 10.2.1 and 10.3.1 to determine 

the allowable properties for the grouping of Estonian and 

Lithuanian species, they got virtually the same allowable 

property values as WCLIB. FPL disagreed, however, with 

how WCLIB initially calculated their numbers. FPL felt 

that WCLIB was not following the intent of ASTM D 1990 

in what they had proposed in their submissions. FPL first 

pointed out that ASTM D 1990 did not provide a procedure 

for adding species to another species without a grouping 

test. Second, and of greater importance, the method WCLIB 

initially used did not follow ASTM D 1990 grouping procedures. FPL argued that the standard says characteristic 

values for new species added to an existing species in a 

group have to be greater than or equal to the existing groups 

characteristic value. The standard provides no guidance 

for determining statistical equivalence if the characteristic 

value of the new species is not greater than or equal to that 

of the existing species group. If a new characteristic value is 

less than that of an existing characteristic value, as was the 

case with the Estonian No. 2 MOE value, then according to 

sections 10.2.3 of ASTM D 1990 this requires WCLIB to 

subject the MOE values to the requirements of “new species 

groups” section 10.2.1. FPL continued that without guidance on statistical procedures in section 10.2.2 and 10.3.2, 

in the future others might want to run different confidence 

levels or other statistical tests, and they may argue that their 

method is more appropriate than the method WCLIB has 

used. Thus, FPL was concerned that acceptance of WCLIB’s 

statistical procedures could establish a precedent that might 

have unintended future consequences. The ALSC BOR 

agreed and requested that WCLIB combine the Estonian and 

Lithuanian data using the grouping methodology in sections 

10.2 and 10.3 of D 1990.

WCLIB followed the Estonian submission for Norway 

spruce with a Scots pine submission. Again FPL had a major 

concern with the submission because WCLIB chose not to 

group the two species according to the specification of the 

standard for a new species grouping as contained in sections 

10.2.1 and 10.3.1 and discussed in section 10 and appendix 

X9 of ASTM D 1990. FPL suggested that the first substantive question that must be answered in grouping under section 10 was whether you are creating a new species group 

as a “single marketing group” or whether you are adding a 

new species to an existing species group. WCLIB wanted to 

consider the single species of Scots Pine from Lithuania as 

an existing species group. FPL could see nothing in the standard suggesting any intent to consider one species as an “existing species grouping.” In fact, section 10.1 of the standard 

specifically introduces the concept of grouping with the following sentence: “Frequently, because of species similarities 

or marketing convenience, it is desirable to combine two 

or more species into a single marketing group.” Lithuanian 

Scots Pine is not a combination of two or more species that 

were grouped together to form a marketing group.

FPL felt that the WCLIB failed to follow the intent of the 

standard when applying this approach as well. FPL interpreted the intent of the standard to be as follows: If you 

have a species that you want to add to an existing species 

group and it has properties higher than or equal to the existing species group, you can add the species. Otherwise, you 

need to go through the combining of species as prescribed 

in 10.2.1 and 10.3.1. For MOE, the authors of the submission used a comparison of means even though the standard 

clearly states in section 10.2.2.1 to use medians. In addition, 

for the No. 2 grade data, the median of the Estonia data is 

less than the median of the Lithuania data. Instead of using 

the procedure for creating a new species group as specified 

in 10.2.2.2 for when this happens, WCLIB proposed using 

a statistical test and tried to show that although the Estonia 

data is less than the Lithuania data, it is not significantly less 

statistically. The standard does not give this option. Section 

10.2.2.1 says “A new species may be added to an existing 

species grouping without modification of the group median 

or mean characteristic value if the median value of the new 

species is greater than or equal to the existing group median 

characteristic value.” It follows by stating that when “the requirements of 10.2.2.1 are not met, determine the combined 

group median or mean characteristic value in accordance 

with 10.2.1.” The standard does not offer the option of a statistical test to show that it is not significantly lower statistically. The ALSC BOR agreed with this interpretation.

The Baltic country submissions also forced a discussion of 

the order of data checks in sections 9.3 and 12.6. If a new 

species group is being formed, the standard is clear. Section 

9.3.2 says “the test cell data check shall be performed after 

grouping using the combined data of the controlling species 

in each test cell.” When adding a species to an existing species group by showing that its characteristic value is larger 

than the characteristic value of the existing species group, 

the standard does not specify whether or not these characteristic values are the ones we get before the data checks 

or after.

In their Estonian submission, WCLIB wanted to consider 

Lithuanian Scots Pine as an existing species group and use 

the characteristic values before the data checks. Although 

ASTM D 1990 does not clearly specify which characteristic 

41

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program
values to compare, we believe that the expressed philosophy 

of the data checks clarifies the intent. In section 9.3.1 the 

standard states, “The purpose of the test cell data check is 

to minimize the probability of developing nonconservative 

property estimates.” In section 12.6 it says, “The derived 

estimate for any test cell shall be compared to the nonparametric fifth percentile point estimate of the test data in that 

size/grade cell appropriately adjusted. If the derived property value exceeds the point estimate of the test data for that 

cell, reduce the property value to the point estimate.” The 

unadjusted characteristic values for the No. 2 grade data for 

Lithuanian Scots Pine was 1.805, and for Estonian Scots 

Pine it was 1.875. During the calculation of the allowable 

properties for Lithuanian Scots Pine, the characteristic value 

becomes 1.682. This illustrated the distinct possibility that 

the characteristic value of a new species being added to an 

existing species group could be higher initially, but lower if 

the 9.3 and 12.6 data checks are performed. Given the expressed desire in the standard to “minimize the probability 

of developing non-conservative property estimates,” it appeared to FPL that the standard’s intent is to compare characteristic values after the data checks have been performed 

in the case of adding a new species to an existing species 

group.

To add further confusion to the grouping process, the standard does allow grouping by other appropriate technical criteria in section X9 where it says, “proposed species groups 

which do not exceed the variability permitted in the ‘major’ 

species groupings should be considered as a single species 

grouping for sampling and analysis purposes.” This might 

offer the authors the opportunity to combine the Estonia and 

Lithuania Scots pine data to develop allowable properties 

if they show that the variability of the Scots pine does not 

exceed that of the “major” species groupings of Douglas Fir, 

Hem–fir, and Southern Pine. There are still some very difficult questions that would be needed to be addressed if they 

want to use this approach, such as the question of what the 

appropriate number of specimens should be for each species 

under this approach. Up to now, grouping procedures other 

than those outlined in sections 10.2 and 10.3 have been 

applied.

FPL has stressed that the principal problem with proposing 

a procedure for grouping not specified in ASTM D 1990 is 

that the standard will not provide any guidance in how to do 

it, and several alternatives become possible. Attempting to 

come up with alternative procedures to those specified in the 

standard tends to negate the thought and effort put forth to 

come up with the specified procedures. As soon as a user is 

outside of the standard, FPL has no standardized criteria to 

judge the acceptability of the procedure. After extensive discussions, WCLIB agreed to combine the Estonian data with 

the Lithuanian using the grouping procedures of sections 

10.2 and 10.3 of D 1990 and the data checks on the individual species data. This method was applied to subsequent 

submissions involving grouping new country data with existing country data, such as the Latvian spruce and pine data 

and the Austrian, Czech, Romanian, and Ukraine spruce and 

pine data.

Another recommended practice for agencies considering 

grouping species is that they look for patterns in the data 

that are going to be grouped.

Collection of Additional Data

There have been several times over the past 18 years when 

additional data have been collected (WCLIB 1995a, WCLIB 

1995c, NeLMA 2006). When additional data are collected, a 

decision needs to be made about whether this additional data 

verifies original results, should be pooled with original data, 

or will replace original results.

Withdrawal of Species from Existing Species 

Group

The most current issue before the ASLC BOR about which 

D 1990 is silent is the withdrawal of species from existing 

species groups. This topic has been a source of many hours 

of discussion within a Lumber Properties Task Group that 

was formed by the ALSC BOR. The withdrawal issue currently being addressed has two distinctly different cases: 

(1) withdrawal of whole species from an existing species 

group, such as the removal of Sitka spruce and Yellow cedar 

from the Northern species group, or (2) partial withdrawal 

of a species from an existing species group, such as the removal of eastern spruce and balsam fir from a limited region 

in the eastern part of North America.

Withdrawal of Whole Species from Group

Withdrawal of species from an existing species group is the 

most straightforward circumstance involving withdrawal. 

It can occur when independent allowable properties are 

developed for species that are currently in an existing species group. This was the circumstances that arose as a result 

of the NLGA Yellow Cedar Sitka spruce submission. The 

principal issues that need to be addressed when species are 

withdrawn from an existing species group are as follows:

•	 Adequacy of the remaining groups’ sample size

•	 Recalculation

Adequacy of Remaining Groups’ Sample Sizes—The remaining species must have approximately 360 samples left.

Recalculation—If a species is withdrawn from an existing 

species group, recalculation of the resulting group is necessary.

Partial Withdrawal of a Species from an Existing 

Species Group

The partial withdrawal of a species from an existing species group is a very complicated topic. An example of this 

type of withdrawal is NeLMA’s attempt to develop allowable properties for Eastern spruce–balsam fir for a limited 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

42
geographic range while maintaining the current allowable 

property values for SPF(S). The principal issues of concern 

with a partial withdrawal are as follows:

•	 Adequacy of the sample size that is left

•	 Representativeness of the remaining sample

•	 Recalculation

Adequacy of the Remaining Sample Size—When a partial 

sample is removed, it may be impossible to have enough 

sample left to adequately represent the species within a 

grouping for the remaining sample.

Representativeness of the Remaining Sample—If data 

from only one mill are left, data from more mills may be 

needed for the region left. It may be necessary to sample 

more mills and decide where to sample.

Recalculation—Recalculation is necessary in all cases when 

a species or part of a species that was used in calculating the 

allowable properties for a species group is withdrawn from 

an existing species group. Basically, if you withdraw something from an existing species group, in this case, you are 

starting from scratch.

Quality Control Monitoring to Verify Sampling

Because of the lack of historic NGR production information for foreign species submissions, the VSR Guidelines 

require some additional monitoring of shipments to verify 

that lumber quality being produced is similar to that used in 

the original qualification sample (Green and Shelly 1992). 

The guidelines state that this can be done with nondestructive measures. There have been several ways for monitoring 

(physical and mechanical) to verify initial sampling that 

have been proposed.

Because NeLMA wanted to take a more cautious approach 

to a new foreign species, on December 27, 1994, NeLMA 

proposed a quality control monitoring destructive testing 

program for the first year of production. FPL’s letter to the 

Board of January 19, 1995 (USDA 1995), recommended 

a monitoring program that they felt was more in line with 

NELMA’s objective of validating the representativeness of 

the original sample. A WCLIB letter of January 23 felt that 

the proposed destructive testing of the December 27 NeLMA submission was excessive, whereas the WWPA letter 

of January 27, 1995, expressed the opposite and suggested 

even larger sample sizes for destructive testing as being 

necessary. FPL advised the BOR that additional monitoring 

above the minimum specified in the VSR Guidelines is an 

agency decision and might vary with agency and the location from which lumber is being obtained. FPL could see 

why NeLMA would be interested in a more extensive monitoring program because it might be harder to ensure a “representative” initial sample variation in lumber properties 

from a large country for which we know little than if from a 

smaller country where a lot of data are readily available.

The other extreme was when in July 1996 WCLIB proposed 

that no monitoring be conducted on lumber received into 

the United States because the geographic range is limited 

and the property assignments are believed to be conservative. FPL responded that their interpretation of the BOR’s 

“Guidelines for Assigning Allowable Properties to Visually 

Graded Lumber ...” is that waiving some sort of monitoring 

is not an option. Quoting from the Quality Control section, 

“In general, visual grading alone is not considered sufficient 

to assure consistency in lumber quality from an unknown 

source. ... The guiding principle is that at least one grade–

size combination must be monitored at all times that lumber 

is being graded.” The ALSC BOR has adopted this guiding 

principle as their policy for foreign lumber submissions.

FPL has continued to maintain that some sort of quality control is desirable for any foreign species in the initial stages 

of production. When allowable properties for foreign species are approved by the ALSC BOR, the BOR knows only 

that the assigned properties should be conservative relative 

to the properties of the sample that was tested. FPL argued 

that although it is true that many submissions are from a 

relatively small geographic area, they lack the degree of 

knowledge about the origins of the tested sample that they 

would have for U.S. data. Some monitoring of quality therefore seems desirable for an initial period of time. At a minimum, FPL suggested that records be kept on growth rate 

and rings per inch for 1 year, or until a minimum of 

360 pieces have been monitored.

This is the type of monitoring that has most frequently been 

conducted. Examples of this monitoring include WCLIB’s 

validation study for 2 by 4 Austrian spruce (Piecea exelsa) 

submitted in February 1998 and Scots Pine from the country 

of Sweden in March 2001 (WCLIB 1998c, 2001b ). The 

data sets sampled over the course of 1 year supplied by 

WCLIB indicated that the resource is as good or better than 

the material originally used for design value calculation. A 

different result was noted in an April 2002 validation study 

of pine (Pinus sylvestris) from the countries of Austria, 

Czech Republic, and Germany. There was a large shift noticed in percentage summerwood in the German monitoring sample. If the percentage summerwood had truly been 

reduced by 60% from that of the original material, then the 

current material could have a substantially greater portion 

of lower density earlywood in it than was originally tested. 

Further review of the German material was conducted.

Reassessment of Allowable Properties Once Established—

A final issue that needs to be dealt with in D 1990 is reassessment. Reassessment is a different type of quality control 

requirement and is broadly outlined in section 13, Reassessment and Affirmation, of ASTM D 1990 (ASTM 2009, 

D 1990-07). This section addresses the need for a method to 

detect significant changes in raw material resource or product mix over time. The reassessment section was included in 

D 1990 because committee members had concerns about the 

43

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program
need to periodically evaluate the applicability of in-grade results that might arise over time due to a “significant” change 

in the resource. Two examples of the original concern might 

be the introduction of more and more plantation-grown 

southern pine, or the effect of the reduction in cut from large 

amounts of federal land in the west. When D 1990 was originally approved in 1991, it was not known what form such a 

monitoring program might take.

In 1994, SPIB initiated a resource monitoring program. 

Working with FPL, a number of alternatives for reassessment were investigated and a method selected for monitoring allowable properties. This is documented in report 

FPL–RP–576 (Kretschmann and others 1999). SPIB has 

been conducting this program since 1998. Although there 

has been some discussion about monitoring programs for 

the West, none are fully implemented yet.

Final Comments

The ALSC BOR has been faced with numerous situations 

over the past 18 years where Non-North American In-Grade 

Testing Program lumber submissions were submitted under 

ASTM D 1990. The history presented here puts on paper the 

uses and interpretations of this standard that have occurred 

in the ALSC BOR. It also outlines FPL’s views on the major 

issues that were and are present when using D 1990. Ideally, 

solutions to these issues need to be developed through the 

consensus process in ASTM. A lumber property task group 

made up of government and industry has been formed by 

the American Lumber Standard Committee to help with developing this consensus. Until that consensus can be developed, technically sound criteria will continue to be used by 

the BOR to make decisions on submissions sent to them.

An ASTM standard is a dynamic document that is continually evolving. The initially adopted language of ASTM 

D 1990 had several sections where language was vague 

and guidance was in short supply. Even with this vague 

language, D 1990 has been used successfully to develop allowable properties for many species outside North America 

(Tables 14 and 15). Some changes to the language of the 

standard have been made, and more changes are needed. As 

new situations arise, D 1990 will continue to be interpreted 

and its language will evolve.

References

ASTM. 2009. Book of standards. [Annual]. West 

Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. Volume 04.10, 

Wood.

D 143-94. Standard method of testing small clear 

specimens of timber.

D 198-98. Standard method of static tests of lumber in 

structural sizes.

D 245-98. Standard practice for establishing structural 

grades and related allowable properties for visually 

graded lumber.

D 1990-97. Standard practice for establishing allowable 

properties for visually-graded lumber from in-grade 

tests of full-size specimens.

D 1990-07. Standard practice for establishing allowable 

properties for visually-graded lumber from in-grade 

tests of full-size specimens.

D 4761-96. Standard test methods for mechanical 

properties of lumber and wood-based structural 

material.

BRE. 1977. A handbook of softwoods. London, England: 

Building Research Establishment. Her Majesty’s Stationery 

Office. 63.

DOC. 2005. American softwood lumber standard. Voluntary 

Product Standard PS20-05. September 2005. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Evans, J.W.; Kretschmann, D.E.; Herian, V.L.; Green, D.W. 

2001. Procedures for developing allowable properties for a 

single species under ASTM D 1990 and computer programs 

useful for the calculations. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL–GTR–126. 

Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 42 p.

Forest Products Laboratory. Correspondence. On file with: 

Kretschmann, D., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot 

Dr., Madison, WI 53726.

FPL. 1994. (14 October). Letter to the American 

Lumber Standard Committee Board of Review in 

response to the NeLMA Archangel Spruce submission.

FPL. 1995. (19 January). Letter to the American 

Lumber Standard Committee Board of Review in 

response to the NeLMA Archangel Spruce submission.

FPL. 1995. (31 January). Letter to the American 

Lumber Standard Committee Board of Review in 

response to comments by WWPA, WCLIB, and 

NeLMA on the Archangel Spruce submission.

FPL. 2002. (23 January). Letter to the American 

Lumber Standard Committee Board of Review in 

response to the WCLIB South African Pine submission.

FPL. 2003. (5 February). Letter to the American 

Lumber Standard Committee Board of Review in 

response to the WCLIB proposed alternate procedure 

for GQI adjustment.

FPL. 2005. (25 March). Letter to the American Lumber 

Standard Committee Board of Review in response 

to NeLMA proposal for Eastern Spruce/Balsam Fir 

sampling.

FPL. 2006. (27 March). Letter to the American Lumber 

Standard Committee Board of Review in response to 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

44
Table 14—European design values approved by the ASLC BOR (base values for 2 by 12)

Grade

Norway 

spruce 

from

Archangel 

Region of 

Russiaa

Norway 

spruce 

from

Sweden 

Norway 

spruce 

from

Finland

Norway

spruce 

from Baltic 

Countries,

Estonia,

Latvia, 

Lithuania 

Austrian

spruce 

from

Austria, 

Czech 

Republic

Norway 

spruce

from

Romania,

Ukraine

Norway 

spruce 

from

Germany,

NE France, 

Switzerland

Scots 

pine

from

Germany

Scots 

pine

from

Finland

Scots 

pine

from

Estonia,

Lithuania

Scots 

pine

from

Austria, 

Czech 

Republic,Romania,

Ukraine

Scots 

pine

from

Sweden 

Douglas-fir/

European

larch from 

Austria, Czech 

Republic,

Bavariab

Silver Fir

(Abies alba)

from

Germany, 

NE France, 

Switzerland

Fb (lb/in2

)

SS 1,250 1,250 1,350 1,200 1,500 1,250 1,200 1,200 1,300 1,100 1,300 1,350 1,900 950 No. 2 750 675 625 725 925 750 725 700 925 650 775 625 1350 725 

MOE (×106 lb/in2

)

SS 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.5 

No. 2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.3 

Fcperp (lb/in2

)

SS 275 285 220 430 260 275 355 395 210 430 270 410 440 400 No. 2 275 285 220 430 260 275 355 395 210 430 270 410 440 400 

Fv (lb/in2

)

SS 100 170 125 150 175 100 170 160 150 130 135 120 195 130 No. 2 100 170 125 150 175 100 170 160 150 130 135 120 195 130 

Approved date 

 2/2/1995 7/29/1999 7/27/2000 7/25/2002 7/24/2003 7/22/2004 2/3/2005 7/27/2000 7/27/2000 2/8/2001 4/29/2004 2/8/2007 4/22/1999 10/21/2004 aOnly values for 2 by 4 and 2 by 6 are approved for Archangel Region of Russia; value shown is base value. bOnly values for 2 by 4 are approved for Austria, Czech Republic, and Bavaria region; value shown is for 2 by 4.

45

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program
the NeLMA, MLB, and QFIC proposal for Eastern 

Spruce/Balsam Fir.

FPL. 2006. (July). Letter to the American Lumber 

Standard Committee Board of Review in response to 

the NeLMA, MLB, and QFIC proposal for Eastern 

Spruce/Balsam Fir.

Green, D.W.; Shelley, B.E. 1992. Guidelines for assigning 

allowable properties to visually graded foreign species. 

March 1992. Germantown, MD: Board of Review, 

American Lumber Standards Committee. 8 p. http://www.

fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1992/green92b.pdf.

Green, D.W.; Shelley, B.E. 2006. Guidelines for assigning 

allowable properties to visually graded foreign species. 

April 2006. Germantown, MD: Board of Review, American 

Lumber Standards Committee. 10 p. http://www.fpl.fs.fed.

us/documnts/pdf2006/fpl_2006_green003.pdf 

Green, D.W.; Shelley, B.E; Vokey, H.P., eds. 1989. In-grade 

testing of structural lumber. Proceedings 47363. Madison, 

WI: Forest Products Society. 110 p.

Green, D.W.; McDonald, K.A.; Dramm, J.; Kilborn, K. 

2000. Grading options for western hemlock “pulpwood” 

logs from southeastern Alaska. Res. Pap. FPL–RP–583. 

Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 15 p.

Kretschmann, D.E.; Evans, J.W.; Brown, L. 1999. 

Monitoring of visually graded structural lumber. Res. 

Pap. FPL–RP–576. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 

18 p.

Markwardt, L.J.; Wilson, T.R.C. 1935. Strength and related 

properties of woods grown in the United States. Tech. Bull. 

No. 479. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

NeLMA. 1994. Norway spruce from Archangel region of 

Russia. Northeast Lumber Manufacturers Association.

NeLMA. 2005. Proposed sampling and testing plan for 

assigning design properties of Eastern Spruce/Balsam 

Fir species group. Northeast Lumber Manufacturers 

Association. [March, 2005].

NeLMA. 2006. Proposed design values for Eastern Spruce/

Balsam Fir structural dimension lumber. Northeast Lumber 

Manufacturers Association. [1 March 2006].

Shelley, B.E.; Green, D.W. 1994. Establishing allowable 

design values for structural lumber of foreign species for 

use in the United States. In: The globalization of wood: 

supply, processes, products, and markets; 1993 November 

1–3; Portland, OR. Proceedings 7319. Madison, WI: Forest 

Products Society: 215–218.

WAS. 1994a. Request for approval of the procedures 

for assigning allowable properties to Russian spruce 

(Picea abies). Submitted to: ALSC on behalf of NeLMA. 

Millbrook, NY: Wood Advisory Services, Inc. [15 June 

1994].

WAS. 1994b. Recommended allowable properties for 

Russian spruce (Picea abies). Submitted to: ALSC on behalf 

of NeLMA. Millbrook, NY: Wood Advisory Services, Inc. 

[19 September 1994].

WAS. 1994c. Recommended allowable properties for 

Russian spruce (Picea abies) from the Archangel region 

of Russia. Submitted to: ALSC on behalf of NeLMA. 

Millbrook, NY: Wood Advisory Services, Inc. [27 December 

1994].

WAS. 1995. (14 February). Letter containing corrected 

pages for recommended allowable properties for Russian 

spruce (Picea abies). Submitted to: ALSC on behalf of 

NeLMA. Millbrook, NY: Wood Advisory Services, Inc. On 

file with: Kretschmann, D., U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford 

Pinchot Dr., Madison, WI 53726.

WAS. 1997. Validation testing for imported Southern 

Pine from the Misiones Province of Argentina. Submitted 

to: SPIB and ALSC on behalf of AGROMADERA, S.A. 

Millbrook, NY: Wood Advisory Services, Inc. 

[10 September 1997].

WAS. 1998a. Recommended allowable properties for 

Norway spruce (Picea abies) from Lithuania. Submitted to: 

ALSC on behalf of West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. 

Millbrook, NY: Wood Advisory Services, Inc. [1 July 1998].

WAS. 1998b. Recommended allowable properties for 

Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) from Lithuania. Submitted to: 

Table 15—Design values for continents 

other than Europe and North America 

approved by the ASLC BOR (base values 

for 2 by 12)

Grade

Montaine

pine from 

Republic of 

South

Africa

Southern

Yellow Pine 

from

Misiones, 

Argentina

Southern

Yellow Pine 

“free of heart 

center and 

medium grain 

density” from 

Argentina

Fb (lb/in2)

SS 975 1,000 1,700 

No. 2 600 725 1000 

MOE (×106

 lb/in2)

SS 1.3 1.2 1.5 

No. 2 1.0 1.1 1.5 

Fcperp (lb/in2

)

SS 325 440 710 

No. 2 325 150 710 

Fv (lb/in2

)

SS 135 150 210 

No. 2 135 150 210 

Approved date

 1/29/2004 4/29/2004 7/22/2004 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

46
ALSC on behalf of West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. 

Millbrook, NY: Wood Advisory Services, Inc. [5 October 

1998].

WAS. 1999a. Recommended allowable properties for Scots 

pine (Pinus sylvestris) from Germany. Submitted to: ALSC 

on behalf of West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau for 

Klausner Holz Thuringen GmbH & Co. Millbrook, NY: 

Wood Advisory Services, Inc. [21 May 1999].

WAS. 1999b. Recommended allowable properties for 

Norway spruce (Picea abies) 2 by 4 lumber from Germany. 

Submitted to: ALSC on behalf of West Coast Lumber 

Inspection Bureau. Millbrook, NY: Wood Advisory 

Services, Inc. [16 August 1999].

WAS. 1999c. Request for approval of procedures for 

assigning allowable properties to Norway spruce (Picea 

abies) 2 by 4 and 2 by 6 lumber from the Karelia region 

of Russia. Submitted to: ALSC on behalf of Cutting Edge 

Industries. Millbrook, NY: Wood Advisory Services, Inc. 

[18 August 1999].

WAS. 2002. Request for approval of the procedures for 

assigning properties to imported Southern Pine dimension 

lumber from the Misiones Province of Argentina. Millbrook, 

NY: Wood Advisory Services, Inc. [12 December 2002].

WAS. 2004. Recommended allowable properties for 

southern yellow pine (Pinus taeda and Pinus elliottii) from 

Misiones, Argentina. Submitted to: ALSC on behalf of 

SPIB and Alto Parana, S.A. Millbrook, NY: Wood Advisory 

Services, Inc. [9 March 2004].

WAS. 2004. Recommended allowable properties for 

southern yellow pine (Pinus taeda and Pinus elliottii) free 

of heart center and medium grain density from Misiones, 

Argentina. Submitted to: ALSC on behalf of SPIB and Alto 

Parana, S.A. Millbrook, NY: Wood Advisory Services, Inc. 

[20 May 2004].

WCLIB. 1991. Compression perpendicular submission. 

Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau.

WCLIB. 1992a. Proposed sampling plan for New Zealand 

Douglas-fir. Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection 

Bureau. [March, 1992].

WCLIB. 1992b. Proposed sampling plan for Siberian 

lumber. Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection 

Bureau. [June, 1992].

WCLIB. 1994. Proposed sampling and testing plan for 

Norway spruce (Picea abies) from Sweden. Portland, OR: 

West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. [11 October 1994].

WCLIB. 1995a. Proposed sampling and testing plan for 

Norway spruce (Picea abies) from Sweden. Portland, OR: 

West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. [20 January 1995].

WCLIB. 1995b. (23 January). Letter to the American 

Lumber Standard Committee Board of Review in response 

to the NeLMA Archangel Spruce submission. On file with: 

Kretschmann, D., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot 

Dr., Madison, WI 53726.

WCLIB. 1995c. Proposed sampling and testing plan for 

spruce 2 by 4s from Austria. Portland, OR: West Coast 

Lumber Inspection Bureau.

WCLIB. 1996a. Proposed design values for Norway spruce 

(Picea abies) from Sweden. Portland, OR: West Coast 

Lumber Inspection Bureau. [July, 1996].

WCLIB. 1996b. Proposed design values for 2 by 4 Austrian 

spruce (whitewood). Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber 

Inspection Bureau. [October, 1996].

WCLIB. 1997. Proposed design values for Norway spruce 

(Picea abies) from Sweden. Portland, OR: West Coast 

Lumber Inspection Bureau. [June, 1997].

WCLIB. 1998a. Proposed sampling procedure for Romanian 

spruce certification. Certification requested by Tenneco 

Forest Products, S.A. Buchin, Romania. Portland, OR: West 

Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. [April, 1998].

WCLIB. 1998b. Proposed design values for Norway spruce 

(Picea abies) from Sweden (phase I and II). Portland, OR: 

West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. [September, 1998].

WCLIB. 1998c. Proposed design values for Austrian spruce 

(Picea excelsa) from Austria and the Czech Republic. 

Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. 

[November, 1998].

WCLIB. 1998d. Proposed design values for Scots pine 

(Pinus sylvestris) from Austria and the Czech Republic. 

Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. 

[November, 1998].

WCLIB. 1999a. Proposed 2 by 4 design values for two 

species, Douglas-fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii) and European 

larch (Larix decidua) from Austria, the Czech Republic, and 

Bavaria in the Federal Republic of Germany. Portland, OR: 

West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. [June, 1999].

WCLIB. 1999b. Proposed design values for Norway spruce 

(Picea abies) from Sweden. Portland, OR: West Coast 

Lumber Inspection Bureau. [May, 1999].

WCLIB. 1999c. Proposed design values for Norway spruce 

(Picea abies) from the country of Finland. Portland, OR: 

West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. [20 September 

1999].

WCLIB. 1999d. Proposed design values for Scots pine (Pius 

sylvestris) from the country of Finland. Portland, OR: West 

Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. [17 December 1999].

WCLIB. 2000a. Proposed design values for Norway spruce 

(Picea abies) from the country of Germany. Portland, OR: 

West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. [7 March 2000].

WCLIB. 2000b. Proposed design values for 2 by 4 and 2 by 

6 Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) from the country of Germany. 

47

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program
Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. 

[15 March 2000].

WCLIB. 2000c. Proposed design values for Norway spruce 

(Picea abies) from the country of Germany. Portland, OR: 

West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. [23 June 2000].

WCLIB. 2000d. Proposed design values for Scots pine 

(Pinus sylvestris) from the country of Germany. Portland, 

OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. [26 June 2000].

WCLIB. 2000e. Proposed design values for Scots pine 

(Pinus sylvestris) from Sweden. Portland, OR: West Coast 

Lumber Inspection Bureau. [26 September 2000].

WCLIB. 2001a. Proposed design values for Scots pine 

(Pinus sylvestris) from the country of Estonia. Portland, OR: 

West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. [February, 2001].

WCLIB. 2001b. Validation study for Scots pine (Pinus 

sylvestris) from Sweden. Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber 

Inspection Bureau. [8 March 2001].

WCLIB. 2001c. Proposed design values for Norway spruce 

(Picea abies) from the country of Estonia. Portland, OR: 

West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. [29 June 2001].

WCLIB. 2001d. Proposal for the sampling and testing to 

develop allowable properties for dimension lumber for 

Norway spruce and Scots pine from portions of France, 

Switzerland, and the states of Baden-Wurttemberg and 

Saarland in Germany. Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber 

Inspection Bureau..

WCLIB. 2002a. Proposal for the sampling and testing of 

Southern Pine species from the Republic of South Africa 

for establishment of allowable properties for NGR grades. 

Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. 

[8 January 2001].

WCLIB. 2002b. Proposed design values for Norway spruce 

(Picea abies) from the countries of Estonia, Latvia, and 

Lithuania. Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection 

Bureau. [23 May 2002].

WCLIB. 2002c. Proposed alternate procedure for 

adjustment of lumber test data for compliance with grade 

quality index (GQI) requirements of ASTM D 1990 standard 

practice for establishing allowable properties for visually 

graded dimension lumber from in-grade tests of full-size 

specimens. Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection 

Bureau. [7 October 2002].

WCLIB. 2003a. Proposed revised design values for 

Austrian spruce (Picea excelsa) from Austria and the Czech 

Republic. Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection 

Bureau. [18 June 2003].

WCLIB. 2003b. Proposed design values for Montane pine 

from the country of South Africa. Portland, OR: West Coast 

Lumber Inspection Bureau. [19 September 2003].

WCLIB. 2004a. Proposed design values for Montane pine 

from the country of South Africa. Portland, OR: West Coast 

Lumber Inspection Bureau. [16 January 2004].

WCLIB. 2004b. Proposed design values for Scots pine 

(Pinus sylvestris) for the countries of Austria, Czech 

Republic, Romania, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. 

Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. 

[12 April 2004].

WCLIB. 2004c. Proposed design values for Norway 

spruce (Picea abies) from the countries of Romania and 

the Ukraine. Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection 

Bureau. [13 July 2004].

WCLIB. 2005a. Proposed design values for Silver fir (Abies 

alba) from the countries of Germany, NE France, and 

Switzerland. Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection 

Bureau. [21 January 2005].

WCLIB. 2005b. Proposed design values for Norway 

spruce (Picea abies) from the countries of Germany, NE 

France, and Switzerland. Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber 

Inspection Bureau. [21 January 2005].

WCLIB. 2005c. Proposed design values for Scots pine 

(Pinus sylvestris) from the countries of Estonia, Latvia, and 

Lithuania. Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection 

Bureau. [11 October 2005].

WCLIB. 2006a. Proposed design values for Norway spruce 

(Picea abies) from the countries of Estonia, Latvia, and 

Lithuania. Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection 

Bureau. [19 April 2006].

WCLIB. 2006b. Proposed revised design values for Scots 

pine (Pinus sylvestris) from the Kingdom of Sweden. 

Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. 

[20 December 2006].

WCLIB. 2007. Proposed design values for Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) from the countries of France and 

Germany. Portland, OR: West Coast Lumber Inspection 

Bureau. [20 September 2007].

WWPA. 1995. (27 January). Letter to the American 

Lumber Standard Committee Board of Review in response 

to the NeLMA Archangel Spruce submission. Portland, 

OR: Western Wood Products Association. On file with: 

Kretschmann, D., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot 

Dr., Madison, WI 53726.

WWPA. 2005. Determination of NGR grade lumber design 

values for Alaska spruce (Picea glauca and Picea stichensis) 

by in-grade testing of full-size lumber specimens. Prepared 

for: ALSC by John Bannister Ketchikan Wood Technology 

Center. [7 February 2005].

WWPA. 2006. Determination of NGR grade lumber design 

values for Alaska. Portland, OR: Western Wood Products 

Association.

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

48
Appendix A—Derivation of 

Equations 5, 6, and 7 Grade 

Effect Models

Equation 5, Grade Effect Model 1

Our current grade effect model for MOE assumes a straight 

line between our characteristic values for MOE at 45% 

Strength Ratio and at 65% strength ratio. Any grade between 45% and 65% is interpolated. For grades below 45% 

SR, it is assumed that a grade with 9% SR will have only 

80% of the MOE value at a 45% SR. Graphically this can be 

show as follows:

| C /

| /

| .

| /

| /

| /

| B /

| /

| _A ---.

| __----

| __----

|________________________

 | |

 45 65

To develop a GQI adjustment procedure based on this 

model, consider that we have data at two different strength 

ratio levels. The points A, B, and C will help us enumerate 

all possible combinations. Any point listed as A will be at a 

strength ratio less than 45%. Any point listed as B will be 

between 45% and 65%. Any point listed as C will be above 

65%. We will assume that we are trying to adjust our two 

data points to MOE values associated with 45% SR and 

65% SR.

Case 1: A point at B with MOE = MOEb = Eb and GQIb = 

Qb between 45% and 65%; a point at C with MOE = MOEc

= Ec and GQIc = Qc above 65%.

For either point B or C, more than 5% off in strength ratio, 

the slope of this line from Qb to Qc is

 E E c b

c b

  −

    −

So to adjust an actual value EA at a GQI of QA to a target 

GQI, we use the equation

( ) c b

T T A A

E E E Q Q E c b −    =   − +   − 

This can be used to adjust each value to the correct GQI. 

Note that we use the cell value GQI for QT and the specimen 

data for EA to get the adjusted piece value for each specimen. In case 1, we adjust either or both the points B and C 

depending upon which ones are over 5% off the strength 

ratio.

Case 2: A point at B1 with MOE = MOEb1 = Eb1 and GQIb1

= Qb1 between 45% and 65%. A point at B2 with MOE = 

MOEb2 = Eb2 and GQIb2 = Qb2 between 45% and 65% with 

Qb1 < Qb2.

In this case, the data associated with B2 do not need adjustment, because they are below the assumed GQI. If B1 is 

more than 5% above 45%, then we use the equation in case 

1 with point B = point B1 and point C = point B2 to get the 

adjusted B1 data.

Case 3: A point at A with MOE = MOEa = Ea and GQIa = Qa

below 45%. A point at C with MOE = MOEc = Ec and GQIc

= Qc above 65%.

In this case, the point A data do not need to be adjusted to 

get a characteristic value, because Qa < 45. The point C data 

do need to be adjusted. We could use the case 1 formula 

with point B = point A. However, the slope between point A 

and point C is flatter than the slope between the 45% point 

and the 65% point. If QA is “close” to 45%, we might not 

worry about this. However we can adjust point A to 45% if 

we want to. According to the grade model, the MOE value 

at 45% drops by 20% by the time we reach a strength ratio 

of 9%. So

45 45

45 ( .20) 45 9

A

A

Q E E E  −    =   − +   − 

which means

45 45 (.20) 1 36

A

A

E E

Q =  −        +     

Then we can use the case 1 equation to adjust the data at 

point C using point B = point 45 and point C.

Case 4: For all other cases, we do not need to adjust the 

data.

Equation 6, Simplified Data-Based Ratio 

Models

The grade model for MOE is based on characteristic values for select structural and number 2 data. For the major 

In-Grade species, these characteristic values in the original 

submissions to the BOR are shown in Table A1.

Converting these values to the ratio to the select structural 

value allows us to calculate a slope of the regression line 

from select structural to number 2 grade material. This slope 

is a measure of the percent change as a decimal that MOE is 

changed for each change of 1 in strength ratio. These results 

are shown in Table A2. 

49

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program
The average slope of the bottom four species is very close 

to 0.0075. Using this value gives the following equation for 

adjusting an MOE value EA in a cell with 5th percentile GQI 

(QA) to a target GQI of QT:

[.0075( ) ] E Q Q E E T = − + T A A A

Note that this model would change if we used No. 2 grade 

as our baseline. For example, if we used a species-specific 

slope the model for Douglas Fir using Select Structural as a 

baseline would be 

[.0077( ) ] E Q Q E E T = − + T A A A

If we used grade 2 as a baseline, the model would be

[.00908( ) ] E Q Q E E T = T A A A − +

Equation 7, Model that Produces Identical 

Values for Either Baseline Value

From the second table under model 6, we see that the slope 

for Douglas Fir is 0.00770, which means for each change of 

1 in GQI, the change in MOE should be 0.00770%. So to go 

from MOE at Select Structural with a GQI of 65 to an MOE 

with a target GQI of QT, we can use the formula

E E T = + 65 {1 0.00770 65 

 (QT − )}

To get from the Select Structural MOE with GQI of 65 to 

the actual MOE with actual GQI of QA, we can use

E E A = + 65 {1 0.00770 65 

 (QA − )}

Solving this second equation for E65 and substituting it in 

the first equation gives

( )

( )

1 0.00770 65

1 0.00770 65

T

T A

A

Q E E

Q

 +  −       =  

+  −     

By a similar argument, we can get to a target MOE from 

grade 2 using

E E T = + 45 {1 0.00908 45 

 (QT − )}

and to the actual MOE value using

E E A = + 45 {1 0.00908 45 

 (QA − )}

So we get

( )

( )

1 0.00908 45

1 0.00908 45

T

T A

A

Q E E

Q

 +  −       =  

+  −     

Table A1. Characteristic values in original submission

Grade

Douglas 

Fir

Hem–

Fir

Southern 

Pine

Spruce–

Pine–Fir

Douglas Fir 

(North)

Hem–Fir 

(North)

Select Structural 1.828 1.535 1.836 1.478 1.828 1.686

Number 2 1.547 1.315 1.563 1.356 1.560 1.561

Table A2. Converted values

Grade

Douglas 

Fir

Hem–

Fir

Southern 

Pine

Spruce–

Pine–Fir

Douglas Fir 

(North)

Hem–Fir 

(North)

Select Structural 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Number 2 0.846 0.857 0.851 0.912 0.853 0.926

Slope 0.00770 0.00715 0.00745 0.00440 0.00735 0.00370

Comparison of the models

Model GQI: 50 GQI: 60 GQI: 70 GQI: 80 GQI: 90 GQI: 100

1 to claim 0.9000 0.7500 0.6429 0.5625 0.5000 0.4500

2 to upper 1.000 0.8333 0.7143 0.6250 0.5556 0.5000

Brad

D 245

5 for A 0.9546 0.8638 0.7730 0.6821 0.5913 0.5005

5 for B 0.9775 0.9325 0.8875 0.8426 0.7976 0.7526

6 0.9625 0.8875 0.8125 0.7375 0.6625 0.5875

6 DF A 0.9615 0.8845 0.8075 0.7305 0.6535 0.5765

6 DF B 0.9546 0.8638 0.7730 0.6822 0.5914 0.5006

6 SPF A 0.9780 0.9340 0.8900 0.8460 0.8020 0.7580

7 SS 0.9565 0.8799 0.8146 0.7584 0.7094 0.6664

7 No. 2 0.9565 0.8799 0.8147 0.7584 0.7095 0.6664

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

50
Appendix B—Board of Review 

Opinion

Board of Review Opinion

In WWPA Appeal of March 5, 2003, Board Decision

Regarding Grade Quality Index Adjustment Procedures

On April 24, 2003 the Board of Review held a hearing on 

the appeal by WWPA of the Board’s March 5, 2003 decision 

regarding the WCLIB proposed alternate procedure for adjustment of lumber test data for compliance with grade quality index (GQI) requirements of the ASTM D1990 standard.

The WCLIB proposal was included in the agenda of the 

October 31, 2002 Board of Review meeting and was considered in that meeting. Prior comments on the proposal 

had been received by the Board from the Forest Products 

Laboratory (FPL), the Board’s technical advisor. Following 

that meeting the Board accepted the FPL recommendation 

made in the FPL comments that all the agencies and FPL 

confer to try to develop and agree upon a procedure for adjusting MOE for GQI, and if necessary another for MOR, 

and that those procedures could be adopted as a Board of 

Review guideline and also be submitted to ASTM. Comments were received from the Canadian Wood Council and 

from WCLIB. On December 27, 2002 the Board reiterated 

its request to agencies for comment, noting the matter would 

be on the February 6, 2003 Board meeting agenda. Comments were received from WWPA and the FPL. Following 

the further reconsideration of this proposal at the February 

6 Board meeting the Board on March 5, 2003 announced its 

acceptance of the advice of the FPL given during the February 6 Board meeting that FPL “Equation 7” as presented in 

the FPL letter of February 5, 2003 would be an appropriate 

interim procedure for adjustment of MOE lumber test data 

for compliance with GQI requirements of ASTM D1990 

pending consideration of this matter by the appropriate 

ASTM committee.

The basis for the Board’s March 5th decision was as follows. There was general agreement by the participants in the 

February 6 Board meeting discussion that the procedures 

previously approved by the Board for adjustment of lumber test data for compliance with GQI requirements can be 

overly restrictive. In the February 6 meeting the FPL stated 

that among the various procedures under discussion FPL 

Equation 7 would be the FPL- suggested appropriate interim 

procedure to adjust MOE test data until a procedure could 

be developed through the ASTM process, and there was 

general agreement with that FPL statement by those participating in the February 6 discussion. That advice was given 

to the Board by FPL pursuant to Section 6.3.2.1 of PS 20, 

which provides in pertinent part “Design values contained 

in grading rules shall be developed in accordance with appropriate ASTM standards and other technically sound criteria,” and denominates FPL as the Board’s technical advisor. 

In its March 5 decision the Board took special note of the 

agreement of the participants in the February 6 meeting that 

they would work through the appropriate ASTM committee 

to resolve the issues pertaining to GQI adjustment. In 1995 

the Board had requested such ASTM action but none has 

been forthcoming.

By letter of March 19 WWPA entered its appeal of the 

March 5 Board decision. Comments were also received 

from SPIB and NLGA supporting the WWPA position. The 

Board heard that appeal on April 24.

In the April 24 hearing Dr. Kevin Cheung of WWPA stated 

the basis for the WWPA appeal to be that this matter should 

be considered by the appropriate ASTM committee with 

its expertise and consensus rather than by the Board of Review. The March 19 WWPA letter was to the same effect. 

Dr. Cheung acknowledged that there have been prior Board 

approvals of agency proposals, including WWPA proposals, based upon FPL advice, where the pertinent standard or 

standards did not specify how the particular matter was to be 

addressed, and Dr. Cheung stated that he considered these 

prior Board actions to have been appropriate. (Mr. Searles 

introduced such a list into the hearing record.) However, Dr. 

Cheung characterized those past decisions as case-by-case 

in nature and described the March 5 Board decision as in 

contrast establishing a procedure for future use. Dr. Cheung 

did state that the Board of Review can exercise judgment 

on scientific criteria when needed to supplement an ASTM 

standard.

In the hearing Dr. Ethington noted that Section 8.2 of D1990 

requires that if the GQI tolerance is exceeded in the case 

of particular test data some action shall be taken, and Dr. 

Ethington further noted the general agreement that the current GQI adjustment procedures previously approved by the 

Board of Review place some wood at a disadvantage. Both 

Dr. Ethington and Mr. Searles noted that above mentioned 

prior Board approvals where the standard did not lay out the 

approach, including WWPA proposals, were subsequently 

used in later Board actions. Dr. Ethington emphasized that 

the Board followed the same procedure in this matter as in 

the past ones. Dr. David Green of FPL stated that as to the 

question of precedent, FPL will, as it has in the past, pay 

close attention in each future proposal before the Board to 

the particular data involved and comment thereon regardless 

of what the Board’s past precedent has been.

Dr. Cheung having acknowledged the propriety of the prior 

Board approvals of agency proposals, including some by 

WWPA, where the pertinent standard did not specify how 

the matter under consideration was to be addressed, the 

issue remaining in the WWPA appeal is WWPA’s contention that the Board’s March 5 decision differed from the 

referred-to prior Board actions as establishing a general 

procedure rather than being independent case-by-case actions. This is not a valid characterization of either the March 

5 decision or the prior ones. Both the Board action of March 

5 and the referred-to prior Board actions were taken as the 

51

History of Lumber Submissions under ASTM D 1990 since the North American In-Grade Testing Program
result of particular proposals, but would be applicable in 

future matters of the same nature. Thus while WWPA maintains this GQI issue should not be addressed by the Board, 

Dr. Cheung concedes the propriety of the similar prior 

Board actions so is left with the attempt to characterize the 

instant matter as different in nature from the similar prior 

Board actions. There is no such distinction.

The Board hereby affirms its March 5, 2003 decision. On 

consideration of the WWPA appeal and issues raised the 

Board is of the view that it is appropriate to accept the advice of the FPL that FPL Equation 7 can be utilized as an 

interim procedure for adjustment of lumber test data for 

compliance with grade quality index requirements of ASTM 

D1990 pending action by ASTM. As above noted, that 

advice was given to the Board as “other technically sound 

criteria” per Section 6.3.2.1 of PS 20.

The Board emphasizes its view that this is an interim decision and on the basis of representations made expects the 

appropriate ASTM body to develop and standardize a process for making these adjustments.

By direction of the Board

Thomas D. Searles

President

May 16, 2003

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–189

52