Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings doi:10.14311/APP.2018.15.0109 Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 15:109–113, 2018 © Czech Technical University in Prague, 2018 available online at http://ojs.cvut.cz/ojs/index.php/app CONSTITUTIVE MODEL FOR TIMBER FRACTURE USED FOR FE SIMULATION OF LVL ARCH Eliška Šmídová∗, Petr Kabele Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Thákurova 7, 166 29 Prague 6, Czech Republic ∗ corresponding author: eliska.smidova@fsv.cvut.cz Abstract. Non-linear finite element simulation of four-point bending test of a small-size arch is described in this paper. The arch of 780 mm span is made of Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) laminated veneer lumber (LVL) and it is manufactured with a through crack parallel to fibers in the middle of its crown. 2D homogeneous orthotropic constitutive model of tensile and shear fracture in timber that has been recently developed and implemented into ATENA® finite element software by the authors is used for the numerical calculation. Both standard and compact tension (CT) test results are used for the material model calibration. Results show that the model successfully reproduces the increasing part of the load-displacement response. Furthermore, the model can capture the most distinctive features of the crack pattern. Keywords: Timber, 2D constitutive model, orthotropic elasticity, orthotropic Tsai-Hill failure criterion, fixed smeared crack model, traction-separation law, compact tension test. 1. Introduction Concerning environmental impact, energy efficiency and handling costs, timber and engineered wood prod- ucts represent a promising alternative to the most frequently used structural materials such as concrete or masonry. The wood-derived products of laminated veneer lumber (LVL), cross-laminated timber (CLT) or glue-laminated timber (GLT) provide increased strengths and stiffness compared to solid wood. Timber and its engineered products are typical for orthotropic behavior. Sawn timber has three mutually perpendicular axes in which we distinguish indepen- dent mechanical properties: longitudinal (parallel to grain), radial and tangential. Let us note that proper- ties, such as tensile strength and modulus of elasticity, related to the direction parallel with fibers substan- tially exceed those related to the other directions [1]. Natural variability in material properties of timber has been addressed by some authors [2, 3]. This material feature is often tackled by Weibull strength theory [4]. Exposed to tensile and shear loading, timber ex- hibits linear elastic behavior up to failure that is fol- lowed by brittle fracture. In contrast, compression in timber leads to a ductile response [5]. Various fail- ure criteria have been developed for timber [6, 7] out of which a commonly applied one corresponds to a Tsai-Hill formulation [8]. Being a complex biological structure, timber con- tains natural imperfections such as knots, pitch pock- ets, reaction wood or cross grain. Because such inho- mogeneities have a negative impact on the mechanical properties, structural timber, especially the engineered one, is usually carefully selected and processed to pro- vide an improved structural behavior [1]. Influence of some of these weaknesses (e.g., distribution of knots and finger joints) to strength and failure pattern of LVL beams is tackled in [9], among others. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional phe- nomenological constitutive models capturing timber behavior under multi-axial stress state are based on elasticity [10], classical plasticity [11], multi- surface plasticity [12], smeared crack concept [5, 13], smeared fictitious reinforcing fibers [14] and interface schemes [15–17]. 2. Constitutive Model For non-linear finite element simulation of 4PBT of Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) laminated ve- neer lumber (LVL) arch, we use the 2D homogeneous orthotropic constitutive model of tensile and shear fracture in timber modified for available input data. The model has been recently developed and imple- mented into ATENA® finite element software [18] by the authors [13, 19]. 2.1. Model properties Let us review the properties of the modified constitu- tive model. It captures: • material orthotropy for small deformations in both linear and non-linear range • elastic behavior until the anisotropic failure crite- rion is fulfilled • inelastic behavior after failure criterion is satisfied • post-failure response for cracks along the grain • unloading/reloading behavior The post-cracking response is treated by the fixed smeared crack model [20] where Reinhardt-Hordijk function is used [21]. 109 http://dx.doi.org/10.14311/APP.2018.15.0109 http://ojs.cvut.cz/ojs/index.php/app Eliška Šmídová, Petr Kabele Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 2.2. Model components The properties of the model described in Section 2.1 are implemented in the form of (i) failure criterion and (ii) cohesive law. 2.2.1. Failure criterion With regard to available input data from literature, we use the most frequently used failure theory for wood. It was proposed by Norris [8] and it is also referred to as the Tsai-Hill criterion. In a 2D stress state, it has the form of Equation Eq. 1. ( σx ftx )2 − σxσy ftxfty + ( σy fty )2 + ( τxy fs )2 = 1 (1) 2.2.2. Cohesive law Cohesive (traction-separation) law relates crack sur- face normal traction tn to relative crack normal dis- placement δn with respect to normal crack direction (n). The cohesive law is expressed by Eq. 2 as follows: tn(δn) =   fty (( 1 + ( c1δn δn,crit )3) exp ( c2δn δn,crit ) − exp (−c2) ( 1 + c31 ) δn δn,crit ) for δn ∈ [0,δn,crit) 0 for δn > δn,crit (2) 3. Calibration of the model The model requires in total ten input parameters. Based on data available in the literature, we obtained material input parameters for Yellow Poplar LVL both directly from standard tests and employing inverse analysis of traction-separation relationship from com- pact tension (CT) test (Figure 1). Representing first part of input parameters for FE simulation of LVL arch, selected standard tensile and shear experimental results [1, 17] are shown in Table 1. Within exper- imental test campaign of Yellow Poplar LVL arch available in literature [22], only two load vs. crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) responses of CT specimens cut from the arch base and three load vs. displacement responses of CT specimens cut from the arch crown were reported. It is important to note, that displacement of the latter curves is not relevant being biased by the stiffness of the load-cell. Thus, we estimated the parameters defining cohesive law in crack-normal direction, i.e. δn,crit, fty, c1, c2, in two steps. First, for each of two responses of CT specimens from the arch base, we get the average of four traction- separation curves using sequentially linear approach to inverse analysis including multi-pass enhancement [23]. Consequently, we find the best fit of the cohesive law Eq. 2 for the average curve. Similarly, we find the best fit for the average of all eight traction-separation curves. The overview of cohesive law parameters Figure 1. Compact tension (CT) test set up: W = 46 mm, a = 20 mm and thickness is 11 mm. Ey Ex ftx fs Gxy νxy [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [-] 450 14600 110 8.2 899 0.32 Table 1. Average values of input data for Yellow Poplar LVL from standard tests [1, 17]. calculated for CT specimens from the arch base is shown in Table 2 together with R2 statistics that witness a good fit of corresponding responses from finite element simulation and experiment. Second, for each of three values of maximum load from response of CT specimens sawn from the arch crown, we estimate tensile strength parameter fty considering remaining parameters of {c1,c2,δn,crit} to be equal to those calculated in step one for CT specimens from arch base. For this purpose, we apply the trial-and-error method to FE inverse analysis. A considerable difference between maximum loads ap- plied to CT specimens cut from the arch base and crown can be observed. Therefore, we use the es- timations of cohesive law parameters calculated for the arch crown (Table 3) expecting them to be more representative for FE simulation of the crack pattern spreading across the crown. The responses (load vs. CMOD) and traction-separation relationships (stress vs. COD) from (i) experiments, (ii) sequentially linear or (iii) trial-and-error approach to inverse analysis are displayed in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively. 4. FE simulation of 4PBT of the arch The subject of the FE simulation is a four-point bend- ing test (4PBT) of Yellow Poplar LVL arch with a through pre-crack parallel with grain in the middle of its crown [22, 24]. Teflon paper was placed between two laminations preventing them from being glued. The arch has the span of 780 mm, cross-section height and width of 57 mm and 25 mm, respectively, and lamina thickness of 3.2 mm. The overall test setup is depicted in Figure 4. We generated regular 2D FE mesh composed of approx. 3.2 mm by 3.2 mm quadrilaterals aligned with 110 vol. 15/2018 Constitutive model for timber fracture Response δn,crit fty c1 c2 R 2 [mm] [MPa] [-] [-] [-] max 1.41 15.90 4.10 7.90 0.93 avg 1.07 14.00 4.10 8.60 − min 0.57 14.00 4.10 10.00 0.96 Table 2. Parameters of cohesive law calculated by sequentially linear approach to inverse analysis [23] of load vs. CMOD responses of CT specimens cut from arch base. {δn,crit,c1,c2} fmaxty f avg ty f min ty {[mm], [−], [−]} [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] {1.41, 4.10, 7.90} 2.60(#1) 2.10(#2) 1.60 {1.07, 4.10, 8.60} 2.90(#3) 2.30(#4) 1.80 {0.57, 4.10, 10.00} 3.90 3.00 2.30 Table 3. Parameters of cohesive law estimated by trial-and-error approach to inverse analysis of max. load responses of CT specimens cut from arch crown. the arch outline and lamina. We assigned fiber ori- entation to each FE as an input material property. As the proposed material model treats post-cracking behavior by the smeared crack approach, we modeled the pre-crack as a missing row of FE elements. Let us note, that in this way we get the same results as for the pre-crack modeled as a row of FEs with an un- loaded smeared crack at the beginning of a numerical simulation. We ran FE simulations of LVL arch for each of 9 estimates of input parameters defining the traction-separation relationship for the arch crown Table 3. 5. Results and discussion We present four most relevant results are presented in Figure 5 in the form of load vs. midspan deflection. Out of them, we calculated the best response for Sim. (#1) (i.e., maximum estimated critical crack opening displacement δn,crit = 1.41 mm and tensile strength fmaxty = 2.6 MPa). Regarding significant variability of timber material parameters, the results show that the model can reproduce the increasing part of the load-displacement response well. In order to obtain statistically more relevant results, an experimental campaign containing numerous specimens for each type of test needs to be conducted. Comparison of crack pattern across arch crown from experiment (Figure 6) and FE simulation (Figure 7) shows that the material model can capture both the crack propagation from the pre-crack tips (primary crack) and crack initiation of the crack below the pre- crack (secondary crack). However, the model neglects initiation of the crack above the pre-crack (tertiary crack). The short crack spacing of only twice the lamina thickness between primary and tertiary crack can cause that stored energy is released by opening Figure 2. Load vs. CMOD responses of CT speci- mens cut from arch base and crown: (i) experimental (Exp.), (ii) numerically simulated by means of sequen- tially linear approach to inverse analysis (Sim.) and (iii) estimated by trial-and-error approach to inverse analysis (Estim.). and spreading of the primary crack instead of the adjacent tertiary crack initiation and growth. In the end, we can compare the results for Yellow Poplar LVL arch from smeared crack model to the results calculated by interface scheme [22, 24]. To this end, let us briefly describe the latter approach first. Interface elements were placed between the lam- ina and the initial crack was modeled as a gap of finite length separating the arch layers. Interface be- havior was governed by (i) modulus of elasticity and (ii) maximum tensile strength, both in the direction perpendicular to fibers, and (iii) fracture toughness acquired from compact tension specimens cut from arch crown [16]. The response obtained by the inter- face scheme is shown in Figure 5 as Sim. Interf. This curve represents a weak reproduction of the response compared to Sim. (#1) to Sim. (#4). On the other hand, the interface approach can capture both the primary crack spreading and the secondary crack ini- tiation and growth. Discrepancies between the two approaches can be attributed to: (1.) significant variability of timber material parame- ters that needs to be handled appropriately. (2.) specific acquisition of the most relevant input parameters that control the crack initiation and post-cracking behavior. 111 Eliška Šmídová, Petr Kabele Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings Figure 3. Traction-separation relationships (stress vs. COD) of CT specimens cut from arch base and crown: (i) experimental (Exp.), (ii) numerically simulated by means of sequentially linear approach to inverse analysis (Sim.) and (iii) estimated by trial-and-error approach to inverse analysis (Estim.). Figure 4. Scheme of 4PBT of Yellow Poplar LVL arch with a through pre-crack in its crown. 6. Conclusion We used 2D homogeneous orthotropic constitutive model of tensile and shear fracture in timber for FE simulation of small-size Yellow Poplar LVL arch subjected to four-point bending. We presented the main features of the model. Input data were obtained both (i) directly from standard tensile and shear tests and (ii) by applying inverse analysis to compact ten- sion (CT) test results for Yellow Poplar laminated veneer lumber (LVL). For the limited availability of relevant experimental data from CT test results, we calculated the estimation of parameters that define traction-separation relation. Numerical simulations of Yellow Poplar LVL arch confirm that the applied constitutive model can cap- ture both the increasing part of the load-displacement response and pre-crack spreading together with the initiation of a secondary crack. We compared the results obtained by utilizing the proposed model to those calculated by interface approach. Both models can predict primary and secondary crack initiation Figure 5. Load vs. midspan deflection response of 4PBT of LVL arch obtained from experiments (Exp.) and FE simulations (Sim.). I I.I. II. III. Figure 6. Arch crown cracking (primary I., secondary II. and tertiary III.) during experiment at two load levels. and development well. On the other hand, the inter- face model yields a weak load vs. midspan deflection response. Considerable variability of timber material characteristics requires both statistically significant results for each type of experiment and an appropriate statistical approach to obtain relevant results from numerical models. List of symbols c1,c2 Material parameters controlling the shape of the softening curve [–] δn Crack opening displacement [mm] δn,crit Critical value of crack opening displacement [mm] Ex Modulus of elasticity along the grain [MPa] 112 vol. 15/2018 Constitutive model for timber fracture Figure 7. Arch crown cracking in FE simulation: primary and secondary crack. Ey Modulus of elasticity across the grain [MPa] ftx Tensile strength parallel with grain [MPa] fty Tensile strength perpendicular to grain [MPa] fs Shear strength [MPa] Gxy Shear modulus [MPa] νxy Poisson’s ratio [–] R2 Coefficient of determination [–] σx Normal stress parallel with grain [MPa] σy Normal stress perpendicular to grain [MPa] τxy Shear stress [MPa] Acknowledgements The support by the GAČR grant No. 18-05791S is grate- fully acknowledged. References [1] Wood handbook - Wood as an engineering material. Forest Product Laboratory, 2010. [2] T. Tannert, T. Vallee, S. Franke, P. Quenneville. Comparison of test methods to determine Weibull parameters for wood. World 15:19, 2012. [3] L. Melzerova, M. Sejnoha, P. Klapalek. Bending Tests and Simulations of GLT Beams. Applied Mechanics and Materials 611:54–59, 2014. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.611.54. [4] W. Weibull. A statistical theory of strength of materials. In Proceedings of the Royal Swedish Institute. 1939. [5] S. Holmberg, K. Persson, H. Petersson. Nonlinear mechanical behaviour and analysis of wood and fibre materials. Computers & structures 72(4):459–480, 1999. [6] B. Kasal, R. J. Leichti. State of the art in multiaxial phenomenological failure criteria for wood members. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 7(1):3–13, 2005. doi:10.1002/pse.185. [7] E. Smidova, P. Kabele. Comparison of failure criteria for wood in tensile-shear stress state. Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 13:115, 2017. doi:10.14311/APP.2017.13.0115. [8] C. B. Norris. Strength of orthotropic materials subjected to combined stresses, 1962. [9] L. Melzerova, M. Sejnoha. Influence of distribution of finger joints and timber flaws on the damage evolution of laminated glued timber beams during four point bending. In WCTE 2016. Vienna, Austria, 2016. [10] N. Khorsandnia, H. R. Valipour, K. Crews. Nonlinear finite element analysis of timber beams and joints using the layered approach and hypoelastic constitutive law. Engineering Structures 46:606–614, 2013. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.08.017. [11] B.-H. Xu, A. Bouchair, M. Taazount, P. Racher. Numerical simulation of embedding strength of glued laminated timber for dowel-type fasteners. Journal of Wood Science 59(1):17–23, 2013. doi:10.1007/s10086-012-1296-0. [12] P. Mackenzie-Helnwein, J. Eberhardsteiner, H. A. Mang. A multi-surface plasticity model for clear wood and its application to the finite element analysis of structural details. Computational Mechanics 31(1-2):204–218, 2003. doi:10.1007/s00466-003-0423-6. [13] E. Smidova, P. Kabele. Constitutive Model for Timber Fracture under Tensile and Shear Loads. Applied Mechanics and Materials 784:137–144, 2015. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.784.137. [14] H. R. Valipour, K. Crews. Efficient finite element modelling of timber beams strengthened with bonded fibre reinforced polymers. Construction and Building Materials 25(8):3291–3300, 2011. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.017. [15] X. P. Xu, A. Needleman. Continuum Modelling of Interfacial Decohesion. Solid State Phenomena 35-36:287–302, 1993. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP.35-36.287. [16] X.-P. Xu, A. Needleman. Numerical simulations of fast crack growth in brittle solids. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 42(9):1397–1434, 1994. doi:10.1016/0022-5096(94)90003-5. [17] B. Kasal, R. Blass. Experimental and analytical investigation of crack development in composite reinforced laminated arch. Materials and Structures 46(1-2):173–180, 2013. doi:10.1617/s11527-012-9892-4. [18] J. Cervenka, L. Jendele, V. Cervenka. Atena program documentation, part 1, Theory, 2008. [19] E. Bartunkova. Constitutive Model of Timber. Ph.D. thesis, Czech Technical University in Prague, 2013. [20] A. Hillerborg, M. ModeÃľr, P.-E. Petersson. Analysis of Crack Formation and Crack Growth in Concrete by Means of Fracture Mechanics and Finite Elements. Cement and Concrete Research 6(6):773–782, 1976. [21] H. Reinhardt, H. Cornelissen, D. Hordijk. Tensile Tests and Failure Analysis of Concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering 112(11):2462–2477, 1986. [22] R. A. Blass. Laminated Wooden Arches Reinforced with Glass Fiber Rods. Ph.D. thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 2011. [23] J. Vorel, P. Kabele. Inverse analysis of traction-separation relationship based on sequentially linear approach. arXiv:180208040 [cs] 2018. ArXiv: 1802.08040. [24] B. Kasal, R. Blass. Experimental and analytical investigation of crack development in composite reinforced laminated arch. Materials and Structures 46(1-2):173–180, 2013. doi:10.1617/s11527-012-9892-4. 113 http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.611.54 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pse.185 http://dx.doi.org/10.14311/APP.2017.13.0115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.08.017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10086-012-1296-0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00466-003-0423-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.784.137 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.017 http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP.35-36.287 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(94)90003-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9892-4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9892-4 Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 15:109–113, 2018 1 Introduction 2 Constitutive Model 2.1 Model properties 2.2 Model components 2.2.1 Failure criterion 2.2.2 Cohesive law 3 Calibration of the model 4 FE simulation of 4PBT of the arch 5 Results and discussion 6 Conclusion List of symbols Acknowledgements References