Advertisement

Determination of the resistance-curve in Eucalyptus globulus through double cantilever beam tests

  • Jorge Crespo
  • Almudena Majano-Majano
  • José Xavier
  • Manuel Guaita
Original Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

The prediction of the fracture behaviour through reliable and practical criteria in the design of structural timber elements and connections has become of great importance and demands a proper fracture characterization of the material. Eucalyptus globulus Labill is envisioned as a hardwood species with great potential for high performance structural purposes because of its major mechanical and durability properties, being so far mainly used in paper industry. Experimental research on the identification of the resistance curves to derive the critical strain energy release rate in Eucalyptus globulus L. under pure mode I and RL crack propagation system is performed by means of Double Cantilever Beam tests. Three different data reduction schemes are compared: the Modified Experimental Compliance Method; and two approaches of the Compliance Based Beam Method. These methods take into account the non negligible damage mechanisms at the fracture process zone and have the advantage of being based exclusively on the specimen compliance following an equivalent crack concept, for which crack length monitoring during testing is not required. The Compliance Based Beam Method turns out to be the most appropriate data reduction scheme to obtain the critical energy release rate in eucalyptus because of its simplicity. Concerning this, a high average value of 720 J/m2 was obtained confirming Eucalyptus globulus L. as a promising hardwood species for timber structural design.

Keywords

Eucalyptus globulus R-curve Critical energy release rate Fracture mechanics DCB 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work has been developed within the framework of the research project BIA2015-64491-P Analysis of the stress relaxation in curved members and new joints solutions for timber Gridshells made out of Eucalyptus globulus, co-financed by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain Government and ERDF funds.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Aicher S, Christian Z, Dill-Langer G (2014) Hardwood glulams—emerging timber products of superior mechanical properties. In: Proceedings of the world conference on timber engineering, Aug 10–15, Quebec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    EN 1912:2012 Structural Timber—Strength Classes—Assignment of Visual Grades and SpeciesGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    EN 350:2016 Durability of wood and wood-based products—Testing and classification of the durability to biological agents of wood and wood-based materialsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    “CAMBIUM-Aprovechamiento de recursos no maderables en componentes y sistemas de altas prestaciones técnicas” (in English: “CAMBIUM-Using nonwood resources in technical high-performance components and systems”), IN852A 2013/18, Conecta Peme Program, 2013Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    “LIGNUM-Nuevos usos y sistemas para la madera sólida de Eucalyptus globulus” (in English: “LIGNUM-New uses and systems for solid Eucalyptus globulus wood”), ITC-20133059. FEDER Innterconecta Program, 2013Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    “XILOGRACILE-Tecnificación de la cadena de valor para el desarrollo de productos de altas solicitaciones técnicas con madera de eucalipto” (in English: “XILOGRACILE-Value chain technification for the development of technical high-peformance eucalyptus wood products”), ITC-20151124, FEDER Innterconecta Program, 2015Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    López-Suevos F, Richter K (2009) Hydroxymethylated resorcinol (HMR) and Novolak-Based HMR (n-HMR) primers to enhance bond durability of eucalyptus globulus glulams. J Adhes Sci Technol 23:1925–1937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lara-Bocanegra AJ, Majano-Majano A, Crespo J, Guaita M (2017) Finger-jointed Eucalyptus globulus with 1C-PUR adhesive for high performance engineered laminated products. Constr Build Mater 135:529–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Moura MFSF, Morais JJL, Dourado N (2008) A new data reduction scheme for mode I wood fracture characterization using the double cantilever beam test. Eng Fract Mech 75(13):3852–3865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    EN 1995-1-1:2016 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures. Part 1-1: General. Common rules and rules for buildingsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Put TACM, Leijten AJM (2000) Evaluation of perpendicular to grain failure of beams caused by concentrated loads of joints. In: Proceedings of the international council for research and innovation in building and construction, Rotterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ardalany M, Deam B, Fragiacomo M (2012) Experimental results of fracture energy and fracture toughness of Radiata Pine laminated veneer lumber (LVL) in mode I (opening). Mater Struct 45:1189–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dourado N, de Moura MFSF, Morel S, Morais J (2015) Wood fracture characterization under mode I loading using the three-point-bending test. Experimental investigation of Picea abies L. Int J Fract 194(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yoshihara H, Kawamura T (2006) Mode I fracture toughness estimation of wood by DCB test. Compos Part A-Appl S 37:2105–2113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Moura MFSF, Dourado N, Morais JJL (2010) Crack equivalent based method applied to wood fracture characterization using the single edge notched-three point bending test. Eng Fract Mech 77:510–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xavier J, Oliveira J, Monteiro P, Morais JJL, de Moura MFSF (2014) Direct evaluation of cohesive law in mode I of Pinus pinaster by digital image correlation. Exp Mech 54(5):829–840Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xavier J, Morais J, Dourado N, de Moura MFSF (2011) Measurement of mode I and mode II fracture properties of wood-bonded joints. J Adhes Sci Technol 25:2881–2895Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilson E, Mohammadi MS, Nairn JA (2013) Crack propagation fracture toughness of several wood species. Adv Civ Eng Mater 2(1):316–327Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coureau JL, Morel S, Gustafsson PJ, Lespine C (2006) Influence of the fracture softening behaviour of wood on load-COD curve and R-curve. Mater Struct 40:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coureau JL, Morel S, Dourado N (2013) Cohesive zone model and quasibrittle failure of wood: a new light on the adapted specimen geometries for fracture tests. Eng Fract Mech 109:328–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morel S (2008) Size effect in quasibrittle fracture: derivation of the energetic Size Effect Law from equivalent LEFM and asymptotic analysis. Int J Fract 154:15–26CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dourado N, Morel S, de Moura MFSF (2008) Comparison of fracture properties of two wood species through cohesive crack simulations. Compos Part A Appl Sci 39:415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xavier J, Sousa AMR, Morais JJL, Filipe VMJ, Vaz M (2012) Measuring displacement fields by cross-correlation and a differential technique: experimental validation. Opt Eng 51:043602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dourado NMM, de Moura MFSF, Morais JJL, Silva MAL (2010) Estimate of resistance-curve in wood through the double cantilever beam test. Holzforschung 64:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    EN 408:2011 Timber structures—Structural timber and glued laminated timber—Determination of some physical and mechanical propertiesGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Crespo J, Aira JR, Vázquez C, Guaita M (2017) Comparative analysis of the elastic constants measured via conventional, ultrasound, and 3-D digital image correlation methods in Eucalyptus globulus labill. BioResources 12(2):3728–3743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams JG (1989) The fracture mechanics of delamination tests. J Strain Anal 24(4):207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Majano-Majano A, Hughes M, Fernández-Cabo JL (2012) The fracture toughness and properties of thermally modified beech and ash at different moisture contents. Wood Sci Technol 46:5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agroforestry EngineeringUniversidade de Santiago de Compostela (USC)LugoSpain
  2. 2.Department of Building Structures and PhysicsUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), ETS of ArchitectureMadridSpain
  3. 3.University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD)CITABVila RealPortugal

Personalised recommendations