Figure 1.
View and diagram of wood testing: (a) tensile, (b) compression, (c) shear.
Figure 1.
View and diagram of wood testing: (a) tensile, (b) compression, (c) shear.
Figure 2.
Pine wood samples prepared for tensile testing: (a) in the longitudinal direction (L), (b) in the radial direction (R), (c) in the tangential direction (T).
Figure 2.
Pine wood samples prepared for tensile testing: (a) in the longitudinal direction (L), (b) in the radial direction (R), (c) in the tangential direction (T).
Figure 3.
Pine wood samples prepared for compression testing: (a) in the longitudinal direction (L), (b) in the radial direction (R), (c) in the tangential direction (T).
Figure 3.
Pine wood samples prepared for compression testing: (a) in the longitudinal direction (L), (b) in the radial direction (R), (c) in the tangential direction (T).
Figure 4.
Pine wood samples prepared for shear tests: (a) crosswise to the fibers in the tangential plane (TR), (b) crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT), (c) along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), (d) along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT).
Figure 4.
Pine wood samples prepared for shear tests: (a) crosswise to the fibers in the tangential plane (TR), (b) crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT), (c) along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), (d) along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT).
Figure 5.
Averaged tensile characteristics and method of determining modulus of elasticity for tested materials during static tensile test; A—sample with 8.74% moisture content, B—sample with 19.9% moisture content.
Figure 5.
Averaged tensile characteristics and method of determining modulus of elasticity for tested materials during static tensile test; A—sample with 8.74% moisture content, B—sample with 19.9% moisture content.
Figure 6.
Tensile—model structure: (a) solid model, (b) meshed model (C3D8R elements), (c) results—stress state.
Figure 6.
Tensile—model structure: (a) solid model, (b) meshed model (C3D8R elements), (c) results—stress state.
Figure 7.
Compression-model structure: (a) solid model: 1—upper jaw, 2—lower jaw, 3—sample, (b) meshed model (C3D8R elements), (c) results—stress state.
Figure 7.
Compression-model structure: (a) solid model: 1—upper jaw, 2—lower jaw, 3—sample, (b) meshed model (C3D8R elements), (c) results—stress state.
Figure 8.
Cutting model construction: (a) flat model, (b) digitized model (CPS4R elements), (c) results—stress state, (d) model of the jaw of the device.
Figure 8.
Cutting model construction: (a) flat model, (b) digitized model (CPS4R elements), (c) results—stress state, (d) model of the jaw of the device.
Figure 9.
Selected results of the static longitudinal tensile test (moisture content 19.9%); A—sample number 1, B—sample number 2, C—sample number 3, D—sample number 4, E—sample number 5.
Figure 9.
Selected results of the static longitudinal tensile test (moisture content 19.9%); A—sample number 1, B—sample number 2, C—sample number 3, D—sample number 4, E—sample number 5.
Figure 10.
Averaged tensile characteristics and modulus of elasticity determination method for tested materials during static longitudinal tensile test (moisture content 19.9%); A—enlargement of the initial part of the chart.
Figure 10.
Averaged tensile characteristics and modulus of elasticity determination method for tested materials during static longitudinal tensile test (moisture content 19.9%); A—enlargement of the initial part of the chart.
Figure 11.
Selected results of the static longitudinal compression test (moisture content 19.9%); A—sample number 1, B—sample number 2, C—sample number 3, D—sample number 4, E—sample number 5.
Figure 11.
Selected results of the static longitudinal compression test (moisture content 19.9%); A—sample number 1, B—sample number 2, C—sample number 3, D—sample number 4, E—sample number 5.
Figure 12.
Averaged compression characteristics and method of determining modulus of elasticity for tested materials during static tensile testing; A—sample with 8.74% moisture content, B—sample with 19.9% moisture content.
Figure 12.
Averaged compression characteristics and method of determining modulus of elasticity for tested materials during static tensile testing; A—sample with 8.74% moisture content, B—sample with 19.9% moisture content.
Figure 13.
Selected results of the static shear test crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT) (moisture content 19.9%); A—sample number 1, B—sample number 2, C—sample number 3, D—sample number 4, E—sample number 5.
Figure 13.
Selected results of the static shear test crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT) (moisture content 19.9%); A—sample number 1, B—sample number 2, C—sample number 3, D—sample number 4, E—sample number 5.
Figure 14.
Averaged shear characteristics and method of determining the shear modulus for the tested materials during a static shear test crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT); A—sample with 8.74% moisture content, B—sample with 19.9% moisture content.
Figure 14.
Averaged shear characteristics and method of determining the shear modulus for the tested materials during a static shear test crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT); A—sample with 8.74% moisture content, B—sample with 19.9% moisture content.
Figure 15.
Comparison of mechanical properties due to material moisture content and wood grain direction during tensile test (L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction), (a) stress values, (b) percentage value, where: A—Yield point, B—Tensile strength, C—Modulus of elasticity, D—Decrease in the yield point of the material due to sample moisture, E—Decrease in the tensile properties of the material due to sample moisture, F—Decrease in the modulus of elasticity value due to sample moisture.
Figure 15.
Comparison of mechanical properties due to material moisture content and wood grain direction during tensile test (L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction), (a) stress values, (b) percentage value, where: A—Yield point, B—Tensile strength, C—Modulus of elasticity, D—Decrease in the yield point of the material due to sample moisture, E—Decrease in the tensile properties of the material due to sample moisture, F—Decrease in the modulus of elasticity value due to sample moisture.
Figure 16.
Comparison of mechanical properties due to material moisture content and wood grain direction during compression test (L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction), (a) stress values, (b) percentage value, where: A—Yield point, B—Modulus of elasticity, C—Change of yield point material due to sample moisture, D—Change of modulus of elasticity modulus value due to sample moisture content.
Figure 16.
Comparison of mechanical properties due to material moisture content and wood grain direction during compression test (L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction), (a) stress values, (b) percentage value, where: A—Yield point, B—Modulus of elasticity, C—Change of yield point material due to sample moisture, D—Change of modulus of elasticity modulus value due to sample moisture content.
Figure 17.
Comparison of mechanical properties due to material moisture content and wood grain direction during shear test (crosswise to fibers in the tangential plane (TR), crosswise to fibers in the radial plane (RT), along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT)), (a) stress values, (b) percentage value, where: A—Yield point, B—Wall strength, C—Shear modulus, D—Change in material yield point value due to sample moisture, E—Change in mechanical properties on the material wall due to sample moisture, F—Change of shear modulus value due to sample moisture.
Figure 17.
Comparison of mechanical properties due to material moisture content and wood grain direction during shear test (crosswise to fibers in the tangential plane (TR), crosswise to fibers in the radial plane (RT), along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT)), (a) stress values, (b) percentage value, where: A—Yield point, B—Wall strength, C—Shear modulus, D—Change in material yield point value due to sample moisture, E—Change in mechanical properties on the material wall due to sample moisture, F—Change of shear modulus value due to sample moisture.
Figure 18.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the longitudinal direction (L) during tensile test obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 18.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the longitudinal direction (L) during tensile test obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 19.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the radial direction (R) during tensile test obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 19.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the radial direction (R) during tensile test obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 20.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the tangential direction (T) tensile test obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 20.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the tangential direction (T) tensile test obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 21.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the longitudinal direction (L) during tensile test obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 21.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the longitudinal direction (L) during tensile test obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 22.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the radial direction (R) during tensile test obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 22.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the radial direction (R) during tensile test obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 23.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the tangential direction (T) during tensile test obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 23.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the tangential direction (T) during tensile test obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 24.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the longitudinal direction (L) during compression obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 24.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the longitudinal direction (L) during compression obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 25.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the radial direction (R) during compression obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 25.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the radial direction (R) during compression obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 26.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the tangential direction (T) during compression obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 26.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the tangential direction (T) during compression obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 27.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the longitudinal direction (L) during compression obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 27.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the longitudinal direction (L) during compression obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 28.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the radial direction (R) during compression obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 28.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the radial direction (R) during compression obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 29.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the tangential direction (T) during compression obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 29.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the tangential direction (T) during compression obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 30.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT) during shear obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 30.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT) during shear obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 31.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the direction along the fibers in the radial plane (LR) during shear obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 31.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the direction along the fibers in the radial plane (LR) during shear obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 32.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the direction along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT) during shear obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 32.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 19.9% moisture content in the direction along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT) during shear obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 33.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT) during shear obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 33.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT) during shear obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 34.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the direction along the fibers in the radial plane (LR) during shear obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 34.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the direction along the fibers in the radial plane (LR) during shear obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 35.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the direction along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT) during shear obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 35.
Characteristics of pine wood (Pinus L. Sp. Pl. 1000. 1753) with 8.74% moisture content in the direction along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT) during shear obtained from the FEM analysis and compared with the averaged experimental result.
Figure 36.
Example characteristics showing the methodology of covering the characteristics of the FEM model with the characteristics determined during the strength tests, where: A—the length of the characteristics from the strength test, B—the length of the sections of the FEM model characteristics (±15%) overlapping with the characteristics of the strength tests.
Figure 36.
Example characteristics showing the methodology of covering the characteristics of the FEM model with the characteristics determined during the strength tests, where: A—the length of the characteristics from the strength test, B—the length of the sections of the FEM model characteristics (±15%) overlapping with the characteristics of the strength tests.
Figure 37.
Pine wood samples with a moisture content of 8.74% destroyed during the tensile test compared to the stress distribution in the simulation model, where: samples in the longitudinal direction (L) (a) real, (b) 3D model in the radial direction (R) (c) real, (d) 3D model; in the tangential direction (T) (e) real, (f) 3D model.
Figure 37.
Pine wood samples with a moisture content of 8.74% destroyed during the tensile test compared to the stress distribution in the simulation model, where: samples in the longitudinal direction (L) (a) real, (b) 3D model in the radial direction (R) (c) real, (d) 3D model; in the tangential direction (T) (e) real, (f) 3D model.
Figure 38.
Pine wood samples with a moisture content of 8.74% destroyed during the shear test compared with the stress distribution in the simulation model, where: real samples: (a) crosswise to the fibers in the tangential plane (TR), (b) crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT), (c) along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), (d) along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT); model 3D: (e) crosswise to the fibers in the tangential plane (TR), (f) crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT), (g) along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), (h) along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT).
Figure 38.
Pine wood samples with a moisture content of 8.74% destroyed during the shear test compared with the stress distribution in the simulation model, where: real samples: (a) crosswise to the fibers in the tangential plane (TR), (b) crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT), (c) along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), (d) along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT); model 3D: (e) crosswise to the fibers in the tangential plane (TR), (f) crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT), (g) along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), (h) along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT).
Table 1.
Average values determined on the basis of a static tensile test; L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction.
Table 1.
Average values determined on the basis of a static tensile test; L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction.
Direction (Tensile) | L | R | T |
---|
Sample Type | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
---|
Moisture content [%] | 8.74 | 19.90 | 8.74 | 19.90 | 8.74 | 19.90 |
Cross-section area [mm2] | 80 | 80 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Yield point [MPa] | 7.675 | 6.772 | 1.324 | 0.473 | 0.84 | 0.32 |
Standard deviation | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
Deformation [%] | 0.0022 | 0.0018 | 0.0028 | 0.0018 | 0.0048 | 0.0030 |
Standard deviation | 0.0002 | 0.0002 | 0.0002 | 0.0002 | 0.0002 | 0.0002 |
Tensile strength [MPa] | 76.39 | 74.28 | 4.98 | 3.63 | 3.28 | 1.68 |
Standard deviation | 18.64 | 19.32 | 0.55 | 0.25 | 0.43 | 0.22 |
Deformation [%] | 0.16 | 0.27 | 0.009 | 0.011 | 0.018 | 0.015 |
Standard deviation | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.0004 | 0.0005 | 0.0018 | 0.0007 |
Modulus of elasticity [MPa] | 3838 | 3386 | 662 | 473 | 212 | 161 |
Standard deviation | 5.66 | 4.52 | 2.34 | 2.55 | 2.71 | 3.12 |
Table 2.
Average values determined on the basis of a static compression test; L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction.
Table 2.
Average values determined on the basis of a static compression test; L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction.
Direction (Compression) | L | R | T |
---|
Sample Type | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
---|
Moisture content [%] | 8.74 | 19.90 | 8.74 | 19.90 | 8.74 | 19.90 |
Cross-section area [mm2] | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 |
The limit of proportionality [MPa] | 43.29 | 38.16 | 1.65 | 1.75 | 2.09 | 1.77 |
Standard deviation | 5.1 | 2.8 | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.19 | 0.15 |
Deformation [%] | 1.86 | 1.63 | 0.64 | 1.21 | 1.72 | 1.78 |
Standard deviation | 5.1 | 2.8 | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.19 | 0.15 |
Modulus of elasticity [MPa] | 3218 | 3495 | 314 | 245 | 162 | 145 |
Standard deviation | 5.1 | 2.8 | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.19 | 0.15 |
Table 3.
Average values determined on the basis of a static shear test of a pine sample; crosswise to the fibers in the tangential plane (TR), crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT), along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT).
Table 3.
Average values determined on the basis of a static shear test of a pine sample; crosswise to the fibers in the tangential plane (TR), crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT), along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT).
Direction (Shear) | TR | RT | LR | LT |
---|
Sample Type | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
---|
Moisture content [%] | 8.74 | 19.90 | 8.74 | 19.90 | 8.74 | 19.90 | 8.74 | 19.90 |
Cross section area [mm2] | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 |
Yield point for shearing test [MPa] | 4.74 | 0.972 | 1.60 | 0.61 | 8.46 | 1.93 | 9.03 | 4.51 |
Standard deviation | 0.14 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.28 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.21 | 0.24 |
Deformation [%] | 9.95 | 1.74 | 2.49 | 4.88 | 3.88 | 1.88 | 4.18 | 4.23 |
Standard deviation | 0.19 | 0.20 | 0.22 | 0.43 | 0.16 | 0.33 | 0.22 | 0.23 |
Shear strength | 8.07 | 3.53 | 4.15 | 1.28 | 14.93 | 7.01 | 11.65 | 6.77 |
Standard deviation | 0.54 | 0.61 | 1.04 | 0.34 | 1.09 | 0.71 | 1.32 | 0.92 |
Deformation [%] | 18.30 | 12.76 | 12.33 | 17.78 | 9.51 | 10.43 | 5.74 | 11.32 |
Standard deviation | 1.73 | 2.81 | 2.45 | 3.03 | 2.52 | 0.74 | 0.75 | 2.98 |
Shear modulus [MPa] | 135 | 99 | 114 | 19 | 372 | 210 | 390 | 177 |
Standard deviation | 2.14 | 3.21 | 4.67 | 8.9 | 5.13 | 4.48 | 2.12 | 5.61 |
Table 4.
Engineering constants used in FEM modeling of the wood tensile test.
Table 4.
Engineering constants used in FEM modeling of the wood tensile test.
Mechanical Parameters | Moduli of Elasticity | Poisson’s Ratios | Shear Moduli |
---|
Engineering Constants | E1 [MPa] | E2 [MPa] | E3 [MPa] | ν12 [-] | ν13 [-] | ν23 [-] | G12 [MPa] | G13 [MPa] | G23 [MPa] |
---|
Extension 8.74% (MC) | 3838 | 662 | 212 | 0.332 | 0.365 | 0.384 | 272.5 | 230.3 | 46.1 |
Extension 19.9% (MC) | 3386 | 473 | 161 | 0.392 | 0.444 | 0.447 | 186.2 | 179.5 | 33.9 |
Table 5.
Engineering constants used in FEM modeling of the wood compression test.
Table 5.
Engineering constants used in FEM modeling of the wood compression test.
Mechanical Parameters | Moduli of Elasticity | Poisson’s Ratios | Shear Moduli |
---|
Engineering Constants | E1 [MPa] | E2 [MPa] | E3 [MPa] | ν12 [-] | ν13 [-] | ν23 [-] | G12 [MPa] | G13 [MPa] | G23 [MPa] |
---|
Compression 8.74% (MC) | 3218 | 314 | 162 | 0.332 | 0.365 | 0.384 | 372 | 390 | 114 |
Compression 19.9% (MC) | 3495 | 245 | 145 | 0.28 | 0.364 | 0.389 | 210 | 177 | 19 |
Table 6.
Engineering constants used in FEM modeling of the wood shear test.
Table 6.
Engineering constants used in FEM modeling of the wood shear test.
Mechanical Parameters | Moduli of Elasticity | Poisson’s Ratios | Shear Moduli |
---|
Engineering Constants | E1 [MPa] | E2 [MPa] | E3 [MPa] | ν12 [-] | ν13 [-] | ν23 [-] | G12 [MPa] | G13 [MPa] | G23 [MPa] |
---|
Shear B 8.74% (MC) | 314 | 162 | - | 0.384 | - | - | 114 | 372 | 390 |
Shear B 19.9% (MC) | 245 | 145 | - | 0.389 | - | - | 19 | 210 | 177 |
Shear C 8.74% (MC) | 3218 | 314 | - | 0.332 | - | - | 372 | 390 | 114 |
Shear C 19.9% (MC) | 3495 | 245 | - | 0.28 | - | - | 210 | 177 | 19 |
Shear D 8.74% (MC) | 3218 | 162 | - | 0.365 | - | - | 390 | 372 | 114 |
Shear D 19.9% (MC) | 3495 | 145 | - | 0.364 | - | - | 177 | 210 | 19 |
Table 7.
Comparison of model convergence with strength tests during tensile testing at the point of damage; L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction.
Table 7.
Comparison of model convergence with strength tests during tensile testing at the point of damage; L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction.
Direction | L | R | T |
---|
Moisture content [%] | 8.74 | 19.9 | 8.74 | 19.9 | 8.74 | 19.9 |
FEM model [MPa] | 64 | 41 | 4.38 | 3.48 | 3.27 | 1.68 |
Strength tests [MPA] | 76 | 74 | 4.98 | 3.57 | 3.04 | 1.65 |
Error [%] | 16 | 44 | 12 | 2.5 | 7.5 | 2 |
Table 8.
Comparison of model convergence with strength tests during compression test at the point of damage; L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction.
Table 8.
Comparison of model convergence with strength tests during compression test at the point of damage; L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction.
Direction | L | R | T |
---|
Moisture content [%] | 8.74 | 19.9 | 8.74 | 19.9 | 8.74 | 19.9 |
FEM model [MPa] | 51 | 44 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 4.6 | 3.6 |
Strength tests [MPA] | 51 | 43.5 | 3.4 | 2.5 | 4.4 | 3.4 |
Error [%] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 4.5 | 5.5 |
Table 9.
Comparison of model convergence with strength tests during the shear testing at the point of damage; crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT), along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT).
Table 9.
Comparison of model convergence with strength tests during the shear testing at the point of damage; crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT), along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT).
Direction | RT | LR | LT |
---|
Moisture content [%] | 8.74 | 19.9 | 8.74 | 19.9 | 8.74 | 19.9 |
FEM model [MPa] | 4.3 | 1.5 | 16 | 7.5 | 11.9 | 7.4 |
Strength tests [MPA] | 4.1 | 1.3 | 15 | 7.1 | 11.6 | 6.8 |
Error [%] | 5 | 13 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 8 |
Table 10.
Comparison of the convergence characteristics of the model with the strength tests during the tensile test; L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction.
Table 10.
Comparison of the convergence characteristics of the model with the strength tests during the tensile test; L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction.
Direction | L | R | T |
---|
Moisture content [%] | 8.74 | 19.9 | 8.74 | 19.9 | 8.74 | 19.9 |
Error 15% [%] | 25 | 31 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Table 11.
Comparison of the convergence characteristics of the model with the strength tests during the compression test; L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction.
Table 11.
Comparison of the convergence characteristics of the model with the strength tests during the compression test; L—longitudinal direction, R—radial direction, T—tangential direction.
Direction | L | R | T |
---|
Moisture Content [%] | 8.74 | 19.9 | 8.74 | 19.9 | 8.74 | 19.9 |
Error 15% [%] | 95 | 94 | 100 | 22 | 96 | 97 |
Table 12.
Comparison of the convergence characteristics of the model with the strength tests during the shear test; crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT), along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT).
Table 12.
Comparison of the convergence characteristics of the model with the strength tests during the shear test; crosswise to the fibers in the radial plane (RT), along the fibers in the radial plane (LR), along the fibers in the tangential plane (LT).
Direction | RT | LR | LT |
---|
Moisture Content [%] | 8.74 | 19.9 | 8.74 | 19.9 | 8.74 | 19.9 |
Error 15% [%] | 94 | 5 | 96 | 99 | 51 | 85 |