Next Article in Journal
Effect of Yarn-Level Fibre Hybridisation on Thermomechanical Behaviour of 3D Woven Orthogonal Flax/E-Glass Composite Laminae
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrogels for Wound Dressings: Applications in Burn Treatment and Chronic Wound Care
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Analysis of Bending and Rolling Shear Performance of Poplar and Hybrid Maple–Poplar Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT)

1
Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay College of Horticulture and Forestry, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University Pusa, Samastipur 848125, India
2
Department of Wood Processing and Biomaterials, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 1176, 16521 Prague-Suchdol, Czech Republic
3
ICFRE-Institute of Wood Science and Technology, 18th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore 560003, India
4
Institute for Building Materials, ETH Zürich, CH 8093 Zürich, Switzerland
5
Faculty of Agriculture & Allied Sciences, CV Raman Global University, Bhubaneswar 752054, India
6
Department of Wood Science, Technical University in Zvolen, T. G. Masaryka 24, 96001 Zvolen, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9(3), 134; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9030134
Submission received: 29 January 2025 / Revised: 7 March 2025 / Accepted: 10 March 2025 / Published: 13 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Fiber Composites)

Abstract

:
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is gaining popularity as a sustainable alternative to traditional building materials. However, the decline of natural vegetation and the growth of plantation hardwoods has led the researchers to consider alternatives. This study presents a comparative analysis of bending and rolling shear performance of homogenous poplar (Populus nigra L.) CLT and hybrid CLT, with maple (Acer platanoides L.), in the outer layer and poplar in the core, compared to spruce (Picea abies (L.), H. Karst.) CLT. The CLT panels were prepared using one-component polyurethane (1C-PUR) and melamine adhesive (ME). Poplar CLT exhibited equal or better properties than spruce CLT. The outer maple layer in the hybrid CLT enhanced the global bending modulus (Emg) and bending strength (fm) by 74% and 37%, respectively, due to its higher modulus of elasticity better shear resistance by reducing the cross-layer stress concentrations and rolling shear failure. Additionally, both the adhesive types and wood species significantly influenced the fm, Emg, and rolling shear strength (fr) independently, while their interaction effect was found to be non-significant. The experimental bending stiffness was higher than the theoretical values. The shear analogy method provided the most accurate results for bending and shear strengths, while bending stiffness was best predicted by the modified gamma method, with minor variations. The finite-element models (FEMs) also produced results with a deviation of only 10%.

1. Introduction

Global warming, climate change, rising pollution, and environmental degradation demand the use of renewable, sustainable, and low-carbon construction materials [1]. Conventional construction materials such as concrete and steel exhibit higher levels of embodied carbon, thereby contributing substantially to climate change. In response, carbon-neutral green building materials have attracted attention among researchers, particularly the use of renewable resources like lumber [2]. Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is gaining popularity as a sustainable alternative to traditional building materials because of its advantages, such as massive dimension, high prefabrication potential, reduction in construction time, seismic safety, lightweight, and ease of installation. Conventional CLT comprises panels with three to nine layers of wood, bonded orthogonally using structural adhesive [1,3]. Global production of CLT panels is projected to reach 3 million cubic metres by 2025 [4], with Europe contributing 2 million cubic metres in 2023 [5]. Traditionally, CLT panels have been made from softwoods such as spruce, pine, and fir [1,3]. However, the increasing demand for CLT and the decline in forest cover have driven researchers to explore the use of lower-grade plantation-grown hardwoods, such as poplar and other cultivated wood species, to meet these needs. Furthermore, new forest management strategies involving the cultivation of lower-grade hardwoods, such as poplar and willow, have augmented Europe’s hardwood supply [6]. Since the beginning of the 21st century, numerous studies have evaluated the suitability of various hardwoods for CLT panels in response to changing global forest composition.
Rolling shear is an inherent characteristic of CLT resulting from the perpendicular arrangement of subsequent layers and the comparatively low shear strength and modulus perpendicular to the wood [7]. Additionally, wood has significant anisotropy, indicating that its properties differ across the three mutually perpendicular axes [7]. The shear moduli in the radial-tangential (RT) plane, often referred to as the rolling shear modulus, can be up to ten times greater than the shear moduli in the longitudinal-tangential (LT) planes [8]. Softwoods are particularly more prone to rolling shear failure due to their elongated wood fibres, which are susceptible to shearing or sliding, as well as their lower shear strength along the grain [9,10]. For the hardwood species, rolling shear failure is often caused by the density variation between early and late wood, especially at the interface [10,11]. The rolling shear modulus of conventional spruce CLT varies from 100 to 141 N/mm2 [8] which is reportedly lower than that of hardwood CLT panels such as beech [10,12,13], maple [14], poplar [12,15], eucalyptus [16,17]. Hardwoods are known for their superior strength and rigidity, which enhance the load-carrying capability of CLT panels by reducing the risk of rolling shear failure [12,15,16]. Additionally, hardwood CLT requires 10–15% less material than softwood CLT to achieve comparable strength [18]. However, the primary challenge with hardwood CLT is its lower bond strength and durability, as well as its tendency for increased delamination, as highlighted by various researchers [11,19].
Numerous studies have indicated the potential of hybrid or mixed species CLT composed of various wood species with differing densities and grades [10,12,13,14] or structural composites such as plywood, oriented strand board (OSB), laminated strand lumber (LSL), and laminated veneer lumber (LVL) [20] to enhance material resources and achieve high-strength structural materials. However, very limited studies are available on the suitability of poplar wood for homogeneous and hybrid CLT manufacturing with a high-density outer layer. In hybrid CLT panels, high-density outer layers enhance bending performance [14,16], whereas core layers augment shear performance [17,21,22]. Consequently, designers of hybrid CLT panels must assess the influence of the outer and core layers on ultimate load capacity and serviceability [3]. Hematabadi et al. [12] reported that low-density poplar (Populus alba) CLT exhibited reduced Emg relative to larch and pine; however, a high-density beech (Fagus orientalis) core layer with poplar outer layers enhanced bending performance by 12.5% and rolling shear by 30%. In a similar vein, Sciomenta et al. [13] observed an increase in bending (37%) and rolling shear performance (24%) in hybrid beech-Corsican pine (Fagus sylvaticaPinus nigra) CLT compared to the homogeneous Corsican pine CLT, attributed to the superior density and rolling shear modulus of beech wood. Furthermore, melamine–urea–formaldehyde (MUF) adhesive demonstrated enhanced performance relative to polyurethane (PUR). In a separate investigation, Lu et al. [22] indicated that hybrid poplar–Douglas fir CLT exhibited approximately 8% greater bending stiffness, whereas hybrid Douglas fir–poplar CLT showed 22% enhanced bending stiffness compared to pure poplar CLT. Yin et al. [23] observed that the high-density outer layer enhanced bending performance by 15% and rolling shear by 12% compared to low-density CLT panels made from Chinese fir. Ma et al. [14] reported that hybrid maple–spruce CLT (Acer saccharumPicea glauca) exhibits a 28% greater modulus of elasticity compared to hybrid spruce–maple CLT while demonstrating a 24% reduction in rolling shear strength due to the lower rolling shear modulus of the core spruce wood. The core beech layer enhanced the rolling shear performance of hybrid spruce–beech CLT nearly threefold compared to spruce CLT, as reported by Aicher et al. [10], and 1.8 times greater than laminated strand lumber (LSL) [20].
Theoretical methodologies (shear analogies, modified gamma, Timoshenko beam theory, and composite theory) alongside the finite element method (FEM) are effective means of analyzing the bending performance of CLT panels [21,24]. Compared to experimental data, the shear analogy forecasts a 25% reduced bending stiffness for white ash and red maple CLT [25]. At the same time, He et al. [26] reported that the effective bending stiffness via shear analogy (EIeff, shear) yielded the most precise result for local bending stiffness (EIl). In contrast, modified gamma theory (EIeff, gamma) was more accurate for global bending stiffness (EIg). The authors further observed that FEM could evaluate the stiffness and strength of CLT panels with a range of 10–20% accuracy. Shear analogies showed higher precision for bending and rolling shear strength, whereas bending stiffness was the gamma method [17,21,24]. Huang et al. [7] reported that the composite beam theory and shear analogy technique yield precise findings for fr in the context of out-of-plane bending; however, the modified gamma method demonstrates excellent reliability with the redesigned planar configuration. Dobeš et al. [27] noted that the FEM forecasted a maximum displacement that was 7% more than the actual values. Furthermore, FEM was shown to underestimate the maximum load capacity of thinner panels by 4%, while overestimating it by 20% for thicker panels [21]. In contrast, Navaratnam et al. [24] observed that the FEM underestimated the bending stiffness of three-layered radiata pine CLT by 5% while overestimating it by 13% for five-layered CLT.
As CLT is a structural component, its mechanical properties like Emg, fm, and fr must be considered during structural design. Furthermore, designing wall, floor or roof assemblies composed of CLT panels needs consideration for the maximum compressive stress both parallel and perpendicular to the grain directions. Several studies indicated that hardwood CLTs outperformed the typical softwood CLTs in terms of mechanical properties, like load-bearing capabilities, material consumption, and the risk of rolling shear failure [12,15,16]. Still, the bond line delamination in hardwood CLTs is a major drawback. Moreover, increasing demand for CLT and expansion of plantation-grown hardwood forests, like poplar and other cultivated species necessitates the researchers to explore the feasibility of utilizing these materials in CLT manufacturing. This exploration involves analyzing their properties in homogeneous CLT panels made entirely from single species and hybrid CLT panels that combine different wood species. Selecting suitable species depends on factors such as resource availability, economic viability and compliance with established minimum performance criteria to ensure that the chosen species or combination of species meets the required structural and environmental standards.
In the Czech Republic, poplar (Populus spp.) and maple (Acer spp.), two common fast-growing species, make up around 24% of the avenue plantations [28]. Moreover, the latest iteration of EN 16351 [29] identifies poplar as the sole hardwood species for the production of CLT panels, with minimal study concerning maple [16]. Das et al. [19] showed superior bonding performance of both poplar and hybrid maple–poplar CLT, compared to spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.) CLT. This study was carried out with the that CLT from poplar, which has a density almost comparable to that of spruce, may match or surpass the conventional spruce CLT in terms of both bending and rolling shear performance. Additionally, the study also explores the potential benefits of hybrid CLT panels prepared by combining low-density poplar in the core and high-density maple in the outer layer with an expectation to achieve enhanced load-bearing capabilities, material efficiency, and reduced risk of rolling shear failure. Utilization of low-density and underutilized hardwoods in CLT production aligns with sustainability objectives by enhancing the resource base. The experimental results were compared with theoretically predicted values from three different methodologies: Timoshenko beam theory, shear analogies, and modified gamma. Additionally, finite element models (FEMs) were utilized to evaluate the bending stiffness.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

The study included two hardwood species, poplar (Populus nigra L.) and maple (Acer platanoides L.), as well as a softwood, Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.), which were obtained from a commercial provider (woodstore) in the Czech Republic, and possessed the nominal dimensions of a 150 mm width, a 3 m length, and a thickness of 30 mm. The kiln-dried lumber exhibited a moisture content of 13%, and was classified as Grade B. Low-density poplar, demonstrating a moderate load-bearing capacity akin to that of spruce, was used for both the homogeneous CLT and the core layer of hybrid CLT panels. The external layers of hybrid CLT panels were constructed from high-density maple, which exhibits exceptional mechanical qualities. Additionally, homogeneous spruce CLT was made for comparison. After the acquisition of the lumber, it was acclimatized at 20 °C and 65% relative humidity before specimen preparation. The lumber’s modulus of elasticity (MOE) was determined using the FAKOPP Ultrasound Timer UT-06/2013, produced by Fakopp Enterprise, Gfalva, Hungary. The mean density, moisture content and modulus of elasticity (MOE) values of each species have been provided in Table 1.
A single-component polyurethane adhesive (1C-PUR) (Adhesive 2010) and a liquid melamine adhesive (Plus A011), accompanied by a hardener (H011), provided by Akzo Nobel (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), were used to fabricate the CLT panels. The objective was to evaluate the impact of the adhesive on the panels’ bending and rolling shear performance. The manufacturer and product listing assert that the ME lacks formaldehyde. The 1C-PUR is a pure solid with a viscosity between 6000 and 19,000 mPas, while a liquid hardener with 65% solid content has a viscosity ranging from 1500 to 9000 mPas.

2.2. Preparation of the Three-Layered CLT Panels

During production, lamellas with visible wood defects, such as bending, knots, splitting, or fractures, were discarded to prevent material faults from affecting the final product’s quality. The lamellas were randomly picked based on their visual qualities, following the guidelines provided by Jan Brundin et al. [30]. The outer layers were devoid of any imperfections and had dimensions of 2000 mm × 75 mm × 20 mm (length × width × thickness), while the lamellas with minor permissible amounts of defects according to the standard [28], were processed for the core layer, with dimensions of 300 mm × 75 mm × 20 mm (length × width × thickness), to prepare CLT panels of 2000 mm × 300 mm × 60 mm, as shown in Figure 1. As such, a layup was followed as the mechanical properties of CLT are predominantly controlled by the outer layers while the core layer only serves as a link between the outer layers and transfers the stress while.
Using a wooden spatula, one side of the face layers was applied with glue at a rate of 180 g/m2 for 1C-PUR and 300 g/m2 for ME. Following the manufacturer’s instructions, the ME was applied using an adhesive-to-hardener ratio of 100:100 (weight-to-weight). Following glueing, each panel was assembled and pressed at 1 MPa pressure for 1 h at 20 °C. The production procedure did not include edge glueing since it had less influence [19]. CLT panels were kept at room temperature for nearly two days after pressing to completely cure adhesives. After trimming on both sides, CLT panels were conditioned for three weeks at 65 ± 5% RH and 20 ± 2 °C before testing.

2.3. Experimental Testing

2.3.1. Bending Test

EN 16351 [29] compliance four-point bending test was conducted to evaluate the bending performance, with the span length being 18 times the thickness (h) of the panel (18 h), as shown in Figure 2, using the universal testing machine TIRA 2850 S E5, Germany (TIRA, Schalkau, Germany). Ten replicate samples, with a total of 60 specimens, were examined for each adhesive and layup. The test specimens were supported at both ends and the loading points, and were spaced six times more than the panel thickness (6 h) between the center and either end of the opposite support. The load was gradually increased, reaching a peak in about 300 ± 120 s. The extensometer linked to the testing apparatus determined the total deflection, while the connected PC recorded the load–displacement curves. Using Equation (1) [24,26], the global bending stiffness (EImg) was calculated as follows:
E I m g = 3 a l 2 4 a 3 48 ( W 2 W 1 F 2 F 1 3 a 5 G b h )
where a—loading point distance to the nearest support (mm), l—specimen length between supports (mm), h and b—panel thickness and width (mm), F2F1—increase in of load corresponds to 10% and 40% of maximum load (N), W2W1—increase in displacement proportional to load F2F1 (mm), G—shear modulus (N/mm2).
Using Equation (2), suggested by Navaratnam et al. [24], the bending strength (fm) was calculated as follows:
f m = 3 F a b h 2
where fm is the bending strength (N/mm2), and F is the maximum load (N).

2.3.2. Rolling Shear (RS) Test

Following EN 16351 [29], the RS strength was evaluated with a short-span four-point bending test was conducted over the span of nine times more than the thickness of the panel (9 h), as seen in Figure 3. Similarly to the bending test, ten replicate samples, with a total of 60 specimens, were examined for each adhesive and layup. Both loading points were positioned at a distance that was three times the panel thickness (3 h) from each end of the supports and their position ensured that they were spaced apart equally. The computer recorded the load–displacement curve throughout the test, which was conducted using the UTM Instron 5882 (Illinois ToolWorks Inc., Norwood, MA, USA) at a 10 mm/min loading rate.
Equation (3) was used, as Li et al. [21] suggested, to calculate the CLT panels’ RS strength (fr).
f r = 3 F u 4 b h

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The study used a randomized factorial design. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted using Statistica 13 (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) to assess the influence of wood species and adhesive type on the bending and rolling shear properties of CLT panels. The Tukey HSD test (p < 0.05) was used to determine statistical significance between datasets.

2.5. Theoretical Calculation

This research used three widely used theoretical methods: shear analogy (SA), Timoshenko beam theory (TBT), and modified gamma (MG). According to SA, bending stiffness is the product of the rigidity of the layer and Steiner’s stiffness in proximity to the neutral axis [31]. TBT is an extended version of the Bernoulli–Euler theory and calculates the flexural stiffness of CLT with the layer’s characteristics and their arrangement while considering the effect of shear [31]. The most widely used MG approach relies only on the hypothesis of mechanically linked beams without considering shear deformation [24]. As suggested by Brandner et al. [31], Equations (4)–(6) were used to calculate the bending stiffness by all three methods.
E I e f f , s h e a r = i = 1 n E i b i h i 3 12 + i = 1 n E i A i Z i 2
E I e f f , t i m o = i = 1 n ( E i I i ) + i = 1 n E i A i e s i 2
E I e f f , g a m m a = i = 1 n ( E i b i h i 3 12 ) + i = 1 n E i A i Z i 2 γ i
where Ei is the MOE of the ith-layer (N/mm2), bi and hi are the width and thickness of the ith-layer (mm), Ai is the area of the ith-layer (mm2), Zi is the distance between the center of ith layer to the neutral axis (mm), Ii is the moment of inertia of the ith-layer, esi is similar to Zi (mm), and γi is the connection efficiency factor.
Using Equation (7), suggested by Brandner et al. [31], the connection efficiency factor (γi) was calculated as follows:
γ i = 1 + ( π 2 E i b i h i L e f f 2 ( G b j / h j ) ) 1
where Leff represents effective the specimen length, and j represents the transverse layer.
Equations (8) and (9), suggested by Li et al. [21], were used to calculate the theoretical bending strength (fm) and rolling shear strength (τm) as follows:
f m = M m a x S e f f
τ m = V m a x I e f f × Q b
where fm and τm represent theoretical bending and rolling shear strength (N/mm2), respectively; Vmax and Mmax represent maximum shear force (kN) and bending moment (N/mm), respectively; Q represents area moment of the specimen (mm3); Seff represents the section modulus as calculated by EIeff by E1 × hi/2 [26].

2.6. Finite Element Modelling

As a composite material, the CLT panels were modelled using ANSYS 2019 R13. The individual layers of CLT panels were simulated as an orthotropic material with varying elastic characteristics in the longitudinal, tangential, and radial axes. The model omitted wood imperfections such as knots, cracks, annular rings, and other issues. The orthotropic CLT panels’ mechanical behaviour is determined by nine distinct elastic constants, including three elastic moduli (EL, ER, ET), three Poisson’s ratios (vLR, vLT, vRT), and three shear moduli (GLR, GLT, GRT). Table 2 displays the different wood properties used for the modelling.
The three-layer composite CLT panels were made of orthotopically aligned poplar layers for homogenous poplar CLT and outer maple with core poplar wood for hybrid CLT, which were joined together with polyurethane (1C-PUR) and melamine adhesive (ME) separately. The outer and core layers were connected without gaps; their faces and edges could not slide or separate. Since the outer and core layers were not edge bonded, their interaction is modelled as friction. Tangential movements are affected by friction. The coefficient of friction (f) was assumed to be 0.5 for easier numerical modelling, based on Dobeš et al.’s [27] findings that reported a coefficient of friction of 0.65 between wood and steel. The CLT panels and auxiliary components, such as steel loading rollers and supports, were represented using SOLID186 elements. All 20 element nodes have three degrees of freedom, allowing strain, deflection, hyperelasticity, creep, and stress stiffening in all three dimensions. A single homogeneous unit represents the loads and supports at both ends and the middle. This simulation employed boundary conditions like the experiment depicted in Figure 4 [27,32]. A hinged or fixed support inhibiting the displacement and roller support allowing X-axis movement were given for each CLT panel at the end, and two rollers loaded the top layer, identical to the experiment. The auto-generated shared topology was used to create the mesh. The CLT models were loaded with a load of 21,500 N for both FA and FB, as determined in the experiment [32].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Bending Characteristics

Figure 5 illustrates the mean load versus displacement curves for homogeneous spruce, poplar, and hybrid CLT panels, incorporating both adhesive types. The samples with similar lamella types demonstrated similar load–displacement curves, characterized by a linear trend until the maximum load (Fmax), followed by a reduction in force leading to brittle failure. The orthotropic characteristics of wood and their orthogonal configuration in CLT panels likely contributed to the brittle failure and subsequent reduction in maximum load [12,17]. Some specimens, particularly in hybrid CLT, exhibited varying degrees of ductility, which were attributed to the longitudinal maple layers, which supported greater loads despite the core transverse layers experiencing rolling shear failure [23]. The maximum load (Fmax) of the poplar CLT panels that bonded with 1C-PUR ranged from 27,530 to 36,190 N, with an average value of 32,200 N. Conversely, the panels bonded with ME demonstrated a Fmax ranging from 28,100 to 35,890 N, with a mean value of 30,890 N. Hematabadi et al. [12] reported similar results. In spruce CLT panels, the mean Fmax recorded was 32,200 N for 1C-PUR and 30,890 N for ME, which is consistent with the findings of Sikora et al. [33]. The high-density of the outer maple lamellas in hybrid CLT panels significantly enhances their load-bearing capacity compared to poplar and spruce, with mean Fmax values of 43,290 N and 42,856 N for 1C-PUR and MEs, respectively [23]. Additionally, the maximum displacement (dmax) was greater in poplar CLT compared to spruce and hybrid CLT. Despite the variation in modulus of elasticity between poplar and spruce wood, poplar exhibited commendable performance regarding its load-bearing capacity. The lower density and resultant flexibility of poplar permit greater deflection (dmax) prior to failure, indicating that poplar CLT can undergo more deformation before fracturing.
Hybrid CLT demonstrated a load-bearing capability that was 33% greater than that of spruce CLT, which exhibited an approximately 11% higher value than poplar CLT. The enhanced load-bearing capacity of hybrid CLT panels can be attributed to the incorporation of a low-density core made of poplar, which may be compressed by high-density maple layers on the exterior [34]. This is partly because if two species possess similar densities, their cellular architectures are likely to exhibit significant similarities, leading to reduced variation in densification under the same pressure conditions. However, the homogenous CLT panels (poplar and spruce) demonstrate consistency in thickness, grade, and anatomical structure. Due to their uniformity, minimal densification occurred, resulting in inferior load-bearing ability compared to hybrid CLT.
Table 3 displays the statistical analysis of wood species, adhesives, and their interactions on CLT panels’ global bending modulus of elasticity (Emg) and bending strength (fm). From the statistical analysis, it was observed that the effect of wood species is highly significant for both Emg and fm (p = 0.000), and so as well as the adhesive (p = 0.043); however, the interaction effect was insignificant (p = 0.978).
Figure 6 illustrates the Emg and fm as functions of adhesive and species. In poplar CLT, the mean Emg and fm were 7949 N/mm2 and 31.10 N/mm2, respectively, with 1C-PUR adhesive and 7802 N/mm2 and 29.97 N/mm2, respectively, with ME. Similarly, the Emg values for spruce CLT were recorded as 8338 N/mm2 and 8152 N/mm2, and the fm values of 32.01 N/mm2 and 31.63 N/mm2, with 1C-PUR and ME, respectively. For hybrid CLT, the Emg values were 13,426 N/mm2 and 13,276 N/mm2, with the fm values of 44.78 N/mm2 and 44.33 N/mm2 for 1C-PUR and ME, respectively. The results indicated a variation of only 4% in the bending performance of the CLT panels concerning the adhesive type, which is similar to the results of Ma et al. [14], who reported a roughly 5% variation in maple and hybrid maple–spruce CLT bonded with PRF and MF. The reported results of poplar CLT are nearly equivalent to those of spruce CLT, whereas the outer maple in the hybrid CLT enhanced the Emg by 74% and the fm by 37% due to lamella anisotropy and inherent strength. According to Niederwestberg [35], when CLT panels were loaded perpendicular to the grain, the core layer of a three-layered CLT panel with a uniform layer thickness only contributed to about 38% of the total stiffness, with a MOE ratio of 16 between the top and core layers. This might have one cause where the outer maple layer primarily contributed to bending performance. Another possible reason could be that the low-density of the core poplar may effectively absorb the compressive stresses within the elastic range, ensuring structural integrity under stress without enduring irreversible deformation [36]; conversely, the outer high-density maple improves the panel ductility, enabling more efficiency to withstand cracks and failures [2]. Nonetheless, the uniformity of the lamellas in both spruce and poplar CLT had a minimal impact on the adhesive-type changes in both Emg and fm. The findings of our study are consistent with earlier research on spruce CLT conducted by Sikora et al. [33] and Davis et al. [20], as well as on poplar CLT by Hematabdi et al. [12]. However, maple–poplar hybrid CLT’s performance is comparatively lower than hybrid maple–spruce CLT, as indicated by Ma et al. [14].

3.2. Rolling Shear Test

Figure 7 illustrates the impact of wood species and adhesive type on the rolling shear strength (fr) of CLT panels. The load versus displacement curves for both bending and rolling shear exhibit similarities. Consistent with the findings of Ma et al. [14], both wood species and adhesive type were significant (p = 0.00) as individual factors in predicting fr, whereas their interaction effect was not significant (p = 0.562). The rolling shear strength of spruce CLT bonded with 1C-PUR was 1.88 N/mm2, while that of ME-bonded CLT was 2.003 N/mm2. In a similar manner, the fr of poplar CLT was measured at 2.13 N/mm2 and 2.17 N/mm2, whereas hybrid CLT exhibited values of 3.08 N/mm2 and 3.17 N/mm2 for 1C-PUR and ME, respectively. It was additionally noted that ME exhibited a higher fr than 1C-PUR, consistent with the findings of Sciomenta et al. [13]. The formic acid hardener in ME might have catalyzed the curing process by reducing its viscosity and pH and increasing the fr [32]. The reduced fr in spruce CLT may be attributed to the vulnerability of softwoods to rolling shear failure or their short fibre characteristics [10,15]. Furthermore, the current CLT design approach recommends a GRT of 50 N/mm2 for spruce, whereas Karakoç et al. [37] reported a reduced GRT of 25 N/mm2 in spruce, potentially contributing to the lower fr. Furthermore, the fr of poplar observed in our study exceeds that of spruce CLT and the values reported by Hematabadi et al. [12]. The fr of hybrid CLT panels was enhanced by incorporating high-density maple in the outer lamellae, as noted by Nero et al. [16], surpassing the values reported for red maple [25] and birch CLT [17]. A potential explanation may be the elevated strength-to-density ratio or the planar shear modulus of the core poplar in both poplar and hybrid CLT, which could have influenced this higher result [17]. The elevated fr in poplar and hybrid CLT may also result from notable density fluctuations in their latewood regions [38]. Furthermore, hardwoods exhibit a higher fr due to their shear modulus in the radial-tangential (GRT) plane being over 40% of the GLT, in contrast to 10% for softwoods [38].
Table 4 illustrates the interactions between wood species and adhesives derived from the Tukey HSD test, which was used to compare all means. According to the findings, the Emg hybrid CLT is not statistically significant for adhesive types; however, they are significant compared to both poplar and spruce CLT. While spruce bonded with MF reported comparable findings with 1C-PUR bonded poplar, which are not statistically significant. Similar results were also obtained for fm where hybrid CLT is not statistically significant for adhesive types. Additionally, both 1C-PUR bonded poplar and MF bonded spruce reported similar fm values, which are not significantly different. However, for fr, both hybrid and spruce CLT offered a significant difference, whereas it was not significant for poplar.
Several studies have demonstrated that gaps and insufficient edge-glueing adversely affect CLT’s physical and mechanical properties. Gardner et al. [39] indicated that a gap of less than 6 mm from non-edge glueing reduces CLT’s bending stiffness and shear strength, with a maximum variation in only 2%. Franzoni et al. [40] observed that narrow gaps had minimal impact on bending stiffness due to the negligible cross-layer contribution, while wider gaps considerably reduced shear stiffness. Brandner [30] indicates that edge glueing may result in irregular crack patterns on the wooden surface of face layers due to shrinkage and swelling, which can be mitigated through non-edge glueing methods. Furthermore, the gaps resulting from non-edge glueing are chiefly accountable for the panels’ stress concentration and eventual failure [39,40]. Sound and dead knots significantly affected the load-bearing capacity of the CLT panels [41]. The factors may have influenced their mechanical performance, as the chosen core lamellas were of grade B with visual grading, exhibiting acceptable defects and lacking edge glueing.

3.3. Failure Modes in Bending and Rolling Shear

Figure 8 illustrates the failures observed in bending and rolling shear tests. Most CLT panels experienced failures primarily due to rolling shear (RS) failures, including core-layer delamination and bending failure on the bottom. As stress increased, RS failure, as illustrated in Figure 8a, initiated at the beam centre and progressed toward the supports [12]. As the load on hybrid CLT increased, the low-density core of poplar caused greater deformation, which transmitted stress to the outer maple layers. This resulted in rolling shear failure and delamination between the layers. Dong et al. [42] reported analogous failure patterns. Tensile failures (Figure 8b) in the longitudinal direction may result from knots and other defects in wood fibres or the reduced load-carrying capacity of both poplar and spruce lamellas in homogeneous CLT [12,33], while the tensile strength of maple may have also played a role in hybrid CLT [38]. The midspan deflection increases with the load, resulting in stress at the supporting ends. Failure initiates at the supporting ends when the stress surpasses the bonding strength, as illustrated in Figure 8c.

3.4. Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Data

Two global bending stiffness values were calculated for each CLT panel: one utilizing the respective shear value (EImg, s) and the other assuming an infinite shear value (EImg, i), as outlined by Li et al. [21]. The infinite shear modulus is a theoretical concept that evaluates a material’s capacity to resist deformation without shear stress and distortion. The average bending stiffness of poplar CLT was 4.46 × 1011 Nmm2, whereas for spruce, it was 4.82 × 1011 Nmm2 and 7.24 × 1011 Nmm2 for hybrid CLT with shear. Nevertheless, an infinite shear modulus results in a minimal variation of approximately 1% across all CLT panels, aligning with the results reported by Li et al. [21] and Navaratnam et al. [24]. The experimental bending stiffness (EImg) and the theoretical predictions are presented in Figure 9. Similarly to the findings of Sikora et al. [33] and He et al. [26], the experimental EImg exceeds all theoretical values of bending stiffness. The theoretical values exhibited a variation of only 12% in hybrid CLT, while the variation was 19% for both spruce and poplar CLT. This variation could be caused by the variation in material properties or the potential densification of the low-density poplar core layer between the high-density maple layers, contributing to the reduced variability observed in the hybrid CLT panels [42]. Dong et al. [42] reported a 7% variation in hybrid CLT–bamboo composite panels compared to homogeneous CLT panels. The results indicate that SA and TBT exhibit equivalent effective bending stiffness values, whereas MG demonstrates lower values but reports the highest accuracy with the connection efficiency factor (γ) [17,21]. The integration of the shear modulus (G) with the influence of shear deformation may have diminished the precision of the theoretical analysis method [33]. The results obtained are more precise than those reported by Crovella et al. [25], who utilized a modulus of elasticity for red maple and white ash and identified a 25% variance in their experimental findings.
Figure 10 compares the experimentally determined bending and shear strengths with the values predicted through theoretical analysis. The figure indicated that the theoretical approaches reported a lower rolling shear strength by 6.5% and an overestimation of bending strength by 4.5% compared to the experimental findings. Li et al. [21] reported similar findings, identifying a 7% variation between experimental and theoretically predicted values. The SA approach demonstrated superior accuracy in predicting the highest bending and rolling shear strength, surpassing the performance of the MG and TBM methods. The variation was primarily attributed to the differences in bending stiffness values in the theoretical calculation approach. The MG approach exhibited the lowest accuracy in evaluating bending and shear strength, which is consistent with the findings of Li et al. [21] and Sikora et al. [33]. Based on the findings, the theoretical methods demonstrate effective prediction of bending and shear strength.
Figure 11 illustrates the load–displacement curves obtained from the finite element method analysis. The FEM analysis indicated that under a load of 31,240 N, the deflection in poplar CLT was 17.26 mm. In contrast, the comparison of the experimental results with the FEM values indicated that the deflection was approximately 12% lower than the experimental measurements. The results obtained from FEM and experimental analysis indicated a variation of 11% for spruce CLT and 18% for hybrid CLT. The perfect bonding approach and removing non-edge glueing gaps during finite element modelling may account for the discrepancy between experimental values and finite element analysis [27]. The results obtained aligned with the findings of Wang et al. [32].
Figure 12 indicates that poplar CLT experiences a compressive stress of 33.61 N/mm2 and a tensile stress of 33.69 N/mm2 at the center of the cross-section. In contrast, spruce CLT exhibits compressive and tensile stresses of 31.53 N/mm2 and 32.61 N/mm2, while hybrid CLT shows 45.30 N/mm2 and 45.26 N/mm2 values, respectively. The figure indicates that the outer layers experienced the highest bending stress, whereas the core exhibited the lowest, consistent with the findings of Hematabadi et al. [12]. Furthermore, all three CLT layers played a role in load resistance, as indicated by FEM analysis. The discrepancy between experimental and model results may be attributed to the assumed material properties.
The bending stiffness was calculated using the FEM data and verified against the corresponding test outcomes. The global bending stiffness of poplar CLT was determined to be 4.19 × 1011 Nmm2, approximately 6.1% lower than the experimental value. Similarly, the bending stiffness of spruce CLT was reported as 4.43 × 1011 Nmm2, whereas hybrid CLT exhibited a bending stiffness of 6.47 × 1011 Nmm2, which is roughly 8.4% and 11% lower than the experimental value. Navaratnam et al. [24] observed a 20% discrepancy between the stiffness values generated by the FEM and the experimental results.

4. Conclusions

Bending and shear properties of poplar and maple–poplar hybrid CLT were compared to conventional spruce CLT using experimental, analytical, and FEMs. The primary findings are as follows:
The hybrid CLT, involving high-density outer maple layers and a poplar core layer, resulted in significant increases in Emg, fm, and fr by 74%, 37%, and 48%, respectively, compared to homogeneous poplar CLT. Additionally, the hybrid CLT also demonstrated superior performance compared to conventional spruce CLT, as well as red maple and birch CLT, in terms of rolling shear strength. The inclusion of maple lamellas in the outer layers of hybrid CLT enhanced its load-carrying capacity during bending tests.
The homogenous poplar CLT exhibited Emg, fm, and fr values nearly equivalent to or better than those of spruce CLT, thereby indicating its potential application in load-bearing structures and as a viable alternative for CLT production. The production of CLT presents a promising opportunity for the value-added utilization of poplar.
Both the adhesive type and wood species had a significant impact on the bending strength (fm), global bending modulus (Emg), and rolling shear strength (fr) independently; however, their interaction effect was not found to be significant.
1C-PUR adhesive outperformed the ME in terms of global bending modulus, bending strength, and rolling shear strength.
For homogeneous poplar and spruce CLT, a 19% variation in bending stiffness was observed between the theoretical and experimental values, whereas a 12% variation was noted for hybrid CLT, with the modified gamma approach yielding the most accurate results. Furthermore, the theoretical approaches indicated a 6.5% reduction in rolling shear strength and a 4.5% overestimation of bending strength, with the shear analogy yielding the most precise result.
The bending stiffness of hybrid CLT, as per FEM, was approximately 11% lower than the experimental values, whereas, for both poplar and spruce CLT, the difference was between 6–8%.
In summary, the bending and rolling shear performance of both poplar hybrid CLT (maple–poplar) outperformed the traditional spruce CLT serving as a foundation for encouraging the use of low-grade poplar, and maple as the primary wood species for both homogenous and hybrid CLT production. This study was also designed to expand the market for low-value hardwood species like poplar, and maple, which are primarily used in lower value-added products.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.D. and M.G.; methodology, S.D., M.G., A.K.S. and T.K.; software, N.L. and S.D.; validation, S.D., M.G., A.K.S. and P.N.; formal analysis, S.D., M.G., A.K.S. and P.N.; investigation, S.D., M.G. and T.K.; resources, S.D. and M.G.; data curation, S.D., M.G., A.K.S., M.M. and P.N.; writing—original draft preparation, S.D., M.G., M.M., A.K.S. and N.L.; writing—review and editing, S.D., M.G., M.M., A.K.S., P.N., R.L. and N.L.; visualization, S.D., M.M. and M.G.; supervision, S.D., M.G., P.N., M.M. and A.K.S.; project administration, S.D. and M.G.; funding acquisition, S.D. and M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors are grateful for the support from the Internal Grant Agency (IGA) of the Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences (Project No. A_20_14), Czech University of Life Sciences and “Advanced research supporting the forestry and wood-processing sector’s adaptation to global change and the 4th industrial revolution”, No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/4720.0/16_019/0000803 financed by OP RDE, The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports Czech Republic.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors express gratitude to AkzoNobel for supplying the necessary adhesives for the experiments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, X.; Yang, S.; Fei, B.; Qin, D.; Yang, J.; Li, H.; Wang, X. Bending and shear performance of a cross-laminated composite consisting of flattened bamboo board and Chinese fir lumber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 392, 131913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Matsushita, A.K.; Gonzalez, D.; Wang, M.; Doan, J.; Qiao, Y.; McKittrick, J. Beyond density: Mesostructural features of impact resistant wood. Mater. Today Commun. 2020, 22, 100697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, T.Y.; Deng, J.Y.; Chen, J.Q.; Xiao, Y.; Shan, B.; Xu, H.; Qin, S.J.; Yu, Q. Bending performance of nail-laminated bamboo-timber panels made with glubam and fast-grown plantation Chinese fir. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 384, 131425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Muszynski, L.; Hansen, E.; Fernando, S.; Schwarzmann, G.; Rainer, J. Insights into the global cross-laminated timber industry. BioProd. Bus. 2017, 2, 77–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. De Araujo, V.; Christoforo, A. The global cross-laminated timber (CLT) industry: A systematic review and a sectoral survey of its main developers. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pramreiter, M.; Nenning, T.; Huber, C.; Müller, U.; Kromoser, B.; Mayencourt, P.; Konnerth, J. A review of the resource efficiency and mechanical performance of commercial wood-based building materials. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2023, 38, e00728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Huang, Z.; Jiang, L.; Ni, C.; Chen, Z. The appropriacy of the analytical models for calculating the shear capacity of cross-laminated timber (CLT) under out-of-plane bending. J. Wood Sci. 2023, 69, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhou, J.; Chui, Y.H.; Niederwestberg, J.; Gong, M. Effective bending and shear stiffness of cross-laminated timber by modal testing: Method development and application. Compos. Part B Eng. 2020, 198, 108225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, Z.; Fu, H.; Gong, M.; Luo, J.; Dong, W.; Wang, T.; Chui, Y.H. Planar shear and bending properties of hybrid CLT fabricated with lumber and LVL. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 151, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Aicher, S.; Hirsch, M.; Christian, Z. Hybrid cross-laminated timber plates with beech wood cross-layers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 124, 1007–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Muñoz, F.; Tenorio, C.; Moya, R.; Navarro-Mora, A. CLT fabricated with Gmelina arborea and Tectona grandis wood from fast-growth forest plantations: Physical and mechanical properties. J. Renew. Mater. 2022, 10, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hematabadi, H.; Madhoushi, M.; Khazaeian, A.; Ebrahimi, G. Structural performance of hybrid poplar-beech cross-laminated-timber (CLT). J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sciomenta, M.; Spera, L.; Bedon, C.; Rinaldi, V.; Fragiacomo, M.; Romagnoli, M. Mechanical characterization of novel homogeneous beech and hybrid beech-corsican pine thin cross-laminated timber panels. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 271, 121589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ma, Y.; Si, R.; Musah, M.; Dai, Q.; Xie, X.; Wang, X.; Ross, R.J. Mechanical property evaluation of hybrid mixed-species CLT panels with sugar maple and white spruce. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2021, 33, 04021171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gong, M.; Tu, D.; Li, L.; Chui, Y.H. Planar shear properties of hardwood cross layer in hybrid cross laminated timber. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference on Hardwood Processing, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 15–17 September 2015. [Google Scholar]
  16. Nero, R.; Christopher, P.; Ngo, T. Investigation of rolling shear properties of cross-laminated timber (CLT) and comparison of experimental approaches. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 316, 125897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ettelaei, A.; Taoum, A.; Shanks, J.; Lee, M.; Nolan, G. Evaluation of the bending properties of novel cross-laminated timber with different configurations made of Australian plantation Eucalyptus nitens using experimental and theoretical methods. Structures 2022, 42, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jeitler, G.; Augustin, M.; Schickhofer, G. Birch|GLT + CLT mechanical properties of glued laminated timber and cross laminated timber produced with the wood species birch. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber Engineering, Vienna, Austria, 22–25 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
  19. Das, S.; Gašparík, M.; Sethy, A.K.; Kytka, T.; Kamboj, G.; Rezaei, F. Bonding performance of mixed species cross laminated timber from poplar (Populus nigra L.) and maple (Acer platanoides L.) glued with melamine and PUR adhesive. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 68, 106159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Davids, W.G.; Willey, N.; Lopez-Anido, R.; Shaler, S.; Gardner, D.; Edgar, R.; Tajvidi, M. Structural performance of hybrid SPFS-LSL cross-laminated timber panels. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 149, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, X.; Ashraf, M.; Subhani, M.; Kremer, P.; Kafle, B.; Ghabraie, K. Experimental and numerical study on bending properties of heterogeneous lamella layups in cross laminated timber using Australian radiata pine. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 247, 118525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lu, W.; Gu, J.; Wang, B. Study on flexural behavior of cross-laminated timber based on different tree species. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 2019, 1728258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yin, T.; He, L.; Huang, Q.; Gong, Y.; Wang, Z.; Gong, M. Effect of lamination grade on bending and shear properties of CLT made from fast-growing Chinese fir. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2024, 207, 117741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Navaratnam, S.; Christopher, P.; Ngo, T.; Le, T. Bending and shear performance of Australian radiata pine cross-laminated timber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 232, 117215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Crovella, P.; Smith, W.; Bartczak, J. Experimental verification of shear analogy approach to predict bending stiffness for softwood and hardwood cross-laminated timber panels. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 229, 116895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. He, M.; Sun, X.; Li, Z. Bending and compressive properties of cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels made from Canadian hemlock. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 185, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dobeš, P.; Lokaj, A.; Vavrušová, K. Stiffness and deformation analysis of cross-laminated timber (clt) panels made of nordic spruce based on experimental testing, analytical calculation and numerical modeling. Buildings 2023, 13, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mácová, K.; Szórádová, A.; Kolařík, J. Are trees planted along the roads sustainable? A large-scale study in the Czech Republic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. EN 16351; Timber Structures—Cross Laminated Timber—Requirements. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
  30. Jan Brundin, J.; Eriksson, P.; Godonou, P. Guide to Assessing CLT Surface Quality; Swedishwood, Swedish Forest Industries Federation: Stockholm, Sweden, 2022; ISBN 978-91-985213-3-7. [Google Scholar]
  31. Brandner, R.; Flatscher, G.; Ringhofer, A.; Schickhofer, G.; Thiel, A. Cross laminated timber (clt): Overview and development. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2016, 74, 331–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, J.; Ning, F.; Li, J.; Zhu, H. Experimental study and finite element simulation analysis of the bending properties of cross-laminated timber (clt) two-way plates. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev. 2020, 13, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sikora, K.S.; McPolin, D.O.; Harte, A.M. Effects of the thickness of cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels made from Irish Sitka spruce on mechanical performance in bending and shear. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 116, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hariz, T.M.R.; Hadi, Y.S.; Lubis, M.A.R.; Maulana, M.I.; Sari, R.K.; Hidayat, W. Physical and mechanical properties of cross-laminated timber made of a combination of mangium-puspa wood and polyurethane adhesive. J. Sylva Lestari 2023, 11, 37–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Niederwestberg, J. Influence of Laminate Characteristics on Properties of Single-Layer and Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) Panels. Ph.D. Thesis, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  36. Fan, Z.; Ye, G.; Li, S.; Bai, Z.; Yong, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, Y. Compression performance and failure mechanism of honeycomb structures fabricated with reinforced wood. Structures 2023, 48, 1868–1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Karakoç, A.; Tukiainen, P.; Freund, J.; Hughes, M. Experiments on the effective compliance in the radial–tangential plane of Norway spruce. Compos. Struct. 2013, 102, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Niemz, P.; Teischinger, A.; Sandberg, D. (Eds.) Springer Handbook of Wood Science and Technology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; p. 2069. ISBN 978-3-030-81315-4. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gardner, C.; Davids, W.G.; Lopez-Anido, R.; Herzog, B.; Edgar, R.; Nagy, E.; Berube, K.; Shaler, S. The effect of edge gaps on shear strength and rolling shear modulus of cross laminated timber panels. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 259, 119710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Franzoni, L.; Lebée, A.; Lyon, F.; Forêt, G. Elastic behavior of Cross Laminated Timber and timber panels with regular gaps: Thick-plate modeling and experimental validation. Eng. Struct. 2017, 141, 402–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cao, Y.; Street, J.; Li, M.; Lim, H. Evaluation of the effect of knots on rolling shear strength of cross laminated timber (CLT). Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 222, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dong, W.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, J.; Gong, M. Experimental study on bending properties of cross-laminated timber-bamboo composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 300, 124313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Preparation of the CLT panels.
Figure 1. Preparation of the CLT panels.
Jcs 09 00134 g001
Figure 2. 4-point bending test CLT panels.
Figure 2. 4-point bending test CLT panels.
Jcs 09 00134 g002
Figure 3. Rolling shear test of CLT panels.
Figure 3. Rolling shear test of CLT panels.
Jcs 09 00134 g003
Figure 4. Finite element models for CLT panels.
Figure 4. Finite element models for CLT panels.
Jcs 09 00134 g004
Figure 5. Mean load–displacement curves from bending test with P representing poplar, S representing spruce, and H indicating hybrid.
Figure 5. Mean load–displacement curves from bending test with P representing poplar, S representing spruce, and H indicating hybrid.
Jcs 09 00134 g005
Figure 6. Wood species and adhesive type interaction on Emg and fm of the CLT panels.
Figure 6. Wood species and adhesive type interaction on Emg and fm of the CLT panels.
Jcs 09 00134 g006
Figure 7. Statistical analysis of wood species and adhesive interaction on fr of CLT panels.
Figure 7. Statistical analysis of wood species and adhesive interaction on fr of CLT panels.
Jcs 09 00134 g007
Figure 8. Failures observed during the bending and rolling shear test with (a) Rolling shear failure, (b) tensile failure and (c) Rolling shear failure at the width end.
Figure 8. Failures observed during the bending and rolling shear test with (a) Rolling shear failure, (b) tensile failure and (c) Rolling shear failure at the width end.
Jcs 09 00134 g008
Figure 9. Comparison between experimental bending stiffness to their theoretical values.
Figure 9. Comparison between experimental bending stiffness to their theoretical values.
Jcs 09 00134 g009
Figure 10. Comparison between experimental values to their theoretical values.
Figure 10. Comparison between experimental values to their theoretical values.
Jcs 09 00134 g010
Figure 11. Load vs. displacement curves of CLT panels observed from FEM.
Figure 11. Load vs. displacement curves of CLT panels observed from FEM.
Jcs 09 00134 g011
Figure 12. Stress distribution observed in CLT panels from FEM.
Figure 12. Stress distribution observed in CLT panels from FEM.
Jcs 09 00134 g012
Table 1. Mean density, moisture content (%), and modulus of elasticity (MOE) of wood.
Table 1. Mean density, moisture content (%), and modulus of elasticity (MOE) of wood.
Wood SpeciesMean DensityMean Moisture ContentMean MOE
Poplar398 ± 4611.9 ± 0.68900 ± 849
Spruce423 ± 3611.7 ± 0.79800 ± 942
Maple653 ± 7612.3 ± 0.513,810 ± 1142
Table 2. Elastic constant of the wood species at 12% moisture for modelling.
Table 2. Elastic constant of the wood species at 12% moisture for modelling.
WoodEL
(N/mm2)
ER ET vLR
(-)
vLT
(-)
vRT
(-)
GLR
(N/mm2)
GLT GRT
Poplar89007394180.3440.420.875676463134
Spruce980010805780.4220.4620.53095090098
Maple13,81013116780.460.500.821013753255
Table 3. Statistical evaluation of Emg and fm of CLT panels.
Table 3. Statistical evaluation of Emg and fm of CLT panels.
EffectValueFdfErrorp-Value
Intercept0.00054748,435.532530.000000
Species0.008594259.3641060.000000
Adhesive0.8881033.342530.043080
Species×Adhesive0.9916900.1141060.978501
Table 4. Global bending modulus of elasticity (Emg), bending strength (fm) and rolling shear strength (fr) of the CLT panels.
Table 4. Global bending modulus of elasticity (Emg), bending strength (fm) and rolling shear strength (fr) of the CLT panels.
SpeciesAdhesiveEmgfmfr
PoplarMF7802 a29.97 a2.17 a
1C-PUR7950 ab31.10 ab2.12 a
SpruceMF8152 bc31.63 ab2.00 b
1C-PUR8338 c32.00 b1.88 c
HybridMF13,276 d44.33 c3.17 d
1C-PUR13,426 d44.77 c3.08 e
Means followed by different letters are only statistically significant according to Tukey HSD (p = 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Das, S.; Gašparík, M.; Sethy, A.K.; Niemz, P.; Mahapatra, M.; Lagaňa, R.; Langová, N.; Kytka, T. Comparative Analysis of Bending and Rolling Shear Performance of Poplar and Hybrid Maple–Poplar Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT). J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9, 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9030134

AMA Style

Das S, Gašparík M, Sethy AK, Niemz P, Mahapatra M, Lagaňa R, Langová N, Kytka T. Comparative Analysis of Bending and Rolling Shear Performance of Poplar and Hybrid Maple–Poplar Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT). Journal of Composites Science. 2025; 9(3):134. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9030134

Chicago/Turabian Style

Das, Sumanta, Miroslav Gašparík, Anil Kumar Sethy, Peter Niemz, Manaswini Mahapatra, Rastislav Lagaňa, Nadežda Langová, and Tomáš Kytka. 2025. "Comparative Analysis of Bending and Rolling Shear Performance of Poplar and Hybrid Maple–Poplar Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT)" Journal of Composites Science 9, no. 3: 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9030134

APA Style

Das, S., Gašparík, M., Sethy, A. K., Niemz, P., Mahapatra, M., Lagaňa, R., Langová, N., & Kytka, T. (2025). Comparative Analysis of Bending and Rolling Shear Performance of Poplar and Hybrid Maple–Poplar Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT). Journal of Composites Science, 9(3), 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9030134

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop