2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.euromechsol.2005.05.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development and experimental validation of a continuum micromechanics model for the elasticity of wood

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
134
0
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 206 publications
(138 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
3
134
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The composition of wood is inhomogeneous, and the spatial distribution of the different cell types (and their size) may vary, thus the physical properties of wood observed at the macroscopic level vary signifi cantly even within the same species (Keunecke et al 2008). This is a reason why the simulations of the mechanical behavior of wood are diffi cult (Hofstetter et al 2005 ). The improved knowledge of structure-property relationships down to the cellular level combined with imaging methods would probably facilitate this situation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The composition of wood is inhomogeneous, and the spatial distribution of the different cell types (and their size) may vary, thus the physical properties of wood observed at the macroscopic level vary signifi cantly even within the same species (Keunecke et al 2008). This is a reason why the simulations of the mechanical behavior of wood are diffi cult (Hofstetter et al 2005 ). The improved knowledge of structure-property relationships down to the cellular level combined with imaging methods would probably facilitate this situation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the line of Popper, who stated that a theory-as long as it has not been falsified-will be 'the more satisfactory the greater the severity of independent tests it survives' (cited from Mayr 1997, p. 49), the verification of the micromechanical representation of HA biomaterials (equations (3.1)-(3.5) for elasticity, and equations (3.6)-(3.12) for strength) will rest on two independent experimental sets, as has been successfully done for other material classes such as bone (Hellmich & Ulm 2002;Hellmich et al 2004; or wood (Hofstetter et al 2005(Hofstetter et al , 2006. Biomaterial-specific macroscopic (homogenized) stiffnesses C poly (Young's moduli E poly and Poisson's ratios n poly ), and uniaxial (tensile and compressive) strengths (S ult,t poly and S ult,c poly ), predicted by the micromechanics model (3.1)-(3.12) on the basis of biomaterial-independent (universal) elastic and strength properties of pure HA (experimental set I, table 2) for biomaterial-specific porosities f (experimental set IIa, tables 3 and 4), are compared with corresponding biomaterial-specific experimentally determined moduli E exp and Poisson's ratios n exp (experimental set IIb-1, table 3) and uniaxial tensile/compressive strength values (experimental set IIb-2, table 4).…”
Section: Model Validation (A) Strategy For Model Validation Through Imentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A notable correlation can be observed between the two stiffness profile parameters and mass density and moisture content measurements. The reason for this observation lies in the micromechanical model (Hofstetter et al 2005) which was employed for computing the clearwood stiffness tensor within Kandler et al (2015). For the micromechanical model, mass density and moisture content are the two main input parameters.…”
Section: Statistical Evaluation Of the Datamentioning
confidence: 99%