U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
2023664000
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information 

Publication Number: FHWAHRT04097
Date: August 2007 

Measured Variability Of Southern Yellow Pine  Manual for LSDYNA Wood Material Model 143PDF Version (2.92 MB)
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader® 1.4 FAILURE CRITERIAStrength variations are readily modeled with failure criteria, which are also called yield criteria. Failure criteria relate critical combinations of stresses or strains to failure in a material. Two types of failure criteria are limit and interactive criteria. With limit criteria, like the Maximum Stress criterion, there is no interaction between the stresses, so failure depends on one component of stress or strain. With interactive criteria, like the Hashin criterion, the stresses interact, so failure depends on more than one component of stress or strain. The failure stresses/strains for the interactive and maximum stress/strain criteria typically agree in the material principal directions (uniaxial stress states). The criteria disagree on what constitutes failure in offaxis directions (biaxial and triaxial stress states). 1.4.1 Measured Clear Wood StrengthsFailure criteria are formulated with coefficients that are obtained from fits to measured strengths (peak strength in tension and shear, yield strength in compression). The clear wood strengths of southern yellow pine are given in table 4 in terms of the parallel, perpendicular, and shear directions. The shear strength refers to the paralleltothegrain direction. No shear strength was reported for the perpendiculartothegrain direction because it is difficult to measure and interpret. The modulus of rupture is calculated from the beambending test results, in which the grain runs parallel to the length of the beam. It is not an input parameter of the wood material model. These strengths were measured as a function of moisture content.^{(13)} The saturated data are measured at the fiber saturation point of approximately 23percent moisture content.
The clear wood strengths of Douglas fir are given in table 5. These strengths were obtained from a variety of sources. No single source provides a complete set of strengths. Some sources distinguish between the radial and tangential directions, while others report strengths in the perpendicular direction. Whenever perpendicular strengths were reported, they were listed under the subheading Tangential for the normal strengths and LT for the shear strengths.
1.4.2 Wood Model Failure CriteriaThe strength of wood is modeled as transversely isotropic for a number of reasons. First, the data measured by FPL do not distinguish between the strengths in the tangential and radial directions. Second, the data from Goodman and Bodig suggest that Douglas fir is about 15 percent weaker (compressively) in the radial direction than in the tangential direction.^{(7)} However, this difference in strength is small in comparison with the difference between the parallel and perpendicular directions. Table 4 indicates that the tensile strength measured parallel to the grain is about 30 to 50 times greater than that measured perpendicular to the grain. The compressive strength measured parallel to the grain is about five times greater than that measured perpendicular to the grain. The wood model failure criterion is formulated from six ultimate strength measurements obtained from uniaxial and pureshear tests on wood specimens:
Here, X and Y are the strengths parallel and perpendicular to the grain, respectively, and S is the shear strength. Seven criteria were evaluated for modeling the failure of wood. The theoretical form of each candidate criterion and the graphical comparisons are given in appendix C. A reduced form of the Modified Hashin criterion was chosen for implementation for the following reasons:
The analytical form of the Hashin criterion is different for the parallel and perpendicular modes. Parallel Modes For the parallel modes, the failure criterion is composed of two terms involving two of the five stress invariants of a transversely isotropic material. These invariants are and . This criterion predicts that the normal and shear stresses are mutually weakening (i.e., the presence of shear stress reduces the strength below that measured in the uniaxial stress tests). This form is equivalent to that discussed in appendix C under Modified Hashin or Extended YamadaSun. Failure occurs when f_{} ≥ 0, where: Perpendicular Modes For the perpendicular modes, the failure criterion is also composed of two terms involving two of the five stress invariants of a transversely isotropic material. These invariants are I_{2} = s22 + s33 and . This form is similar to that discussed in appendix C under Modified Hashin, except that two of the three reported terms are retained (the parallel shear stress invariant term (I_{4}) in equation 172 is neglected). This is because its effect on perpendicular failure was not evaluated in appendix C and no test data are available to aid in the evaluation. It is desirable to keep the failure criterion as simple as possible unless measured data suggest otherwise. Failure occurs when f_{^} ≥ 0, where: Failure Surface Plots Four modes of failure are predicted: tension and compression failure parallel to the grain, and tension and compression failure perpendicular to the grain. Parallel shear failure is a subset of the parallel modes and perpendicular shear failure is a subset of the perpendicular modes. Each failure criterion is plotted in two dimensions in figure 11 in terms of the stress invariants of a transversely isotropic material. Separate plots are drawn for failure or yielding in the parallel and perpendicular modes. Each failure criterion is plotted in three dimensions in figure 12 in terms of the parallel and perpendicular stresses. Each criterion is a smooth surface (no corners). Figure 11. Figure 12. 1.4.3 Default Strength PropertiesRoomtemperature clear wood strengths at fiber saturation are listed in table 6. Strengths for southern yellow pine are average values obtained from empirical fits to the data previously reported by FPL in table 4 and reproduced in appendix B. Those for Douglas fir are based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wood Handbook strengths previously reported in table 6.^{(18)} The shear strength perpendicular to the grain has been included as an input parameter even though it was not measured for southern yellow pine. This is because it is included in the failure criterion that was selected. Here it is assumed that the shear strength perpendicular to the grain is 140 percent of the shear strength measured parallel to the grain. This percentage was chosen because the perpendicular shear strength measured by Goodman and Bodig for Douglas fir is 140 percent greater than the parallel shear strength (average of s_{LT} and s_{LR}).^{(7)}
The strength of graded wood posts is less than that of clear wood posts; therefore, the clear wood strengths in table 6 must be scaled down according to grade. One scale factor, Q_{T}, reduces the tensile and shear strengths as a function of grade. A second scale factor. Q_{C}, reduced the compressive strengths as a function of grade. Default scale factors for grade 1 are Q_{T}=0.43 and Q_{C}=0.63 for pine, and Q_{T}=0.40 and Q_{C}= 0.70 for fir. Default scale factors for DS65 are Q_{T}=0.80 and Q_{C}=0.93 for both pine and fir. Scale factors by grade are more thoroughly discussed in section 1.12. 
Topics: research, safety, infrastructure, structures, materials Keywords: research, safety, infrastructure, structures, materials, wood, LSDYNA, orthotropic, material model, damage, rate effects, guardrail TRT Terms: guardrails, wood Updated: 03/08/2016
