Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Finite-Element Analysis of Flexural Behaviour of Timber-Glass Composite I-Beams Cover

Finite-Element Analysis of Flexural Behaviour of Timber-Glass Composite I-Beams

Open Access
|Sep 2025

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Schematic representation of timber-glass composite beam concept: cross-section of hybrid beam (left), side-view of hybrid beam with cracked glass web (middle), force-displacement diagram showing ductility and post-breakage strength (right)
Schematic representation of timber-glass composite beam concept: cross-section of hybrid beam (left), side-view of hybrid beam with cracked glass web (middle), force-displacement diagram showing ductility and post-breakage strength (right)

Figure 2.

Cross-section of timber-glass composite beams: type TGCB1
Cross-section of timber-glass composite beams: type TGCB1

Figure 3.

Four-point bending set-up
Four-point bending set-up

Figure 4.

Experimental load-displacement plots for beams type TGCB1 obtained from the four-point bending tests [26,27,28]. Notation: E = Epoxy, A = Acrylate, S = Silicone, AF = annealed float, HS = heat-strengthened
Experimental load-displacement plots for beams type TGCB1 obtained from the four-point bending tests [26,27,28]. Notation: E = Epoxy, A = Acrylate, S = Silicone, AF = annealed float, HS = heat-strengthened

Figure 5.

Experimental load-displacement plots for beams type TGCB2 obtained from the four-point bending tests [13,14]. Notation: A = Acrylate, S = Silicone, LN = large groove (no edge treatment), SP = small groove (polished edges)
Experimental load-displacement plots for beams type TGCB2 obtained from the four-point bending tests [13,14]. Notation: A = Acrylate, S = Silicone, LN = large groove (no edge treatment), SP = small groove (polished edges)

Figure 6

Cross-section, loading and boundary conditions for numerical model of beam type TGCB1
Cross-section, loading and boundary conditions for numerical model of beam type TGCB1

Figure 7.

Cross-section, loading and boundary conditions for numerical model of beam type TGCB2
Cross-section, loading and boundary conditions for numerical model of beam type TGCB2

Figure 8.

Crack criterion in Mode I and post-failure stress-fracture energy curve
Crack criterion in Mode I and post-failure stress-fracture energy curve

Figure 9.

Traction-separation Law as damage definition
Traction-separation Law as damage definition

Figure 10.

Notation system for the cross-section (left), timber flange (center) and bond connection (right).
Notation system for the cross-section (left), timber flange (center) and bond connection (right).

Figure 11.

Plot of the change in load-displacement of the TGCB1 beam (silicone adhesive) as a function of the glass web material model used, together with locations of probable damage from Implicit analysis
Plot of the change in load-displacement of the TGCB1 beam (silicone adhesive) as a function of the glass web material model used, together with locations of probable damage from Implicit analysis

Figure 12.

Plot of the change in load-displacement of the TGCB1 beam (acrylate adhesive) as a function of the glass web material model used, together with locations of probable damage from Implicit analysis
Plot of the change in load-displacement of the TGCB1 beam (acrylate adhesive) as a function of the glass web material model used, together with locations of probable damage from Implicit analysis

Figure 13.

Plot of the change in load-displacement of the TGCB1 beam (epoxy adhesive) as a function of the glass web material model used, together with locations of probable damage from Implicit analysis
Plot of the change in load-displacement of the TGCB1 beam (epoxy adhesive) as a function of the glass web material model used, together with locations of probable damage from Implicit analysis

Figure 14

Plot of change in stiffness of TGCB1 beam to percentage of displacement using Silicone as adhesive
Plot of change in stiffness of TGCB1 beam to percentage of displacement using Silicone as adhesive

Figure 15.

Plot of change in stiffness of TGCB1 beam to percentage of displacement when using Acrylate as adhesive
Plot of change in stiffness of TGCB1 beam to percentage of displacement when using Acrylate as adhesive

Figure 16.

Plot of change in stiffness of TGCB1 beam to percentage of displacement when using Epoxy as adhesive
Plot of change in stiffness of TGCB1 beam to percentage of displacement when using Epoxy as adhesive

Figure 17

Progressive failure of reference model. Load-displacement plot (a), comparison of crack patterns in glass web at different failure stages and displacements (b-d). Note symmetry of model at right vertical edge
Progressive failure of reference model. Load-displacement plot (a), comparison of crack patterns in glass web at different failure stages and displacements (b-d). Note symmetry of model at right vertical edge

Figure 18.

Effects of tensile strength of glass. Comparison of load-displacement plots (a), comparison of crack patterns in glass web at displacement of ≈ 23.8 mm (b-d). Note symmetry of numerical model at right vertical edge
Effects of tensile strength of glass. Comparison of load-displacement plots (a), comparison of crack patterns in glass web at displacement of ≈ 23.8 mm (b-d). Note symmetry of numerical model at right vertical edge

Figure 19.

Effects of FE geometry. Comparison of load-displacement plots (a), comparison of crack patterns in glass web at displacement of ≈ 23.8 mm (b, c). Note symmetry of numerical model at right vertical edge
Effects of FE geometry. Comparison of load-displacement plots (a), comparison of crack patterns in glass web at displacement of ≈ 23.8 mm (b, c). Note symmetry of numerical model at right vertical edge

Figure 20.

Effects of FE size. Comparison of load-displacement plots (a), comparison of crack patterns in glass web at displacement of ≈ 23.8 mm (b-e). Note symmetry of numerical model at right vertical edge
Effects of FE size. Comparison of load-displacement plots (a), comparison of crack patterns in glass web at displacement of ≈ 23.8 mm (b-e). Note symmetry of numerical model at right vertical edge

Figure 21.

Effects of adhesive stiffness. Comparison of load-displacement plots (a), comparison of crack patterns in glass web at displacement of ≈ 23.8 mm (b-d). Note symmetry of numerical model at right vertical edge
Effects of adhesive stiffness. Comparison of load-displacement plots (a), comparison of crack patterns in glass web at displacement of ≈ 23.8 mm (b-d). Note symmetry of numerical model at right vertical edge

Figure 22.

Comparison between numerical and experimental [27] loaddisplacement plots for the beam TBCB1_E_AF. Effects of different tensile strength of glass
Comparison between numerical and experimental [27] loaddisplacement plots for the beam TBCB1_E_AF. Effects of different tensile strength of glass

Figure 23.

Comparison between numerical and experimental [13,14] load-displacement plots for the beam type TBCB2
Comparison between numerical and experimental [13,14] load-displacement plots for the beam type TBCB2

Experimental results (mean values and standard deviations) for beam specimens [13,14,26,27,28] and corresponding FE and analytical predictions_ Notation: PBSI – Post-breakage strength index PBSI = 100 × (Finit - Fult) / Fult_, PCDI - Post-cracking ductility index, PCDI = 100 × (uinit - uult) / uult, FE = 100 × (resultFE – resultEXP) / resultEXP, AN = 100 × (resultAN – resultEXP) / resultEXP

ExperimentsFinite ElementAnalytical
Beam modelFint [kN]Fult [kN]PBSI [%]PCDI [%]Kinit [MNm2]ModelFint [kN]Fult [kN]PBSI [%]PCDI [%]Kinit [MNm2]Fint [kN]Kinit [MNm2]
TGCB1_E_AF11.6 (2.8)16.4 (2.2)51.5 (50)91.2 (86.7)0.898 (0.042)E_AF_FE_FT457.212.270.6176.90.9207.50.817
ΔFEAN=-38.4%-25.7%41.3%94.3%4.9%
E_AF_FE_FT6610.515.648.2109.72.5%10.9-9.0%
ΔFEAN=-9.3%-4.94%-3.6%20.5%3.6%
TGCB1_E_HS25.5 (-)25.5 (-)--0.898 (-)E_HS_FE_FT4525.525.5--24.5
ΔFEAN=0.1%0.1%-3.9%
TGCB1_A_HS25.5 (-)25.5 (-)--0.907A_HS_FE_FT4524.624.6--0.90424.40.808
ΔFEAN=-2.4%-2.4%-0.3%-3.9%-10.6%
TGCB1_S_HS19.8 (-)19.8 (-)--0.720S_HS_FE_FT4518.318.3--0.69219.10.630
ΔFEAN=-7.7%-7.7%-3.9%-3.5%-12.5%
TGCB2_A_AF_L11.1 (1.3)28.3 (2.4)158 (24.0)298 (51.2)1.253 ()A_AF_FE_L_ FT4510.327.0162325.51.3499.41.069
ΔFEAN=-7.4%-4.7%4.9%8.9%7.66%-15.3%3.8%
TGCB2_A_AF_S13.0 (1.1)28.7 (2.3)122 (24.0)210 (39.0)1.237 ()A_AF_FE_SG_FT4510.521.81083021.3679.61.081
ΔFEAN=-19.2%-23.8%-11.4-43.6%10.5%-26.2%6.3%
TGCB2_S_AF_L8.8 (-)20.3 (-)131 (-)536 (-)0.918 (-)S_AF_FE_SG_ FT458.222.81794651.0757.40.826
ΔFEAN=-6.9%12.4%36.7%-13.3%17.1%-15.9%-10.0%

Material properties used in numerical models for timber [27, 42]

MaterialEt,lEt,rEt,tνt, lrνltνrtGlrGltGrtρtft
[MPa][MPa][MPa]---[MPa][MPa][MPa][kg/m3][MPa]
Pine wood12 4108808800.440.400.521 0901 09014051034.9
LVL11 6007507500.440.400.5293093012051050

Material properties used in numerical models for adhesives [27]

Adhesiveρ [kN/m3]E [MPa]ν [-]
Silicone530.49
Acrylate51000.40
Epoxy51 5950.46

Overview of TGCB1, manufactured beam type TGCB1, n is the number of specimens produced

Beam typeAdhesiveGlass typeLength [mm]Total height [mm]Glass pane size [mm2]Glass thickness [mm]Timber block size [mm2]Groove size [mm]
TGCB1Epoxy (n=6)Annealed float48002404800×190845×6012×20
Epoxy (n=2) Acrylate (n=2) Silicone (n=2)Heat-strengthened

Overview of manufactured beams, type TGCB2, n is the number of specimens produced [13,14]

Beam typeAdhesiveGlass typeLength [mm]Total height [mm]Glass pane size [mm2]Glass thickness [mm]Timber block size [mm2]Groove size [mm]
TGCB1(n=1)Annealed float35002403500×2001045×6013(15)×25

Mechanical and geometrical properties of parametric models_ Notation: R = Rectangular, P = Prism

VariationFE/modelft [MPa]FE size [mm]FE geometry [-]Eint [MPa]
ReferenceM-REF45.08P100
Variation of tensile strength of glassM-FT-40.540.58P100
M-FT-49.549.58P100
Variation of FE sizeM-FE-R458R100
Variation of FE geometryM-FE-164516P100
M-FE-4454P100
M-FE-2452P100
Variation of adhesive stiffnessM-AE-10458P10
M-AE-1000458P1000
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/acee-2025-0039 | Journal eISSN: 2720-6947 | Journal ISSN: 1899-0142
Language: English
Page range: 165 - 189
Submitted on: Apr 11, 2024
Accepted on: May 28, 2025
Published on: Sep 30, 2025
Published by: Silesian University of Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 times per year

© 2025 Marcin KOZŁOWSKI, Erik SERRANO, Magdalena MROZEK, Dawid MROZEK, published by Silesian University of Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.