Wood Science and Technology

, Volume 54, Issue 1, pp 161–186 | Cite as

Combining numerical models and discretizing methods in the analysis of bamboo parenchyma using finite element analysis based on X-ray microtomography

  • Felipe Luis PalombiniEmail author
  • Eduardo Lamb Lautert
  • Jorge Ernesto de Araujo Mariath
  • Branca Freitas de Oliveira


Plant cellular materials present a complex arrangement responsible for their properties; thus, investigating them is essential to understand their macro-performance. Noninvasive methods to investigate samples, such as X-ray microtomography (µCT), are of growing interest in the study of plants. Using µCT imaging in finite element analyses (FEA) is a preferred method for assessing cellular materials. However, little has been investigated concerning its application to plants. Numerical models were combined with µCT-based FEA of bamboo parenchyma under compressive loading. The models were used in the mechanical properties of the FEA, and two discretizing methods were compared: voxel-based and geometry-based. The influence of the parameters in the numerical models was analyzed. An explicit analysis was also carried out in the geometry-based model to evaluate the stress–strain relations of an axial compression, as well as the volume change in the parenchyma lumina during the test. The results suggest that parenchyma show greater strain in cell walls of axially neighboring cells, allowing us to estimate local compressive effects of cells near critical loading and to verify the deformation steps during quasi-static compression. This approach could be used to evaluate the mechanical behavior of other plant structures and cellular solids for materials and plant sciences.



The authors are grateful to Prof. Sidnei Paciornik from the Digital Microscopy and Image Analysis Group of the Chemical and Materials Engineering Department (DEQM/PUC-Rio) for conducting the μCT analysis. This work was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (Grant Number 480701/2013-0).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Ahvenainen P, Dixon PG, Kallonen A et al (2017) Spatially-localized bench-top X-ray scattering reveals tissue-specific microfibril orientation in Moso bamboo. Plant Methods 13:5. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Amani Y, Dancette S, Delroisse P, Simar A, Maire E (2018) Compression behavior of lattice structures produced by selective laser melting: X-ray tomography based experimental and finite element approaches. Acta Mater 159:395–407. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Askarinejad S, Kotowski P, Shalchy F, Rahbar N (2015) Effects of humidity on shear behavior of bamboo. Theor Appl Mech Lett 5:236–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolte S, Cordelières FP (2006) A guided tour into subcellular colocalization analysis in light microscopy. J Microsc 224:213–232. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd SK (2009) Image-based finite element analysis. In: Sensen CW, Hallgrímsson B (Eds) Advanced imaging in biology and medicine. Springer, Berlin, pp 301–318. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brodersen CR, Roddy AB (2016) New frontiers in the three-dimensional visualization of plant structure and function. Am J Bot 103:184–188. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brodersen CR, Choat B, Chatelet DS, Shackel KA, Matthews MA, McElrone AJ (2013) Xylem vessel relays contribute to radial connectivity in grapevine stems (Vitis vinifera and V. arizonica; Vitaceae). Am J Bot 100:314–321. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Burteau A, N’Guyen F, Bartout JD, Forest S, Bienvenu Y, Saberi S, Naumann D (2012) Impact of material processing and deformation on cell morphology and mechanical behavior of polyurethane and nickel foams. Int J Solids Struct 49:2714–2732. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cidade MK, Palombini FL, da Cunha Duarte L, Paciornik S (2018) Investigation of the thermal microstructural effects of CO2 laser engraving on agate via X-ray microtomography. Opt Laser Technol 104:56–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawford RP (2003) Quantitative computed tomography-based finite element models of the human lumbar vertebral body: effect of element size on stiffness, damage, and fracture strength predictions. J Biomech Eng 125:434. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawford RP, Cann CE, Keaveny TM (2003) Finite element models predict in vitro vertebral body compressive strength better than quantitative computed tomography. Bone 33:744–750. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixon PG, Gibson LJ (2014) The structure and mechanics of Moso bamboo material. J R Soc Interface 11:20140321. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixon PG, Ahvenainen P, Aijazi AN et al (2015) Comparison of the structure and flexural properties of Moso, Guadua and Tre Gai bamboo. Constr Build Mater 90:11–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dixon PG, Muth JT, Xiao X, Skylar-Scott MA, Lewis JA, Gibson LJ (2018) 3D printed structures for modeling the Young’s modulus of bamboo parenchyma. Acta Biomater 68:90–98. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Estrada M, Linero DL, Ramírez F (2013) Constitutive relationship of the fiber cluster of bamboo Guadua angustifolia, determined by means of a Weibull probability function and a model of progressive failure. Mech Mater 63:12–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fagan MJ, Curtis N, Dobson CA et al (2007) Voxel-based finite element analysis—working directly with microct scan data. J Morphol 268:1071Google Scholar
  17. Fahn A (1990) Plant anatomy, 4th edn. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Forell GV, Robertson D, Lee SY, Cook DD (2015) Preventing lodging in bioenergy crops: a biomechanical analysis of maize stalks suggests a new approach. J Exp Bot 66:4367–4371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geuzaine C, Remacle J-F (2009) Gmsh: a 3-D finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities. Int J Numer Methods Eng 79:1309–1331. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibson LJ (2012) The hierarchical structure and mechanics of plant materials. J R Soc Interface 9:2749–2766. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibson LJ, Ashby MF (1999) Cellular solids: structure and properties, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson LJ, Ashby MF, Harley BA (2010) Cellular materials in nature and medicine. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregory PJ, Hutchison DJ, Read DB, Jenneson PM, Gilboy WB, Morton EJ (2003) Non-invasive imaging of roots with high resolution X-ray micro-tomography. Plant Soil 255:351–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanke R, Fuchs T, Salamon M, Zabler S (2016) X-ray microtomography for materials characterization. In: Hübschen G, Altpeter I, Tschuncky R, Herrmann H-G (eds) Materials characterization using nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods. Woodhead, Duxford, pp 45–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hargreaves CE, Gregory PJ, Bengough AG (2009) Measuring root traits in barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare and ssp. spontaneum) seedlings using gel chambers, soil sacs and X-ray microtomography. Plant Soil 316:285–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Homminga J, Huiskes R, Van Rietbergen B, Rüegsegger P, Weinans H (2001) Introduction and evaluation of a gray-value voxel conversion technique. J Biomech 34:513–517. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jakovljević S, Lisjak D, Alar Ž, Penava F (2017) The influence of humidity on mechanical properties of bamboo for bicycles. Constr Build Mater 150:35–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kádár C, Maire E, Borbély A, Peix G, Lendvai J, Zs Rajkovits (2004) X-ray tomography and finite element simulation of the indentation behavior of metal foams. Mater Sci Eng A 387–389:321–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kader MA, Islam MA, Saadatfar M, Hazell PJ, Brown AD, Ahmed S, Escobedo JP (2017) Macro and micro collapse mechanisms of closed-cell aluminium foams during quasi-static compression. Mater Des 118:11–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keyak JH, Meagher JM, Skinner HB, Mote CD (1990) Automated three-dimensional finite element modelling of bone: a new method. J Biomed Eng 12:389–397. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Keyak JH, Rossi SA, Jones KA, Skinner HB (1997) Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling. J Biomech 31:125–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knackstedt MA, Arns CH, Saadatfar M et al (2005) Virtual materials design: properties of cellular solids derived from 3D tomographic images. Adv Eng Mater 7:238–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ladd AJC, Kinney JH, Haupt DL, Goldstein SA (1998) Finite-element modeling of trabecular bone: comparison with mechanical testing and determination of tissue modulus. J Orthop Res 16:622–628. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Landis EN, Keane DT (2010) X-ray microtomography. Mater Charact 61:1305–1316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lehmeier C, Pajor R, Lundgren MR et al (2017) Cell density and airspace patterning in the leaf can be manipulated to increase leaf photosynthetic capacity. Plant J 92:981–994. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Lengsfeld M, Schmitt J, Alter P, Kaminsky J, Leppek R (1998) Comparison of geometry-based and CT voxel-based finite element modelling and experimental validation. Med Eng Phys 20:515–522. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Liese W, Köhl M (eds) (2015) Bamboo: the plant and its uses. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  38. Lim KS, Barigou M (2004) X-ray micro-computed tomography of cellular food products. Food Res Int 37:1001–1012. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lo TY, Cui HZ, Tang PWC, Leung HC (2008) Strength analysis of bamboo by microscopic investigation of bamboo fibre. Constr Build Mater 22:1532–1535. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lotz JC (1991) Fracture prediction for the proximal femur using finite element models: part I—linear analysis. J Biomech Eng 113:353. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Low IM, Che ZY, Latella BA (2006) Mapping the structure, composition and mechanical properties of bamboo. J Mater Res 21:1969–1976. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacNeil JA, Boyd SK (2008) Bone strength at the distal radius can be estimated from high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography and the finite element method. Bone 42:1203–1213. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Maire E (2012) X-ray tomography applied to the characterization of highly porous materials. Annu Rev Mater Res 42:163–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maire E, Withers PJ (2014) Quantitative X-ray tomography. Int Mater Rev 59:1–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maire E, Fazekas A, Salvo L et al (2003) X-ray tomography applied to the characterization of cellular materials. Related finite element modeling problems. Compos Sci Technol 63:2431–2443. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mauseth JD (2014) Botany: an introduction to plant biology. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  47. Mayo SC, Chen F, Evans R (2010) Micron-scale 3D imaging of wood and plant microstructure using high-resolution X-ray phase-contrast microtomography. J Struct Biol 171:182–188. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. McMenamin PG, Quayle MR, McHenry CR, Adams JW (2014) The production of anatomical teaching resources using three-dimensional (3D) printing technology. Anat Sci Educ 7:479–486. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Mebatsion HK, Verboven P, Melese Endalew A, Billen J, Ho QT, Nicolai BM (2009) A novel method for 3-D microstructure modeling of pome fruit tissue using synchrotron radiation tomography images. J Food Eng 93:141–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mizutani R, Suzuki Y (2012) X-ray microtomography in biology. Micron 43:104–115. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Müller R, Rüegsegger P (1995) Three-dimensional finite element modelling of non-invasively assessed trabecular bone structures. Med Eng Phys 17:126–133. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Niklas KJ (1992) Plant biomechanics: an engineering approach to plant form and function. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  53. Nogueira FM, Kuhn SA, Palombini FL et al (2017) Tank-inflorescence in Nidularium innocentii (Bromeliaceae): three-dimensional model and development. Bot J Linn Soc. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nogueira FM, Palombini FL, Kuhn SA, Oliveira BF, Mariath JEA (2019) Heat transfer in the tank-inflorescence of Nidularium innocentii (Bromeliaceae): experimental and finite element analysis based on X-ray microtomography. Micron. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Nowak M, Nowak Z, Pęcherski RB, Potoczek M, Sliwa RE (2013) On the reconstruction method of ceramic foam structures and the methodology of Young modulus determination. Arch Metall Mater. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Obataya E, Kitin P, Yamauchi H (2007) Bending characteristics of bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens) with respect to its fiber–foam composite structure. Wood Sci Technol 41:385–400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ohrnberger D (1999) The bamboos of the world: annotated nomenclature and literature of the species and the higher and lower taxa. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  58. Oskolski A, von Balthazar M, Staedler YM, Shipunov AB (2015) Inflorescence and floral morphology of Haptanthus hazlettii (Buxaceae, Buxales). Bot J Linn Soc 179:190–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ou X, Zhang X, Lowe T et al (2017) X-ray micro computed tomography characterization of cellular SiC foams for their applications in chemical engineering. Mater Charact 123:20–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pajor R, Fleming A, Osborne CP, Rolfe SA, Sturrock CJ, Mooney SJ (2013) Seeing space: visualization and quantification of plant leaf structure using X-ray micro-computed tomography. J Exp Bot 64:385–390. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Palombini FL, Kindlein W, de Oliveira BF, de Araujo Mariath JE (2016) Bionics and design: 3D microstructural characterization and numerical analysis of bamboo based on X-ray microtomography. Mater Charact. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Palombini FL, Kindlein Júnior W, Silva FP, Mariath JEDA (2017) Design, biônica e novos paradigmas: uso de tecnologias 3D para análise e caracterização aplicadas em anatomia vegetal [Design, bionics and new paradigms: use of 3D technologies for analysis and characterization applied to plant anatomy]. Des e Tecnol 7:46–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Palombini FL, Junior WK, de Oliveira BF, Mariath JEA (2018) Materiais e Biônica: sob a Ótica da Análise de Elementos Finitos Baseada em Imagens de Microtomografia de Raios X [Materials and bionics: from the viewpoint of finite element analysis based on X-ray microtomography images]. In: Arruda AJV (ed) Métodos e Processos em Biônica e Biomimética: a Revolução Tecnológica pela Natureza. Editora Blucher, São Paulo, pp 245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Palombini FL, Nogueira FM, Kindlein W et al (2019) Biomimetic systems and design in the 3D characterization of the complex vascular system of bamboo node based on X-ray microtomography and finite element analysis. J Mater Res. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pereira H (2015) The rationale behind cork properties: a review of structure and chemistry. BioResources 10:6207–6229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Petit C, Meille S, Maire E (2013) Cellular solids studied by x-ray tomography and finite element modeling—a review. J Mater Res 28:2191–2201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pistoia W, van Rietbergen B, Lochmüller E-M, Lill CA, Eckstein F, Rüegsegger P (2002) Estimation of distal radius failure load with micro-finite element analysis models based on three-dimensional peripheral quantitative computed tomography images. Bone 30:842–848. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Pohl G, Nachtigall W (2015) Biomimetics for architecture & design. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rengier F, Mehndiratta A, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Zechmann CM, Unterhinninghofen R, Kauczor H-U, Giesel FL (2010) 3D printing based on imaging data: review of medical applications. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 5:335–341. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E et al (2012) Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods 9:676–682. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Sharma B, Gatoo A, Bock M, Mulligan H, Ramage M (2015) Engineered bamboo: state of the art. Proc Inst Civ Eng Constr Mater 168:57–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Silva MJ, Keaveny TM, Hayes WC (1998) Computed tomography-based finite element analysis predicts failure loads and fracture patterns for vertebral sections. J Orthop Res 16:300–308. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Silva LF, dos Santos VR, Paciornik S, Mertens JCE, Chawla N (2015) Multiscale 3D characterization of discontinuities in underwater wet welds. Mater Charact 107:358–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Singh R, Lee PD, Lindley TC et al (2010) Characterization of the deformation behavior of intermediate porosity interconnected Ti foams using micro-computed tomography and direct finite element modeling. Acta Biomater 6:2342–2351. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Stock SR (2008) Recent advances in X-ray microtomography applied to materials. Int Mater Rev 53:129–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stock SR (2009) MicroComputed tomography: methodology and applications. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  77. Tan T, Rahbar N, Allameh SM, Kwofie S, Dissmore D, Ghavami K, Soboyejo WO (2011) Mechanical properties of functionally graded hierarchical bamboo structures. Acta Biomater 7:3796–3803. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Verhulp E, van Rietbergen B, Huiskes R (2008) Load distribution in the healthy and osteoporotic human proximal femur during a fall to the side. Bone 42:30–35. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Wakchaure M, Kute S (2012) Effect of moisture content on physical and mechanical properties of bamboo. Asian J Civ Eng 13:753–763Google Scholar
  80. Wang H, Wang H, Li W, Ren D, Yu Y (2013) Effects of moisture content on the mechanical properties of moso bamboo at the macroscopic and cellular levels. BioResources. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wismans JGF, Govaert LE, van Dommelen JAW (2010) X-ray computed tomography-based modeling of polymeric foams: the effect of finite element model size on the large strain response. J Polym Sci Part B Polym Phys 48:1526–1534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wojtaszek P (ed) (2011) Mechanical integration of plant cells and plants. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  83. Xiong X, Shen SZ, Hua L et al (2018) Finite element models of natural fibers and their composites: a review. J Reinf Plast Compos 37:617–635. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Youssef S, Maire E, Gaertner R (2005) Finite element modelling of the actual structure of cellular materials determined by X-ray tomography. Acta Mater 53:719–730. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zhang L, Ferreira JMF, Olhero S, Coutois L, Zhang T, Maire E, Rauhe JCM (2012) Modeling the mechanical properties of optimally processed cordierite–mullite–alumina ceramic foams by X-ray computed tomography and finite element analysis. Acta Mater 60:4235–4246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zhao L, Ma J, Wang T, Xing D (2010) Lightweight design of mechanical structures based on structural bionic methodology. J Bionic Eng 7:224–231. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zou M, Xu S, Wei C, Wang H, Liu Z (2016) A bionic method for the crashworthiness design of thin-walled structures inspired by bamboo. Thin Walled Struct 101:222–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Program in Design — PGDesignFederal University of Rio Grande do Sul — UFRGSPorto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.Virtual Design Research Group — ViDFederal University of Rio Grande do Sul — UFRGSPorto AlegreBrazil
  3. 3.Plant Anatomy Laboratory — LAVeg, Department of BotanyFederal University of Rio Grande do Sul — UFRGSPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations