## 4 Conclusions  
This work presented and validated a non-intrusive primal-dual global-local strategy for simulating crack propagation in a DCB test using cohesive zone models. The approach successfully reproduced the mechanical response of a full 3D monolithic model while substantially reducing computational cost through domain decomposition. The results demonstrate that the proposed methodology yields highly accurate displacement, force, and stress fields, particularly when the local model fully represents the structural thickness and is appropriately meshed.  
The convergence behavior was consistent across all test cases, confirming the robustness of the algorithm regardless of the size and resolution of the local model. Notably, the crack tip displacement errors decreased to less than 1% in the most refined cases, and computational time savings reached up to 90%, even in this relatively small-scale problem.  
From a scientific standpoint, the study confirms that mesh resolution is the dominant factor affecting numerical accuracy, rather than the position or size of the local model domain. Furthermore, the stress distortion observed in limited local configurations highlights the importance of choosing local domains that adequately capture the structural thickness and fracture process zone.  
The studied methodology offers a scalable and efficient framework for simulating fracture in large structures. Its flexibility makes it suitable for more complex configurations involving anisotropic materials, rolling shear phenomena, or large-scale CLT panels. This work contributes to advancing non-intrusive multiscale strategies in fracture mechanics and paves the way for future research involving structural-scale simulations of delamination in laminated timber structures.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Monolithic Model [s]** & **Case** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Element** \\ **Size [mm]** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Global/Local** \\ **Model [s]** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Time** \\ **Saving** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{2297.64} & \multirow{2}{*}{Case I} & 1 & 118 & 94.9\% \\ \cline{2-5}  & & 0.625 & 523 & 77.2\% \\ \cline{2-5}  & & 0.5 & 968 & 57.9\% \\ \cline{2-5}  & & 1 & 171 & 92.6\% \\ \cline{2-5}  & & 0.625 & 740 & 67.8\% \\ \cline{2-5}  & & 0.5 & 1671 & 27.3\% \\ \cline{2-5}  & & 1 & 183 & 92.0\% \\ \cline{2-5}  & & 0.625 & 947 & 58.8\% \\ \cline{2-5}  & & 0.5 & 2105 & 8.4\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Comparative time between analysis methods with different element size meshes.  
**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, [PERSON] and J.H.; methodology, J.H.; software, R.H. and I.F.-H.; validation, J.H., I.F.-H. and V.T.; formal analysis, J.H. and I.F.-H.; investigation, R.H. and J.H.; data curation, J.H. and I.F.-H.; writing--original draft preparation, R.H., J.H. and I.F.-H.; writing--review and editing, J.H., I.F.-H. and V.T.; visualization, [PERSON] and J.H.; supervision, J.H. and [PERSON]H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research received no external funding.  
Not applicable.  
The data presented in this study are available on request to the corresponding author, due to their large size and specialized format, which require context and guidance for proper interpretation.  
[PERSON] gratefully acknowledges the support provided by the Guillermo Blanco Scholarship of the Universidad de Talca for master's degree programs.  
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.