Load and Resistance Factor Design of Timber Joints:

International Practice and Future Direction

Ian Smith, M.ASCE,1 and Greg Foliente, A.M.ASCE2

Abstract: International practice for load and resistance factor design 共LRFD兲 of mechanical structural timber joints is reviewed.
Attention is on design provisions in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Australia, those being locations where LRFD codes for wood
construction exist. There are broad similarities between various codes, in that all countries adopt an element-based approach to design.
Most codes base capacity design checks for joints with dowel-type fasteners on the so-called European yield model. There are a number
of systematic differences in detailed implementation of LRFD concepts between countries. No country has yet used structural reliability
concepts in derivation and/or calibration of design equations for joints as the level of safety cannot be formally assessed except for
relatively simple problems. This contrasts with the situation for members, as several countries have already implemented reliability
concepts in design of wood members. Thus, there is imbalance in the principles of design for members and joint in timber systems.
Suggestions are made regarding actions necessary to place member and joint design on an equal footing.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2002兲128:1共48兲
CE Database keywords: Load and resistance design; Joints; Wood.

Introduction and Australia employ structural reliability concepts as the basis of

It is often said that: ‘‘A structure is a constructed assembly of
joints separated by members’’ 共after McLain 1998兲. Joints are
often the most critical components of any engineered structure
and can govern the overall strength, serviceability, durability, and
fire resistance. Assessments of timber buildings damaged after
extreme wind and earthquake events often point to inadequate
connections as the primary cause of damage 共Foliente 1998兲.
Most parts of the world have available timber design codes
predicated on the limit states design 共LSD兲 approach and imple-
mented via a partial factors format. The implementation in the
United States is termed the load and resistance factor design
共LRFD兲. Originally, LRFD methods were implemented as ‘‘soft
conversions’’ of allowable stress design 共ASD兲 methods, but at-
tention is shifting to structural reliability 共probability-based兲 cali-
bration techniques. All contemporary LRFD codes for timber are
written assuming an element by element design process for ‘‘siz-
ing’’ components, with forces calculated assuming linear elastic
system behavior. Essential requirements are that the entire struc-
tural system is statically stable, individual elements meet strength
and stiffness requirements, and global deflections do not exceed
appropriate limits. Currently, LRFD codes in the U.S., Canada,
1
Professor, Univ. of New Brunswick, P.O. Box 44555, Fredericton,
NB, E3B 6C2, Canada. E-mail: ismith@unb.ca; formerly, Visiting Scien-
tist at CSIRO Building, Construction and Engineering, P.O. Box 56,
Highett, Victoria 3190, Australia.
2
Project Leader and Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Building,
Construction and Engineering, P.O. Box 56, Highett, Victoria 3190, Aus-
tralia. E-mail: greg.foliente@csiro.au
Note. Associate Editor: David V. Rosowsky. Discussion open until
June 1, 2002. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual pa-
pers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be
filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on November 15, 2000;
approved on June 4, 2001. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 1, January 1, 2002. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9445/2002/1-48 –59/$8.00⫹$.50 per page.
LRFD design of timber members 共ASCE 1996; CSA 1994; Stan-
dards Australia 1997兲. This advance was possible following col-
lection of extensive data to characterize statistical variation in
mechanical properties of components of lumber, glued-laminated
timber, or wood-based panels. Data were combined with statisti-
cal knowledge of load effects to generate the resistance factors for
members 共Foschi et al. 1989; Foschi 2000兲. Timber codes have
been revised in recent years to reflect improved data and infor-
mation on joints, but no code in the world has implemented
reliability-based design of joints. LRFD of joints is universally
soft-converted from the ASD format.
Reasons for the imbalance in progress of design provisions for
members and joints reflects the inherent relative simplicity of
characterizing mechanical behavior of members, as compared to
joints. Joints have infinite variety in arrangement, which usually
precludes the option of testing large numbers of replicates for
reliable statistical representation of strength or stiffness character-
istics. The same is not true for members which have been char-
acterized through representative sampling and testing in full size
共Madsen 1992兲. Redressing the imbalance between member and
joint design methods is important. All the engineering design
spent on getting the right member sizes and spans may be for
naught, because if buildings are subjected to extreme loads the
joints could fail and the building be severely damaged. Con-
versely, it is possible that joints are both too stiff and too strong
relative to the members under present design provisions. If so, the
tendency will be for members to fail, which is undesirable be-
cause, unlike steel, failure is inherently brittle and can lead to
catastrophic system failure. Although not always done, it is quite
possible to design ductile connections 共Madsen 1998; Rodd
1998兲.
Fig. 1 shows key elements needed to develop or support a
design procedure for timber joints. First requirement is a set of
guidelines or standards that specify the type, nature, and scope of
testing 共blocks A1 and A2, Fig. 1兲. This is typically specified for
certain classes of fasteners 共block A1兲. Alternatively, the test pro-

48 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2002

 Fig. 1. Key elements needed for joint design procedure
cedure can be for the whole joint system 共block A2兲. The second
requirement is a method to obtain nominal design values from test
data 共block B兲. Ideally, this provides a consistent way of assign-
ing design values at a desired level of confidence based on the
number of specimens and variability in test data. Procedures in
blocks A1 and A2 are complementary. Test procedures for whole
joint systems can be used to establish design properties and/or
evaluate the performance of specific joint systems under single or
combined loads. They can also be used to test or experimentally
validate theories or models of joint performance.
Timber joints can be categorized as those made with dowel-
type fasteners, and surface connections 共Madsen 1998兲. Dowel-
type fasteners include drift pins, bolts, lag screws, wood screws,
nails, spikes, and timber rivets. All types of dowel fasteners are
permitted in applications where they resist loads by bending ac-
tion. This is referred to as lateral loading because force from the
members is applied perpendicular to the axis of the fastener. All
types other than drift pins are permitted in applications where
they resist forces along the axis, referred to as axial loading or
withdrawal loading in the case of nails and screws. Axial force
resistance capabilities of nails, wood screws, and lag screws are
relatively unreliable, and so withdrawal resistance can only be
utilized for load combinations of ‘‘lesser’’ cumulative duration
共e.g., wind or earthquake loads in Canada兲. Surface, or skin, con-
nections include those made using ‘‘shear-plate,’’ ‘‘split-ring,’’ or
‘‘toothed-plate’’ connectors. Manufacture of timber connector
joints is labor intensive and their popularity is diminishing. Large
capacity connections formerly made with connectors are now
often made with timber rivets instead 共Madsen 1998兲. Punched-
metal-plate connectors and various folded-plate connectors and
hangers manufactured from light gauge sheet steel are used to
make low-capacity lumber-to-lumber joints.
Not all types of fasteners and connectors are covered by the
structural design standards of various countries. Design capacities
of proprietary products usually fall outside the scope of written
codes. Their use is regulated through ‘‘deemed to comply’’ speci-
fications for small to medium size timber buildings and a process
for certification of such products. Site-made glued joints are usu-
ally excluded from engineered structures because of concerns
about quality control on the ‘‘job site.’’ There are exceptions to
this, e.g., in Germany on-site manufacture of large finger joints in
glued-laminated timbers is permitted. Glued joints are used exten-
sively in the manufacture of engineered wood components, but
this is dealt with via manufacturing standards and product certi-
fication.
This paper reviews international practice for design of me-
chanical timber joints, and discusses the scope of work needed to
elevate LRFD of joints so it is on a comparable footing to LRFD
of timber members. Of the common types of joint, only capacities
of those made with generic dowel-type fasteners 共nails/spikes,
screws, drift pins, and bolts兲 are dealt with by design codes in all
Fig. 2. Failure mechanisms for joints with one slender fastener
共‘‘type 17’’ self-tapping wood screw兲 and one stocky fastener 共coach
bolt兲
countries. Thus, only use of generic dowel-type fasteners is dis-
cussed further in this paper. The presentation covers all elements
of the design method development process as defined in Fig. 1.
European Yield Model for Dowel-Fastener Joints
Currently, design codes use the behavior of a joint with one fas-
tener as the reference condition from which to estimate behavior
of structural connections with several or many fasteners. Predict-
ing the behavior of joints with one dowel-type fastener is, there-
fore, very important. One-fastener joints usually exhibit ductile
behavior involving bearing failure of wood beneath the fastener.
If the fastener is slender there is also bending failure in the fas-
tener, Fig. 2. It can be seen from Fig. 2 that inelastic deformation
governs the ultimate load behavior. This provides a basis for rela-
tively simple mechanics-based prediction of joint capacities.
Codes in the U.S., Canada, and Europe all base the design of
joints with dowel-type fasteners on Johansen’s yield model 共Jo-
hansen 1949; Larsen 1979兲. This model presumes both the fas-
tener and the wood foundation upon which it bears behave as
ideal rigid plastic materials. Model assumptions are the same as
for the well-known limit analysis 共plastic design兲 theory applied
to steel frames. Johansen’s theory is referred to as the European
yield model 共EYM兲 in North America. Figs. 3 and 4 show pos-
sible modes of failure for a single fastener joint loaded in single
shear and double shear, respectively. For the purposes of this
paper, the left member is regarded as the head-side member and
the right as the point-side member for single-shear joints with
nails, spikes, or screws. Geometric variables are fastener diameter
d and length of penetration in each member (l,␣l). Joint capacity
increases as thickness of the members is increased up to the point
where a mode IV failure occurs. Neglecting force other than that
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2002 / 49

Fig. 3. European yield model modes for single shear joints
normal to the axis of the fastener, the yield load 共per joint plane兲
for a joint, P Y , can be determined for any mode from static
equilibrium, or from the principle of virtual work. The governing
mode is that giving the lowest estimate of P Y . Because the fas-
tener is presumed to be rigid plastic, it can only translate and/or
rotate as a rigid body 共or segments of it can behave as rigid bodies
for modes where one or more plastic hinges form in the fastener兲.
Failure can involve bearing failure in just one member or forma-
tion of a plastic hinge in just one member. There are six potential
failure equations to consider for two-member joints, and four
equations in the case of three-member joints. The Appendix gives
the equations for the EYM as developed by Johansen 共1949兲.
Currently, design codes in various countries apply one or more
versions of the EYM. It is presumed that capacities of joints are
not sensitive to possible restraint at the ‘‘head end’’ of nails,
spikes, screws, and bolts, or at the ‘‘nut end’’ of bolts. This po-
tentially leads to quite conservative predictions in the circum-
stance where mode II 共two-member joints only兲 or IIIS governs.
Overview of LRFD Methods for Timber Joints
All written LRFD timber design codes specify that joints be de-
signed according to the generic capacity design equation:
共 ␾R j兲 ⭓N * (1a)
where
共 ␾R j兲 ⫽␾k 1 ¯k jn f R k (1b)
and R j ⫽resistance adjusted for all design specific considerations;
␾⫽resistance factor; k i ⫽modification factor; n f ⫽number of fas-
teners; R k ⫽characteristic resistance per fastener; and N *
⫽factored design action effect. R k values are near minimum, usu-
ally the fifth percentile, or mean values, determined at reference
conditions. ␾ values are assigned based on past experience to
achieve ‘‘traditionally acceptable’’ solutions in terms of the num-
ber of fasteners for various end-use applications 共DeGrace 1986;
McLain 1984兲. Modification factors account for any deviations
between design conditions and reference conditions for R k , e.g.,
duration of loading, climatic conditions. Without exception,
Fig. 4. European yield model modes for double shear joints
50 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2002
modification factors are based on empirical evidence. In the past,
most codes based duration of loading modification factors on the
‘‘Madison curve’’ developed from a study on small clear Douglas
fir bending specimens 共Wood 1951兲. Currently, the Canadian and
U.S. codes apply duration of loading adjustments that were de-
rived from in-grade test data for softwood lumber to everything,
including joints 共Foschi et al. 1989兲. The model pan-European
code 共Eurocode 5, CEN 1995兲 uses an experience-based compos-
ite modification factor that accounts for the interactive effects
between duration of load and moisture conditions during service.
The Australian code is still based on the Madison curve.
Codes require that certain minimum specifications be met with
regard to the arrangement of fasteners in a joint, so as to reduce
the possibility of premature brittle failure due to splitting of mem-
bers. The tacit presumption is that if minimum spacing, end dis-
tance, edge distance, and member thickness requirements are all
respected, loss of strength will not occur prematurely whether
failures are brittle or ductile. There is no explicit guidance in any
code about whether brittle failure is likely for a particular joint
design. LRFD of joints, unlike LRFD of members, does not usu-
ally explicitly address the question of deformation 共slip兲. Focus is
on the above-mentioned strength limit state calculations. The
logic underpinning this is that the deformations of most concern
are due to take up of ‘‘initial slack,’’ e.g., take up of tolerance in
bolt holes. Such movements are often eliminated during construc-
tion as self-weight of the structural system increases. For struc-
tural arrangements with the possibility of load reversals, good
practice is to not use types of joints that produce initial slack.
Irrespective of the argument just advanced, design codes provide
information on the calculation of slip in joints. For example, the
Canadian CSA Standard 086.1 共CSA 1994兲 and Eurocode 5 共CEN
1995兲 provide guidance on calculation of slip in joints as a func-
tion of the service environment and the duration of loading. Slip
information enables designers to, for example, estimate localized
relative movement between timber components that might cause
cracking of nonstructural overlays, or estimation of deflections in
mechanically laminated components.
Mechanical moment connections are notoriously difficult to
make in timber and it can be argued that their use invalidates
assumptions underpinning codes premised on the linear elastic
structural response of systems 共Larsen 1998兲. Currently, most
codes avoid the subject of mechanical moment connections. This
presumes timber frameworks will be braced by triangulation or
using in-fill panels made of wood-based or other materials. How-
ever, there has been much attention in Europe, Australia, and New
Zealand to mechanical moment connections over the last decade
with potential systems having been proven at full scale in the
laboratory and applied in prototype structures 共Rodd 1998兲.
The discussion in the remainder of this section focuses on
strength design provisions in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Aus-
tralia.
U.S. Code
The vast majority of engineers design timber structures based on
the ASD approach. For splice joints with dowel-type fasteners the
allowable load is a fraction of the ‘‘proportional limit’’ load or an
approximation to it 共USDA 1987兲. Proportional limit load, as ob-
served in a short-term monotonic load test, is believed to be the
point at which irreversible damage processes begin. Unadjusted
allowable loads apply to a single fastener/connector subjected to
normal duration 共10 year兲 loading, and a dry service condition.
Concepts and much of the data that underpin working stress de-
sign of joints are the result of research at the U.S. Forest Products
Laboratory in the 1930s and 1940s 共USDA 1987兲. It is generally
accepted that ASD embodies inconsistencies in capacities for dif-
ferent types of fasteners 共McLain 1993兲. For most types of me-
chanical joints the ultimate 共peak兲 load lies well above the esti-
mated proportional limit load. As an example, the ratio of
ultimate to proportional limit load can approach 3.5 for nailed
softwood joints and 7.0 for nailed hardwood joints 共USDA 1987兲.
Joints are often strong and stiff elements within structural systems
and overloading will tend to cause failures in members 共Smith
1998兲. Factors of safety are inconsistent across various types of
joints and cannot actually be defined, as there is no means of
separating global adjustments from test to design capacities into
their constituent parts.
Major changes have been made to design provisions for joints
with dowel-type fasteners 共AFPA 1999兲. Capacities are now
based on the EYM. The ASD code ‘‘National Design Specifica-
tion for Wood Construction’’ 共NDS兲 was last published in 1997
共AFPA 1997兲. Alternatively, the American Society of Civil Engi-
neers has published a ‘‘Standard for Load and Resistance Factor
Design for Engineered Wood Construction’’ that is technically
equivalent to international LRFD codes 共ASCE 1996兲. As in other
countries, ‘‘partial factors’’ on the resistance side of the design
equation are assigned based on committee judgement. Partial fac-
tors on the load side of the design equation are based on reliabil-
ity analysis. These are the same for all structural materials 共El-
lingwood et al. 1980兲. Although the specifies of the LRFD and
ASD methods differ slightly 共Pellicane 2000兲, the technical basis
of the two codes is similar with respect to joints. Member design
by contrast differs significantly between the two documents. Re-
search background and rationale underpinning much of the U.S.
code provisions for timber joints have been discussed elsewhere
共McLain 1984; Task Committee . . . 1996兲. Use of any design
code becomes mandatory once it is referenced in the building
code for a political jurisdiction. Most jurisdictions are regional
and adopt one of several ‘‘model’’ building codes, e.g., Uniform
Building Code. Some large cities have their own building codes.
Building codes reference both ASD and LRFD methods 共or just
ASD if they have not recently been updated兲. Normally, the two
methods are not mixed in design of any one structure, but the
practice is permitted 共Pellicane 2000兲. Eventually, the ASD
should cease to be referenced and, therefore, disappear from use.
Informal information implies that at present very limited use is
made of LRFD in the U.S.
U.S. yield load equations 共AFPA 1997兲 allow for gaps between
members and variation in the fastener yield moment between
members. Neglecting differences in notations, they are otherwise
the same as equations of the ‘‘original EYM’’ 共Appendix兲. As
defined in the U.S., the yield limit load and material properties
that enter the equations have a very specific and unique meaning,
Fig. 5. Embedment strength of wood beneath a fastener and the
yield moment for a fastener are 5% offset values. Values are
intermediate between proportional limit and ultimate loads. The
product of EYM calculations is the nominal capacity for a joint
with one fastener. In the NDS, nominal design capacity is divided
by a factor greater than 1. The magnitude of the factor differs
depending upon the type of fastener. For bolts, drift pins, and lag
screws, adjustments from nominal capacities are a function of the
EYM mode that governs, and the maximum angle to the grain at
which the fastener loads any timber member. For nails, spikes,
and wood screws, adjustments depend only upon the fastener di-
ameter. The purpose of these adjustments is to give capacities
representative of nominal proportional limit based design capaci-
Fig. 5. Five percent offset method for defining joint ‘‘yield limit
load’’ 共based on McLain 1993兲
ties in earlier editions of the specification. For slender and rela-
tively flexible fasteners such as nails or screws, it is presumed
that the capacity of a joint is linearly proportional to the number
of nails. For joints having a number of bolts, drift pins, or lag
screws arranged in a row parallel to the direction of the load,
there is an uneven distribution of force between the fasteners.
This promotes premature failure because, when a first fastener
reaches its capacity 共local failure兲 the other fasteners usually can-
not accommodate the redistributed force, triggering an unstable
unzipping in the row 共Tan and Smith 1999兲. Adjustment factors
allowing for this are based on simplified analogues where an as-
semblage of linear elastic springs represent fasteners and member
segments between them 共Cramer 1968; Lantos 1967; Zahn 1991兲.
Recent research evidence indicates the NDS method for account-
ing for the effect of the number of fasteners is nonconservative,
certainly in the case of bolted joints 共Mohammad et al. 1997兲. It
should be remembered, however, that the U.S. practice is actually
calibrated to give, in a global sense, traditionally accepted solu-
tions.
In the U.S., American Society for Testing and Materials
共ASTM兲 standards for testing complete joints and their compo-
nents support the NDS and ASCE design codes. There is a lack of
guidance for testing whole joint systems under a variety of loads
that might be expected in service 共McLain 1998兲. Also, there is no
explicit method for evaluating characteristic values, R k , and
nominal design values from experiments on timber joints 共block
B, Fig. 1兲. Since there are typically not more than ten replicates in
joint tests, nonparametric methods such as those used for evalu-
ating characteristic strength properties of lumber 共ASTM 1996兲
may not be appropriate. A potentially suitable method is that de-
veloped by Leicester 共1986兲 in Australia 共discussed later兲.
Canadian Code
Like the U.S., Canada permits engineers to design to either ASD
共CSA 1984a兲 or LRFD 共CSA 1994兲. However, it has been ac-
cepted for some time that national, provincial, and municipal
building codes will cease to reference ASD. This is expected to
become established fact by 2003. The ASD provisions are very
similar to pre-1991 provisions in the U.S.
The first LRFD code for timber structures was introduced in
1984 共CSA 1984b兲. For timber members this was a soft conver-
sion from the allowable stress method, although account was
taken of ‘‘in-grade’’ test data for small dimension lumber. There
was a fundamental shift with regard to joint design 共DeGrace
1986兲. Data from various sources were reanalyzed so that joint
capacities would reflect the ultimate 共strength兲 and serviceability
limit state considerations rather than being related to the propor-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2002 / 51

Fig. 6. Canadian/European method for defining embedment strength
tional limit load. Strength and serviceability limits were sepa-
rately identified for joints made with truss plates, nails, and lag
screws. Only the ultimate limit state was considered in other
cases, e.g., laterally loaded bolts, nails loaded in withdrawal. Ul-
timate capacities of laterally loaded bolts and nails were calcu-
lated based on the EYM 共Johansen 1949兲. This was not transpar-
ent as capacities were given in tabular form for different
combinations of fastener diameter and commercial timber species
group, plus member thickness and direction of loading in the case
of bolts. Use of the EYM became transparent for bolted joints in
the 1989 edition of the 共CSA 1989兲. Conceptually, the ultimate
limit state design equation for joints takes the form:
␾R j ⭓ 兺 ␣ Fi F i (2)
where R j ⫽resistance; ␣ Fi ⫽load factor; and F i ⫽nonfactored
load effects. Despite selective refinements, code provisions for
joints remain essentially unaltered since 1984 共Lepper and Smith
1995兲.
EYM yield load equations for bolt, drift pin, and lag screw
joints are given in the CSA Standard 086.1 ‘‘Engineering Design
in Wood (Limit States Design)’’ 共CSA 1994兲. Equations used are
an empirical approximation for some modes, rather than original
EYM equations 共Whale et al. 1987兲. Embedment properties for
timber members are calculated as a function of fastener diameter,
wood density, and angle of loading relative to the grain, based on
tests on bolts 共Smith et al. 1988; Whale and Smith 1986; 1987;
1989兲. The values represent the ultimate 共peak兲 bearing capacity,
Fig. 6. Thus, the embedment values adopted in Canada do not
have the same basis as those in the U.S. Embedment properties
for wood members are related to the short-term ultimate strength
of the material. Fastener yield moments are estimated from data
in the literature 共McLain and Thangjitham 1983兲, and minimum
permitted yield strength for the grade of bolt used. The plastic
moment capacity of a fastener with circular cross section is taken
to be
M Y ⫽␴ Y d /6
3
(3)
where ␴ Y ⫽yield stress and d /6⫽plastic section modulus. The
3
output from the EYM calculation is an estimated fifth percentile
short-term ultimate strength. An adjustment factor of 0.8 is em-
bedded within the CSA equations to convert from short-term test
to ‘‘standard term’’ loading. Its value is the same irrespective of
which EYM mode governs. There is no specific load duration
associated with standard term loading. The factor 0.8 is derived
from reliability studies on lumber components and extrapolated to
joints. Its purpose is to scale the resistance factor when account is
taken of duration of load effect, under dead plus live snow or
dead plus occupancy loads, versus when it is neglected 共Foschi
52 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2002
et al. 1989兲. The value 0.8 is hard to justify for joints where
failure involves both the fastener and the wood, e.g., slender
bolts.
Tabulated specified resistances for nail and spike joints are
based on the original EYM, assuming a single shear arrangement
and that the nail penetrates two thirds of its length into the point-
side member 共Keenan et al. 1982兲. This arbitrary calibration ar-
rangement resulted in either mode IIIs or IV governing, depend-
ing upon the nail size and the timber species. Embedment strength
and the nail yield moment adopted were based on those suggested
by Johansen 共1949兲, with embedment strength taken as 1.1
⫻‘‘near-minimum’’ short-term compressive strength parallel to
the grain. An allowance is made for the so-called string resistance
that can develop in nails after large displacement and intermem-
ber friction 共Keenan et al. 1982兲. These effects inflate specified
resistances by up to about 30%. Recent work indicates that nei-
ther the string effect or intermember friction should be employed
共Smith et al. 2001兲.
For nails and spikes it is presumed that the capacity of a joint
is linearly proportional to the number of nails. However, for joints
having a number of bolts, drift pins, or lag screws, capacities are
adjusted to account for uneven force distribution. Prior to the
1989 edition of CSA Standard 086.1, the approach for accounting
for this was the same as in the NDS 共AFPA 1997兲. Since then, for
axially loaded members empirical adjustments have been estab-
lished to account for the number of bolts in a row, the loaded end
distance 共distance between the last fastener and the end of the
member兲, and the number of rows of fasteners. Only the ‘‘number
of rows’’ adjustment is applied when bolts load the timber mem-
ber共s兲 perpendicular to the grain. Essentially, these were an emer-
gency measure, in response to data from two ad hoc series of
tensile tests on steel–timber–steel bolted joints having one or
more rows of bolts aligned parallel to the axis of a glued-
laminated-timber member 共Masse et al. 1989; Yasumura et al.
1987兲. The ‘‘group effect’’ adjustments are rather constricting and
preclude use of connections with a large number of bolts 共Smith
1994兲.
Unlike other countries, Canada does not produce test standards
in support of its timber design codes. Reliance is placed on the
code committee’s judgment to select appropriate background in-
formation and data. There is no standard method to evaluate char-
acteristic values and nominal values for design of joints 共block B,
Fig. 1兲. The CSA 086 Technical Committee is in the process of a
major overhaul of provisions pertaining to joints. Their objectives
include elimination of inconsistencies in the approaches used to
assign capacities to different types of fasteners, making the nature
of the predicted failure mode transparent, and adoption of
mechanics-based methods whenever feasible.
Eurocode 5
In Europe, the situation is somewhat complicated as many na-
tional and multinational code writing bodies are involved. The
European Committee for Standardisation 共CEN兲 based on Bel-
gium has published a model design code ‘‘Structural Timber De-
sign Code’’ with the designation Eurocode 5 共CEN 1995兲, which
is in LRFD format. Eurocodes are model codes developed by
representatives from member states of the European Economic
Community and some neighboring countries. Various countries
within Europe have developed/are developing National Applica-
tion Documents that meld Eurocode 5 with local needs, tradition,
and design practices. Although such documents are available, it
does not mean that they have yet superseded prior codes within
all political jurisdictions. It is understood that both ASD and LSD Table 1. Values of Composite Modification Factor k mod for Solid and
methods are used in Europe. Scandinavia was the first region to Glued-Laminated Timber and Plywood 关Based on Eurocode 5 共CEN
embrace LRFD. This paper takes a somewhat liberal approach in 1995兲兴
describing the state of the ‘‘design art’’ because of the difficulty in Services
saying what exactly is the situation. Design equation constants Services class 2 Services
such as partial coefficients are assigned values by the appropriate Load duration class 1 共12%⬍MC class 3
body within any country via the National Application Document. class (MC⬍12%) ⬍20%兲 (MC⬎20%)
Values suggested in Eurocode 5 are purely guides to code writing
Permanent 0.60 0.60 0.50
bodies. Conceptually, the form of the design equation for a mem-
共⬎10 years兲
ber or joint is
Long term 0.70 0.70 0.55
R d⭓ 兺 ␥ Fi F i (4) 共6 months to 10 years兲

Medium term 0.80 0.80 0.65

where R d ⫽design resistance⫽R k k mod /␥ m ; R k ⫽characteristic re-
sistance; k mod⫽composite modification factor; ␥ m ⫽material re-
sistance partial coefficient; and ⌺␥ Fi F i ⫽summation of factored
load effects.
Characteristic resistances for dowel-type fastener joints are de-
rived using the original EYM equations 共Johansen 1949兲. As in
Canada, embedment strengths of members are based on the maxi-
mum bearing resistance, Fig. 6. Embedment properties are a func-
tion of fastener diameter, wood density, and angle of loading rela-
tive to the grain 共except for nails兲. Fastener characteristic yield
moment is determined by testing, or by calculation, assuming
M Y ,k ⫽ 共 ␴ U,k ⫹␴ Y ,k 兲 d 3 /12
where ␴ U,k ⫽characteristic ultimate strength in tension and ␴ Y ,k
⫽characteristic yield strength in tension. Values of embedment
strength, s H , entering the EYM equations are first adjusted to
account for changes in properties from reference to design condi-
tions. Both s H and M y include a partial safety factor. Assuming
use of timber for all members and a steel dowel fastener, the
approach is as follows:
s H,d ⫽k mods H,k /␥ m,wood
M Y ⫽M Y ,k /␥ m,steel
where s H,d ⫽design embedment strength for a fastener of diam-
eter d; s H,k ⫽characteristic embedment strength; ␥ m,wood
⫽material partial coefficient for wood 共⬎1.0, typical value 1.3兲;
M Y ⫽design moment resistance; M Y ,k ⫽characteristic moment re-
sistance; and ␥ m,steel⫽material partial coefficient for steel 共⬎1.0,
typical value 1.1兲. Thus, for mode I and II failures, Figs. 3 and 4,
R d /R k ⫽k mod /␥ m,wood , while for mode IV failures R d /R k
⫽ 关 k mod /(␥ m,wood␥ m,steel) 兴 1/2. The ratio R d /R k is intermediate for
mode III failures. Although details of the EYM approach are not
the same as in non-European countries, there are similarities to
the approach taken in the U.S. In both Europe and the U.S., ad-
justments for nonreference conditions depend upon the slender-
ness of the fastener. The product of the calculations is the design
resistance of a joint with one fastener. For bolt and dowel 共drift
pin兲 joints with fasteners arranged in a row parallel to the force in
a member, the capacity is discounted in proportion to the number
of fasteners if there are more than six:
Effective number of fasterners⫽n ef⫽6⫹2 共 n⫺6 兲 /3
where n⫽number of fasteners aligned in a row. This is a noncon-
servative reduction rule compared with those used elsewhere. The
Eurocode 5 rule is based on judgment rather than data. More
sophisticated approaches are permitted, provided that they are at
least as stringent. For nailed joints, n ef it taken to equal n.
The composite modification factor k mod is arrived at in a man-
ner unique to Eurocode 5 as the factor accounts for interaction
共1 week to 6 months兲
Short term 0.90 0.90 0.70
共⬍1 week兲
Instantaneous 1.10 1.10 0.90
Note: MC⫽moisture content typical of solid timber in the service class.
between duration of the load and moisture conditions in service.
Table 1 shows a curtailed set of k mod values. Entries in Table 1 are
based on ad hoc test data and experience.
(5)
In Europe, a raft of test standards published by CEN provides
support to Eurocode 5 and derived national design codes. Like in
the U.S., there is no standard for testing whole joint systems
under a variety of loads that might be expected in service. There
is no standard method to evaluate characteristic values and nomi-
nal values for design of joints 共block B, Fig. 1兲, but this is not
surprising bearing in mind that it is local prerogative within each
country.
Eurocode 5 has much to commend its approach to the design
(6) of joints. It is logical to incorporate modification factors for mois-
(7) ture condition and duration of load within the embedment
strength that enters EYM calculations 关Eq. 共6兲兴. However, it is not
easy to argue the merits of incorporating partial safety coefficients
in calculation of material properties 关Eqs. 共6兲 and 共7兲兴. This is
only justified if variability in resistances for joints is proportional
to the relationships between joint yield load P Y and s H and M Y
implied by the EYM equations. The coupling between the effects
of service class 共moisture conditions兲 and the duration of loading
class is philosophically correct, and perhaps the most innovative
aspect of Eurocode 5. The use of five duration of loading classes
upholds long-term practices and contrasts with Canadian practice
where only three loading classes were found necessary based on
reliability analysis by Foschi et al. 共1989兲.
Fuller details of joint provisions in Eurocode 5 are given else-
where 共Blass et al. 1995; Whale et al. 1987兲.
Australian Code
In Australia, design in timber is in accordance with the standard
AS1720.1 ‘‘Timber Structures, Part 1: Design Methods’’ 共Stan-
(8)
dards Australia 1997兲. Joint provisions of that document are based
solely on an empirical fit of test data. As far as joints are con-
cerned, the code is essentially the same as in the previous ASD
version 共Lhuede 1988兲. Background studies are largely foreign
work in the first half of the twentieth century, supplemented by
studies on Australian timbers, particularly hardwoods. The current
design rules are primarily due to the work of Mack 共1978; 1979兲
and Lhuede 共1988; 1990兲.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2002 / 53

 Because design procedures are based on empirical rules, their
applicability to new products/materials may be questionable. In
the last several decades there has been a shift in the house fram-
ing market from use of unseasoned hardwoods to seasoned soft-
woods. There has also been introduction of a wider variety of
fasteners, new sheathing panels, and composite timber products
that is not reflected by the code. This sparked interest in the EYM
for dowel-type fasteners, but as yet, it is not adopted. Stringer
共1993兲 examined the applicability of the EYM to nailed timber
joints using four Australian timber species, plywood from slash
pine veneers, and Radiata pine LVL. Recently, an extensive ex-
perimental program has been conducted to develop new joint de-
sign procedures for Australian pine based on EYM equations 共Fo-
liente et al. 2001兲.
Standards Australia publishes test standards in support of the
design code 共AS1720.1兲. Supporting standards fulfill the same
function as ASTM standards in the U.S. The joint Australian–
New Zealand draft standard AS/NZS BBBB 共Standards Australia
1998兲 is actually a set of standards for evaluating complete joint
systems that specifies actual in-service joint configuration, speci-
fies realistic in-service loads, has a consistent method of obtaining
characteristic strength, and has a consistent method of applying
load factors to obtain joint design properties. The spirit of this set
of joint systems standards is that it may be used to test any joint
under any loading configuration but it is not necessary to test
every joint under every loading configuration 共Foliente and Le-
icester 1996; Foliente et al. 1998兲.
With regards to the method of establishing characteristic val-
ues and nominal design values 共block B, Fig. 1兲, when sample
size N is equal to or greater than 10, AS BBBB uses a method due
to Leicester 共1986兲:
R k,est⫽R 0.05data关 1⫺2.7共 V/N 1/2兲兴 (9)
where R k,est⫽characteristic value estimated with 75% confidence
level, R 0.05data⫽fifth percentile estimated from the data, and V
⫽coefficient of variation estimated from the data. For N⬍10,
R k,est is computed as: R k,est⫽R min(N/27) V , where R min is the mini-
mum value in the sample. Then, a load factor, which is also a
function of V, is multiplied to R k,est to obtain the nominated load
capacity of the joint.
In evaluating methods to establish uplift design values for
metal connectors, Rosowsky et al. 共1998兲 noted the need to ex-
plicitly consider variability of the test data and the assumed prob-
ability distribution. Bryant and Hunt 共1999兲 conducted Monte
Carlo simulation to evaluate different methods of computing char-
acteristic values for joints. They found that the ‘‘Leicester
method’’ provides good predictions even for reasonably small
sample sizes. The intent of the method is that the coefficient of
variation be determined from the lower tail of test distribution.
R k,est tends to be conservative if the coefficient of variation is
calculated from all the test data. Simplicity and reasonable accu-
racy of Eq. 共9兲 argue in favor of its adoption elsewhere in the
world.
Summary of Issues
Mechanics-based formulas allow designers to account for the
many arrangement-specific parameters that affect the strength and
failure mode of a joint. They are preferable to traditional empiri-
cally based design equations and facilitate introduction and/or
evolution of products. There is international acceptance of this
premise and consensus that EYM-type calculations are an appro-
54 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2002
priate means of estimating capacities of joints with one dowel-
type fastener. There is, however, little uniformity regarding spe-
cifics of implementing EYM equations in design codes or test
methods for estimating input properties. Divergence in practices
between countries or regions of the world seems unnecessary.
European test standards have or are being ‘‘fast tracked’’ to be-
come ISO standards and many countries are now beginning to
actively participate in drafting ISO timber standards. Application
of the EYM may not be completely harmonized in the near future
but there are promising moves in that direction.
There is a need for a rational and consistent method of estab-
lishing characteristic values and nominal values for design of
joints. Direct adoption of material sampling and statistical analy-
sis methods applicable to timber/lumber may not be appropriate.
Because a product such as lumber is a commodity, it is feasible to
sample the population in a representative manner with typically
hundreds of replicates per ‘‘test cell.’’ Even for joints made with
one type of fastener there is need to characterize the strength of
many possible arrangements under a range of loading scenarios.
Statistical distributions that best represent joint strength are not
always the same as those used to represent distributions of mem-
ber strength 共Smith 1982兲. A desirable approach for joints is to
combine statistical characterization of component properties 共e.g.,
fastener yield moment and member embedment strength兲 with
methods for predicting variability in joint capacities from infor-
mation about properties of components.
Few structural connections are made with one dowel-type fas-
tener. Except for nailed joints for which it is generally accepted
that there is a sensibly linear relationship between ultimate capac-
ity and the number of nails, calculation of capacities of joints with
multiple fasteners is an issue upon which there is almost no in-
ternational consensus. There can be transition from ductile to
brittle failure when the number of fasteners is increased. Further-
more, variability in strength is a function of the number of fas-
teners. It is important in design against extreme load events such
as hurricanes and earthquakes to be able to predict if under a
particular design solution, components, including the joints, are
likely to exhibit a brittle or ductile failure. Transparency of failure
modes is another compelling argument in favor of the shift to
mechanics based models.
Modification factors used to adjust from reference to service
conditions are not well established. Adjustments associated with
duration of loading and moisture content are of primary impor-
tance 共Leicester and Lhuede 1992; McLain 1998兲. Ad hoc test
evidence indicates that there are substantial interactions between
moisture conditioning between fabrication and application of
load, moisture fluctuations during loading, and duration of the
loading 共Mohammad and Smith 1994; 1996兲. Currently, only Eu-
rocode 5 links moisture class and duration of loading. It is a
practice that should be followed elsewhere.
Because not all joint systems are amenable to mechanics-
based modeling, there is need for ‘‘blackbox’’ methods of assess-
ing and assigning design properties to whole joint systems. Lim-
ited blackbox methods are available in the U.S. and Europe. In
Australia and New Zealand, draft standard AS BBBB can be used
to evaluate specific fasteners or whole joint systems that are re-
quired to transmit a range of load types 共e.g., moment, shear兲
acting alone or in combination at a range of intensity.
Overarching all of the above is the need to incorporate proba-
bilistic concepts in calibrating the parameters in LRFD of joints.
It is necessary as part of this to decide whether joints are required
to be weak or strong links in timber systems, and whether design
is to be member or system based. Once this is done, it should be
Table 2. Items to Be Considered for Probability Based Load and Resistance Factor Design of Joints: Application of European Yield Model
共EYM兲
Items Status Priority Focus in new work
Characterize
embedment
• Nails Significant data for short- medium Mechanosoptivea effects;
term loading. longer-term loading; improved
nails,b wood composites

• Wood screws Some data for short-term medium Longer-term loading; wood
loading. composites.

• Lag screws Some data for short-term medium Mechanosoptivea effects;

loading. longer-term loading.

• Bolts Significant data for short- medium Mechanosoptivea effects;

term loading. longer-term loading.

• Drift pins Significant data for short- medium Mechanosoptivea effects;

term loading, especially for longer-term loading.
European softwood species.

• Test method/ Standardized methods exist high International harmonization.

interpretation of data in U.S., Europe, ISO.

Fastener moment
capacity
• Nails Significant data. low Improved and nonsteel nails.

• Wood screws Small data. medium All types.

• Lag screws Small data. medium All types.

• Bolts Significant data. low Nonsteel bolts 共e.g., plastic兲.

• Drift pins Significant data. low Nonsteel bolts 共e.g., plastic兲.

• Test method/ Standardized methods exist high International harmonization.

interpretation in U.S., Europe, ISO.
of data

Models
• Development Several versions exist. medium Simplification, if justified by
verification studies.

• Verification Extensive verification for high Assessment of whether all

joints with drift pins 共plain modes are possible for joints
steel dowels兲 and nails. with wood screws, lag screws, or
bolts.

• Harmonization Alternative form of EYM high International harmonization.

used in various codes.
a
Mechanosorptive effect⫽combined effects of moisture and load histories.
b
Improved nails⫽other than plain shank steel wire nails 共e.g., twisted, ring-shank, and coated nails兲.

relatively straightforward in principle to calibrate parameters be-
cause structural reliability methods are well established for these
purposes 共Melchers 1999; Foschi 2000兲. There have already been
preliminary studies based on first- and second-order reliability
methods to characterize reliability of simple wood joints 共e.g.,
Smith 1985, Zahn 1992兲. However, general treatment of the topic
requires account of issues such as aging/damage accumulation,
relaxation and force redistribution, and transitions in failure
modes with time under load. Further research is required in these
areas.
Tables 2 and 3 summarize specific items that need to be con-
sidered in order to raise the technical basis of LRFD methods for
joints so that they are commensurate with LRFD methods for
wood members. Tables 2 and 3 indicate the authors’ assessment of
the status of knowledge and priority they attach to remedying
specific deficiencies. Priorities also reflect the perceived impact
on design practice and discussion within code committees in Aus-
tralia and Canada.
Concluding Comments
Structural reliability analysis has almost reached the stage where
it can be applied on a turnkey basis, but its meaningful applica-

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2002 / 55

Table 3. Items to Be Considered for Probability Based Load and Resistance Factor Design 共LRFD兲 of Joints: General Issues
Item Status Priority Focus in new work
Multiple-
fastener
connections
• Nails Some data. medium Improved and nonsteel nails;
fatigue and long-term loading.

• Wood screws Very limited experimental medium All types.

studies.

• Lag screws Very limited experimental low Steel-to-timber connections.

studies.

• Bolts Significant data for short- high Load perpendicular to grain;

term load parallel to grain. nonsteel bolts 共e.g., plastic兲;
fatigue and long-term loading.

• Drift pins Significant data for short- medium Load perpendicular to grain;
term load parallel to grain, nonsteel bolts 共e.g., plastic兲;
some data for long-term fatigue and long-term loading.
loading.

• Test method/ Appropriate standardized high Evaluation of whole joint

interpretation methods exist in some systems; international
of data countries U.S., Europe, harmonization.
Australia, ISO.

Mechanics- Some exist for specific high Development of generalized

based models applications. approaches; experimental
verification; closed-form
methods.
Reliability
studies

• Theory Generalized theory exists low Specific tools for application of

and can be used. Problem is generalized theory.
lack of input data for
‘‘resistance.’’

• Variability in Ad hoc data, especially for high Variability in ultimate capacities

capacities of joints with one fastener. of multiple fastener connections;
joints. methods for predicting from
variability in timber and fastener
properties.

• Calibration Soft conversion from ASD. high Hard conversion to probabilistic

of LRFD Solutions judged adequate basis; reconciliation of
equations based on experience. discrepancies versus existing
design solutions; focus on
system rather than component
reliability.

tion depends upon quality of the input for load effects and mate-
rial resistance. Presently, knowledge of strength of wood joints is
incomplete. Until the most important gaps in knowledge are nar-
rowed, it is doubtful that reliability concepts can improve upon
‘‘engineering judgment’’ of committees responsible for LRFD in
timber within various countries. There is need for new work on
wood joints and on developing key standards, as has been sug-
gested in this paper. The task is feasible within the next several
years, particularly if effort is shared internationally. Hopefully,
this will be the case.
Appendix. European Yield Model
The following equations describe the model as originally pro-
posed by Johansen 共1949兲 and popularized by Larsen 共1979兲. Cor-
responding failure modes are illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4. Sub-
scripts s and m applied to mode numbers indicate in the case of
mode I failures whether it is the side or main member, respec-
tively, that fails in bearing. The designation IIIm indicates there is
only bearing failure in the main member, while there is a plastic
hinge in the side member combined with bearing failure of the

56 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2002

wood. Analogously, the designation IIIs indicates there is only bearing failure in the side member共s兲, while there is a plastic hinge共s兲 in
the main member combined with bearing failure of the wood. Mode IIIm can only occur in two-member joints, while mode IIIs can occur
in either two-member or three-member joints.
Two-member joints
1.0 Is
␣␤ Im

¦
冑␤⫹2␤ 共 1⫹␣⫹␣ 兲 ⫹␤ ␣ ⫺␤ 共 1⫹␣ 兲
2 2 3 2
II
1⫹␤

冑 2␤ 共 1⫹␤ 兲 ⫹4␤ 共 2⫹␤ 兲

MY
s H dl 2
⫺␤
IIIs
P Y ⫽s H dl
2⫹␤

␣ 冉冑 2␤ 2 共 1⫹␤ 兲 ⫹4␤ 共 1⫹2␤ 兲

MY
s H d␣ 2 l 2
⫺␤ 冊 IIIm
2␤⫹1

min 冑 4␤M Y
s H dl 2 共 1⫹␤ 兲
IV

Three-member joints

冦
1.0 Is
␣␤/2 Im

P Y ⫽s H dl
冑 2␤(1⫹␤)⫹4␤(2⫹␤)
MY
s H dl 2
⫺␤
IIIs
2⫹␤

min 冑 4␤M Y
s H dl 2 共 1⫹␤ 兲
IV

Notation ⌺␥ Fi F i ⫽ factored design action effect; and

␾ ⫽ resistance factor.
The following symbols are used in this paper:
d ⫽ fastener diameter;
F i ⫽ load effect from wind, snow, etc.;
References
k i ⫽ modification factor accounting for departures from
reference conditions for R k ;
AFPA. 共1997兲. ‘‘National design specification for wood construction.’’
k mod ⫽ composite modification factor;
NDS-1997, American Forest and Paper Assoc., Washington, D.C.
l ⫽ thickness of side member共s兲; AFPA. 共1999兲. ‘‘General dowel equations for calculating lateral connec-
M Y ⫽ yield moment of fastener; tion values.’’ American Forest and Paper Association, Washington,
N ⫽ number of samples; D.C.
N * ⫽ factored design action effect; ASCE. 共1996兲. ‘‘Standard for load and resistance factor design for engi-
n ⫽ number of fasteners; neered wood construction.’’ ASCE 2共3兲 16 –95, American Society of
n ef ⫽ effective number of fasteners; Civil Engineers, New York.
R d ⫽ design resistance; ASTM. 共1996兲. ‘‘Establishing allowable properties for visually graded
dimension lumber from in-grade tests of full-size specimens.’’ ASTM
R k ⫽ characteristic resistance per fastener;
D1990-91, West Conshohocken, Pa.
R k,est ⫽ characteristic value estimated with 75% confi- Blass, H., Aune, P., Choo, B. S., Goerlacher, R., Griffiths, D. R., Hilson,
dence level; B. O., Racher, P., and Steck, G. 共1995兲. Timber Engineering Step 1
R j ⫽ ␾k l ¯k j n f R k ⫽resistance adjusted to account for (Sec. C—Joints), Centrum Hout, The Netherlands.
all design specific considerations; Bryant, A. H., and Hunt, R. D. 共1999兲. ‘‘Estimates of joint strength from
R min ⫽ minimum strength value in the sample; experimental tests.’’ Proc., Pacific Timber Engineering Conf.,
R 0.05data⫽ fifth percentile strength estimated from the data; 共PTEC’99兲, Forest Research Bulletin 212, New Zealand Forest Re-
V ⫽ coefficient of variation estimated from test data; search Institute, Ltd., Rotorua, New Zealand, Vol. 2, 225–230.
␣ ⫽ ratio of thickness of main/center member to thick- CEN. 共1995兲 Eurocode 5: Part 1.1 ‘‘Design of timber structures: General
rules and rules for buildings.’’ European Committee for Standardisa-
ness of side member; tion 共CEN兲, Brussels, Belgium.
␤ ⫽ ratio of embedement strength of main member to Cramer, C. O. 共1968兲. ‘‘Load distribution in multiple-bolt tension joints.’’
embedement strength of side member J. Struct. Eng., 94共5兲, 1101–1117.
␥ m ⫽ material resistance partial coefficient⫽␾ ⫺1 ; CSA. 共1984a兲. ‘‘Engineering design in wood.’’ CSA Standard No. 086-
␥ Fi ⫽ partial load coefficient; M84, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2002 / 57

CSA. 共1984b兲. ‘‘Engineering design in wood 共limit states design兲.’’ CSA
Standard No. 086.1-M84, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto.
CSA. 共1989兲. ‘‘Engineering design in wood 共limit states design兲.’’ CSA
Standard No. 086.1-89, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto.
CSA. 共1994兲. ‘‘Engineering design in wood 共limit states design兲.’’ CSA
Standard No. 086.1-94, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto.
DeGrace, R. F. 共1986兲. ‘‘Commentary on CSA Standard 086.1-M84 En-
gineering design in wood 共limit states design兲.’’ Special Publication
No. 086.1.1-M1986, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto.
Ellingwood, B. R., Galambos, T. V., MacGregor, J. G., and Cornell, C. A.
共1980兲. ‘‘Development of a probability based design criterion for
American National Standard A58.’’ National Bureau of Standards,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Foliente, G. C. 共1998兲. ‘‘Design of timber structures subjected to extreme
loads.’’ Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater., 1共3兲, 236 –244.
Foliente, G. C., and Leicester, R. H. 共1996兲. ‘‘Evaluation of mechanical
joint systems in timber structures.’’ Proc., 25th Forest Products Re-
search Conf., CSIRO Division of Forestry and Forest Products, Clay-
ton, Victoria, Australia, Vol. 1, Paper No. 2/16, 8 pp.
Foliente, G. C., Karacabeyli, E., and Yasumura, M. 共1998兲. ‘‘International
test standards for joints in timber structures under earthquake and
wind loads.’’ Proc., Structural Engineers World Congress (SEWC
’98). 共CD-Rom兲, Paper No. T-222-6, San Francisco.
Foliente, G. C., Syme, M. J., and Smith, I. 共2001兲. ‘‘Proposed limit states
design procedure for timber joints with dowel-type fasteners and Aus-
tralian Pine.’’ BCE Doc. No. 01/081, CSIRO Building, Construction
and Engineering, Highett, Australia.
Foschi, R. O. 共2000兲. ‘‘Reliability applications in wood design.’’ Prog.
Struct. Eng. Mater., 2共2兲, 238 –246.
Foschi, R. O., Folz, B. R., and Yao, F. Z. 共1989兲. ‘‘Reliability-based
design of wood structures.’’ Structural Research Series, Rep. No. 34,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver,
B.C.
Johansen, K. W. 共1949兲 ‘‘Theory of timber connectors.’’ Publication No.
9, International Association of Bridges and Structural Engineering,
Bern, Switzerland, 249–262.
Keenan, F. J., Lepper, M. M., and Marshall, C. M. 共1982兲. ‘‘Improved
design of fastenings in timber structures based on limit states design
procedures.’’ Contract Report to Canadian Forestry Service, Hull,
Que.
Lantos, G. 共1967兲. ‘‘Load distribution in multiple mechanical fasteners in
joints subjected to direct load.’’ Research Rep. No. E/RR/28, Timber
Research and Development Association, High Wycombe, U.K.
Larsen, H. J. 共1979兲. ‘‘Design of bolted joints.’’ Proc., Int. Council for
Bldg. Res. Studies and Documentation: Working Commission W18—
Timber Structures, Bordeaux, France, International Council for Re-
search and Innovation in Building and Construction, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands.
Larsen, H. J. 共1998兲. ‘‘Influence of semirigidity of joints on the struc-
ture.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. Control of the Semirigid Behavior of Civil
Engineering Structural Connections, Liege, 17–19 September, Euro-
pean Commission, Luxembourg, 265–273.
Leicester, R. H. 共1986兲. ‘‘Confidence in estimates of characteristic val-
ues.’’ Proc., 19th Meet. CIB W18, Firenze, Italy, International Council
for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands.
Leicester, R. H., and Lhuede, E. P. 共1992兲. ‘‘Mechanosorptive effects on
toothed plate connectors.’’ Proc., IUFRO S.502 Meet., August, Bor-
deaux, France, International Union of Forestry Research Organiza-
tions, Vienna, Austria.
Lepper, M., and Smith, I. 共1995兲. ‘‘Fastenings 共commentary on chapter
10 of CSA Standard 086.1-1994兲.’’ Wood Design Manual 1995, Ca-
nadian Wood Council, Ottawa 647– 666.
Lhuede, E. P. 共1988兲. ‘‘Connector systems.’’ Proc., Timber Struct. Semi-
nar, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Lhuede, E. P. 共1990兲. ‘‘A review of bolted timber connections.’’ Proc.,
23rd Forest Products Res. Conf., CSIRO Division of Forestry and
Forest Products, Clayton, Australia, Vol. 1, Paper No. 2/2.
Mack, J. J. 共1978兲. ‘‘The grouping of species for the design of timber
joints with particular application to nailed joints.’’ Technical Paper,
58 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2002
Second Series No. 26, CSIRO Division of Building Research, Highett,
Australia.
Mack, J. J. 共1979兲. ‘‘Research on timber fasteners.’’ Proc., 19th Forest
Products Res. Conf., Topic 2/4, Supplement, CSIRO Division of
Building Research, Highett, Australia.
Madsen, B. 共1992兲. Structural behavior of timber, Timber Engineering,
Ltd., North Vancouver, B.C.
Madsen, B. 共1998兲. ‘‘Reliable timber connections.’’ Prog. Struct. Eng.
Mater., 1共3兲, 245–252.
Masse, D. I., Salinas, J. J., and Turnbull, J. 共1989兲. ‘‘Lateral strength and
stiffness of single and multiple bolts in glued-laminated timber loaded
parallel to grain.’’ Contribution No. C-029, Engineering and Statistical
Research Centre, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa.
McLain, T. E. 共1984兲. ‘‘Mechanical fastening of structural wood
members—Design and research status.’’ Structural wood research:
State-of-the-art and research needs, R. Itani and K. Faherty, eds.,
ASCE, New York, 33– 68.
McLain, T. E. 共1993兲. ‘‘Connector code development and application in
the United States: Generic fasteners.’’ Proc., 1992 Int. Workshop on
Wood Connectors, Forest Products Society, Madison, Wis., 52–56.
McLain, T. E. 共1998兲. ‘‘Connectors and fasteners: Research needs and
goals.’’ Wood Engineering in the 21st Century: Research Needs and
Goals, K. J. Fridley, ed, ASCE, Reston, Virginia, 56 – 69.
McLain, T. E., and Thangjitham, S. 共1983兲. ‘‘Bolted wood joint yield
model.’’ J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 109共8兲, 1820–1835.
Melchers, R. E. 共1999兲. Structural reliability analysis and prediction,
Wiley, Chicester, U.K.
Mohammad, M. A. H., Quenneville, P., and Smith, I. 共1997兲. ‘‘Bolted
timber connections: Investigation on failure mechanism.’’ Proc.,
IUFRO S5.02 Meeting, Timber Engineering Group, Copenhagen, In-
ternational Union of Forestry Research Organizations, Vienna, Aus-
tria, 309–323.
Mohammad, M. A. H., and Smith, I. 共1994兲. ‘‘Stiffness of nailed OSB-
to-lumber connections.’’ Forest Prod. J., 44共11/12兲, 37– 44.
Mohammad, M. A. H., and Smith, I. 共1996兲. ‘‘Effects of multiphase mois-
ture conditioning on stiffness of nailed OSB-to-lumber connections.’’
Forest Prod. J., 46共4兲, 76 – 83.
Pellicane, P. J. 共2000兲. ‘‘Comparison of ASD and LRFD codes for wood
members, III: Connections.’’ Practice Periodical Struct. Design Con-
struct., 5共2兲, 66 – 69.
Rodd, P. D. 共1998兲. ‘‘Improvement of the structural behavior of timber
joints.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. Control of the Semi-rigid Behavior of Civil
Engineering Structural Connections, Liege, 17–19 September, 1998,
European Commission, Luxembourg, 285–303.
Rosowsky, D. V., Reed, T. D., and Tyner, K. G. 共1998兲. ‘‘Establishing
uplift design values for metal connectors in light-frame construction.’’
J. Test. Eval., 26共5兲, 426 – 433.
Smith, I. 共1982兲. ‘‘Interpretation and adjustment of results from short-
term lateral load tests on whitewood joint specimens with nails or
bolts.’’ Research Rep. No. RR5/82, Timber Research and Develop-
ment Association, High Wycombe, U.K.
Smith, I. 共1994兲. ‘‘The Canadian approach to design of bolted timber
connections.’’ Wood Des. Focus, 5共2兲, 5– 8.
Smith, I. 共1985兲. ‘‘Methods of calibrating design factors in partial coef-
ficient limit states design codes for structural timberwork: With spe-
cial reference to mechanical timber joints.’’ Research Rep. No. RR1/
85, Timber Research and Development Association, High Wycombe,
U.K.
Smith, I. 共1998兲. ‘‘Joints in timber structures: State-of-the-art knowledge
in North America.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. Control of the Semirigid Behav-
ior of Civil Engineering Structural Connections, Keynote address,
Session 4, Liege, 17–19 September, European Commission, Luxem-
bourg, 255–264.
Smith, I., Whale, L. R. J., Anderson, C., Hilson, B. O., and Rodd, P. D.
共1988兲. ‘‘Design properties of laterally loaded nailed or bolted joints.’’
Can. J. Civil. Eng., 15共4兲, 633– 643.
Smith, I., Quenneville, P., and Craft, S. 共2001兲. ‘‘Design capacities of
joints with laterally loaded nails,’’ Can. J. Civil Eng., 28, 282–290.
Standards Australia. 共1997兲. ‘‘AS 1720.1—1997. Timber Structures, Part
1: Design methods.’’ Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Standards Australia. 共1998兲. ‘‘AS/NZS BBBB 共Committee Draft兲.
Timber—Methods for evaluation of mechanical joint systems, Part 1:
Static loading; Part 2: Cyclonic wind loading; Part 3: Earthquake
loading.’’ Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Stringer, G. R. 共1993兲. ‘‘The application of Johansen’s yield theory to
Australian nailed timber joints.’’ Proc., 24th Forest Products Res.
Conf., CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products, Clayton, Victoria, Aus-
tralia, Vol. 1共6/8兲, 14.
Tan, D. and Smith, I., 共1999兲. ‘‘Failure in-the-row model for bolted tim-
ber connections.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 125共7兲, 713–718.
Task Committee on Fasteners of Committee on Wood, American Society
of Civil Engineers. 共1996兲. Mechanical Connections in Wood Struc-
tures, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 84,
ASCE, New York.
USDA. 共1987兲. Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material, Ag-
riculture Handbook 72, United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C., Chap. 7.
Whale, L. R. J., and Smith, I. 共1986兲. ‘‘Mechanical joints in structural
timberwork—Information for probabilistic design.’’ Research Rep.
No. 17/86, Timber Research and Development Association, High
Wycombe, U.K.
Whale, L. R. J., and Smith, I. 共1987兲. ‘‘Mechanical timber joints.’’ Re-
search Rep. No. 18/86, Timber Research and Development Associa-
tion, High Wycombe, U.K.
Whale, L. R. J., and Smith, I., 共1989兲. ‘‘A method for measuring the
embedding characteristics of wood and wood based materials.’’ Mater.
Struct., 22, 403– 410.
Whale, L. R. J., Smith, I. and Larsen, H. J. 共1987兲. ‘‘Design of nailed and
bolted joints—Proposals for the revision of existing formulae in draft
Eurocode 5 and the CIB code.’’ Proc., 20th Meeting of CIB-W18,
Dublin, Ireland, International Council for Research and Innovation in
Building Construction, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Wood, L. W. 共1951兲. ‘‘Relation of strength of wood to duration of load.’’
Rep. No. R1916, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis.
Yasumura, M., Murota, T., and Sakai, H. 共1987兲. ‘‘Ultimate properties of
bolted joints in glued-laminated timber.’’ Proc., 20th Meeting of CIB-
W18, Paper No. 20-7-3, International Council for Research and Inno-
vation in Building and Construction, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Zahn, J. J., 共1991兲. ‘‘Design equation for multiple-fastener wood connec-
tions.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 117共11兲, 3477–3486.
Zahn, J. J., 共1992兲. ‘‘Reliability of bolted wood connections.’’ J. Struct.
Eng., 118共12兲, 3362–3376.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 2002 / 59