Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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.
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 Fig. 2. Failure mechanisms for joints with one slender fastener
permitted in applications where they resist loads by bending ac- 共‘‘type 17’’ self-tapping wood screw兲 and one stocky fastener 共coach
tion. This is referred to as lateral loading because force from the bolt兲
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 countries. Thus, only use of generic dowel-type fasteners is dis-
withdrawal loading in the case of nails and screws. Axial force cussed further in this paper. The presentation covers all elements
resistance capabilities of nails, wood screws, and lag screws are of the design method development process as defined in Fig. 1.
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- European Yield Model for Dowel-Fastener Joints
nections include those made using ‘‘shear-plate,’’ ‘‘split-ring,’’ or
‘‘toothed-plate’’ connectors. Manufacture of timber connector Currently, design codes use the behavior of a joint with one fas-
joints is labor intensive and their popularity is diminishing. Large tener as the reference condition from which to estimate behavior
capacity connections formerly made with connectors are now of structural connections with several or many fasteners. Predict-
often made with timber rivets instead 共Madsen 1998兲. Punched- ing the behavior of joints with one dowel-type fastener is, there-
metal-plate connectors and various folded-plate connectors and fore, very important. One-fastener joints usually exhibit ductile
hangers manufactured from light gauge sheet steel are used to behavior involving bearing failure of wood beneath the fastener.
make low-capacity lumber-to-lumber joints. If the fastener is slender there is also bending failure in the fas-
Not all types of fasteners and connectors are covered by the tener, Fig. 2. It can be seen from Fig. 2 that inelastic deformation
structural design standards of various countries. Design capacities governs the ultimate load behavior. This provides a basis for rela-
of proprietary products usually fall outside the scope of written tively simple mechanics-based prediction of joint capacities.
codes. Their use is regulated through ‘‘deemed to comply’’ speci- Codes in the U.S., Canada, and Europe all base the design of
fications for small to medium size timber buildings and a process joints with dowel-type fasteners on Johansen’s yield model 共Jo-
for certification of such products. Site-made glued joints are usu- hansen 1949; Larsen 1979兲. This model presumes both the fas-
ally excluded from engineered structures because of concerns tener and the wood foundation upon which it bears behave as
about quality control on the ‘‘job site.’’ There are exceptions to ideal rigid plastic materials. Model assumptions are the same as
this, e.g., in Germany on-site manufacture of large finger joints in for the well-known limit analysis 共plastic design兲 theory applied
glued-laminated timbers is permitted. Glued joints are used exten- to steel frames. Johansen’s theory is referred to as the European
sively in the manufacture of engineered wood components, but yield model 共EYM兲 in North America. Figs. 3 and 4 show pos-
this is dealt with via manufacturing standards and product certi- sible modes of failure for a single fastener joint loaded in single
fication. shear and double shear, respectively. For the purposes of this
This paper reviews international practice for design of me- paper, the left member is regarded as the head-side member and
chanical timber joints, and discusses the scope of work needed to the right as the point-side member for single-shear joints with
elevate LRFD of joints so it is on a comparable footing to LRFD nails, spikes, or screws. Geometric variables are fastener diameter
of timber members. Of the common types of joint, only capacities d and length of penetration in each member (l,␣l). Joint capacity
of those made with generic dowel-type fasteners 共nails/spikes, increases as thickness of the members is increased up to the point
screws, drift pins, and bolts兲 are dealt with by design codes in all where a mode IV failure occurs. Neglecting force other than that
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.
Fig. 4. European yield model modes for double shear joints
Concepts and much of the data that underpin working stress de-
• Wood screws Some data for short-term medium Longer-term loading; wood
loading. composites.
Fastener moment
capacity
• Nails Significant data. low Improved and nonsteel nails.
Models
• Development Several versions exist. medium Simplification, if justified by
verification studies.
relatively straightforward in principle to calibrate parameters be- joints so that they are commensurate with LRFD methods for
cause structural reliability methods are well established for these wood members. Tables 2 and 3 indicate the authors’ assessment of
purposes 共Melchers 1999; Foschi 2000兲. There have already been the status of knowledge and priority they attach to remedying
preliminary studies based on first- and second-order reliability specific deficiencies. Priorities also reflect the perceived impact
methods to characterize reliability of simple wood joints 共e.g., on design practice and discussion within code committees in Aus-
Smith 1985, Zahn 1992兲. However, general treatment of the topic tralia and Canada.
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 Concluding Comments
areas.
Tables 2 and 3 summarize specific items that need to be con- Structural reliability analysis has almost reached the stage where
sidered in order to raise the technical basis of LRFD methods for it can be applied on a turnkey basis, but its meaningful applica-
• 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.
tion depends upon quality of the input for load effects and mate- Appendix. European Yield Model
rial resistance. Presently, knowledge of strength of wood joints is
incomplete. Until the most important gaps in knowledge are nar- The following equations describe the model as originally pro-
rowed, it is doubtful that reliability concepts can improve upon posed by Johansen 共1949兲 and popularized by Larsen 共1979兲. Cor-
‘‘engineering judgment’’ of committees responsible for LRFD in responding failure modes are illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4. Sub-
timber within various countries. There is need for new work on scripts s and m applied to mode numbers indicate in the case of
wood joints and on developing key standards, as has been sug- mode I failures whether it is the side or main member, respec-
gested in this paper. The task is feasible within the next several tively, that fails in bearing. The designation IIIm indicates there is
years, particularly if effort is shared internationally. Hopefully, only bearing failure in the main member, while there is a plastic
this will be the case. hinge in the side member combined with bearing failure of the
¦
冑⫹2 共 1⫹␣⫹␣ 兲 ⫹ ␣ ⫺ 共 1⫹␣ 兲
2 2 3 2
II
1⫹
min 冑 4M 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 4M Y
s H dl 2 共 1⫹ 兲
IV