STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS REDUCTION

OF LARGE N O T C H E D BEAMS

By Joseph F. M u r p h y 1

ABSTRACT: Four large glulam beams with notches on the tension side were
tested for strength and stiffness. Using either bending net section beam theory
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

or shear formula to calculate crack propagation critical load is very unconser-

vative. A linear elastic fracture mechanics approach, taking into account the
high tension stresses perpendicular to grain and shear stresses at the notch
reentrant corner, conservatively predicts the critical load. The data corroborate
the substantial analytic effect of size predicted by fracture mechanics for notched
beams. Results quantify the observed behavior of bending of beams with notches
on the tension side. The strength reduction is so severe for large beams that
substituting a beam having the net depth of the notched beam is preferable.
Removing material would remove the stress concentrator and would increase
the strength up to net section theory prediction at the notch location. Using an
effective notch length (actual notch length + notch depth added to each end
of the notch) and variable moment of inertia, beam theory accurately predicts
the notch beam deflection under load.

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND

In current practice, notches are cut into w o o d beams to allow for clear-
ance and to adjust the top surfaces to desired levels. Bending stress val-
ues calculated at the notch by dividing the applied b e n d i n g m o m e n t by
the net section modulus are not accurate in predicting beam strength
because the notch reentrant corners cause additional shear stresses a n d
tension stresses perpendicular to the grain. This also applies to using
net section shear stress in predicting beam strength. These stresses cause
crack propagation at loads lower than the breaking load determined by
net section (6).
This paper compares fracture mechanics predicted stength, bending
net section predicted strength, and a modified shear net section pre-
dicted strength to experimental crack initiation/propagation (failure) load
for large glued-laminated w o o d beams. This comparison was used to
find the most accurate m e t h o d to quantify a n d predict notched beam
strength and to check the rational r e c o m m e n d e d practice "avoid notches
in b e a m s " (12); "notching o n the tension side of single beam in the cen-
ter of the span is not r e c o m m e n d e d " (11); a n d "notching of b e n d i n g
members should be avoided, especially o n the tension side of the lum-
ber" (7). A modified net section approach to predict b e a m stiffness is
shown to give good engineering answers.
Murphy (6) analyzed crack propagation loads for notched beams (notch
on tension side) using linear elastic fracture mechanics theory on small
wood beams. However, h e used a (conservative) linear combined m o d e
'Research Engr., Forest Products Lab., Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agricul-
ture, Madison, WI 53705.
Note.—Discussion open until February 1, 1987. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
October 12, 1984. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
112, No. 9, September, 1986. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/86/0009-1989/$01.00. Pa-
per No. 20876.

1989

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:1989-2000.

 failure criteria, Mode I and Mode II. Mall et al. (5) studied the combined
mode failure equation for wood and corroborated Wu's (13) experimen-
tal and Hahn's (2) theoretical crack propagation equation. This localized
failure equation accounts for the shear stresses and stresses perpendic-
ular to grain at the notch corner.
In linear elastic fracture mechanics theory, the strength of material with
a sharp crack is proportional to the square root of the crack length. If
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

one normalizes the geometry by the beam depth and compares the
strength of two beams which are similar in all dimensionless length ra-
tios, then their failure stresses are inversely proportional to the square
root of their respective depths. Fracture mechanics analysis therefore
predicts a substantial analytic effect of size [{M/bd2) °c d~1/2] for a sharp
slit-notch beam. This can be contrasted with the smaller, statistical size
effect that Bohannan (1) found for clear wood beams [(M/bd2) <* d" 1 / 9 ].
Whereas Bohannan found a "weakest link" statistical size effect for large
clear unnotched beams (in which failure is equally likely to occur in the
regions of maximum stresses), fracture mechanics theory predicts ana-
lytically a substantial effect due to size for large beams (in which failure
is likely to occur only at a sharp crack tip or corner). Bohannan's size
effect is statistically based on clear unnotched beams and the fracture
mechanics effect of size is theoretically or analytically founded for notched
beams.
Hirai and Sawada (3) experimentally determined the maximum failure
moments of square-notched wood beams. From small beams (the largest
beam tested was 1-1/2 by 4 by 60 in.) they derived an empirical equation
to predict crack propagation load of notched large beams.

ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

There are presently three separate checks to calculate the critical load
of a notched beam: (1) Bending strength at the net section; (2) shear
strength at the net section; and (3) fracture propagation at the net sec-
tion.
Beam Geometry.—The beam geometry used in the experimental test
procedure is given in Figs. 1(a) and (c), while the assumed beam ge-
ometry used in the analysis [Figs. 1(b) and (d)] is slightly different for
the rectangular notched beam. The slit or notch depth, a, is taken as 0.3
times the overall depth, A, in both test and analysis. For the slit beam
test and analysis, the slit is located 2.5d from the left end of the beam
Figs. 1(a) and (b). The notch length in the notch beam test is located
starting at 2.5d and ending at 5.5d for a total notch length of 3.0d [Fig.
1(c)]. In the notch beam strength analysis, however, a slit is assumed
located at 5.5d [Fig. 1(d)]. The beams are simply supported at each end
and are loaded with a concentrated load two-thirds of the span from the
left end of the beam. Two beam depths, 12 and 18 in., and a beam width
equal to 3.125 in. are used. Note that relative notch size and location
are both restricted in design manuals (7,11) and in this study the notch
size and location are outside the bounds of these restrictions.
Net Section Bending Strength.—The equation for net section bending
strength for the configuration shown in Fig. 1 is:
1990

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:1989-2000.

 i_ *
.3d
d J_ a)
!
M aM , i A
R 1

il
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3d
d A b)
a
~A

-"-.3d
d ±.

d
.3d
J.
I I L d)

TTf^— ~A
2.5d
5.5d
lOd
I5d

FIG. 1.—Test Geometry in Units of Beam Depth; Width b = 3.125 in.; Depth =
d = 12 or 18 in., d„ = d - a

6M 6xR
MOR = (1)
bdl bd2
1

in which MO,R = modulus of rupture; M = bending moment at distance

x from left end of beam; b = beam width (3.125 in.); d = beam depth
(12 or 18 in.); d„ = notched beam net depth (0.7d); x = notch end closest
to load, measured from left end of beam (2.5d or 5.5d); R = left end
reaction (= P/3), in which P = applied load; and a = notch depth (0.3d).
This gives

1
P= (MOR) • (2)

d J
1991

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:1989-2000.

 with a/d = 0.3; x/d = 2.5 or 5.5; and b = 3.125 in.; yields P = 0.3063
(MOR)d for the slit beams, and 0.1392 (MOR)d for the notched beams.
For this study MOR was calculated using the ASTM D 3737-83a (9) clear
wood design stress in bending (for dense Douglas fir) published value
of 3,500 psi divided by 1/2.1 [duration of load and manufacture and use
factors (4)] and multiplied by 0.85 [for scarf joint efficiency (12)] to get
a 5th percentile short-term ultimate strength. MOR = 6,250 psi; P = 1,910
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

d (slit); and P = 870 d (notch) in which P is in pounds and d is in inches.

Net Section Shear Strength.—The modified equation (7,11) for net
section shear strength of a notched beam for the Fig. 1 configuration is:

V= F
I MI (3)

in which V = beam shear = P/3; and F„ = allowable shear stress, giv-

ing, for this concentrated load case (i.e., independence from notch loca-
tion x),

P = 2Fvb (l - -) d (4)

and with a/d = 0.3 and b = 3.125 in. yields P = 3.0625 (Fv)d, For this
study Fv was calculated using the ASTM D 3737-83a (10) published value
165 psi divided by 1/4.1 (4) to get a 5th percentile short-term ultimate
strength of F„ = 675 psi and P = 2,070 d.
Fracture Mechanics Strength.—Similar to stress concentration factors
describing maximum stresses around holes, stress intensity factors de-
scribe the stress field around the tips of cracks. Theoretically stresses
(CT,T) approach infinity as the reciprocal of the square root of the distance
r from the crack tip (i.e., u, T a 1/Vr in Fig. 2). The stress intensity
factors, Kt, describe the stress conditions in a small region around the

F!G. 2.—Coordinate System around Crack Tip (Two-Dimensiona! Geometry for K,,
Kn,

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:1989-2000.

 crack tip, and are useful for describing crack extension. These factors are
linearly dependent on boundary conditions (e.g., load and displace-
ment), are highly dependent on geometry, and are slightly dependent
on orthotropic parameters (for finite bodies). When the stress intensity
factors reach critical values (a material property), crack propagation oc-
curs.
The stress intensity factors as a function of notch depth can be found
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in Murphy (6) and the combined mode fracture initiation equation in

Mall et al. (5). From Murphy (6) for a/d = 0.3 one should use the fol-
lowing to determine the effective stress intensity factors Kj, KX1:
6.9 M 2.3 x\ P
K,= (5)
bd3'1
1.0 V 0.33 P
Ka = (6)
bd1/2
and K, = 0.12Kj + 0.82K„ . (7)
Xn = 0.24K, + 0.47 Ku (8)
in which Kj, Kn = Mode I, II stress intensity factors; and KT, Kn = ef-
fective stress intensity factors on the imminent fracture plane (6).
To better understand the role of effective stress intensity factors, refer
to an x, y coordinate system at the crack tip (Fig. 2):
Ki Kn
y = 0; x > 0 , (9)

Kn
xy x = 0; y < 0 . (10)
V2^Fy)' V2^Fy)'
Eq. 9 describes the theoretical stresses on a plane coplanar to the slit
and Eq. 10 describes the theoretical stresses on the imminent fracture
plane, perpendicular to the coplanar plane.
From Mall et al. (5) the combined mode failure criterion is

+ (11)
T) T~1 =0

in which subscript c refers to critical factors that are material properties.

Substituting Eqs. 5-8 into Eq. 11 yields:

P= -h1-
1A A
B
2A
?V2
(12)

0.552 | - ) +0.157 - " 2 0.276 0.273

in which A = and B
bKlc
Knc is taken as 1,600 psi Vin. (from J. F. Murphy, "Mode II Wood Test
Specimen—Beam with Center Slit," submitted to /. of Testing and Eval-
1993

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:1989-2000.

 nation for publication) and from Petterson and Bodig (8) KSc is calculated
from their generalized equation
Klc = 915 S°g95210-°0126M (13)
in which for a specific gravity (Sg) of 0.54 and moisture content of 12%
(i.e., M = 12)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Klc = 360 psi VinT (14)

Substituting these values, and b = 3.125 in. and x/d = 2.5, 5.5 into Eq.
12, yields
P = 1,050 d1'2 (slit) and P = 550 d1/2 (notch)
Hirai and Sawada (3) derived the following equation for square-notch
softwood beams from small beams (<l-l/2 by 4 by 60 in.). For the pres-
ent study's beam geometry, Hirai and Sawada's formula with eight em-
pirical constants reduces to

P = ^llz i (15)
x d0A5 + 0.69 d0M V
'

in which Fv = average shear value.

For a 15% coefficient of variation (CV) (10),
Fv 675
F= = = 895 psi
r (16)
1-1.645 CV 1-1.645(0.15)

and P = 2,080-rrr — for - = 2.5;

d 045 + 0.69 d010 d
d x
and P = 945 -rrr — for - = 5.5
d°-45 + 0.69rf010 d
in which P is in pounds and d is in inches.
Beam Stiffness.—Beam stiffness was calculated theoretically assuming
the moment of inertia was reduced to the net section along the effective
notch length. In the analysis the effective notch length is equal to the
actual length of the notch plus the depth of the notch added onto each
end (12). Using this procedure, for the slit beams the effective notch
length starts at 2.2d and goes to 2.8d for an effective length of 0.6d. For
the notched beam tests the effective notch length is 3.6d starting at 2.2d
and going to 5.8d.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Four large glulam beams were provided by the American Institute of

Timber Construction. The laminations for these beams were hand se-
lected so that no knots, grain deviation, or scarf joints occurred in the
critical beam section, making the beams essentially clear Douglas fir.
The four beams were to be tested each three times with the load and
support configuration shown in Fig. 1. The three tests comprise uncut,
1994

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:1989-2000.

 slit cut, and notch cut. The uncut beam tests were used to find the beam
modulus of elasticity used in stiffness comparisons. The relative dimen-
sions and locations are also shown in Fig. 1. Two of the beams were 12
in. deep and two 18 in. All beams were 3.125 in. wide with 1-1/2-in.
lamination thickness.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TEST PROCEDURE

The test procedure consisted of loading the uncut beam to about 8,000
lbs (18-in. depth) or to 4,500 lbs (12-in. depth), recording strain gage
and LVDT readings at 100-lb increments. These loads were in the range
of the predicted crack propagation loads for the slit and notch beams.
For the uncut beams, the extreme fiber stress produced by these loads
is well below the elastic limit assuring no damage during these tests.
In the second round of the tests, the beams had a saw slit made on
the tension side a distance of 2.5 beam depths from the far support to

I ! "\
"\ '• V
v
'1

FIG. 3.—Photograph of Crack Initiation from Slit Notch; also Shown Are Displace-
ment Gage Locations

,«. ,_' .p.

-- -4

FIG. 4.—Photograph of Propagated 12-ft Crack

1995

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:1989-2000.

 a relative depth of 0.30. The slit and notch dimensions were chosen so
that after crack propagation in the slit beam test, a rectangular notch
extending well past the propagated crack could be cut in the same beam.
The point of crack initiation in both the slit and notch tests was suffi-
ciently far from both load and reaction points. The notch depth was
chosen so that the crack would initiate in wood, not in a bond line, and
would be at least two lamination thicknesses from the beam edge. Also,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a relative notch depth of 0.3 would test a large difference between net
section theory predictions and fracture mechanics predictions. Load was
applied and recorded like the uncut beams until a crack initiated and
passed a strain/LVDT gage (Fig. 3). If the propagating crack arrested
itself (as manifested by the load dropping off), the test was stopped and
the beam was unloaded. (Beam 2 did not cooperate with crack arrest
and the crack propagated explosively over 12 ft. See Fig. 4.)
In the third round, a notch was cut with a length equal to three times
the beam depth and with the closest end to the load at a distance 5.5
beam depths from the far end of the beam (Fig. 1). The beam was loaded
until the crack initiated at the notch corner and propagated past the strain/
LVDT gages. Beam deflection was measured under the load point for
all tests.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The crack propagation load was determined from the strain/LVDT gage
readings (e.g., Fig. 5, from the rightmost LVDT in Fig. 3). The seven
critical crack propagation loads (the beam in Figs. 3 and 4 did not have
a notch counterpart) are graphed in Fig. 6, along with the three pre-
dicted critical load equations for both slit and notch beams. This infor-
mation is also summarized in Table 1. The straight lines in Fig. 6 are
from net section theory and use fifth percentile material properties, while
the curved lines use fracture mechanics theory and expected material
property values. The larger net depth 0.70 x (18) = 12.6 in. is slightly
above 12 in. so the size effect of 1/9 (1) would not contribute much and
not at all below d = 17.1 in. (net depth = 12).
Net section theory, either bending or shear, is very unconservative for
estimating the critical load. Using expected material properties would
make the predicted lines even more unconservative!
The reader should be reminded that the critical load is defined as the
load at which the crack propagates from the notch or slit. In small, clear
straight-grained specimens, as well as these special glulam beams (i.e.,
essentially clear Douglas fir), the crack propagates leaving a beam with
a net section. In production lumber and glulam beams, propagating cracks
can and do run into knots, grain deviation, and other discontinuities.
Where the crack runs determines whether the beam can carry the load.
Therefore the design strength of a notched beam should be based on
crack propagation load since there is no way of assuring that a net sec-
tion will remain.
Square-notch fracture mechanics theoretical predictions fall above the
experimental data. Two reasons for this bias might be: (1) The theory
uses six constants empirically derived from small beams (ranging from
3/4 by 2 by 30 in. to 1-1/2 by 4 by 60 in.) to account for width variation

1996

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:1989-2000.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 1,000 3,000 5,000 ' 7,000

2,000 4,000 6,000
LOAD.P (pounds)

FIG. 5.—Load/Displacement Curve from LVDT as Crack Passes; Crack Propa-

gation Load is 5,750 lbs

0 4 8 12 16 20
BEAM DEPTH, d (inches)

FIG. 6.—Crack Initiation Load of Large Slit and Notched Beams and Theoretical
Predictions, for x/d = 2.5, 5.5; S = Shear Equation; B2, B5 = Beam Equations;
F2, F5 = Fracture Equations; N2,N5 = Square-Notch Equations

besides two other empirical constants; and (2) the theory assumes the
critical notch stress intensity factors are multiplicative factors times the
shear block strength of the species.
Sharp slit fracture mechanics theoretical predictions fall below the ex-
perimental data. Probable reasons for this are: (1) The beams have higher
critical stress intensity factor values than the assumed average value;
and (2) the simplifying assumption of the sharp-slit geometry yields
P « d050 rather than the more complex P « [d/(d0A5 + Yd010)] for a square
notch.

1997

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:1989-2000.

 TABLE 1.—Beam Strength Comparisons
CRACK PROPAGATION LOADS (lbs)
Theoretical
Beam Depth Experi- Square-
number (in.) mental Fracture Bending Shear notch8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(a) Slit-Beam Tests
1 18 7,000 4,445 34,380 37,260 8,150
2 18 5,750 4,445 34,380 37,260 8,150
3 12 5,500 3,635 22,920 24,840 6,330
4 12 4,900 3,635 22,920 24,840 6,330
(b) Notch-Beam Tests
1 18 2,700 2,330 15,660 37,260 3,700
2 18 — 2,330 15,660 37,260 3,700
3 12 2,650 1,905 10,440 24,840 2,875
4 12 2,750 1,905 10,440 24,840 2,875
"Using formulas from Ref. 3.

TABLE 2.—Beam Stiffness Comparisons, at 2,000-lb Loads

DEFLECTIONS (in.)a
Slit-Beam Notched-Beam
Beam
number Experimental Theoretical Experimental Theoretical
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 0.253 0.253 0.300 0.308
2 0.239 0.236 0.287
3 0.243 0.243 0.278 0.296
4 0.245 0.246 0.297 0.299
'Measured at the applied load.

The notch beams have about one half the strength of the slit b e a m s .
Fracture mechanics theory predicts this tendency.
Beam deflection calculations (at the applied load) of the uncut, slit,
and notched beams are summarized in Table 2 together with experi-
mental observations. Beam m o d u l u s of elasticity was calculated for each
beam from the uncut b e a m tests. This b e a m m o d u l u s of elasticity w a s
used in subsequent calculations for the corresponding slit a n d notched
beam tests. Both tests a n d analysis s h o w that for this geometry there is
a 2% increase in deflection d u e to the slit a n d a 20% increase d u e to the
notch.

CONCLUSIONS

Fracture mechanics methodology can conservatively predict the critical

crack propagation load of large notch beams with notches on the tension
side if the notch is modeled as a slit. Because there is n o w a y of assuring

1998

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:1989-2000.

 that a net section will remain after a crack starts propagating, net section
bending or shear theory is unconservative in estimating this load for
large beams. The reduction in strength is so severe that substituting a
beam having the net d e p t h would avoid such a large strength reduc-
tion—that is, removing material would remove the strength concentra-
tor and would increase the strength u p to the net section theory pre-
diction at the notch location. In other Words, bending members should
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

not be notched on the tension side.

Beam theory with a variable m o m e n t of inertia, and a n effective notch
length equal to actual notch length plus a notch d e p t h a d d e d on each
end, predicts beam deflection u n d e r load quite accurately.

APPENDIX I.—REFERENCES

1. Bohannan, B., "Effect of Size on Bending Strength of Wood Members," USDA

Forest Serv. Res. Pap. FPL 56, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis.,
1966.
2. Hahn, H. T. "A Mixed Mode Fracture Criterion for Composite Materials,"
Composites Technology Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1983, pp. 26-29.
3. Hirai, T., and Sawada, M., "Stiffness and Load Carrying Capacity of Square-
Notched Wood Beams 3: On the Maximum Failure Moments," Research Bul-
letins of the College Experiment Forests, College of Agriculture, Hokkaido
Univ., Sapporo, Japan, 1980, 37(3), pp. 759-788.
4. Hoyle, R. J., Jr., "Wood Technology in the Design of Structures," College
of Engineering, Washington State Univ., Pullman, Wash., 1972.
5. Mall, S., Murphy, J. F., and Schottafer, J. E., "Criterion for the Mixed Mode
Fracture in Wood," Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol.
109, No. 3, 1983, pp. 680-690.
6. Murphy, J. F., "Using Fracture Mechanics to Predict Failure of Notch Wood
Beams," Proc. First International Conf. on Wood Fractures, held at Banff, Al-
berta, 1978, Forintek Canada Corp., Vancouver, B.C., 1979, pp. 159-173.
7. "National Design Specification for Wood Construction," National Forest
Products Association, Washington, D.C., 1982.
8. Petterson, R. W., and Bodig, J., "Prediction of Fracture Toughness of Con-
ifers," Wood and Fiber Science, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1983, pp. 302-316.
9. "Standard Methods for Establishing Stresses for Structural Glued Laminated
Timber (glulam)", ASTM D 3737-83a, American Society for Testing and Ma-
terials, Philadelphia, Pa., 1983.
10. "Standard Methods for Establishing Clear Wood Strength Values," ASTM D
2555-81, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa., 1981.
11. "Timber Construction Manual," Second Edition, American Institute of Tim-
ber Construction, Englewood, Colo., 1974.
12. "Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material," U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Agriculture Hand-
book No. 72, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1974.
13. Wu, E. M., "Application of Fracture Mechanics to Anisotropic Plates," Jour-
• nal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 34, No. 4, 1967, pp. 967-974.

APPENDIX II.—-NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this ywper:

a = notch depth;
b = beam width;
d = beam depth;

1999

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:1989-2000.

 dn = notched beam net depth;
Fv = allowable shear stress;
Kj, Ku = mode I, II stress intensity factors;
Ki, Kn = effective stress intensity factors on imminent fracture plane;
M = bending moment at distance x from left end of beam;
MOR = modulus of rupture;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

P = applied load;
R = left end reaction;
V = beam shear; and
x = notch end closest to load.

2000

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:1989-2000.