Performance of Timber Connections With Single and Multipe Glued-In Threaded Steel Rods (2015)

PERFORMANCE OF TIMBER CONNECTIONS WITH SINGLE AND
MULTIPLE GLUED-IN THREADED STEEL RODS
by
Enrique González Barillas
B.S., THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, 2007
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES
(CIVIL ENGINEERING)
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(Vancouver)
September 2015
© Enrique González Barillas, 2015

ABSTRACT
The experimental research conducted within this thesis project focused on joints composed of
softwood glulam members and mild steel glued-in threaded rods. In a first phase, the influence
of the embedment length and the rod diameter using three different adhesives was studied to
establish performance benchmarks. In the second phase, the investigation focused on the
influence of manufacturing defects on the capacity of timber joints with glued-in steel rods. For
this purpose, timber joints were manufactured with two different types of defects likely to be
encountered during their manufacturing on-site: i) rods placed at an angle to the drill hole instead
of being in the joint axis, and ii) rod placed at the edge of the drill hole instead of fully centred.
Finally, in the third phase, joints with multiple rods (two, three and four rods) were manufactured
and tested. The adhesive type and rod diameter were kept constant and the embedment length
and the spacing between rods were varied during this phase. In all phases of this experimental
campaign, specimens were tested under uniaxial quasi-static tension loading.
The results showed that, for single glued-in rod joints using mild steel threaded rods, a ductile-
type of failure can be consistently attained if the embedment length of the rod is long enough
(>10d). Furthermore, the results for specimens with bonding defects considered in this study had
no significant negative impact on the capacity of the joints if compared to the results obtained in
the first experimental phase. Finally, a spacing between rods greater than four times the rod
diameter demonstrated to be sufficient to facilitate a ductile steel yielding failure as long as the
joints were manufactured with sufficient embedment length (>10d). The results from this study
can contribute towards better understanding of the influence that the parameters under
investigation have on the performance on timber joints with glued-in rods, as well as to translate
ii
this information to promote the development of more studies on further applications such as
moment resisting connections.
iii
PREFACE
This thesis is original, unpublished & independent work by the author; Enrique Gonzalez
Barillas, under the supervision of Dr. Thomas Tannert.
The experimental campaign was partially done in collaboration with Coralie Avez, Masters
Candidate at the University of Mons in Belgium, from May to August 2014.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii
PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ x
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
1.1 OVERVIEW OF GLUED-IN ROD CONNECTIONS ................................................ 1
1.2 RESEARCH NEED...................................................................................................... 2
1.3 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2: STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW ..................................................................... 4
2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 4
2.2 MATERIALS ............................................................................................................... 6
2.3 MANUFACTURING ................................................................................................... 9
2.4 MECHANICS OF GLUED-IN STEEL RODS .......................................................... 10
2.5 DESIGN PROPOSALS .............................................................................................. 18
v
CHAPTER 3: EXPERIMENTAL CAMPAIGN ................................................................... 25
3.1 MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................... 25
3.2 PHASES #1 & #2: SINGLE GLUED-IN RODS ...................................................... 34
3.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR PHASES #1 & #2 ............................................... 43
3.4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS FOR PHASE #1 & #2................................................ 46
3.5 PHASE #3: MULTIPLE GLUED-IN RODS ............................................................ 54
3.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR PHASE #3 ........................................................... 60
3.7 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS FOR PHASE #3 ......................................................... 64
3.8 COMPARISON WITH DESIGN MODEL PREDICTIONS ..................................... 68
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 74
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 76
APPENDIX A: LOAD DISPLACEMENT CURVES ............................................................. 80
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Selected Adhesives Technical Data............................................................................... 29
Table 2 – Parameters and Results for Phase #1 ............................................................................ 35
Table 3 – Relative Stiffness Results for Phase #1 ........................................................................ 36
Table 4 - Results from Phase #2 ................................................................................................... 40
Table 5 - Relative Stiffness Results for Phase #2 ......................................................................... 41
Table 6 – Variables and Results for Factorial ANOVA ............................................................... 44
Table 7 – Backwards elimination Curvi-linear Multiple Regression Analysis Results................ 44
Table 8 - ANOVA Results for Phases #1 and #2.......................................................................... 45
Table 9 – Tukey’s HSD Test Results for factors and treatments in Phase #1&#2 ....................... 45
Table 10 - Tukey’s HSD Test Results for Statistical Significance for factors in Phase #1&2 ..... 45
Table 11 - Results for tests Phase #3 ............................................................................................ 59
Table 12 - Variables and Results for Factorial ANOVA for Phase #3 ......................................... 60
Table 13 - Curvilinear Multiple Regression Analysis Results for Phase #3................................. 61
Table 14 - Subsequent Two-way ANOVA Results (n & le) ......................................................... 61
Table 15 - Subsequent Two-way ANOVA Results (n & s) .......................................................... 62
Table 16 – Tukey’s HSD Test Results for factors and treatments in Phase #3 ............................ 63
Table 17 – Tukey’s HSD Test Results for Statistical Significance for factors in Phase #3 ......... 63
Table 18 - Statistical Results for Comparison of Data vs Design Models.................................... 73
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Schematic illustration of glued-in rod ............................................................................ 5
Figure 2: Examples of applications of glued in steel rod connections .......................................... 5
Figure 3: Knee joint with steel glued in rods connected to steel stiffener plate ............................ 7
Figure 4: Steel threaded rods (left), GFRP rods (centre) & CFRP rods (right) ............................. 8
Figure 5: Options for test loading conditions .............................................................................. 16
Figure 6: Typical failure modes associated with glued-in rods ................................................... 17
Figure 7: Glued-in rod test specimens .......................................................................................... 27
Figure 8: CR-421® (left); T88® (centre) and Gel Magic® (right) ............................................. 28
Figure 9: Hundegger® Robot Drive CNC Machine .................................................................... 30
Figure 10: Centering of rods using toothpicks ............................................................................. 31
Figure 11: Typical test setup (left); and LVDT device (center and right) ................................... 32
Figure 12: Geometry for specimens in Phase #1 ......................................................................... 34
Figure 13: Shear failure around rod (left); rod yielding (centre) and splitting of timber specimen
(right) .................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 14 – Avg. Load Displacement curves for tests in Phase #1 .............................................. 37
Figure 15: Geometry of specimens with “un-centered” rods....................................................... 39
Figure 16: Geometry of specimens with centered rods, but inserted at “an angle“ ..................... 39
Figure 17 - Avg. Load Displacement curves for tests in Phase #2 ............................................... 42
Figure 18 - Debonding failure between rod and timber................................................................ 42
Figure 19 - Distribution of observed failure modes for d=19mm ................................................. 47
Figure 20 - Typical failure modes in Phase #1 with d=19mm: rod yielding (left), brittle pull-out
of rod (right) .......................................................................................................................... 48
viii
Figure 21 – Summary of capacities for d=12.7mm rods .............................................................. 49
Figure 22 - Summary of capacities for d=19mm rods .................................................................. 49
Figure 23 - Effect of manufacturing defect on Axial Capacity (5d embedment) ......................... 51
Figure 24 - Effect of manufacturing defect on Axial Capacity (10d embedment) ....................... 52
Figure 25 - Distribution of observed failure modes for d=12.7mm .............................................. 53
Figure 27 – Examples of test specimens in Phase #3 ................................................................... 54
Figure 28 – Side view of specimen geometry for Phase #3 .......................................................... 55
Figure 29 – Cross section of typical specimen geometry for Phase #3 ........................................ 55
Figure 30 – Observed failure modes in Phase #3: Pull-out (top left), splitting (top right), rod
yielding (bottom) .................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 31 – Load Deformation Curve for (Le=5d, S=3d) ............................................................. 57
Figure 32 - Load Deformation Curve for (Le=7.5d, S=3d) ........................................................... 57
Figure 33 - Load Deformation Curve for (Le=7.5d, S=5d) .......................................................... 58
Figure 34 - Load Deformation Curve for (Le=15d, S=5d) ............................................................ 58
Figure 35 - Distribution of Observed Failure Modes for Phase #3............................................... 66
Figure 36 - Effect of rod spacing on avg. per rod capacity at le=15d ........................................... 66
Figure 37 - Representative (per rod) load-deformation curve ...................................................... 67
Figure 38 - Comparison of specimens with single rods (d=12.7mm) to Design Models ............. 70
Figure 39 - Comparison of specimens with single rods (d=19mm) to Design Models ................ 70
Figure 40 - Comparison of specimens with 2 rods (d=12.7mm) to Design Models..................... 71
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• To my supervisor, Dr. Thomas Tannert, for his support, patience and relentless desire for
the success of this research project
• Vincent Leung, for his invaluable support and patience throughout the duration of this
research project
• George Lee, for his patience and technical savvy for the correct execution of Phases 1 &
2 of the experimental campaign
• Harald Schrempp, for his support, advise and vital involvement in the execution of Phase
3 of the experimental campaign
• John Wong, for his invaluable technical support during the electrical and data collection
system setup for Phase 3
• Lawrence Gunther for his generous help during fabrication of the test specimens at the
CAWP
• John Boys, for his contribution and support given for the execution of Phases 1 &2 of this
project
• Chris Whelan and Christian Lehringer from Purbond®, for their generous contribution of
the CR-421® adhesive utilized throughout the execution of this research project
• Coralie Avez and Adam Geber, for their support and assistance during fabrication of the
test specimens
• Dr. Antal Kozak for his valuable guidance and help to carry out the statistical analysis of
the data collected throughout this research project
• To my wife, for her optimism and vital encouragement throughout this whole process
x
DEDICATION
TO MY WIFE & PARENTS,
FOR THEIR UNWAVERING SUPPORT
xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW OF GLUED-IN ROD CONNECTIONS
Wood has a very rich tradition as a building material in North America. Its aesthetically pleasing
appearance as well as well-established building provisions have allowed wood to become a very
popular choice, especially for the residential housing market. With the flourishing of sustainable
design practices and society’s general disposition towards sustainability, wood has established
itself as a premiere building material aside with reinforced concrete and structural steel. For this
reason, wood’s general acceptance and popularity has been steadily growing in North America.
Connections between timber members are one of the most crucial aspects when designing timber
structures. The selection of the type of connection depends on various factors such as type of
load, direction of load transfer, required strength, ductility, stiffness and finally the cost. These
connections can range from more traditional bolted or nailed connections, to more modern, but
less understood joints, such as glued-in rod connections.
Joints utilizing glued-in steel rods have been used for decades for connecting new and
reinforcing existing members in timber structures. Their main advantage is that the connection
itself is concealed within the timber member, effectively providing the joint with a higher fire
rating as well as a more aesthetically pleasing “look” in comparison with traditional dowel-type
connections. Since the 1980s, extensive research has been conducted to better understand and
predict the performance of joints with glued-in steel rods. Unfortunately, no consensus has been
agreed upon by the research community.
1
1.2 RESEARCH NEED
Most of the research on timber connections with glued-in rods has been conducted on perfectly
centric placed single rods, and very little tests have been carried out on connections with
manufacturing inaccuracies or multiple glued-in rods. As stated previously, despite the
numerous research projects conducted in North America and the European Union over the past
three decades, there is still no universal standard for the design of glued-in rods in timber
applications. The main problems have risen due to the many different approaches available in
the literature for defining the behaviour of the glued-in connections. The question lies in what
kind of approach (strength analysis, linear elastic fracture mechanics, non-linear fracture
mechanics) is more appropriate, and which parameters (embedment length, diameter of rod,
load-to-grain angle, density of timber, moisture content) should be considered in the final design
provisions (Stepinac, 2013). Even more critical is the state of the design of multiple glued-in
rods, since most of the research conducted has been concerned with uniaxial tension and axial
capacity tests of single glued-in rods.
For that reason, this project focused on conducting tests of joints with single and multiple glued-
in steel rods under uniaxial tension loads. First, tests were carried out utilizing a single mild
steel grade threaded rod in a glulam member, followed by similar tests on glulam members with
multiple glued-in rods. In addition, test specimens with single glued-in rods were manufactured
with “defects” in order to determine the effects, if any, that these manufacturing defects have on
the performance of this type of connections.
2
1.3 OBJECTIVES
The main objective of this experimental study is to investigate the possible effects that various
parameters (i.e., adhesive type, rod diameter, embedment length of the rod, manufacturing
defect, number of rods and spacing between rods) have on the failure mode of glued-in rod
connections in order to safely predict the conditions upon which a ductile type failure mode will
occur. The specific objectives are to:
i) Determine the performance and parameters affecting the behaviour of joints using a
single glued-in steel rod (Phase #1);
ii) Gain insight on the influence that manufacturing defects have on the performance and
behaviour of joints using a single glued-in rod (Phase #2); and
iii) Determine the performance and parameters affecting the behaviour of joints using a
multiple glued-in rods (Phase #3).
The data provided by this research project will shed some light on the prediction of the behaviour
of this type of joint and will, eventually, promote a unified design methodology and provisions
for single and multiple glued-in rod connections under uniaxial loads.
3
CHAPTER 2: STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Glued-in steel rods were originally developed in Sweden in the 1960’s (Wiktor, 1990). Yet, it
was not until the 1980’s that heavy research was initiated on the topic and is still ongoing
(Tlustochowicz et al., 2011). Although extensive research has been conducted, no general
consensus over design methodology has been achieved. For that reason, neither the Canadian
nor European Timber design codes include generalized provisions for the design of glued-in steel
rod connections (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011). As a result, even though the technology of glued-
in steel rods has evolved significantly in the past 20 years, in practice they are used in only a few
countries (Faghani, 2013).
Glued-in steel rods are considered a hybrid, modern-day solution for timber structure
connections. They are called “hybrid” because they utilize 3 different materials; rod material,
adhesive and a timber host. Essentially, this connection consists of a bar glued-in, or bonded,
into the timber members by means of an adhesive. Different types of rod materials can be glued-
in to timber: steel, fibre reinforced polymers (FRP’s), and wood. Because ductility is attainable
by means of using steel rods, these are most commonly used (Faghani, 2013). Additionally,
threaded rods provide the versatility in that the rods can be connected to steel elements via the
use of traditional nuts and washers. Figure 1 shows a conceptual illustration of a single glued-in
steel rod.
4
Figure 1: Schematic illustration of glued-in rod
Threaded steel rods bonded into timber elements are very efficient joints that can withstand high
axial forces and exhibit excellent strength and stiffness while still being relatively lightweight
(Steiger et al. 2006). Additionally, glued-in steel rod connections are appealing because of the
concealment of the connector inside the wood member. This is both an architecturally and
aesthetically pleasing feature if compared against conventional dowel-type timber connectors
and is of importance because it also provides the glued-in rod with excellent fire and corrosion
protection (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011). Figure 2 shows some examples of classic applications
of connections with glued-in rods (Bainbridge, 2002). These typical applications range from
post-foundation connections (left), to external column-beam moment frame connections (center),
to internal column-beam moment frame connections (right).
Figure 2: Examples of applications of glued in steel rod connections
5
2.2 MATERIALS
A general overview of the three materials that are utilized to fabricate a glued-in steel rod
connection is presented. These materials are: the timber host, the rod material and the adhesive.
2.2.1 Timber
In order to assure a good performance by the connection, good quality of timber must be
guaranteed by exclusively using strength graded timber and glulam subjected to quality control
(Tlustochowicz et al., 2011). Glued-in rods are typically utilized for large load bearing joints,
and therefore glulam members made from softwoods are normally used (Madhoushi & Ansell,
2008). The rods are embedded into the timber element normally parallel or perpendicular to the
grain orientation of the wood. When designing glued-in rod connections, orientation of the rod
with respect to the grain orientation of the timber is of critical importance as the capacity of the
joint is highly dependent on the grain orientation strength. Research efforts have been targeted
to comprehend the potential effects that loading angles relative to grain angle of the timber host
have on the axial capacity and subsequent failure mode. In particular, one research project
focused on the behaviour of rods glued-in parallel to the grain determined that these types of
joints are highly susceptible to the density of the timber host (Steiger et al. 2006) meanwhile, a
subsequent research project focused on the behaviour of rods glued-in perpendicular to the grain
claimed that these types of joints are less susceptible to the timber member’s density (Widmann
et al. 2007). As these tests were done on a very specific glulam fabricated out of Norwegian
spruce lamella, this general characterization is yet to be validated for North American S-P-F and
Douglas fir based glulam.
6
2.2.2 Rod
The rod material selected for glued-in rod connections plays a large role in the design. Ideally,
glued-in joints should be designed in a way that allows for rod failure (yielding) to occur, rather
than a brittle wood or adhesive failure mode (Steiger et al. 2006). For that reason, the most
common rod material used is mild steel because it permits ductility to control the design rather
than a sudden (Gattesco & Gubana, 2006). Most commonly, rods with threads are used because
these provide an increased interface surface area for adhesion as well as the potential for
mechanical interlocking to occur between rod and adhesive surface (Yeboah, Gilbert, & and
Gilfillan, 2011). Furthermore, threaded steel rods are especially convenient when using glued-in
rod connections for timber-steel applications because the threads allow for easy assemblage
(Tlustochowicz et al., 2011), as illustrated in Figure 3 (Malczyk, 1993).
Figure 3: Knee joint with steel glued in rods connected to steel stiffener plate
Other solutions have been presented as substitutes for threaded steel rods. In Finland, a
connection was developed using reinforcement ribbed bars (rebars) glued-in at skewed angles.
These connections, known as V-connections, have shown to be an efficient alternative regarding
both manufacturing process and performance (Kangas & Kevarinmäki, 2001). Another solution
7
that has gained popularity in recent years is the application FRP as a substitute for the rod
material. Finally, glued-in connections can also be realized by using hardwood dowels. This last
option has the advantage that it yields a much smaller difference in moduli of elasticity between
the rod material and the timber elements being connected. This type of technology is not
common worldwide, and is mostly studied and used in Japan (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011). Figure
4 (Faghani, 2013) illustrates some of the different types of rod materials commonly utilized for
glued-in rod connections.
Figure 4: Steel threaded rods (left), GFRP rods (centre) & CFRP rods (right)
2.2.3 Adhesive
Similar to the mechanics of reinforced concrete, the performance of a glued-in rod highly
depends upon the correct bonding properties and mechanisms developed between the rod
material and the timber element that it will be embedded in. The main purpose of the adhesive in
a glued-in connection is to provide the continuous bond between the timber and the rod to
effectively transfer and withstand loads. During early works, the common adhesives used were
phenol-resorcinol (PRF) and epoxy-based (EPX) adhesives. More recently, polyurethane based
adhesives (PUR) are also being utilized (Fueyo et al., 2010). The European Glued-in Rods for
8
Timber Project, GIROD, conducted extensive studies on the performance of these three adhesive
types and compared their performances. When all other parameters were held constant, PRF
adhesives exhibited the lowest average axial capacity, then PUR based adhesives and EPX based
adhesives showed to have the highest axial capacity (Bengtsson & Johansson, 2001).
The main goal during the design phase of a glued-in connection is to make sure that the adhesive
bond will not be the weakest link of the joint. Therefore, geometric and mechanical properties
such as adhesive adherence strength, thickness of glue line, bore hole diameter, rod diameter, and
embedment length of the rod should all be taken into account to avoid a brittle failure mode
(Steiger et al. 2006). More recent studies have shown that one of the most important
characteristics of PUR based adhesives is their gap-filling ability. This effectively reduces the
potential for entrapment of air bubbles that could lead to a weak bond, and eventual failure in the
timber-adhesive interface. Additionally, PUR based adhesives have comparable shear strengths
to that of commonly used EPX based adhesives, and it has been suggested that they can also be
classified as non-brittle (Lehringer, 2012).
2.3 MANUFACTURING
As is the case for all structural adhesive joints, glued-in rod connections require special attention
during the manufacturing process. For these type of joints to perform to their expected
capabilities it is essential to guarantee specific adhesive curing conditions (i.e. temperature and
moisture content), as well as precise geometrical properties. These specific characteristics
demand that quality control during the manufacturing process of glued-in rod connections be
very stringent (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011). As a result, quality control is viewed as one of the
biggest limitations for the use of glued-in rods for on-site applications. Furthermore, quality
9
control regulations for factory/in-house manufacturing of glued-in rod connections still do not
exist (Faye et al., 2004).
In the work by Johansson (1995), the possibility of horizontally gluing in of the rods was tested.
In general, this procedure resulted in a non-uniform distribution of the adhesive interface and
consequentially, led to substantial decrease in the expected pull out strength of the connection. If
the joint is to be constructed with an oversized hole, one simple method is to apply a well-
defined amount of adhesive into the bottom of the hole and then insert the rod (while rotating it
to assure uniform spread of the adhesive). This method usually requires special equipment to
insert the rod as it is very difficult to embed the entire length of the rod manually (Tlustochowicz
et al., 2011).
In Sweden, the manufacturing of bonded-in rods by the use of undersized holes has gained
popularity. Typically, the diameter of the hole is equal to the nominal size of the rod minus the
depth of the thread of the rod. By applying adhesive to the hole and the rod itself, and then
screwing the rod into the hole, the bonded-in connection is formed. One advantage of this
method is that the adhesive is better retained in the hole before curing (Tlustochowicz et al.,
2011). In contrast, the disadvantage is that by using this method it is very difficult to guarantee
that adhesive has reached all parts of the rod within the timber element.
2.4 MECHANICS OF GLUED-IN STEEL RODS
2.4.1 General Remarks
To better comprehend the mechanical performance of connections with glued-in rods it is
important to recognize the predominant mechanisms that control the behaviour of these
10
connections. As previously stated, this hybrid-type joint is typically made up of three different
materials (timber, steel and adhesive) that have different stiffness and strength properties. The
complexity for these joints is that the three materials are expected to transfer loads and deform
simultaneously under loading. This, along with the wide range of geometric and mechanical
parameters that can alter the behaviour of a glued-in connection, are the main reasons for today’s
general lack of full understanding of the behaviour of this joint type and therefore one reason
why there hasn’t been agreement for the use of a unique design model (Tlustochowicz et al.,
2011).
Research on glued-in rods has been conducted primarily to better understand the factors that
influence the joint performance, as well as to find models that can accurately predict the
performance of these joints under simple load cases. For this reason, and to reduce the amount
of influential parameters that can alter performance of glued-in connections, the majority of tests
have been realized on single rod glued-in joints under axial loading. Determination of the
variability and influence of material, geometric and other parameters on joint strength has been
the focus of most research.
Even though in practice connections that use a single glued-in rod are not very common, testing
of single rods allows for a simplified analysis and isolation of parameters and their influence on
the mechanical performance of the joint (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011). The parameters that have
been investigated can be classified into three main groups (Dunky et al., 2008):
i) Geometrical parameters
ii) Material parameters
iii) Loading/Boundary conditions
11
2.4.2 Geometrical Parameters
Various experimental studies evaluated the impact of embedment length of the rod into the
timber member on axial capacity. For example, Otero Chans et al. (2011) concluded that the
failure load increases with larger rod length and larger rod diameters, but this relationship is not
linear and difficult to model. Yet, previous published research concluded that increasing the
embedment length of the rod increases the axial capacity of the connection, but at the same time
a decrease in the nominal shear strength of the connection was noted and could be attributed to
the non-uniform distribution of shear stresses along the embedded length (Steiger et al., 2006)
(Kangas, 2000) (Gerold, 1992).
The diameter of the rod is another commonly investigated parameter influencing the axial
capacity of single glued-in rod connections. However, the influence of this parameter has been
extremely challenging to simplify due to the many different experimental approaches taken in
experimental works and the complexity and large number of variables in the joint structure.
Research by Otero Chans et al. (2008 & 2010) and Broughton & Hutchinson (2001) found no
significant effect of diameter of the rod on axial capacity for the range of diameter studied. Yet,
earlier studies revealed a slight dependency of the axial capacity on the rod diameter, or the drill
hole diameter in case of wood failures. Steiger et al. (2006) did not characterize the diameter of
the rod as an independent influence factor. Instead, they combined it with the embedment length
of the rod into the timber member. The influence of both parameters combined, rod diameter (d)
and embedment length (le) -assuming a constant and uniform adhesive line thickness- produced
their concept of a slenderness parameter (λ = le/d) as an influence parameter.
12
Other important factors that have been studied are edge distance and rod spacing. According to
many studies, there is a high influence associated with the ultimate axial capacity of glued-in rod
connections attributed to the distance the center of the rod is placed from the edge of the timber
element, as well as the center-to-center rod spacing between rods for multiple glued-in rod
scenarios (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011). For example, Serrano et al. (2008) claimed that if the
edge distance is too small, a splitting failure mode will govern and control the strength of the
connection. Previously, it was recommended that a minimum edge distance of two-and-a-half
times the diameter of the rod should be used -2.5d- as well as a minimum rod spacing distance
between rods of five times the rod diameter -5d- (Blass & Laskewitz, 1999). The New Zealand
Timber Design Guide of 2007 (Buchanan, 2007) suggested that a minimum of 2d should be used
as minimum rod spacing, and that a maximum of 3 rods should be used per row within a
connection.
Bond line thickness influence has also been studied in research performed by Gustafsson &
Serrano (2001), and Bengstsson & Johansson (2001). Yet again, no general consensus has been
reached upon the direct relationship between the thickness of the adhesive line and connection
strength, and one possible reason is the fact that different adhesive thicknesses affect different
types of adhesives differently. From a theoretical point of view, an increase in the bond line
thickness should increase the net surface area of bond between rod and wood element and
therefore should cause a more uniform distribution of stresses and higher axial capacity.
Similarly, a thicker glue line will result in a generally more flexible bond between wood and rod
elements (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011). Unfortunately, research performed on these parameters
has not yielded convincing and consistent evidence to back up the previous generalization.
13
Turkovsky (1989) was among the first researchers to propose that the behaviour of connections
with multiple glued-in rods varied from single glued-in connections and recommended
accounting for irregular force distributions in multiple glued-in rod connections. If a multiple
rod connection is compared to a single rod connection, a non-uniform distribution of forces and
interference between the rods can occur. In cases where brittle failure modes govern the strength
of the joint, it can be expected that no plastic redistribution of forces takes place and therefore,
the failure of one rod may initiate the irreversible failure of the whole connection (Gehri, 2010).
A uniform distribution of forces can only be achieved if the rod strength is made the weakest and
controlling factor within the connection (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011).
2.4.3 Material Parameters
Opinions have differed on the influence that density of the timber member has on axial capacity.
From a theoretical point of view, the influence of the density of the timber member parameter
has often been viewed as a secondary effect, meaning that changing the value of the density of
the timber member will change the value of the parameters in the theoretical expressions for
axial capacity (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011). The recommendations given in Annex C to EN-
1995-2 (2003) for the design of glued-in rod connections indicate that the axial capacity of these
types of joints does depend on the wood density. It is not surprising that this relationship exists
knowing the influence density has on the capacity of nailed and screwed connections. Otero
Chans (2008; 2010) concluded that the correlation between timber density and axial capacity is
non-linear in nature. In contrast, other opinions state that the correlation between the density and
the strength of the wood is generally poor and a generalization of the influence of density on
glued-in rod connections might not be accurate (Bengtsson & Johansson, 2001).
14
Moisture content (MC) and change of MC of the timber member have been the focus of many
research projects. Shrinkage and swelling of the wood due to varying MC levels has been
attributed to cause considerable stresses and cracking that may lead to a loss of adhesion of the
joints with glued-in rods. Although not explicitly referred to in any design code, all design codes
limit and reduce the strength and stiffness of timber members subjected to higher MC conditions
(service classes) (CEN, Eurocode 5- Part 5: Design of Timber Strctures., 2003). This same logic
should apply to glued-in rod joints; reason for which several studies have been conducted to
determine the extent of the possible negative effects that higher MC can have on these types of
connections. Aicher & Dill-Langer (2001) for example, have focused on the effects that MC has
on the adhesiveand found that EPX was unaffected by humid conditions in both short and long
term loading conditions. Meanwhile, connections adhered with PRF and PUR adhesives,
showed a considerable decrease in strength in short term loading conditions in high humidity
conditions. Broughton et al. (2001) concluded that the use of glued-in rods in green timber
members (MC>19%) is possible, if an appropriate strength reduction is included in the design.
2.4.4 Loading and Boundary Conditions
1) Loading to grain angle is relationship parameter that influences the strength of a glued-in
connection. From a theoretical point of view, bond strength between wood and rod member is
highly dependent on wood strength. Therefore, if loading is performed parallel or perpendicular
to the grain orientation, the predominant strength of the wood member is different, and typically
strength of the timber member is highest parallel to the grain (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011). It
could be expected that strength will be the highest when the orientation of load acts along the
grain direction of the wood member, and weakest when it acts perpendicular to the grain
15
orientation (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011). This notion was confirmed within the framework of the
GIROD project (Bengtsson & Johansson, 2001) but challenged by Widmann et al. (2007) who
observed that axial capacity for glued-in rods bonded perpendicular to the grain was between
20%-50% higher than for rods bonded parallel to grain of the wood member.
2) Loading and boundary conditions are test specific parameters that researchers have studied as
a possible reason for variability in results. These parameters account for how tests were set-up
and how the loading was applied to the glued-in rod connection. Different possible alternatives
that have been studied are illustrated in Figure 5 (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011) with the pull-pull
condition being the most commonly applied test set-up.
Figure 5: Options for test loading conditions
3) The duration of load effect on glued-in rod connections has been studied by Aicher & Dill-
Langer (2001) in combination with the effects of varying MC levels. As previously stated, their
research found that EPX adhesive suffered no significant strength decrease under humid
16
conditions in both short and long term durations, while PRF and PUR adhesive types did show a
significant decrease in strength during short-term loading conditions in high humidity climates.
It should be expected that when glued-in rods find their way into a design provision, for long
durations of load their strength should be reduced while for very short durations of load (i.e.
impact) their strength should be marginally increased.
2.4.5 Failure Modes
As explained in the previous section, the mechanical performance of glued-in rods depends on
many parameters. In general, it can be said that there are five types of principal and widely
recognized failure modes associated with glued-in steel rod connections (Tlustochowicz et al.,
2011), illustrated in Figure 6:
a) Shear along the steel rod (brittle)
b) Tensile failure of the wood member (brittle)
c) Shear block failure in the wood member (brittle)
d) Cracking of the wood member (brittle)
e) Yielding of the steel rod (ductile)
Figure 6: Typical failure modes associated with glued-in rods
17
Brittle connection failure modes are generally avoided by designers as they may pose a safety
hazard on occupants and users of buildings. These failure modes may occur instantaneously and
without previous warning, and therefore are at times highly difficult to accurately predict. For
that reason, it can be said the “ideal” failure mode for a glued-in connection should be ductile by
means of yielding of the rod. Furthermore, for moment-resisting joints using multiple glued-in
rods, brittle shear failure in the timber is a concern where shear demands are high (i.e. close to
supports) and the connection shall be designed such that adequate shear capacity is provided for
the flexural strength to become effective (Buchanan et al., 2001).
2.5 DESIGN PROPOSALS
2.5.1 Theoretical Background
There are three general approaches to predict the capacity of connections with glued-in rods:
(Tlustochowicz et al., 2011):
a) Traditional elasto-plastic strength approaches
b) Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and
c) Nonlinear fracture mechanics (NLFM)
In a traditional strength approach, a prediction of stress or strain distribution of the joint is
performed for a given loading situation and then a failure criterion is applied for this distribution.
The stress and strain distributions can be determined through the use of analytical or numerical
models. When using a LEFM approach, the assumption is made that the joint has a pre-existing
crack. Instead of following the procedure of a traditional strength approach, we then calculate
the energy release rate for the joint. The energy release rate is defined as the amount of elastic
energy released during crack propagation. By assuming that failure of the joint takes place when
18
the strain energy released is equal to the critical energy release rate of the joint, the load bearing
capacity of the joint can be calculated. Finally, a NLFM approach considers both previously
mentioned methods. In a sense, NLFM can be considered to be a unifying theory for both
methods (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011). All three approaches are results of further research done
on the original Volkersen’s Theory on shear distribution of bonded joints (Volkersen, 1953).
Most available design approaches for glued-in rods in regards to axial load resistance (i.e. axial
capacity) are derived from one of these three general approaches. If a technique similar to that
used for reinforced concrete is applied, glued-in rods can be designed to yield before the brittle
failure of the adjoining wood members and be compared against the actual experimental results
of behaviour in bending. This section will highlight some of the most prominent design methods
for calculating the axial capacity of glued-in rod joints, including models proposed by Riberholt
(1988), Gerold (1992), the GIROD Project (Bengtsson & Johansson, 2001), Annex C to prEN
1995-2 (CEN, 2003), Steiger et al. (2006) and the provisions within the German standards, DIN
1052: 2008-2012 (Stepinac, 2013).
2.5.2 Riberholt approach
Riberholt (1988) was a pioneer in the study of glued-in connections and established the first
general design and sizing criteria for connections with glued-in rods. The axial capacity is
characterized by Equations 1 and 2, dependent upon the prescribed embedment length of the rod
into the timber member.
Fk = fws ∙ρk ∙ d∙√lg for lg ≥ 200mm (1)
Fk = fwl ∙ ρk d∙lg for lg < 200mm (2)
19
where:
Fk : characteristic failure load of joint;
ρk : characteristic density of timber;
d : rod diameter;
lg : rod embedment length.
The material constants fws and fwl also called withdrawal parameters for the root square and
linear case respectively, are given by fws = 650 N/mm1.5 and fwl = 46 N/mm2 for non-brittle
adhesives. For brittle adhesives, fws = 520 N/mm1.5 and fwl = 37 N/mm2. These equations were
derived from a purely empirical procedure by curve fitting of the experimental results.
2.5.3 Gerold approach
Gerold (1992) proposed that rod slenderness should be considered in the calculation of axial
capacity of a glued-in rod connection, while keeping timber density as one of the design
parameters as described by Equation 3:
Fmean = π d le (pmean/380)0.55 fv,mean (3)
where:
Fmean : mean failure load of joint;
d : rod diameter;
le : rod embedment length;
pmean : mean characteristic timber density;
fv,mean : mean bond strength referring to a characteristic density of 380 kg/m3;
20
λ : slenderness ratio le/d with maximum value of 18.
2.5.4 GIROD approach
The GIROD project concluded with preliminary design equations for the mean shear strength for
EPX-based (Equation 4) and PRF-based (Equation 5) adhesives (Bengtsson & Johansson, 2001).
fv,mean = min of [8.0 N/mm2; 129 ∙ d-0.5 ∙ λ-0.62 ∙ (ρ/480)0.5] (4)
fv,mean = min of [6.3 N/mm2; 10.3 ∙ d-0.17 ∙ λ-0.08 ∙ (ρ/480)0.45] (5)
where:
d : d=dh;
dh : bore hole diameter;
λ : la/ dh;
la : rod embedment length;
dnom : nominal rod outside diameter;
dh – dnom ≤ 2mm.
The GIROD Project then presented a unified design formula, based on the generalized Volkersen
theory (Volkersen, 1953). In order to simplify the expressions, it was agreed that the simpler
formula (Equation 6) for the pull-compression load case, which is a conservative approximation,
was to be used thus the axial capacity is given by:
Pu = τf ∙ π ∙ d ∙ la ∙ (tanω / ω) (6)
where:
21
Pu : characteristic axial capacity of a single rod glued-in connection;
π d la : area of the bond;
τf : local bond line shear strength;
ω = √(lgeo / lm).
The parameter lgeo, is a geometrical length parameter and lm is a material length parameter (a
measure of the ductility of the bond line), and they are defined by Equations 7 & 8:
lgeo = ½ (π ∙ d ∙ le)2 ∙ (1/Ar + (Er/Ew)/Aw) (7)
lm = Er ∙ (Gf / τf2) (8)
where:
Ar : cross sectional area (mm2) of rod;
Er : modulus of elasticity of rod material;
Aw : cross sectional area (mm2) of timber host;
Ew : modulus of elasticity of timber host;
Gf : calculated from lm with the assumption Er=205,000 N/mm2.
2.5.5 Annex C to prEN 1995-2
Equation 9 was introduced as an informative Annex to prEN 1995-2 (CEN, 2003) to design for
withdrawal strength of joints made with glued-in rods, in any timber type:
Rax,k = π ∙ deq ∙ la ∙ fax,k ∙ (tanh ω / ω) (9)
where:
22
Rax,k : characteristic failure load of joint;
fax,k : characteristic shear strength of the wood 5.5 N/mm2;
D : hole diameter;
d : rod diameter;
deq : min [ D or 1.25∙d ];
ω : 0.016 ∙ le / √deq
2.5.6 Steiger et al. Proposal
The experimental work performed by Steiger et al. (2006) led to a new design proposal:
Fax,mean = fv0,mean ∙ π ∙ dh ∙ l (10)
where:
Fax,mean : Characteristic failure load of joint;
d : rod diameter;
dh : hole diameter;
l : rod embedment length;
λ = l e / d;
ρ : characteristic Density of timber;
fv0,mean : characteristic shear strength of the wood around the hole;
= 7.8 N/mm2 (λ/10)-1/3 (ρ/480)0.6 7.5< l / d <15 & 12< d <20 [mm].
23
2.5.7 German Timber Design Standard, DIN 1052
The 2008 version of the German timber design provisions DIN 1052 (2008), included equation
(11) to determine the capacity glued-in rod connections:
Rax,k = π ∙ d ∙ la ∙ fk1,d (11)
where:
Rax,k : characteristic failure load of joint;
d : rod diameter;
λ = la / d;
fk1,d : 4.0 N/mm2 for la<250 mm;
: (5.25 – 0.005) ∙ le for N/mm2 for 250< la <500 mm;
: (3.5 – 0.15) ∙ le for N/mm2 for 500< la <1000 mm.
la (MIN) = max [0.5∙d2 ; 10∙d ] & 6< d <30 [mm].
24
CHAPTER 3: EXPERIMENTAL CAMPAIGN
3.1 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1.1 Introduction
The experimental campaign for this thesis research consisted of three separate test phases and
was carried out at the Materials and Wood Mechanics laboratories of the University of British
Columbia Vancouver (UBC) between the months of January and October of 2014.
Phase #1: Single glued-in rod;
Phase #2: Single glued-in rod with a manufacturing defect;
Phase #3: Multiple glued-in rods.
The specimens in each test phase had a similar layout. For specimens with a single 12.7mm (1/2
inch) diameter rod in Phases #1 and #2, the specimen cross section was 79mm x 79mm.
Moreover, for specimens with a single 19mm (3/4 inch) diameter rod in Phase #1, the specimen
cross section was 114mm x 114mm. For specimens in Phase #3, where the number of rods
varied, the specimen depth was kept constant at 79mm and the specimen width varied according
to the number of rods and the an established minimum edge distance, e. This edge distance, e,
between rod and the edge of the timber host was kept constant for all specimens at 3d (three
times the rod diameter). Finally, the specimen length varied as a function of the rod’s
embedment length, le, as well as a function of design of the specimen “hold-down” testing
connection. Each specimen within was given an alpha-numeric tag in order to easily identify
them.
25
Previous research on glued-in rod connections suggested that pull-pull loading conditions using
specimens with glued-in rods in both ends of the specimens is optimal (Tlustochowicz et al.,
2011). Yet, in order to reduce fabrication time, only one threaded rod per test sample was
inserted and subsequently tested.
3.1.2 Materials
As mentioned several times in the previous sections, connections with glued-in rods are complex
hybrid joints as they involve three different materials simultaneously resisting the external loads
(timber, rod and adhesive). Consequently, the axial capacity of glued-in rods is strongly related
to the timber species, the type of rod material and the adhesive type. For this particular
experimental project, both timber species and rod material were kept constant while different
adhesive types were studied.
All test specimens were fabricated using Douglas-Fir 20f-E grade glulam and mild grade steel
threaded rods (F’ymean = 360MPa). The yield strength was experimentally confirmed on five
randomly selected samples following the procedure outlined in ASTM F606M-14 for carbon
steel threaded rods. It is worthwhile to mention that MC measurements were performed on all
specimens before testing. The average MC was 11.0% across all three phases with maximum
and minimum values of 13.8% and 9.0%, respectively. This is important because past studies
and available design guidelines suggest a negative correlation between high MC, as well as MC
variation, with axial capacity (SIA, 2003; Aicher & Dill-Langer, 2001; Broughton & Hutchinson,
2001).
26
Threaded rods were chosen because they provide the benefit that load-transfer can be assumed to
occur entirely through mechanical interlock of the threads with the adhesive, instead of through
bonding between adhesive and rod material (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011); (Gerold, 1992). In
addition, mild grade steel was chosen in order to facilitate a ductile type of failure of the rod.
Some representative test specimens can be seen in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Glued-in rod test specimens
For Phase #1 & #2 three types of adhesives were considered:
1. CR-421 by Purbond®, (two-component polyurethane-PUR)
2. T88® by System Three® (low viscosity epoxy-EPX)
3. Gel Magic® by System Three® (high viscosity epoxy-EPX)
For simplicity, from this point onward adhesives will be referred to using their commercial
names; CR-421®, T88® and Gel Magic®. All three adhesives (illustrated in Figure 8) were
used in phases #1 and #2; while only CR-421® was utilized in Phase #3.
27
Figure 8: CR-421® (left); T88® (centre) and Gel Magic® (right)
PUR and EPX based adhesives are commonly used for on-site applications and this research
aimed to provide results that were relevant for such applications. For simplicity, the adhesives
are referred to using their commercial names; CR-421®, T88® and Gel Magic®. Both T88® and
Gel Magic® are two component epoxies, yet they exhibit significantly different non-cured
viscosity: 9000cps and 5,000cps for T88® and Gel Magic® respectively, which is a critical
factor for on-site applications. CR-421® is a two-component PUR, with similar viscosity as
T88®. and possesses a superior gap filling ability that allows to assume a better bond to the
wood, but it exhibits the shortest open work time with 15 minutes compared to the 30 and 45
minutes for T88® and Gel Magic®, respectively. All three adhesives are expected to attain their
bond strength by seven days of curing (Gel Magic® Data Sheet, T-88® Data Sheet, Lehringer
2012). Additionally, both structural EPXs can be relatively classified as non-brittle with 7%
elongation at break, the PUR is considered brittle with 2% elongation at break. Table 1
summarizes the main adhesive properties of interest to this study (Gel Magic® Structural Epoxy
Adhesive Technical Data Sheet), (T-88® Structural Epoxy Adhesive Technical Data Sheet),
28
(Lehringer, 2012), including the percent strain values of elongation at break which allows for a
relative categorization of their behaviour at failure.
Table 1 - Selected Adhesives Technical Data
Open Work Expected Shear Strength Tensile Elongation

Adhesive Viscosity [cps]
Time [min] (Parallel to grain) [N/mm2] at Break [%]
CR-421® 9,000 10-20 7.8 2.0 (brittle)
T88® 9,000 – 11,000 30 12.4 7.5 (non-brittle)
Gel Magic® 5,300 40-60 12.4 7.0 (non-brittle)
3.1.3 Manufacturing Process
Fabrication of the test samples consisted of four steps:
1) Cutting and drilling of holes in timber specimens
2) Cutting steel threaded rods to length
3) Gluing and centering of rods into timber specimens
4) Curing of glued-in rod specimens
First, timber hosts were cut into their test dimensions from a larger 6m long beam. Blind holes
were drilled where each rod would be subsequently embedded. The embedment length, le, was
varied throughout the testing campaign. This blind hole, with diameter D, was constantly 4mm
larger than the rod diameter, d, in order to maintain a constant thickness of the glue line of
approximately 2mm. Additional holes were drilled into the lower parts of the specimens for
subsequently attaching them with steel bolts to metal side plates that attached the specimens to
the frame of the testing apparatus. These bolted connections were “over-designed” to guarantee
failure in the glued-in rod connection while avoiding any deformation in the fixture. Efficiency
for this task was high as all specimens and holes were cut using UBC’s CNC heavy timber
29
processor Hundegger® Robot Drive, as shown in Figure 9. To simulate normal on-site
conditions, no surface preparation or sanding was performed on any of the wood members prior
to insertion of the rods.
Figure 9: Hundegger® Robot Drive CNC Machine
Second, all threaded rods were cut to their appropriate lengths for gluing using a simple rebar
cutter. The rods were used as delivered by the supplier; no cleaning solvents or liquids were
used on the rods prior to gluing to closely re-create on-site conditions.
Third, the required amount of adhesive was pushed into the blind holes using a standard gluing
(or caulking) gun to then proceed and glue the rods into their timber hosts. Different methods for
fabrication have been used in the past (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011); herein, toothpicks were
utilized to center the rods, as shown in Figure 10, for its simplicity and popularity for on-site
applications among local fabricators. Furthermore, in order to minimize the amount of entrapped
air inside the adhesive after insertion, a twisting motion was performed when inserting the rods.
This helps assure that a proper bond was created throughout the entirety of the embedded rod.
Fourth, the test specimens were left to air-cure overnight in the workshop. The following
morning, the test samples were placed into a constant climate room (20°C and 65%RH) for final
30
curing to achieve a minimum of 95% of their expected strength (Lehringer, 2012). During the
course of this project, none of the specimens was tested sooner than 21 days after fabrication.
Figure 10: Centering of rods using toothpicks
3.1.4 Test Methods
Steel fixtures were fabricated to connect the rod threads to the fixture by means of nuts and
washers. This approach allowed for an efficient test setup and reduced the amount of set-up time
in between tests. Tests of Phases #1 & #2 were carried out utilizing an MTS® universal testing
machine (125kN capacity) located in the Wood Mechanics Laboratory, while the tests for Phase
#3 were carried out utilizing an Instron® universal testing machine (250kN capacity) in the
Materials Laboratory of the Civil Engineering Department at UBC. The general test set-ups for
the experimental campaigns are shown in Figure 11.
The tests were performed under displacement based loading with a constant loading rate of
1.0mm/min. This rate was chosen so tests would take between 5-7 minutes each, and the loading
pattern was still considered quasi-static monotonic. Linear Variable Differential Transformers
(LVDT’s) were attached to the test specimens to capture the relative displacement between the
31
rod and the timber host. The applied load and the relative displacement were recorded during
testing to obtain the connection capacity and the load-displacement curves. This was performed
on 3 specimens selected tests series with 12.7 diameter rods. The local joint stiffness was
computed for the loading range between 10% and 40% of capacity in order to capture the initial
stiffness of the joint, following the requirements set out by EN-29816. By doing so, the initial
slip and the inelastic behaviour closer to failure is not considered. For the purposes of this
research project, any calculated average initial joint stiffness that was greater than 100 kN/mm
were deemed rigid for all practical purposes; these results are presented as >100 kN/mm.
Figure 11: Typical test setup (left); and LVDT device (center and right)
3.1.5 Statistical Analysis Methods
The experimental data for all three phases of the project was evaluated through a combination of
multi-curvilinear regression analysis and a multi-factor, multi-level Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA). For each experimental phase, a regression model was defined to account for possible
effects of the defined factors as well as interaction between them. By running this regression
model, the factor R2 (expresses how good of a fit the chosen regression model) was computed.
32
This factor served as a measurement of the percentage for which the model accounts for total
variability of the independent variable, herein the axial capacity.
Following the definition of this regression model, a factorial ANOVA was performed to evaluate
the particular effects of the chosen factors and their possible interactions on the overall joint
strength. This was carried out by assigning “dummy” variables within the regression model to
account for the interaction effects of interest. This factorial ANOVA test was performed on a
backwards step-by-step process, each run eliminating statistically not significant parameters. P-
values were calculated on each test and compared to the significance level (α), herein and in
agreement with common engineering practice, chosen as 0.05. If the p-value was found to be
greater than α then the null hypothesis was not rejected for this factor. This means that changing
the levels of that factor had no effect on the response of the system. Following this logic; the
factorial step-by-step ANOVA was used to eliminate non-significant factors, one at a time, until
the analysis yielded only significant factors or interactions. The results obtained served as
indication of which variables would be further analyzed using a simpler Two-Way ANOVA test
with the purposes to validate the findings of significance obtained through the factorial ANOVA
test and to investigate “Main Effects” of the factors without interaction effects.
Finally, as ANOVA tests only yield information about significance, but do not specifically
determine the significance of the individual variable levels; Tukey’s HSD (Honest Significant
Difference) test was carried out for each of the variables that were found to have a statistical
significance on the dependent variable. The purpose of Tukey's HSD test is to specifically
determine which groups within the meaningful independent variables in the sample differ.
33
3.2 PHASES #1 & #2: SINGLE GLUED-IN RODS
3.2.1 Phase #1: ‘Control’ Series Specimen Description
Phase #1 focused on single and centered glued-in rods. A schematic illustration of the test
specimens for Phase #1 is shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Geometry for specimens in Phase #1
Several key parameters were left constant throughout this phase:
i) Edge distance from center of rod to edge of timber specimen (>3d)
ii) Wood species & Average density (20f-E D.Fir-L with ρmean=530 kg/m3)
iii) Parallel to grain orientation of rod relative to wood grain direction
iv) Thickness of glue-line (~2mm)
Meanwhile, the parameters under investigation for this Phase were:
i) Rod diameter; d: 2.7mm and 19mm
ii) Effective embedment length; le :
5d, 7.5d, 10d, 15d and 20d for 12.7mm rods and
5d, 10d and 20d for 19mm rods
iii) Adhesive type: CR-421®, T88® and Gel Magic®
34
Five specimens were tested for each embedment length using the same type of adhesive, and
replicated for all three types of adhesives. An additional 5 specimens were tested utilizing CR-
421® adhesive and an embedment length of 5d. In total, 110 specimens were tested in this
phase. Of those 110 total tested specimens, 65 specimens had 12.7mm rod diameters, while 45
specimens had 19mm rod diameters.
3.2.2 Phase #1: Test Results
In general, the axial capacity results obtained for specimens using different adhesives, at all
different tested embedment lengths, were fairly similar. Additionally, the failure modes
observed for all specimens, without considering the adhesive utilized, were also fairly similar at
all tested embedment lengths.
A summary of the parameters and results for Phase #1 is provided in Table 2. The different
types of failure modes that were observed during Phase #1 are shown in Figure 13. For Phase #1,
local joint stiffness data was gathered for CR-421® specimens at 3 distinct embedment lengths
(5d, 10d, 20d). For the other two adhesives, Gel Magic® and T88®, local stiffness data was
only gathered for the longer embedment length, 20d. These results of the stiffness computations
are summarized in Table 3.
Table 2 – Parameters and Results for Phase #1
Rod Embedment Avg. Coefficient of

Series
Diameter Length Adhesive Capacity Variation
Label
[mm] [mm] [kN] [%]
A1 CR-421® 29.1 4
B1 60 (5d) T88® 20.7 6
12.7
C1 Gel Magic® 29.9 1
A7 85 (7.5d) CR-421® 36.6 8
35
A2 CR-421® 45.3 1
B2 120 (10d) T88® 44.4 4
A8 180 (15d) CR-421® 45.6 <1
A3 CR-421® 45.5 1
B3 240 (20d) T88® 45.7 <1
A4 CR-421® 45.5 9
B4 95 (5d) T88® 40.2 7
A5 CR-421® 87.0 13
19 B5 190 (10d) T88® 77.8 6
A6 CR-421® 106.8 1
B6 380 (20d) T88® 105.8 2
Table 3 – Relative Stiffness Results for Phase #1
Rod Embedment Avg. Initial

Series
Diameter Length Adhesive Joint Stiffness
Label
[mm] [mm] [kN/mm]
A1 60 (5d) CR-421® 90
A2 120 (10d) CR-421® >100
12.7 A3 CR-421® >100
B3 120 (10d) T88® 75
C3 Gel Magic® >100
Generally, it was observed that for specimens with 12.7mm rods, the ductility threshold is 10d
embedment length. Beyond that point, the specimens exhibit yielding in the rods prior to failure,
whereas for shorter embedment lengths (le<10d) a brittle and sudden failure was observed.
36
Figure 13: Shear failure around rod (left); rod yielding (centre) and splitting of timber specimen (right)
Figure 14 presents the corresponding average load-deformation curves each of the series in
Phase #1 that had their stiffness data collected. For the complete set of load deformation plots
for each individual specimen, in each series, the reader is kindly referred to the Appendix.
40
35
30
25 Avg. CR-421 - 5d
Load [kN]
20 Avg. CR-421 - 10d
15 Avg. CR-421 -20d
10 Avg. T88 - 20d
5 Avg. Gel Magic - 20d
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Avg. Relative Displacement [mm]
Figure 14 – Avg. Load Displacement curves for tests in Phase #1
37
3.2.3 Phase #2: Single glued-in rods with manufacturing defect Specimen Description
Phase #2, focused on connections with single glued-in steel threaded rods that were fabricated
with a defect. The main purpose of this phase was to determine the effect, if any, that common
fabrication errors can have on the connection capacity, stiffness and eventual failure mode.
The two defects under investigation were:
i) Rods placed completely “off-set” to one side of the bore hole (“un-centered”)
ii) Rods placed at an angle not perfectly parallel to the timber member.
For this experimental phase, the following parameters were left constant:
i) Rod diameter, d: 12.7mm
ii) Edge distance from center of rod to edge of timber specimen (>3d)
iii) Wood species & average density (20f-E D.Fir-L with ρmean=530 kg/m3)
iv) Orientation of rod relative to wood grain direction (parallel to grain)
v) Thickness of glue-line (~2mm)
Meanwhile, the parameters varied for this phase were:
i) Defect: Rod at an angle or “Un-centered”
ii) Effective embedment length; le : 5d, 10d, and 20d
iii) Adhesive type: CR-421®, T88® and Gel Magic®
To evaluate the performance of the first defect, the rods were placed completely off-set to one
side of the bore-hole (“un-centered”) to maximize the possible negative effects inherent with this
construction error while maintaining a parallel orientation relative to the grain of the timber host.
This positioning effectively reduces the bond surface area between the adhesive and the timber
element. The second defect was created by placing the rods centered within the bore-hole plane,
38
but the rods were inserted at an angle inside the timber host. As a result, the rods were not
parallel but at “an angle” relative to the grain orientation of the timber host. Schematics of these
specimen configurations are illustrated in Figure 15 and Figure 16. Five specimens were tested
for each embedment length using the same type of adhesive and for each type of defect; this
resulted in 90 specimens tested in total.
Figure 15: Geometry of specimens with “un-centered” rods
Figure 16: Geometry of specimens with centered rods, but inserted at “an angle“
An overview of the test series parameters and the test results for Phase #2 are presented in Table
4 along with a comparison against test results from the “control” series of specimens with
centered rods from Phase #1.
39
Table 4 - Results from Phase #2
Embedment Avg.
Series COV
Adhesive] Defect Length Capacity
Label [%]
[mm] [kN]
AX1-i 60 (5d) 28.5 6
“Un-
Centered AX2-i 120 (10d) 45.7 <1
Rod”
AX3-i 240 (20d) 45.6 2
A1 60 (5d) 29.1 4
Control
CR-421® A2 120 (10d) 45.3 1
“centered”
A3 240 (20d) 45.5 1
AX1-ii 60 (5d) 27.9 9
Rod at an AX2-ii 120 (10d) 45.7 <1
Angle
AX3-ii 240 (20d) 45.5 2
BX1-i 60 (5d) 21.2 5
“Un-
Centered BX2-i 120 (10d) 44.8 2
Rod”
BX3-i 240 (20d) 46.3 <1
B1 60 (5d) 20.7 6
Control
T88® B2 120 (10d) 44.4 4
“centered”
B3 240 (20d) 45.7 <1
BX1-ii 60 (5d) 20.2 13
Rod at an 120 (10d)
BX2-ii 45.2 11
Angle
BX3-ii 240 (20d) 45.8 2
CX1-i 60 (5d) 25.1 19
“Un-
Centered CX2-i 120 (10d) 37.8 17
Rod”
CX3-i 240 (20d) 45.2 2
C1 60 (5d) 29.9 1
Gel C2 120 (10d)
Control 43.9 4
Magic®
C3 240 (20d) 45.4 2
CX1-ii 60 (5d) 28.4 13
Rod at an CX2-ii 120 (10d) 42.1 11
Angle
CX3-ii 240 (20d) 45.2 2
40
Table 5 presents the local stiffness data for Phase #2 for CR-421® specimens at 2 distinct
embedment lengths (10d, 20d) for both types of manufacturing defects. For the other two
adhesives, Gel Magic® and T88®, local stiffness data was only gathered for the longer
embedment length, 20d, for both manufacturing defects.
Table 5 - Relative Stiffness Results for Phase #2
Embedment Avg. Initial

Series
Adhesive] Defect Length Stiffness
Label
[mm] [kN/mm]
“Un- AX2-i 120 (10d) >100
Centered
Rod” AX3-i 240 (20d) >100
Control A2 120 (10d) >100
CR-421® “centered”
A3 240 (20d) >100
Rod at an AX2-ii 120 (10d) >100

Angle AX3-ii 240 (20d) 92
“Un-
Centered BX3-i >100
Rod”
T88® Control B3 240 (20d)
75
“centered”
Rod at an BX3-ii
68
Angle
Gel “Un-
Magic® Centered CX3-i 52
Rod”
Control C3 240 (20d)
>100
“centered”
Rod at an CX3-ii
---
Angle
Figure 17 presents the corresponding average load-deformation curves each of the series in Phase
#2 that had their stiffness data collected. The complete set of load deformation plots for each
individual specimen in each series is shown in the Appendix.
41
30
Avg. CR-421 Uncentered
Rod- 10d
25
Avg. CR-421 Rod at an
Angle - 10d
20 Avg. CR-421 Uncentered
Rod -20d
Load [kN]
Avg. CR-421 Rod at an

15
Angle - 20d
Avg. T88 Uncentered
10 Rod - 20d
Avg. T88 Rod at an
5 Angle - 20d
Avg. Gel Magic
Uncentered Rod - 20d
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Avg. Relative Displacement [mm]
Figure 17 - Avg. Load Displacement curves for tests in Phase #2
Although very similar failure modes were observed in this phase relative to Phase #1, one
commonly occurring brittle failure mode (at short rod embedment lengths) that was particular for
this phase, was the “partial debonding” of the rod and adhesive, see Figure 18. This failure mode
can intuitively be attributed to the manufacturing defect as in both cases, parts of the rod laid
next to the timber and left no space for proper adhesive bonding to occur.
Figure 18 - Debonding failure between rod and timber
42
3.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR PHASES #1 & #2
A multi-factor, curvi-linear regression model was developed first in order to assess the fit of the
data model to be used for the subsequent Factorial ANOVA test that was performed. A statistical
analysis was carried out for all specimens with a single glued-in rod combining both Phases #1
and #2 of this project. The regression model defined was defined as:
Y=β0+ β1X1+ β2X2+ β3X3 + β4X4+ β5X5+ β6X6+ β7X7+ β8X8+ β9X9+ β10X10+ β11X11+ β12X12+ ε
where:
YN : Dependent variable for regression and factorial model, Joint capacity;
XN : Independent variables for each of the n variables defined;
βN : Regression coefficients of the model for each of the n variables that were defined;
β0 : Intercept of the regression model;
ε: Inherent error in this model.
Table 6 shows each of the defined variables and the factor they represented within the statistical
model, as well as the results for this Factorial ANOVA: the R2 values obtained by performing a
step-by-step ANOVA with backwards elimination of the least statistical significant variable.
During every step of the analysis; if a statistically un-meaningful variable was found (i.e.
p>0.05), it was dropped from the model and the analysis was performed again without
considering it. This process was repeated until all variables left in the model had a significant
impact on the variability of the model, see Table 7.
43
Table 6 – Variables and Results for Factorial ANOVA
Factor Independent variable it represents P-value

X1 Rod diameter, d <0.001
X2 Rod embedment length, le <0.001
X3 Adhesive utilized 0.452
X4 Rod position (defect) 0.181
X5 Polynomial factor better defining X2 (X5=1/X2) <0.001
X6 Polynomial factor better defining X4 (X5=1/X4) 0.079
X7 X1 & X2 interaction variable <0.001
X8 X1 & X3 interaction variable 0.173
Table 7 – Backwards elimination Curvi-linear Multiple Regression Analysis Results
Run # Variables Considered R2 Variable Dropped DF

1 X1 thru X12 0.937 X9 11
9 X 1, X 2, X 5, X 7 0.934 X3, X4, X6, X8 thru X12 4
Following the findings obtained by performing a factorial ANOVA, it was determined that the
only statistical significant variables were: X1, X2, X5, X7. These variables represent the rod
diameter -X1-, rod embedment length -X2 & X5-, and their interaction effect -X7-. Following
these findings, a subsequent two-factor ANOVA (with replication) test was performed to gauge
the statistical significance of these variables on the capacity of a single glued-in rod joint. The
variables, as defined in this test, as well as their respective resultant p-values are shown in Table
8.
44
Table 8 - ANOVA Results for Phases #1 and #2
Factor Independent variable it represents p-value

X1 Rod diameter, d <0.001
X3 Interaction effect between X1 & X2 <0.001
This test served as confirmation that the “main effects: of the variables under investigation and
the interaction effect between rod diameter and embedment length are statistically significant for
our model. Here also clearly identify the important finding that the other parameters, adhesive
and defect had NO impact on the results. Furthermore, Tukey’s HSD test was performed to
determine the significance that each of the factor’s respective levels have on the dependent
variable; the axial capacity of glued-in rods. Table 9 presents the results of this HSD test,
whereas Table 10 shows the results for significance of each of the treatments in each factor.
Table 9 – Tukey’s HSD Test Results for factors and treatments in Phase #1&#2
Factor Level (treatment) HSD Value Mean

Rod diameter, d 12.7mm 37.9
14.6
19mm 79.3
5d 36.4
Embedment Length, le 10d 19.8 65.4
20d 76.2
Table 10 - Tukey’s HSD Test Results for Statistical Significance for factors in Phase #1&2
Factor Levels (treatments) Diff. in Means Significant

Rod diameter, d 19mm – 12.7mm 40 YES
20d - 10d 11 NO
Embedment length, le 20d - 5d 39 YES
10d – 5d 29 YES
45
The calculated difference in means for 12.7mm & 19mm rod diameters yields 40, which is
significantly larger that the calculated HSD value of 14. This finding confirmed that the rod
diameter has a statistically significant influence on axial capacity of glued-in rods. Finally, the
calculated difference in means for the embedment lengths were 11 (between 20d & 10d), 39
(between 20d & 5d) and 29 (between 10d & 5d). For these values, only the difference in means
between embedment lengths 5d with 10d and 20d yielded statistically significant results. This
also confirmed statistically, that embedments longer than 10d are not significant on the axial
capacity of single glued-in rod joints.
3.4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS FOR PHASE #1 & #2
3.4.1 Discussion Phase #1
The experimental campaign on centered single rods proved that the parameters under study have
a substantial effect on the axial capacity and performance of wood joints with glued-in steel rods.
The first parameter under study was the rod diameter, d. This study confirmed that splitting of
the timber host with 12.7mm diameter glued-in rods can be effectively avoided with a minimum
rod edge distance of 3d. Furthermore, the connection capacity is almost doubled when using
19mm rods instead of 12mm. This increase was expected as the capacity depends on the yield
strength of the rods, as well as the bond surface area between rod surface and adhesive.
The second parameter under study was the embedment length, le. As expected, le has statistical
significance on the axial capacity of glued-in rods and also primarily defines the eventual failure
mode. For 19mm rods, the point at which a ductile steel yielding failure mode is attainable is at
a higher le/d ratio than for 12.7mm rods; herein this point is referred as the “ductility threshold”.
46
The ductility threshold is the minimum embedment length at which for a glued-in rod joint rod
yielding will govern the response and will be the dominant failure mode. For 12.7mm rods this
occurs at le>10d as all specimens with 7.5d exhibited a brittle failure while 100% of specimens
with le>10d failed by ductile rod yielding. For specimens with 19mm rods, at le=10d (180mm)
none of the rods yielded and all specimens exhibited brittle wood shear failure. Splitting was
observed in only a few specimens with 19mm rods at le=20d (380mm). Minimum edge distance
requirements for 19mm rods should therefore be reconsidered. No shear failures around the
bonded rod (pull-out) were observed at this embedment length.
Figure 19 shows the distribution of observed generalized failure modes (brittle vs. ductile) for
test specimens with 19mm rod diameters and Figure 20 shows some examples of these observed
failure modes.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Ductile Failure Type
40%
Brittle Failure Type
30%
20%
10%
0%
95 190 380
Embedment Length [mm]
Figure 19 - Distribution of observed failure modes for d=19mm
47
Figure 20 - Typical failure modes in Phase #1 with d=19mm: rod yielding (left), brittle pull-out of rod (right)
The third varied parameter for Phase #1 was the adhesive type. In general, results utilizing both
epoxies had higher variation, whereas the results for specimens using CR-421® were more
consistent. Moreover, glued-in rods with CR421® adhesive exhibited a higher initial average
stiffness (~115kN/mm) than both of the tested epoxy adhesive’s initial average stiffness
(~80kN/mm).
For shorter le (before rod yielding occurred) higher capacities were obtained from specimens
using Gel Magic® (the higher viscosity activated a larger timber area) while T88® resulted in the
lowest brittle capacities. These results were consistent for le=5d and 7.5d for 12.7mm rods, and
for le=5d and le=10d for 19mm rods. Yet, statistically, the variation between adhesive types was
concluded to be not significant. This implies that variation can be attributed to random chance,
or more accurately aleatory uncertainty in the specimens.
After reaching the “ductility threshold”, the type of adhesive utilized became irrelevant as the
yield strength of the rods governed the failure. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that for 12.7mm
48
and 19mm glued-in mild steel threaded rods, the ductile capacity of the joint is unaltered by the
type of adhesive. This was also confirmed through the statistical tests as embedment length
treatments >10d were considered not significant, as well as main effects due to the choice of
adhesive. Figure 21 and Figure 22 provide a visual summary of the average axial capacities
obtained for all series of Phase #1 combining the three adhesives.
50
45
40
Avg. Axial Capacity [kN]
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5d 7.5d 10d 15d 20d
Embedment Length
Figure 21 – Summary of capacities for d=12.7mm rods
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
5d 10d 20d
Embedment Length
Figure 22 - Summary of capacities for d=19mm rods
49
The results obtained in Phase #1 demonstrated that glued-in rods should be categorized as very
rigid connections. Table 3 showed that the initial stiffness of these joints (using any of the three
investigated adhesives) is very close to, and in most cases, greater than 100 kN/mm. As a
comparison, consider Table 7.1 of EN1995 (CEN 2004), which provides values for serviceability
stiffness, Kser, of timber connections with mechanical fasteners. Values for connections using
12.7 mm diameter bolts are around 6 kN/mm for a typical timber density of 490 kg/m3.
Therefore, connections in excess of 100kN/mm of initial stiffness, such as connections with a s
glued-in threaded steel rods, can safely be categorized as very rigid connections.
Finally, if mild steel threaded glued-in rods are used, ductility can be consistently achieved by
choosing an appropriate embedment length that is greater than 10d (for both 12.7mm and 19mm
rods). This finding is crucial for the applicability of glued-in rods in moment resisting
connections as ductility is essential for the appropriate performance of these connections.
3.4.2 Phase #2: Discussion of Results
From the results obtained by the multiple factor regression and ANOVA it can be concluded that
only the rod diameter, embedment length and interaction of these two parameters have a
statistical significant effect on the variation of the model’s mean (their p-values are less than
0.05). Additionally, the multi-factor curvilinear regression model performed only utilizing these
factors yields an R2 of more than 0.93. This means that more than 93% of the variation in that
model can be explained by those variables. Statistically, this proves that for the parameter
variations studied in this research; the effects of adhesive, manufacturing defects and all of the
interaction effects of involving these factors on the axial capacity, can be deemed statistically
50
insignificant at a 95% significance level. Tukey’s statistical test confirmed that embedment
lengths greater than 10d have no significant effect on the axial capacity.
The results gathered in Phase #2 showed a slight negative effect manifested by higher COV
values for specimens with brittle failures manufactured with defects, if compared against the
“centered” specimens (“control series”). Yet, these variations were found statistically not
significant. For specimens with embedment lengths greater than 10d, the ductility threshold was
also effectively achieved and therefore, no significant variation of capacity values was observed.
Moreover, if compared against the capacities of specimens that had centered rods, “un-centered
rods” showed a minimal reduction on their capacity and exhibited a somewhat higher variation in
their failure modes, while specimens with a rod “at an angle” were basically unaffected. Figure
23 and Figure 24 illustrate these findings.
35
30
25
20 CR421
Gel Magic
15
T88
10
0
Centered Rod Un-Centered Rod Rod @ an Angle
Figure 23 - Effect of manufacturing defect on Axial Capacity (5d embedment)
51
50
45
40
35
30
CR421
25
Gel Magic
20
T88
15
10
5
0
Centered Rod Un-Centered Rod Rod @ an Angle
Figure 24 - Effect of manufacturing defect on Axial Capacity (10d embedment)
In addition, all specimens with le=20d were unaffected by the type of adhesive used or the
manufacturing defect employed during fabrication. All specimens satisfactorily achieved a
ductile failure mode that empirically proved that at an embedment length greater than the
ductility threshold the capacity of the join is not sensitive to manufacturing defects or the choice
of bonding adhesive. This assertion holds only if a proper steel grade for the threaded rods is
selected so as to allow these rods to achieve yielding, for this experimental project mild steel was
utilized (Fy =360 N/mm2).
Finally, specimens with an “un-centered” rod, fabricated with all of the three different adhesives
under consideration, showed an increase in the average initial stiffness if compared to test
specimens without manufacturing defects. On the contrary, specimens with rods inserted at an
angle for all embedment lengths and adhesive types, showed a lower initial stiffness than fully
centered specimens. A possible explanation for this phenomenon could be that for “un-centered”
rods the withdrawal rigidity is increased slightly by account of friction and mechanical interlock
52
between the rod and the timber host at the interior of the bore hole. Similarly, for rods inserted
at an angle, a possible explanation could be that the inherent eccentricity in the rod softens the
response slightly as a result of minor bending and uneven distribution of shear stresses around
the rod bonded into the timber member. And even though these reductions were evident, joints
having any of the prescribed manufacturing defects had an average initial stiffness in excess of
60kN/mm. Consequently, they can still be confidently termed as rigid connections.
Figure 25 shows the distribution of observed failure modes for all tested specimens with rod
diameter of 12.7mm. Purposefully, all specimens from Phase #1 or #2 were included as neither
the adhesive utilized or the manufacturing defect caused a significant effect on the generalized
failure mode of the specimens (brittle vs. ductile). The objective of Figure 25 is to illustrate that
for glued-in rod specimens with 12.7mm diameter mild steel threaded rods, if the embedment
length is long enough (past the ductility threshold), a constant ductile failure mode is attainable.
100%
Observed Failure Mode in %
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Ductile Failure Type
40%
Brittle Failure Type
30%
20%
10%
0%
60 85 120 180 240
Embedment Length [mm]
Figure 25 - Distribution of observed failure modes for d=12.7mm
53
3.5 PHASE #3: MULTIPLE GLUED-IN RODS
3.5.1 Phase #3: Multiple glued-in rods Specimen Description
For this experimental phase, the following parameters were left constant:
i) Rod diameter, d: = 12.7mm
ii) Two-component Polyurethane adhesive (CR421®)
iii) Edge distance from center of rod to edge of timber specimen (>3d)
iv) Wood species & Average density (20f-E D.Fir-L with ρmean=530 kg/m3)
v) Orientation of rod relative to wood grain direction (parallel to grain)
vi) Thickness of glue-line (~2mm)
Meanwhile, the parameters varied for this phase were:
A. Number of Rods (2, 3 and 4)
B. Effective embedment length: le: 5d, 7.5d, 10d, and 15d
C. Rod Spacing (varied as a function of Rod diameter) s: 3d, 4d and 5d
Three specimens were tested for each test series. Figure 26 shows some examples of test
specimens prior to testing, while Figures 27 and 28 show the typical schematic layouts.
Figure 26 – Examples of test specimens in Phase #3
54
Figure 27 – Side view of specimen geometry for Phase #3
Figure 28 – Cross section of typical specimen geometry for Phase #3
Executed in similar fashion as in Phases #1 and #2, relative joint displacement data was collected
during tests using LVDT’s. For Phase #3, each individual rod had its own LVDT and therefore
data was collected for each rod independently. With this data, the stiffness curves were recreated
for the test specimens utilizing the average of the rods from each test specimen. By doing so, the
55
recreated stiffness curves effectively capture the relative displacement of the joint as a whole,
instead of as a set of individual responses.
The observed failure modes where pull out of a wood plug surrounding the rods as well as
splitting for brittle type failures, while rod yielding was observed as the ductile failure mode
type, see Figure 29. The results from Phase #3 are presented in Table 11.
Figure 29 – Observed failure modes in Phase #3: Pull-out (top left), splitting (top right), rod yielding (bottom)
For Phase #3, local joint stiffness data was gathered for all of the specimens at only three of the
studied embedment lengths (5d, 10d, 15d) and all rod spacing (3d, 4d, 5d). These results are also
summarized in Table 11.
56
Figures 30 to 33 show the average load deformation curves for glued-in rod specimens with
multiple rods. For the complete set of load deformation plots for each individual specimen, in
each series, please refer to the Appendix.
120
100
Load [kN]
80 1 Rod
2 Rods
60
3 Rods
40 4 Rods
20
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Displacement [mm]
Figure 30 – Load Deformation Curve for (Le=5d, S=3d)
120
100
Loal Capacity [kN]
80 1 Rod
2 Rods
60
3 Rods
40 4 Rods
20
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Displacement [mm]
Figure 31 - Load Deformation Curve for (Le=7.5d, S=3d)
57
180
160
Load [kN]
140
120 1 Rod
100 2 Rods
80 3 Rods
60 4 Rods
40
20
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Displacement [mm]
Figure 32 - Load Deformation Curve for (Le=7.5d, S=5d)
250
Load [kN]
200
1 Rod
150
2 Rods
3 Rods
100
4 Rods
50
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Displacement [mm]
Figure 33 - Load Deformation Curve for (Le=15d, S=5d)
58
Table 11 - Results for tests Phase #3
Embedment Spacing rods Series Avg. Axial COV Avg. Stiffness

# Rods
Length [mm] [mm] Label Capacity [kN] [%] [kN/mm]
60 (5d) - A1 29.1 4 90
85 (7.5d) - A7 36.6 8 ---
1
120 (10d) - A2 45.3 1 >100
180 (15d) - A3 45.6 <1 ---
36 (3d) M1-A 29.8 18 90
60 (5d) 48 (4d) M1-B 36.5 17 >100
60 (5d) M1-C 49.6 11 >100
36 (3d) M10-A 62.3 14 ---
85 (7.5d) 48 (4d) M10-B 67.7 9 ---
60 (5d) M10-C 58.2 17 ---
2
36 (3d) M2-A 83.3 8 90
120 (10d) 48 (4d) M2-B 73.6 26 >100
60 (5d) M2-C 87.1 4 >100
36 (3d) M3-A 89.2 17 80
180 (15d) 48 (4d) M3-B 101.5 <1 >100
60 (5d) M3-C 100.6 1 75
36 (3d) M4-A 67.5 9 >100
60 (5d) 48 (4d) M4-B 58.4 2 >100
60 (5d) M4-C 68.2 8 >100
36 (3d) M11-A 74.2 17 ---
85 (7.5d) 48 (4d) M11-B 99.5 14 ---
60 (5d) M11-C 90.8 14 ---
3
36 (3d) M5-A 108.1 7 >100
120 (10d) 48 (4d) M5-B 115.8 16 >100
60 (5d) M5-C 112.2 18 >100
36 (3d) M6-A 110.8 5 >100
180 (15d) 48 (4d) M6-B 123.8 30 >100
60 (5d) M6-C 149.3 2 >100
36 (3d) M7-A 70.8 7 >100
60 (5d) 48 (4d) M7-B 70.3 2 >100
60 (5d) M7-C 98.7 6 >100
36 (3d) M12-A 102.2 4 ---
85 (7.5d) 48 (4d) M12-B 129.0 2 ---
60 (5d) M12-C 129.7 19 ---
4
36 (3d) M8-A 136.3 5 >100
120 (10d) 48 (4d) M8-B 149.6 7 >100
60 (5d) M8-C 155.9 9 >100
36 (3d) M9-A 201.3 <1 >100
180 (15d) 48 (4d) M9-B 201.6 <1 >100
60 (5d) M9-C 190.5 6 >100
59
3.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR PHASE #3
Similarly as it was performed for the results obtained in Phases #1 and #2, a multi-factor, curvi-
linear regression model was developed to be used for the subsequent ANOVA tests on the
experimental data. The statistical analysis performed for this section encompassed all specimens
with multiple (+2) glued-in rods. The regression model defined as:
Y=β0+ β1X1+ β2X2+ β3X3 + β4X4+ β5X5+ β6X6 + ε
where:
YN : Dependent variable for regression and factorial model, Joint Capacity;
XN : Independent variables for each of the n variables defined;
βN : Regression coefficients of the regression model for each of the n variables;
β0 : Intercept of the regression model;
ε: is the inherent error in this model.
Table 12 shows each of the defined variables and the factor they represented within the statistical
model, as well as the results for this Factorial ANOVA.
Table 12 - Variables and Results for Factorial ANOVA for Phase #3

X1 Number of Rods, n 0.1054
X2 Rod embedment length, le 0.8652
X3 Spacing of Rods, s 0.8002
X4 X1 & X2 interaction variable <.0001
60
Table 13 presents the R2 values obtained by performing a step-by-step ANOVA with backwards
elimination of the least statistical significant variable. During every step of the analysis;
statistically non-significant variables (i.e. p>0.05), were dropped from the model. This process
was repeated until all variables left in the model had a significant impact.
Table 13 - Curvilinear Multiple Regression Analysis Results for Phase #3
Run # Variables Considered R2 Variables Dropped DF

1 X1 thru X6 0.880 X2 6
5 X4 & X5 0.877 X1 thru X3, X6 2
The factorial ANOVA determined that the only statistical significant variables were X4 & X5,
representing the interactions between number of rods (n) and rod embedment length (le) -X4-,
and the interaction between number of rods (n) and rod spacing (s) -X5-. Consequently, two
independent two-factor, ANOVAs (with replication) were performed to gauge the statistical
significance that these factors (“main effects”) and their interactions have the per rod capacity of
multiple rod joints. These variables, as defined in this two-way ANOVA test, as well as their
respective resultant p-values are shown in Table 14 and Table 15.
Table 14 - Subsequent Two-way ANOVA Results (n & le)

X1 Number of rods, n 0.23
X4 Interaction effect between X1 & X2 <0.001
61
Table 15 - Subsequent Two-way ANOVA Results (n & s)

X1 Number of rods, n 0.23
X3 Rod Spacing, s 0.29
X5 Interaction effect between X1 & X3 0.99
The results partially contradict the results obtained with a factorial ANOVA. These two-way
ANOVAs confirm the statistical significance of the effect of rod embedment length and the
interaction with the number of rods on the capacity of the joints (measured in these tests per rod).
Yet, it rejects the previously found significance of the main effects for number of rods and rod
spacing (independently) as well as the interaction effects amongst each other on a per rod
capacity of joints with multiple glued-in rods. These contradictions can be explained by the fact
that the original factorial analysis was performed on the overall joint capacity as the dependent
variable, whereas the subsequent two-way ANOVA tests were performed on the per rod capacity
as the dependent variable. Therefore, it becomes evident that the number of rods and rod spacing
when gauged independently have no meaningful bearing on the axial capacity of a single glued
in rod. Furthermore, the per-rod capacity is very consistent with little variation, which helps
backup this assertion.
Tukey’s HSD test was used in order to evaluate the level of significance that each of the factor’s
levels have on the axial capacity of glued-in rods and validate the contradicting results obtained.
To correctly gauge the effect of the number of rods factor (n), the values for capacity of the joint
were analyzed per rod. Table 16 presents the results of this HSD test for the factors under
investigation and their treatments, whereas Table 17Table 17 shows the results for significance
of each of the treatments in each factor.
62
Table 16 – Tukey’s HSD Test Results for factors and treatments in Phase #3
Mean Capacity per

Factor Level (treatment) HSD Value
Rod (kN)
2 35.0
Number of
3 3.60 32.8
Rods, n
4 34.0
5d 20.3
Embedment 7.5d 30.3
Length, 3.94
le 10d 38.2
15d 46.9
3d 31.9
Rod
4d 6.15 35.0
Spacing, s
5d 35.9
Table 17 – Tukey’s HSD Test Results for Statistical Significance for factors in Phase #3
Factor Levels (treatments) Diff. in Means Significant
4 – 3 rods 1.2 NO
Number of
4 – 2 rods 1.0 NO
Rods, n
3 – 2 rods 2.2 NO
15d - 10d 8.7 YES
15d – 7.5d 16.6 YES
Embedment 15d - 5d 26.6 YES
Length, le 10d – 7.5d 7.9 YES
10d – 5d 17.9 YES
7.5d – 5d 10.0 YES
5d – 4d 0.9 NO
Rod
5d – 3d 4.0 NO
Spacing, s
4d – 3d 3.1 NO
63
3.7 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS FOR PHASE #3
From the multiple factor regression and factorial ANOVAs it can be concluded that only the
factors X4 (interaction between n and le) and X5 (interaction between n and s) had a statistical
significant effect on the variation of the model’s mean. The multi-factor curvilinear regression
model utilizing these two factors yields an R2 of 0.87. This means that 87% of the variation in
that model can be explained by the factors X4 and X5. Yet, by performing two-way ANOVA and
Tukey’s HSD tests, it was possible to rule out the statistical significance of the main effects and
interaction effects of the parameter X5 (n and s). It is important to understand the context of this
statement: the effects of number of rods, rod spacing and their interaction do not have a
statistically significant effect on the average per rod capacity of multiple glued-in rod joints
under the test configurations used throughout this experimental campaign. The number of rods
glued in the joint has a significant impact on the joint’s overall axial capacity. As the number of
embedded rods increases, so does the capacity of the connection. Yet, on a per rod capacity
basis, the capacity of each individual rod does not vary statistically significantly.
Second, rod spacing, does not vary the per rod capacity of multiple glued-in rod joints
significantly. Only if the rods are embedded deep enough so that the ductility threshold is
surpassed, the failure mode of the joints will vary as per the observations gathered throughout the
experimental campaign: rod spacing will not affect significantly the per rod capacity of joints
with glued-in rods, but it will have a direct effect on the primary failure mode of these
connections (brittle vs. ductile).
The embedment length (le) of the rods into the timber was also varied. The statistical analysis
confirmed that le, as well as the interaction effects of le and n have a statistical significant impact
64
on the per rod capacity of multiple glued-in rod connections. Additionally, it was observed
throughout this experimental campaign that the failure mode, similar to tests with single rods,
yielding of the rods occurred at le>10d, for mild steel threaded rods with 12.7mm diameters.
As explained before, the rod spacing was varied. For ductility to be achieved, any brittle type of
failure had to be prevented by sufficient rod spacing. A minimum of s=2d (Buchanan A. , 2007)
and s=5d (Blass & Laskewitz, 1999) have been recommended in the literature to avoid group
effects that lead to wood related brittle type of failures. After the analysis in this project, to
safely conclude that ductility can be reached using 12.7mm mild steel rods, if a spacing of s>4d
is provisioned and will be sufficient, as long as the embedment length of the rods is le>10d.
By providing enough spacing between rods, detrimental stress interactions between the bonded-
in rods (“group effect”) can be controlled. The group effect of having the rods placed close to
each other manifested itself with a sudden, dramatic splitting failure of the timber member. The
failure initiated from the loaded face where the rods were inserted and was observed for all test
specimens under these conditions. Contrary to previous research (Tlustochowicz et al., 2011)
“group tear out”, which occurs when all rods pull out simultaneously along with a single block of
wood, was not observed for any of the test specimens. Splitting related failures were evident,
especially for specimens with small rod spacing. Figure 34 shows the distribution of failure
modes observed for all test specimens with multiple glued in rods, which clearly illustrates how a
ductile failure mode is positively correlated with larger embedment lengths and larger spacing
between rods. Figure 35 compares the capacities of selected test series.
65
100%
90%
80%
ductile
70%
splitting
60%
50% shear
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
la=5d la=5d la=5d la=7.5d la=7.5d la=7.5d la=10d la=10d la=10d la=15d la=15d la=15d
s=3d s=4d s=5d s=3d s=4d s=5d s=3d s=4d s=5d s=3d s=4d s=5d
Figure 34 - Distribution of Observed Failure Modes for Phase #3
Figure 35 - Effect of rod spacing on avg. per rod capacity at le=15d
Similar to single rod glued-in joints, connections with multiple glued-in rods exhibit a very rigid
behaviour, see appendix.
66
Interestingly, for ductile failure modes, the joint capacity increased slightly as a function of the
number of rods. While this effect was not statistically significant, it is worthwhile to investigate.
As discussed in the materials section, three representative samples of steel rods were tested in
tension before testing and their experimental average load at yield was equal to their capacity
and of 45 kN. Results of the joints with one rod were consistent with this finding with capacities
of close to 45 KN. All test specimens with multiple rods that failed in a ductile manner, however
exhibited an increase in joint capacity of 5 kN (11%) per rod as compared to single glued-in rod
specimens. Failure occurred at 100 kN for specimens with two rods, at 150 kN for specimens
with three rods, and at 200 kN for specimens with four rods. It is postulated that this increase in
capacity was caused by minor variations in the yield strength of each rod with which led to an
uneven redistribution of forces after yielding occurs in one of the rods. As the rods did not yield
simultaneously; the connection system was able to sustain further loads, 5 kN per rod herein.
Figure 36 depicts this phenomenon with a chosen representative load deformation curve for a
specimen with 4 rods, at la=15d and s=5d. All rods, even though they have the same
experimentally tested yield strength, exhibit distinct yield points and overall ductility.
250
200
Axial Capacity [kN]
150 Average Response

Rod #1
100 Rod #2
Rod #3
50
Rod #4
0
0 1 2 3 4
Relative Displacement [mm]
Figure 36 - Representative (per rod) load-deformation curve
67
3.8 COMPARISON WITH DESIGN MODEL PREDICTIONS
3.8.1 Overview
The experimental results for all single glued-in rod connections tested in Phases #1 and #2 were
compared to the prediction from the design approaches as discussed in Section 2.6. The results
for multiple glued in rod connections tested in Phase #3 were also compared to these design
models. In order to do so, the models were adapted by multiplication of the expected single rod
capacity by the number of rods (n) in the connection. Results for these comparisons are
presented in Figures 37 to 39.
3.8.2 Comparison of single glued-in rod test results to design model predictions
From Figure 37 and Figure 38, it becomes evident that there is a lot of variation between the
predictive axial capacity between each of these models, and the obtained experimental results.
This is can be mostly attributed to the large quantity of parameters and high variation of these to
account for the behaviour of steel glued-in rod connections. Additionally, as mentioned before,
there is no standard testing methodology in place for glued-in rod connections. It is possible
therefore, that some of the variations between the obtained results of the many individual test
campaigns that have led to the development of the presented Design Models, can be attributed to
the fact that these test campaigns have utilized different test setups, distinct data collection
devices, calibration processes, and loading protocols.
When plotting the experimental campaign’s data, a conservative fit can be seen with the GIROD
Project, Eurocode 5 Annex and DIN1052 design proposals. This conservative fit is evident for
shorter embedment lengths only (le≤10d), and can be seen for both tested diameter sizes (12.7mm
68
& 19mm). For design, it is acceptable to have a factor of safety inherent with design calculations
to account for any unusual variations in the material that can alter the performance of the
structure. For that reason, design capacity values are associated with 5th percentile rather than
with average values obtained during verification testing. By observation, this holds true for the
collected test data and the previously mentioned design proposals.
Conversely, both models proposed by Riberholt and Steiger et al, unsafely over-predict
capacities for specimens with both rod diameter sizes over all embedment lengths as they tend to
predict higher values. The Gerold model exhibits an appropriate fit for shorter embedment
lengths (le<10d) for 12.7mm diameter rods but a very conservative estimation of the capacity of
these connections at longer embedment lengths. For 19mm rods, Gerold’s propsed model tends
more towards the average capacity values obtained in this test campaign and therefore can be
deemed unsafe. Additionally, this design model’s approach to reduce capacity of connections
past an embedment length of 15d (for 12.7mm rods) and 10d (for 19mm rods) seems
contradictory to most of the literature on glued-in rods and the results presented by this research
campaing which prove that capacity of glued-in rod connections is positively correlated with
longer embedment lengths.
At first sight, the EC5 and GIROD Project design models seem to appropriately predict the axial
capacity of steel glued-in rod connections. Yet, as this experimental project consistently proved
that beyond the ductility threshold, le>10d, these types of connections will fail by means of rod
yielding and not by pull-out. This provides evidence that these models, even though some
include separate provisions to check for rod yielding (GIROD and EC5), most do not quite
adequately address this very important failure mode into their design models. Additionally, the
69
models that do address this failure mode, very conservatively over predict the required
embedment length required to achieve rod yielding which in turn can yield more inefficient, cost
and labor intense connections than are actually required.
100
90 Riberholt Model
80 Gerold Model
70 GIROD Project
Axial Capacity [kN]
60 EC5: Part 2
50 Annex
Steiger et. Al.
40
DIN 1052
30
Experimental
20 Rod Yield Force
Test Results
10
(d=12.7mm)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Embedment Length, (le) - [mm]
Figure 37 - Comparison of results of specimens with single rods (d=12.7mm) to Design Models
160
Riberholt Model
140
120 Gerold Model
100 GIROD Project

Axial Capacity [kN]
80 EC5: Part 2
Annex
60 Steiger et. Al.
40 DIN 1052
20 Experimental
0 Rod Yield Force
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Figure 38 - Comparison of results of specimens with single rods (d=19mm) to Design Models
70
3.8.3 Comparison of multiple glued-in rod test results to Design Models
Figure 39 shows the comparison for test results against the previously discussed design models
for test specimens with 2 glued-in steel rods. Similarly as for single glued-in rod specimens,
both models proposed by Riberholt and Steiger et al, seem to overestimate the capacity of
multiple glued-in rod connections consistently over all tested embedment lengths. DIN1052 also
underestimates the capacity of these joints for all number of embedded rods over all embedment
lengths. The Gerold model conservatively predicts capacities for multiple glued-in rod
specimens over short embedment lengths (le<10d) but fails again to do so for longer embedment
lengths when compared to our test results. Finally, both GIROD Project and EC5 design
proposals seem to agree conservatively on the prediction of multiple glued in rod capacities.
200
180 Riberholt Model
160 Gerold Model
140
GIROD Project
120
EC5: Part 2
Axial Capacity [kN]
100 Annex
Steiger et. Al.
80
DIN 1052
60
Experimental Rod
40
Yield Force
20 Test Results - 2
Rods
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Figure 39 - Comparison of specimens with 2 rods (d=12.7mm) to Design Models
71
3.8.4 Statistical Comparison of Test Results to Design Models
Two-tailed t-tests were performed to validate the observations gathered in the previous section
The characteristic p-value used was 0.05, which means if the null hypothesis was not to be
rejected, then the variation of means between the ranges of embedment lengths is the same with
a confidence level of 95%. In order to confirm that the data validates a design model, this p-
value needs to be larger than 0.05 and, the test generated t-statistic has to be smaller than t-
critical. Table 18 presents the findings and confirms that only the GIROD design approach
consistently predicts capacities of multiple glued-in rod connections.
72
Table 18 - Statistical Results for Comparison of Data vs Design Models
Design Model Specimen Type p-value

Single Rods (d=12.7mm) <0.001
Single Rods (d=19mm) <0.001
Riberholt Model Multiple Rods (2 Rods, d=12.7mm) 2.00
Multiple Rods (3 Rods, d=12.7mm) <0.001
Gerold Model Multiple Rods (2 Rods, d=12.7mm) 0.011
Multiple Rods (3 Rods, d=12.7mm) 0.044
GIROD Project Model Multiple Rods (2 Rods, d=12.7mm) 0.245
Single Rods (d=19mm) 0.055
EC5: Part 2 Design of
Bridges Model
Steiger et al. Model Multiple Rods (2 Rods, d=12.7mm) 0.002
DIN 1052: 2008-2012
Model
73
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS
The extensive experimental campaign carried out on test specimens of timber connections with
glued-in rods allows drawing the following conclusions:
1) For specimens with a single centered glued-in steel threaded rod of 12.7mm diameter, the
ductility threshold occurred at an embedment length close to 10d. Approximately 70% of all test
specimens with an embedment length 10d and all specimens with 15d and 20d (exhibited rod
yielding as their principal failure mode. Most specimens with 19mm diameter rods, exhibited to
have their ductility threshold closer to~20d embedment length. Further studies should be carried
out to determine the appropriate edge distances to be utilized for specimens with larger diameter
rods, as some specimens did exhibit a splitting brittle type failure mode that can be attributed to
small edge distances combined with a large accumulation of shear stress near the adhesive-
timber interface.
2) For all specimens fabricated with 12.7mm diameter rods and a deliberate fabrication defect,
with embedment lengths past their ductility threshold (le>10d), rod yielding remained the
predominant failure mode. Furthermore, it can also be said that no significant detrimental effects
to a connection’s axial capacity and stiffness was observed due to these manufacturing defects.
This assertion was validated by several statistical analyses performed on the experimental data.
As a result, it can be concluded that even though quality control should always be of high
importance, it is not imperative that 12.7mm diameter glued-in mild steel threaded rods be
perfectly centered, nor correctly aligned parallel to the grain of the timber element in their
respective bore holes if they are properly designed to be governed by the rod’s yield capacity.
74
3) If rods are embedded past their ductility threshold, the adhesive (PUR or EPX) had negligible
effects on the connection’s axial capacity, stiffness and failure mode. Additionally, as glued-in
steel rods are by nature a very stiff connection, their nonlinear behaviour will be mostly
governed by the bonded-in rod’s ability to deform plastically. Specimens with rods bonded with
both EPX adhesives under study, exhibited slightly higher average pull out capacity than the
ones using the PUR. Yet, these variations were not statistically meaningful and therefore it can
be concluded that the choice of adhesive type (CR421®, T88® or Gel Magic®) does not have an
impact on the axial capacity of glued-in steel threaded rod connections.
4) Specimens with multiple glued-in steel rods exhibited similar behaviour as specimens with
single rods with regards to their ductility thresholds. For all specimens with 12.7mm threaded
rods the ductility threshold occurs at about 10d embedment length and therefore, the
connection’s failure mode will be dictated by the rod’s nonlinear behaviour. Moreover, after
safely attaining this ductility threshold, the connection’s overall axial capacity will, for all
practical purposes, be the linear accumulation of the yield force of each rod times the number of
rods embedded into the timber host.
5) Rod spacing plays a pivotal role in the performance of specimens with multiple glued-in steel
rods. Previous research recommended that a minimum spacing of >3d should be used to reduce
the incidence of group effects. The results of this experimental campaign show that for some
specimens with 4d spacing between rods and with embedment lengths greater than the
determined ductility threshold have exhibited brittle-wood related failures. For specimens with
5d rod spacing (and sufficient embedment length), ductile behaviour was properly achieved.
75
REFERENCES
Aicher, S., & Dill-Langer, G. (2001). Influence of moisture, temperature and load duration on
performance of glued-in rods . Materials and Structures , 44:997–1020 1019.
Bainbridge, R., Mettem, C., Harvey, K., & & Ansell, M. (2002). Bonded-in rod connections for
timber structures-development of design methods and test observations. International
Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives, 22: 47-59.
Bengtsson, C., & Johansson, C. (2001). Final Report: GIROD – Glued-in Rods for Timber
Structures. SMT4-CT97-2199.
Blass, H., & Laskewitz, B. (1999). Effect of spacing and edge distance on the axial strength of
glued-in rods. Proc. 32nd Conference of CIB-W18, (pp. 32: 7-12). Graz, Austria.
Broughton, J., & Hutchinson, A. (2001). Effect of timber moisture content on bonded-in rods.
Construction and Building Materials, 15: 17-25.
Broughton, J., & Hutchinson, A. (2001). Pull-out strength of steel rods bonded into timber.
Materials & Structures , 34: 100-109.
Buchanan, A. (2007). Epoxy Grouted Steel Rods Design Data. New Zealand Timber Design
Guide.
Buchanan, A., Moss, P., & Wong, N. (2001). Ductile moment-resisting connections in glulam
beams. Proceedings of the NZSEE 2001 Conference. Christchurch, NZ: University of
Canterbury.
CEN. (2003). Eurocode 5- Part 5: Design of Timber Strctures. Brussels.: European Committee
for Standardization.
CEN. (2003). prEN 1995-2, Design of timber structures, Part 2: Bridges. Final Project Team
draft. Stage 34, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium..
76
Deng, X. (1996). Strength of the epoxy bonded steel connection in glue laminated timber. Thesis
Dissertation. Christchurch, NZ: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ. 1996.
Dunky, M., Källander, B., Properzi, M., Richter, K., & Van Leemput, M. (2008). Core document
of the COST Action E34: Bonding of timber. Vienna, Austria: University of Natural
Resources and Applied Life Sciences.
Faghani, P. (2013). Investigations on Pull-out strength of timber joints with glued-in rods.
Master's Thesis. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Faye, C., Le Magorou, L., Morlier, P., & Surleau, J. (2004). French data concerning glued-in
rods. In: Proceedings of 37th conference of CIB-W18, (pp. Paper 37-7-10). Edinburgh,
Scotland.
Fiber Reinforced Polymers. (n.d.). Retrieved from Prince Engineering: http://www.build-on-

prince.com/fiber-reinforced-polymers.html#sthash.WTPwslrD.dpbs
Fueyo, J., Cabezas, J., & Rubio, M. (2010). Reduction of perpendicular-to-grain stresses in the
apex of curved beams using glued-in rods. Materials and Structures, 43: 463-474.
Gatteso, N., & Gubana, A. (2006). Performance of glued-in joints of timber.
Gehri, E. (2010). High performing jointing technique using glued-in rods.
(n.d.). Gel Magic® Structural Epoxy Adhesive Technical Data Sheet. System Three.
Gerold, M. (1992). Verbund von Holz und Gewindestanged aus Stahl. Bautechnik, 69(4), 167-
178.
Gustafsson, P., & Serrano, E. (2001). Glued-in rods for timber structures—development of a
calculation model. Report TVSM-3056. Lund University.
Johansson, C. (1995). Glued-in bolts. In: Timber engineering, STEP 1 basis of design, material
properties, structural components and joints. Almere, The Netherlands: Centrum Hout.
77
Kangas J. & Kevarinmäki, A. (2001). Quality control of connections based on V-shaped glued-in
steel rods. In: Proceedings of 34th conference of CIB-W18 (pp. Paper 34-7-4). Venice,
Italy: Paper 34.
Kangas, J. (2000). Capacity, fire resistance and gluing pattern of the rods in V-connections. In:
Proceedings of 33rd conference of CIB-W18, (pp. Paper 33-7-10). Delft, The
Netherlands.
Lehringer, C. (2012). PURBOND 2C-Adhesives. Cost action FP 1004 Report. Wrozlaw, Poland:
Purbond AG.
Madhoushi, M., & Ansell, P. (2008). Behavior of Timber Connections Using Glued-in GFRP
Rods under Fatigue Loading. Composite Engineering, 39(2): 249-257.
Malczyk, R. (1993). UBC Dissertation Thesis: Glued-in Rods. Vancouver, Canada.: The
University of British Columbia.
Otero Chans, D., Estévez Cimadevila, J., & Martín Gutíerrez, E. (2008). Glued joints in
hardwood timber. International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives, 28: 457-463.
Otero Chans, D., Estévez Cimadevila, J., & Martín Gutiérrez, E. (2011). Strength of Joints with
Epoxy-Glued Steel Rods in Tali Timber. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
April: 453-458.
Otero Chans, D., Estévez Cimadevila, J., Martín Gutiérrez, E., & Vásquez Rodríguez, J. (2010).
Influence of timber density on the axial strength of joints made of glued-in steel rods: An
experimental approach. International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesive.
Riberholt, H. (1988). Glued bolts in glulam-Proposal for CIB code. In Proceedings of 21st CIB-
W 18 meeting.
Serrano, E., Steiger, R., & Lavisci, P. (2008). Glued-in rods. Bonding of timber—core document
of the COST Action E34. Lignovisionen Issue 18: 31-39.
SIA. (2003). Design Code SIA 265 Timber Structures. Zurich: SIA.
78
Steiger, R., Gehri, E., & Widmann, R. (2006). Pull-out strenght of axially loaded steel rods
bonded in glulam parallel to the grain. Materials and Structures, 40: 69-78.
Stepinac, M. (2013). COST FP1004 Meeting Report: Glued-in Rods. Larnaca, Cyrprus.
(n.d.). T-88® Structural Epoxy Adhesive Technical Data Sheet. System Three.
Tlustochowicz, G., Serrano, E., & Steiger, R. (2011). State-of-the-art review on timber
connections with glued-in steel rods. Materials and Structure, 44, 997-1020.
Turkovsky, S. (1989). Designing of glued wood structures joints on glued-in bars. In:
Proceedings of the 22nd conference of CIB-W18, (pp. Paper 22-7-13). Berlin, German
Democratic Republic.
Volkersen, O. (1953). Shear force distribution in glue, rivet and bolt connections. Energie und
Technik, 5(68), 103. .
Widmann, R., Steiger, R., & Gheri, E. (2007). Pull-out strength of axially loaded steel rods
bonded in glulam perpendicular to the grain. Materials and Structures , 40: 827-838.
Wiktor, R. (1990). Glulam connections using glued-in rebars. Master’s Thesis. Vancouver: The
University of British Columbia.
Yeboah, D., Gilbert, S., & and Gilfillan, R. (2011). Behavior of joints with bonded-in steel bars
loaded parallel to grain of timber elements. Construction and Building Materials, 25:
2312-2317.
79
APPENDIX A: LOAD DISPLACEMENT CURVES
25
20
15 CR421-5d-#1
Load [kN]
CR421-5d-#2
CR421-5d-#3
10 CR421-5d-#4
CR421-5d-#5
CR421 - 5d - Average
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A 1 – Relative Load Displacement for A1 Series (CR421®, 5d, Phase #1)
35
30
25
CR421-10d-#1
Load [kN]
20
CR421-10d-#2
15
CR421-10d-#3
10
CR421 - 10d -
5 Average
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A 2 - Relative Load Displacement for A2 Series (CR421®, 10d, Phase #1)
80
45
40
35
30
Load [kN]
25 CR421-20d-#1
20 CR421-20d-#2
CR421-20d-#3
15
CR421 - 20d - Average
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A 3 - Relative Load Displacement for A3 Series (CR421®, 20d, Phase #1)
45
40
35
30
Load [kN]
25 T88-20d-#1
20 T88-20d-#2
T88-20d-#3
15
T88 - 20d - Average
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A 4 - Relative Load Displacement for B3 Series (T88®, 20d, Phase #1)
81
45
40
35
30 GelMagic-20d-#1
Load [kN]
25
GelMagic-20d-#2
20
GelMagic-20d-#3
15
10 GelMagic - 20d -
Average
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A 5 - Relative Load Displacement for C3 Series (Gel Magic®, 20d, Phase #1)
20
CR421-
Uncentered-
10d-#1
15
CR421-
Uncentered-
Load [kN]
10d-#2
10
CR421-
Uncentered-
10d-#3
5
Avg. CR421-
Uncentered-
10d
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A 6 - Relative Load Displacement for AX2-i Series (CR421®, Un-centered Rod, 10d, Phase #2)
82
20
CR421-Rod@Angle-
10d-#1
15
CR421-Rod@Angle-
10d-#2
Load [kN]
10
CR421-Rod@Angle-
10d-#3
Avg. CR421-
Rod@Angle-10d
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A 7 - Relative Load Displacement for AX2-ii Series (CR421®, Rod at an angle, 10d, Phase #2)
25
CR421-Uncentered Rod-
20d-#1
20
CR421-Uncentered Rod-
15 20d-#2
Load [kN]
10 CR421-Uncentered Rod-
20d-#3
5
Avg. CR421-Uncentered
Rod-20d
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A 8 - Relative Load Displacement for AX3-i Series (CR421®, Un-centered Rod, 20d, Phase #2)
83
30
CR421-Rod@Angle-
25 20d-#1
20
CR421-Rod@Angle-
20d-#2
Load [kN]
15
CR421-Rod@Angle-
10 20d-#3
5 Avg. CR421-
Rod@Angle-20d
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A 9 - Relative Load Displacement for AX3-ii Series (CR421®, Rod at an angle, 20d, Phase #2)
30
T88-Uncentered Rod-
25 20d-#1
20 T88-Uncentered Rod-
20d-#2
Load [kN]
15
T88-Uncentered Rod-
10 20d-#3
5 Avg. T88-Uncentered
Rod-20d
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A 10 - Relative Load Displacement for BX3-i Series (T88®, Un-centered Rod, 20d, Phase #2)
84
30
T88-Rod@Angle-20d-#1
25
20 T88-Rod@Angle-20d-#2
Load [kN]
15
T88-Rod@Angle-20d-#3
10
5
Avg. T88-Rod@Angle-
20d
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A 11- Relative Load Displacement for BX3-ii Series (T88®, Rod at an angle, 20d, Phase #2)
30
Gelmagic-
Uncentered Rod-20d-
25 #1
20 Gelmagic-
Uncentered Rod-20d-
Load [kN]
#2
15
Gelmagic-
Uncentered Rod-20d-
10 #3
5 Avg. Gelmagic-
Uncentered Rod-20d
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A 12 - Relative Load Displacement for CX3-i Series (GelMagic®, Un-centered Rod, 20d, Phase #2)
85
40
35
30
25
Load [kN]
M1-A-#1
20
M1-A-#2
15 M1-A-#3
Avg. M1-A
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
A 13 - Relative Avg. Load Displacement for M1-A Series (CR421®, 2 Rods, le=5d, s=3d, Phase #3)
50
45
40
35
30
Load [kN]
M1-B-#1
25
M1-B-#2
20
M1-B-#3
15 Avg. M1-B
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
A 14 - Relative Avg. Load Displacement for M1-B Series (CR421®, 2 Rods, le=5d, s=4d, Phase #3)
86
60
55
50
45
40
Load [kN]
35
M1-C-#1
30
M1-C-#2
25
M1-C-#3
20
Avg. M1-C
15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
A 15 - Relative Avg. Load Displacement for M1-C Series (CR421®, 2 Rods, le=5d, s=5d, Phase #3)
100
90
80
70
60
Load [kN]
M2-A-#1
50
M2-A-#2
40
M2-A-#3
30 Avg. M2-A
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
87
100
90
80
70
60
Load [kN]
M2-B-#1
50
M2-B-#2
40
M2-B-#3
30 Avg. M2-B
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
100
90
80
70
60
Load [kN]
M2-C-#1
50
M2-C-#2
40
M2-C-#3
30 Avg. M2-C
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
88
110
100
90
80
70
Load [kN]
60 M3-A-#1
50 M3-A-#2
40 M3-A-#3
30 Avg. M3-A
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
110
100
90
80
70
Load [kN]
60 M3-B-#1
50 M3-B-#2
40 M3-B-#3
30 Avg. M3-B
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
89
110
100
90
80
70
Load [kN]
60 M3-C-#1
50 M3-C-#2
40 M3-C-#3
30 Avg. M3-C
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
80
70
60
50
Load [kN]
M4-A-#1
40
M4-A-#2
30 M4-A-#3
Avg. M4-A
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
90
80
70
60
50
Load [kN]
M4-B-#1
40
M4-B-#2
30 M4-B-#3
Avg. M4-B
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
80
70
60
50
Load [kN]
M4-C-#1
40
M4-C-#2
30 M4-C-#3
Avg. M4-C
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
91
90
80
70
60
Load [kN]
50 M11-A-#1
40 M11-A-#2
M11-A-#3
30
Avg. M11-A
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
A 25 - Relative Avg. Load Displacement for M11-A Series (CR421®, 3 Rods, le=7.5d, s=3d, Phase #3)
110
100
90
80
70
Load [kN]
60 M11-B-#1
50 M11-B-#2
40 M11-B-#3
30 Avg. M11-B
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
A 26 - Relative Avg. Load Displacement for M11-B Series (CR421®, 3 Rods, le=7.5d, s=4d, Phase #3)
92
110
100
90
80
70
Load [kN]
60 M11-C-#1
50 M11-C-#2
40 M11-C-#3
30 Avg. M11-C
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
A 27 - Relative Avg. Load Displacement for M11-C Series (CR421®, 3 Rods, le=7.5d, s=5d, Phase #3)
120
110
100
90
80
Load [kN]
70
M5-A-#1
60
M5-A-#2
50
M5-A-#3
40
Avg. M5-A
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
93
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
Load [kN]
80 M5-B-#1
70 M5-B-#2
60
M5-B-#3
50
40 Avg. M5-B
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
Load [kN]
80 M5-C-#1
70 M5-C-#2
60
M5-C-#3
50
40 Avg. M5-C
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
94
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
Load [kN]
80 M6-A-#1
70 M6-A-#2
60
M6-A-#3
50
40 Avg. M6-A
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
Load [kN]
90 M6-B-#1
80
70 M6-B-#2
60 M6-B-#3
50
Avg. M6-B
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
95
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
Load [kN]
90 M6-C-#1
80
70 M6-C-#2
60 M6-C-#3
50
Avg. M6-C
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
110
100
90
80
70
Load [kN]
60 M7-A-#1
50 M7-A-#2
40 M7-A-#3
30 Avg. M7-A
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
A 34 - Relative Avg. Load Displacement for M7-A Series (CR421®,4 Rods, le=5d, s=3d, Phase #3)
96
110
100
90
80
70
Load [kN]
60 M7-B-#1
50 M7-B-#2
40 M7-B-#3
30 Avg. M7-B
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
A 35 - Relative Avg. Load Displacement for M7-B Series (CR421®,4 Rods, le=5d, s=4d, Phase #3)
110
100
90
80
70
Load [kN]
60 M7-C-#1
50 M7-C-#2
40 M7-C-#3
30 Avg. M7-C
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
A 36 - Relative Avg. Load Displacement for M7-C Series (CR421®,4 Rods, le=5d, s=5d, Phase #3)
97
110
100
90
80
70
Load [kN]
60 M12-A-#1
50 M12-A-#2
40 M12-A-#3
30 Avg. M12-A
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
A 37 - Relative Avg. Load Displacement for M12-A Series (CR421®,4 Rods, le=7.5d, s=3d, Phase #3)
140
130
120
110
100
90
Load [kN]
80 M12-B-#1
70
M12-B-#2
60
50 M12-B-#3
40 Avg. M12-B
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
A 38 - Relative Avg. Load Displacement for M12-B Series (CR421®,4 Rods, le=7.5d, s=4d, Phase #3)
98
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
Load [kN]
90 M12-C-#1
80
70 M12-C-#2
60 M12-C-#3
50
Avg. M12-C
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
A 39 - Relative Avg. Load Displacement for M12-C Series (CR421®,4 Rods, le=7.5d, s=5d, Phase #3)
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
Load [kN]
90 M8-A-#1
80
70 M8-A-#2
60 M8-A-#3
50
Avg. M8-A
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
99
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
Load [kN]
90 M8-B-#1
80
70 M8-B-#2
60 M8-B-#3
50
Avg. M8-B
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
Load [kN]
100 M8-C-#1
90
80 M8-C-#2
70
M8-C-#3
60
50 Avg. M8-C
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
100
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
Load [kN]
120
110 M9-A-#1
100 M9-A-#2
90
80 M9-A-#3
70
60 Avg. M9-A
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
Load [kN]
120 M9-B-#1
110
100 M9-B-#2
90
80 M9-B-#3
70
60 Avg. M9-B
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
101
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
Load [kN]
120
110 M9-C-#1
100 M9-C-#2
90
80 M9-C-#3
70
60 Avg. M9-C
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
102

Performance of Timber Connections With Single and Multipe Glued-In Threaded Steel Rods (2015)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance of Timber Connections With Single and Multipe Glued-In Threaded Steel Rods (2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERFORMANCE OF TIMBER CONNECTIONS WITH SINGLE AND

MULTIPLE GLUED-IN THREADED STEEL RODS

Enrique González Barillas

B.S., THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, 2007

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

© Enrique González Barillas, 2015

campaign, specimens were tested under uniaxial quasi-static tension loading.

moment resisting connections.

Barillas, under the supervision of Dr. Thomas Tannert.

Candidate at the University of Mons in Belgium, from May to August 2014.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ v

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1

1.1 OVERVIEW OF GLUED-IN ROD CONNECTIONS ................................................ 1

1.2 RESEARCH NEED...................................................................................................... 2

1.3 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2: STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW ..................................................................... 4

2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 4

2.2 MATERIALS ............................................................................................................... 6

2.3 MANUFACTURING ................................................................................................... 9

2.4 MECHANICS OF GLUED-IN STEEL RODS .......................................................... 10

2.5 DESIGN PROPOSALS .............................................................................................. 18

3.1 MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................... 25

3.2 PHASES #1 & #2: SINGLE GLUED-IN RODS ...................................................... 34

3.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR PHASES #1 & #2 ............................................... 43

3.4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS FOR PHASE #1 & #2................................................ 46

3.5 PHASE #3: MULTIPLE GLUED-IN RODS ............................................................ 54

3.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR PHASE #3 ........................................................... 60

3.7 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS FOR PHASE #3 ......................................................... 64

3.8 COMPARISON WITH DESIGN MODEL PREDICTIONS ..................................... 68

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 74

APPENDIX A: LOAD DISPLACEMENT CURVES ............................................................. 80

Table 1 - Selected Adhesives Technical Data............................................................................... 29

Table 2 – Parameters and Results for Phase #1 ............................................................................ 35

Table 3 – Relative Stiffness Results for Phase #1 ........................................................................ 36

Table 4 - Results from Phase #2 ................................................................................................... 40

Table 5 - Relative Stiffness Results for Phase #2 ......................................................................... 41

Table 6 – Variables and Results for Factorial ANOVA ............................................................... 44

Table 7 – Backwards elimination Curvi-linear Multiple Regression Analysis Results................ 44

Table 8 - ANOVA Results for Phases #1 and #2.......................................................................... 45

Table 11 - Results for tests Phase #3 ............................................................................................ 59

Table 13 - Curvilinear Multiple Regression Analysis Results for Phase #3................................. 61

Table 14 - Subsequent Two-way ANOVA Results (n & le) ......................................................... 61

Table 15 - Subsequent Two-way ANOVA Results (n & s) .......................................................... 62

Table 18 - Statistical Results for Comparison of Data vs Design Models.................................... 73

Figure 1: Schematic illustration of glued-in rod ............................................................................ 5

Figure 2: Examples of applications of glued in steel rod connections .......................................... 5

Figure 5: Options for test loading conditions .............................................................................. 16

Figure 6: Typical failure modes associated with glued-in rods ................................................... 17

Figure 7: Glued-in rod test specimens .......................................................................................... 27

Figure 9: Hundegger® Robot Drive CNC Machine .................................................................... 30

Figure 10: Centering of rods using toothpicks ............................................................................. 31

Figure 12: Geometry for specimens in Phase #1 ......................................................................... 34

Figure 14 – Avg. Load Displacement curves for tests in Phase #1 .............................................. 37

Figure 15: Geometry of specimens with “un-centered” rods....................................................... 39

Figure 17 - Avg. Load Displacement curves for tests in Phase #2 ............................................... 42

Figure 18 - Debonding failure between rod and timber................................................................ 42

Figure 19 - Distribution of observed failure modes for d=19mm ................................................. 47