CIB-W18/33-7-6

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

IN BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION

WORKING COMMISSION W18 - TIMBER STRUCTURES

LOAD-CARRYING CAPACITY OF JOINTS WITH

DOWEL-TYPE FASTENERS AND INTERLAYERS

by

H J Blaß, B Laskewitz
University of Karlsruhe

GERMANY

MEETING THIRTY-THREE

DELFT

THE NETHERLANDS

AUGUST 2000
 Load-Carrying Capacity of Joints with
Dowel-Type Fasteners and Interlayers

H.J. Blaß, B. Laskewitz

University of Karlsruhe, Germany

1 Introduction
The design rules in Eurocode 5 for joints with dowel-type fasteners loaded perpendicular to
their axis do not take into account an interlayer or a distance between the members to be
connected although this may significantly influence the load-carrying capacity of the joint.
One example of a connection with an interlayer is a joist hanger attached at a shear wall. In
this case, the load is transferred from the steel plate through the wood-based panel into the
studs. In these cases not considered by the design rules the structural engineers and the
building authorities are uncertain about the joint's load-carrying capacity.
The load-carrying capacity of timber-to-timber- or steel-to-timber-joints with an interlayer
may be derived according to the theory of Johansen which forms the basis of the design
rules for dowel-type fasteners in Eurocode 5. A condition for this is the knowledge of the
embedding strength of the different materials and the moment capacity of the dowel-type
fasteners.
Within a research project supported by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Holzforschung e.V. the
load-carrying capacity of single-shear timber-to-timber- and steel-to-timber-joints with an
interlayer were derived according to the theory of Johansen. The theoretical values were
verified by tests.

2 Experimental Study

2.1 Shear tests with timber-to-timber joints

The load-carrying capacity and the deformation behaviour of single shear timber-to-timber
joints were determined by tests. An interlayer consisting of 12 mm OSB panels was placed
between the timber members. The OSB interlayer was stapled to the timber. The timber
members were connected either with smooth or ringed shank nails. Figure 1 shows the test
set-up and table 1 the testing programme. Table A1 (Enclosure 1) contains the values of the
density and the moisture content of the timber. During the tests the force and the relative
displacements of the timber members were measured.

1
Figure 1: Test set-up of the single shear timber-to-timber joints

Table 1: Testing programme of the single shear timber-to-timber joints

Test se- Timber-to-timber connection OSB-to-timber connection Number of
ries tests
A1 2x14 smooth nails 38x100 2x20 staples 1.88x44 3
pre-drilled
A2 2x14 ringed shank nails 2x20 staples 1.88x44 3
40x100 pre-drilled

All test specimens showed a similar failure mechanism. The fasteners to connect the timber
members were loaded in shear. With increasing displacement two plastic hinges in the nails
were formed and the embedding strength of the timber was reached. The staples were also
deformed plastically. Compared to the total displacement the relative displacement be-
tween the OSB and the stud was not significant. As expected the tests with ringed shank
nails showed higher load-carrying capacities because of a distinctive chord effect. The re-
sults of both test series are summarised in table A2 (Enclosure 1). Typical load-
displacement curves are shown in figures A1 and A2 (Enclosure 2). The deformed nails of
one test specimen are shown in figure A3 (Enclosure 3).

2.2 Shear tests with steel-to-timber joints

The tensile tests simulate typical situations in timber frame construction. Table A3 (Enclo-
sure 3) contains the timber density and moisture content. The 12 mm OSB panels were
placed on the stud by means of staples or adhesive (polyurethane). Two perforated steel
plates per test specimen were nailed to the stud by means of ringed shank nails.
Figure 2 shows the test set-up and table 2 contains the test programme. During the tests the
force and the relative displacements between the steel plates and the stud were measured.

2
Figure 2: Test set-up of the tensile tests

Table 2: Testing programme of the tension tests

Test series Steel-to-timber connection OSB-to-timber connection Number of
tests
A 2x12 ringed shank nails 2x15 staples 1.88x44 3
4.0x50 not pre-drilled
B 2x12 ringed shank nails Adhesive 3
4.0x50 not pre-drilled (polyurethane)

The failure mechanisms of the two test series were different. The tests with a stapled con-
nection between OSB and stud showed large deformations accompanied by two plastic
hinges in the nails. The nail heads were clamped in the steel plates. In every staple leg one
plastic hinge was formed. The tests with bonded OSB panels showed a more rigid behav-
iour. One plastic hinge occurred in every nail. Only the beginning of a second plastic hinge
close to the steel plate was noticeable. Despite the different stiffness the load-carrying ca-
pacities were hardly different.
The results of the two test series are summarised in table A4 (Enclosure 4). Two typical
load-displacement curves are shown in figures A4 and A5 (Enclosures 4). A x-ray of a test
specimen is shown in figure A6 (Enclosure 5).

2.3 Additional tests

For the verification of the test results the yield moment of the nails was determined ac-
cording to DIN EN 409. The mean value of the yield moment for the smooth nails was 7.4
Nm, for the ringed shank nails with a length of 100 mm 7.1 Nm and for the ringed shank
nails with a length of 50 mm 8.1 Nm.
The embedding strength of the OSB was determined according to DIN EN 383. Tensile as
well as compressive tests with different orientations of the outer strands relative to the load
direction were performed. The smooth nails had a diameter of 3.8 mm and were pre-drilled
with a diameter of 3.4 mm. The mean value of the embedding strength parallel to the outer
strands was 37.7 N/mm² (tensile tests) and perpendicular to the outer strands 45.2 N/mm²
(compressive tests) and 45.9 N/mm² (tensile tests).

3
3 Theoretical models
According to the theory of Johansen [1] the load-carrying capacity of single-shear timber-
to-timber- and steel-to-timber-joints with an interlayer were derived. Because of the semi-
rigid stapled connection between OSB and stud the load-carrying capacity was derived for
two cases: no connection and rigid connection between OSB and timber stud, respectively.

3.1 Theoretical models for timber-to-timber joints

3.1.1 No connection between interlayer and timber
Failure mechanism 1aozw:
Rd
Load-carrying capacity:

R d = fh,1,d ⋅ b 1 ⋅ d (1)

f h, 1, d f h, zw, d f h, 2, d fh,2,d fh,zw,d

with β = and δ =
fh,1,d f h,1,d
Rd and the condition b 1 = β ⋅ b 2
t1 t t2
a1 a1 b1 t b2 a2 a2 b1 follows as:

β  δ 1 
b1 = ⋅  − 2t − t 1 − t 2 + ( 4 + δ + ) ⋅ t 2 + (2 + )t 12 + (2 + β)t 22 + 4tt 1 + 4tt 2 + 2t 1t 2 
 (2)
1+ β  β β 
Failure mechanism 1bozw:
Rd
Rd

f h, 1, d
f h, 2, d

Rd Rd
t1 t t2 t1 t t2

Load-carrying capacity
R d = fh,1,d ⋅ d ⋅ t 1 (3) R d = fh,2,d ⋅ d ⋅ t 2 (4)

4
Failure mechanism 2aozw:
Rd Load-carrying capacity:

My,d R d = fh,1,d ⋅ b 1 ⋅ d (5)

fh,2,d
f h, zw,d
with β =
fh,1,d
f h,1, d f
f h,2, d and the condition b 1 = β ⋅ b 2
Rd
t1 t t2 b1 follows as:
a1 a1 b1 t b2
2
1 t 12 fh,zw ,d t t 12 2M y fh,zw ,d t 2 My
b1 = ( −2t − t 1 + t + tt 1 + + + + +
2
+ (6)
1 1 2 2fh,1,dβ 2β fh,1,dβd fh,1,d 4 fh,1,d d
+
β 2
Failure mechanism 2bozw:
Rd Load-carrying capacity:

My, d
R d = fh,1,d ⋅ b 1 ⋅ d (7)

fh,2,d fh,zw,d
with β = and δ =
fh,1,d f h, zw, d f h, 2, d fh,1,d f h,1,d

and the condition b 1 = β ⋅ b 2

Rd
t1 t t2 b1 follows as:
b1 t b2 a2 a2

 
 − t − t 2 +  1 + δ + δ  t 2 +  1 + 1 β t 2 + tt +
β M y,d 2M y,d
b1 = +  (8)
  4β 2 
2 2
fh,1,d dβ fh,1,d d 
1
+β
2  2 2  
2
Failure mechanism 3bozw:
Rd Load-carrying capacity:

My,d
My,d R d = fh,1,d ⋅ b 1 ⋅ d (9)

fh,2,d fh,zw,d
with β = and δ =
f h,1,d f h, zw,d
fh,1,d f h,1,d
f h,2,d
and the condition b 1 = β ⋅ b 2
Rd b1 follows as:
t1 t t2
b1 t b2

1  M y,d β(β + 1) 2 
b1 = − βt + β 2 t 2 + 4β(β + 1) ⋅ + δt  (10)
1+ β  fh,1,d d 2 
 

5
3.1.2 Rigid connection between interlayer and timber
Failure mechanism 1amzw:
Load-carrying capacity:
Rd

R d = f h,1, d ⋅ b 1 ⋅ d + f h, zw , d ⋅ t ⋅ d (11)

fh,2,d fh,zw,d
f h, 1,d f h,zw,d f h,2, d with β = and δ =
fh,1,d f h,1,d

Rd and the condition b 1 = β ⋅ b 2 − δ ⋅ t ,

t1 t t2
a1 a1 b1 t b2 a2 a2 b1 follows as:

β
b1 = (t(δ − 2) − t 1 − t 2
β +1

 δ δ2  2  1  δ 
+ t 2  4 − 2δ + 2 −  + t 1  2 −  + t 22 (2 + β ) + t 1 t 4 + 2  + t t 2 (4 − 2δ ) + 2t 1 t 2  − δt (12)
 β β   β   β 


Failure mechanism 1bmzw:

Rd Rd

f h,1,d f h,zw,d
f h,2,d

Rd
Rd
t1 t t2 t1 t t2

Load-carrying capacity:
R d = fh,1,d ⋅ t 1 ⋅ d + fh,zw ⋅ t ⋅ d (13) R d = fh,2,d ⋅ t 2 ⋅ d (14)

6
Failure mechanism 2amzw:
Rd Load-carrying capacity:

R d = fh,1,d ⋅ b 1 ⋅ d + fh,zw ,d ⋅ t ⋅ d (15)

M y,d

fh,2,d fh,zw,d
f h,2,d with β = and δ =
fh,1,d f h,1,d
fh,1,d
and the condition b 1 = β ⋅ b 2 − δ ⋅ t ,
Rd
t1 t t2 b1 follows as:
a1 a1 b1 t b2

β
b1 = (t(δ − 2) − t 1 )
β+2

 δ δ2  2 2  δ  4M y  2 
+ t 2  4 − 2δ + 4 − 2  + t 1  2 +  + t t 1  4 + 4  +  + 1  − δt (16)
 β β   β  β  fh,1d  β  

Failure mechanism 2bmzw:

Rd Load-carrying capacity:

My,d R d = fh,1,d ⋅ b 1 ⋅ d + fh,zw ,d ⋅ t ⋅ d (17)

fh,2,d fh,zw,d
with β = and δ =
f h,1,d f h,zw,d f h,2,d fh,1,d f h,1,d

and the condition b 1 = β ⋅ b 2 − δ ⋅ t ,

Rd b1 follows as:
t1 t t2
b1 t b 2 a 2a 2

β
b1 = (t (2δ − 2) − t 2
2β + 1

 2δ 2 2δ  2 4M y  1 
+ t  4 − 4δ −
2
+  + t 2 (2 + 2β ) + t t 2 (4 − 4δ ) +  2 +   − δt (18)
 β β  fh,1d  β


7
Failure mechanism 3mzw:
Rd Load-carrying capacity:

My,d
R d = fh,1,d ⋅ b 1 ⋅ d + fh,zw ,d ⋅ t ⋅ d (19)
My,d

fh,2,d fh,zw,d
f h,1,d f h,zw,d with β = and δ =
fh,1,d f h,1,d
f h,2,d
and the condition b 1 = β ⋅ b 2 − δ ⋅ t ,
Rd
t1 t t2 b1 follows as:
b1 t b2

β   δ δ 2  4M y,d  1 
b1 = t (δ − 1) + t 2  1 − δ + −  +  1 +   − δt (20)
β + 1  β β  fh,1,d d  β  


3.2 Theoretical models for steel-to-timber joints

3.2.1 No connection between interlayer and timber
Failure mechanism 1ozw - thick steel plate:
Load-carrying capacity:
Rd

R d = fh,1,d ⋅ t 1 ⋅ d (21)

fh,1,d

Rd
t1 t

8
Failure mechanism 2ozw - thick steel plate:
Load-carrying capacity:
Rd
R d = 2 ⋅ fh,1,d ⋅ x ⋅ d − fh,1,d ⋅ t 1 ⋅ d (22)

My,d fh,zw ,d t 2
M y,d t 12
x = −t + t 2 + + + t 1t + (23)
fh,1,d d 4fh,1,d 2
f h ,zw, d
f h,1,d
Rd
x
t1 t

Failure mechanism 3ozw - thick steel plate:

Rd Load-carrying capacity:
R d = fh,1,d ⋅ x ⋅ d (24)

My,d

My,d
4M y,d fh,zw ,d t 2
x = −t + t + 2
+ (25)
fh,1,d d 2fh,1,d
f h,1,d f h,zw,d

Rd
x
t1 t

Failure mechanism 1aozw - thin steel plate:

Load-carrying capacity:
Rd
R d = 2 ⋅ fh,1,d ⋅ x ⋅ d − fh,1,d ⋅ t 1 ⋅ d (26)

fh,zw ,d t 2 t 12
x = −t + t + 2
+ t 1t + (27)
4fh,1,d 2
f h,zw,d
fh,1,d
x Rd
t1 t

9
Failure mechanism 2ozw - thin steel plate:
Load-carrying capacity:
Rd
R d = fh,1,d ⋅ x ⋅ d (28)

My,d
2M y,d fh,zw,d t 2
x = −t + t 2 + + (29)
fh,1,d d 2fh,1,d

f h,1,d f h,zw,d

x Rd
t1 t

3.2.2 Rigid-connected interlayer to the timber

Failure mechanism 1mzw - thick steel plate:
Rd Load-carrying capacity:

R d = fh,1,d ⋅ t 1 ⋅ d + fh,zw ,d ⋅ t ⋅ d (30)

f h,1,d f h,zw,d

Rd
t1 t

Failure mechanism 2mzw - thick steel plate:

Load-carrying capacity:
Rd

R d = 2 ⋅ fh,1,d ⋅ x ⋅ d − fh,1,d ⋅ t 1 ⋅ d + fh,zw ,d ⋅ t ⋅ d (31)

My,d M y,d fh,zw ,d t 2 t 12

x = −t + t + 2
− + t 1t + (32)
fh,1,d d 2fh,1,d 2
f h,zw,d
f h,1,d
Rd
x
t1 t

10
Failure mechanism 3mzw - thick steel plate:
Load-carrying capacity:
Rd

R d = fh,1,d ⋅ x ⋅ d + fh,zw ,d ⋅ t ⋅ d (33)

My,d

My,d

4M y,d fh,zw,d t 2
f h,1,d f h,zw,d x = −t + t 2 + − (34)
fh,1,d d fh,1,d
Rd
x
t1 t

Failure mechanism 1amzw - thin steel plate:

Rd Load-carrying capacity:
R d = 2 ⋅ fh,1,d ⋅ x ⋅ d − fh,1,d ⋅ t 1 ⋅ d + fh,zw ,d ⋅ t ⋅ d (35)

fh,zw,d t 2 t 12
x = −t + t 2 − + t 1t + (36)
2fh,1,d 2

f h,zw,d
f h,1,d
x Rd
t1 t
t
Failure mechanism 2mzw - thin steel plate:
Load-carrying capacity:
Rd
R d = 2 ⋅ fh,1,d ⋅ x ⋅ d − fh,1,d ⋅ t 1 ⋅ d (37)

fh,zw ,d t 2 t 12
x = −t + t 2 + + t 1t + (38)
4fh,1,d 2
f h,zw,d
fh,1,d
x Rd
t1 t

11
4 Verification of the theoretical models
The test results are compared with the theoretical load-carrying capacities. The theoretical
values were determined using the average values of the embedding strength and yield mo-
ment, respectively, determined by tests. Because the slip between OSB panels and timber
studs was not measured during the tests, the two extreme cases are considered in the com-
parison: one case with no connection between OSB and stud and the case with a rigid con-
nection.
Because of the formation of two plastic hinges per fastener, equations (9) and (19), respec-
tively were at first evaluated for the timber-to-timber connections. The chord effect causing
tensile forces in the nails and thereby increasing the load-carrying capacity was not taken
into account. Since one plastic hinge occurred in the OSB-layer in test series A1 and A2,
equation (19) does not apply. In this case, the connection acted as a usual timber-to-wood-
based-panel connection with two plastic hinges per shear plane. Consequently, the corre-
sponding Johansen equation was evaluated leading to the respective values in the last col-
umn of Table 3.
For the steel-to-timber connections equations (24) and (33) were used. A rigid connection
between OSB and the timber stud was assumed in test series B. Although a ‘thin’ steel
plate was used a clamped support of the nails in the steel plate was observed, leading to
two plastic hinges per shear plane.
Table 3: Verification of the theoretical models
Test test result Theoretical model theoretical model with
[kN] without connection connection
[kN] [kN]
A1-1 20.3 14.1 20.0
A1-2 23.3 14.4 20.3
A1-3 20.0 13.9 19.7
A2-1 34.0 15.0 20.8
A2-2 33.0 14.2 20.3
A2-3 34.6 14.5 20.4
A-1 32.7 14.9 26.4
A-2 33.7 15.0 26.5
A-3 32.2 13.8 26.3
B-1 32.4 14.9 26.4
B-2 34.4 14.8 26.4
B-3 34.8 14.8 26.4

Generally, the theoretical model disregarding a slip between OSB and timber stud predict
the test results better than the model without a connection between OSB and timber. The
calculated load-carrying capacities for the tests with smooth nails (series A1) agree very
well with the test results. The load-carrying capacities of the tests with ringed shank nails
(series A2) are higher than the calculated values because the cord effect was not taken into
account in the calculation. The same applies for the steel-to-timber connections (series A
and B), regardless whether the OSB was bonded or stapled to the timber studs.

12
5 Conclusions
Because of the lack of knowledge about the load-carrying capacity of connections with
dowel-type fasteners, where a wood-based panel is put between the members to be con-
nected, the theoretical values of the load-carrying capacity based on the Johansen theory
were derived and verified by a small number of tests. Two cases were considered in the
theoretical models: one with a rigid connection between interlayer and one timber member
and another case without a connection. For the case with connection, tests were performed
with rigid and semi-rigid connections, respectively.
The slip between the timber member and the attached interlayer did not influence the load-
carrying capacity of the connection. This statement is true, if the connection between
interlayer and timber member is designed to carry the load introduced into the wood-based
panel. In this case, the theoretical model based on a rigid connection may be used to calcu-
late the load-carrying capacity of the connection. In all other cases, the conservative model
disregarding a load transfer between wood-based panel and timber member should be used.

6 References
[1] Johansen, K.W.: Theory of timber connections. International Association for Bridge
and Structural Engineering, Vol.9, p.249-262, 1949
[2] Werner, H.: Tragfähigkeit von Holz-Verbindungen mit stiftförmigen Verbindungs-
mitteln unter Berücksichtigung streuender Einflußgrößen, 1993
[3] Blaß, H.J. and Laskewitz, B.: Tragfähigkeit von Verbindungen an Holztafelele-
menten, research report of Versuchsanstalt für Stahl, Holz und Steine, Abt. Inge-
nieurholzbau, University of Karlsruhe, 2000

13
 Enclosure 1

Table A1: Density and moisture content of the timber-to-timber shear joints tests

test component density Moisture

content
[g/cm³] [%]
post 0.411 12.5
A1-1 edge beam 1 0.450 14.0
edge beam 2 0.434 13.8
post 0.457 12.4
A1-2 edge beam 1 0.432 13.4
edge beam 2 0.509 13.7
post 0.403 12.4
A1-3 edge beam 1 0.424 13.4
edge beam 2 0.409 13.6
post 0.569 12.5
A2-1 edge beam 1 0.507 13.6
edge beam 2 0.505 13.6
post 0.417 12.3
A2-2 edge beam 1 0.403 13.7
edge beam 2 0.517 13.5
post 0.469 12.5
A2-3 edge beam 1 0.507 13.7
edge beam 2 0.425 13.6

Table A2:Results of the timber-to-timber shear joint tests according to DIN EN 26891
test Fmax vmax v01 v04 vi,mod ki ks
[kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [kN/mm] [kN/mm]
A1-1/1 40.6 12.04 0.024 0.317 0.391 56.78 46.04
A1-1/2 40.6 14.33 0.084 0.894 1.080 20.13 16.67
A1-2/1 46.5 10.82 0.064 0.694 0.840 25.94 21.43
A1-2/2 46.5 11.15 0.016 0.368 0.469 48.91 38.38
A1-3/1 39.9 11.90 0.097 0.656 0.745 27.44 24.16
A1-3/2 39.9 13.19 0.054 0.995 1.255 18.09 14.34
mean 42.3 - - - - 32.88 26.84
COV [%] 8.6 - - - - 48.8 47.07
A2-1/1 67.9 12.61 0.071 1.101 1.373 21.80 17.48
A2-1/2 67.9 15.00 0.333 2.250 2.556 10.67 9.39
A2-2/1 66.0 13.30 0.161 1.353 1.589 17.74 15.10
A2-2/2 66.0 15.00 0.094 1.380 1.715 17.39 13.99
A2-3/1 69.1 15.00 0.106 1.508 1.869 15.92 12.84
A2-3/2 69.1 14.80 0.286 1.723 1.916 13.93 12.53
mean 67.7 - - - - 16.24 13.6
COV [%] 2.3 - - - - 23.2 20.0
 Enclosure 2

50

45

40

35

30
LOAD [kN ]

25

20

15

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement [mm]

Figure A1: Load-displacement curves of a test specimen with smooth nails

80

70

60

50
LOAD [kN ]

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement [mm]

Figure A2: Load-displacement curves of a test specimen with ringed shank nails
 Enclosure 3

Figure A3: Opened specimen after the test

Table A3: Density and moisture content of the steel-to-timber shear joint tests
test density moisture
content
[g/m³] [%]
A-1 0.527 12.9
A-2 0.543 12.7
A-3 0.389 12.5
B-1 0.530 12.7
B-2 0.510 12.9
B-3 0.511 12.7

Table A4: Results of the tension tests according to DIN EN 26891

Versuch Fmax vmax v01 v04 vi,mod ki ks
[kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [kN/mm] [kN/mm]
A-1/1 32.7 15.00 0.104 1.380 1.701 10.14 8.23
A-1/2 32.7 11.66 0.078 1.359 1.708 10.30 8.20
A-2/1 33.7 15.00 0.188 1.774 2.115 7.89 6.62
A-2/2 33.7 11.36 0.093 1.318 1.633 10.62 8.57
A-3/1 32.2 15.00 0.197 2.561 3.152 5.47 4.44
A-3/2 32.2 11.86 0.167 1.864 2.263 7.51 6.19
mean 32.9 - - - - 8.66 7.04
COV [%] 2.3 - - - - 23.6 22.7
B-1/1 32.4 3.97 0.086 1.032 1.261 13.57 17.65
B-1/2 32.4 5.23 0.133 1.284 1.535 10.90 9.12
B-2/1 34.4 7.86 0.099 0.975 1.168 14.36 11.99
B-2/2 34.4 - 0.090 1.135 1.393 12.33 10.05
B-3/1 34.8 5.94 0.109 0.923 1.085 15.17 12.90
B-3/2 34.8 - - - - - -
mean 33.9 - - - - 13.27 12.3
COV[%] 3.8 - - - - 12.7 26.95
 Enclosure 4

40

35

30

25
LOAD [kN ]

20

15

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement [mm ]

Figure A4: Load-displacement curves of a tension test specimen with a stapled connection
between OSB and timber

40

35

30

25
LOAD [kN ]

20

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement [mm ]

Figure A5: Load-displacement curves of a tension test specimen with a bonded connection
between OSB and timber
 Enclosure 5

Figure A6: X-ray of a specimen of series A-1