Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121321

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Experiments on laminated bamboo lumber nailed connections

Guo Chen a,⇑, Wenqi Yang a, Tong Zhou a, Yunfei Yu a, Jing Wu a, Hao Jiang a, Xiang Li a,
Yongxing Zhang a,b
a
College of Civil Engineering, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China
b
Guangxi Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Engineering Safety, Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Structural Safety of Ministry of Education,
Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China

h i g h l i g h t s

Mode cross-over from ductile response to brittle failure is observed.

The effective number of nails in a row is suggested.

Folz’s model is capable of predicting the load-slip relationship of the connection.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Laminated bamboo lumber (LBL) nailed connection made with LBL main member and sandwiched by LBL
Received 24 March 2020 side members is introduced, which plays an essential role in the safe and reliability of bamboo buildings.
Received in revised form 30 September However, little research attention has been paid on to the mechanical behavior of connections. This paper
2020
reports an experimental study on the effect of parameters on reference loads (yield load and maximum
Accepted 12 October 2020
Available online 27 October 2020
load), stiffness and load-slip behavior of the connections, including nail diameter, number of lines and
rows of nails. For single nail connection, nail pull-through and plastic hinges forms in LBL members.
Mode cross-over from ductile response to brittle failure is observed in multi-nail connections with one
Keywords:
Laminated Bamboo Lumber (LBL)
or more splitting cracks develop from the nails hole edges toward the ends of the side or middle mem-
Nail bers. A decreasing ductility of connections is investigated with increasing diameter and number of nails.
Effective number of nails The capacity of effective number of nails in a row is evaluated and compared with that obtained from
Load carrying capacity existing analytical formulas. Predictions from existed various theoretical modes are compared with
Load-slip relationship experimentally determined capacities of nailed connection per shear plane per nail and conclude that
the load carrying capacity of connections with laterally load nails can be applied to accurately estimate
using European yield models (EYMs). Furthermore, the model developed by Folz is capable of predicting
the load-slip relationship of LBL nailed connections. The findings of this study will provide the scientific
basis and useful information for the design and finite element numerical simulation of engineered bam-
boo structures containing LBL nailed connections and promote the rational use of bamboo resources in
the field of civil engineering.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction developing countries. Bamboo grows in different environmental

Global environmental pollution and energy crisis is threatening
long-term stable development of mankind, energy-saving and
environmental protection construction materials are becoming
an important trend in field of civil engineering. Bamboo is one of
the fast-growing plants widely distributed in tropical, subtropical
and mild temperate zones [1]. Owing to its renewability, low car-
bon footprint [2] and high strength-to-weight ratio, bamboo has
been used for centuries to build houses [3–6] and bridges [7] in
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chenguo@njfu.edu.cn (G. Chen).
conditions, which results in significant differences in getting nutri-
ents, moisture and sunlight. The diameter and wall thickness of
bamboo culm gradually decrease from base to top, making the con-
nection configurations quite complex and difficult to accurately
control due to the difference of the culms [8]. More importantly,
bamboo is frequently exposed to moisture alternation or other
adverse circumstance during the service life, therefore, it is more
prone to insects, mildew, rot and crack. These problems emerging
in the practice engineering application bring harmful effect to cre-
ate reliable connections [9,10]. To address these issues, laminated
bamboo lumber (LBL) is developed to substitute the traditional

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121321
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Chen, W. Yang, T. Zhou et al.
bamboo culms, which decreasing the disadvantages of bamboo
culms by distributing them throughout the members [11,12].
With the development of new industrialization and fast urban-
ism, the contradiction between the crowded population and con-
struction land is becoming increasing complex and fierce. Low-
rise timber structures are severely restricted in China’s big cities
with a dense population. In recent years, high-rise and large-
span buildings using engineered bamboo products (e.g. LBL) has
become more common, which is contribute to relieving the tension
and conflicts [13–16]. Based on the well-known fact that the safety
and comfort of structures is largely influenced by the mechanical
characteristics of connections between different structural mem-
bers (i.e. columns and beams). The reliability of the connections
is therefore great importance. Numerous studies on performance
of LBL have been performed, it is demonstrated that the LBL has
a great potential to replace timber completely or partly [17–20].
Few studies have been conducted on mechanical performance
of LBL nailed connections, but extensive researches on dowel-
type connections in timber can offer a valuable reference. Wood
nailed connections are usually the preferred method to other com-
monly used types of connections, because of their quick and easy
construction procedure. For decades, a large number of experimen-
tal studies and theoretical analysis about the wood connections
using multiple mechanical fasteners have been done to character-
ize factors that influence the strength, stiffness and failure modes
of connections with mechanical fasteners [21–26]. Yield models,
popularly referred to as European yield models (EYMs) suggested
in the Eurocode 5 (EC5) [27] is based on the work done by Johansen
[28]. It is shown that the embedment behavior of members in
wood connections is one of the key parameters which impacts
the performance of the connections. The premature brittle failure
of connections may be investigated due to the lower strength of
timber members. Ramirez [29] and Reynolds [30] and Cui [31]
found that both embedment and fracture performance of LBL
was much more than that of timber.
The LBL nailed connections, which can be used as an alternative
to wood connections, were introduced. However, there is little lit-
erature available concerning the mechanical behavior of LBL nailed
connections. The existing buildings and bridges using LBL materi-
als were built according to the requirement of current standards
for design of timber structures [32,33]. As the continuous attention
paid on bamboo-based structures using LBL across the world, sig-
nificant efforts are underway to develop structural design codes
and standards [34]. Lack of reliable, comprehensive data on
mechanical characteristics of LBL nailed connection hampers the
sustainable development of modern bamboo structures.
A comprehensive study was performed on LBL nailed connec-
tions to investigate the effect of varying nail patterns on strength,
stiffness and failure modes. Based on the experimental results
obtained, effective number of nails in a row, load carrying capacity
of single-nail connection and load-slip relationship of connection
were proposed, which can provide useful information for the
design and application of LBL nailed connections.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Four-year-old Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens) collected
from Yiyang, Hunan province, China, were used to fabricate the LBL
specimens. The mechanical properties of LBL were determined
accordance to the standard ASTM D143-14 [35], as reported in
Table 1. The average density and moisture content of members
were 780 kg/m3 and 10.2% respectively. Common wire nails, 2.1,
2.5 and 2.8 mm diameter by 50 mm long were provided by a
2
Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121321
hardware manufacture. The nails were tested following ASTM
F1575-17 [36] and the average bending yield strength of nails for
different diameters was 705.2 MPa.
2.2. Specimens description and preparation
LBL members were preconditioned in an environmental cham-
ber at 20 °C/65% relative humidity (RH) for 2 weeks prior to the
manufacture of LBL nailed connections, achieving equilibrium
moisture content of about 10%. The push-out tests were performed
on twenty-five different groups of symmetric specimens, as illus-
trated in Fig. 1. The configuration of the push-out test has a
remarkable effect on the experimental results by introducing addi-
tional moment between side and middle members resulting from
eccentric load distribution on the connections. Therefore, the LBL
nailed connections were consisted of two side members (20 mm
thick) connected to the middle member (40 mm thick) using nails.
Both of the members have the same width (40 mm) and length
(150 mm). Although the friction arising from the direct contact
between the members interfaces is known to have remarkable pos-
itive effect on the load capacity of nailed connections, the friction is
complex, changeable and much influenced by human factor and
environmental factor. For these reasons, the connection strength
equations in design codes in many countries do not include the
friction effect [27]. At the time of fabrication of three-member
specimens, thin polythene sheets were placed to achieve a gap
between the middle member and side members. The density of
members in specimens is greater than 0.5 gcm3, therefore, drive
a nail directly into LBL member tend to break off and split member
material without a pilot hole. In order to possible reducing hole-
spacing tolerances, the main member and side members were
pre-drilled together. The diameter of pilot holes was 80% of that
of the nails. The bottom of nail head was left flush with the side
member surface.
A total of 125 specimens were tested, with five replicates for
each series. Three different nail diameters, i.e. 2.1, 2.5 and
2.8 mm were used as the connector for each series. The primary
variables within the different push-out specimens were the nail
diameter (i.e. 2.1, 2.5 and 2.8 mm), number of row of nails (i.e. 1,
2 and 3) and number of line of nails (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), as shown
in Fig. 2. A line of nails is defined as a run of nails along any line
which lies in the direction of the applied load and a row of nails
is a run of nails along any line at right angles to the direction of
the applied load. Joints with rows of nails at varying spacing were
tested and it was concluded that the lateral spacing of the rows had
no effect on joint capacity and a row spacing of 10 mm or 20 mm
was selected in the programme [21]. The nailed connections were
manufactured in the laboratory and tested within 10 min of
fabrication.
The work presented by Chen et al. [37] indicated that the min-
imum requirements of end distance e1, edge distance e2, row dis-
tance r and center-to-center distance s in nailed connections
were suggested to avoid brittle failures. All the specimens in this
paper were tested under the premise of meeting the minimum
requirements of nail distance. The LBL nailed connections were
fabricated with wire nails perpendicular to the middle and side
members considering variable nail diameter d, number of rows of
nails m, and number of lines of nails n, as illustrated in Table 2.
The nomenclature adopted for the specimens provides information
about the geometrical parameters. The first number signifies the
diameter of nails. The second and third symbol signifies the num-
ber of rows and line of nails respectively. For example, if the spec-
imens 2.5-L3R5 were encountered, which means the main and side
members were connected by 2.5 mm diameter nails and the num-
ber of rows and lines were 3 and 5 respectively.
G. Chen, W. Yang, T. Zhou et al. Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121321

Table 1
Mechanical properties of LBL.

Compressive strength parallel to grain fc Tensile strength parallel to grain ft Bending strength fb Modulus of elasticity E Poisson’s ratio
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) m
56.3 107.7 111.5 11,022 0.25

2.3. Methods
Middle Middle
member member All specimens were performed in compression loading using a
Side microcomputer-controlled universal testing machine of 50kN
Nail row

150
capacity, as shown in Fig. 3. The monotonic load was transmitted
centerlines member
to the specimens via the steel plate placed on top of the specimens.
The relative displacement (slip) between the main member and
Nail

150
side members was measured using two linear variable displace-
Nail line ment transducers (LVDTs) positioned in pairs on both sides of
the specimens, using steel supports for the measuring equipment.
centerlines
According to the requirements of ASTM D 1761 [38], all specimens
were conducted under displacement control at a constant rate of
40 20 40 20 1.5 mm/min intended to attain the maximum load in about
10 min, however reach the maximum load in not less than 5 and
(a) Elevation (b) Side elevation not more than 20 min. The load and LVDTs readings were collected
by data acquisition system DH3820 at one second interval. The
Fig. 1. Typical LBL nailed connection (dimensions in mm). yield load (Fy), maximum load (Fmax), stiffness (K) and ductility
e2

e2

e2
40

40

40
e2

e2

e2
e1 e1 s e1 s s
150 150 150

(a) 2.1-R1L1, 2.5-R1L1, 2.8-R1L1 (b) 2.1-R1L2, 2.5-R1L2, 2.8-R1L2 (c) 2.1-R1L3, 2.5-R1L3, 2.8-R1L3

r e2
e2
e2

40
40

40
e2
e2

e2
e1 s s s e1 s s s s e1
150 150 150

(d) 2.1-R1L4, 2.5-R1L4, 2.8-R1L4 (e) 2.1-R1L5, 2.5-R1L5, 2.8-R1L5 (f) 2.5-R2L1
r e2

r e2

r e2
40

40

40
e2

e2

e2

e1 s e1 s s e1 s s s
150 150 150

(g) 2.5-R2L2 (h) 2.5-R2L3 (i) 2.5-R2L4

r e2

e2 r r e2

e2 r r e2
40

40

40
e2

e1 s s s s e1 e1 s
150 150 150

(j) 2.5-R2L5 (k) 2.5-R3L1 (l) 2.5-R3L2

e2 r r e2
e2 r r e2

e2 r r e2

40
40

40

e1 s s e1 s s s e1 s s s s
150 150 150

(m) 2.5-R3L3 (n) 2.5-R3L4 (o) 2.5-R3L5

Fig. 2. Dimension of side and middle members (dimensions in mm).

3
G. Chen, W. Yang, T. Zhou et al. Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121321

Table 2
Details of LBL nailed connections and test results.

Specimens e1 (mm) e2 (mm) s (mm) r (mm) m n K (kN/mm) Fy (kN) 4y (mm) Fmax (kN) 4max (mm) l
2.1-L1R1 20 20 – – 1 1 1.61 1.46 1.2 3.14 13.3 11.1
2.1-L1R2 20 20 20 – 1 2 2.05 2.40 1.4 5.43 11.6 8.3
2.1-L1R3 20 20 20 – 1 3 2.62 3.38 1.5 7.34 11.3 7.5
2.1-L1R4 20 20 20 – 1 4 4.06 5.53 1.6 10.93 12.2 7.6
2.1-L1R5 20 20 20 – 1 5 4.18 6.04 1.7 11.79 11.9 7.0
2.5-L1R1 20 20 – – 1 1 1.91 2.00 1.3 4.01 15.0 11.5
2.5-L1R2 20 20 20 – 1 2 2.78 3.91 1.6 7.75 15.0 9.4
2.5-L1R3 20 20 20 – 1 3 4.49 5.39 1.4 11.72 15.0 10.7
2.5-L1R4 20 20 20 – 1 4 4.87 7.39 1.9 14.09 11.0 5.8
2.5-L1R5 20 20 20 – 1 5 5.28 9.01 2.2 17.38 11.4 5.2
2.8-L1R1 20 20 – – 1 1 2.95 2.56 1.5 5.75 15.0 10.0
2.8-L1R2 20 20 20 – 1 2 3.40 4.78 2.3 9.49 17.5 7.6
2.8-L1R3 20 20 20 – 1 3 5.50 8.95 2.0 12.45 12.2 6.1
2.8-L1R4 20 20 20 – 1 4 5.71 9.93 2.2 15.10 11.4 5.2
2.8-L1R5 20 20 20 – 1 5 6.44 13.29 2.5 18.67 10.0 4.0
2.5-L2R1 20 10 – 20 2 1 3.08 3.27 1.3 7.82 15.0 11.5
2.5-L2R2 20 10 20 20 2 2 5.30 6.16 1.6 15.26 14.2 8.9
2.5-L2R3 20 10 20 20 2 3 6.96 9.59 1.7 21.01 12.2 7.2
2.5-L2R4 20 10 20 20 2 4 7.37 14.10 2.3 26.50 13.1 5.7
2.5-L2R5 20 10 20 20 2 5 8.87 17.94 2.7 29.48 9.2 3.4
2.5-L3R1 20 10 – 10 3 1 4.17 4.29 1.8 12.53 14.9 8.3
2.5-L3R2 20 10 20 10 3 2 7.21 9.38 1.6 22.61 15.0 9.4
2.5-L3R3 20 10 20 10 3 3 7.64 14.15 2.3 31.52 15.0 6.5
2.5-L3R4 20 10 20 10 3 4 12.42 19.63 2.1 38.75 10.5 5.0
2.5-L3R5 20 10 20 10 3 5 13.92 27.20 2.5 50.60 11.3 4.5

Note: e1 = end distance (mm); e2 = edge distance (mm); s = center-to-center distance (mm); r = row distance (mm); m = number of rows of nails, n = number of lines of nails,
K = stiffness (kN/mm), Fy = yield load (kN), Fmax = maximum load (kN), 4y = slip corresponding to the yield load (mm), 4max = slip corresponding to the maximum load (mm),
l = ductility ratio.

the force provided by the actuator of universal testing machine

Load Steel plate
LVDT LVDT
Side Middle
member member
Steel plate
Fig. 3. Test setup.
ratio (l) are chosen to evaluate the mechanical performance of LBL
nailed connections.
3. Experimental observations and results
Previous studies have shown that five failure modes of timber
connections loaded parallel to grain with dowel type fasteners
were recorded, including embedment, splitting, row shear, block
shear and net tension failure [24]. Unlike timber connections, the
LBL nailed connections in this study are always characterised by
combination of former two failure modes. It is observed that differ-
ent failure modes occurred for varying nail size, number of lines
and number of rows of nails. Fig. 4 (a) and (b) displays the failure
modes of specimens using single nail, which is governed by
embedment of the LBL and the formation of one plastic hinge in
the nail on either side of the interface between the side and middle
members. Eventually, nails might be pull-through, resulting to
large deformation of nails (see Fig. 4 (c)). For multi-nails speci-
mens, no visible damage was observed at the initial stage. When
4
over the bending strength of LBL, intermittent fracture noises of
LBL members were heard and grow louder, demonstrating that
the failure of bamboo fibers under the nail happened. The first fail-
ure stage was the fiber crushing beneath the nail without visible
crack, which is an inevitable process for most of the specimens.
In this process, two plastic hinges were formed gradually in the
side and middle members. As the load reached to 0.7Fmax (Fmax is
defined as maximum load), nails deformed and became obvious
(see Fig. 4 (d)). Generally speaking, ductile and brittle modes are
treated as two separate responses. In timber connections with
mechanical fasteners, splitting is usually considered as an indica-
tion of the occurrence of brittle modes, which can be avoided with
adequate fastener spacing. However, mode cross-over from ductile
response to brittle failure is observed by Ottenhaus et al. [39] in
both CLT and LVL connections under monotonic and cyclic loading.
For nailed connections, the minimum construction requirements of
nail spacing are satisfied, but it does not mean the brittle failure
definitely will not take place. Similar mixed-mode failure modes
were also witnessed in LBL nailed connections. After the embed-
ment failure occurred, one shear splitting crack parallel to load
direction formed on the hole edges, which caused an abruptly loss
of load. After reaching the maximum load, the cracks continued to
widen and propagate rapidly towards the ends of members, as
shown in Fig. 4(e). For specimens with multi-rows of nails, two
or more splits might be found in side or middle members, as shown
in Fig. 4(f)~Fig. 4(h). Briefly, the embedment failure mode under-
goes large plastic deformation and has better ductility, while the
mixed-mode failure mode exhibits smaller plastic deformation
and the ultimate failure of multi-nailed connections occurs with
one or more splitting cracks develop from the nails hole edges
toward the ends of the side or middle members.
All the LBL nailed connections exhibit similar load-slip
response, therefore, only the load-slip curves of series 2.1-R1L1,
2.5-R1L1, 2.8-R1L1, 2.1-R1L3, 2.5-R3L3, 2.5-R3L5 and the corre-
sponding average curves are shown in Fig. 5 plotted as red solid
lines. It is investigated that the failure process of connections can
G. Chen, W. Yang, T. Zhou et al. Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121321

(a) 2.1-R1L1 (b) 2.8-L1R1 (c) 2.5-L1R1 (d) 2.1-L1R5

(e) 2.8-L1R3 (f) 2.5-L2R4 (g) 2.5-L3R3 (h) 2.5-L3R5

Fig. 4. Typical failure modes.

(a) 2.1-R1L1 (b) 2.5-R1L1 (c) 2.8-R1L1

(d) 2.1-R1L3 (e) 2.5-R3L3 (f) 2.5-R3L5

Fig. 5. Typical load-slip curves.

be classified into three phases, including the elastic stage, nonlin- nonlinear increase until the ultimate load is reached. In particular,
ear stage and descending stage. At the beginning of loading, the most of the specimens experienced sporadic decreases in load prior
load display linear characteristic with the increase of the relative to connection failure, which means that splits are occurring in the
slip between the side and middle members, followed by a members. Afterwards, the load starts to decline very slowly up to

5
G. Chen, W. Yang, T. Zhou et al.
final failure, representing the occurrence of splits in the middle or
side members. However, the specimens don’t lose completely the
capacity of withstanding load.
The average results of each series of specimens including the
maximum load Fmax, yield load Fy, stiffness K, yield slip 4y, maxi-
mum slip 4max, along with ductility l are given in Table 2. Based
on the load-slip curves obtained from the tests, the following
parameters are determined. According to the Section 28.3 of ASTM
D 1761 [38], Section 9.4 of ASTM D5652-15 [40] and Section 8.2 of
BS EN 26891:1991 [41], the maximum load Fmax is obtained
directly from the load-slip curves for a slip no more than 15 mm.
If not, the ultimate load Fu shall be used as the maximum load Fmax.
The yield load Fy is determined by drawing a line parallel to the ini-
tial linear region of the load-slip curve, offset this line by a dis-
placement equal to 5% of the nail diameter, and select the load at
which the offset line intersects the load-slip curve. If the 5%D-
offset line does not intersect the load-slip curve, the yield load Fy
is defined as the maximum load Fmax. The stiffness K provide by
is estimated by EC5 [27], can be computed using:
0:4F max  0:1F max
K¼ ð1Þ
D0:4  D0:1
Where D0.1 and D0.4 is the slip of the nailed connection equivalent
to a load of 10%Fmax and 40%Fmax, respectively.
4. Discussion
4.1. Nail diameter
As expected, the nail diameter affects the strength (maximum
load and yield load) and stiffness of the nailed connections. Fig. 6
(a) shows the maximum load-nail diameter relationship of the
multi-nail connections with the number of rows m = 1. The control
connections (Series 2.1-L1R1) with one nail have a maximum load
of 3.14kN. Series 2.5-L1R1 (d = 2.5 mm) and Series 2.8-L1R1
(d = 2.8 mm) with varying nail diameter have a capacity of
4.01kN and 6.35kN, indicating an increase of 27.7% and 102.2%,
respectively compared to the control connections. Similar experi-
mental results are found in Fig. 6(b) plotted as the yield load-nail
diameter curves. The yield load of Series 2.1-L1R1, Series 2.5-
L1R1 and Series 2.8-L1R1 is 1.46kN, 2.00kN and 3.15kN respec-
tively. Compared to Series 2.15-L1R1, the Fy of Series 2.5-L1R1
and Series 2.8-L1R1 increased by 37.0% and 115.8%, respectively.
It is found that the maximum load and yield load increases as
the increase of the nail diameter. From single shear tests on spec-
imens using single nails, it is found that the yield load of LBL nailed
connections occurred at a slip of 1.2 ~ 1.5 mm, which was
(a) Maximum load
Fig. 6. Effect of nail diameter.
6
Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121321
approximately 23.6 to 38.2% D max. The slip corresponding to the yield
load increases with the nail diameter.
The definition of maximum admissible load Fu associated with
maximum admissible slip reported in EN 12,512 [42] corresponds
to the first of the following conditions obtained during the test.
(a) failure; or
(b) 80% of Fmax (on the descending arm) for a slip of less 30 mm;
or
(c) a slip of less 30 mm whichever occurs first in the test.
Ductility l is a measure of connection nonlinearity and is com-
monly determined as the ratio of the yield slip Dy to failure slip Du,
where Du is slip corresponding to the maximum load Fmax [43]. The
ratio value of the scale was suggested by Smith [44]: brittle (l  2),
low ductility (2 < l  4), moderate ductility (4 < l  6), and high
ductility (l > 6). A decreasing ductility of connections is investi-
gated with increasing diameter and number of nails, as shown in
Table 2. Most of specimens exhibit high ductility failure and
undergo significant deformation before ultimate destruction.
4.2. Number of rows of nails
Fig. 7 displays the relationship between the maximum load Fmax
and yield load Fy and number of rows of nails with 2.5 mm in diam-
eter. A linear increasing trend of Fmax and Fy is investigated with
increasing number of rows of nails, which is consistent with the
regulations of current timber design standards. It is common prac-
tice that the strength of connection with multiple number of rows
of nails is equal to the product of single row strength and the num-
ber of rows n in the connection.
4.3. Effective number of nails in a row
For multiple mechanical fasteners connections with the load
acting parallel to the grain, it is observed that the capacity of entire
connections is smaller than the capacity of a single fastener multi-
plied by the number of fasteners. Transfer of forces across a multi-
nail connection is not uniform along a row of nails. This strength
reduction phenomenon is so called the group effect. Experimental
results provided by Cramer [45], Lantos [46], Wilkinson [47] and
Xu [48] indicated that the load distribution in a timber joint with
multiple fasteners is not uniform, moreover, the first and last fas-
teners receive the highest load level, so they will fail first. Owing
to unequal distribution and complexity of forces in connections,
in many countries, it is common practice to multiply the capacity
of a single fastener connection by an effective number of fasteners
nef, which is still based on empirical fit of experimental results.
F multiple ¼ nef F single ð2Þ
(b) Yield load
G. Chen, W. Yang, T. Zhou et al. Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121321

(a) Maximum load (b) Yield load

Fig. 7. Effect of number of rows.

Where Fmultiple is load-carrying capacity of multi-fastener connec-

tion, Fsingle is load-carrying capacity of single fastener connection.
EC 5 [27] proposed the equation for the effective number of
nails, which is strongly dependent of number of nails per row par-
allel to the grain, center-to-center distance and nail diameter,
regardless of whether predrilling or without predrilling.

nef ¼ nkef ð3Þ

Where kef is constant listed in Table 3.
Jorissen [49] conducted a great number of double shear timber
multi-fastener connections with varying configurations and differ-
ent numbers of fasteners in a row. It was found that the load-
carrying capacity of connections failed at a lower load due to pre-
mature splitting of the connection. The value for nef, given by equa-
tion (4) was suggested.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4 s
nef ¼ n0:9 6n ð4Þ Fig. 8. Effective number of nails.
13d
In the DIN 1052 [50] and SIA 265 [51], nef for dowel-type fasten-
EC5, no reduction in strength will not be taken into account, when
ers loaded parallel to the grain direction was suggested.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the center-to-center distance of nails is more than 14 times the
4 s diameter of nails. The formulas proposed by DIN 1052 and SIA
nef ¼ n0:9 6n ð5Þ
10d 265 provides conservative prediction of nef, which was also con-
firmed by Jockwer [53]. As mentioned above, the formulas sug-
The relationship for the effective number of fasteners under sta-
gested by Hossain agrees well with the nef in this study.
tic loading was proposed by Hossain [52] which depends only on
the number of fasteners n per line in the grain direction.
4.4. Load carrying capacity of single-nail connection
nef ¼ 0:9n ð6Þ
In term of the load carrying capacity of wood connections with
Fig. 8 shows the comparison among the theoretical and experi-
multiple mechanical fasteners, several design methods are pro-
mental results. The effective number of nails, nef, for LBL joints
posed. Provided that minimum structural requirements of nail
loaded parallel to the grain, is lower than the number of nails used
spacing and member thickness are satisfied, the nailed connection
n. It is found that the formula included in EC5 and Jorissen signif-
exhibits ductile failure mode and undergoes significant deforma-
icantly underestimate the effective number of nails. Note that in
tion before destruction. The capacity of a multi-nail connection
equals the capacity of a single nail connection multiplied the effec-
tive number of nails. The EYM firstly recommended by Johansen
Table 3 [28] in 1949 was established in EC 5 part 1, which is commonly
kef values. accepted for the prediction of the lateral load-carrying capacity
of dowel-type fasteners, including nails, bolts, screws, dowels or
Center-to-center distance of nails kef
nail plates [54]. Expression (7) based on the EYM can be used to
Without predrilling With predrilling
effectively evaluate the capacity of nailed connection per shear
14d 1 1 plane per nail, which is determined by taking the minimum values
10d 0.85 0.85 of the six equations and the corresponding failure mode will be the
7d 0.7 0.7
4d – 0.5
one associated with lower resistance.

7
G. Chen, W. Yang, T. Zhou et al. Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121321

8
>
> f h;1;k t1 d nailed connection loaded laterally. It is found that the relative
>
>
>
> f h;2;k t 2 d errors of the experimental and theoretical values suggested by
>
>
> "sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 #
>
>
>  2   2   Blass et al. and Whale et al. will be increasing with the diameter
>
> f h;1;k t 1 d
b þ 2
þ t2
þ t2
þ b 2 t2
 b þ t2 F
þ ax;Rk
>
> 2b 1 1 of nail increase.
>
>
1þb t1 t1 t1 t1 4
< rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
F v ;Rk ¼ min f h;1;k t1 d 4bð2þbÞM F
>
> 1:05 2bð1 þ bÞ þ f t2 dy;Rk  b þ ax;Rk
>
> 2þb 4
>
h;1;k 1
>
> rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  4.5. Analytical model
>
>
>
>
f
1:05 h;1;k
t2 d 4bð1þ2bÞM
2b2 ð1 þ bÞ þ f t2 dy;Rk  b þ ax;Rk
F
>
> 1þ2b 4
>
>
h;1;k 2
>
> qffiffiffiffiffiffiqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi For decades, many analytical models proposed was to help
>
: F ax;Rk
2b
1:15 1þb 2M y;Rk f h;1;k d þ 4 quantify the load-slip relationship of dowel-type connections, with
ð7Þ the aim of providing a better understanding of complex structural
behavior. In 1974, a mathematic model to predict the static perfor-
f h;2;k mance of wood nailed joints was first developed by Foschi [57],
b¼ ð8Þ which was proved to be effective by many researchers.
f h;1;k
Where t1 is the headside thickness in a single shear connection,  
F ¼ ðF 0 þ r 1 K 0 DÞ 1  eK 0 D=F 0 ð7Þ
t2 is the pointside penetration in a single shear connection, fh,1,k is
the characteristic embedding strength of the side member, fh,2,k is
Where K0 is the initial stiffness, r1 is the ratio of the second stiffness
the characteristic embedding strength of the middle member, b is
to the initial stiffness (0 < r1 < 1), F0 is the second stiffness y-axis
the ratio of the nail point side member embedment strength to the
intercept.
nail head side member embedment strength, My,k is the character-
The modified Foschi model proposed by Folz et al [58] was
istic nail yield moment and Fax,Rk is the characteristic axial with-
employed to predict the load deformation response of nailed joints
drawal capacity of the nail. If Fax,Rk is not known then the
in wood shear walls under both monotonic loading and arbitrary
contribution from the rope effect should be taken as zero.
cyclic loading. By neglecting the part due to the initial slip, the
The characteristic value for the yield moment of nails, My,Rk, can
characteristics of the finite element model can be expressed as
be calculated as
2:6
8

K 0 D=F 0
M y;Rk ¼ 0:3f u d ð9Þ < F 0 þ r1 K 0 D 1  e
> D < Dmax
F¼ F max þ r2 K 0 ðD  Du Þ Dmax 6 D 6 Du ð8Þ
Blass et al. [55] theoretically and experimentally investigated >
:
the mechanical behavior of laterally loaded wood nailed connec- 0 D > Du
tions and presented a simplified model for two-member connec-
tions. The yield load of connections per shear plane per nail is Where r2 is the ratio of the degradation stiffness to the initial stiff-
given by ness (r2 < 0), F0 is the second stiffness y-axis intercept.
8 Hassanieh et al. [59] tested steel-timber composite joints con-
> pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
>
> 1þ ð1þbÞ=b nected by screws, bolts and combination of glue and screws. A
>
<
pabffiffiffiffiffiffi seven-parameter load-slip model was proposed for the joints with
Py ¼ sH dlmin ð10Þ
> 1þ 1þb
> qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi mechanical fasteners, which can be used to predict the behaiour of
>
>
: 4bM y
2
joints. The mathematical expression for joints is given by
sH dl ð1þbÞ

K0  Kp D Kp  Ks D
M y ¼ 6:67ð20  dÞd
3
ð11Þ F¼n h þ  K sD

in1 on1 n
1 h
D in2 on12
1 þ K 0  K p FD0 1 þ K p  K s F 1 F
Where a is the ratio of the nail point side member thickness to the 0

nail head side member thickness, l is the nail head side member ð9Þ
thickness, the embedment strength SH = 1.1 times the compressive
strength parallel to the grain of clear LBL. Where Kp and Ks is the pre-peak stiffness and post-peak stiffness,
Empirical approximation by Whale et al. [56] respectively. F0 is the first reference load corresponding to the
8 pre-peak branch and F1 the second reference load corresponding
> 1:0
>
> to the post-peak branch, n1 and n2 are two parameters that control
>
> ab
>
> qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the curvature of the first and second curves respectively.
>
>
>
> bM y
þ1 Comparisons of three theoretical models with the average test
>
< ð1þbÞsH dl2 5
Py ¼ sH dlmin qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð12Þ curves reveal that for LBL nailed connections there are good agree-
bM y
>
> þa ment in the case of the slip is less than 40%Dmax and can be seen in
> ð1þbÞsH dl2 5
>
>
> 1þab Fig. 9. Thereafter the discrepancy between the experimental and
>
>
>
> 5
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi theoretical results is increasing gradually. This may be attributed
>
>
: 4bM y
in part to the additive ‘‘string resistance” resulting from the devel-
sH dl2 ð1þbÞ
opment of tension in the nails. The string resistance develops grad-
The comparison between the experimental results and the val- ually because the large penetration anchored the nail in the middle
ues proposed by the theoretical models is measured through the member, and the nail heads prevent them from being pulled
error term determined by through the side members. The simplified models by Foschi and
Hassanieh give a conservative prediction of load until the maxi-
Theoretical  Experimental
Error ¼  100% ð13Þ mum load is reached, whereas overestimate the load in the
Experimental
descending portion of the load-slip curves. It is shown that the
The predictions using these models are compared against the exponential curves suggested by Folz model can be used to effec-
experimental results in Table 4. Errors analysis shows the EYMs tively quantify the load–slip relationship of LBL nailed connections
established in EC 5 can accurately predict the capacity of the LBL loaded parallel to the grain.
8
G. Chen, W. Yang, T. Zhou et al.
Table 4
Comparison of experimental and theoretical results of LBL nailed connections.
Specimens Experimental results (kN) EC 5 [27] (kN)
2.1-L1R1 1.46 1.54
2.5-L1R1 2.00 2.11
2.8-L1R1 2.56 2.59
(a) 2.1-R1L1
Fig. 9. Comparison among the theoretical and experimental results.
5. Conclusions
The effects of nail configurations on the strength, stiffness char-
acteristic and load-slip response of LBL nailed connections were
investigated by conducting push-out tests with a symmetric con-
figuration. It is found that the failure modes of LBL nailed connec-
tions depends on the arrangement of nails. Contrary to timber
connections, the LBL nailed connections in this study is always
characterised by combination of embedding and splitting failure
modes. The capacity of LBL nailed connections increase with the
increase of the nail diameter and number of nails per row in the
grain direction. A decreasing ductility of connections is investi-
gated with increasing diameter and number of nails. The strength
of a multiple nail connection is lower than the load carrying capac-
ity of a corresponding single nailed connection multiplied by the
number of nails due to the occurrence of brittle failure before
redistribution of load among the nails take place. The formula for
nef suggested by Hossain shows good agreement with the experi-
mental results. The characteristic loads of effective number of nails
in a row is evaluated and compared with that obtained from exist-
ing analytical formulas. The calculation method suggested by EC 5
is suitable for prediction the capacity of the LBL nailed connection
loaded laterally. It is indicated that the formula of the load-slip
relationship developed by Folz is proved to be in good agreement
with experimental results. More importantly, the theoretical
model can be used to simulate the nonlinear behaviour and
dynamic response of LBL structures subjected to lateral forces
(wind load and seismic load) containing nailed connections.
Since the strength and stiffness of the LBL nailed connections is
greatly affected by many factors, including nail bending strength,
nail types, thickness of middle and side members, rope effect
(nail’s axial resistance), specific gravity and moisture content of
LBL, more comprehensive research is urgently needed for better
understanding the performance of LBL nailed connections.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Guo Chen: Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing. Wenqi Yang: Data curation. Tong Zhou: Data
Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121321
Error (%) Blass et al. [53] (kN) Error (%) Whale et al. [54] (kN) Error (%)
5.48 1.56 6.84 1.56 6.84
5.50 2.38 19.00 2.38 19.00
1.17 2.87 12.11 2.95 15.23
(b) 2.5-R2L5 (c) 2.5-R3L5
curation. Yunfei Yu: Software, Validation. Jing Wu: Investigation.
Hao Jiang: Investigation. Xiang Li: Investigation. Yongxing Zhang:
Validation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The research work presented in this paper is supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51408312),
the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (No.
BK20130982), the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Develop-
ment of China (No. 2018-K5-003), and the Systematic Project of
Guangxi Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Structural
Safety (No. 2019ZDX016). Any research results expressed in this
paper are those of the writer(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the foundations. The writers gratefully acknowledge Nian-
qiang Zhou, Longlong Zhao and others from Nanjing Forestry
University for helping with the tests.
References
[1] S. Srivaro, Potential of three sympodial bamboo species naturally growing in
Thailand for structural application, Eur. J. Wood Prod. 76 (2) (2018) 643–653,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-017-1218-3.
[2] J. Atanda, Environmental impacts of bamboo as a substitute constructional
material in Nigeria, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 3 (2015) 33–39, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cscm.2015.06.002.
[3] V. Puri, P. Chakrabortty, S. Anand, S. Majumdar, Bamboo reinforced
prefabricated wall panels for low cost housing, J. Build. Eng. 9 (2017) 52–59,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.11.010.
[4] L.-M. Tian, Y.-F. Kou, J.-P. Hao, Axial compressive behaviour of sprayed
composite mortar–original bamboo composite columns, Constr. Build. Mater.
215 (2019) 726–736, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.04.234.
[5] L.M. Tian, Y.F. Kou, J.P. Hao, Flexural behavior of sprayed lightweight
composite mortar-original bamboo composite beams: Experimental study,
Bioresources 14 (1) (2019) 500–517, https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.14.1.500-
517.
9
G. Chen, W. Yang, T. Zhou et al.
[6] D. Gan, Z. Li, T. Zhang, X. Zhou, K.-F. Chung, Axial compressive behaviour of
circular concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns with an inner bamboo culm,
Structures 26 (2020) 156–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.04.016.
[7] T.S. Paraskeva, G. Grigoropoulos, E.G. Dimitrakopoulos, Design and
experimental verification of easily constructible bamboo footbridges for
rural areas, Eng. Struct. 143 (2017) 540–548, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2017.04.044.
[8] D. Mitch, K.A. Harries, B. Sharma, Characterization of splitting behavior of
bamboo culms, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 22 (11) (2010) 1195–1199.
[9] C.K. Hong, H.T. Li, R. Lorenzo, G. Wu, I. Corbi, O. Corbi, Z.H. Xiong, D. Yang, H.Z.
Zhang, Review on connections for original bamboo structures, J. Renew. Mater.
7 (8) (2019) 713–730. https://doi.org/10.32604/jrm.2019.07647.
[10] B. Lefevre, R. West, P. O’Reilly, D. Taylor, A new method for joining bamboo
culms, Eng. Struct. 190 (2019) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2019.04.003.
[11] M. Mahdavi, P.L. Clouston, S.R. Arwade, Development of laminated bamboo
lumber: Review of processing, performance, and economical considerations, J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (7) (2011) 1036–1042.
[12] J.F. Correal, J.S. Echeverry, F. Ramírez, L.E. Yamín, Experimental evaluation of
physical and mechanical properties of Glued Laminated Guadua angustifolia
Kunth, Constr. Build. Mater. 73 (2014) 105–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2014.09.056.
[13] B. Sharma, A. Gatóo, M. Bock, M. Ramage, Engineered bamboo for structural
applications, Constr. Build. Mater. 81 (2015) 66–73, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2015.01.077.
[14] Y. Wei, X. Ji, M. Duan, G. Li, Flexural performance of bamboo scrimber beams
strengthened with fiber-reinforced polymer, Constr. Build. Mater. 142 (2017)
66–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.054.
[15] G. Chen, J. Wu, H. Jiang, T. Zhou, X. Li, Y. Yu, Evaluation of OSB webbed
laminated bamboo lumber box-shaped joists with a circular web hole, J. Build.
Eng. 29 (2020) 101129, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101129.
[16] B. Shan, Z.Y. Wang, T.Y. Li, Y. Xiao, Experimental and analytical investigations
on short-term behavior of glubam-concrete composite beams, J. Struct. Eng.
146 (3) (2020) 04019217, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0002517.
[17] H.T. Li, Z.Y. Qiu, G. Wu, O. Corbi, L.B. Wang, I. Corbi, C.G. Yuan, Slenderness
ratio effect on eccentric compression properties of parallel strand bamboo
lumber columns, J. Struct. Eng. 145 (8) (2019) 04019077, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002372.
[18] Y. Xiao, Y. Wu, J. Li, R.Z. Yang, An experimental study on shear strength of
glubam, Constr. Build. Mater. 150 (2017) 490–500, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2017.06.005.
[19] C. Hong, H. Li, Z. Xiong, R. Lorenzo, I. Corbi, O. Corbi, D. Wei, C. Yuan, D. Yang, H.
Zhang, Review of connections for engineered bamboo structures, J. Build. Eng.
30 (2020) 101324, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101324.
[20] Z. Wang, Y. Wei, N. Li, K. Zhao, M. Ding, Flexural behavior of bamboo–concrete
composite beams with perforated steel plate connections, J. Wood Sci. 66 (1)
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1186/s10086-020-1854-9.
[21] A. Porteous, A. Kermani, Fully overlapping nailed joints with steel gussets in
timber structures, J. Struct. Eng. 131 (5) (2005) 806–815, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:5(806).
[22] O.G. Wanyama, K. Sawata, T. Hirai, A. Koizumi, Y. Sasaki, Effective lateral
resistance of timber–plywood–timber joints connected with nails, J. Wood Sci.
58 (4) (2012) 315–321, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-012-1250-1.
[23] K. Sawata, Strength of bolted timber joints subjected to lateral force, J.
Wood Sci. 61 (3) (2015) 221–229, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-015-
1469-8.
[24] J.M. Cabrero, M. Yurrita, Performance assessment of existing models to predict
brittle failure modes of steel-to-timber connections loaded parallel-to-grain
with dowel-type fasteners, Eng. Struct. 171 (2018) 895–910, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.037.
[25] I. Smith, S.T. Craft, P. Quenneville, Design capacities of joints with laterally
loaded nails, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 28 (2) (2001) 282–290, https://doi.org/10.1139/
cjce-28-2-282.
[26] E. Resch, M. Kaliske, Numerical analysis and design of double-shear dowel-
type connections of wood, Eng. Struct. 41 (2012) 234–241, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.047.
[27] CEN (2004) EN 1995-1-1. Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures. Part 1-1:
General. Common rules and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
[28] K.W. Johansen, Theory of timber connections, Int Assoc Bridge Struct. Eng. 9
(1949) 249-62, http://dx.doi.org/10.5169/seals-9703.
[29] F. Ramirez, J.F. Correal, L.E. Yamin, J.C. Atoche, C.M. Piscal, Dowel-bearing
strength behavior of glued laminated Guadua Bamboo, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24
(11) (2012) 1378–1387.
[30] T. Reynolds, B. Sharma, K. Harries, M. Ramage, Dowelled structural
connections in laminated bamboo and timber, Compos. Part B: Eng. 90
(2016) 232–240, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.11.045.
10
Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121321
[31] Z.Y. Cui, M. Xu, L.H. Tu, Z.F. Chen, B.T. Hui, Determination of dowel-bearing
strength of laminated bamboo at elevated temperatures, J. Build. Eng. 30
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101258 101258.
[32] Y. Xiao, L. Li, R.Z. Yang, Long-term loading behavior of a full-scale glubam
bridge model, J. Bridge Eng. 19 (9) (2014) 04014027, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000600.
[33] G. Chen, Y.F. Yu, X. Li, B. He, Mechanical behavior of laminated bamboo lumber
for structural application: an experimental investigation, Eur. J. Wood Prod. 78
(2020) 53–63, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-019-01486-9.
[34] A. Gatóo, B. Sharma, M. Bock, H. Mulligan, M. Ramage, Sustainable structures:
bamboo standards and building codes, Proc. ICE Eng. Sustain. 167 (5) (2014)
189–196, https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.14.00009.
[35] ASTM D143-14, Standard test methods for small clear specimens of timber,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014.
[36] ASTM F1575-17, Standard test method for determining bending yield moment
of nails, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[37] G. Chen, H. Jiang, Y.F. Yu, T. Zhou, J. Wu, X. Li, Experimental analysis of nailed
LBL-to-LBL connections loaded parallel to grain, Mater. Struct. 53 (2020) 81,
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-020-01517-5.
[38] ASTM D1761, Standard test methods for mechanical fasteners in wood. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, 2012.
[39] L.M. Ottenhaus, M.H. Li, T. Smith, P. Quenneville, Mode cross-over and ductility
of dowelled LVL and CLT connections under monotonic and cyclic loading, J.
Struct. Eng. 144 (7) (2018) 04018074, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0002074.
[40] ASTM D5652-15, Standard test methods for single-bolt connections in wood
and wood-based products, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[41] BS EN 26891:1991, Timber structures - Joints made with mechanical fasteners
- General principles for the determination of strength and deformation
characteristics, British Standards Institution, London, UK, 1991.
[42] BS EN 12512:2001, Timber structures - Test methods - Cyclic testing of joints
made with mechanical fasteners, British Standards Institution, London, UK, 2001.
[43] M. Piazza, A. Polastri, R. Tomasi, Ductility of timber joints under static and
cyclic loads, Proc. ICE Struct. Build. 164 (2) (2011) 79–90, https://doi.org/
10.1680/stbu.10.00017.
[44] I. Smith, The Canadian approach to design of bolted timber connections, Wood
Des. Focus 5 (1994) 5–8.
[45] C.O. Cramer, Load distribution in multiple-bolt tension joints, 94(5) (1968)
1101-1118.
[46] G. Lantos, Load distribution in a row fasteners subjected to lateral load, Wood
Sci. 1 (3) (1969) 129–136.
[47] T.L. Wilkinson, Load distribution among bolts parallel to load, J. Struct. Eng.
112 (4) (1986) 835–852, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)
112:4(835).
[48] B.H. Xu, M. Taazount, A. Bouchaïr, P. Racher, Numerical 3D finite element
modelling and experimental tests for dowel-type timber joints, Constr. Build.
Mater. 23 (9) (2009) 3043–3052, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2009.04.006.
[49] A.J.M. Jorissen, Double shear timber connections with dowel type fasteners,
Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Delft, Netherlands, 1998.
[50] DIN 1052 2008-12: Design of timber structures-general rules and rules for
buildings.
[51] SIA 265. Timber structures. Zurich (Switzerland): SIA Swiss Society of
Engineers and Architects; 2012.
[52] A. Hossain, M. Popovski, T. Tannert, Group effects for shear connections with
self-tapping screws in CLT, J. Struct. Eng. 145 (8) (2019) 04019068, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002357.
[53] R. Jockwer, G. Fink, J. Köhler, Assessment of the failure behaviour and
reliability of timber connections with multiple dowel-type fasteners, Eng.
Struct. 172 (2018) 76–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.081.
[54] J.M. Branco, P.J.S. Cruz, M. Piazza, Experimental analysis of laterally loaded
nailed timber-to-concrete connections, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 400–
410, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.11.011.
[55] H.J. Blass, J. Ehlbeck, F. Rouger, Simplified design of joints with dowel-type
fasteners. In Proceedings of the Pacific Timber Engineering Conference, Forest
Research Institute Limited, Rotorua, New Zealand, 1999.
[56] L.R.J. Whale, I. Smith, H.J. Larsen, Design of nailed and bolted joints - proposals
for the revision of existing formulae in draft Eurocode 5 and the CIB code. In
Proceedings of the 20th International Council for Building Research Studies
and Documentation: Working Commission W18 - Timber Structures, Dublin,
Ireland, Paper 20-7-1, 1987.
[57] R.O. Foschi, Load-slip characteristics of nails, Wood Sci. 7 (1) (1974) 69–76.
[58] B. Folz, A. Filiatrault, Cyclic analysis of wood shear walls, J. Struct. Eng. 127 (4)
(2001) 433–441, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:4(433).
[59] A. Hassanieh, H.R. Valipour, M.A. Bradford, Experimental and analytical
behaviour of steel-timber composite connections, Constr. Build. Mater. 118
(2016) 63–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.052.