Journal Pre-proof

Evaluation of OSB webbed laminated bamboo lumber box-shaped joists with a

circular web hole

Guo Chen, Jing Wu, Hao Jiang, Tong Zhou, Xiang Li, Yunfei Yu

PII: S2352-7102(19)31541-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101129
Reference: JOBE 101129

To appear in: Journal of Building Engineering

Received Date: 10 August 2019

Revised Date: 4 December 2019
Accepted Date: 13 December 2019

Please cite this article as: 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, Journal of Building Engineering
(2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101129.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Author Statement

Guo Chen: Supervision, Writing- Original draft preparation, Writing- Reviewing and Editing. Jing
Wu: Data curation. Hao Jiang: Investigation. Tong Zhou: Investigation. Xiang Li: Investigation.
Yunfei Yu: Software, Validation.
Evaluation of OSB webbed laminated bamboo lumber box-shaped joists

with a circular web hole

Guo Chen, Jing Wu, Hao Jiang, Tong Zhou, Xiang Li, Yunfei Yu
College of Civil Engineering, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China;

Guo Chen; e-mail: chenguo@njfu.edu.cn

Abstract: Openings are frequently required in the web of oriented strand board (OSB) webbed
laminated bamboo lumber (LBL) box-shaped joists for passage of service ducts, plumbing, and
wiring. A total of 105 joists with a circular web hole were tested and compared with 7 joists without
a web opening (control joists). It was found that for smaller circular holes (D/h w ≤30%), the effect
of the hole was negligible and did not cause strength and stiffness reductions. The unreinforced
joists with larger web holes (D/h w >30%) failed in a brittle and sudden shear mode, resulting in a
reduction in strength. Reinforcing of joists with an opening to stop or prevent crack formation or
propagation could be accomplished by using one of three methods including collar shaped oriented
strand board patches (C-OSB), two “U” shaped oriented strand board patches (TU-OSB), or collar
shaped steel patches (C-SP). Results showed that the C-OSB worked most effectively and returned 2
of 5 series of joists to a strength and stiffness equivalent to the “no hole” condition. The mechanical
performance and deformation properties of joists with a web opening could be improved by C-SP,
but the improvement was only a small percentage of the total load-carrying capacity. TU-OSB
worked effectively for a limited opening diameter (D/h w ≤50%), and was easier to install without
removing the service pipes and less expensive than the C-OSB or C-SP options. Good correlation
was obtained between experimental results and numerical simulations.

Keywords: Laminated Bamboo Lumber (LBL); Oriented Strand Board (OSB); Web Opening;
Box-Joist; Reinforcement

1. Introduction

Wood I joist is an engineered product, which was successfully introduced into the fields of civil
engineering in the 1970s as a substitute for timber beam with rectangular section [1]. The reasons for
the popularity for the wood I joists include light weight, ease of installation, a variety of lengths and
design options, the possibility of drilling holes through their web, and better environmental impact
[2]. Usually, the flanges can be made of laminated veneer lumber or solid wood and the web is
typically made from wafer board, plywood or oriented strand board (OSB). There is abundant
evidence that OSB is thought to be the most cost-effective web materials [3]. With the environment
of the world deteriorating and the forest coverage being dropped rapidly [4], large scale
deforestation is severely restricted. Therefore, many countries are facing the difficulty of wood
shortages due to over-exploitation of their wood resources over the last few decades, particularly in
China. Bamboo is regarded as one of fast-growing plants, widespread in Africa, South America and
Southeast Asia, and thus to provide adequate raw materials for the development of bamboo structure
[5-9]. As a sustainable green building material, increasing attention has been paid on the application
of laminated bamboo lumber (LBL) in civil engineering, which is made from bamboo [10-15].
Obviously, the effective utilization of engineered bamboo as a substitute to wood will help to
mitigate the pressures on the ever-shrinking forests resources and thus, facilitate the conservation of
the global environment [16].

Holes in the web of wood joists, usually circular or square shaped, are often introduced to allow
passage of services (such as ventilation and plumbing), because of the headroom clearance limitation
in wood structure [17]. The flanges and webs of wood I-joists are often designed to carry moment
and shear forces, respectively, and the stresses between the flanges and web are transmitted through
the flange-web glue line and nails. Therefore, introducing opening in the web of wood joist makes
the stress distribution more complicated around the opening and changes the failure modes of the
joist, resulting to drastic reduction in capacity for the case of opening located close to the supports
and may cause joists to fail in premature sudden and brittle shear failure.

In the past decades, a series of experimental researches on structural performance of wood I-joists
with opening in the web has been carried out. Extensive previous research evaluated the failure
modes and capacity reduction of wood I-joists with opening in the web [18-21]. It was demonstrated
that joists with web openings exhibited a loss of stiffness as openings located in shear dominant
regions, but little effect on the bending strength of moment critical I-joists. Pirzada et al. [19]
studied the influence of the web hole on the performance of wood I-joists and found the typical
failure mode was that the OSB fractured from tension zones around the opening. The joist eventually
collapsed after the cracks reached the flanges, which is not conducive to protect personnel and
property, thus further study and solution are needed urgently.

Previous studies showed that the presence of holes in the web had adverse effect on the stress
state of joist, therefore could cause a decrease of strengthen drastically. To change this unfavorable
situation, several reinforcement techniques were developed, such as attaching steel plates, plywood
plates and FRP sheets by adhesive or nails. Morrissey et al. [20] tested the performance of wood I
joists with and without openings in the webs and found the steel angles retrofits were an effective
way to enhance the strength and stiffness of joists. Hindman et al. [22] found that the I-joists with
the web hole and the double-sided cold formed steel reinforcers retained the I-joist strength and 95.1%
of the stiffness of the original I-joist. Ardalany et al. [23] used plywood and thin steel plate for
reinforcement of laminated veneer lumber beams with holes and concluded that plywood worked
more effectively for reinforcing laminated-veneer lumber (LVL) beams. Polocoser et al. [24] has
chosen other reinforcement methods, such as OSB collar, U-shaped OSB and side laminated-strand
lumber (LSL). Results showed that the OSB collar reinforcement technique was more effective in
returning strength than the side LSL technique.

The flange material of wood I-joist is typically laminated veneer lumber or solid sawn lumber,
which is made of slow-growing wood [1]. Replacing wood by laminated bamboo lumber (LBL) plays
an important role in mitigating a contradiction of timber supply and demands, natural forest
preservation and improvement of ecological environment. Due to higher strength to weight ratio,
lower cost and locally available, OSB webbed LBL box-shaped joist is introduced, which had
potential to replace wood I-joist as roof and floor systems. Cutting web destroys the integrity of the
joists, which is very dangerous and may result in catastrophic failure. To address these issues, the
joists reinforced by collar shaped oriented strand board patches (C-OSB), two “U” shaped oriented
strand board patches (TU-OSB) and collar shaped steel patches (C-SP) around the web opening were
tested, respectively. The failure modes, strength and stiffness of joists with/without holes were
investigated to evaluate the reinforcement effectiveness of different methods.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Materials

Laminated bamboo lumber (LBL) is an engineered bamboo product made by peeling bamboo culms
usually to 4 mm thickness and 5-8 mm width strips and bonding them together with urea
formaldehyde adhesive [25-27]. During the production process of LBL, the natural flaws such as
nodes, cracks, irregular shape and thin-walled hollow existing in raw bamboo are spread at random
over the strips, causing its strength to be uniform [28-30]. Typically, LBL exhibits less of a tendency
to expand or contract under the influence of heat or cold respectively, which means excellent
dimensional stability in response to shifting climate conditions [31].

The oriented strand board (OSB), 9.5 mm in thickness, is a multi-layer material made from fast
growing Poplar [32]. Both of the C-OSB, TU-OSB and web were manufactured by OSB panels. The
tensile strength, compressive strength, modulus of elasticity (MOE), shear properties of OSB was
12.1MPa, 13.6MPa, 3253MPa and 1420N/mm 2 , respectively. The internal bond strength, moisture
content, and density of OSB was 0.43MPa, 6.6%, and 580kg/m 3 , respectively. The C-SP, 1 mm in
thickness, was made of galvanized steel sheet by cutting a circular hole in the middle. The yield
strength and MOE of C-SP is 220MPa and 205GPa, which was provided by the manufacture.

The smooth shank nails used in this test are cold-formed from a steel wire. The average bending
yield strength of nails obtained by 5% off-set method is 705.2 Mpa.

2.2 Unreinforced joists with/without web opening

Prefabricated OSB webbed LBL composite joists with a box-shaped cross-section were introduced
[33], which consisted of LBL flanges and OSB webs, as shown in Fig.1. And the dimensions of the
flanges were 2440 mm long by 30mm wide by 35mm thick, with a modulus of elasticity (MOE) of
10.24GPa. Two 240mm×9.5mm webs were attached to flanges with phenol formaldehyde resin
(Yijiayi New Material Technology Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Province) and smooth-shank nails (2.1mm
diameter×38mm long) spaced at 150 mm on center. Due to the LBL flanges is relative weak
perpendicular to grain, the shear plug generated by the nails was likely to cause cracking [34]. So,
the webs were connected to the flanges with nails at spacing of 100 mm along the web edges and the
edge distance of nails was 10 mm. Install bearing stiffeners tight against the bottom flange of the
joists [35], leaving 5 mm gap at the top (Fig.1(a)). But the load stiffeners had the opposite
installation (Fig.1 (b)). The dimension of bearing stiffeners was identical to load stiffeners, and the
width, thickness and length of stiffeners was 30mm, 35mm and 165mm, respectively. For maximum
adhesive bond strength, the liquid adhesive must “wet” the coating surface, flow over and permeate
into the surface of OSB webs and LBL flanges. According to the suggestion of manufactures, the
consumption of adhesive between each other was 250g/m 2 . During the gluing process, a pressure was
applied with the aid of nails. Finally, the finished specimens were kept in laboratory room at (20±2)
and (65±5) % relative humidity, before being tested after two weeks.

LBL LBL
35

35
5mm No gap
gap
OSB OSB
9.5 9.5

170
240
170
240

Stiffener Stiffener
Nail Nail
No gap 5mm
gap
35

35
49 49

(a) Bearing stiffener (b) Load stiffener

Lateral support Lateral support

LDS Actuator
Strain gauge

4 3
Opening
1 2

Bearing D Load Bearing

LDS
stiffener stiffener stiffener
l1 l2 0.5L
L

(c) OSB webbed LBL box-shaped joists

(d) Photo

Fig.1 Test setup (dimensions in mm)

Openings are often made for the passage of ventilation, service ducts and wiring, most of which
are circular. Previous study showed that up to 25 percent of web removal had less influence on the
capacity and stiffness of wood I-joists [18, 30]. Therefore, larger opening sizes were considered in
this study. To fully understand the mechanical behavior and failure mode of joists with web opening,
the varying ratio of circular hole diameter to web height (D/h w =30%, 50% and 75%) and at different
locations (250 mm, 500 mm, 750 mm and 850 mm from the left support) were chosen. For
D/h w =30%, 50% and 75%, the nominal diameter of circular opening was 51 mm, 85 mm and 127.5
mm, respectively.

2.3 Reinforcement joists with web opening

The specimens were divided into three different series (“A”, “B” and “C”). Among which, control
joists (series “A1”) had no opening in the web. Series “B” was cut circular hole in the webs, which
was common practice in joists to accommodate service pipes. Series “C” was retrofitted by
double-sided C-OSB, TU-OSB or C-SP, which had a same size circular hole in the webs. Therefore,
the joists with same section sizes as Series “B” were retrofitted by double-sided C-OSB (9.5mm in
thickness), TU-OSB (9.5mm in thickness) or C-SP sheets to evaluate the impact of the reinforcement
on capacity, stiffness and failure modes. And some structural measures of reinforcement were
adopted as suggested [24, 30]. The minimum length of the reinforcement (L r ) on either side of the
opening was twice as much as hole diameter (D) and the height of the reinforcement (H r ) was equal
to the joist height, as shown in Fig.2. For the TU-OSB reinforcement technique, the minimum gap
between the left and right piece was 2~3mm. If not, the two pieces were forced between the flanges;
it was possible to cause additional stress on the web-to-flange connection, resulting in delamination.
A couple of reinforcements located on either side of the webs were attached to the joist by adhesive
and the consumption of adhesive between each other was 250g/m 2 . Then the reinforcements were
connected to OSB webs with 50 mm common nails along the panel edges, which provided uniform
pressure for the cure of adhesive. The reinforced joists were allowed to cure for two weeks at a
temperature (20±2)℃ and a relative humidity (60±5)° prior to testing.

Nail LBL flange Nail LBL flange

LBL flange C-OSB or C-SP LBL flange TU-OSB

(a) Joist reinforced by C-OSB and C-SP (b) Joist reinforced by TU-OSB
 (c) C-OSB (d) C-SP (e) TU-OSB

Fig.2 Details of web reinforcer

Details about the testing matrix and the different joist configurations are given in Tab. 1. In this
testing program, a total of 112 joists with five or seven replicates were tested. For example, the
specimens of A1 series had 7 replicas, which are designated as A1-1, A1-2, A1-3, A1-4, A1-5, A1-6
A1-7, respectively. Among which, 105 joists were fabricated with openings through the web whilst
the others had a solid web. The OSB patches used for the subsequent retrofit was the same as the
webs. Joists with a length of 2.4m are often used in the kitchen and toilet floor. Circular holes are
frequently required in the web of joists for the passage of water supply and drainage pipes. All joists
measured 2000 mm between supports (L=2000 mm) and 240 mm in height (H=240 mm). The C-OSB,
TU-OSB and C-SP patches were designed to reinforce the joists with web opening. Sometimes the
web of joist may be drilled through by the sub-contractor without permission, then the service pipes
are installed in place. A common practice is to remove the joists and replaced by a new one, leading
to rising costs of remove and installation. So this may not be a cost-effective solution [17].
Obviously, C-OSB and C-SP were no longer appropriate for this case, so TU-OSB patches were
designed to retrofit the joists without removing service pipes.

Tab. 1 Details of box-shaped joists

Opening location l 1 Diameter D L r ×H r

Quantity of
Joist Series Reinforcement D/h w
specimens
(mm) (mm) (mm×mm)

Control joist A1 - - - - - 7

B1 250 - 30% 51 - 5

B2 250 - 50% 85 - 5

Unreinforced B3 250 - 75% 127.5 5

Joists with
opening B4 500 - 50% 85 - 5

B5 850 - 50% 85 - 5

B6 500 - 75% 127.5 - 5

 C1 250 C-OSB 50% 85 170×240 5

C2 250 TU-OSB 50% 85 170×240 5

C3 250 C-SP 50% 85 170×240 5

C4 250 C-OSB 75% 127.5 255×240 5

C5 250 TU-OSB 75% 127.5 255×240 5

C6 250 C-SP 75% 127.5 255×240 5

C7 500 C-OSB 50% 85 170×240 5

Reinforced
C8 500 TU-OSB 50% 85 170×240 5
joists

C9 500 C-SP 50% 85 170×240 5

C10 850 C-OSB 50% 85 255×240 5

C11 850 TU-OSB 50% 85 255×240 5

C12 850 C-SP 50% 85 255×240 5

C13 500 C-OSB 75% 127.5 255×240 5

C14 500 TU-OSB 75% 127.5 255×240 5

C15 500 C-SP 75% 127.5 255×240 5

2.4 Methods

The three-point bending experiments were conducted to investigate the mechanical performance and
failure modes of simply supported joists using a 100kN hydraulic actuator (Fig. 1(d)). Lateral
restraints were applied at the ends of specimens by two pairs of steel supports to prevent rollover.
Three Laser Displacement Sensors (LDS) with an accuracy of ±0.1mm were used for continuously
monitoring the vertical deformations at mid-span and supports of specimens. All the experimental
data was fed to a data acquisition system at a frequency of 10 Hz. To ensure apparatus operating well,
pre-loading is necessary before formal testing. Then the specimens should be horizontally and
vertically leveled again. The actuator load cell, strain gauges and displacement transducer readings
were reset to zero, representing the initial state. The formal loading of specimens was implemented
with a displacement control method, according to ASTM D5055-13 [36] requirements with a time of
6~10 min for each joist until failure. The maximum load, stiffness, load at a mid-span deflection of
L/360 (5.56 mm) and L/180 (11.11 mm) were chosen to evaluate the joists reinforcement techniques.

3 Experimental observations and results

All the joists show similar failure behavior and load-displacement responses, therefore, only the
average load-displacement curves are presented in Fig.3. In case of control joists (series A1), the
load-displacement curves of 7 replicates at load-ascending stage are averaged. However, it is hard to
calculate the average curve when the load drop is occurring. For simplicity, one of the measured
curves of specimens at descending stage is selected as the average descending curve of series A1.
The load-displacement curves of joists are linear up to approximately 90% of the ultimate load
carrying capacity. Subsequently, the load-displacement curves displays non-linear characteristics
until reach the ultimate load carrying capacity, followed by an abrupt and rapid decrease in capacity.
Then the observed failure modes in control joists, unreinforced joists with web opening, and
reinforced joists with web opening, were detailed which were all different depending on the opening
size, opening location and reinforcement scheme.

35 35
A1 C1
B1 C4
28 B2 28 C7
B3 C10
B4 C13
21 B5 21

Load(kN)
Load(kN)

B6
14 14

7 7

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Mid-span displacement(mm) Mid-span displacement(mm)

(a) Unreinforced joists (b) Joists reinforced by C-OSB

35 35
C2 C3
C5 C6
28 C8 28 C9
C11 C12
C14 C15
21 21
Load(kN)
Load(kN)

14 14

7 7

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Mid-span displacement(mm) Mid-span displacement(mm)

(c) Joists reinforced by TU-OSB (d) Joists reinforced by C-SP

Fig.3 Average load-displacement curves

3.1 Control joists (solid web)

Series A1 represents the control joists without web opening. The load-displacement of curves of
seven control joists without hole in the web are plotted in Fig.3 (a). As expected, seven control joists
without holes behave almost elastically until reaching the ultimate load carrying capacity, followed
by abruptly shear failure in the mid-span of the web. As shown in Fig.4 (a), the failure of these
specimens started from shear buckling of the web adjacent to the load point (mid-span), however, the
ultimate failure was attributed to a mixture of shear buckling of the webs and separation of OSB in
flanges. The ultimate failure condition is defined as the load at 80% of peak load on the descending
portion of the load-displacement curve. Surprisingly, no whole fracture of flanges was observed,
which was helpful for protecting personnel from injury or damage. However, this failure
phenomenon was very common in the tests of wood I joists [19-20] and bamboo beams [37]. It was
observed that only one joist failed at a low load compared to the other control joists, due to the
de-bonding of the web-flange joint (Fig.4 (b)).

(a) Web shear failure (b) De-bonding of web-flange joint

Fig.4 Typical failure modes of control joists without opening

3.2 Joists with web opening and without reinforcement

A total of thirty joists with opening were tested with different hole configurations. The presence of
web opening has detrimental effect on the mechanical performance of joists, and thereby changes the
capacity, stiffness and failure modes of joists. Different failure modes occurred for varying hole sizes
and location. The mechanical performance of specimens with smaller opening (D/h w ≤30%) was
similar to those joists without opening. The failure was initiated mostly due to the web shear failure at
mid-span, as shown in Fig.5 (a). Some of specimens failed in de-bonding and nail withdrawal, which
was investigated in the web-flange interface (Fig.5 (b)). Nonetheless, failures in which the nails pulled
through the OSB webs occurred, but were seldom observed, as shown in Fig.5 (c). As the tests
progressed, failures in the form of nail heads embedding into and pulling out from the OSB webs were
also observed (Fig.5 (d)).

Introducing a larger opening (D/h w ≥50%) in the web brought a significant reduction in shear
capacity and consequently the flange shear capacity became important. The rest of the web below
and above the hole was not enough to resist shear induced by external load. The presence of large
opening markedly affected the flow of stresses in the webs and the stress field at the opening edge
varied from tension to compression. Due to the removal of material from the web, the reduction in
shear capacity was relatively large. The cracks firstly appeared almost simultaneously at the two
tension corners of opening and developed diagonally towards the flanges, accompanied with noises.
Immediately after the cracks reached the flanges, the web above and below the opening could not
enough to resist the shear stress then the shear was transmitted to adjacent sections of the webs and
flanges. A sudden increase of combination stress in flanges and webs usually caused the secondary
failures of de-bonding between them and nails pulled out of the OSB webs, as shown in Fig.5 (e).
Surprisingly, no visible damage in flanges was observed when the failure of joists has happened.

The presence of holes reduced cross-section of the web, resulting in a bad shear load transfer.
During the testing, the specimens with large holes had similar failure characteristic. With the
increase of load, the circular holes gradually became elliptical. Cracking noise was firstly heard at
10.47kN in specimen “B3-2”. Fig.6 shows the strain readings from the strain gauge 1 to 4, diagonal
parts are going into tension (lower left corner and upper right corner) and compression (upper left
corner and lower right corner), which is coincide with the experimental phenomena (Fig.5 (f)).
Cracks formed around the holes with continuous noise and gradually propagated towards the flanges,
indicating peak load is reaching soon.

(a) web shear failure (b) Delamination of OSB in flange (c) Debonding of web-flange joint

(d) Nail withdrawal (e) Nail pull through (f) Web shear failure around opening

Fig.5 Typical failure modes of unreinforced joists with opening

15

12
Load (kN)

6
Gauge1 1
Gauge
Gauge
Gauge2 2
3 Gauge 3
Gauge 3
Gauge 4
Gauge 4
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Strain (×103 µε)

Fig.6 Load-strain curves around the circular opening in specimen B3-2

3.3 Reinforced joists

Three different reinforcement schemes were considered, including TU-OSB, C-OSB and C-SP.
Observed failure modes in reinforced joists were different depending on the reinforcement scheme.
The joists reinforced by OSB plates behaved similarly. The fracture line at mid-span, as shown in
Fig.7 (a), was caused by critical tensile stress after buckling. However, some of specimens failed in
de-bonding and nail withdrawal, which was investigated in the web-flange interface, as shown in
Fig.7 (b). For joists with opening reinforced by C-SP, tests showed that the C-SP yielded and then
OSB cracks formed in the tension concentration zones around the opening. The application of C-SP
patches to the web opening could improve the tensile strength significantly, but the improvement in
the compressive strength was relatively small. A few nails used to connect the web and reinforcers
were pulled out, but the adhesive layers between the webs and reinforcers remained intact, which
could be considered to have successfully transferred stresses and acted as one piece with the web
around the boundary of the opening. Immediately after the web above and below the hole failed due
to shearing, the load was transmitted to adjacent sections of the web. The sudden increase in shear
stress along the adjacent sections of the web often caused secondary failures of web pullout or nails
shear fracture.

(a) Shear failure at web opening (b) Combined compression flange buckling and de-bonding of web-flange joint

Fig.7 Typical failure modes of reinforced joists

The U-OSB either prevented the shear cracks initiation or stopped the web shear cracks around the
opening from propagating, and thus the effect of opening on the mechanical performance of the
joists was negligible. Most of the joists still failed in shear diagonally, which was followed by nail
pull through or withdrawal. In the case of C-OSB and TU-OSB on both sides, crack propagation was
prevented. In the tests, the failures of specimens (D/h w =50%) with web opening reinforced by
C-OSB were mainly governed by mid-span failures in the high moment area of the specimens. Also,
the opening locations to the supports from 250mm to 850mm were considered and it was found that
no noticeable failure modes changed for specimens. The specimens (B2 and B4) failed in shear
failure at the opening location and the rest of the specimens (B5 and B6) failed in combined flexure
and shear. The phenomenon of crack initiation and propagation in reinforced joists was similar to the
unreinforced joists with larger web opening (D/h w =75%).

4 Discussion
The average and coefficient of variation (COV) of peak load P u , cracking load P cr , stiffness K e , and
load at serviceability conditions (P L/180 and P L/360 ) are presented in Tab.2. Prior to failure, no
cracking was visible but noises were heard. It is believed that there must have been micro-cracks
that developed in the joists before the macro ones seen at failure [38]. The load associated with this
stage is defined as the “cracking load”, and represented by P cr . As illustrated in Fig.8, K e is defined
as the slope the secant between 10-40 percent of the peak load [39]. The serviceability limit states
concerned the deformation property of the floor/roof systems, which is closely related to the comfort
of personnel. P L/180 is load at D=L/180 is the serviceability condition for flooring & roofing system
[40]subjected to total load (dead load + live load + snow load), P L/360 is load at D=L/360 is the
serviceability condition for flooring & roofing system based on live load [41]. The effective of three
methods of reinforcement (C-OSB, TU-OSB and C-SP) are considered, in order to restore the full
capacity and stiffness of a joist with opening to the control joist (series A1).

Load
Pu

0.4Pu
tanα=Ke
α
0.1Pu
0
Displacement

Fig.8 Definition of initial stiffness

Tab. 2 Test results of joists

Pu COV P L/ 360 COV P L/ 180 COV P cr COV COV

Joist K e (kN/mm)
(kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%) (%)

A1 28.03 11.0 6.16 9.6 13.85 10.5 25.03 10.4 1.37 10.9

B1 27.30 10.9 5.75 11.2 12.98 9.9 23.95 10.1 1.32 11.0

B2 21.17 8.6 5.51 7.8 12.62 10.6 15.22 9.9 1.22 10.0

B3 18.68 10.2 4.72 10.4 11.12 11.4 11.17 11.1 1.07 10.8

B4 22.89 8.9 5.25 8.3 12.89 8.6 15.43 8.7 1.23 8.7

B5 19.35 12.1 4.69 11.0 11.91 10.2 12.90 10.9 1.16 13.7

B6 18.89 10.5 4.22 9.6 9.75 11.3 12.35 11.4 0.93 12.3

C1 28.63 11.9 6.51 8.9 13.90 12.4 18.49 9.8 1.32 13.3
 C2 25.91 8.4 6.31 7.9 13.21 9.5 17.25 10.4 1.31 10.4

C3 25.19 8.1 5.77 8.0 12.83 9.3 16.19 10.1 1.27 10.3

C4 22.38 9.6 6.35 10.5 13.71 10.6 18.16 9.8 1.30 12.2

C5 20.41 7.4 5.71 8.7 12.92 8.3 16.14 9.6 1.25 9.4

C6 19.98 10.2 5.82 12.4 12.65 11.3 14.09 11.5 1.20 12.9

C7 28.82 11.3 6.59 10.5 14.75 10.1 19.92 10.8 1.45 14.2

C8 27.43 9.4 5.95 10.0 13.01 8.7 17.53 9.8 1.34 11.7

C9 24.79 11.4 5.58 10.5 13.29 12.5 12.68 10.1 1.31 13.1

C10 25.90 9.9 6.13 8.6 13.75 9.8 16.05 10.9 1.36 12.1

C11 23.83 8.7 5.87 9.1 12.34 10.1 14.93 9.6 1.27 10.4

C12 22.89 10.8 5.98 10.2 12.92 11.2 13.13 10.4 1.23 12.7

C13 23.70 9.9 6.08 8.3 13.23 9.7 15.10 10.2 1.28 9.8

C14 21.51 9.6 4.89 10.6 11.52 10.7 13.20 11.0 1.17 10.8

C15 19.99 10.1 4.48 9.2 10.89 9.5 11.40 9.5 1.12 11.1

4.1 Diameter of the hole

The control joists (Series A1) without web opening had a peak load of 28.03kN and Series B1, B2
and B3 with varying hole size (D/h w =30%, 50% and 75%) had a capacity of 27.30kN, 21.17kN and
18.68kN, indicating a decrease of load carrying capacity by 3%, 24% and 33%, respectively
compared to the control joists (Fig. 9). With regards to the size of openings, 30 percent of the web
height is the demarcation line for the terms “small” and “large”. For smaller opening (D/h w ≤30%),
the impact of web opening was negligible and did not cause a reduction in load carrying capacity,
and so no reinforcement was required. Therefore, the opening limit "D/h w ≤0.3" for 240 mm high
OSB webbed LBL box-shaped joists was 42.5mm. Similar results were also reported that the limit of
50 mm diameter opening for LVL beams with no obvious strength reduction [23]. Introducing a
larger opening (D/h w ≥50%) in the web could cause a significant reduction in capacity and
consequently changed the failure mechanism to crack initiation and propagation around opening.
The load at the ultimate limit states of joists with opening (Series B3) even decreased up to 67% in
comparison with the control joists (Series A1). Cracking around the opening is a sign of ultimate
failure of joists about to happen and the average ratio of P cr /P u is 59.8%~89.3%. The cracking load
decreases with the increasing of the diameter of circular web hole, especially for bigger hole
(D/h w >30%).

As shown in Tab.2, the hole diameter in the web has little effect on the stiffness of joists. The
average stiffness of Series A1, B1, B2 and B3 was 1.37kN/mm, 1.32kN/mm, 1.22kN/mm and
1.07kN/mm, respectively. Even a web removal of up to 75% of web height, the reduction of stiffness
was about 22% for Series B3 (D/h w =75%) in comparison to Series A1.

Fig. 9 Load versus diameter of circular hole (l 1 =250 mm)

4.2 Location of the hole

Based on the test results above, a circular hole in the web reduces the load carrying capacity of a
joist, which is depended on the hole size and location. Fig. 10 shows the relationship between load
and location of the hole in the box-shaped joists. Series B2, B4 and B5 had a web opening with the
same dimension (D/h w =50%) at a different distance from the mid-span, and the peak load was
21.17kN, 22.89kN and 19.35kN, respectively. Usually, the stiffness criterion is a predominant
controlling factor in the design and use of longer span wood/bamboo beams, rather than the load
carrying capacity [42-46]. In Fig.11, circular hole were of the same size, i.e. half of the web height
(D/h w =50%). The joists investigated were under constant shear and circular hole at different
locations were subject to different values of moment but the same shear. Therefore, the hole location
has little effect on the stiffness of joists, regardless of the opening size and position along the length
of joist if the opening was located at least 250 mm away from the supports and concentrated load.
There was very little difference in the stiffness of joists reinforced by C-OSB, TU-OSB and C-SP. As
expected, the design of OSB webbed LBL box joists is determined by the stiffness, rather than the
load carrying capacity.
 Fig. 10 Load versus opening location (D/h w =50%) Fig. 11 Stiffness versus opening location (D/h w =50%)

4.3 Retrofit type

A couple of C-OSB attached to the joists could effectively restrained shear cracks around the
circular hole from propagating towards the flanges, thus helping to prevent shear failure and
improve the capacity of joists. Compared to unreinforced joists with opening, the biggest
improvement of load carrying capacity of joists reinforced by C-OSB was 35% (Fig.12). Among the
three retrofit methods, the C-OSB reinforcement worked most effectively for opening diameter up to
75% of the web depth and returned 2 of 5 series of joists to a capacity equivalent to the “no hole”
condition. However, the TU-OSB and C-SP could effectively improve the capacity of joists with
opening diameter less than 50% of the web depth. For joists with web opening (D/h w =75%), the
average capacity improvement of joists reinforced by C-OSB, TU-OSB and C-SP were 25%, 14%
and 6%, respectively compared to that of the Series B6. It was demonstrated that the C-OSB worked
most effectively, the C-OSB was shown to be the most effective to return the strength, TU-OSB was
the middle and the C-SP was the worst.

Control Control
Unreinforced Unreinforced
30 Control +35% +26% C-OSB 30 Control TU-OSB
+20%
+34% +22%
25 +25% 25 +23%
+20% -18% -18%
+14%
-24% -24% +9%
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

20 -33% -31% -33% 20 -33% -31% -33%

15 15
3
10 10
3

5 5

A1 B2 C1 B3 C4 B4 C7 B5 C10 B6 C13 A1 B2 C2 B3 C5 B4 C8 B5 C11 B6 C14

(a) Joists reinforced by C-OSB (b) Joists reinforced by TU-OSB

Control
Unreinforced
30 Control C-SP
+19% +8%
25 -18% +18%
-24%
Load (kN)

+7% -31% +6%

20 -33% -33%

15

10 3

A1 B2 C3 B3 C6 B4 C9 B5 C12 B6 C15

(c) Joists reinforced by C-SP

Fig.12 Comparison of load at ultimate limit state (negative sign means capacity decrease in % compared to control joists
 without web opening, and positive sign means improvement after reinforcement)

The average load improvement of Series C13, Series C14 and Series C15 was 36%, 18% and 12%
for roof & flooring system subjected to total load (∆=L/180) and 44%, 16% and 6% for roof &
flooring system subjected to live load (∆=L/360), respectively compared to those of the load at
serviceability conditions of unreinforced Series B6. The experimental results indicated that the load
at serviceability conditions of joists with web opening could be improved by three different
reinforcement techniques, among which, the C-OSB was most effective, TU-OSB less and C-SP
least.

4.4 Prediction of load carrying capacity

Many models have been suggested to predict the load carrying capacity of wood I-joists with web
opening [30, 38]. Shahnewaz et al. [30] studied the effect of size and location of web openings on
wood I-joists and proposed empirical formulas to calculate the capacity of I-Joists with openings.
Zhu et al. [38] conducts a study on OSB webbed timber I-beams with circular and square opening,
whilst the location of opening has little effect on the reduction of capacity and developed empirical
formulas to predict the capacity of joists with web openings. Based on the experimental results, a
regression analysis was performed to develop models to estimate the capacity of unreinforced and
reinforced box-shaped joists with a circular web hole. As mentioned above, for small circular web
hole (D/h w ≤30%), the effect of the hole was negligible and did not cause strength reductions. The
reduced capacity due to the presence of circular opening in the web can be determined as follows:

For unreinforced joists with web opening (D/h w >30%):

D
Fur = 33.05 − 19.16   (1)
 hw 

For reinforced joists:

D
Fr = 32.9 − 15.3   (2)
 hw 

Where, F e is the capacity of unreinforced joists with opening (D/h w ≤30%), F ur and F r is the capacity
of unreinforced and reinforced joists, respectively.
 (a) Unreinforced joists (b) Reinforced joists

Fig.13 Comparison of test results and theoretical results

The predictions using these models are compared against the test results in Fig. 13. In case of reinforced
joists, the Zhu’s model significantly over-predicts the capacity of joists with small web opening
(D/h w ≤30%), but appropriate for joists with larger opening (D/h w >30%). In case of reinforced joists,
Zhu’s model under-estimates the capacity and the deviations between experimental and theoretical model
results increase with increasing ratio of diameter of web height (D/h w ) . The Shahnewaz ’s model
remarkably over-predicts the capacity of unreinforced and reinforced joists. The proposed approach
(equation 1 and 2) are quite suitable with the experimental results.

5 Conclusions

In this paper, the test results of OSB webbed laminated bamboo lumber box-shaped joists in the
presence of a circular web hole are presented. The observed failure modes are reported, and the
reinforcement effect on the joists are evaluated.

With regards to the size of openings, 30 percent of the web height is the demarcation line for the
terms “small” and “large”. For smaller holes(D/h w ≤30%), the detrimental impact on performance of
joists was negligible and did not cause strength reductions. The unreinforced joists with larger
opening in the web (D/h w >30%) failed in a brittle and sudden shear mode, resulting to the reduction
in strength. The mechanical behavior of reinforced joists could be improved remarkably and failed in
web buckling, de-bonding of web-flange joint and nail withdrawal. No catastrophic collapse of
box-shaped joists was observed, while this phenomenon is common during the tests of wood joists
and bamboo beams. The load carrying capacity of joists decreases linearly with opening size, whilst
location of opening has little effect on the reduction of capacity. No significant change was found in
stiffness, regardless of the opening size and position along the length of unreinforced joist if the
opening was located at least 250mm away from the supports and concentrated load. C-OSB worked
most effectively for retrofitting joists with web holes to a strength and stiffness equivalent to the “no
hole” condition, as it could effectively prevent the cracks developing prematurely. The mechanical
performance and deformation properties of joists with a circular hole could be improved by C-SP
reinforcer, but the improvement was only a small percentage of the total load-carrying capacity.
TU-OSB worked effective for the limited opening diameter (D/h w ≤50%), but was easier to install
without removing the service pipes and less expensive than the C-OSB and C-SP. The proposed
formulation is proved to be a good method for predict the capacity of box-shaped joists with varying
configurations. Further study on more joists with other geometrical and loading conditions is needed
to provide more information for engineering applications of box-shaped joists.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 51408312), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province
(Grant No. BK20130982), and R&D Project of Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development
of People’s Republic of China (Grant No. 2018-K5-003).

References

[1] Leichti RJ, Falk RH, Laufenberg TL (1990) Prefabricated wood I-joists: an industry overview. Forest Prod J
40(3): 15-20.

[2] Bergman RD, Alanya-rosenbaum S (2017) Cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessment of composite i-joist
production in the United States. Forest Prod J 67(5/6): 355-367. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-16-00047

[3] Malek S, Zobeiry N, Dai C, Vaziri R (2019) Strain-Softening Response and Failure Prediction in Notched
Oriented Strand Board. J Mater Civil Eng 31(6): 04019094.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002737

[4] Murad CA, Pearse J (2018) Landsat study of deforestation in the Amazon region of Colombia: Departments of
Caquetá and Putumayo. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 11: 161-171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2018.07.003

[5] Gottron J, Harries KA, Xu Q (2014) Creep behaviour of bamboo. Constr Build Mater 66(1): 79-88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.024

[6] Quaranta G, Demartino C, Xiao Y (2019) Experimental dynamic characterization of a new composite
glubam-steel truss structure. J Build Eng 25: 100773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100773

[7] Hector A, Sebastian K, David T, Edwin ZE, Harries KA (2018). Bamboo reinforced concrete: a critical review.
Mater Struct 51(4): 102. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-018-1228-6

[8] Xu QF, Leng YB, Chen X, Harries KA, Chen LZ, Wang ZL (2018). Experimental study on flexural performance
of glued-laminated-timber-bamboo beams. Mater Struct 51(1): 9. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-017-1135-2

[9] Xu M, Cui Z, Chen Z, Xiang J (2017) Experimental study on compressive and tensile properties of a bamboo
scrimber at elevated temperatures. Constr Build Mater 151: 732-741.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.128
[10] Tomasi R, Parisi MA, Piazza M (2009) Ductile design of glued-laminated timber beams. Pract Period Struct
Des Construct 14(3): 113-122. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2009)14:3(113)

[11] Sinha A, Way D, Mlasko S (2014) Structural performance of glued laminated bamboo beams. J Struct Eng
140(1): 04013021. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000807

[12] Li H, Wu G, Xiong Z, Corbi I, Corbi O, Xiong X, Zhang H, Qiu Z (2019) Length and orientation direction effect
on static bending properties of laminated Moso bamboo. Eur J Wood Wood Prod, 77(4), 547-557.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-019-01419-6

[13] Yu Y, Liu R, Huang Y, Meng F, Yu W (2017) Preparation, physical, mechanical, and interfacial morphological
properties of engineered bamboo scrimber. Constr Build Mater 157: 1032-1039.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.185

[14] Ribeiro RAS, Ribeiro MGS, Miranda IPA (2017) Bending strength and nondestructive evaluation of structural
bamboo. Constr Build Mater 146: 38-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.074

[15] Li HT, Liu R, Lorenzo R, Wu G, Wang LB (2019) Eccentric compression properties of laminated bamboo
lumber columns with different slenderness ratios. P I Civil Eng-Str B 172(5): 315-326.
https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.18.00007

[16] Xiao Y, Yang RZ, Shan B (2013) Production, environmental impact and mechanical properties of glubam.
Constr Build Mater 44: 765-773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.03.087

[17] Bouldin JC, Loferski JR, Hindman DP (2014) Inspection of I-joists in residential construction. Pract Period
Struct Des Construct 9(4): 04014016. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000208

[18] Afzal MT, Lai S, Chui YH, Pirzada G (2006) Experimental evaluation of wood I-joists with web holes. Forest
Prod J 56(10): 26-30.

[19] Pirzada G B, Chui Y H, Lai S (2008) Predicting Strength of Wood I-Joist with a Circular Web Hole. J Struct Eng
134(7): 1229-1234. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:7(1229)

[20] Morrissey GC, Dinehart DW, Dunn WG (2009) Wood I-joists with excessive web openings: an experimental
and analytical investigation. J Struct Eng 135(6): 655-665.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000013

[21] Harte AM, Baylor G (2011) Structural evaluation of castellated timber I-joists. Eng Struct 33(12): 3748-3754.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.08.011

[22] Hindman DP, Loferski JR (2008) Cold-formed steel reinforcement for improperly cut wood composite I-joists.
Pract Period Struct Des Construct 13(4): 198-203. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2008)13:4(198)

[23] Ardalany M, Fragiacomo M, Moss PJ, Deam BL (2013) An analytical model for design of reinforcement around
holes in Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) beams. Mater Struct 46(11): 1811-1831.
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0019-3
[24] Polocoser T, Miller TH, Gupta R (2013) Evaluation of remediation techniques for circular holes in the webs of
wood I-joists. J Mater Civil Eng 25(12): 1898-1909. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000737

[25] Mahdavi M, Clouston PL, Arwade SR (2011) Development of Laminated Bamboo Lumber: Review of
Processing, Performance, and Economical Considerations. J Mater Civil Eng 23(7): 1036-1042.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000253

[26] Ramirez F, Correal JF, Yamin LE, Atoche JC, Piscal CM (2012) Dowel-Bearing Strength Behavior of Glued
Laminated Guadua Bamboo. J Mater Civil Eng 24(11): 1378-1387.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000515

[27] Verma CS, Chariar VM (2012) Development of layered laminate bamboo composite and their mechanical
properties. Compos Part B-Eng 43(3): 1063-1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2011.11.065

[28] Mitch D, Harries KA, Sharma B (2010) Characterization of splitting behavior of bamboo culms. J Mater Civil
Eng 22(11): 1195-1199. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000120

[29] Shahnewaz M, Shahidul IM, Moein A, Thomas T, Shahria AM (2017) Reinforced Wood I-Joists with Web
Openings. J Struct Eng 143(6): 04017022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001747

[30] Li H, Wu G, Zhang Q, Deeks AJ, Su J (2018) Ultimate bending capacity evaluation of laminated bamboo
lumber beams. Constr Build Mater 160: 365-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.058

[31] Sumardi I, Suzuki S (2014) Dimensional stability and mechanical properties of strandboard made from
bamboo, BioRes 9(1): 1159-1167. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.9.1.1159-1167

[32] Chen G, He B (2017). Stress-strain constitutive relation of OSB under axial loading: an experimental
investigation. Bioresources 12(3): 6142-6156. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.12.3.6142-6156

[33] Liu C, Chen G, Li LY, Qin Y, Wang JY, Xu MH (2019) Experimental Investigation on OSB Webbed Laminated
Bamboo Lumber Box Shaped Joists. International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering and Materials
and 1st World Symposium on Sustainable Bio-Composite Materials and Structures, Nanjing, China.

[34] Reynolds T, Sharma B, Harries KA, Ramage M (2016) Dowelled structural connections in laminated bamboo
and timber. Compos Part B-Eng 90: 232-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.11.045

[35] Sun YH, Jiang ZH, Liu HR, Sun ZJ, Fang CH (2019) The bending properties of bamboo strand board I-beams.
J Wood Sci 65: 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10086-019-1828-y

[36] ASTM D5055-13. Standard specification for establishing and monitoring structural capacities of prefabricated
wood I-joists. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 2013.

[37] Xiao Y, Zhou Q, Shan B (2010) Design and Construction of Modern Bamboo Bridges. J Bridge Eng 15(5):
533-541. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000089

[38] Zhu EC, Guan ZW, Rodd PD, Pope DJ (2005) Finite element modelling of OSB webbed timber I-beams with
openings. Advances in Engineering Software, 36(11): 797-805.
 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2005.03.027

[39] Zheng W, Lu WD, Liu WQ, Wang L, Ling ZB (2015) Experimental investigation of laterally loaded
double-shear-nail connections used in midply wood shear walls. Constr Build Mater 101: 761-771.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.100

[40] Canadian-Standard-Association. CSA O86 – engineering design in wood; 2010.

[41] NBCC. National Building Code of Canada; Part 9 – specific provisions; 2010.

[42] Chen G, Li HT, Zhou T, Li CL, Song YQ, Xu R (2015) Experimental evaluation on mechanical performance of
OSB webbed parallel strand bamboo I-joist with holes in the web. Constr Build Mater 101: 91-98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.041

[43] Acharya SR, Sivakumaran KS, Young B (2013) Reinforcement schemes for cold-formed steel joists with a
large web opening in shear zone-an experimental investigation. Thin Wall Struct 72(10): 28-36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2013.06.011

[44] Zhu EC, Guan ZW, Rodd PD, Pope DJ (2005) Buckling of Oriented Strand Board Webbed Wood I-Joists. J
Struct Eng 131(10): 1629-1636. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:10(1629)

[45] Wei Y, Ji X, Duan M, Li G (2017) Flexural performance of bamboo scrimber beams strengthened with
fiber-reinforced polymer. Constr Build Mater 142: 66-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.054

[46] Wei Y, Zhou MQ, Chen DJ (2015) Flexural behaviour of glulam bamboo beams reinforced with near-surface
mounted steel bars. Materials Research Innovations 19: 98-103.
https://doi.org/10.1179/1432891715Z.0000000001377
1. The oriented strand board (OSB) webbed laminated bamboo lumber (LBL) box shaped joist
was introduced.

2. Effect of the web openings on the failure modes and mechanical performance of joists was
investigated.

3. The opening height limit for the joists with no obvious strength and stiffness reduction was
suggested.

4. Reinforcing of joists with opening to stop or prevent crack formation or propagation could be
accomplished by using C-OSB, TU-OSB and C-SP.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.