267
Influence of semi-rigidity of joints on
the behaviour of timber structures
H J Larsen and J L Jensen
Danish Building Research Institute and Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Institute of Wood Technology, Akita Prefectural College of Agriculture, Japan
Summary
The review starts by identifying the conditions for
taking account of the semi-rigid behaviour of joints
with dowel-type fasteners, i.e. well-defined
load`displacement behaviour, no initial slip and
reliable ductility. It is described how reinforcing
a wood member perpendicular to the grain with
fibre fabrics, plywood or densified veneer wood
ensures that joints have reliable ductile behaviour.
New types of fastener with desirable properties are
described; with the expanded tube fastener being
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2: 267d277
Forces between members in timber structures are in
most cases transferred by mechanical dowel-type
connectors (fasteners) such as smooth dowels (drift
pins), bolts, screws, nails and spikes. Sometimes, they
are used in conjunction with connectors like split ring,
shear plates and toothed plates. The forces may be
transferred directly between the timber members or
through gusset plates of wood-based panels or steel.
For light structures, nail plates (light gauge steel
gusset plates with integral nails or teeth) are very
common. Exceptions are as follows:
E Glued lap joints. These have limited load-carrying
capacity because of stress concentrations in the
glue-line.
E Glued finger joints. These cannot be made on site.
E Joints made with glued-in steel bars[1**].
Joints with mechanical fasteners are usually regarded
as either pinned or fixed. The real behaviour is in
between. They are semi-rigid, and their behaviour is
non-linear. Since the real behaviour of joints may have
an important influence on the force distribution within
statically indeterminate structures, statically
determinate systems are often preferred, especially for
large structures. Three-hinged arches and frames are
used instead of structurally more efficient two-hinged
or fixed end systems, and cantilevered purlins are
used instead of continuous purlins.
Many structures are, however, by nature highly
statically indeterminate. Trusses are an example. All
the same, the axial forces in the members and the
Copyright ^ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
especially interesting. Modelling the
load`displacement curves for single fasteners and
joints with multiple fasteners is discussed. The so-
called Plane Group of Mechanical Fasteners Model is
most appropriate. The Spring Model is less suited to
timber than steel. Some examples show how the
semi-rigidity in the joints influences the behaviour of
structural systems. The conclusions are that taking
semi-rigidity of joints into account can lead to more
efficient and economical structures.
forces in the joints are normally calculated assuming
pinned joints in all nodes (joints). The effect of errors
on the design of the timber members is small, but the
consequences of ignoring the moments in the joints
may be quite serious. Many joints are stiff and brittle
when loaded by moment because of the load
component perpendicular to the grain. The joint
shown in Fig. 1 is an example. In some cases the joints
are therefore assumed to be infinitely stiff. This errs on
the safe side for the joints but often results in an
uneconomic design. This was the background for the
concerted European action (1991}1999) titled ‘semi-
rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural
connections’ under the ‘European Co-operation in the
field of Scientific and Technical Research’ (COST)
covering steel, timber, pre-cast concrete and
plastics[2–4]. Many of the papers referenced below
result from this action. A final report of the timber
activities is available[5**].
Conditions for taking semi-rigidity
into account
The main reasons for not taking the real behaviour of
joint into account are:
E The load–displacement behaviour for traditional
fasteners is not known with sufficient accuracy.
E Many fasteners exhibit an unpredictable initial (low
load level) slip response.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2:267}277
268 TIMBER CONSTRUCTION

fasteners in line[1**]. The risk of splitting can be

reduced or eliminated by reinforcing the surface of the
timber members with fibre fabrics, plywood, densified
veneer wood or nail plates. As will be discussed, some
joints have an inherent reinforcing effect, e.g. those
made with glulam rivets or nails in tight-fitting holes
in steel gusset plates.

FIBRE FABRICS
Fabrics from glass, aramid and carbon fibres are
suitable as reinforcement (Table 1). Glass fibres are the
most common means of reinforcing wood. They are
cheap, easy to glue onto wood, and a large variety of
fabrics are commercially available. Production of
Fig. 1 Truss joint in the Lillehammer Ice Rink, Olympic Games
1994. Produced by Moelven Limtre, Norway carbon fibres is however increasing rapidly, resulting
in lower prices, and these fibres may soon become an
attractive option for certain timber structures. Glass
fibre fabrics can be made:
E The deformation capacity is insufficient because of
premature brittle failure in tension perpendicular to E With all fibres in one direction (unidirectional
the grain or shear parallel to the grain. fibres).
E The structural design may be very complicated, E Of chopped fibres (30–50 mm long) randomly
especially if non-linearity is taken into account. oriented in a mat held together by a polymer.
E As woven strands (roving) with strands in
To take semi-rigidity into account it is necessary to orthogonal directions.
develop joints with:
Unidirectional fibres placed perpendicular to the
E Well-defined load–displacement behaviour.
grain are usually the most effective. Fibres in the grain
E No initial slip and reliable ductility.
direction of the wood have little effect because the
Preferably, they will have high strength. Also it is wood fibres in the surface layers are themselves very
necessary to have: effective. Mats made of chopped, randomly oriented
fibres have some advantages. They are cheaper and
E Appropriate models for the behaviour of the joints.
easier to handle and may increase the shear resistance.
E Effective design procedures for structures with
Their stiffness (in all directions) is 3/8 of the stiffness
semi-rigid joints.
of a unidirectional reinforcement with the same mass.
Discussion below concerns these topics, and gives The corresponding strength ratio is 0.5. Woven strands
examples of the influence that semi-rigid joints have have no advantages, and are thicker and more visibly
on structural systems. intrusive than other types. The glass fibres get
a protective coating of epoxy or polyester during
Reinforcement to prevent splitting production and a corresponding adhesive is especially
suited for bonding the fibres to the wood, but most
The strength of joints with dowel-type fasteners is to wood adhesives can be used. Surfaces should be clean
a large extent determined by the risk of splitting that is (if they have been stored for more than a few weeks
often caused by stress perpendicular to the grain. they should be sanded) and primed abundantly with
Brittle behaviour is, of course, most pronounced for thinned adhesive. When the surfaces are almost dry
joints loaded at an angle to the grain, but is often also (slightly tacky), adhesive is added to the surfaces and
the case for joints loaded parallel to the grain, the reinforcement is pressed into the glue with a steel-
especially for multi-fastener joints with two or more roller.

Table 1 Properties of fibre fabrics and wood

Wood
.........................................................................
Glass Aramid Carbon Par. to grain Perp. to grain
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Tensile strength (MPa) 1500 2000 3000 100 2
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 100 150 300 20 0.5
Density (kg/m3 ) 2700 1500 500
Price (USD/kg) 4 40 100
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Copyright ^ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2:267}277

Failure of fibre fabric reinforced joints
Typically, failure in doweled joints with fibre
reinforcement initially involves small cracks that
develop under the dowels (Fig. 2) but such cracks are
arrested by the reinforcement. The failures are one of:
E Tensile failure: This occurs if the tension strength of
the reinforcement is exceeded. The wood and the
reinforcement share the load relative to their
stiffness.
E Adhesion failure (anchorage failure): In this case, the
reinforcement is torn off, beginning at cracks (where
the reinforcement becomes milky because of air
between the wood surface and the reinforcement).
The failed length increases until the anchorage
length becomes insufficient. It cannot be assumed
that the wood and the reinforcement act together
near failure and the reinforcement should be
designed to take the full load perpendicular to the
grain.
In the case of fasteners loaded parallel to the grain it
can be assumed that the fasteners exert a force
perpendicular to the grain of about 15% of the axial
load (Fig. 2). Wavy lines in the figure indicate an initial
crack development under the reinforcement. The
effective widths or lengths are indicated. The
dimensions 0.5bef and aef should not be assumed to be
larger than 4d. Anchorage strength per unit width (Fig.
3) can be calculated as[6*]




alfa t 2 E2 1 a2t2E2
fu, l" 1# #1
6 t 1 E1 tanh a 6t1E1

1 2 !1
# !
sinh a a


fa2 l2 t2E2
a"2
1#
2t2E2Gf t1E1
The maximum possible load per unit width
corresponding to l"R is
fu,R"(2t1E1Gf (1#t1E1 /(t2E2 )
where t1E1 is the stiffness of the reinforcement per unit
width (N/mm), t2E2 the stiffness of the wood per unit
width (N/mm), fa the adherence (shear) strength and
Fig. 2 Force perpendicular to the grain. Left: load perpendicular
to the grain; Right: Load parallel to the grain
Copyright ^ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INFLUENCE OF SEMI-RIGIDITY OF JOINTS 269
Fig. 3 Situation at failure in a symmetrically loaded, reinforced
joint
G is the fracture energy. fa"2.8 N/mm2 and

Gf"0.38 N/mm can be used for glass fibre to wood.
PLYWOOD
Plywood is an effective reinforcing material. In order
to reduce aesthetic problems and the effects of stress
concentrations, the reinforcement should be thin and
stiff, i.e. high-grade plywood made from birch or
a similar strong and stiff species should be used. The
plywood itself can take a considerable load (see
discussion below on resin injected dowels) and the
maximum possible load corresponds to the sum of the
fastener embedding strength of the wood and the
plywood provided the tensile strength of the plywood
and the anchorage strength are sufficient. Anchorage
strength of thin plywood (maximum 10 mm thick) can
be calculated from the expressions already given for
glass fibres and using the same material parameters.
DENSIFIED VENEER WOOD
Densified veneer wood (dvw) was brought onto the
market in the 1930s under the trade names Staypak in
USA and Lignostone in Europe. It is, in principle,
made in the same way as ordinary plywood, but cured
under much higher pressure and temperature, thereby
increasing the density, stiffness and strength by
a factor in the range of 2–2.5[7**]. The advantage over
plywood is that a required strength and stiffness can
be obtained with much thinner panels. For a dvw
panel made of beech the density and fastener
embedding strength are typically 1300 kg/m3 and
130 N/mm2, respectively (Fig. 4).
NAIL PLATES
Ordinary nail plates can be used as local reinforcement
for bolts and dowels. Nail plates with integral
punched teeth are pressed into all the joint surfaces
and members are pre-assembled to allow the bolt
holes to be drilled through the plates and the wood in
one operation. The structure can then be dismantled
and transported as components to be assembled on
site. In Finland special nail plates have been
developed, with an unpunched area (up to 50% of the
plate width) where the bolts will be located (Fig. 5)[8,9].
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2:267}277
270
Fig. 4 Embedding strength versus density [7**]
Fig. 5 Special nail plates with an unpunched area used to
reinforce a bolted joint. (Photo: Ari KevarinmaK ki)
Fasteners and joints
GLULAM RIVETS
The first fastener fulfilling most of the requirements
for utilising the semi-rigidity (although the failure is in
some cases brittle) is the glulam rivet developed by
Borg Madsen in 1946. The rivets have a rectangular
cross-section with rounded corners and are driven into
a steel gusset plate with round holes. Slightly tapered
heads ensure that the rivets are held rigidly in the
steel[1**].
NAILS IN STEEL PLATES
Inspired by the glulam rivets, joints made with nails in
relatively thick steel plates have been used for many
large European timber structures, and design rules for
these joints are given in Eurocode 5, the European
design code for timber structures[10]. Such a joint is
shown in Fig. 6. The joint has an ultimate short-term
Copyright ^ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TIMBER CONSTRUCTION
Fig. 6 Joint with nails in a thick (about 10 mm) steel plate
Fig. 7 Loadddisplacement curves for 4 mm annularly threaded
nails in a 2.5 mm steel plate [11**]
load-carrying capacity of about 1 MN. Load-carrying
capacity per nail is 40% higher than in a wood-to-
wood joint, because of the fixity of the head, and since
the steel plate reduces the risk of splitting when the
nails are driven into place, twice the normal number of
nail per unit joint area is permitted. Typical
load–displacement curves for nails in a steel gusset
plate are shown in Fig. 7. They depend on the angle
between the force and the grain direction, but
normally an average curve is used for all directions.
This simplification is accepted everywhere for joints
made with circular section nails.
REINFORCED JOINTS
Capacity of simple glass fibre reinforced bolted
and nailed joints
Tests on a range of simple, glass fibre reinforced steel-
to-timber joints made with either twelve 4 mm
diameter nails (6 from either side) or two 14 mm
dowels are reported in Ref.[12*]. The thickness of the
timber was 45 mm. The reinforcement was either
unidirectional with a mass of 200 g/m2 or randomly
oriented 450 g/m2, both having a strength of
130 N/mm. Tests covered both single and double
shear configurations and load parallel or
perpendicular to the grain. Various fastener spacing
and end distances were tested. Unreinforced joints of
a similar geometry served as a reference. For dowels,
the reinforcement only increased the ultimate load
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2:267}277

Fig. 8 Typical loadddisplacement curves for double shear joint with 14 mm dowels loaded parallel to the grain [12*]: a"end distance.
uni"unidirectional reinforcement. rand"random fibres
marginally (about 10%) but the full load-carrying
capacity corresponding to the embedding strength
could be reached with considerably reduced spacings
and end distances, and the behaviour became ductile
(Fig. 8). For nails, the failure load was increased by
more than 50%, even with spacing and end distances
only 75% of those (15d and 10d) required by Eurocode
5. This means that the load-carrying capacity per unit
area is increased by a factor of about four.
Glass fibre reinforced truss joints
Typical joints in simple trusses have been tested at the
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in
Lausanne[13,14*]. As an example, a tested nailed joint is
shown in Fig. 9a. The reinforcement was a woven
fabric with a mass of 300 g/m2. Joints tested were:
E Unreinforced joints: The load-carrying capacity was
about 100 kN and the failure was very brittle,
caused by splitting in the tension chord as well as in
the web (Fig. 10).
E Reinforcement as shown in Fig. 9b (glued between the
contact surfaces): The load-carrying capacity was
about 250 kN and the failure was ductile. Use of this
joint in a truss leads to a very stiff structure
E Reinforcement as shown in Fig. 9c (glued to the surfaces
and cured before assembly): The load-carrying
capacity was about 175 kN, and the ductility was
excellent. More examples are found in Refs[13,14].
Plywood reinforced bolted joints
Larsen and Enquist[15] have made tests with two
14 mm bolts loading 90 mm thick glulam members
perpendicular to the grain. The reinforcement was
6 mm birch plywood. The joints were very ductile
even with only half the spacing and edge distance
perpendicular to the grain necessary for unreinforced
members.
RESIN INJECTED FASTENER
Rodd[16] has made tests on double shear resin injected
joints with a single bolt or dowel (Fig. 11). The method
of fabrication was to first drill an oversize hole in the
Copyright ^ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INFLUENCE OF SEMI-RIGIDITY OF JOINTS 271
members, which were reinforced in the contact
surfaces with plywood or dvw. The void was sealed at
the interface of each member. The members were laid
out in their required positions; the dowel was then
inserted and resin injected through a small hole
(5 mm) drilled from the surface of the top member
until the void between the dowel and the hole was
completely filled. To ensure a continuous bond with
the timber, the surface of the dowel was knurled so as
to provide a mechanical as well as an adhesive bond.
A void filling epoxy resin that could sustain the high
pressures under the bolt was used. Some joints were
constructed so that there was no bearing of the
fastener on the reinforcing plates. The dowels were
either solid or made of galvanised tube.
In joints with no reinforcing plates, failure was
a brittle tensile failure perpendicular to the grain. In
joints with no bearing on the reinforcing plates the
provision of even the thinnest reinforcing plates
(3 mm plywood) increased the failure load by more
than 100%. When there was bearing on the reinforcing
plates, the joint strength increased approximately in
proportion to the thickness of the plates. Surprisingly,
ductility was only marginally increased. The failure
was in the vicinity of the glue line and may have been
caused by insufficient anchorage length. Replacement
of solid dowels by hollow ones considerably increased
ductility.
THE EXPANDED TUBE FASTENER
The principle of the expanded tube fastener is shown
in Fig. 12[7**,17]. Each tube is slightly longer than the
total thickness of the joined members and is inserted
into a predrilled hole. A rod with special end dies (one
fixed and the other movable) is inserted into the tube.
Using a lightweight hydraulic jack, the end dies
compress the tube ends. This does two things: first it
forms a flared collar at each end, and secondly the
compression forces the tube to expand in diameter (the
central rod prevents inward wall bucking) until the
clearance vanishes completely and the wood is
prestressed. The flared tube ends fit into washers,
which provide the anchorage capacity or the tube to
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2:267}277
272 TIMBER CONSTRUCTION

Fig. 9 Example of nailed joint geometry and reinforcement

Fig. 10 Failure in unreinforced (left) and reinforced joints corresponding to Fig. 10c (right)

activate the full embedding capacity of the timber and tube fasteners is between 60 kN for a 18 mm tube and
the dvw-plates glued to the contact surfaces. As there 150 kN for a 35 mm tube. This may be compared with
is no slackness in a joint immediate load take-up is the ultimate load-carrying capacity of about 30 kN for
ensured in service. The ultimate capacity of expanded an ordinary 18 mm bolt. The cheapest steel tube

Copyright ^ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2:267}277

proved best, i.e. low-grade galvanised gas pipe.
A typical load–displacement curve for an expanded
tube fastener is shown in Fig. 13. The tests were
stopped before failure occurred.
Modelling load`displacement curves
Theoretical models to determine the
load–displacement curve for doweled joints are
normally based on representing the fastener as a beam
on a foundation (members). The fastener and the
foundation are assumed to have an elastic or elasto-
plastic response. For an elastic beam and an elastic
foundation it is possible to solve the differential
equations analytically[7**]. For other assumptions it is
necessary to solve the equations numerically, usually
by finite-element analysis. Finite-element analysis was
used to model the behaviour of the teeth in nail plates
by Adjanohoun et al[19**], Nutte et al[20] Riley
& Grebremedhin[21*]. Adjanohoun[19*] modelled
a simple overlap joint with nail plates. The
deformations of the nail and the plate and the
displacements of the nail (including pull out) were
modelled. This model is able to predict failure in
a realistic manner (Fig. 14). Riley[21*] regarded the teeth
in nail plates as cantilevered beams on an elastic
foundation and used a semi-empirical formula
relating foundation stiffness to density. The axial and
rotation stiffness of a tension splice and a heel joint is
Fig. 11 Principle of the resin injected fastener [16]
Fig. 12 Principle of the expanded tube fastener
Copyright ^ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INFLUENCE OF SEMI-RIGIDITY OF JOINTS 273
calculated taking into account deformation of the
plate. The theoretical results were verified by
experiments.
Despite work mentioned, analytical models or
methods based on finite-element analysis have not yet
been developed very far and, normally, the
load–displacement curves are determined by testing.
Test curves are approximated by means of continuous
analytical functions. Foschi[22] and Jaspart[23] have
proposed models with parameters related to the
essential phases: initial slip, elastic behaviour, elasto-
plastic behaviour and failure (Fig. 13). The equations
have the form
Foschi[22]: F"[b#c(u!u0 )][1!exp(!a(u!u0 )/c)]
Jaspart[23]: F/u"(a!b)[1#((a!b)u/c)d ]\1/d#b
Use of Jaspart’s model is illustrated in Fig. 13. Test
curves can also be modelled by simple polynomials,
where the constants have no physical meaning
(Fig. 20).
Fig. 13 Typical loadddisplacement curves for 35 mm tubes, with
Jaspart’s model fitted to the test results. The insert shows phases
in the load displacement development
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2:267}277
274 TIMBER CONSTRUCTION

Fig. 14 Modelling with finite elements in the wood and in the plate of a single shear overlap joint. Top: initial state Bottom: After
a deformation of 2 mm. Note the closed gap in the ‘‘compression side’’. From Ref. [19]

Structural system modelling

SPRING MODEL
The spring model is the simplest representation of
a joint within a structural system. It consists of three
springs that are assumed to behave independently, i.e.
the stiffness of each spring is presumed not to be
influenced by the level of load on the other springs
(principle of superposition). The springs are
a rotational spring that counteracts mutual rotation of
joined members and two translational springs which
counteract mutual displacement of member in two
orthogonal directions. Figs 15a and b show
schematically a gusset plate joint in the initial
undeformed and deformed states. In the undeformed
state the XY co-ordinate system of the gusset plate and
the member coincide, with the X-axis parallel to the
member axis (grain direction). The gusset plane and
the timber are assumed to be stiff in the region of the
joint. The translations u and v and the rotation
a describe the displacement of the gusset plate relative
to the member. In the spring model the actions on the
fasteners are resolved into forces parallel to the initial
Fig. 15 Spring model: Initial (a) and deformed states of joints, (b)
axes and a moment acting in the origo. Forces are spring model, (c) PGMF model
functions of u and v, respectively. The moment
depends on a alone. By equating the sum of the
fastener loads with the external forces u, v and a can be Aef is the effective area (the contact area minus a strip
determined. Spring models are normally used for nail- along the edges) and Ip,ef the corresponding polar
plate joints[24,25]. moment of gyration. Typical roof structures (attic
Example 1 (Nail-plate truss joint). In Ref.[24] the joints frames and trusses) were calculated assuming either
are modelled as shown in Figs 16b and c. In each pinned joints (Krotation"0) or semi-rigid, and the
member, nodes (A, B,2) are placed at the centre of amount of wood and steel plates materials required
gravity of the joint area. The nodes are joined by were compared. On average, the savings were 10%
fictitious rigid beam elements. Each node is connected from accounting for semi-rigidity.
to its timber member by three springs as described Although the spring model is commonly used in
above. The stiffness per unit area, k(a), is determined analysis of steel structures, the approach is not
by testing, and the spring stiffnesses, K’s, are generally applicable to timber joints. In timber joints
calculated as coupling effects occur between the springs and, due to
the non-linear behaviour of the fasteners, the principle
Kaxial"Aef k(a), Kshear"Aef k(90!a),
of superposition is not applicable. It is possible
Krotation"0.5Ip,ef [k(0)#k(90)] conceptually to develop spring models in which

Copyright ^ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2:267}277

Fig. 16 Example 1: Modelling a nail-plate truss joint
Fig. 17 Example 2: (a) Joint, (b) loadddisplacement curve, (c) momentdrotation relationships for different load configurations, (d) propped
cantilever beam column
interactions are accounted for, but the amount of
calibration testing and the databases would be
prohibitive.
PGMF MODEL
The method
The plane group of mechanical fasteners model
(PGMF model) first proposed by Foschi[26**] can be
used for all joints with discrete dowel-type fasteners
loaded in shear (gusset plate joints).
A load–displacement curve for a single fastener, as
a function of the load direction relative to the grain
direction, is the only required input apart from the
joint geometry[27, 11**]. The principle is summarised
here. In Figs. 15a–c the fastener number s, is described
by two nodes i and j. Node i is attached to the member,
and node j to the gusset plate. In the unloaded state the
nodes coincide. In the deformed state the fastener is
represented by a spring corresponding to a force with
a magnitude and direction (in an orthotropic material
the force direction and the displacement direction do
not normally coincide) depending on the vector si sj .
Copyright ^ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INFLUENCE OF SEMI-RIGIDITY OF JOINTS 275
si is the position of the fastener on the beam. sj is the
position on the gusset plate. The resulting forces on
the fasteners correspond to the external forces.
Numerical methods are needed to solve the
equations. In Ref.[11**] an arc-length method was
applied. This is a combined incremental/iterative
method: the load is increased stepwise and an iterative
procedure is used within each step to ensure
equilibrium. This allows tracing of complex
equilibrium paths, including snap-through and snap-
back phenomena, which may occur even in simple
structures, especially if gap closure and contact
between jointed members are taken into account.
Example 2 (Moment connection made with dowel
fasteners). The joint in Fig. 17a is considered. It has 24
fasteners (12 each side) placed in a circle of 75 mm
radius. The load–displacement curve (Fig. 17b) is
based on those in Fig. 7 and applies to all load
directions. It is given by

2u/u0!(u/u0 )2 for u/u0)1
F/F0" 2
2u/[u0 (1#(u/u0 ) ] for u/u0'1
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2:267}277
276
Fig. 18 Example 3: Horizontal deflection at mid-span
Fig. 19 Example 4: Portal frame
where F0"3.5 kN and u0"5 mm. The capacity for
axial load alone is 2;12;3.5"84 kN and for
a moment alone 84;0.075"6.3 kNm. In Fig. 17c, the
joint moment rotation relationship calculated by the
PGMF model is shown for different moment–axial
force configurations: k6.30 kN m, kb84.0 kN, k being
a load scaling factor. If the spring model is used, the
moment–rotation relationship for b"0 is used
irrespective of the actual axial load.
Example 3 (Propped cantilever beam-column). The
beam column shown in Fig. 17d is analysed. The lower
end joint detail is that shown in Fig. 17a. Results from
four different models of the lower joint are shown in
Fig. 18[27]. It can be seen that the spring model is only
a good approximation to the PGMF model at low load
levels, and that the pinned and fixed end models are
not good approximations at all.
Example 4 (Portal frame). The members in the portal
frame in Fig. 19 are 200;1350 mm. The joint detail
discussed here has eight 35 mm diameter expanded
tube fasteners instead of the original 32 dowels. The
load–displacement curve from Fig. 14 is used. There is
a uniform downward load on the beam. Material
parameters are assumed to be; modulus of elasticity
E"10 500 N/mm2 and bending strength
fm"24 N/mm2. The mid-span deflection in the beam
is shown in Fig. 20a. Since the load–displacement
curve is cut off before the ultimate load is reached, the
load–deflection curve has no maximum but the
following point are marked: vertical deflection
exceeds 0.003 of the span, first fastener displacement
exceeds 15 mm, bending failure in the beam. It is clear
that even before the deflection limit is reached the
systems response is not linear. Fig. 20b shows the
moment distribution in the left-hand side of the beam
Copyright ^ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TIMBER CONSTRUCTION
Fig. 20 Example 4: Mid-span deflection of the beam and moment
distribution at different load levels.
at different load levels. For low load levels the
situation corresponds to a stiff joint and the corner
moments are the largest. For a load of about 17 kN/m
the mid-span and the corner moments are equal. For
higher loads the mid-span moment is much larger
than the corner moment.
Conclusions
Glulam rivets, tight-fitting nails in steel plates and
various new fasteners make it possible to take into
account the semi-rigid, non-linear behaviour of joints.
This will often give more advantageous force
distributions in the structures than traditional design,
where pinned or fixed-end conditions are assumed.
Some of the new engineered fasteners—e.g. the
expanded tube fastener—have already found their
way to practice.
By appropriate modelling it is possible to derive the
properties of a joint from the properties of a single
fastener, e.g. one nail or one tooth in nail plates. This
reduces considerably testing need to determine the
properties of joints.
Using numerical methods, it is possible to calculate
the complete load–deformation behaviour of even
complicated structures right to failure, which is
a condition for taking advantage of full probabilistic
reliability design methods.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest have been marked:
* Special interest
** Exceptional interest
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2:267}277

** [1] Madsen B. Reliable timber connections. Progress in Structural Engineering
and Materials 1998: 1(3): 245d252.
Gives an overview of traditional fasteners, glulam rivets and glued-in steel rods.
[2] Colson A (ed). COST C1, Semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering
structural connections. Proceedings of the First State of the Art Workship,
Strasbourg, France, Published by the European Commission. Directorate General III.
1992.
[3] Wald F (ed.). COST C1, Semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering
structural connections. Proceedings of the Second State of the Art Workshop,
Prague, Czech Republic, 1994. Published by the European Commission General XII,
1994. ISBN 2-87263-137 2).
[4] Maquoi R (ed). COST C1, Control of the semi-rigid behaviour of civil
engineering structural connections. Proceedings of the International Conference,
Liege, Belgium.. European Community Publication EUR 18854 EN. 1999: ISBN 92-
828-6337-9.
** [5] Haller P (ed). COST C1, Semi-rigid timber jointsestructural behaviour,
modelling and new technologies. European Commission, 1999. ISSN 1018d5593.
Contains final papers (about 20) from the European concerted action COST C1
(1991d1999) aimed at developing semi-rigid fasteners and methods to calculate
behaviour of joints and structures. It also contains references to theses and papers
resulting from the COST C1 timber group activities.
* [6] Gustafsson PJ. Adherence of reinforcement to wood. In: Fibre
reinforcement of glulam. Report TVSM-7083. Division of Structural Mechanics, Lund
Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden: 1993.
Tests and analysis of lap joints based on fracture mechanics.
** [7] Leijten AJM. Densified veneer wood reinforced timber joints with
expanded tube fasteners. Dissertation. Delft, The Netherlands: Technical University
of Delft, 1998.
Gives an in-depth treatment of the properties of densified veneer wood and the
development of the expanded tube fastener, its properties and use in structures.
Further calculation methods for beams of elastic foundation taking into account
the reinforcement.
* [8] KevarinmaK ki A. Reinforcement of timber joints using nail plate
connections. In: Haller P (ed). COST C1, Semi-rigid timber jointsestructural
behaviour, modelling and new technologies. European Commission, 1999. ISSN
1018d5593.
[9] KevarinmaK ki A. Bolted joints of Kerto LVL reinforced with nail plates.
Report 49. Espoo, Finland: Helsinki University of Technology. 1995.
[10] Eurocode 5. European prestandard ENV 1995-1-1: design of timber
structures, Part 1-1, General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels, Belgium: European
Committee for Standardization, 1993.
** [11] Jensen JL Dowel-type fastener connections. Report 237 (Ph.D. Thesis).
H+rsholm, Denmark: Danish Building Research Institute, 1994. (ISSN 0573-9985).
The dissertation gives the background for the Plane Group of Mechanical Fastener
method, a general theory for designing structures taking semi-rigidity into
account, a description of effective numerical methods to solve the problem and
many example with complex equilibrium paths, including snap-through and snap-
back. Also gap closure is treated.
* [12] Larsen HJ & Enquist B. Glass fibre reinforcement of dowel-type joints.
Proceedings of International Wood Engineering Conference ‘96, New Orleans, USA,
1996, Vol. 1. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA; Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Louisiana State University, 1996. 293d302.
Results from testing of nailed and doweled joints loaded parallel and perpendicular
to the grain together with a proposal for design rules.
H J Larsen
Danish Building Research Institute P.O. Box 119,
Dr. Neergaards Vej 15,
DK - 2970 H+rsholm,
Denmark
J L Jensen
Institute of Wood Technology,
Akita Prefectural College of Agriculture
II-I Kaiezaka, Noshiro, Akita 016-0876, Japan
Copyright ^ 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INFLUENCE OF SEMI-RIGIDITY OF JOINTS 277
[13] Chen C, Natterer J & Haller P. Experimental study on fibreglass
reinforced timber joints. Proceedings of Pacific Timber Engineering Conference, Gold
Coast, Australia, 1994, Vol 2. Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia: Timber
Research and Development Advisory Council, 1994. 66d72. (ISBN 1873432).
* [14] Haller P, Chen C & Natterer J. Experimental study on glassfiber
reinforced and densified timber joints. Proceedings of International Wood
Engineering Conference ‘96, New Orleans, USA, 1996, Vol. 1. Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
USA: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University,
1996. 308}314.
Description of tests result. Further results from densification of the diagonals
leading to very high strength values.
[15] Larsen HJ & Enquist B. Reinforcement of doweled joints in glulam.
Report TVSM-3030, Lund, Sweden: Division of Structural Mechanics, Lund University
of Technology, 1998. Also In: Haller P (ed). COST C1, Semi-rigid timber
jointsestructural behaviour, modelling and new technologies. European
Commission, 1999. ISSN 1018d5593.
[16] Rodd PD. Locally reinforced moment transmitting joints. Proceedings of
International Wood Engineering Conference ‘96, New Orleans, USA, 1996 Vol. 2.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Louisiana State University. 1996. 169d176.
[17] Leijten A & Rodd P. The development of moment resisting timber joints
using densified veneer wood. In: Haller P (ed). COST C1, Semi-rigid timber
jointsestructural behaviour, modelling and new technologies. European
Commission, 1999. ISSN 1018d5593.
[18] Leijten AJM et al. The development of prestressed timber joints using
densified veneer wood and expanded tube fastener. In: Haller P (ed). COST C1,
Semi-rigid timber jointsestructural behaviour, modelling and new technologies.
European Commission, 1999. ISSN 1018d5593.
[19] Adjanohoun G, Rouger F & Talbi N. Comportement semi-rigide d’un
connecteur meH tallique à dents embouties sous sollicitations statiques. Annales GC
Bois (Vol. 1). Paris, 1996.
[20] Nutte J et al. Numerical modelling of metal die-punched truss plate joints.
In: Wald F (ed.). COST C1, Semi-rigid behaviour of civil engineering structural
connections. Proceedings of the Second State of the Art Workshop, Prague, Czech
Republic, 1994. Published by the European Commission General XII, 1994. ISBN 2-
87263-137 2).
* [21] Riley G & Gebremedhin KG. Axial and rotational stiffness model
of metal-plate-connected wood truss joints. Proceedings of World Timber
Engineering Conference, Montreux, Switzerland, 1998 (Vol. 2). Lausanne, Switzerland:
Presses polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, 1998. 158d166. (ISBN 2-88074-
387-7).
Promising method of modelling the behaviour of nail plates, which may in future
reduce the need for testing nail plates, and making it possible to take the semi-rigid
behaviour into account in designing structures.
[22] Foschi R & Bonac T. Load-slip characteristics for connections with
common nails. Wood Science 1977: 9(3): 118d124.
[23] Jaspart JP & Maquoi R. Prediction of the semi-rigid and spatial-strength
properties of structural joints. Proceedings of the Annual Technical Session. Lehig,
USA: SSRC, 1994.
[24] Hakkarainen H. Influence of semi-rigidity of the joint on the structure.
Espoo, Finland: Helsinki University of Technology, Laboratory of Structural and
Building Physics, 1998.
[25] Jerkku I & KevarinmaK ki A. Finnish nail plate structures of high
technology. Espoo, Finland: Helsinki University of Technology, Laboratory of
Structural and Building Physics, October 1997.
[26] Foschi RO. Analysis of wood diaphragms and trussess. Part II. Truss plate
connections. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1997: (4): 353d362.
Pioneer work. Properties of nail plates are derived from those of a single teeth.
Parameters considered are also gaps between members, buckling an yielding in
tension and shear.
[27] Jensen JL & Larsen HJ. Modelling of semi-rigid joints and their influence
on the behaviour of structures. Proceedings of World Timber Engineering
Conference, Montreux, Switzerland, 1998 Vol. 1. Lausanne, Switzerland: Presses
Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, 1998. 305d312. (ISBN 2-88074-387X).
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2000; 2:267}277