Brittle Failures in Timber Beams Loaded

Perpendicular to Grain by Connections

Jørgen L. Jensen, Ph.D. 1; Pierre Quenneville 2; Ulf Arne Girhammar 3; and Bo Källsner 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A state-of-the-art review of simple analytical fracture mechanics models for calculation of the splitting capacity of timber beams
loaded perpendicular to the grain direction by connections is presented. It is shown that most of the already available models are closely
related and appear naturally as special cases of the most general model available. A new model, which is a semiempirical extension of an
existing model based on a beam-on-elastic-foundation theory, is proposed. The so-called van der Put model, which forms the theoretical basis
for the splitting equations used in the European and Canadian timber design codes, appears as a special case of the proposed model. The
treatment of the splitting problem in some major timber design codes is reviewed and discussed based on the theoretical models and new test
results. The approach used in the European timber design code where the maximum shear force on either side of a connection is considered
rather than the total load applied on a connection is not in agreement with the test results presented. While the European and Canadian timber
design codes apply a constant value for a material property related to the splitting performance irrespective of the material considered, the
presented experimental results indicate that the material property for Radiata pine laminated veneer lumber can be close to twice the value for
Douglas fir glulam. The presented test results also show that despite the fact that Douglas fir glulam has a significantly higher mean
perpendicular-to-grain tensile strength than Radiata pine laminated veneer lumber, the splitting failure load of Radiata pine laminated veneer
lumber is nevertheless significantly higher than that of Douglas fir glulam. The latter finding seems to be in disagreement with the German
timber design code, according to which the splitting strength is proportional to the perpendicular-to-grain tensile strength. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001275. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Bolted connections; Timber structures; Splitting; Edge distance; Fracture mechanics; Design codes.

Introduction Further, a new model is proposed. The model is a semiempirical

Timber is an orthotropic material with high strength in the parallel-
to-grain direction and low strength in the perpendicular-to-grain
direction. A timber beam loaded perpendicular to the beam axis
by a connection is subjected to concentrated tensile stresses
perpendicular to the grain and is at risk of failing in splitting.
Explicit equations for calculation of the splitting capacity of beams
loaded perpendicular to the grain by connections have recently
been introduced in some major timber design codes. However,
required minimum edge distances are still in many design codes
relied on as the sole measure to avoid splitting.
The character of splitting failures in timber makes it natural to
apply fracture mechanics, and a number of simple analytical frac-
ture mechanics models have been presented in recent years for
analysis of beams loaded perpendicular to grain by connections.
In the present paper, a state-of-the-art review of such models is
given, and it is shown that most of the available models are not
independent, but appear as special cases of the (until now) most
general model available.
1
Research Fellow, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Univ. of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
(corresponding author). E-mail: jljensen2908@yahoo.com
2
Professor, Head of Dept., Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Univ. of Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
3
Professor, Division of Structural and Construction Engineering–
Timber Structures, Luleå Univ. of Technology, 971 87 Luleå, Sweden.
4
Professor, School of Engineering, Linnæus Univ., 352 52 Växjö, Sweden.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 23, 2014; approved on
January 13, 2015; published online on March 11, 2015. Discussion period
open until August 11, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/04015026(10)/$25.00.
modification of an existing so-called quasi-nonlinear fracture me-
chanics model, which is based on a beam-on-elastic-foundation
theory. With the semiempirical modification, the quasi-nonlinear
fracture mechanics model is brought to contain the until now most
advanced linear elastic fracture mechanics model as a special case.
In the European [EN 1995-1-1:2004 (CEN 2004)] and Canadian
[CSA O86-09 (Canadian Standards Association 2009)] timber de-
sign codes, design against splitting of beams loaded perpendicular
to grain by connections is based on a simple fracture mechanics
model, while an empirical or semiempirical approach is used in
the German timber design code [DIN 1052:2008 (DIN 2008)].
The approaches used in the design codes are discussed in the
present paper based on theoretical models and on new test results,
and some issues are emphasized, which need further attention.
The aim of this paper is three-fold, as follows: (1) to give a state-
of-the-art review of existing simple analytical models for prediction
of the splitting failure load of beams loaded perpendicular-to-grain
by connections, and to show that most of the models are related and
appear as special cases of the most general model; (2) to propose a
semiempirical modification of an existing model based on a beam-
on-elastic-foundation theory, and to indicate by testing the appro-
priateness of the proposed model; and (3) to discuss the approaches
used in some major timber design codes for beams loaded
perpendicular to grain by connections, and to present experimental
evidence for their inadequacy.
State-of-the-Art of Simple Analytical Models
The simple analytical fracture mechanics models currently avail-
able for analysis of splitting of beams loaded perpendicular to grain
by connections may all be considered to be based on the energy

© ASCE 04015026-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015026


Fig. 1. Cracked beam loaded perpendicular to grain by a connection
balance approach (Gustafsson 2003). A beam as indicated in Fig. 1
is considered. The beam is loaded perpendicular to the grain by a
connection. The external load acting on the connection is denoted
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
P, and a crack with crack area A is assumed to have been initiated.
The beam depth is denoted h and the loaded edge distance is
denoted he .
The considered beam is a system with one degree of freedom
and may be regarded as a simple spring. The system is assumed to
be linear elastic. Let k denote the spring stiffness, i.e., P ¼ kδ,
where δ is the deflection of the loading point. The stiffness k is
a function of the crack area, A, i.e., k ¼ kðAÞ. The compliance,
C, is defined as C ¼ CðAÞ ¼ 1=kðAÞ, and thus
δðAÞ ¼ PCðAÞ ð1Þ
If the load, P, is below a certain critical value, the crack will not
propagate. When P reaches the critical value, Pu , the crack prop-
agates. The situation where the load has reached exactly the critical
value, P ¼ Pu , is considered. If the crack area increases by an
infinitely small amount, dA (the load is assumed to be constant
during the crack propagation), the compliance increases corre-
spondingly by the amount dCðAÞ, and therefore from Eq. (1)
dδðAÞ ¼ Pu dCðAÞ. The increase in deflection means that the exter-
nal load, Pu , has moved to a state of lower potential energy. The
change in potential energy of the external load, dEpot;ext , due to the
increase of the crack area, dA, is thus given by
dEpot;ext ðAÞ ¼ −Pu dδðAÞ ¼ −dCðAÞP2u ð2Þ
Due to the increase in the deflection, dδðAÞ, the increase in elas-
tic strain energy, dEstrain , stored in the cracked beam becomes
1 1
dEstrain ðAÞ ¼ Pu dδðAÞ ¼ dCðAÞP2u ð3Þ
2 2
Fracture energy, Gf , is defined as the work needed to bring a
unit area of a crack surface from its initial unloaded state to com-
plete separation. If the crack area increases by the amount dA, the
energy dissipated due to fracture, dEdis , becomes
dEdis ðAÞ ¼ Gf dA ð4Þ
It is assumed that the fracture process occurs sufficiently slowly
to neglect kinetic energy. The total energy, Etotal , of the system is
constant (Etotal ¼ Epot;ext þ Estrain þ Edis = a constant value), and
thus the change in total energy, dEtotal , due to an infinitely small
extension of the crack area, must be zero
dEpot;ext ðAÞ þ dEstrain ðAÞ þ dEdis ðAÞ ¼ 0 ð5Þ
Inserting Eqs. (2)–(4), in (5), the critical value, Pu , of the load,
which makes the crack propagate, becomes
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2Gf
Pu ¼ dCðAÞ ð6Þ
dA
© ASCE 04015026-2
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015026
All models are mathematical abstractions and therefore approx-
imations to a physical reality. More or less realistic assumptions
may be made in the mathematical models, leading to more or less
good agreement with the physical reality. A number of different
solutions may be derived by means of Eq. (6) by making certain
assumptions about how to calculate the compliance, CðAÞ. The
choice of assumptions leads to more or less good agreement with
experimental results, but from a modeling point of view the models
are equally acceptable. From a design point of view, certain models
may be more attractive than others. Usually, models applied for
practical design need to be sufficiently simple, robust, in good
agreement with test results, and if possible be based on material
properties obtained from independent standard tests.
Model 1
All the models reviewed in the present paper may be based
on Eq. (6). To illustrate the use of Eq. (6), a new model is derived.
A close-up of the part of the beam where the connection is located
is considered in Fig. 2. The external load is assumed to act in
a single point, and the loaded part of the beam with depth he is
assumed to behave like a beam of length L ¼ 2a, where 2a
is the crack length, with fully fixed supports. If taking into account
bending and shear deformations, the compliance of the beam is
given by
a3 a
CðaÞ ¼ þ ð7Þ
24EI 2 GAs
where E = modulus of elasticity (MOE) in the grain direction;
G = shear modulus; I = moment of inertia; and As = shear area
of the beam with depth he . The crack is assumed to penetrate
the beam through its entire width, and if a beam with rectangular
cross section with width b is considered, then I ¼ bh3e =12
and As ¼ bhe =β s , where β s is a shear correction factor
(β s ¼ 6=5 for a rectangular cross section according to ordinary
beam theory). The crack area, A, becomes A ¼ 2ba, and from
Eqs. (6) and (7)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2GGf he
Pu ¼ 2b ð8Þ
3 GE ðhae Þ2 þ β s
The model given by Eq. (8) is to the knowledge of the writers
new and has not been presented previously. However, as will be
shown in a subsequent paragraph, Eq. (8) is just yet another model,
which appears as a special case of an existing model (Model 3). The
model is presented as an illustration of the fact that so-called new
models may be presented, which do not lead to any new insight.
Further, the model may be regarded as a so-called missing link
between two existing models as illustrated in Fig. 6 (discussed
in detail in a subsequent paragraph).
Fig. 2. Fully fixed beam model
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Model 2 Model 4
Neglecting bending deformations and only taking shear deforma- If neglecting the bending deformations and only taking into
tions into account (finite G, E → ∞) leads to account the shear deformations (finite G, E → ∞), Eq. (10) is
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi reduced to
Pu ¼ 2b 2GGf he =β s ð9Þ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2GGf he
Pu ¼ 2b ð11Þ
If assuming β s ¼ 1 in Eq. (9), the solution derived in Larsen and β s ð1 − αÞ
Gustafsson (2001) is obtained. The solution presented in Larsen
and Gustafsson (2001) is thus a special case resulting from the For β s ¼ 6=5, Eq. (11) may also be written as
model shown in Fig. 2 and given by Eq. (8). An even more general sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
model, which contains Eq. (8) as a special case, is obtained by he
Pu ¼ 2bC1 ð12aÞ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

assuming that the beam in Fig. 2 instead of being fully fixed
has rotational and vertical translational springs attached at the ends.
The equations will, however, not be derived in this paper since it is
not immediately obvious what stiffness the springs should be as-
signed. A model which may be regarded as being a special case of
such a spring model and which automatically includes appropriate
stiffness of the springs will be reviewed in a subsequent paragraph.
Model 3
Fig. 3 shows a different structural system from which the compli-
ance may be determined. The cracked beam is modeled as a beam
structure consisting of four horizontal beam elements and two ver-
tical beam elements, all rigidly connected. The uncracked parts of
the beam are modeled using horizontal beam elements with depth
h, while the cracked part is modeled by means of two horizontal
beam elements with depths he and (h − he ). The vertical beam el-
ements are assumed to be infinitely stiff. All connections between
the beam elements are assumed to be fully rigid.
The compliance of the structure shown in Fig. 3 may be ex-
pressed analytically, and according to Jensen (2005a) follows from
Eq. (6)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2GGf he
Pu ¼ 2b ð10Þ
3 E ðhe Þ ð1 − α3 Þ þ β s ð1 − αÞ
G a 2
where α ¼ he =h.
By comparison of Eqs. (8) and (10), Eq. (8) appears as a special
case of Eq. (10), namely for α → 0. This is in accordance not only
with the mathematics, but can also easily be realized from the phys-
ics; α → 0 is in accordance with assuming h → ∞ for a finite
value of he , i.e., all beams except the beam with depth he are as-
sumed to be infinitely stiff. The beam with depth he and length 2a
thus becomes fixed at the ends exactly like the beam considered
in Fig. 2.
The model given by Eq. (10) is built on the assumption that a
point load is placed at midspan of a simply supported beam and the
crack is assumed to propagate symmetrically to the left and right
from the point load. In Schoenmakers (2010) an extended version
of the model given by Eq. (10) is given in which asymmetric crack
propagation is considered. The approach does, however, not lead to
a simple explicit solution.
1 − hhe
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
5
C1 ¼ GGf ð12bÞ
3
Eqs. (12a) and (12b) constitute the so-called van der Put or van der
Put/Leijten model first presented in van der Put and Leijten (2000),
which now forms the basis of design against splitting in the European
[EN 1995-1-1:2004 (CEN 2004)] and Canadian [CSA O86-09
(Canadian Standards Association 2009)] timber design codes.
The models presented in Larsen and Gustafsson (2001) and van
der Put and Leijten (2000) [Eqs. (9), (12a) and (12b), respectively]
and the new model given by Eq. (8) are all special cases resulting
from Eq. (10).
Model 5
In Jensen et al. (2003) and Jensen (2005a, b, c), models based on a
Timoshenko beam on a Winkler foundation are presented. Fig. 4
schematically illustrates the model for a simply supported beam.
An infinitely thin fictitious fracture layer is assumed along the po-
tential crack path. The part of the beam below the fracture layer is
treated as a beam with depth he on an elastic foundation, and the
part above the fracture layer (h–he ) is assumed to be infinitely stiff.
The fracture layer, which provides the foundation stiffness, is as-
sumed to be linear elastic and ideal brittle, and it is assigned the
properties of the wood, i.e., the perpendicular to grain tensile
strength, ft , and Mode I fracture energy, Gf . The stiffness, K,
of the foundation may thus be given in terms of the material proper-
ties as K ¼ f 2t =ð2Gf Þ.
For a single load acting far from the end of a beam, e.g., as
shown in Fig. 4, the solution may for small crack lengths
(a → 0) according to Jensen (2005c) be given as
Pu ¼ γPu;LEFM ð13aÞ
pffiffiffiffiffi
Pu;LEFM ¼ 2bC1 he ð13bÞ
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
5
C1 ¼ GGf ð13cÞ
3

Fig. 3. Beam structure for modeling the compliance of a cracked beam Fig. 4. Beam-on-elastic-foundation model

© ASCE 04015026-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015026

 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2ζ þ 1 illustrated in Fig. 3, rigidly connected, which is an idealization that
γ¼ ð13dÞ in general leads to an unsafe solution. Gustafsson (1988) intro-
ζþ1
duced an additional contribution to the compliance in a beam model
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi for analysis of end-notched beams in order to account for the abrupt
C G1 change in cross-sectional depth.
ζ¼ 1 10 ð13eÞ Since the failure load according to Eqs. (13a)–(13e) is given as a
ft E he
factor, γ, multiplied by a linear elastic fracture mechanics solution,
Pu;LEFM , and this linear elastic fracture mechanics solution results
where a subscript in Eqs. (13a) and (13b) refers to linear elastic from Eqs. (12a) and (12b) for h → ∞, it may naturally be sug-
fracture mechanics (LEFM). gested to use the linear elastic fracture mechanics solution given
The solution Pu ¼ Pu;LEFM is obtained from Eq. (9) for β s ¼ by Eqs. (12a) and (12b) in Eqs. (13a)–(13e) as a substitution
6=5 and from Eqs. (12a) and (12b) for h → ∞. The solution Pu ¼ for Pu;LEFM
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pu;LEFM is obtained from Eqs. (13a)–(13e) if assuming f t → ∞,

or if assuming E → ∞. Pu ¼ γPu;LEFM ð15aÞ
In Jensen (2005d), the model given by Eqs. (13a)–(13e) is
further extended to not only considering the loaded edge distance, sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
he , but also the influence of the fastener’s distance from the beam he
Pu;LEFM ¼ 2bC1 ð15bÞ
end, le . An approximate solution is given by 1 − hhe
0 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 1
þ Pbf t le
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2ζþ1 u;LEFM
Pu ¼ Pu;LEFM · min@ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi A ð14Þ 5
2ζþ1 C1 ¼ GGf ð15cÞ
ζþ1
3

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where Pu;LEFM is given in Eqs. (13a)–(13e). A typo in Jensen 2ζ þ 1
(2005d) has been corrected in Eq. (14). γ¼ ð15dÞ
ζþ1
In, for example, Jensen (2005b) it has been shown that if the
foundation stiffness is chosen as K ¼ f 2t =ð2Gf Þ, which is the case
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
for Eqs. (13a)–(13e) and (14), the same failure load is obtained
C G1
from the beam on elastic foundation whether using (1) a conven- ζ¼ 1 10 ð15eÞ
tional stress failure criterion or (2) the compliance method of ft E he
fracture mechanics as given by Eq. (6). For other choices of foun-
dation stiffness, e.g., if including the elastic perpendicular to grain
strain of the beams, the two approaches do not lead to the same The γ factor is limited to the range [0, 1] and may be regarded as
failure load. an effectiveness factor, which is a function of the material proper-
The perpendicular to grain tensile strength appears in ties E, G, ft , and Gf and of the loaded edge distance, he . For h →
Eqs. (13a)–(13e) and (14), and the failure load is in general not ∞ Eqs. (15a)–(15e) reduce to Eqs. (13a)–(13e), and for ft → ∞ or
proportional to the square root of the fracture energy. The solutions G=E → 0 Eqs. (15a)–(15e) reduce to Eqs. (12a) and (12b). Fig. 5
do thus not possess the characteristics of linear elastic fracture shows γ as a function of ζ (which is typically limited to the lower
mechanics, but on the other hand cannot be characterized as non- part of the range [0, 6]).
linear fracture mechanics either. The solutions belong to a class Also Eq. (14) may semiempirically be generalized by introduc-
of fracture mechanics solutions, which have been termed quasi- ing the expression for Pu;LEFM as given in Eqs. (15a)–(15e). The
nonlinear fracture mechanics solutions (Serrano and Gustafsson generalized Eq. (14) takes into account the effects of edge and
2006). The LEFM solutions appear as special cases from the quasi- end distances, and contains the models presented in van der
nonlinear solutions. The claim made by van der Put (2013a, b) that Put and Leijten (2000) and Larsen and Gustafsson (2001) as
the quasi-nonlinear fracture mechanics models are not fracture special cases.
mechanics models therefore seems irrelevant. Fig. 6 shows schematically how the reviewed Models 1–6 are
The model considered in Fig. 2 and given by Eq. (8) may be related.
generalized by introducing rotational and vertical translational
springs at the supports instead of the fixed end boundary condi-
tions. However, for such a spring model to be relevant, appropriate
spring stiffness must be assigned. The beam on elastic foundation
model may be regarded as a special case of such a spring model,
where the appropriate stiffness of the springs is automatically
given.

Model 6
The beam on elastic foundation models are by nature limited to
situations for which the loaded edge distance is small as compared
with the total beam depth. The same limitation applies to the so-
lutions given in Eqs. (8) and (9) and illustrated in Fig. 2. The model
illustrated in Fig. 3 does in principle not possess any limitation
Fig. 5. Effectiveness factor, γ, as a function of ζ
to the loaded edge distance. However, the beam elements are, as

© ASCE 04015026-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015026

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Definition of some parameters used in Eq. (17)

Fig. 6. Relations between the reviewed and proposed models

beam loaded at quarter-span, and 2 times the resistance of a can-

Design Approaches
Specified minimum edge distances have traditionally been relied on
in most timber design codes as a sufficient guard against splitting of
beam loaded perpendicular to the grain by connections. In some
design codes, an additional check of the shear stresses in the beam
has been required at the location of the connection. It is, however,
only recently that explicit equations for design against splitting
have been introduced in major timber design codes.
In the European [EN 1995-1-1:2004 (CEN 2004)] and Canadian
[CSA O86-09 (Canadian Standards Association 2009)] timber design
codes, it has been decided to base the design against splitting on the
simple linear elastic fracture mechanics model given by Eqs. (12) and
(12b). While it in the Canadian timber design code [CSA O86-09
(Canadian Standards Association 2009)] has been decided to
consider the total load on the connection as in Eqs. (12) and
(12b), it has in the European timber design code [EN 1995-1-
1:2004 (CEN 2004)] been decided to consider the shear force instead
of the total connection load. In the European timber design code [EN
1995-1-1:2004 (CEN 2004)], it is required that Eqs. (16a)–(16d) be
fulfilled. Subscripts d and k denote design and characteristic values,
respectively; V 1;d and V 2;d are the design shear forces on the two
sides of the connection; and R denotes resistance
V d ≤ Rd ð16aÞ
tilever beam. The length of the beams is of no influence.
The same expression for Rk as given in Eqs. (16a)–(16d) is used
in the Canadian timber design code [CSA O86-09 (Canadian Stan-
dards Association 2009)], but in the Canadian timber design code it
is required that the total connection design load must be less than
the corresponding design value of the resistance.
The German timber design code [DIN 1052:2008 (DIN 2008)]
is based on an empirical approach and the fact that a connection in
reality usually does not load the beam in a single point is accounted
for. Eqs. (17a)–(17d) shows the requirements according to DIN
1052:2008 (DIN 2008). Definitions of related parameters are given
in Fig. 7. In Eqs. (17a)–(17d), f t denotes the perpendicular-to-grain
tensile strength of the timber, and bef is an effective beam width,
which depends on the slenderness of the fasteners [for further
details refer to DIN 1052:2008 (DIN 2008)]
R ¼ μ N μ m R0 ð17aÞ
  2 
h
R0 ¼ 6.5 þ 18 e ðbef hÞ0.8 f t ð17bÞ
h
 
1
μN ¼ max ð17cÞ
0.7 þ 1.4 lhN

m
V d ¼ maxfV 1;d ; V 2;d g ð16bÞ μm ¼ P m h1 2
ð17dÞ
i¼1 ð hi Þ
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
he In Ballerini and Rizzi (2007) another semiempirical model is
Rk ¼ bC1 ð16cÞ presented, which attempts to take into account the effect of multiple
1− he
h fasteners. The model, which is given by Eqs. (18a)–(18e), utilizes
an empirically modified version of Eqs. (12a) and (12b) for the
C1 ¼ 14 N=mm1.5 ð16dÞ failure load caused by a single fastener. The effect of multiple fas-
teners is taken into account by multiplying the failure load caused
by a single fastener by some modification factors, μN and μm , in the
Eqs. (12a) and (12b) have been derived by considering a simply same way as in Eqs. (17a)–(17d)
supported beam loaded at midspan, and is in principle only valid for
that special situation. However, in practical design situations, en- R ¼ μ N μ m R0 ð18aÞ
gineers need to be able to design for other support conditions and
other locations of the connections as well, and by considering the sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
he
shear force as done in Eqs. (16a)–(16d), all situations can in prin- R0 ¼ 2bC1 ðcharacteristic C1 ¼ 9 N=mm1.5 Þ ð18bÞ
ciple be handled by the designer in a very simple way. 1 − ðhhe Þ3
For a simply supported beam loaded at midspan, Eqs. (12a),
(12b), and (16a)–(16d) give the same failure load for C1 ¼  
14 N=mm1.5 . Eqs. (16a)–(16d) predicts that a beam loaded at mid- 1 þ 0.75 lhN
μN ¼ min ð18cÞ
span has a splitting resistance which is 1.5 times that of the same 2

© ASCE 04015026-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015026

 χ grade of LVL). The shear modulus of Radiata pine LVL is usually
μm ¼ 1 þ 1.75 ð18dÞ
1þχ estimated as G ¼ E=20, which will also be assumed in this paper.
The glulam used had a density of 516 kg=m3 (mean value) at
mlm a moisture content of 12–13%. The dynamic MOE in the grain
χ¼ ð18eÞ direction was measured using a log-grader and found to be E ¼
1,000
12.9 GPa (mean value). Two different grades of glulam were or-
dered, but judged from the density and MOE measurements, only
one grade (the higher) was delivered. The glulam was ordered with
Experimental: Materials and Methods the same grade of timber used for all laminas.
Hot galvanized machine bolts of quality 4.2 and with a diameter
Splitting tests were conducted on laminated veneer lumber (LVL) of d ¼ 16 mm were used in the tests.
specimens made of New Zealand grown Radiata pine (Pinusra-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

diata) and on glue-laminated timber (glulam) specimens made

of New Zealand grown Douglas fir (Pseudotsugamenziesii). Fur-
ther, material property tests were conducted to determine the
perpendicular-to-grain tensile strength of the LVL and the glulam,
and the Mode I fracture energy of the LVL. So-called plate speci-
men tests were also conducted on glulam and LVL.
The LVL used had a density of 593 kg=m3 (mean value) at a
moisture content of 9%. The dynamic MOE in the grain direction
was measured using a log-grader and found to be E ¼ 15.9 GPa
(mean value; the manufacturer specifies 13.2 GPa for the supplied
Beam Tests
Splitting tests were conducted in three-point bending setups.
The tested glulam and LVL specimens are shown in Figs. 8
and 9, respectively. For both glulam and LVL, tests were conducted
on beams loaded at midspan and at quarter-span. All beams had a
45 × 300 mm2 cross section. Two different edge distances he were
tested [(1) he ¼ 4d, and (2) he ¼ 8dðd ¼ 16 mmÞ]. When testing
for edge distances larger than 4d, a single bolt often causes signifi-
cant embedment, in which case two closely spaced bolts were used

Fig. 8. Glulam test specimens

Fig. 9. Laminated veneer lumber test specimens

© ASCE 04015026-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015026

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Plate specimen

R δ¼δ0
mgδ0 þ δ¼0 Pdδ
Gf ¼ ð19Þ
A
Further, so-called plate specimen tests were conducted on spec-
Fig. 10. Perpendicular-to-grain tensile strength specimen imens as shown in Fig. 12. Specimen dimensions as recommended
by Yasumura (2002) were used. The C1 factor may be determined
from Eq. (20) as per Yasumura (2002), where Pu is the measured
failure load. Thirty-three replicates were tested for the glulam and
to increase the bearing area. Two closely spaced bolts are known 15 replicates were tested for the LVL
to give essentially the same splitting failure load as a single bolt
Pu
[Kasim and Quenneville (2002)]. For the glulam specimens, it C1 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi ð20Þ
was chosen to try a configuration with two bolts aligned along 2b he
the grain as well as a configuration with two bolts aligned across
the grain for specimens with he ¼ 8d. For the LVL specimens, it
was chosen to use two bolts very closely spaced along the grain for Results
all tests. For the glulam, only a limited number of replicates were
tested; six replicates of D-M-4 and three replicates of D-M-8 H, Beam Tests
D-M-8 V, D-Q-4, and D-Q-8. For the LVL, 10 replicates were
tested of all specimens. The mean failure loads and the coefficient of variation (COV) of the
tested glulam and LVL beam specimens are shown in Table 1.
The COV values are not reliable for beams tested with only three
Material Property Tests replications.
Tests were conducted on specimens as shown in Fig. 10 in agree-
ment with EN 408 (CEN 2003) to determine the perpendicular- Material Property Tests
to-grain tensile strength of the glulam and the LVL. Forty-two The perpendicular-to-grain tensile strength tests as shown in Fig. 10
replicates were tested of the glulam and 15 replicates were tested resulted in a mean tensile strength of ft ¼ 2.3 MPa with a coeffi-
of the LVL. The perpendicular-to-grain tensile strength, ft , is cient of variation of 30% for the glulam, and ft ¼ 1.5 MPa with a
determined as f t ¼ Pu =ð45 × 70 mm2 Þ. coefficient of variation of 12% for the LVL.
Tests for determination of Mode I fracture energy of the LVL The Mode I fracture energy tests as shown in Fig. 11 resulted in
were conducted on specimens as shown in Fig. 11 with dimensions a mean fracture energy of Gf ¼ 0.95 N=mm with a coefficient of
in accordance with Gustafsson (2003). Fifteen replicates were variation of 15% for the LVL. The results are based on 13 speci-
tested. The fracture energy, Gf , is calculated as given by Eq. (19), mens since two out of the tested 15 specimens had to be excluded
where P and δ are the recorded load and displacement of the cross due to improper data recordings. The Mode I fracture energy was
head of the testing machine, respectively; m is 7=8 of the mass of not determined for the glulam.
the specimen; g (9.81 m=s2 ) is the gravity acceleration; δ 0 is the
displacement at which the load returns to zero; and A is the frac-
tured area (in this context 24 × 45 mm2 ). The integral term repre- Table 1. Failure Loads of Glulam and LVL Beams
sents the work done by the testing machine, i.e., the area under the Mean failure Coefficient
measured load–displacement curve Specimen Na load (kN) of variation (%)
D-M-4 6 9.3 11
D-M-8 H 3 16.8 14
D-M-8 V 3 18.5 13
D-Q-4 3 9.7 5
D-Q-8 3 20.0 18
R-M-4 10 20.3 13
R-M-8 10 36.6 9
R-Q-4 10 19.3 8
R-Q-8 10 37.0 10
Fig. 11. Mode I fracture energy test specimen a
N = number of replicates.

© ASCE 04015026-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015026

 The plate specimen tests as shown in Fig. 12 resulted in a mean
value of C1 ¼ 22.7 N=mm1.5 with a coefficient of variation of 8%
for the LVL, and C1 ¼ 12.7 N=mm1.5 with a coefficient of varia-
tion 17% for the glulam.
Discussion
In the European [EN 1995-1-1:2004 (CEN 2004)] and
Canadian [CSA O86-09 (Canadian Standards Association 2009)]
timber design codes [Eqs. (16a)–(16d)], a constant characteristic
value C1 ¼ 14 N=mm1.5 is assumed irrespective of the wood
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
species and product. The plate specimen tests resulted in mean C1
values of 22.7 and 12.7 N=mm1.5 for Radiata pine LVL and Douglas
fir glulam, respectively. These values strongly indicate that a charac-
teristic value of C1 ¼ 14 N=mm1.5 , as used in the European [EN
1995-1-1:2004 (CEN 2004)] and Canadian [CSA O86-09 (Canadian
Standards Association 2009)] timber design codes, may be signifi-
cantly nonconservative for certain wood species and products and
very conservative for other species and products. The C1 values used
in design codes should reflect the actual differences in wood species
and products in order to ensure fair competition.
The large difference in splitting capacity between Radiata pine
LVL and Douglas fir glulam as observed in the plate specimen tests
is consistently also observed in the beam tests in Table 1.
The splitting capacity is according to Eqs. (17a)–(17d) in the
German timber design code [DIN 1052:2008 (DIN 2008)] assumed
to be proportional to the perpendicular-to-grain tensile strength.
The material property tests showed, however, that Douglas fir
glulam has a higher perpendicular-to-grain tensile strength than
Radiata pine LVL, but the latter performs nevertheless much better
in terms of splitting capacity as seen from the plate specimen tests
as well as from the beam test results in Table 1.
The mean COV is 10% for the tested LVL beams presented in
Table 1. Experiments on wood involving perpendicular-to-grain
loading typically exhibit COVs between 15 and 25%. For splitting
of beams due to loading perpendicular-to-grain, it is difficult to find
reliable data since most test series reported only contain two to
three replications. The probably most comprehensive collection of
data for splitting of beams loaded perpendicular to grain by con-
nections is found in Schoenmakers (2010).
Experimentally obtained ratios of the failure loads of the beams
loaded at midspan to those loaded at quarter-span for the two tested
edge distances are given in Table 2. In the European timber design
code [EN 1995-1-1:2004 (CEN 2004)], the maximum shear force is
considered as shown in Eqs. (16a)–(16d), leading to a ratio of 1.5.
As seen from Table 2, the experimentally obtained ratios are very
close to 1.0, which means that the location of a connection in the
span of a simply supported beam is of no influence, and the ap-
proach used in the European timber design code [EN 1995-1-
1:2004 (CEN 2004)], i.e., considering the maximum shear force,
is not justified.
Ratios of the theoretically predicted failure loads determined by
means of Eqs. (12a), (12b), and (15a)–(15e) to the experimentally
Table 2. Midspan to Quarter-Span Failure Load Ratios
Theoretical as per
Edge distance Experimental EC5 (CEN 2004)
Douglas Radiata
he (mm) fir glulam pine LVL Eqs. (16a)–(16d)
64 0.96 1.06 1.5
128 0.92 0.99 1.5
© ASCE 04015026-8
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015026
Table 3. Theoretical to Experimental Failure Load Ratios
Specimen he (mm) Na Eqs. (12) and (12b) Eqs. (15a)–(15e)
D-M-4 64 6 1.11 —
D-M-8 H 128 3 1.02 —
D-M-8 V 128 3 0.92 —
D-Q-4 64 3 1.06 —
D-Q-8 128 3 0.85 —
R-M-4 64 10 0.90 1.04
R-M-8 128 10 0.83 1.05
R-Q-4 64 10 0.95 1.10
R-Q-8 128 10 0.83 1.03
a
N = number of replicates.
obtained mean values for the glulam and LVL beams are shown in
Table 3. In Eqs. (12a) and (12b), the mean values of the C1 factors
obtained from the plate specimen tests and Eq. (20) have been used.
In Eqs. (15a)–(15e), the measured values of the perpendicular-to-
grain tensile strength, ft ¼ 1.5 MPa, and the fracture energy,
Gf ¼ 0.95 N=mm, have been used. No theoretical values are given
for the Douglas fir glulam beams using Eqs. (15a)–(15e) since the
fracture energy of the Douglas fir glulam was not measured.
Eqs. (12a) and (12b) is in principle only valid for beams loaded
at midspan, but since the results in Table 2 indicate that the location
of the connection is of no influence, Eqs. (12a) and (12b) is also
applied to the beams loaded at quarter-span.
Table 3 indicates that Eqs. (12a), (12b), and (15a)–(15e) pro-
duce acceptable results for design purposes. Eqs. (15a)–(15e)
produce results in better agreement with experiments than
Eqs. (12a) and (12b), but slightly on the nonconservative side.
The predicted to experimental mean failure load ratios for the
LVL beams using Eqs. (8)–(10), (12a), (12b), (13a)–(13e), and
(15a)–(15e) are given in Table 4. The ratios are given for predicted
failure loads calculated by using two different estimates of the frac-
ture energy. Superscripts indicate values estimated from the plate
specimen (Fig. 12) tests, i.e., Eq. (20), and the definition of C1 as
given in Eq. (12), and values measured directly by means of the test
specimens (Fig. 11). The fracture energy estimated from the plate
specimen tests and determined by Eqs. (20), (12a), and (12b)
is closely related to the model given by Eqs. (10) or (12a) and
(12b); they should therefore in principle only be used in Eqs. (10),
(12a), and (12b).
According to Table 4, identical failure loads are predicted by
means of Eqs. (10), (12a), and (12b), and the predictions are in
fair agreement with the experimental results if the fracture energy
is estimated from the plate specimen tests and use of Eqs. (20),
(12a), and (12b). However, the agreement between the models
and the experiments is not convincing for Eqs. (10), (12a), and
(12b) if using the directly measured fracture energy.
Eqs. (13a)–(13e) gives predictions in fair agreement with the
experiments if using the directly measured fracture energy (spec-
imens shown in Fig. 11). As should be expected, Eqs. (13a)–(13e)
produces good results for small edge distances (specimens R-M-4
and R-Q-4), while the results are less good for large edge distances
(specimens R-M-8 and R-Q-8). Eqs. (13a)–(13e) lead to poor
agreement with experiments if using the fracture energy as esti-
mated from the plate specimens. Eqs. (15a)–(15e) are in good
agreement with the experimental results if using the directly mea-
sured fracture energy. The proposed semiempirical modification of
Eqs. (13a)–(13e) in order to take into account the effect of the total
beam depth has in this context led to a significant improvement of
the predictions for large edge distances.
Table 4 also shows that the models given by Eqs. (8) and (9)
show a different trend than Eqs. (10), (12a), and (12b); namely,
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Table 4. Theoretical to Experimental Failure Load Ratios for LVL Beams
Specimen Eq. (8) Eq. (9) Eq. (10) Eqs. (12) and (12b) Eqs. (13a)–(13e) Eqs. (15a)–(15e)
R-M-4a 0.68 0.68 0.90 0.90 0.66 0.74
R-M-8a 0.54 0.54 0.83 0.83 0.55 0.73
R-Q-4a 0.72 0.72 0.95 0.95 0.69 0.78
R-Q-8a 0.53 0.53 0.83 0.83 0.55 0.72
R-M-4b 1.06 1.06 1.41 1.41 0.92 1.04
R-M-8b 0.84 0.84 1.30 1.30 0.79 1.05
R-Q-4b 1.12 1.12 1.49 1.49 0.97 1.10
R-Q-8b 0.83 0.83 1.29 1.29 0.78 1.03
a
Fracture energy determined by means of plate specimen (Fig. 12) and Eq. (20).
b
Fracture energy determined directly by specimen shown in Fig. 11.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

better agreement with the experiments if using the directly mea-
sured fracture energy as compared with using the fracture energy
determined by means of the plate specimens. This may be said to be
surprising since Eqs. (8) and (9) are just special cases of Eqs. (10),
(12a), and (12b).
Eqs. (10), (12a), and (12b) produce fair predictions as long as
the C1 factor is determined from the plate specimen tests and
Eq. (20). This should be expected since Eq. (20) stems from
Eqs. (12a) and (12b). The fact that Eqs. (10), (12a), and (12b)
do not lead to good agreement with experiments if using the di-
rectly measured value of the fracture energy seems to suggest that
the linear elastic fracture mechanics model, on which Eqs. (10),
(12a), and (12b) are based, may contain some deficiencies.
The experimental failure loads of the tested LVL beams are in
Fig. 13 compared with the predicted failure loads as given by
Eqs. (12a), (12b), (13a)–(13e), and (15a)–(15e). The predictions
given by Eqs. (12a) and (12b) are based on the fracture energy de-
termined by means of plate specimens as shown in Fig. 12 while the
predictions given by Eqs. (13a)–(13e), and (15a)–(15e) are based
on the fracture energy test specimens shown in Fig. 11. The data
presented in Fig. 13 suggest that Eqs. (15a)–(15e) lead to better
predictions than Eqs. (12a), (12b), and (13a)–(13e), and that the
semiempirical modification of Eqs. (13a)–(13e) successfully brings
the predictions given by Eqs. (15a)–(15e) in agreement with the
experimental results for larger (8d) edge distances.
Jensen et al. (2012) present experimental results for splitting test
for connections consisting of single bolts loading a Radiata pine
LVL beam perpendicular to the grain near the beam end. Very good
agreement between experimental results and the generalized
version of Eq. (14) is reported. The findings in Jensen et al.
(2012) suggest that the semiempirical modification introduced in
Fig. 13. Experimental failure loads for LVL beams compared with
Eqs. (12a), (12b), (13a)–(13e), and (15a)–(15e)
order to take into account the total beam depth results in a signifi-
cant improvement of the predictions for larger edge distances as
compared with Eq. (14).
Hindman et al. (2010) and Patel and Hindman (2012) present
experimental results of splitting tests on various wood products
for comparison of Eqs. (12a) and (12b) with Eqs. (13a)–(13e).
The conclusion is that Eqs. (13a)–(13e) perform better than
Eqs. (12a) and (12b).
Judged from the limited results available in Tables 3 and 4 and
from the results presented in Jensen et al. (2012), the proposed
semiempirically generalized model as given by Eqs. (15a)–(15e)
seems to produce convincing and significantly improved predic-
tions as compared with Eqs. (13a)–(13e). Since the results pre-
sented in Hindman et al. (2010) and Patel and Hindman (2012)
suggest that Eqs. (13a)–(13e) perform better than Eqs. (12a)
and (12b), Eqs. (15a)–(15e) thus seems to produce better results
than do Eqs. (12) and (12b). The model should, however, be tested
on other wood species and products before conclusive statements
are made.
Conclusions
Currently available analytical fracture mechanics models for pre-
diction of the splitting failure load of beams loaded perpendicular
to grain by connections were reviewed. It was shown that most
of the available models are not independent despite having been
derived independently by various researchers, but are related
and appear as special cases of the most general models. A new
semiempirical generalization was proposed, which unifies two
classes of models, namely (1) the linear elastic fracture mechanics
models, and (2) the so-called quasi-nonlinear fracture mechanics
models.
Splitting tests were conducted on beams made of Douglas fir
glulam and Radiata pine LVL. The beams were loaded by bolted
connections located either at midspan or at quarter-span. The
Radiata pine LVL beams showed roughly twice the splitting capac-
ity as compared with the Douglas fir glulam beams. The tests also
showed that the location of the connection in the span of the beam
does not affect the splitting failure load; the same failure load was
obtained for beams loaded at midspan and at quarter-span for given
edge distances.
Perpendicular-to-grain tensile strength tests were also con-
ducted for the Douglas fir glulam and the Radiata pine LVL used
for the beam tests. The tests resulted in a lower mean value of the
perpendicular-to-grain tensile strength for the Radiata pine LVL
than for the Douglas fir glulam.
Theoretically predicted splitting failure loads using the pro-
posed new semiempirically modified quasi-nonlinear fracture me-
chanics model were compared with the experimentally determined

© ASCE 04015026-9 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015026

 ones, and very good agreement was obtained. The experimental
data available are, however, too limited to conclude whether the
good agreement is a coincidence. Further testing is needed to ex-
plore the capacity of the proposed model.
In the European timber design code, a concept of considering
the maximum shear force on either side of a connection rather than
considering the total load on the connection is applied. According
to this concept, the splitting capacity of a beam loaded at midspan is
50% higher than the capacity of the same beam loaded at quarter-
span. This, however, is in disagreement with experimental results,
which unanimously show that the capacity is the same for beams
loaded at midspan and at quarter-span.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 02/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
It is in the German timber design code assumed that the splitting
capacity of a timber beam is proportional to the perpendicular-to-
grain tensile strength of the wood, and that the perpendicular-
to-grain tensile strength is the only strength parameter affecting the
splitting capacity. However, the research reported in this paper
show that the mean splitting failure capacity of Radiata pine
LVL was approximately twice that of Douglas fir glulam despite
the fact that the measured mean perpendicular-to-grain tensile
strength of the Radiata pine LVL was lower than that of the Douglas
fir. This indicates that fracture energy may play an important role.
The proposed semiempirical generalization of a quasi-nonlinear
fracture mechanics model, which predicts the influence of both
the perpendicular-to-grain tensile strength and the fracture energy,
may be a key to understanding the splitting behavior of different
wood species and products.
Acknowledgments
Funding of the research reported in this paper was provided by the
New Zealand Structural Timber Innovation Company (STIC), by
the County Administrative Board in Norrbotten, the Regional
Council of Västerbotten (Sweden), and by the European Union’s
Structural Funds (the Regional Fund). The funding is greatly
appreciated. The work done by undergraduate students Rui Li,
Nelson Veerasingam, Rayan Hoshino, and HarithBarakat, who
did much of the experimental aspect of the research reported in this
paper during their final-year projects at the University of Auckland,
is acknowledged and appreciated.
References
Ballerini, M., and Rizzi, M. (2007). “Numerical analysis for the prediction
of the splitting strength of beams loaded perpendicular-to-grain by
dowel-type connections.” Mater Struct., 40(1), 139–149.
Canadian Standards Association. (2009). “Engineering design in wood.”
CSA O86-09, Toronto.
CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation). (2003). “Timber structures—
Structural timber and glue laminated timber—Determination of some
physical and mechanical properties.” EN 408, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation). (2004). “Design of timber
structures.” EN 1995-1-1:2004, Brussels, Belgium.
DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung). (2008). “Draft. Analysis and design
of timber structures—Basic rules for analysis and design of building
structures.” DIN 1052:2008, Berlin.
Gustafsson, P. J. (1988). “A study of strength of notched beams.” Proc., Int.
Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction,
Rotterdam, Netherlands.
© ASCE 04015026-10
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(11): 04015026
Gustafsson, P. J. (2003). “Fracture perpendicular to grain—Structural
applications.” Timber engineering, S. Landersson and H. J. Larsen,
eds., Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
Hindman, D. P., Finkenbinder, D. E., Loferski, J. R., and Line, P. (2010).
“Strength of sawn lumber and wood composite connections loaded
perpendicular to grain: Fracture mechanics equations.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000141, 1226–1234.
Jensen, J. L. (2005a). “Quasi-non-linear fracture mechanics analysis
of splitting failure in moment-resisting dowel joints.” J. Wood Sci.,
51(6), 583–588.
Jensen, J. L. (2005b). “Quasi-non-linear fracture mechanics analysis of
splitting failure in simply supported beams loaded perpendicular to
grain by dowel joints.” J. Wood Sci., 51(6), 577–582.
Jensen, J. L. (2005c). “Quasi-non-linear fracture mechanics analysis of
the splitting failure of single dowel joints loaded perpendicular to
grain.” J. Wood Sci., 51(6), 559–565.
Jensen, J. L. (2005d). “Splitting strength of beams loaded perpendicular to
grain by dowel joints.” J. Wood Sci., 51(5), 480–485.
Jensen, J. L., Gustafsson, P. J., and Larsen, H. J. (2003). “A tension fracture
model for joints with rods or dowels loaded perpendicular to grain.”
Proc., Int. Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Con-
struction, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Jensen, J. L., Quenneville, P., Girhammar, U. A., and Källsner, B. (2012).
“Splitting of timber beams loaded perpendicular to grain by
connections—Combined effect of edge and end distance.” Constr.
Build. Mater., 35, 289–293.
Kasim, M., and Quenneville, P. (2002). “Effect of row spacing on the
capacity of bolted timber connections loaded perpendicular-to-grain.”
Proc., Int. Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Con-
struction, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Larsen, H. J., and Gustafsson, P. J. (2001). “Dowel joints loaded
perpendicular to grain.” Proc., Int. Council for Research and Innovation
in Building and Construction, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Patel, M. C., and Hindman, D. P. (2012). “Comparison of single- and
two-bolted LVL perpendicular-to-grain connections. II: Fracture mod-
els.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000304,
339–346.
Schoenmakers, J. C. M. (2010). “Fracture and failure mechanisms in timber
loaded perpendicular to grain by mechanical connections.” Ph.D. thesis,
Univ. of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Serrano, E., and Gustafsson, P. J. (2006). “Fracture mechanics in timber
engineering–Strength analyses of components and joints.” Mater.
Struct., 40(1), 87–96.
van der Put, T. A. C. M. (2013a). “Discussion of ‘Strength of sawn lumber
and wood composite dowel connections loaded perpendicular to
grain. I: NDS design equations’ by Daniel P. Hindman, David E.
Finkenbinder, Joseph R. Loferski, and Philip Line.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000355, 1143–1147.
van der Put, T. A. C. M. (2013b). “Discussion of ‘Strength of sawn
lumber and wood composite dowel connections loaded perpen-
dicular to grain. II: Fracture mechanics equations’ by Daniel P.
Hindman, David E. Finkenbinder, Joseph R. Loferski, and Philip
Line.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000317,
1147–1150.
van der Put, T. A. C. M., and Leijten, A. J. M. (2000). “Evaluation of
perpendicular to grain failure of beams caused by concentrated loads
of joints.” Proc., Int. Council for Research and Innovation in Building
and Construction, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Yasumura, M. (2002). “Determination of fracture parameter for dowel-type
joints loaded perpendicular to wooden grain and its application.” Proc.,
Int. Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction,
Rotterdam, Netherlands.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.