Eur. J. Wood Prod.

(2016) 74:793–807
DOI 10.1007/s00107-016-1058-6

ORIGINAL

Influence of different types of reinforcements on the embedment

behavior of steel dowels in wood
Wolfgang Lederer1 • Thomas K. Bader 1 •
Gerhard Unger 1 •
Josef Eberhardsteiner1

Received: 21 May 2015 / Published online: 9 June 2016

Ó The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract In this study, dowel displacement-embedment 1 Introduction

stress relationships for different types, numbers and posi-
tions of reinforcements were experimentally investigated The embedment behavior of dowel-type fasteners in wood
using a half-hole embedment test setup. Tests were per- is an important characteristic in the design of timber con-
formed parallel to the grain and in compression. Screws nections and strongly influences their strength. For the
with a full or partial thread at different positions below the experimental characterization of embedment properties,
dowel and oriented strand board, plywood and nail plates different test standards (EN 383 2007; ASTM D5764-97a
on the loaded surfaces of the specimens, served as rein- 2013; ISO 10984-2 2009) exist, which follow the same
forcements. Test results underline their potential for an principles but deviate in some details in the calculation of
increased ductility of dowel-type connections. Comparison embedment properties (see e.g. Franke and Magnière
of reinforced and unreinforced specimens suggests pre- 2014). Essentially, the embedment strength as the average
mature failure of the unreinforced wood and consequently, stress under the steel dowel at the maximum load up to a
an underestimation of the embedment strength as it is specific dowel displacement, is determined and subse-
subsequently used in the design of dowel connections using quently used in the strength calculation of connections. The
the European yield model. This was supported by the maximum admissible displacement of a dowel is 5 mm
investigation of cracks on the surface of the specimens according to EN 383, while ASTM D5764-97a prescribes a
visualized by means of a full-field deformation measure- 5 % (of the fasteners diameter)-offset method for the cal-
ment system. It could be demonstrated that the strength in culation of the embedment strength.
the embedment test even further increases if the rein- A particular advantage of dowel-type connections is
forcement elements actively contribute to the load transfer. their ductile behavior, which allows for large relative
This property however cannot be considered as embedment deformations and rotations between timber elements
strength, but represents the strength of a connection sys- (Jorissen and Fragiacomo 2011; Brühl et al. 2011). Under
tem. Test data is compared to the design equation in such conditions, large dowel displacements are encoun-
Eurocode 5. tered. Similar to embedment testing, large displacements
are only possible if splitting of the specimen along the
grain direction of the wood, due to tensile stresses per-
pendicular to the grain, is avoided. For this purpose, testing
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this and design standards prescribe minimum specimen
article (doi:10.1007/s00107-016-1058-6) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
dimensions and dowel spacing. However, the maximum
displacement for the determination of embedment proper-
& Wolfgang Lederer ties is 5 mm. Alternatively, several different types of
[email protected] reinforcement are available and applied in practical appli-
1 cations to ensure a ductile behavior. In order to account for
Institute for Mechanics of Materials and Structures, Vienna
University of Technology, Karlsplatz 13/e202, 1040 Vienna, the high ductility of reinforced connections, also embed-
Austria ment tests should be conducted up to large displacements,

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

794 Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807

i.e. far beyond the current limit of 5 mm. Thus, rein- investigation of the effect of reinforcements on embedment
forcements should also be used in embedment testing to properties.
avoid premature splitting of the test specimen.
Embedment tests on wood have been performed by
many researchers and on different types of softwood and 2 Materials and methods
hardwood. The design equation in the European standard
for the design of timber structures (EN 1995-1-1 2004) is In total, 10 test series with different types of reinforce-
based on experimental work by Ehlbeck and Werner ments were conducted with one additional test series
(1992) and Whale and Smith (1986), as documented for without reinforcement, which served as a reference. The
example in Sandhaas et al. (2013). The latter discusses reinforcement measures can be divided into two main
embedment characteristics over a broad range of densities groups, namely those with screws as dowel-type rein-
and also ductility aspects as regards different wood species. forcement and those with engineered wood products and
Data for the influence of reinforcements on the nail plates as surface reinforcement. Additionally, embed-
embedment properties measured in embedment tests is ment properties of oriented strand board (OSB) and ply-
scarce and mostly limited to the above mentioned dis- wood have been assessed in order to complement the
placement limit. Strengthening solutions based on adhe- experimental database.
sively bonded reinforcement techniques were
experimentally investigated in embedment tests by Santos 2.1 Wood specimens and test setup
et al. (2010). Bejtka (2005) studied dowel connections
reinforced with self-tapping screws and developed analyt- Preparation of wood specimens was based on the require-
ical formulas for their design. Blass et al. (2000) investi- ments for half-hole test specimen proposed by ASTM
gated the potential of nail plates as reinforcement of dowel- D5764-97a (2013), because this setup is particularly prone
type connections and observed an increased bearing to splitting of the wood specimens. The setup is illustrated in
strength of such connections, since an additional load was Fig. 1 for the two different types of reinforced specimens.
transferred through the nail plate. Similarly, other types of Tests were performed as compression tests and the load was
high strength materials (e.g. plywood, laminated veneer applied displacement-controlled through a rough steel plate
lumber, etc.) were used on the side faces of the wood to of steel quality S 325 and a thickness of 8 mm. This steel
reinforce the connection perpendicular to the grain (Larsen plate was connected to an electrolytically galvanized dowel
and Jensen 2000; Rodd and Leijten 2003). Since decades, with a diameter of 12 mm.
these materials are widely used in practical applications not All samples were prepared of Norway spruce (Picea
only for reinforcement of connections (Blass et al. 1988) abies) beams that were taken from a local wood trader.
but also for reinforcement of notches and holes (DIN EN Timber beams from strength classes C16, C24 and C30
1995-1-1/NA 2013). (according to EN 338 2003) were selected with the aim to
In the experimental work presented herein, the effect of obtain specimens with different densities, and thus, with
different types and numbers of reinforcements on the different mechanical properties. Cubic specimens of clear
embedment behavior of steel dowels with a diameter of wood without growth irregularities and with dimensions of
12 mm in wood was studied. In more detail, a half-hole test 100 9 100 9 100 mm3 were cut out and planed. Clear
setup according to ASTM D5764-97a is applied and cor- wood specimens have been used in order to avoid influ-
responding load-displacement characteristics of the rein- ences of growth irregularities on the embedment behavior
forced wood specimens loaded parallel to the grain, with (ASTM D5764-97a 2013). For drilling, two specimens
dowel displacements up to 30 mm, are studied. In this way, were put together and a 12 mm hole was produced with a
the suitability of reinforcements for the testing of embed- slot drilling machine. The center of this hole was located
ment properties up to large displacements will be assessed. right in the middle of the verge of the two samples so that
Results of embedment tests according to the ASTM two half-hole specimens were obtained (Fig. 1a). For two
D5764-97a were shown to be comparable to tests per- test series, the dimensions of the specimens differed due to
formed according to the European test method EN 383. the type and position of reinforcement. In these two cases
The embedment strength was similar, while a difference in of screws positioned close to the dowel, the length in the
the stiffness was observed (Franke and Magnière 2014; grain direction of the cubic specimens was 130 mm
Santos et al. 2010). One advantage of the ASTM test setup (Fig. 1a). Again, the hole with a diameter of 12 mm was
is the uniform load distribution, since a bending of the steel drilled with a slot drilling machine with its center at a
dowel is avoided. However, in general, the ASTM test height of 100 mm. Subsequently, two cuts with a band saw
setup is more prone to splitting and thus, was chosen for the established an open slot for the loading device (Fig. 1a).

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807 795

46 mm 8 mm 46 mm and 45 mm for OSB and plywood, respectively, which

(a)
vertical load were tested following the same procedure as outlined
44 mm below. SEMPAROC 60Ó (Collano Adhesives AG,
Switzerland) was used for all adhesive bonds. With a

30 mm
spreader, this glue was applied to the clean and dry surface
(100 to 300 g/m2 ) before the elements were pressed toge-
R6 mm ther for at least 4 h.
Before testing, all specimens were stored in a cli-

100 mm
mate chamber at 20 °C and 65 % relative humidity,
which yielded 12 % wood moisture content. The cor-
responding wood densities at 12 % wood moisture
content amounted to 384 to 512 kg/m3 and are speci-
mm
100 men-specifically documented. The density of the OSB
and the plywood panel amounted to 485 and 681 kg/m3 ,
respectively.
100 mm
2.2 Test series

In the following, a description of the individual test series

46 mm 8 mm 46 mm
(b) related to a specific type, position and number of rein-
vertical load forcements, is given. The test series are grouped into ref-
erence tests on unreinforced specimens, specimens with
dowel-type reinforcements, and specimens with surface
reinforcements. In order to be able to compute meaningful
average values and standard deviations, each test series
R6 mm
encompassed 11 replications.
100 mm

(1) Unreinforced reference specimens In this test

series, 11 unreinforced half-hole specimens without
B
OS o d reinforcement were tested. Since OSB and plywood
0 mmor lywo were used for surface reinforcement, additionally,
1 p
m 9 mm
10 0m their embedment behavior was investigated by means
B
OS o d of 4 specimens each.
mm r o
1 0 o p l yw (2) Dowel-type reinforcements In order to ensure a high
m
9m
100 mm accuracy in the position of the screws, holes with a
diameter of 4 and 6 mm for screws with a diameter of
Fig. 1 Embedment test setup with a dowel-type reinforced wood 6 and 8 mm were drilled with a slot drilling machine,
specimens, b surface reinforced wood specimens before the screws where finally placed into the
wooden specimens.
The minimum width and length of specimens according
to ASTM D5764-97a (2013) are 4 times the dowel diam- – 2 9 6 mm 2d: two screws SPAX HI.FORCEÓ
eter or 50 mm, while a minimum width of 6 and a mini- (producer: SPAX International GmbH & Co. KG)
mum length of 7 times the dowel diameter would be with a diameter of 6 mm and with a length of 100
required according to EN 383 (2007). Thus, the test spec- mm were placed at a distance of 2 times the dowel
imens used herein satisfy both requirements. diameter below the center of the dowel itself. As
The embedment behavior of OSB and plywood panels these screws have a partial thread they were
was tested as well. OSB 3 Kingspan TEKÓ (Kingspan screwed into the sample mirror-inverted at the
Insulation Ltd., UK) with a thickness of 10 mm and birch third points of the specimen width to account for a
plywood with a thickness of 9 mm (WISAÓ-BIRCH, UPM uniform and symmetric reinforcement (Fig. 2a).
Plywood, Finland) was used. For the purpose of embedment – 1 9 8 mm 2d: one fully threaded screw SPAX
testing, five plates with dimensions of 100 x 100 mm2 and a T-STAR plusÓ with a diameter of 8 mm and a
thickness of 10 and 9 mm, respectively, were glued toge- length of 180 mm was placed in the specimens at
ther. This resulted in test specimens with a thickness of 50 a distance of 2 times the dowel diameter below

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

796 Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807

Fig. 2 Test specimens with (a) TOP VIEW CROSS SECTION A-A
dowel-type reinforcements:
a for series 2 9 6 mm 2d; b for

24 mm
15 mm
series 1 9 8 mm 2d; c for series

30 mm
33 mm

6 mm
2 9 8 mm 2d; d for series

6 mm
2 9 6 mm contact; e for series 1

33 mm

30 mm 30 mm
9 8 mm contact

73 mm

76 mm
A A

6 mm
33 mm
44 mm 12 mm 44 mm 100 mm

(b) TOP VIEW CROSS SECTION A-A

14 mm

24 mm
50 mm

8 mm
72 mm

76 mm
50 mm
44 mm 12 mm 44 mm 40 mm 100 mm 40 mm

(c) TOP VIEW CROSS SECTION A-A

14 mm

24 mm
33 mm

8 mm
33 mm

72 mm

76 mm
33 mm
44 mm 12 mm 44 mm 40 mm 100 mm 40 mm

(d) TOP VIEW CROSS SECTION A-A

6 mm 24 mm
30 mm

12 mm
9 mm
30 mm
33 mm

6 mm
33 mm

30 mm 30 mm

91 mm

88 mm
6 mm
33 mm

44 mm 12 mm 44 mm 100 mm

(e) TOP VIEW CROSS SECTION A-A

8 mm 24 mm
30 mm

12 mm
10 mm
50 mm

90 mm

86 mm
50 mm

44 mm 12 mm 44 mm 40 mm 100 mm 40 mm

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807 797

and orthogonal to the dowel itself right in the (a) TOP VIEW FRONT VIEW
center of the sample (Fig. 2b). 46 mm 8 mm 46 mm

9 mm plywood
10 mm OSB
or
– 2 9 8 mm 2d: this test series is similar to the setup

6 mm
of 1 9 8 mm 2d with the difference that two
screws SPAX T-STAR plusÓ with a diameter of

100 mm
100 mm

94 mm
8 mm were used (Fig. 2c). OSB or plywood

– 2 9 6 mm contact: the same screws (SPAX

HI.FORCEÓ with a diameter of 6 mm) as for test

9 mm plywood
10 mm OSB
series 2 9 6 mm 2d, but placed right below the 100 mm

or
44 mm 12 mm 44 mm
dowel, were used in this series. Thus, the dowel
was in initial contact with the screws right from
the beginning of loading. As outlined in Sec-
tion 2.1, wood specimens are 30 mm longer in (b) TOP VIEW FRONT VIEW
46 mm 8 mm 46 mm

9 mm plywood
10 mm OSB
order to prevent splitting during the insertion of

or

6 mm
the screws (Fig. 2d).
– 1 9 8 mm contact: The same screw (SPAX
T-STAR plusÓ with a diameter of 8 mm) as for

100 mm

94 mm
OSB or plywood

test series 1 9 8 mm 2d, but placed right below

the dowel, is used in this series. Thus, the dowel

9 mm plywood
10 mm OSB
was in initial contact with the screw right from the 100 mm
beginning of loading. As outlined in Section 2.1, 44 mm 12 mm 44 mm

or
wood specimens are 30 mm longer in order to
prevent splitting during the insertion of the screws (c) TOP VIEW FRONT VIEW
(Fig. 2e). 46 mm 8 mm 46 mm

8 mm
51 mm
nail plate
(3) Surface reinforcements:
100 mm

94 mm
– 10 mm OSB without hole: Specimens in this test

41 mm
series were reinforced by 10 mm OSB 3 Kingspan
TEKÓ (Kingspan Insulation Ltd., UK) plates 44 mm 12 mm 44 mm 100 mm

which were glued onto each loaded side of the

specimens. The OSB plates were continuous Fig. 3 Test specimens with surface reinforcements: a for series 10 mm
OSB without hole and 9 mm plywood without hole; b for series 10 mm
without hole and the dowel loaded the wooden OSB with hole and 9 mm plywood with hole; c for series nail plate
part only (Fig. 3a). The thickness of the reinforced
specimens was 120 mm.
– 9 mm plywood without hole: Specimens in this
test series were reinforced by 9 mm birch ply- the difference that the plywood plates also
wood plates (WISAÓ-BIRCH, UPM Plywood, featured a half dowel hole and were loaded by
Finland) on each loaded side of the specimens. the steel dowel as well. Thus, aside the reinforce-
The plywood plates were continuous without hole ment action, the plywood plates actively con-
and the dowel loaded the wooden part only tribute to the embedding strength of these samples
(Fig. 3a). The thickness of the reinforced speci- (Fig. 3b).
mens was 118 mm. – Nail plate: Specimens in this test series were
– 10 mm OSB with hole: This test series is similar to reinforced by nail plates (SIMPSON Strong-Tie
the setup of 10 mm OSB without hole with the MP24Ó, Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc.,
difference that the OSB plates also featured a half USA) on each loaded side of the spcimens. The
dowel hole and were loaded by the steel dowel as nail plates with the original dimensions of
well. Thus, aside the reinforcement action, the 102 9 51 mm2 were cut off on both sides yield-
OSB plates actively contribute to the embedding ing dimensions of 50 9 51 mm2 , in order to
strength of these samples (Fig. 3b). prevent splitting on the sides of the wood
– 9 mm plywood with hole: This test series is similar specimens. The nail plates were then placed right
to the setup of 9 mm plywood without hole with below the hole for the dowel (Fig. 3c).

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

798 Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807

2.3 Testing procedure and deformation Fu 40

measurements
Fy
30
0.05 · d
Embedment tests were performed as compression tests and

force (kN)
conducted on a triaxial servo-hydraulic testing machine, Kser

20
manufactured by Walter & Bai, with a load cell of a
maximum load of 250 kN. Tests were performed dis- F04 0.8 · Fu

Kunl3

placement-controlled with a loading rate of 1 mm/min up 10

to failure or up to a maximum displacement of 30 mm. F01

Additionally, 4 unloading and reloading cycles were exe- 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
cuted with unloading at 5, 10, 15 and 30 kN. Only the
u01 u04 uu uy uf
unloading behavior at 15 kN is evaluated and discussed
displacement (mm)
herein. In order to eliminate creep deformations in the
unloading behavior, the load levels were held constant for Fig. 4 Visualization of the derivation of parameters
30 s before unloading.
In addition to the internally measured displacements of
the load unit, linear variable differential transformers by the full-field deformation measurement system. For
(LVDT) HBM WA/50 mm-T (Hottinger Baldwin specimens with reinforcing screws, a relative displacement
Messtechnik GmbH, Austria) with a measuring length of of the steel dowel with respect to the unloaded wood was
50 mm and a full-field deformation measurement device calculated based on the DIC measurements. This measure
were used to measure the displacements of the dowel. was not accessible for specimens with surface reinforce-
The full-field deformation measurement system was ments, where LVDTs were used and thus, an (absolute)
applied to all test series, except for series 10 mm OSB dowel displacement with respect to the rigid steel support
without hole and 9 mm plywood without hole, where was used instead. The corresponding mean value of the
LVDTs were used. The measurement system based on displacements was further used and plotted versus the
digital image correlation (DIC) enabled a full-field, non- vertical (loading) force. All load-displacement curves start
contact and three-dimensional measurement of surface with zero displacement at a load of 0.1 kN. Kser as the
deformations. Two cameras were focused on the front and initial loading stiffness is evaluated between 0.1 and 0.4
back face of the specimens, respectively. The system times the maximum load Fu . The corresponding displace-
Q-400 from Dantec Dynamics (Neu-Ulm, Germany) ments are denoted u01 , u04 and uu . In addition to the
including the evaluation software ISTRA 4D, with cameras maximum load, the yield load Fy at an off-set of 0.05 times
of the type Stingray F-504 from Allied Vision Technolo- the dowel diameter is calculated with the corresponding
gies (Stadtroda, Germany) with 5 MP CCD sensors displacement uy . The maximum displacement is denoted uf
(ICX655) and a resolution of 2452 9 2056 pixels, was and an unloading stiffness Kunl3 is evaluated as the maxi-
used. mum gradient of the third unloading path. The ductility of
During testing, images from all four cameras were the connection Df is calculated as the maximum dis-
acquired every 2 seconds as long as the difference of the placement uf over the yield displacement uy .
force from the triaxial servo-hydraulic testing machine
between two images was lower than 5 kN. Such sudden
changes in the applied force indicate the development and
propagation of cracks, so that at those events images with 3 Results and discussion
the shortest possible interval were made to document these
cracks sufficiently. The parameter values for the evaluation Experimental results of clear wood specimens are pre-
were set to the standard setting normal-good images with sented with a special focus on embedment stresses, in
maximum permissible values for the accuracy of 0.1 pixels, relation to the different reinforcement measures. The
the residuum of 20 gray values and the 3D residuum of 0.4 embedment stress rh in this context is defined as the
pixels. The facet size and the grid spacing deviated from average stress in the wood under the projected area of the
the standard setting and were set in the range of 17 to 21 steel dowel. Thus, it is calculated as the load divided by the
pixels, to allow for a uniform full-field evaluation. dowel diameter (12 mm) and the thickness of the wood
The evaluation procedure is visualized in Fig. 4 and specimen.
follows the corresponding standards for embedment testing The mean values (mean), as well as the standard devi-
(EN 383 2007; ASTM D5764-97a 2013). The displacement ation (SD) of all measured and calculated parameters are
of the dowel was evaluated on both sides of the specimen summarized in Table 1 for each test series. Tables with all

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807 799

Table 1 Overview of all tested specimens

No reinforcement
Unreinforced wood (displacement) Unreinforced wood (relative displacement) OSB plates Plywood panels

Number of Samples 11 11 4 4
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
3 422 28 422 28 485 0 681 0
q (kg/m )
Fu (kN) 23.69 2.23 23.69 2.23 14.78 0.27 47.27 0.59
rh;max 19.75 1.86 19.75 1.86 24.24 0.95 88.25 1.32
uu (mm) 3.00 0.38 1.50 0.53 10.30 2.14 25.76 3.83
Fy (kN) 23.26 2.19 22.99 2.02 12.26 0.83 28.70 0.85
uy (mm) 2.70 0.35 1.22 0.32 1.94 0.41 2.18 0.03
uf (mm) 4.75 1.37 3.13 1.44 27.04 0.09 – –
Kser (kN/mm) 12.92 1.24 55.14 16.60 – – – –
Kunl3 (kN/mm) 52.03 18.97 238 28 – – – –
Df (-) 1.81 0.65 2.75 1.43 – – – –
Dowel-type reinforcements
2 9 6 mm 2d 1 9 8 mm 2d 2 9 8 mm 2d 2 9 6 mm contact 1 9 8 mm contact

Number of Samples 12 12 10 12 12
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
q (kg/m3 ) 430 33 433 30 453 42 433 30 430 27
Fu (kN) 33.81 4.10 36.83 4.32 38.02 4.63 39.25 2.81 36.80 3.89
rh;max 27.12 2.81 30.05 4.89 26.54 3.47 32.11 2.99 29.69 4.69
uu (mm) 4.64 6.26 1.72 0.45 15.19 8.85 6.92 1.84 2.92 0.70
Fy (kN) 32.16 2.83 36.29 4.10 31.35 3.36 34.76 4.73 33.30 4.49
uy (mm) 1.60 0.24 1.69 0.48 1.70 0.38 2.94 1.13 1.92 0.36
uf (mm) 12.13 6.82 5.88 1.59 21.88 9.93 10.79 2.49 7.86 2.00
Kser (kN/mm) 48.84 15.20 56.82 32.15 46.45 24.37 23.18 10.59 40.72 18.62
Kunl3 (kN/mm) 234 36 195 86 275 102 199 59 239 98
Df (-) 7.81 5.01 3.64 0.98 12.95 6.28 4.40 2.68 4.21 1.28

Surface reinforcements
10 mm OSB without hole 9 mm plywood 10 mm OSB 9 mm plywood Nail plate
without hole with hole with hole

Number of Samples 12 11 12 12 11
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
q (kg/m3 ) 426 20 421 24 421 25 424 23 456.62 37.073
Fu (kN) 28.95 3.06 29.33 3.54 34.40 3.77 40.69 2.70 35.84 3.57
rh;max 23.83 3.21 22.67 6.69 27.61 4.14 33.17 2.72 29.38 3.54
uu (mm) 2.60 0.45 3.04 0.46 3.61 0.71 4.37 0.82 3.71 0.41
Fy (kN) 28.19 3.22 28.93 3.63 33.08 3.62 40.28 2.44 34.30 3.40
uy (mm) 2.22 0.28 2.74 0.32 3.51 0.74 4.31 0.82 3.07 0.58
uf (mm) 14.87 6.02 21.69 8.61 10.14 2.22 27.02 9.30 13.27 4.74
Kser (kN/mm) 22.81 5.56 18.16 3.66 14.23 2.11 13.26 3.69 17.45 4.70
Kunl3 (kN/mm) 128.77 103.45 80.43 24.83 33.11 3.99 42.48 22.35 42.83 7.05
Df (-) 6.80 2.82 8.00 3.52 3.00 0.84 6.61 2.76 4.26 0.94

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

800 Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807

(a) (b) studied herein increased the bearing capacity of the steel
dowel and increased the ductility of the embedment test
embedment stress (N/mm2 )

embedment stress (N/mm2 )

40 40 setup. Their individual characteristics are discussed in the
following.

3.1 Unreinforced reference specimens

20 20

As expected, unreinforced wood specimens of the refer-

ence test series failed due to splitting as a reason of tensile
0 0
stresses perpendicular to the grain due to the wedge action
0 5 10 0 5 10 of the dowel. This brittle failure corresponds to the sudden
displacement (mm) relative displacement (mm) drop of the embedment stress curve of this test series
(Fig. 5a). The onset of cracking started right below the
(c)
dowel at about 85–95 % of the maximum embedment
embedment stress (N/mm2 )

stress. The crack under the steel dowel propagated through

40
the entire specimen and, consequently, further load transfer
was impossible. The maximum embedment stress rh;max of
these samples was reached in between a dowel displace-
20 ment of 2 to 4 mm and the mean value of these maximum
embedment stresses rh;max amounted to 19.8 N/mm2
(Table 1). The value of 19.8 N/mm2 seems to be low
compared to previously published research data, see for
0
0 10 20 30 example Sandhaas et al. (2013). Reasons for this might be
displacement (mm) found in the ASTM test setup. Additionally, Sandhaas
et al. (2013) revealed an influence of the steel quality,
(d) which was most probably related to the surface roughness.
The strong effect of the steel dowel surface roughness was
embedment stress (N/mm2 )

80 also shown by Sjödin et al. (2008). Another effect that

might contribute to a higher risk for splitting is the rather
60
large width of the test specimen. A pronounced yield
40
behavior was missing, though the behavior of some spec-
imens suggested the onset of yielding with dowel dis-
20 placements of up to 8 mm.
Fig. 5a and b show the strong effect of the deformation
0 of the wood specimen when evaluating the stiffness of the
0 10 20 30
test setup. Using a relative displacement of the steel dowel
displacement (mm)
gave a stiffness value more than four times the stiffness
Fig. 5 Embedment stress-displacement curves for unreinforced using the absolute displacement.
reference test series: a unreinforced wood; b unreinforced wood; On the contrary, the engineered wood products used as
c OSB; d plywood surface reinforcements in the subsequently described test
series, exhibited a pronounced yield behavior under
parameter values for every single experiment are available
embedment testing. Both OSB and plywood showed this
in Online Resource 1.
characteristic up to dowel displacements of 30 mm
Embedment stress-displacement curves in combination
(Fig. 5c, d). This is explained by the inherent reinforcement
with surface strains perpendicular to the grain (exx ) were
of these materials due to cross-layers of wood strands and
evaluated as well. This allowed assessing the influence of
veneers, respectively. The mean value of the maximum
the reinforcement with different types of screws on the
crack evolution and propagation. The initial crack was embedment stresses rh;max amounted to 24.2 N/mm2 for
always detected right below the dowel and, in most cases, OSB and to 88.3 N/mm2 for plywood (Table 1). As for
prior to the maximum embedment stress. Crack propaga- OSB, the maximum embedment stress rh;max was observed
tion depended on the type of reinforcement. at dowel displacements of 11.3 mm, while a continuous
In general, compared to the reference setup of an increase of the embedment stress up to 30 mm dowel
unreinforced wood specimen, all types of reinforcements displacement was found for plywood. The latter is an effect

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807 801

(a) (b)

embedment stress (N/mm2 )

embedment stress (N/mm2 )

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
relative displacement (mm) relative displacement (mm)

(c) (d)
embedment stress (N/mm2 )

embedment stress (N/mm2 )

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
relative displacement (mm) relative displacement (mm)

(e)
embedment stress (N/mm2 )

40

20

0
0 10 20 30
relative displacement (mm)

Fig. 6 Embedment stress-displacement curves for test series with dowel-type reinforcements: a 2 9 6 mm 2d; b 1 9 8 mm 2d; c 2 9 8 mm 2d;
d 2 9 6 mm contact; e 1 9 8 mm contact

of the continuous veneer cross-layers, which are loaded illustrated in Fig. 6. A comparison of mean embedment
perpendicular to the grain. The corresponding embedment stress-displacement curves for the test series reinforced
behavior perpendicular to the grain shows a pronounced with screws is shown in Fig. 7.
hardening effect due to a rope effect in the wood fibers as Three test series with different types and numbers of
well as a compressed timber volume (see e.g. Schoen- screws positioned 2d below the dowel were conducted
makers and Svensson 2011). (2 9 6 mm 2d, 1 9 8 mm 2d & 2 9 8 mm 2d). The cor-
responding embedment stress-displacement relationships
3.2 Dowel-type reinforcements are illustrated in Fig. 6a-c. Compared to the unreinforced
situation, the reinforcing screws increased the mean value
Specimen-specific embedment curves of wood reinforced of the maximum embedment stresses rh;max to 27.1 and
with different types, position and number of screws are 26.5 N/mm2 for 2 9 6 mm 2d and 2 9 8 mm 2d

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

802 Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807

60 embedment stresses under the screws occured and, even

reference
more, additional tensile forces due to the bending of the
2x6 mm 2d
50 1x8 mm 2d screw developed. These individual load transfer mecha-
embedment stress (N/mm2 )

2x8 mm 2d nisms added to the embedment stress of the dowel and led to
2x6 mm contact an overall increase of the embedment stress. This phe-
40
1x8 mm contact
nomenon was particularly pronounced for specimens of
30 series 2 9 8 mm 2d, while an onset of this phenomenon was
visible in series 2 9 6 mm 2d. Specimens of the latter test
20 series tended to crack at displacements of 7 up to 12 mm,
while no (continuous) cracks were observed in test series
10
2 9 8 mm 2d up to displacements of about 5 mm. More-
over, brittle tensile failure of screws in series 2 9 6 mm 2d
was the reason for final failure.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Evaluation of crack propagation is exemplarily illustrated
relative displacement (mm) for one specimen of the test series 2 9 6 mm 2d in Fig. 8. For
Fig. 7 Compilation of mean embedment curves for series with specimens reinforced with two screws at a distance of 2d
dowel-type reinforcements (2 9 6 mm 2d and 2 9 8 mm 2d) the first crack evolved at a
larger displacement of the dowel and closer to the maximum
respectively (Table 1). For the test series 1 9 8 mm 2d the embedment stress compared to the reference specimens. The
mean value of the maximum embedment stresses rh;max crack then propagated downwards until it reached the screws
even increased to 30.1 N/mm2 . The relative small differ- at a displacement of the dowel of about 5 mm. At this dis-
ences in the mean maximum embedment stress for these placement the crack of the reference specimens typically
three different test series indicate that the corresponding already reached the bottom of the specimen, which initiated
types of screws, their dimensions, number and position, are complete failure. Hence the reinforcement with two screws
equally well capable of taking the occurring splitting at a distance of 2d leads to a stable crack growth. When the
forces. crack reached the bottom of the specimens, a load drop of
The different number and dimensions of screws posi- about 3–4 N/mm2 was observed in the load-displacement
tioned 2d below the dowel take effect on the structural curves. However, this did not initiate complete failure of the
behavior at increased dowel displacements. After a stress entire specimen. Crack evolution and propagation of the
peak, at a displacement between 2.1 and 3.7 mm (Fig. 7), a 1 9 8 mm 2d test series however were more similar to the
softening behavior in the stress-displacement curves was reference specimens than to the specimens reinforced with
encountered. This is due to the fact that vertical cracks two screws at a distance of 2d. In this case, the first crack
right below the dowel occured. Despite these cracks there evolved at about 95 % of the maximum embedment stress.
were no sudden stress drops, as observed in unreinforced The crack then propagated downward and reached the screw
specimens. The softening behavior was strongest for test shortly after the maximum embedment stress was reached.
series 1 9 8 mm 2d, where failure of the specimens At a displacement of about 5 mm of the dowel the crack
occurred at dowel displacements of about 10 to 12 mm. reached the bottom of the specimen.
Thus, a single screw with a diameter of 8 mm could Two test series with screws in contact with the dowel were
obviously not take the splitting force. conducted (2 9 6 mm contact, see Fig. 6d, and 1 9 8 mm
A different behavior at large dowel displacements was contact, see Fig. 6e). As outlined above, the screws in these
found for the test series with 2 screws (2 9 6 mm 2d and test series were directly loaded by the dowel in addition to
2 9 8 mm 2d). After the stress peak at dowel displace- the loading they received acting as a lateral reinforcement.
ments of 2.8 to 4.4 mm the embedment stress curves Thus, embedment stresses in the wood under the screw and
showed a slight decrease for both test series. This decline tensile stresses in the axial direction of the screw devel-
of the curves continued up to a displacement of 13 to 14 oped. As a consequence, the observed embedment stresses
mm. At this point, specimens of the test series 2 9 8 mm 2d were slightly higher compared to the other test series with
and some specimens of the test series 2 9 6 mm 2d started screws 2d below the dowel. Strictly speaking, the strength
to take up load again and, consequently, the embedment of these test specimens should not be denoted embedment
stress increased. This is due to the fact that the dowel got in strength since actually a connection system was tested. The
contact with the screws. Thus, screws did not only absorb maximum stress was found at slightly larger dowel dis-
the splitting forces perpendicular to the grain, but they were placements of 5.0–7.5 mm (Fig. 7) compared to an overall
also directly loaded by the dowel. Therefore, additional mean dowel displacement of 3.0 mm for the other test

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807 803

(a)

40

embedment stress [N/mm2 ]

30 First crack
crack reaches screw
crack reaches bottom

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
displacement [mm]

(b) (c) (d)

1.2 1.2 1.2

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-1.2 -1.2 -1.2

Fig. 8 Strain fields of surface strains perpendicular to the grain exx displacemet); c Crack reached the screws (4.88 mm dowel displace-
(%) obtained from DIC for the identification of crack evolution for ment); d crack reached the bottom of the sample (8.92 mm dowel
2 9 6 mm 2d: a exemplary embedment stress-dowel displacement displacement)
curve for test series 2 9 6 mm 2d; b First crack (3.17 mm dowel

series with screws. Failure of the two test series with 1 9 8 mm contact was decisively different. There were two
screws in contact with the dowel was initiated by a brittle reasons for this. Firstly, 8 mm screws had a more ductile
failure of screws with a diameter of 6 mm and by a behavior then 6 mm screws. The second reason was that one
withdrawal failure of the screw with a diameter of 8 mm, screw right in the middle of the specimen was not capable of
respectively. Thus, the two configurations allowed for a preventing the propagation of cracks equally well as two
limited ductility of the test setup. screws. Therefore, the first crack appeared at a dowel dis-
Only minor variations in the stiffness of specimens with placement of 3 to 4 mm, clearly before the maximum
reinforcing screws were found (see Fig. 7). Reinforced embedment stress was reached. Additionally, the crack
specimens did not exhibit a higher stiffness even for growth was not as stable as the one from the test series
specimens with screws in contact with the dowel. 2 9 6 mm contact and reached the bottom of the specimen
For the specimens of the test series 2 9 6 mm contact the at a dowel displacement of 6–7 mm.
first crack could be identified in the DIC images close to the
yield force at a dowel displacement of about 4–6 mm. After 3.3 Surface reinforcements
the crack initiation a stable crack growth could be observed
until the crack reached the bottom of the specimen at a dowel Specimen-specific embedment curves of wood specimens
displacement above 10 mm. The complete cracking of the reinforced on the surface with different types of engineered
whole specimen initiated overall failure of the specimen, as wood products and nail plates are illustrated in Fig. 9. A
shortly afterwards the screws experienced a brittle failure as comparison of mean embedment stress-displacement curves
well. The cracking of the specimens of the test series for the same test series is shown in Fig. 10.

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

804 Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807

(a) (b)

embedment stress (N/mm2 )

embedment stress (N/mm2 )

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
displacement (mm) displacement (mm)

(c) (d)
embedment stress (N/mm2 )

embedment stress (N/mm2 )

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
displacement (mm) displacement (mm)

(e)
embedment stress (N/mm2 )

40

20

0
0 10 20 30
displacement (mm)

Fig. 9 Embedment stress-displacement curves for test series with surface reinforcements: a 10 mm OSB without hole; b 9 mm plywood without
hole; c 10 mm OSB with hole; d 9 mm plywood with hole; e nail plate

In two test series, engineered wood products were used while plywood panels showed no failure up to a dowel
as surface reinforcement with the dowel only loading the displacement of 30 mm.
wood specimen (10 mm OSB without hole and 9 mm ply- A different overall behavior was observed for specimens
wood without hole). For both test series, the embedment with OSB and plywood reinforcement, where the rein-
stress-dowel displacement relationships showed a very forcement was additionally loaded by the dowel (10 mm
ductile behavior (Fig. 9a, b). The corresponding mean OSB with hole, see Fig. 9c, and 9 mm plywood with hole,
value of the maximum embedment stresses rh;max of 23.8 see Fig. 9d). In this case, the embedment stresses were
and 22.7 N/mm2 were observed at dowel displacements of calculated as the average stress over the entire thickness of
2.6 and 3.0 mm for the tests with OSB and plywood the test specimen, i.e. 118 and 120 mm, respectively. The
reinforcement, respectively (Table 1). Thus, as compared corresponding mean values of the maximum embedment
to the reference wood specimens, a slightly higher stresses rh;max were considerably higher compared to the
embedment stress was found. Some of the OSB reinforced other test series with surface reinforcement and amounted
specimens failed due to a tension failure of the OSB plates, to 27.6 and 33.2 N/mm2 at dowel displacements of 4.4 and

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807 805

60 3.6 mm for the OSB and plywood reinforced samples,

reference
respectively (Table 1). Due to the parallel setup of the
OSB without hole
50 plywood without hole individual layers, namely wood and OSB or plywood,
embedment stress (N/mm2 )

OSB with hole respectively, the higher yield strength in the embedment
40 plywood with hole behavior of plywood increased the stresses in the rein-
nail plate
forced test setup. As regards the OSB reinforced speci-
30 mens, the additional loading caused crushing of the OSB
plates, which led to a severe damage and, consequently, to
20 failure of the reinforcing plates. However, a slightly
increased embedment strength was observed. Failure of the
10
corresponding specimens is observed at displacements of
about 9.0–17.5 mm. On the contrary, there was no failure
0
of the plywood reinforced wood specimens.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 The behavior of the specimens reinforced with nail
displacement (mm) plates was comparable to the test series 9 mm OSB with
Fig. 10 Compilation of mean embedment curves for series with hole. Similar to the test series discussed before, due to the
surface reinforcements positioning close to the steel dowel, nail plates were loaded
by the dowel. Thus, a slightly higher embedment stress
compared to test series 9 mm OSB without hole and 10 mm
40
plywood without hole, was observed. The mean value of
the maximum embedment stresses rh;max was 29.4 N/mm2
embedment strength (N/mm2 )

30 (Table 1). The subsequent failure behavior was comparable

to the test series 9 mm OSB with hole and failure was
observed at displacements of about 10 mm. Due to the
20 fh,m acc. to EC5 loading of the nail plate, it started to bend outwards and
reference
2x6 mm 2d
thus, the nails were pushed out of the wood. As a conse-
1x8 mm 2d quence, transversal tension forces due to the embedment of
10 2x8 mm 2d the steel dowel could not be transferred and the wooden
2x6 mm contact
1x8 mm contact specimen started to split.
0
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 3.4 Comparison of experimental results
bulk density (kg/m3 ) with Eurocode 5
Fig. 11 Embedment strength of dowel-type reinforced specimens
compared with the embedment strength according to Eurocode 5 The embedment strength determined in the experiments is
compared to the embedment strength for dowel connec-
tions according to EN 1995-1-1 (2004). Following the
40 definitions of EN 383, the embedment strength fh from the
experiments is determined as the maximum embedment
embedment strength (N/mm2 )

stress or the embedment stress at a maximum displacement

30 of 5 mm, respectively. On the other hand, the equation in
Eurocode 5 for calculation of the embedment strength of
dowels reads as
20
fh,m acc. to EC5 fh ¼ 0:082  ð1  0:01  dÞ  q; ð1Þ
reference
OSB without hole
with d as the dowel diameter and q as the mass density of
10 plywood without hole
OSB with hole wood. Since individual test results are directly compared,
plywood with hole the corresponding (mean) values of the dowel diameter d =
nail plate
0 12 mm and of the specimen-specific density q are used in
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Eq.(1).
bulk density (kg/m3 )
The comparison of experimental data obtained in this
Fig. 12 Embedment strength of surface-reinforced specimens com- study and results of the Eurocode 5 based calculations is
pared with the embedment strength according to Eurocode 5 shown in Figs. 11 and 12. The measured embedment

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

806 Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807

strength of the unreinforced specimens lies considerably embedment strength in case of screws with contact to a
below and amounts to about 65 % of the values suggested dowel, in case of engineered wood products on the surfaces
by Eurocode 5. Possible reasons might be found in the and in case of nail plates loaded by the dowel, was higher
particular test setup, the surface roughness of the steel than for other reinforcements. For screws with a distance to
dowel and the comparably large width of the test speci- the dowel, a delayed contribution to the load transfer was
mens. On the contrary, the values determined for dowel- observed. If the load is at least partially transmitted through
type reinforced specimens are very close to the Eurocode 5 the reinforcement, the strength clearly has to be regarded as
values. Thus, reinforcements can be considered an appro- a structural property not only taking embedding into
priate measure to avoid premature splitting of the specimen account. Number, type and position of screws affected the
and thus, to ensure the determination of a plastic property post-failure behavior and the ductility of the test setup to
that will be further used in the calculation of the (plastic) different extents. Thus, a higher number of thicker screws
connection strength by means of the European yield model. yielded higher ductility of the connection. On the contrary,
Slightly higher embedment strength is found for the no clear trend for higher stiffness in case of screws in
screws-reinforcement directly below (in contact with) the contact with the dowel was found in this experimental
dowels, while the trend line for screws-reinforcement 2d investigation.
below the dowel is very close to the relationship given in The embedment strength determined on unreinforced
Eurocode 5. specimens was found to be low when compared with
As for surface-reinforced specimens, strength properties embedment strength values according to EN 1995-1-1
determined in the experiments are lower than correspond- (2004), since premature splitting of the specimen occurred
ing Eurocode 5 values, but higher compared to the unre- before considerable plastic deformations in the wood
inforced reference specimens. The strength is increased to underneath the dowel could develop. In the design of con-
values close to or even above Eurocode 5, in case of an nections using the European yield model, the embedment
additional loading of the reinforcement layers and in case strength is used as a plastic material characteristic, which
of reinforcement with nail plates. should therefore be determined in a corresponding test setup.
The ductile material response of wood under embedment
stresses should be separated from setup-specific brittle fail-
4 Conclusion and future work ure modes, even for large dowel displacements. Contrary to
the unreinforced specimens, embedment strength deter-
A comprehensive series of experiments was carried out in mined with reinforcements was close to or even higher than
order to investigate the influence of different types of Eurocode 5 values. The strength determined with rein-
reinforcements for dowel-type timber connections on the forcements in contact with the dowel should however be
embedment behavior of wood parallel to the grain. For this considered as strength of a connection system rather than an
purpose, a test setup according to ASTM D5764-97a embedment characteristic.
(2013) was chosen, since this testing procedure is partic- The test data illustrate the potential of reinforcements in
ularly prone to splitting of the wood. Clear wood speci- the determination of embedment characteristics up to high
mens were reinforced with different types and numbers of dowel displacements, even in case of limited specimen
screws, different engineered wood products and nail plates. dimensions and test configurations which are prone to
Test results underline the high potential of these rein- splitting. Beneficial characteristics of reinforcements, such
forcement techniques for an increased ductility of dowel- as the high ductility and an additional load transfer by the
type connections. Unreinforced wood failed due to split- reinforcement, can also be exploited in dowel connections
ting, at dowel displacements of less than 5 mm, while in timber structures. For this purpose, future research
displacements of up to 30 mm were possible with several should be directed towards an assessment of reinforced
different reinforcements. The comparison of reinforced and connections under consideration of practical issues related
unreinforced specimens suggests a premature failure of the to the manufacturing and execution of connections.
unreinforced wood and consequently, an underestimation In this context the influence of growth irregularities on
of the actual embedment strength. For this reason, such connections should also be investigated.
embedment strength of reinforced specimens was higher
compared to the unreinforced situation. This was supported Acknowledgments Open access funding provided by [TU Wien
(TUW)]. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of
by the investigation of cracks on the surface of the speci- the Austrian Research Promotion Agency and the wood industry
mens using a full-field deformation measurement system. partnership Building with Wood within CEI-Bois for funding the
It could be demonstrated that the embedment strength research work within project MechWood 2. This work forms part of
even further increases if the reinforcement elements that project. The MechWood 2 research partners are thanked for their
cooperation and collaboration in this project.
actively contribute to the load transfer. Therefore, the

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Eur. J. Wood Prod. (2016) 74:793–807 807

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the for buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN),
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// Bruxelles, Belgium
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted EN 338 (2003) Structural timber - strength classes. European
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give Committee for Standardization (CEN), Bruxelles, Belgium
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a EN 383 (2007) Timber structures - test method - determination of
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were embedment strength and foundation values for dowel type
made. fasteners. European Committee for Standardization (CEN),
Bruxelles, Belgium
References Franke S, Magnière N (2014) Discussion of testing and evaluation
methods for the embedment behavior of connections. Proceed-
ASTM D5764–97a (2013) Standard test method for evaluating ings of the International Network on Timber Engineering
Dowel-Bearing strength of wood and wood-based products, Research. INTER/47-7-1, Bath, United Kingdom
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). West ISO 10984-2 (2009) Timber structures - dowel-type fasteners - Part 2:
Conshohocken, PA, USA Determination of embedding strength. International Organiza-
Bejtka I (2005) Verstärkung von Bauteilen aus Holz mit Voll- tion for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland
gewindeschrauben (Reinforcement of structural timber compo- Jorissen A, Fragiacomo M (2011) General notes on ductility in timber
nents with fully threaded screws). Karlsruher Berichte zum structures. Eng Struct 33:2987–2997
Ingenieurholzbau, Band 2, Universitätsverlag Karlsruhe, Larsen HJ, Jensen JL (2000) Influence of semi-rigidity of joints on the
Germany behaviour of timber structures. Prog Struct Eng Mater 2:267–277
Blass HJ, Schmid M, Litze H, Wagner B (2000) Nail plate reinforced Rodd PD, Leijten AJM (2003) High-performance dowel-type joints
joints with dowel-type fasteners. Proceedings of the World for timber structures. Prog Struct Eng Mater 5:7789
Conference on Timber Engineering 2000, Whistler, British Sandhaas C, Ravenshorst GJP, Blass HJ, van de Kuilen JWG (2013)
Columbia, Canada. Proceedings pp 8641–8646 Embedment tests parallel-to-grain and ductility aspects using
Blass HJ, Werner H (1988) Stabdübelverbindungen mit verstärkten various wood species. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 71:599–608
Anschlussbereichen (Dowel-type connections with reinforced Santos CL, de Jesus AM, Morais JJ, Lousada JL (2010) A comparison
connection areas). Bauen mit Holz 90:601–607 between the EN 383 and ASTM D5764 test methods for dowel-
Brühl F, Kuhlmann U, Jorissen A (2011) Consideration of plasticity bearing strength assessment of wood: experimental and numer-
within the design of timber structures due to connection ductility. ical investigations. Strain 46:159174
Eng Struct 33:3007–3017 Santos CL, de Jesus AM, Morais JJ, Fontoura BF (2013) An
DIN EN 1995-1-1/NA (2013) Nationaler Anhang - National fest- experimental comparison of strengthening solutions for dowel-
gelegte Parameter - Eurocode 5: Bemessung und Konstruktion type wood connections. Constr Build Mater 46:114–127
von Holzbauten - Teil 1-1: Allgemeines - Allgemeine Regeln Schoenmakers JCM, Svensson S (2011) Embedment tests perpendic-
und Regeln für den Hochbau (National Annex - Nationally ular to the grain - optical measurements of deformation fields.
determined parameters - Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures Eur J Wood Wood Prod 69:133–142
- Part 1-1: General - Common rules and rules for buildings). Sjödin J, Serrano E, Enquist B (2008) An experimental and numerical
Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN), Berlin, Germany study of the effect of friction in single dowel joints. Holz Roh
Ehlbeck J, Werner H (1992) Softwood and hardwood embedding Werkst 66:363–372
strength for dowel-type fasteners. CIB-W18 Meeting 25, Paper Whale LRJ, Smith I (1986) The derivation of design clauses for nailed
25-7-2, Ahus, Sweden and bolted joints in Eurocode 5. CIB-W18 Meeting 19, Paper
EN 1995-1-1 (2004) ? AC (2006) ? A1 (2008): Eurocode 5: Design 19-7-6, Florence, Italy
of timber structures - Part 1-1: General - common rules and rules

123

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

[email protected]