The Journal of Adhesion

ISSN: 0021-8464 (Print) 1545-5823 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gadh20

Fatigue of glued-in rods in engineered hardwood

products — part I: experimental results

S. Myslicki, O. Bletz-Mühldorfer, F. Diehl, C. Lavarec, T. Vallée, R. Scholz & F.

Walther

To cite this article: S. Myslicki, O. Bletz-Mühldorfer, F. Diehl, C. Lavarec, T. Vallée, R. Scholz & F.
Walther (2019) Fatigue of glued-in rods in engineered hardwood products — part I: experimental
results, The Journal of Adhesion, 95:5-7, 675-701, DOI: 10.1080/00218464.2018.1555477

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2018.1555477

Published online: 31 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 191

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gadh20
THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION
2019, VOL. 95, NOS. 5–7, 675–701
https://doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2018.1555477

Fatigue of glued-in rods in engineered hardwood

products — part I: experimental results
S. Myslickia,b, O. Bletz-Mühldorferc, F. Diehlc, C. Lavarecb, T. Vallée b
, R. Scholza,
and F. Walthera
a
Department of Materials Test Engineering, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany; bAdhesive
Bonding Technology, Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced Materials,
Bremen, Germany; cLaboratory of Timber Engineering, University of Applied Sciences Wiesbaden
Rüsselsheim, Wiesbaden, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Glued-in Rods (GiR) are among the high-performance joining Received 19 October 2018
technologies used in timber engineering. Engineering design Accepted 30 November 2018
procedures for GiR almost exclusively regulate softwood and KEYWORDS
softwood engineered wood products (EWP) under quasi-static Submitted online
loads. Since the use of hardwood is expected to significantly
increase due to climate change, and potentially establish itself
as predominant in Europe`s forests, GiR in combination with
hardwood and corresponding EWP need to be investigated.
Timber constructions subjected to cyclic loads are increasingly
being used, as for example in timber bridges, high rise buildings,
and wind turbine towers. No normative regulation is yet available
for fatigue of GiR, which is for most part due to incomplete or
completely missing experimental data. This paper is the first of
a two part series; it presents fatigue investigations on GiR in
combination with hardwood EWP with different types of rods,
wood species and adhesives. Further, the embedment length and
stress ratio were varried. In total, more than 70 cyclic tests were
performed resulting in a high number of SN-curves showing the
fatigue characteristics of GiR. The results show that two different
damage mechanisms exist: in low cycle fatigue range (LCF),
timber and adhesive fracture become dominant, while rod failure
is the limiting factor in high cycle fatigue range (HCF). Based upon
the documented experimental findings, existing standards for
cyclic load on softwood connection technologies were discussed.
The compagnion paper will present a design methodology based
on a wood damage accumulation, giving a complete picture
combined with existing metal fatigue models.

1. Introduction
1.1. Preamble
This paper is the first of a series of two; it focuses on experimental investigations,
starting with the fatigue characterisation of the GiR resulting in SN-curves by

CONTACT S. Myslicki sebastian.myslicki@tu-dortmund.de Department of Materials Test Engineering, TU

Dortmund University, Baroper Str. 30, Dortmund 44 227, Germany
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/gadh.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
676 S. MYSLICKI ET AL.

variation of the type of rod (threated rod, rebar and stainless steel rebars), the
timber species (Beech-GL, Oak-GL and Beech-LVL) and five different adhesives.
For the fatigue investigations presented in this paper, the constellations with best
quasi-stastic performances were selected from a previous investigation,[1] for
which the stress ratio and embedment length has been varried. The second part
of this two-paper series[2] describes a methodology based on finite element
simulation for predicting the lifetime of GiR. This methodology concentrates
on wood/adhesive damage accumulation, which can be combined with conven-
tional steel fatigue models to design the lifetime of GiR.

1.2. Timber joints with glued-in rods

In the past, timber constructions primarily relied on nails, screws or wood
dowels to connect structural elements, and still nowadays, the most common
joining method are mechanical fasteners, typically dowels, which are covered in
much detail in timber design standards such as DIN EN 1995-1-1[3] and
EuroCode 5.[4] Additionaly direct connecting methods, by means of dowels
type fasteners and adhesive bonding, do exist.[5] Adhesive bonding provides
an efficient method given correct design, suitable specifications and strict quality
control.[6,7] It is possible to combine the mentioned joining methods into
a “hybrid” joint,[8–10] to which class glued-in rods belong[11] since they involve
three materials (timber, rod and adhesive). Compared to dowel type mechanical
fasteners, timber joints with glued-in rods usually reach higher load capacities
and stiffness,[1,12] and are therefore the subject of research for several years.[13]
Due to the superior mechanical properties, rods glued into wood are often used
to refurbish decayed timber structures.[14] In the framework of the European
Glued-in Rods for Timber Project (GIROD), it was found that adhesives com-
monly used for glued-in rod (GiR) are phenol-resorcinol (PRF), epoxy-based
(EPX) and polyurethane based (PUR) adhesives; the study concluded that EPX
and PUR are the most appropriate.[15] Table 1 shows a list of adhesives that
obtained national technical approvals (NTA) in Germany. In several studies the
influence of the rod surface preparation, glue-line thickness,[16,17] rod anchorage
length,[18] temperature,[19,20] environmental conditions,[21,22] adhesive type,
wood type,[23] and wood moisture content,[24] on the capacity of GiR were
investigated. As one result, amongst other findings, it was recommended that
the glue-lines should be at least 2 mm, with further increases in thickness not
leading to capacity increases.
Grunwald et al.[1] presented results of extensive investigations on GiR
under predominantly static stress, in which over 180 individual tensile tests
on 60 different experimental constellations resulting from 5 adhesives, 3
types of wood and 4 types of bars were carried out and evaluated. The results
presented in this paper are based therupon. Overall, significantly higher
experimental strengths for the joint could be achieved, if compared to the
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 677

Table 1. Compilation of general type approvals for glued-in metallic rods into softwood with
their possible applications.
National
Technical
Approval Validity
(NTA) period Subject of approval/Applicant Application
Z-9.1–705 25.11.2016 2K-EPX adhesive WEVO special resin For predominantly static loads,
to EP32 S with WEVO hardener B 22 TS for cyclic loads for reinforced steel
25.11.2021 glued in steel rods into timber/WEVO- rods in softwood-GL bei
CHEMIE GmbH
Z-9.1–707 02.06.2016 2K-PUR-adhesive LOCTITE CR 421 For predominantly static loads
to PURBOND for glued in steel rods into
02.06.2021 timber/Henkel & Cie. AG
Z-9.1–778 11.12.2017 2K-EPX-adhesive GSA-resin and GSA- For predominantly static loads
to hardener for glued in steel rods into
11.12.2022 timber/neue Holzbau AG
Z-9.1–791 16.06.2016 Connections with steel rods glued in fiber- For predominantly static loads
to parallel glulam wood for timber
16.06.2021 construction/Studiengemeinschaft
Holzleimbau e.V.

data from DIN EN 1995-1-1/NA: 2013-08: depending on the experimental

constellation average shear strengths between 9 N/mm2 and 17 N/mm2 were
measured, which clearly indicated the great potential of GiR in hard-
wood EWP.
Initially, tests on GiR started with single rods under axial tension, as is allowed
for a straightforward separation of parameters, as rod diameter dr, embedment
length lad, and edge distance e, on mechanical performance.[11,18,23] Based upon
decades of research, several failure modes have been identified for GiR in con-
junction with steel rods,[1] and illustrated by Figure 1. Rod failure through
yieldfing, illustrated by Figure 1, leads to ductile deformation. Rod fracture can
also be brittle, for example when fibre reinforced polymers are used.[25–29] The role
of the adhesive is to provide sufficient cohesive strength to transmit the load
between the rod and the wood, besides the necessary adhesion strength on both

Figure 1. Failure modes of glued-in rods under quasi-stastic load.

678 S. MYSLICKI ET AL.

Figure 2. Fatigue behavior for wood and selected fasteners according to DIN EN 1995–-
2:2010–12, NTA abZ Z-9.1–557 and NTA abZ Z-9.1–705.

structural members. Cohesive failure of the adhesive (Figures 1–2(a)) is directly

linked to its mechanical strength. Adhesive failure (Figures 1–2(b)) on the timber
or at the rod interface is depending upon the ability of the adhesive to properly
adhere on the respective surfaces; it is in principle dependent on the surface
condition of the substrates, although recent research pointed out the relative
robustness of GiR with regard to imperfections[12] and contaminations.[30]
Failure associated to the strength of wood can be localised shear failure around
the bond-line (Figures 1–3(a)), splitting of the wood (Figures 1–3(b)) which is
almost solely depending on the timber species and edge distances, and failure of
the timber member as a whole (Figures 1–3(c)). Additional complexity arises
when considering multiple rods, for which additional effects occur, like the
interaction of stress fields generated by individual rods.[31] For practitionners,
the preferred failure mode is rod tension failure, because of the ductility associated
with it. To enforce this failure mode, designers ensure that other potential failure
modes are excluded, usually by oversizing embedment lengths. However, from
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 679

a) b)

Figure 3. Sketch of test specimens with dimensions in mm. (a) Embedment length lad = 10d. (b)
Embedment length lad = 6d.

a scientific point of view, failure modes associated to the adhesive or the wood are
of interest, because they provide the leverage to exclude them.
Although GiR are being used in several European countries, the design
rules and performance requirements are not yet unified, and existing design
approaches of GiR under static loads are largely empiric.[32] DIN EN 1995-
1-1/NA: 2013-08, in conjunction with national technical approval (NTA),
specifies the design and construction approaches of most European coun-
tries; however, they are limited to static loads. For non-predominantly static
stresses like cyclic loads, a general normative regulation is not yet available,
due to incomplete or missing experimental data. The following contribution
gives an overview and provides new findings, with regard to the fatigue
behaviour, on the basis of a series of experiments.

1.3. Fatigue performance of timber connections

The fatigue behaviour of wood has been investigated under different loading
conditions, including tension, compression and bending;[33–37] the topic will
be discussed in much more detail in the second part of this publication. SN-
curves have been derived from a large number of constant amplitude tests
(CAT) with different load amplitudes. In most cases power law expressions
were derived, which resulted a linear log-log relationships between fatigue
strength and number of cycles. Depending on the applied stress level, the
fatigue characteristics in a SN-curve can be classified into different ranges: up
to 103–104 cycles are usually labelled low cycle fatigue (LCF), beyond that,
the range is termed high cycle fatigue (HCF). Typically, SN-curves show
a strong decreasing tendency up to a point, usually labelled fatigue strength,
where repeated loads do not decrease strength. Below fatigue strength,
materials can theoretically experience infinite load cycles, although there
are also materials without pronounced fatigue strength (for example
680 S. MYSLICKI ET AL.

aluminum, correspondingly without horizontal course of the SN-curve). No

consensus has been reached yet whether wood has real fatigue strength, but
as working hypothesis it is practical to assume that there will be no failure,
due to cyclic loading below a specific stress level.[33]
Due to the viscoelastic nature of wood, the effect of frequency for cyclic
testing has to be considered. Fatigue loads in civil enginnering occur at
different frequencies: pedestrians induce frequencies in the range of
0.8–2.0 Hz[38] while cyclic winds loads are in the range of 0.01 to 1.0 Hz;[39]
based thereupon, a testing frequency of 1 Hz was selected in.[16,37] Low
frequencies, however, result in significantly longer test duration. It has been
demonstrated in fatigue tests presented in[37] that a frequency of 5 Hz does not
lead to a temperature increase for beech wood. For a long time, practicing
timber engineers “steered away from the scientific approach”, as stated by Smith
et al.,[33] and the fatigue problem was approached with extremely conservative
design stresses. At this point, it is sufficient to remind the reader that the
fatigue properties of timber depend on a large amount of parameters, such as
wood moisture content (MC), gross density, load ratio R, loading frequency f,
and loading conditions which makes it difficult to take all parameters into
account, due to the required experimental effort.

1.4. Fatigue performance of timber connections with glued-in rods

Published work on the fatigue performance of GiR is very limited, and largely
focuses on the joint in combination with softwood. Bainbridge and
Harvey[16] investigated different GiR using several commercially available
adhesives under fatigue, and concluded that different adhesives behaved in
fundamentally different ways, with respect to the fatigue performance and
the failure mode. Mehrab and Martin[27] investigated the fatigue behaviour of
G-FRP rods bonded with EPX and showed that the EPX was sensitive to the
rate of loading and that the fatigue strength decreased as glue line thickness
increased, and that the glue-line thickness and rate of loading dictated the
mode of failure with the failure modes shifting from failure in the timber to
failure at the adhesive–rod interface and the fatigue life decreased as the peak
dynamic load increased.
From the normative point of view, the design and construction of
wooden bridges under non-predominantly static (fatigue-relevant) loads
is regulated in Germany by DIN EN 1995–2: 2010–12. In its Appendix A,
a simplified fatigue validation approach is presented, which is based on
a coefficient of strength reduction kfat, related to the number of load cycles
N to determine.
σ d; max
ffat; d
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 681

fk
ffat;d ¼ kfat 
γM; fat

1R
kfat ¼ 1  log ðβ  Nobs  tL Þ  0
aðb  RÞ
σ
R ¼ σ d;max
d;min
with -1 ≤ R ≤ 1

σd,max maximum design stress due to fatigue-relevant effects

ffat,d design coefficient of fatigue strength
kfat Coefficient for the reduction in strength due to the number of load
cycles
fk characteristic strength for static load
γM,fat Recommended partial safety factor for the fatigue checks = 1.0
R Ratio between minimum and maximum stress
σd,min minimum stress due to fatigue-relevant effects
σd,max maximum stress due to fatigue-relevant effects
a, b Fatigue coefficient to take into account the type of fatigue
Nobs Number of annual load cycles with constant amplitude
tL Design coefficient of the lifetime of the structure in years, according
to EN 1990:2002 (eg tL = 100 years)
N Number of load cycles with constant amplitude (= Nobs · tL)
β Coefficient to take into account the effects of damage to the structural
element considered; β = 1 without significant consequences or β = 3
with considerable consequences
In the calculation of kfat, two fatigue coefficients (a and b), which define
the degree of strength reduction, are involved. These are specified in
DIN EN 1995-2: 2010-12, Table A.1, but only for some wood strength
and for connections with dowels and dowel pins as well as nails (cf.
Table 2).
For GiR, however, the coeffoecients a and b required to calculate fatigue
strength are missing. Overall, there are only very isolated studies for GiR under
fatigue, which is mainly due to the time and cost intensive experimental effort

Table 2. Compilation of fatigue coefficients a und b for different construction details.

Coefficient a b
Timber components under compressive stresses (parallel or perpendicular to the fiber) 2.0 9.0
Timber components under bending and tension 9.5 1.1
Timber components under shear stress 6.7 1.3
Connections with dowels with d ≤ 12 mma 6.0 2.0
Connections with nails 6.9 1.2
Shear connectors according to NTA abZ Z-9.1–557 (für 0 ≤ R ≤ 1) 2.5 4.0
a
The values for dowels are based on a 12 mm thick dowel pin. Dowels with increased diameters can also
have worse fatigue properties
682 S. MYSLICKI ET AL.

required. A comprehensive investigation for fatigue was carried out, for exam-
ple, for wood-concrete composite constructions with shear connections.[40] On
the basis of the test results, the fatigue coefficients, a and b, for solid wood,
glulam and laminated veneer lumber were determined for this type of joint and
are regulated in the NTA Z-9.1-557. Furthermore, the fatigue behavior of steel
reinforced steel rods glued into softwood glued laminated timber (GLT) with
WEVO EP32 (also used for this paper) has been investigated. The corresponding
NTA, Z-9.1-705, contains information for fatigue verification. Compared to
DIN EN 1995-2: 2010-12,[41] the factor for strength reduction is determined
using the following approach, without explicitely mentioning the factors,
a and b:
kfat ¼ R2  0; 02064 logðβ  Nobs  tL Þ þ R  0; 05425 logðβ  Nobs  tL Þ
 0; 08029 logðβ  Nobs  tL Þ þ 1
Figure 2 illustrates the fatigue curves that result from the approaches outlined
above. In semi-logarithmic representation, starting from static load capacity,
they result in each case in a linear reduction of strength up to the predeter-
mined breaking load cycle number of N = 107.

1.5. Objectives
Most previous studies on the performance of timber joints with glued-in rods
focussed on determining the static short-term capacity, while extremely
limited studies were dedicated to determine their fatigue performance.
Those studies were limited to GiR in combination with softwood. The
objectives of the research presented herein were: i) to investigate the fatigue
performance of GiR in combination with hardwood; ii) determine the influ-
ence of a variaten of the joint members (rod, timber and adhesive) on the
fatigue performance, and; iii) determine the influence of embedment length
and stress ratio iv) draw conclusions for designing rules

2. Experimental investigations
2.1. Materials
Five different adhesives, listed in Table 3 with their mechanical properties,
were used: four two-component epoxy based systems (2K-EPX) and one two-
component polyurethane (2K-EPX).
In timber engineering the 2K-EPX Wevo 32 is widely used, especially for the
use of GiR in timber products as glued laminated timber (GLT) and laminated
veneer lumber (LVL), and is the only one within this study to have revceived
a national technical approval (NTA) for rebars glued-in softwood under fatigue
load. The two component epoxy (2K-EPX) Fischer FIS EM is an injection
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 683

Table 3. Adhesives with characteristics.

Fischer FIS EM Loctite VN Würth WIT PE
Adhesive 585 3146 Weicon PSC Wevo EP32 S 500
Manufacturer Fischer, Henkel, Weicon, Münster, Wevo, Würth,
Waldachtal, Düsseldorf, Germany Ostfildern, Künzelsau,
Germany Germany Germany Germany
Abbreviated FIS EM He 3146 We PSC Wevo 32 Wü 500
Type 2K-EPX 2K-PUR 2K-EPX 2K-EPX 2K-EPX
E-Modulous [GPa] 5.4 3.2 7.8 3.3 6.2
Tensile strength 37.6 31.6 24.5 43.7 40.7
[MPa]
Tg at max. E’ [°C] 53.0 54.9 49.5 51.7 54.3
Tg at max. tan δ [°C] 62.4 67.3 61.8 59.5 64.7

mortar for the combination of anchor rods or threated anchors with concrete.
Weicon’s We PSC was developed for high strength up to 220°C and is alumi-
nium filled 2K-EPX. The 2K-EPX Wü 500, from Würth, is an injection mortar
for the fixation of achor bars in concrete, for which it has received a NTA. The
only two component polyurethane (2K-PUR) within this study is He 3146,
a product still in development, provided by Henkel as a substitute for the
CR421, a well established 2K-PUR in timber engineering.[12]
Three types of rods were considered in this research: threated rods and
different two types of rebars. The threated rods were M16–8.8 (abbrev. Thr.
Rod), which a nominal diameter of ⌀ = 16 mm, and further specifications to
be found in DIN 978; threaded rods consisted of stock material from the
shop. The first rebar type was a standard B500B (Rebar, stock material) while
the second type was an Inoxripp4486 (SST) composed of corrosion resistant
steel grade 1.4482 (S32001, according to DIN 10088) delivered by
Scheibinox/Germany; both rebars had a nominal diameter of ⌀ = 16 mm
according to DIN 488. Three timber products, beech GLT, oak GLT and
beech LVL, were used. All of them where mechanically characterised in
a previous study,[1] as where the adhesives and the rods.
The embedment length lad and the stress ration R were varied according to
Table 4. In order to derive a SN curve, each configuration required 5 cyclic
tests and 3 quasi-static tensile tests to be performed. In total, more than 70
individual fatigue tests were carried out.

2.2. Experimental setup

To ensure that failure would occur in the wood/adhesive-interface, speci-
men dimensions were defined on the basis of previous quasi-static
investigations.[1] Specimens consisted of timber with cross-sectional
dimensions 120 x 120 x 580 mm3, with fibres aligned along the length
(Figure 3). This approach aimed at ensuring that the fatigue tests would
reveal the load capacity of the adhesive joints, and not that of the rods.
 684
S. MYSLICKI ET AL.

Table 4. Test configruations for fatigue investigations.

Beech-GL Beech-GL Beech-GL
Rod type Adhesive R = 0.1 R = 0.5 Iad Adhesive R = 0.1 R = 0.5 Iad Adhesive R = 0.1 R = 0.5 Iad
Threded rod 8.8 Wevo 32 4) × × 10d Wevo 32 4) × - 10d He 3146 2) × × 10d
(Th.rod) 10d He 3146 2) × × 10d,6d Wü 500 5) × - 10d
2)
Rebar BST 500 S He 3146 × × 10d Wevo 32 4) × × 10d
(Rebar) 10d He 3146 2) × - 10d
Rebar BST 500 B NR – Inoxripp 4486 (SST) Wevo 324) × × 10d
Fis EM 1) × × 10d,6d
We PSC 3) × - 10d
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 685

a) b)

Figure 4. Manufaturing of GiR by injection process. (a) Wevo EP32. (b). Würth 500.

With a nominal rod diameter of ⌀ = 16 mm, and holes with a diameter of

⌀ = 20 mm, an adhesive layer thickness of 2 mm resulted. The bond
length was lad = 160 mm (= 10 × d), and for some test configurations lad
= 96 mm (= 6 × d). Small holes with the diameter of ⌀ = 5 mm were
drilled at the basis of the rods for the adhesives to be injected. The rods
were then placed axially in the wood, with small plastic wedges used for
their centering. After the injection process, the small holes were clogged
with reinforced tape, and the samples were left to cure according to the
respective technical data sheets (Figure 4).
For the clamping of the GiR into the test device, a special articulated fork-
shaped device was designed and manufactured (see Figure 5). It ensured
a bending moment-free load transfer with two degrees of freedom. The rod
ends were fixed with conventional clamping devices. Additional tests were
performed for threaded rods and the two rebar types. Probes of each rod type
were bonded centrical into steel sleeves (Figure 6). The sleeves protruded at
least for a length of 2 × d over the clamping to prevent an influence of
transverse stresses due to the clamping.
Most fatigue tests were performed with a stress ratio of R = 0.1 (with
R = minimum Force Fmin/maximum Force Fmax). For seven test constella-
tions a stress ratio of R = 0.5 was set in order to derive the fatigue coeffi-
cients, a and b, on the basis of DIN EN 1995–2. The force was applied
sinusoidally with a constant force amplitude over the test duration (Figure 7)
at a frequency of f = 5 Hz, which proved low enough to prevent significant
internal heating. The specimens were tested until fracture, or until a defined
number of cycles (set in the range of N = 2 × 106–2.5 × 106) was achieved. All
specimens were stored and tested under laboratory conditions (23°C and
50% rel. hum.)
686 S. MYSLICKI ET AL.

Figure 5. Experimental test setup.

3. Results
3.1. Failure modes
In the low cycle fatigue range (LCF, N ≤ 103–104), the wood/adhesive-
interface repeatedly failed or wood splitting occurred, similarly to what had
been observed on the corresponding quasi-static tests.[1] For threaded rods
and the BST 500 S rebars, the failure mechanism changed at higher load
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 687

a) b) c)
Figure 6. Sample preparation and test setup for rods tested insulated. (a) Bonding rods into
sleeves. (b) Curing of the adhesive. (c) Fatigue testing.

Figure 7. Sinusoidal stress-time function with a stress ratio of R = 0.1 and R = 0.5.

cycles. In the high cycle fatigue range (HCF, N ≥ 104) the rods usually failed
by showing a typical fatigue fracture surface with a smooth fracture surface,
where crack propagation took place. The crack initiated at the threads for the
threated rods, and at the transition from a rib to the inner diamter of the
textured rebar surface.
688 S. MYSLICKI ET AL.

In the tests with Inoxripp4486, which consisted of stainless steel, a change

of the failure mode was not observed, and the wood/adhesive-interface
systematically failed, unless fatigue strength was reached. Figure 8 shows
representative failure modes. The type of failure observed in the experiments
set the basis for the corresponding SN-curves.

3.2. SN-curves
For the evaluation of the test results, SN-diagrams (applied maximum forces
vs number of cycles, Fmax vs. N) were derived from each test series, with the
number of cycles reported logarithmically. In order to determine the char-
acteristic coefficients, a and b, according to DIN EN 1995–2, tests with two
different stress ratios (R = 0.1 and R = 0.5) were carried out for selected test
configurations (Table 4).
Figure 9 shows two examples of SN-curves for glued-in threaded rods.
Looking at both test series, it became apparent that the data points for wood/
adhesive-interface failure and rod failure had to be described separately. The
data corresponding to wood/adhesive-interface failure was approximated by
a function of the form Fmax = a – b·log (Nf), with a and b constants to be
determined. If plotted on a linear-logarithmic scaling, the approximation
results in a straight line. In the diagrams, the averaged quasistatic strengths
are plotted at N = ¼ (one fourth of a full cycle, i.e. solely the loading branch).
The data corresponding to rod failure were approximated by a Basquin
equation Fmax = a · Nfb, which was only done in the HCF-range. Since no
macroscopic plastic deformation took place in this range, the approximation
curves in the diagramms are displayed from the elastic limit of the the rods
until the defined fatigue limit.
The experimental data, represented in Figure 9 for representative test
series, reveal that both approximation curves intersect at a force of approxi-
mately 70–80 kN. The slope of the straigth line (wood/adhesive-interface
failure) is b = -9.8. It can be seen that at a maximum force of Fmax = 20 kN,
GiR survive 2·106 cycles; accordingly, fatigue strength can be estimated as

a) b) c) d) e)

Figure 8. Representative failure patterns observed in the fatigue tests. (a) Fracture of threated
rod. (b) Fracture of rebar. (c) Wood/Adhesive failure. (d) Splitting of GLT. (e) Splitting of LVL.
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 689

a) b)

Figure 9. SN-curve for selected configurations with threaded rods. (a) Beech-LVL-He 3146-thr.
rod. (b) Oak-GL-Weco 32-thr. rod.

Fmax = 20 kN, which corresponds to approx. 16% of the quasi-static tensile

strength (124.9 kN.)
A similar picture emerges in the test series with glued-in threaded rods
glued into Oak-GLT with Wevo 32 (Figure 9(b)). The transition of the two
failure types occurs at a force of about 70–80 kN. The slope wood/adhesive-
interface failure type is b = –9.3, which corresponds approximately the same
value for the test series with the He 3146 adhesive. The fatigue strength is
also at Fmax = 20 kN, which is about 17% of the quasi-static tensile strength
(Fmax = 115.8 kN.)
Figure 10 shows test results for two series of tests on BST 500 S rebars.
In both examples the transition of the two failure mode initiates at
approx. 60–70 kN. In comparison with the results of glued-in threaded
rods, the regression curve is shifted by around one decade towards higher
numbers of cycles. The slope of the straight line for the test configuration

a) b)

Figure 10. SN-curve for selected configurations with rebars. (a) Oak-GL-He 3146-Rebar. (b)
Beech-GL-Weco 32-Rebar.
690 S. MYSLICKI ET AL.

Oak-GL-He 3146-Rebar is, with a = –4.6, lower than for the configuration
Beech-GL-Wevo 32-Rebar, with b = –6.4. In comparison with the glued-in
threaded rods, both lines exhibit significant lower slopes. The Basquin
equations of both examples show significant differences, and the fatigue
strength is at about 40 kN for both. This can be explained by the low
number of experiments for the approximation for rod failure, which are in
the HCF-Range, where the statistical scatter is known to be way higher
than in LCF-range.[42]
Results of GiR with stainless steel rods (SST) are shown in Figure 11. No
single test resulted in fatigue failure of the rod. The straight line that
approximate the wood-adhesive failure showed a slope of b = –6.9 for the
test configuration Oak-GL-Wevo 32-Rebar, and b = –6.6 for the test config-
uration Beech-GL-Fi EM-SST, respectively. This is siginificantly lower than
the glued-in threaded rods, and slightly higher that glued-in rebars. In both
examples a fatigue limit of 50 kN was observed, which is about 50% of the
corresponding quasi-static strength.
Finally, Table 5 summarizes the experimental investigations for a stress ratio
of R = 0.1 and an embedment length of lad = 10 × d. All test series could be
groupped according to the type of glued-in rods, as corresponding SN-curves
showed similar characteristics, which was particularty obvious for the fatigue
strength. The fatigue strength for the threaded rods are Fmax = 20 kN, for rebars
(BST 500 S) Fmax = 40 kN, and for Inoxrib4486 Fmax = 50 kN. Although the
quasi-static strength for glued-in threaded rods was the highest, they exhibited
the lowest fatigue strength; this can be explained by the fact that the threads
represent a particularly unfavourable high notch type. Because surface texturing
of standard and SST rebars were similar, the higher fatigue strength of SST
could only be tracked back to the superior fatigue strength of the material itself,
hinted at by the higher quasi-static strength thereof.

a) b)

Figure 11. SN-curve for selected configurations with sst-rebars. (a) Oak-GL-Wevo 32-Rebar. (b)
Beech-GL-Fi EM-SST.
Table 5. Compilation of the mathematical descriptions of the failure mechanisms for R = 0.1.
Mean of stastic Load level at transition of Static strength Fatigue
Test configuration strength failure mode Wood-adhesive failure Rod fracture of rods strength
Beech-GL – Wevo 32 – thr. Rod 136.5 kN ̴ 105 kN Fmax = 131.7–8.0 log (Nf) Fmax = 460,5 Nf–.19 137.5 ± 1.5 kN 20 kN
Beech-GL – He 3146 – thr. Rod 129.4 kN ̴ 90 kN Fmax = 125.6–8.2 log (Nf) Fmax = 1596,2 Nf–.30
Oak-GL – Wevo 32 – thr. Rod 115.8 kN ̴ 65 kN Fmax = 110.2–9.3 log (Nf) Fmax = 5529,0 Nf–.41
Beech-LVL – He 3146 – thr. Rod 124.9 kN ̴ 75 kN Fmax = 119.0–9.8 log (Nf) Fmax = 3675,4 Nf–.37
Beech-LVL – Wü 500 – thr. Rod 131.0 kN ̴ 100 kN Fmax = 127.6–6.4 log (Nf) Fmax = 1861,7 Nf–.31
Beech-GL – Wevo 32 – Rebar 102. kN ̴ 70 kN Fmax = 99.0–6.4 log (Nf) Fmax = 2226,0 Nf–.29 125.0 ± 0.6 kN 40 kN
Beech-GL – He 3146 – Rebar 96.1 kN ̴ 60 kN Fmax = 94.3–5.4 log (Nf) Fmax = 798.4 Nf–.20
Oak-GL – He 3146 – Rebar 87.3 kN ̴ 65 kN Fmax = 87.3–4.6 log (Nf) Fmax = 423.4.4 Nf–.16
Oak-GL – Wevo 32 – SST 101.8 kN Does not apply Fmax = 99.0–6.9 log (Nf) Not determined 169.0 ± 0.6 kN 50 kN
Oak-GL – Fis EM – SST 100.6 kN Does not apply Fmax = 98.7–6.6 log (Nf) Not determined
Oak-GL – We PSC – SST 90.7 kN Does not apply Fmax = 99.0–6.9 log (Nf) Not determined
THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION
691
692 S. MYSLICKI ET AL.

a) b)

Figure 12. Influence of the embedment length on the fatigue behavior for following parameter
combinations (a) Beech-LVL-Wü 500-thr. rod. (b) Oak-GL-We PSC-SST.

3.3. Variation of the embedment length

To investigate the influence of the embedment length on the fatigue beha-
viour, additional tests with an embedment length of lad = 6 × d were tested
for two parameter configurations, and compared to these of the embedment
length of lad = 10 d in Figure 12.
For the threaded rods glued into Beech-LVL (shown in Figure 12(a)) with the
parameter combination Beech-LVL-Wü 500-thr. rod, the slope of the regression
line for wood/adhesive-interface failure is b = –6.4 for the embedment length of
lad = 10 × d, and b = –5.1 for the reduced embedment length of 6 × d. The maximal
Forces for lad = 6 × d are reduced to about 60%, compared to that reached by lad
= 10 × d. The reduction of the embedment length of 40% leads to a reduction of
maximum forces by roughly the same proportion. It must, however, be considered
that the Basqiun approximation for lad = 6 × d is only based on two data points in
the HCF-range, where the data points at Fmax = 30 kN are similar and the data
point at Fmax = 40 kN for lad = 6 × d is close to the approximation of lad = 10 × d. It
is assumed that the embedment length does not influence the fatigue behaviour of
the rods when rod failure is involved. This will be validated in an additional test
series presented later within this study. The fatigue strength is finally determined
by rod failure, and amounts to Fmax = 20 kN. This results in the fact that the
reduction of the embedment length does not influence the fatigue strength.
For the parameter combination Oak-GL-We PSC-SST only wood/adhesive
failure was observed for both considered embedment lengths. The maximum
Force for lad = 6 × d tested at quasi-statsic strength is reduced to 60% under
fatigue for lad = 10 × d, which is approximatively proportional to the
reduction of embedment length. The difference of Fmax is decreasing with
increasing numbers of cycles to a reduction of about 30% at N = 2·106. This
results in a significant reduction of the slope of the regression line from
b = –5.2 for lad = 10 × d to b = –2.1 for lad = 6 × d. For glued-in rebars
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 693

composed of stainless steel the reduction of the embedment also leads length
to a significant reduction of the fatigue strength.

3.4. Variation of the stress ratio

In seven of the eleven experimental constellations listed in Table 4, two stress
ratios, R = 0.1 and R = 0.5, were investigated. Figure 13 shows the influence of
varying stress ratio on the SN-curves, with help of two examples of different
test configurations. For the configuration Beech-GL-He 3146-thr. rod,
a maximum force of roughly Fmax = 70 kN was obtained for R = 0.5, as
shown in Figure 13(a). Within this load range only rod failure was observed.
The higher stress ratio leads to higher number of cycles to fatigue failure; the
difference corresponds to about one order of magnitude. This is in accordance
with fatigue behaviour of metallic components reported in literature. The
fatigue coefficient for R = 0.5 is b = –0.30, which is close to the fatigue
coefficient of b = –0.34 for R = 0.1, which means that the increase of the
stress ratio practically only leads to a parallel shift of the Basquin curve towards
higher number of cycles. For R = 0.1 no test was carried out for Fmax = 20 kN,
but extrapolation of the Basquin-curve allows to assume a fatigue strength of
Fmax = 20 kN. Therefore, the fatigue strength was increased of by 10 kN from
R = 0.1 to R = 0.5.
Figure 13(b) shows an example for glued-in rebars out of stainless steel
(parameter configuration: Oak-GL-Fi EM-SST): the only observed failure
mechanism in this example was at wood-/adhesive. As stated out at the
previous example, an increase of the stress ratio also results in higher
number of cycles to failure. This leads to a lower slope of the approxima-
tion straight line from b = –6.6 for R = 0.1 to b = –4.4 for R = 0.5. For
R = 0.5 run-outs were reached for Fmax = 60 kN. By extrapolating the

a) b)

Figure 13. Influence of the stress ratio on the fatigue behavior for following parameter combi-
nations (a) Beech-GL-He 3146-thr. rod. (b) Oak-GL-Fi EM-SST.
694 S. MYSLICKI ET AL.

linear approximation the fatigue strength could be asssumded to a higher

load level of about Fmax = 70 kN. With R = 0.1 a run-out was observerd
for Fmax = 50 kN. According to the regression straight line, the fatigue
strength could be assumed to Fmax = 55 kN. This means the fatigue
strength is increased by approximatively 15 kN due to an increase of
the stress ratio from R = 0.1 to 0.5.

4. Discussion
4.1. General recommendations
The presented SN-curves allowed assuming that SN-curves were similar for
identical types of glued-in rods, and that the fatigue strength is mainly
determided by the rod type. Therefore, it appeared reasonable to analyse all
derived experimeted data differentiated by rod type, and elaborate a suggestion
for design rules based thereupon. The comprehensive experimented data for
each rod type is summarised in the separate diagram Figure 14.
The straight lines proposed for describing the fatigue behavior of each
combination are based on the 5% quantile value from the short-term tensile
tests, and begin at N = ¼. The coefficients a and b are derived, so that the
proposed straight lines fit the experimental data for both investigated stress
ratios. Subsequently, both straight lines run below the experimental results
for the respective stress ratios R, until fatigue strength is reached (assuming
β = 1). For the threaded rods glued in hardwood, a = 6 and b = 1.35 are
proposed, for glued-in BST 500 S rods the fatigue behavior can be described
well with a = 6 and b = 2.1. Based on the available test for glued-in Inoxripp
4486 rebars the proposed design curve with a = 6 and b = 2.8 best fits the
experimental data.
It must be reminded that the experimental results presented herein were
obtained on different experimental constellations (wood species, adhesive,
and rod type) and should be validated with respect to other embedment
depths and stress ratios. Table 6 shows a final compilation of the results.
There is still considerable optimisation potential with regard to the fatigue
coefficients, a and b, by considering the individual experimental constella-
tions separately. Therefore, more test data for each individual test data must
be carried out to widen the statistical basis.

4.2. Fatigue behaviour of threaded rods and rebars

Based upon the previously described experimental results, it was concluded
that once rod fatigue failure occurs (threaded rods and standard rebars in the
HCF-range), fatigue behaviour neither depended upon the wood species nor
on the adhesive, and that embedment length became irrelevant. To validate
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 695

a) b)

c)

Figure 14. SN-curve with all experimental data for lad = 10 d and R = 0.1 according to the type
of rod. (a) Threaded rod 8.8. (b) Reinforced steel BST 500 S. (c) Reinforced steel BST 500 B NR –
Inoxripp 4486.

Table 6. Characteristic values for the design curves differentiated according to the type of rod.
Coefficients acc. to
DIN EN 1995–2
Test series Quasi-statsic strength fk1,k a b
Threaded rod 8.8 78.25 kN 9.73 N/mm2 6.0 1.35
Reinforced steel BST 500 S 76.45 kN 9.51 N/mm2 6.0 2.6
Reinforced steel BST 500 B NR – Inoxripp 4486 76.16 kN 9.47 N/mm2 6.0 2.8

this hypothesis, additional tests were carried out on the rods themselves.
Figure 15 compares the data points and resulting Basquin-curves for the rods
tested as glued-in the wood and as isolated elements, respectively.
Although the quasi-staisc strength of the threaded rod was about 10 kN
higher than rebars, rebars generally showed a lifetime in the HCF-range about
one decade higher. The rebars tested alone resulted in a higher fatigue coeffi-
cient (b = –0.36) than the fatigue coeffiecient when glued-in wood (b = –0.25).
Nevertheless, the Basquin-curves were close to each other, as all data points
related to rebars in HCF-range can be seen to follow a common rule according
to Basquin when statistical spread is considered.
696 S. MYSLICKI ET AL.

Figure 15. Comparison of SN-curves of threaded rods and rebars considered in insulation and
glued-in hardwood.

For threaded rods the stastistical spread is higher for the rods glued in
hardwood, if compared to the rods tested alone. Nevertheless, the
Basquin-curves for glued-in threaded rods and individual threaded rods
are in good agreement. The fatigue coefficient of the curve corresponding
to threaded rods is b = –0.4, which is higher than the fatigue coefficient
for glued-in threaded rods of b = –0.27; the difference is largely due to
statistical spread.

4.3. Comparision of test data for Wevo 32 with the NTA abZ Z-9.1–705
Figure 16 compiles all test results in which the Wevo EP 32 adhesive was
used. The diagram diagram also shows a straight line related to the fatigue
strength reduction according to the NTA abZ Z-9.1–705. By directly
comparing the experimental data to the suggested approximation, it
becomes evident that the potential of the connection approach has not
yet been exhausted; this is particularly true for quasi-static strength and
the LCF-range.
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 697

Figure 16. Comparison of the test data with the NTA for the adhesive system WEVO EP 32 (lad
= 160 mm, d = 16 mm, R = 0.1).

5. Conclusion
More than 70 fatigue tests on glued-in rods in hardwood were performed, in
which different types of rods (threaded rods, standard rebars and inox
rebars), wood species (beech GLT, oak GLT, and beech LVL), adhesives
(2K polyurethane and epoxy), embedment lengths (6 × d and 10 × d) and
stress ratio (R = 0.1 and 0.5) were varied. The results allowed drawing the
following conclusions:

(1) The SN-curves show similarities according to the type of glued-in

rods. For glued-in threaded rods and rebars a change in failure
mechanism took place: whereas a wood-/adhesive failure occurred in
the quasi-statsic and LCF-range tests, failure shifted towards rod
fracture in the HCF-range. For glued-in rebars composed of stainless
698 S. MYSLICKI ET AL.

steel, no such change of failure mode was observed, and failure

repeatedly occurred at the wood-adhesive interface.
(2) Both failure mechanisms described above could be approximated with
appropriate analytical expressions: Wood/adhesive-interface failure was
modelled linearly in a linear-logarithmic scaling: Fmax = a – b·log(Nf);
rod fracture in the HCF-range was approximated by a Basquin-equation
: Fmax = a·Nfb.
(3) The type of rod proved to limit fatigue strength. Lowest fatigue life,
Fmax = 20 kN, was observed for threated rods while highest fatigue
strength, Fmax = 50 kN, was attained for inox rebars (SST).
(4) If rod fracture dominated, neither wood type nor adhesive joint
influenced lifetime. This result was validated by test series carried
out on rods not glued into wood, where no significant differences
could be observed.
(5) Increasing the stress ratio increases fatigue lifetime. This is expressed
by a parallel sfifting of the Basquin-equation for road fracture, or by
a reduction of the slope of the straight line related to wood-adhesive
failure.
(6) With help of the variation of the stress ratio R, fatigue coefficients
a and b, could be derived according to DIN EN 1995–2, which
extended current design recommendations.
(7) The comparison of the test data, with the NTA for the adhesive system
Wevo 32, reveals a significant discrepancy for quasi-static strength and
in the LCF-range.

Funding
This work was financially supported by the Forschungsvereinigung Internationaler Verein für
Technische Holzfragen e.V. (iVTH) program IGF-18266 N funded by the German Federal
Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy.

ORCID
T. Vallée http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9807-458X

References
[1] Grunwald, C.; Vallée, T.; Fecht, S.; Bletz-Mühldorfer, O.; Diehl, F.; Bathon, L.;
Myslicki, S.; Scholz, R.; Walther, F. Rods Glued in Engineered Hardwood Products
Part I: Experimental Results under Quasi-Static Loading. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. [Online]
2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2018.05.003.
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 699

[2] Myslicki, S.; Walther, F.; Bletz-Mühldorfer, O.; Diehl, F.; Lavarec, L. C.; Beber, V. C.;
Vallée, T. Fatigue of Glued-In Rods in Engineered Hardwood Products — Part II:
Numerical Modelling. Journal of Adhesion. 2018. yy (yy).
[3] En, D. I. N. 1995–1–1.Eurocode 5: Bemessung und Konstruktion von Holzbauten - Teil
1-1: Allgemeines - Allgemeine Regeln und Regeln für den Hochbau; Deutsche Fassung EN
1995-1-1:2004 + AC:2006 + A1:2008. Beuth: Berlin, 2010, https://www.beuth.de/de/
norm/din-en-1995-1-1/134637145.
[4] Dietsch, P.; Eurocode, W. S. 5—Future Developments Towards a More Comprehensive
Code on Timber Structures. Struct. Eng. Int. [Online] 2018, 22(2), 223–231. DOI:
10.2749/101686612X13291382991001.
[5] Vallée, T.; Tannert, T.; Hehl, S. Experimental and Numerical Investigations on
Full-Scale Adhesively Bonded Timber Trusses. Mater. Struct./Materiaux Constructions
[Online] 2011, 44(10), 1745–1758.
[6] Broughton, J. G.; Hutchinson, A. R. Pull-Out Behaviour of Steel Rods Bonded into
Timber. Mater. Struct. [Online] 2001, 34(2), 100–109. DOI: 10.1007/BF02481558.
[7] Broughton, J. G.; Hutchinson, A. R. Adhesive Systems for Structural Connections in
Timber. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. [Online] 2001, 21(3), 177–186. DOI: 10.1016/S0143-
7496(00)00049-X.
[8] Hart-Smith, L. J. Bonded-Bolted Composite Joints. J. Aircr. [Online] 1985, 22(11),
993–1000. DOI: 10.2514/3.45237.
[9] Vallée, T.; Tannert, T.; Meena, R.; Hehl, S. Dimensioning Method for Bolted,
Adhesively Bonded, and Hybrid Joints Involving Fibre-Reinforced-Polymers. Compos.
B Eng. [Online] 2013, 46, 179–187. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.074.
[10] Schober, K.-U.; Tannert, T. Hybrid Connections for Timber Structures. Eur. J. Wood
Prod. [Online] 2016, 74(3), 369–377. DOI: 10.1007/s00107-016-1024-3.
[11] Tlustochowicz, G.; Serrano, E.; Steiger, R. State-Of-The-Art Review on Timber
Connections with Glued-In Steel Rods. Mater. Struct. [Online] 2011, 44(5),
997–1020. DOI: 10.1617/s11527-010-9682-9.
[12] Gonzales, E.; Tannert, T.; Vallee, T. The Impact of Defects on the Capacity of Timber
Joints with Glued-In Rods. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. [Online] 2016, 65, 33–40. DOI:
10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2015.11.002.
[13] Vallée, T.; Tannert, T.; Fecht, S. Adhesively Bonded Connections in the Context of
Timber Engineering – A Review. J. Adhes. [Online] 2016, 93(4), 257–287. DOI:
10.1080/00218464.2015.1071255.
[14] Steiger, R.; Serrano, E.; Stepinac, M.; Rajčić, V.; O’Neill, C.; McPolin, D.; Widmann, R.
Strengthening of Timber Structures with Glued-In Rods. Constr. Build. Mater. [Online]
2015, 97, 90–105. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.097.
[15] Bengtsson, C.; Johansson, C.-J. GIROD – Glued-In Rods for Timber Structures. SMT4-
CT97-2199. SR Report 2002:26: Boras/Sweden, 2002. DOI: 10.1044/1059-0889(2002/
er01)
[16] Bainbridge, R.; Mettem, C.; Harvey, K.; Ansell, M. Bonded-In Rod Connections for
Timber Structures—Development of Design Methods and Test Observations. Int.
J. Adhes. Adhes. [Online] 2002, 22(1), 47–59. DOI: 10.1016/S0143-7496(01)00036-7.
[17] Lavisci, P.; Duchanois, G.; Ciechi, M. D.; Spinelli, P.; Feligioni, L. Influence of Glue
Rheology and Joint Thickness on the Strength of Bonded-In Rods. Holz als Roh- und
Werkstoff. [Online] 2003, 61(4), 281–287. DOI: 10.1007/s00107-003-0387-4.
[18] Gardelle, V.; Morlier, P. Geometric Parameters Which Affect the Short Term
Resistance of an Axially Loaded Glued-In Rod. Mater. Struct. [Online] 2007, 40(1),
127–138. DOI: 10.1617/s11527-006-9155-3.
700 S. MYSLICKI ET AL.

[19] Lartigau, J.; Coureau, J.-L.; Morel, S.; Galimard, P.; Maurin, E. Effect of Temperature
on the Mechanical Performance of Glued-In Rods in Timber Structures. Int. J. Adhes.
Adhes. [Online] 2015, 57, 79–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.10.006.
[20] Di Maria, V.; D’Andria, L.; Muciaccia, G.; Ianakiev, A. Influence of Elevated
Temperature on Glued-In Steel Rods for Timber Elements. Constr. Build. Mater.
[Online] 2017, 147, 457–465. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.038.
[21] Otero-Chans, D.; Estévez-Cimadevila, J.; Martín-Gutiérrez, E. Joints with Bars
Glued-In Softwood Laminated Timber Subjected to Climatic Cycles. Int. J. Adhes.
Adhes. [Online] 2018, 82, 27–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2017.12.010.
[22] Costa, M.; Viana, G.; Da Silva, L. F. M.; Campilho, R. D. S. G. Environmental Effect on
the Fatigue Degradation of Adhesive Joints: A Review. J. Adhes. [Online] 2016, 93(1–2),
127–146. DOI: 10.1080/00218464.2016.1179117.
[23] Otero Chans, M. D.; Estévez Cimadevila, J.; Martín Gutiérrez, E.; Vázquez
Rodríguez, J. A. Influence of Timber Density on the Axial Strength of Joints Made
with Glued-In Steel Rods: An Experimental Approach. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. [Online]
2010, 30(5), 380–385. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2010.03.004.
[24] Broughton, J. G.; Hutchinson, A. R. Effect of Timber Moisture Content on Bonded-In
Rods. Constr. Build. Mater. [Online] 2001, 15(1), 17–25. DOI: 10.1016/S0950-0618(00)
00066-0.
[25] Madhoushi, M.; Ansell, M. P. Behaviour of Timber Connections Using Glued-In GFRP
Rods under Fatigue Loading. Part I: In-Line Beam to Beam Connections. Compos.
B Eng. [Online] 2008, 39(2), 243–248.
[26] Madhoushi, M.; Ansell, M. P. Behaviour of Timber Connections Using Glued-In GFRP
Rods under Fatigue Loading. Part II: Moment-Resisting Connections. Compos. B Eng.
[Online] 2008, 39(2), 249–257. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.11.002.
[27] Madhoushi, M.; Ansell, M. P. Experimental Study of Static and Fatigue Strengths of
Pultruded GFRP Rods Bonded into LVL and Glulam. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. [Online]
2004, 24(4), 319–325. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2003.07.004.
[28] Tannert, T.; Zhu, H.; Myslicki, S.; Walther, F.; Vallée, T. Tensile and Fatigue
Investigations of Timber Joints with Glued-In FRP Rods. J. Adhes. 2016, 16(3), 1–17.
[29] Grunwald, C.; Kaufmann, M.; Alter, B.; Vallée, T.; Tannert, T. Numerical Investigations
and Capacity Prediction of G-FRP Rods Glued into Timber. Compos. Struct. [Online]
2018, 202, 47–59. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.10.010.
[30] Kohl, D.; Ratsch, N.; Böhm, S.; Voß, M.; Kaufmann, M.; Vallée, T. Influence of
Manufacturing Methods and Imperfections on the Load Capacity of Glued-In Rods.
J. Adhes. [Online] 2018, 44(385), 1–22.
[31] Gonzalez, E.; Avez, C.; Tannert, T. Timber Joints with Multiple Glued-In Steel Rods.
J. Adhes. [Online] 2015, 92(7–9), 635–651. DOI: 10.1080/00218464.2015.1099098.
[32] Stepinac, M.; Hunger, F.; Tomasi, R.; Serrano, E.; Rajcic, V.; van de Kuilen, J. W.
Comparison of Design Rules for Glued-In Rods and Design Rule Proposal for
Implementation in European Standards. Working Commission W18 - Timber
Structures. CIB-W18/46-7-10; Timber Scientific Publishing: Karlsruhe, 2013.
[33] Smith, I.; Landis, E.; Gong, M. Fracture and Fatigue in Wood - Ian Smith, Eric Landis,
Meng Gong. http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471487082.html
(accessed August 6, 2015).
[34] Clorius, C. O.; Pedersen, M. U.; Hoffmeyer, P.; Damkilde, L. Compressive Fatigue in
Wood. Wood Sci. Technol. [Online] 2000, 34, 21–37.
[35] Bonfield, P. W.; Ansell, M. P. Fatigue Properties of Wood in Tension, Compression
and Shear. J. Mater. Sci. [Online] 1991, 26(1991), 4765–4773. DOI: 10.1007/
BF00612416.
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 701

[36] Tsai, K. T.; Ansell, M. P. The Fatigue Properties of Wood in Flexure. J. Mater. Sci.
[Online] 1990, 25(2), 865–878. DOI: 10.1007/BF03372174.
[37] Myslicki, S.; Vallée, T.; Walther, F. Short-Time Procedure for Fatigue Assessment of Beech
Wood and Adhesively Bonded Beech Wood Joints. Mater. Struct./Materiaux Constructions
[Online] 2016, 49(6), 2161–2170. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.
0-84930355786&partnerID=40&md5=461ee0735de888345be620d96af2f6f7.
[38] Ingólfsson, E. T.; Georgakis, C. T.; Jönsson, J. Pedestrian-Induced Lateral Vibrations of
Footbridges: A Literature Review. Eng. Struct. [Online] 2012, 45, 21–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2012.05.038.
[39] Hirsch, G.; Bachmann, H. Wind-Induced Vibrations. In Vibration Problems in
Structures: Practical Guidelines; Bachmann, H., Ammann, W. J., Deischl, F.,
Eisenmann, J., Floegl, I., Hirsch, G. H., Klein, G. K., Lande, G. J., Mahrenholtz, O.,
Natke, H. G., et al., Eds.; Birkhäuser Basel: Basel, 1995; pp 73–112.
[40] Bathon, L.; Bletz-Mühldorfer, O. Fatigue Performance of Single Span Wood-Concrete-
Composite Bridges. In Materials and Joints in Timber Structures: Recent Developments
of Technology; [… Contriburions from the RILEM International Symposium Materials
and Joints in Timber Structures that Was Held in Stuttgart, Germany from October 8 to
10, 2013], Aicher, S., Ed. RILEM bookseries 9; Springer: Dordrecht U.A., 2014; pp
493–497.
[41] DIN. Design of Timber Structures - Part 1-1. General - Common Rules and Rules for
Buildings. DIN EN 1995-1-1:2010-12. Berlin, Germany, 2010.
[42] Nicholas, T. Critical Issues in High Cycle Fatigue. Int. J. Fatigue [Online] 1999, 21,
221–231. DOI: 10.1016/S0142-1123(99)00074-2.