PULL-OUT STRENGTH OF BAR GLUED-IN-JOINTS

Natalino Gattesco1, Alessandra Gubana2, Manuela Buttazzi3

ABSTRACT: Glued-in joints have several advantages with respect to the traditional mechanical connections generally
used in beam design, such as higher stiffness, more uniform stress distribution, less bar corrosion problems and better
appearance. Systematic studies have been performed to predict the pull-out capacity of the bars in the last years. The
experimental tests presented in the paper were focused on the role of the steel strength and of the bar diameter to
determine a ductile collapse instead of a fragile splitting failure. The data showed the importance of the bond level
requested to yield the bars, which can remain under limit values, performed by timber elements, only for mild yield
steel and correlated bar diameters, especially in case of reduced edge distances, as it is necessary to respect in glulam
beams joints. Extensive experimental investigations with different strength steels, different bar diameters and different
edge distances were carried out on specimens with one, two or three threaded rods.

KEYWORDS: Glued-in Joints, Bar Pull-out strength, timber joints, experimental tests.

1 INTRODUCTION 123
Steel bars bonded in glulam beam have proved to be an
interesting solution to join timber structural members, as
they have several advantages with respect to the
traditional mechanical connections generally used in
beam design, such as higher stiffness, more uniform
stress distribution, less bar corrosion problems and better
appearance.
Systematic studies have been performed to predict the
pull-out capacity of the bars during the last years [1-10].
It is so well known that the pull-out collapse mechanism
of joints with steel threaded rods bonded in glulam
parallel to the grain can take place in four different
modes: bar failure (Type I), ultimate longitudinal wood
shear resistance (Type II), splitting of wood (Type III) or
tensile rupture of wood over the cross section (Type IV).
Bar failure collapse is the main goal of the joint design,
as in this way it is possible to have a ductile ultimate
behaviour of the connection, strictly linked with the high
steel yielding deformation [11].
The ultimate longitudinal wood shear resistance is
influenced by several parameters, such as timber density,
length and diameter of the rod and/or of the drilled hole,
distances between the axis of the rods and the edge of
1
Natalino Gattesco, Department of Environmental and Civil
Engineering, University of Trieste, via Valerio 5, Trieste, Italy.
Email: gattesco@units.it
2
Alessandra Gubana, Department of Civil Engineering and
Architecture, University of Udine, via delle Scienze 206,
33100 Udine, Italy. Email: alessandra.gubana@uniud.it
3 failure. The present research work focuses the attention
Manuela Buttazzi, Department of Civil Engineering and
Architecture, University of Udine, via delle Scienze 206,
33100 Udine, Italy. Email: manuela.buttazzi@libero.it
the specimen, distance between the bars if multiple rods
joints are used , moisture content, adhesive type. Several
formulations are presented in literature to evaluate the
pull-out strength [1][3][4][7] [12].
Splitting failure is a very fragile collapse and it can be
avoided only with large distances of the bar axis from
the specimen edges. In the last formulations accepted
also by recent codes [13][14] the distance of the bar axis
from the edge has to be at least 2.5 times the rod
diameter.
The tensile rupture of wood over the cross section
generally happens at the end of the longitudinal bar,
where an increment of stress and a reduction of the cross
area take place. Also the equations provided to evaluate
the tensile rupture strength refer to an effective area
around the bar.
As a matter of fact, for a correct design of the glued-in
joints all the fragile collapses have to be avoided as a
ductile behaviour is requested to the connections
especially under seismic actions. Plastic deformability
and ductility of the connections are indispensable
features to dissipate energy during seismic events.
The ultimate design strength is so the lowest value
among the strengths related to Type I, Type II and Type
IV, provided that adequate bar spacing from the edge is
prescribed to avoid splitting failure.
As the values of tangential bond is in any case upper
limited, due to the several parameters previously
discussed, an actual design of the connection must take
into consideration that only low yielding steel and low
diameter bars can be used in order to obtain a ductile
on the correct choice of the steel mechanical
characteristics to assure a ductile joint performance.
Extensive experimental tests, together with numerical
analyses, were carried out on joints set up with threaded
bars of different mechanical characteristic steels.
2 EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
Experimental pull-out tests were carried out on a series
of 42 samples set up with bars of four different steel
grades. With a correct choice of the steel mechanical
characteristics it was possible to obtain Type I failure
with yielding of the bar.
2.4 PULL-OUT TEST SPECIMENS AND SET UP
Pull-pull tests were performed, as a tension force was
applied to the bar at one side of the sample, while at the
other side a special designed steel device was connected
by bolts to the wood and tensioned too, as indicated in
Figure 1.
l

Figure 1: Pull-out sample

2.1 TIMBER MECHANICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
The bars were inserted into predrilled holes with a
The samples were sawn out from red spruce GL24 diameter 4 mm larger than the bar diameter, therefore to
glulam timber (UNI EN 1194 [15]). In order to check the centre the bar in the hole a suitable wire guide was used.
fitting of the timber samples with the code characteristics Particular attention was devoted to the cleaning of the
several preliminary tests were set up as compression bar surface with solvent and of the hole with vacuum
tests parallel to the grain on 12 samples, tension tests cleaner, to remove dust and drilling remainders.
perpendicular to the grain on 7 samples, bending tests on The embedment length  was always taken equal to 30
8 samples. The mean values obtained are reported in diameters, expect for the first series of specimens.
Table 1. The timber density medium value was equal to Different cross sections were adopted for specimens. In
450 kg/m3. the previous series of tests [6] the edge distance e of the
bar was quite large (e =3.5÷4.4 times the bar diameter
Table 1: Mean values of the timber mechanical
characteristics after tests
), because the goal was to avoid a failure mechanism
with splitting of the wood. Instead, in the present
Compression // to fc,0,m 44.24 MPa research, a study on the edge distance role was
the grain Ec,0,m 12993 MPa performed and its value was chosen in the range 2÷3.5
Tension  to the ft,90,m 1.17 MPa times the bar diameter  , as such values are more
grain Et,90,m 414 MPa realistic for common joints, provided the glulam
fm 46.39 MPa elements generally have thin sections.
Bending The cross sections of the different specimens are
Em 12419 MPa
indicated in Figure 2. All the samples are named by an
acronym, where the first letter is linked with the number
Table 2: Mean values of the steel mechanical of bars in the sample (i.e. S or BF for 1 single bar, D for
characteristics after tests
2 bars ), the following number is the bar diameter, the
Steel Diameter fy fu second number is the minimum distance from the axis of
Grade (mm) (MPa) (MPa) the bar to the external surface of the timber sample. If
C40  14 590 690 there were more specimens of the same type, a letter or a
C40  16 625 735 number differentiated each one. For example S16-32
C40  20 605 695 indicates a specimen with only one bar of 16 mm
diameter, where the minimum distance from the axis of
Fe 510  16 412 558
the bar to the external timber surface is equal to 32 mm.
Fe 510  20 370 513
The specimens were set up at 18-20°C, and the tests
Fe 430  14 328 458 were performed after at least 7 days aging, to be sure that
Fe 430  16 318 466 adhesion between steel bar and wood surface had
Fe 430  20 303 448 completely developed.
Before every tests the timber moisture content was
2.2 STEEL MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS checked by an hygrometer and the values varied around
Different steel grades were used in order to obtain 9-10%.
ductile failure of the samples during the tests: C40, Fe The tests were carried out using an oleo-dynamic system
510 and Fe 430. The mean values of the yielding stress with displacement control. The load application rate was
and of the rupture stress are reported in Table 2. They equal to 0.003 mm/s during the first phase up to the bar
were obtained with tension tests on bar samples of yielding or up to the fragile timber collapse. If a ductile
different diameters 14,  16,  20 , successively used in failure took place the test proceeded faster with a strain
the pull-out samples. rate of 0.1 mm/s.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the pull-out test set up.
2.3 EPOXY RESIN
The resin was a 2 component epoxy resin with Elasticity
modulus Er> 2800 MPa, Tension Strength fe>45 MPa,
Compression Strength fc,e >70 MPa.
 S 14-28 C40 A-B S 14-30 C40 A-B S 14-40 Fe430

30 30
28
14 l = 420 mm

40 40
14 l = 420 mm 14 l = 420 mm

80
60
56
28
28 28 30 30 45 45
56 60 90

S 16-32 C40 A-B-C-D

S 16-32 Fe510
S 14-45 Fe430 S 16-32 Fe430 A-B S 16-44 C40 A-B-C

14 l = 420 mm

45 45

44 44
16 l = 480 mm
16 l = 480 mm

32 32
90

88
64
45 45 32 32 44 44
90 64 88

S 20-40 C40 1-2-3

S 20-40 Fe510 S 20-55 C40 1-2-3
S 16-56 C40 S 20-40 Fe430 A-B
56

55
16 l = 480 mm 20 l = 600 mm
112

20 l = 600 mm

110
40 40
80
56

55
56 56 40 40 55 55
112 80 110

BF 16 C40 1-2-3 BF 20 C40 1-2-3

S 20-70 C40 1-2-3
100

100
16 l = 350 mm 20 l = 440 mm
200

200
70

20 l = 600 mm
140

100

100
70

70 70 70 70 70 70
140 140 140

D 20-40 C40 1-2

D 20-40 Fe510
D 16-32 C40 1-2 D 16-40 C40 1-2
40 40 40

2 16 l = 480 mm 2 16 l = 480 mm
120

2 20 l = 600 mm
32 32

32 32
64

64

32 56 32 40 40 40 60 60
120 120 120

Figure 2: Different test specimens cross sections

Figure 3: Details of the transducers connected to the

timber sample external faces and to the bar

Figure 4: Pull-out rig

Two LVTD (Linear Variable Differential Transformer)
of 0.002 mm sensitivity were connected to the timber
surfaces on opposite sides and to the bar by means of a
small angular truss to monitor the bar-to- timber slip.
The pull-out force was applied by means of an universal
machine with displacement control.
3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The pull-out tests were performed over 42 specimens
with different cross section, different diameters and
different steel grade bars.
As an example, in Figure 5 the experimental load-slip
relationship is given for Sample S16-32-Fe430A, which
collapsed by bar yielding. The behaviour of the joint is
ductile, as it is strictly connected to the bar collapse.
140
120
100
Carico [kN]
It is possible to note that using steel grade C40 all the
four failure types took place, but the number of ductile
collapses was limited with respect to the total number of
tests and concentrated in the samples with the lowest bar
diameter. In the group of samples with steel grade Fe
510 only fragile collapses Type III and Type IV
characterized the tests.
On the basis of these first results it was decided to use a
milder steel as Fe 430 for the threaded bars. In all the
tests a ductile failure took place and in particular for bar
diameters 14 and 16 mm Type I failure occurred. For 20
mm diameter bars the ductile collapse was accompanied
by slip at the wood-to-resin interface, showing that the
limit of the shear capacity at interface had been reached.
First of all it is possible to observe that with a minimum
edge distance of 2 , which could be realistic in design
practice, ductile collapse took place only if a mild steel
as Fe 430 is used. For different steel types of better
mechanical characteristics greater edge distances or
smaller diameter bars are necessary. Codes generally

prescribe edge distances of 2.5 times bar diameter and

80
several works in literature confirm experimental splitting
60 collapses for edge distances less than 2.3 .
40 With reference to the experimental values in Table 3 it is
20
possible to estimate a medium value of shear resisting
S16-32Fe430A stress at the wood-to-resin layer interface:
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 F
f v ,mean  (1)
Spostamento [mm]  h 

Figure 5: Type I Failure Load-Slip relationship for sample where fv,mean = mean shear stress, F= pull-out strength,
S16-32 Fe 430A h= hole diameter and  = bonded length.
As it is known, the distribution of shear stress is not
In Figure 6 the experimental load-slip relationship is constant along the bar, in fact FEM simulations and
given for Sample S20-40 Fe 430A which collapsed by Volkersen’s theory applied to the bar joint show that
shear failure. An interesting ductile behaviour is there are peaks at both ends of the anchoring length [16].
reachable also with Type II failure. On these bases, mean shear stress values can be a
reference mainly for design formulations or when the
140
bonded length is very short and an almost constant stress
120 distribution can take place.
Type I and Type II failure samples were taken into
100
consideration. In the first case timber resisted to shear
Carico [kN]

80 stress and the bar yielded, so the mean shear stress

60 values obtained from Eq. (1) could be overcome and
represent a lower bound, while in the second case the
40
limit shear wood strength was reached. The results are
20 reported in Table 4.
S20-40Fe430A
0 In the first group of specimens made with Fe 430 steel,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 four of them collapsed by bar yielding: the maximum
Spostamento [mm] value of medium shear stress fv,mean reached was equal to
2.49 MPa, while the minimum was equal to 2.15 MPa.
Figure 6: Type II Failure Load-Slip relationship for Two samples set up with 20 mm bar diameter exhibit a
sample S20-32 Fe 430A mixed collapse characterized by a first yielding of the
bar followed by slip at interface. The lowest medium
All the experimental results are summarized in Table 3 shear stress value is equal to 2.17 MPa.
where, for each sample, besides the geometrical With reference to the second group of samples, set up
characteristics of the cross section, the embedment using C40 steel, 8 samples collapsed by bar yielding and
length, the moisture content, the bar axis edge distance, 8 by shear failure. In the case of bar collapse the
the maximum pull-out strength and the type of failure maximum value of shear stress fv,mean reached was equal
are reported. to 4.87 MPa.
The results are subdivided into 3 groups referred to the
steel grade.
Table 3: Experimental results

Timber Cross Section

Bar diameter (mm)

Moisture Content %

Maximum Pull-out
Bonded Length
Edge Distance

Strength (kN)
Failure Type
(mm x mm)
Dimensions
Sample

(mm)

/
Steel grade Fe430
1 S14-40 9.2 90x80 114 2.8  420 30 I 51.38
2 S14-45 9.1 90x90 114 3.2  420 30 I 51.13
3 S16-32 A 10.3 64x64 116 2.0  480 30 I 75.01
4 S16-32 B 10.0 64x64 116 2.0  480 30 I 70.73
5 S20-40 A 10.3 80x80 120 2.0  600 30 I/II 100.78
6 S20-40 B 10.0 80x80 120 2.0  600 30 I/II 97.99
Steel grade Fe510
7 S16-32 12.4 64x64 116 2.0  480 30 III 79.38
8 S20-40 12.7 80x80 120 2.0  600 30 III 106.26
9 D20-40 - 120x120 220 2.0  600 30 IV 197.42
Steel Grade C40
10 S14-28 A - 56x56 114 2.0  420 30 IV 78.33
11 S14-28 B - 56x56 114 2.0  420 30 I 82.43
12 S14-30 A 10.3 60x60 114 2.1  420 30 I 80.88
13 S14-30 B 11.5 60x60 114 2.1  420 30 I 80.85
14 S16-32 A 9.8 64x64 116 2.0  420 30 III 112.52
15 S16-32 B 10.0 64x64 116 2.0  480 30 IV 111.04
16 S16-32 C 9.8 64x64 116 2.0  480 30 III 120.05
17 S16-32 D 10.1 64x64 116 2.0  480 30 IV 98.07
18 S16-44 A 10.0 88x88 116 2.75  480 30 III 114.44
19 S16-44 B 9.7 88x88 116 2.75  480 30 III 124.47
20 S16-44 C 10.0 88x88 116 2.75  480 30 III 107.11
21 S16-56 12.0 112x112 116 3.5  480 30 II 117.59
22 S20-40 A 10.8 80x80 120 2.0  600 30 III 137.44
23 S20-40 B 10.3 80x80 120 2.0  600 30 IV 147.85
24 S20-40 C 10.1 80x80 120 2.0  600 30 IV 141.96
25 S20-55 1 7.0 110x110 120 2.7  600 30 II 161.72
26 S20-55 2 8.6 110x110 120 2.7  600 30 II 146.66
27 S20-55 3 8.0 110x110 120 2.7  600 30 II 159.70
28 S20-70 1 9.8 140x140 120 3.5  600 30 II 147.06
29 S20-70 2 10.0 140x140 120 3.5  600 30 I 161.95
30 S20-70 3 9.4 140x140 120 3.5  600 30 I 160.42
31 BF16 1 10.9 140x200 116 4.3  350 21.9 I 103.40
32 BF16 2 11.8 140x200 116 4.3  350 21.9 I 107.09
33 BF16 3 11.6 140x200 116 4.3  350 21.9 I 107.32
34 BF20 1 12.1 140x200 120 3.5  440 22 II 151.73
35 BF20 2 11.2 140x200 120 3.5  440 22 II 184.32
36 BF20 3 10.9 140x200 120 3.5  440 22 II 145.45
37 D16-32 1 10.2 120x64 216 2.0  480 30 III 181.83
38 D16-32 2 9.9 120x64 216 2.0  480 30 III 193.69
39 D16-40 1 9.9 120x64 216 2.0  480 30 IV 175.53
40 D16-40 2 10.1 120x64 216 2.0  480 30 III 192.18
41 D20-40 1 9.7 120x120 220 2.0  600 30 IV 294.46
42 D20-40 2 10.0 120x120 220 2.0  600 30 IV 308.39
Table 4: Medium Shear Stress in case of Type Failure I This best fitting can be explained, as numerical analyses
or II point out [16], on the basis that there is a transmission
length, varying in the range between 15-20  over
which the pull-out resistant force does not significantly

Max Pull-Out
Strength (kN)

Failure Type

Shear Stress
increase as the tangential shear stress dramatically

Distance

Medium

(MPa)
Edge
reduces.
Sample

300 EC5:ENV1995-
2:2004

CNR-
Fe 430 250 DT206/2007,
DIN1052
1 S14-40 2.8  51.38 I 2.16

Pull-out Force (kN)

Riberholt (1988)

2 S14-45 3.2  51.13 I 2.15 200

Buchanan-Deng
(1996)
3 S16-32 A 2.0  75.01 I 2.49 150 Aicher-
4 S16-32 B 2.0  70.73 I 2.35 Gustafsson-Wolf
(1999)

2.0  100.78
Steiger-Gehry-
5 S20-40 A I/II 2.23 100 Widmann (2007)

6 S20-40 B 2.0  97.99 I/II 2.17 experimental

test values

C 40 50
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
11 S14-28 B 2.0  82.43 I 3.47 Bar diameter (mm)
12 S14-30 A 2.1  80.88 I 3.41
13 S14-30 B 2.1  80.85 I 3.40 Figure 7: Fitting of the experimental data with the
21 S16-56 3.5  117.59 II 3.90 theoretical previsions
25 S20-55 1 2.7  161.72 II 3.57
26 S20-55 2 2.7  146.66 II 3.24 As already mentioned, it is commonly accepted by
27 S20-55 3 2.7  159.70 II 3.53 design rules that splitting cracks can be avoided only
with an edge distance of the bar axis at least equal to 2.3
28 S20-70 1 3.5  147.06 II 3.25
 and for this reason codes prescribe at least 2.5 .
29 S20-70 2 3.5  161.95 I 3.58
The experimental tests summarized in Table 4 show also
30 S20-70 3 3.5  160.42 I 3.55
that, by using mild steel as Fe 430, it is possible to have
31 BF16 1 4.3  103.40 I 4.70 Type Failure I even with a minor edge distance.
32 BF16 2 4.3  107.09 I 4.86 Instead, by using high strength steel as C40, ductile
33 BF16 3 4.3  107.32 I 4.87 failures are possible in case of edge distance equal to 2.0
34 BF20 1 3.5  151.73 II 4.57  only if small diameter bars are used.
35 BF20 2 3.5  184.32 II 5.56 In Figure 8 the load-slip relationships of different steel
36 BF20 3 3.5  145.45 II 4.38 bar specimens are represented. All the samples had the
same embedment length equal to 30 . The specimens
The other 8 samples, which exhibit a shear failure, set up with mild steel bars (S16-32 Fe430 430 or S20-40
reached values of shear stress fv,mean variable in an Fe430) showed ductile failures with high ductility, while
interval between 3.24 MPa and 3.90 MPa if 30  bonded the specimens set up with high strength steel bars (S14-
lengths are considered, and variable from 4.38 MPa to 28 C40 ) had fragile collapses.
5.56 MPa, if 22  bonded lengths are considered.
The equation proposed by Steiger et al. [12] to predict 140
pull-out force suggests that, for a 16 mm diameter bar 120
and a bonded length of 15 the medium shear failure 100
can grow up to 7.06 MPa.
Carico [kN]

80
In case of shear collapse a comparison between the
experimental data and the shear theoretical resistance 60 S14-28 C40B
S16-44 C40B
evaluated with some of the formulations disposable in 40 S16 Fe510
S20 Fe510
literature is proposed in Figure 7. 20 S20-40 Fe430

The best fitting is related to Aicher’s predicting equation 0

S16-32 Fe430B

[4], while DIN and CNR formulations [14] are more 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

conservative. Spostamento [mm]

Steiger’s et al. equation [12] is proposed only for the

ratio  between the bonded length and the hole diameter
variable in the range 7.5-15. In Figure 7 the equation
validity was extended to greater bonded lengths, as all
the experimental data refer to samples with  = 30 or  =
22, but calculations were made with reference to a
maximum effective length equal to 15  .
With this notice Steiger’s et al. pull-out force model
seems to fit quite well the experimental results.
Figure 8:Comparison between Force-Slip relationships of
different steel bar specimens
This result can be explained on the basis that the pull-out
force necessary to yield mild strength steel bar is
significantly reduced with respect to the force necessary
to yield an high strength steel C40 bar of the same cross
area. Consequently shear stress in the timber-to-resin
interface and tensile splitting stress in the timber member
are reduced to values which can be easier resisted by
wood. In this way the possibility of a Type II or a Type
III fragile collapses are greatly reduced.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Glued-in bar joints can be an interesting solution with
respect to traditional bolted joints, even if there still
several theoretical and technological aspects to be faced.
One of the main goal of structure design nowadays is the
possibility to achieve a ductile collapse: this is
particularly important under seismic actions and it is
particularly delicate in timber structure design, as the
timber element failure is fragile and the only possibility
to increase global ductility is relied on joint plastic
deformation.
Splitting failure is the most fragile one among the well
known four collapse types which glue-in bar joints can
exhibit. Only significant edge distance of the bar axis
can avoid it.
The results disposable in literature shows that the edge
distance has to be at least equal to 2.3 times the bar
diameter. For this reason codes suggest a minimum
value of 2.5 times the bar diameter.
Glue-laminated timber cross sections are generally very
thin and the respect of this limitation can sometimes be a
problem in structure design.
Experimental tests presented in this paper show that an
important role is played by the steel mechanical
characteristics, and the results obtained using mild steel
as Fe430 show that ductile collapse are possible also
with an edge distance equal to 2 times the bar diameter.
With reference to the shear pull-out resistant force
prediction, a comparison between the different equations
proposed in literature show that the German DIN Code
and the Italian CNR Code formulation are conservative.
An extension of Steiger’s et al. pull-out resistant force
formulation, proposed by the authors only for slender
ratio  variable in the range between 7.5-15, show to fit
well the experimental data, placed that an effective
bonded length is used instead of the geometric bonded
length. This is confirmed by numerical analyses results
showing that, over bonded length values equal to 15-20
times the bar diameter, the pull-out force does not
significantly increase as the shear stress at the wood-to
resin interface dramatically diminishes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank the Stratex s.p.a. Company,
Sutrio, Udine, Italy, which kindly supplied the glulam
elements for tests, the Resimix s.r.l., Brendola, Vicenza,
Italy which offered the epoxy resin.
REFERENCES
[1] H. Riberholt. Glued Bolts in Glulam, Proposal for
CIB Code International Council for Building
Research Studies and Documentation Working
Commission W18, Timber Structures Meeting
Twenty-one, Vancouver, Canada, 1988.
[2] M. Ballerini , M. Piazza, P. Zanon . Static and cyclic
behaviour of glued joints in timber, Proceedings of
Pacific Timber Engineering Conference, July 11-15,
1994, Gold Coast, Australia, Timber Research and
Development Advisory council, Queensland,
Australia, vol. 2, 811-817, 1994
[3] A.H. Buchanan, X. J. Deng. Strength Epoxied Steel
Rods in Glulam Timber, Proceedings of the
International Wood Engineering Conference '96,
New Orleans, USA, Vol. 4, pp.488-495, 1996.
[4] S. Aicher, P.J. Gustaffson, M. Wolf. Load
Displacement and bond Strength of the Glued-in
Rods in Timber influenced by Adhesive, Wood
Density, Rod Slenderness and Diameter, 1st RILEM
Symposium on Timber Engineering, Stockholm, pp.
369-378, 1999.
[5] H.J. Blass, B. Laskewits. Effects of spacing and
edge distance on the axial strength of glued in rods,
Proceedings CIB-W18, Meeting 32, Graz, 1999.
[6] N. Gattesco, A. Gubana. Studio sperimentale sulle
unioni incollate di elementi in legno lamellare,
13°Congresso C.T.E., Pisa, pp.403-411, 2000.
[7] P.J. Gustaffson, E. Serrano, S. Aicher, C.J.
Johansson. A strength design equation for glued-in
rods, Joints in Timber Structures, Proceedings of the
International RILEM Symposium, Stuttgart,
Germany, 2001
[8] E. Gehri. Ductile behaviour and group effect of
glued-in steel rods, Joints in Timber Structures,
Proceedings of the International RILEM
Symposium, Stuttgart, Germany, 2001.
[9] N. Gattesco, A. Gubana . Experimental tests on
glued joints under axial forces and bending
moments, Proceedings of the International RILEM
Symposium Joints in Timber Structures, September
12-14, 2001, Stuttgart, Germany, 353-362, 2001.
[10] N. Gattesco, A. Gubana. Giunti di continuità di
elementi in legno lamellare realizzati con barre
resinate, Atti del 14 Congresso C.T.E., Novembre
7-9, 2002 Mantova, Italia, 709-715,2002.
[11] N. Gattesco, A. Gubana . Performance of glued-in
joints of timber members, Proceedings of the 9th
World Conference on Timber Engineering, August
6-10, 2006, Portland, OR, USA, editors Donald A.
Bender, D. S. Gromala and D. V. Rosowsky editors,
2006.
[12] R. Steiger, E.Gehri, R. Widmann. Pull-out strength
of axially loaded steel rods bonded in glulam
parallel to the grain, Materials and Structures, Vol.
40, n.1, 69-78, 2007.
[13] CNR – DT 206/2007 Istruzioni per la progettazione,
l’esecuzione ed il controllo delle strutture in legno,
2007.
[14] DIN 1052 Entwurf, Berechnung und Bemessung
von Holzbauwerken, 2004.
[15] UNI EN 1194 Strutture di legno Legno lamellare
incollato – Classi di resistenza e determinazione dei
valori caratteristici , 2000.
[16] M.Buttazzi. Glued-in Bar Joints: experimental
results and numerical analysis. PhD Thesis, Tutors
A. Gubana and N.Gattesco, University of Trento,
2009.