Journal Pre-proof

Axial load-deformation behavior and fracture characteristics of bolted

steel to laminated timber and glubam connections

Da Shi, Cristoforo Demartino, Zhi Li, Yan Xiao

PII: S0263-8223(22)01218-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116486
Reference: COST 116486

To appear in: Composite Structures

Received date : 27 March 2022

Revised date : 11 October 2022
Accepted date : 14 November 2022

Please cite this article as: D. Shi, C. Demartino, Z. Li et al., Axial load-deformation behavior and
fracture characteristics of bolted steel to laminated timber and glubam connections. Composite
Structures (2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116486.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the
addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive
version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it
is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

 Journal Pre-proof

Highlights

of
Axial load-deformation behavior and fracture characteristics of bolted steel to laminated tim-
ber and glubam connections

Da Shi, Cristoforo Demartino, Zhi Li, Yan Xiao

pro
• Bolted steel to laminated timber or glubam connections with slotted-in steel plates

• Axial load-deformation behavior and fracture characteristics

• DIC to monitor the deformation process and measure relative displacements of bolts

• New monotonic load vs displacement prediction model characterized by four stages

• Calibration and physical meaning of the proposed model by using the experimental tests as a bench-
mark re-
lP
rna
Jou
 Journal Pre-proof

Axial load-deformation behavior and fracture characteristics of bolted steel to

of
laminated timber and glubam connections

Da Shic , Cristoforo Demartinoa,b,∗, Zhi Lic,∗, Yan Xiaoa,b

a Zhejiang University - University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Institute, Haining 314400, Zhejiang, PR China
b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

pro
c College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, 310058 Zhejiang, PR
China

Abstract

Bolted steel to laminated composite bio-based material connections are commonly used in truss systems.
The aim of this study is to provide a more rational understanding of their tensile axial behavior. The
aim of this paper is twofold: first, it investigates and compares the monotonic tensile axial behavior of
re-
bolted steel to laminated timber and bamboo connections with slotted-in steel plates. The test matrix
comprised a total of 8 different connection configurations obtained by changing parameters relevant to the
connection behavior (Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) and Glued Laminated Bamboo (glubam), 2 bolt
diameters, and 1 or 2 bolts). Three test repetitions for each connection configuration were performed to
investigate the repeatability and assess variability. Tests were performed by also employing Digital Image
lP
Correlation (DIC) apparatus to monitor the deformation process and measure relative displacements of
bolts. Moreover, the physical and mechanical properties of the materials adopted are investigated. Second,
based on the experimental findings, a new monotonic load vs displacement phenomenological prediction
model characterized by four stages is proposed which is capable of defining more rationally the observed
tensile monotonic behavior and differentiating between brittle and ductile failures. An extensive discussion
of the calibration and physical meaning of the proposed model by using the experimental test results as
rna

benchmark is provided.
Keywords: Bolted connections, Load-deformation behavior, LVL, Glubam, Bio-based materials, Fracture
characteristics

1 1. Introduction

2 Bio-based laminated composite materials are widely used in the construction sector because of their good
Jou

3 mechanical performances and low environmental impact [1, 2]. Lamination is the process of manufacturing

∗ Correspondingauthor
Email addresses: da.21@intl.zju.edu.cn (Da Shi), cristoforodemartino@intl.zju.edu.cn (Cristoforo Demartino),
li_zhi@zju.edu.cn (Zhi Li), yanxiao@intl.zju.edu.cn (Yan Xiao)

Preprint submitted to Composite Structures 18th November 2022

 Journal Pre-proof

4 a material in multiple layers joined using adhesives. Using this approach, bio-based composite laminated

of
5 materials can be considered engineered structural materials having enhanced properties not suffering from
6 the irregularities of parent natural materials. In this context, two different bio-based laminated materials
7 are widely used as construction material, namely Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) [e.g., 3, 4] and glued
8 laminated bamboo (glubam) [e.g., 5, 6, 7]. Timber for construction is one of the many forest products used

pro
9 around the world [8]. Bamboo is a fast-growing, naturally available, renewable resource which is quite strong
10 and lends itself to structural applications [9, 10].
11 Bio-based laminated materials are used in different forms in the construction industry [e.g., 11]. One
12 of the most appealing solutions is their application as horizontal elements for realizing truss structures.
13 For instance, Stehn and Börjes [12] investigated the influence of ductile connections, slotted-in nailed wood
14 to steel joints, on the total load-carrying capacity and deformability of a glulam truss. Kobel et al. [13]
15 experimentally investigated the application of LVL made of European beech wood in timber truss structures
16

17

18

19
re-
showing that dowel-type connections can ensure high load-carrying capacities and ductile behavior. Wu and
Xiao [14] proposed a new type of hybrid space truss system composed of steel lower chord and glubam upper
chords and web elements. The specially designed steel glubam hybrid space truss system was successfully
designed and constructed for a rain-shed canopy of an office building. Quaranta et al. [15] performed a
20 dynamic characterization of this new composite glubam-steel truss structure finding damping values com-
21 parable with timber structures and proposed their application for footbridges. Using the same structural
lP
22 system, Li et al. [16] proposed and realized a relatively large span bamboo and steel hybrid spatial truss for
23 covering the roof of a utility facility.
24 All the previously-mentioned studies concluded that the global behavior of the structures is highly related
25 to the local behavior of the connections [17]. To corroborated this evidence, it is noteworthy that connections
26 were reported to be involved in almost 25% of recent collapses of timber structures, where half of them have
27 dowel-type fasteners [18, 19]. Large structures, in height or span, require connections with a high load
rna

28 capacity therefore bolted (i.e., dowel-type) connections are the preferred solutions. Dowel-type joints have
29 been widely used in timber-to-steel and timber-to-timber shear connections in timber structures because of
30 their simple fabrication, high capacity, and construction convenience.
31 Pioneering studies on the bearing strength of wood under bolts were carried out by Trayer [20] in the
32 1930s. The majority of the capacity models adopted nowadays are based on the development of the yield
33 limit model that began in the late 1940s with Johansen [21]. These design criteria for the single connector
34 now form the basis for the design rules given in the Eurocode [22]. Estimations of the capacity of bolted
Jou

35 joints have been performed by numerous researchers [23] and in recent years, there has been an increase in
36 studies to predict the load at failure [24]. The original model of Johansen [21] considers only ductile failure
37 mechanisms and cannot adequately predict the capacity of bolted connections [25]. During the same period,
38 Fahlbusch [26] have dealt with some or all of the possible brittle failure modes. Ductile and brittle behavior
2
 Journal Pre-proof

39 of dowel-type connections has been studied extensively in literature [e.g., 27]. Since timber breaks in a brittle

of
40 manner under bending and tension, the ductility of timber structures is usually provided by connections
41 [28]. For a detailed review, the interested reader is referred to Cabrero and Yurrita [29] and Ottenhaus
42 et al. [17]. Sometimes multiple-bolt connections are employed such that there is a uniform spacing between
43 bolts (multi-shear configuration) as well as rows. A critical aspect to the understanding of multiple-bolt

pro
44 timber connections lies in the knowledge that the strength and stiffness of single-bolt joints are not directly
45 proportional to the strength and stiffness of multiple-bolt joints [30].
46 However, although the capacity associated with ductile and brittle mechanisms of bolted connections
47 was analytically and experimentally investigated, little attention has been paid to the analysis of the axial
48 load-deformation behavior and fracture characteristics. As a matter of fact, the load-deformation behavior of
49 bolted connections is governed by the embedding stress-deformation characteristics of the wood, which crush
50 the wood beneath the bolt, and the bending stress-deformation characteristics of the bolt [24]. The most
51

52

53

54
re-
commonly adopted model to describe the axial load-deformation behavior was provided by Foschi [31] where
the brittle or mixed failure is not accounted and the stiffness degradation is expressed as an exponential
function without physical meaning. Recently, Ottenhaus et al. [32] proposed a cross-over mode where the
ductility is calculated considering ductile and brittle modes in the response. The need for distinguishing
55 ductile and brittle failure modes in timber connections with dowel-type fasteners was recently highlighted
56 in Yurrita and Cabrero [28]. Available models lack in capturing the tensile axial load-deformation behavior
lP
57 and correlate it to the deformation and fracture characteristics providing a physically-based framework.
58 The effect of different bio-based laminated composite materials on the axial load-deformation behavior and
59 fracture characteristics of bolted steel has never been explored in the previous literature. .
60 In this framework, this study experimentally investigates the axial load-deformation behavior and fracture
61 characteristics of bolted steel to laminated timber and glubam connections. After this Introduction, this
62 paper is organized into five sections. Section 2 presents the materials employed and provides detailed
rna

63 information on the specimens and their fabrication process. Moreover, the test procedure and test matrix
64 (comprising 8 configurations: LVL and glubam, 2 bolt diameters, and 1 or 2 bolts) are reported in Section
65 2.3. Results of the system and material properties of components are presented and discussed first (Section
66 3), since they govern the load vs deformation behavior of connections. In particular, Section 3 summarizes
67 the experimental results in terms of materials physical and mechanical properties (LVL, glubam, and bolts),
68 load vs displacement, relative displacements of the bolts, and observed crack pattern at the failure. Section
69 4 proposes a new phenomenological monotonic load vs displacement prediction model characterized by four
Jou

70 stages. The proposed model is capable of defining more rationally the observed tensile monotonic behavior
71 and differentiating between brittle and ductile failures. Moreover, an extensive discussion of the calibration
72 and physical meaning of the proposed model by using the experimental tests as a benchmark is provided.
73 Finally, the last section provides some conclusions and future perspectives. Appendix A reports a summary
3
 Journal Pre-proof

of
z z z Thickness direction
z
Thickness direction

Grain direction 3.5mm

11mm

19mm Perpendicular to

pro
grain direction
y y y y
x x x x
Grain direction

(a) (b)

Figure 1: Materials orientation and coordinate system: LVL (a) and glubam (b).

74 of experimental results.

75

76

77
2. Materials and methods

2.1. Materials
re-
The materials adopted in this study are: LVL, glubam, high-strength bolts (grade 8.8) with a length of
78 120 mm and a diameter of 8 and 10 mm, washers with external diameters of 14 and 16 mm for bolts of 8 and
79 10 mm, respectively, and Q235 steel plate with a thickness of 8 mm. All the adopted bolts are 1/3 threaded
lP
80 bolts (2/3 is smooth shank). The characteristics of specimens and manufacturing process are described in
81 Section 2.2 while this section focuses on the description of the material employed and to their physical and
82 mechanical properties characterization.
83 LVL and glubam are two types of composite laminated bio-based materials. LVL is an engineered
84 timber composite manufactured by laminated wood veneers with a thickness of 2 − 4 mm using exterior-type
rna

85 adhesives [33]. LVL is made of poplar. Glubam is a type of composite engineered bamboo that resembles
86 timber-based glued-laminated timber [34, 35]. Glubam components are made by laminating 5 − 40 mm thick
87 bamboo boards. Glubam is made of Moso Bamboo. The materials orientation of LVL and glubam adopted
88 reference system are shown in Figure 1. LVL and glubam beams with a nominal cross-section of 60 × 60 mm
89 and a length of 4 m were used.
90 Material tests were carried out to determine parallel-to-grain compression strength (fc,0 ), elastic modulus
91 (E0 ), parallel-to-grain shear strength (fv,90 ), perpendicular-to-grain tensile strength (ft,90 ), dowel bearing
92 strength or embedment strength (fh,0 ) and stiffness (kh,0 ), and density (ρ). The subscript 0 indicates
Jou

93 parallel-to-the-grain direction while 90 refers to perpendicular-to-grain direction. Figure 2 summarizes the

94 specimen geometry and test setup adopted to define the material properties previously discussed. All the
95 tests were repeated six times.

4
 Journal Pre-proof

X X Y X

of
Y Z Z Y X Z Y
Z

13
R4 or R5

63 60 20
R10 80
50

pro
180 25

50 40
20 65 60
50
60 60
60

(a) (b)
re- (c) (d)

Figure 2: Specimen geometry and test setup for measuring compression strength and elastic modulus (a), parallel-to-the-grain
shear strength (b), perpendicular-to-the-grain tension strength (c) and dowel bearing strength (d). The reference system shown
indicates the orientation of the material consistently with definitions provided in Figure 1. (units: mm).
lP
96 fc,0 and E0 were determined according to GB/T 50329-2002 [36]. The layout of the employed sensors and
97 specimen is shown in Figure 2a. The parallel-to-grain compression modulus of elasticity (E0 ) is determined
98 as [36]:

L F
E0 = · (1)
A u
rna

99 where L is the gauge length of extensometer; A is the cross-section area of the specimen; F is the load
100 increment in the proportional interval; ∆u is the compression deformation corresponding to ∆F .
101 fv,90 is determined according to ASTM D143 [37] with specimens having geometry reported in Figure
102 2b.
103 ft,90 is determined as follows according to ASTM D143 [37] by testing specimens having geometry
104 reported in Figure 2c:

Pmax
Jou

ft,90 = (2)
b0 t 0
105 where Pmax is the peak load value obtained from the test, b0 = 25 mm and t0 = 40 mm are the minimum
106 width and thickness of the specimen, see Figure 2c.

5
 Journal Pre-proof

107 fh,0 was measured according to ASTM D 5764-97a [38] using four specimens for each material having

of
108 geometry reported in Figure 2d. A 8- and 10-mm-diameter smooth tungsten steel dowel was employed in
109 the tests. kh,0 is the elastic stiffness calculated in the 10 − 40% of peak load range as the stress divided by
110 the corresponding displacement.
111 The density is determined according to GB/T 50329-2002 [36] using specimens having geometry as in

pro
112 Figure 2a. Oven-dry weight is measured by drying specimens in a ventilated oven until constant weight
113 conditions are achieved (48 to 72 hours).
114 Finally, the bolts were tested to determine the bending yield moment (My ) and nominal yield strength
115 (fyb ) according to ASTM F1575-2003 [39]. In particular, the nominal yield strength was calculated as:

3 · P · sbp
fyb = (3)
2 · d2
where P is the load corresponding to 5% offset [39], sbp is the test span and d is the bolt diameter. Six bolts
116

117

118 three-point bending tests. My is equal to [22]:

re-
with a length of 180 mm and a diameter of 8 (three bolts) and 10 mm (three bolts) were used to perform

1
My = d3 fyb (4)
6
lP
119 2.2. Specimens: details and fabrication

120 This study investigates the mechanical behavior of bolted steel to LVL and glubam connections. In
121 particular, bolted connections with slotted-in steel plate under tensile axial monotonic loading conditions
122 are considered (Figure 3).
123 The specimens were specifically designed to be connected to the two clamps of the testing machine. It
124 was chosen to connect the specimen to the two clamps by always using steel plates to avoid local damage
rna

125 or large deformations of LVL or glubam block. Therefore, the specimens have two different slotted-in steel
126 plate at the two ends (Figure 4). One side is the tested side where the damage on the connection is expected
127 to occur (left side in each subfigure of Figure 4). The other side is designed to have sufficiently large capacity
128 to avoid damage during the tests therefore a larger number of bolts (four) is always employed. The length of
129 the connection specimen was designed as compromise between the two conflicting needs of having a sufficient
130 length to avoid interaction between the two connections in the two end and the limited space of the testing
131 apparatus (see Section 2.3).
Jou

132 Four different configurations were investigated in this study, namely single and double bolts (n = 1 or
133 2) and with a diameter of d = 8 mm and 10 mm. Moreover, LVL and glubam connection specimens are
134 considered leading to a total of eight configurations. In all the cases, two 8 mm-wide slots are considered in
135 the connection specimens for inserting steel plates. Connections on the tested side are designed following
6
 Journal Pre-proof

t=60 mm t=60 mm

of
ts=8 mm

a1
d=8 or 10 mm
a3

pro
120 mm
a2

Figure 3: Sketch of bolted connections (n = 1) with slotted-in steel plate to laminated timber or bamboo connections and
definition of the main variables.

136

137

138
re-
geometric requirements of GB50005 [40]. The specimen configurations for single bolt and double bolts are
summarized in Figure 4. The same geometry was considered for LVL and glubam and for d = 8 mm and
10 mm. Three identical specimens are tested to ensure the repeatability of the results under tensile axial
139 monotonic. Therefore, a total of 24 specimens are realized.
140 The LVL and glubam connection specimens were manufactured using a CNC drilling machine (Uli-CNC,
lP
141 model K1) adopting an automatic manufacturing framework. First, LVL and glubam blocks are cut to be
142 550 mm long. Then, the two slots at the center of the two ends were cut. Finally, holes at the location of
143 the bolts were made. The steel plates were manufactured by laser cutting of Q235 steel plate and by drilling
144 holes at specific locations. The steel plates are rectangular with a base equal to 60 mm and variable length
145 (Figure 4). In particular, the length is equal to the sum of the slot length and 100 mm which is the zone of
the plate adopted for clamping to the test machine (Section 2.3). The steel plates on the tested side have an
rna

146

147 additional protruding part (rectangular area) used to connect a displacement transducer (Section 2.3 and
148 Figure 5c). To guarantee a sufficient tolerance during the assembling, the holes in LVL and glubam blocks
149 were designed to be 0.5 mm larger with respect to the nominal bolt diameter.
150 Each specimen was assembled by inserting the two steel plates in the two slots and by connecting the
151 system using bolts. The amounts and diameters of bolts adopted on the tested side are variable (see Figure
152 4). On the other side, four bolts arranged in two rows are adopted having the same diameter of bolts
153 installed on the tested parts. The bolts have washers on both sides and all the nuts were installed on
Jou

154 the same side of the specimen (Figures 4c and 4d). Particular attention was taken to control the torque
155 applied on bolts. The high-strength bolts are tightened using a calibrated torque wrench. The torque was
156 controlled to avoid local large deformation around washers (i.e., penetration of the washer in the connection

7
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
re-
(a) (b)
lP
rna

(c) (d)

Figure 4: Specimen configurations: single bolt (a, c) and double bolts (b, d). Top to down (a, b): lateral side and top view of
the connection specimen without steel plates, section along the slots with steel plates and full-view of the assembled specimen.
Photo of specimen showing speckle pattern for DIC analyses (c, d); the two example photos are showing LVL connection
specimen. (units: mm)
Jou

8
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5: Test setup and instrumentation: photo (a), sketch (b), and detail of the LVDT and steel protruding element (c).

157

158

159

160
re-
specimen surface). Preliminary tests indicate a pre-load torque equal to 0.7 N·m and 1 N·m for bolts with
diameters of 8 mm and 10 mm, respectively. The controlled torque ensures controllable friction conditions
at the interface between the steel plate and slot surfaces.
Finally, on the tested side, two opposite surfaces of the specimen, where bolt head and nuts are located,
161 were treated for performing DIC measurements (see Section 2.3), as illustrated in Figures 4c and 4d.

162 2.3. Test procedure and measurements

lP
163 Figure 5 illustrates the test setup used to investigate the mechanical behavior of bolted steel to LVL or
164 bamboo connections. Tests were executed using a 100 kN servo hydraulic testing machine (186E, WANCE
165 Ltd.). The bottom clamp is fixed and connected to a load transducer measuring the tensile load applied on
166 the connection, F . The upper clamp is connected to an actuator whose displacements (V ) are measured.
167 Before the test, the specimen is installed between the two clamps using the steel plates (see Figure 4). To
rna

168 monitor the relative displacements of the tested connection, a LVDT sensor is installed between the center
169 of the connection specimen and the protruding part on the steel plate (Figure 5c). This measurement is
170 neglecting the deformation of the testing apparatus and bottom steel connection.

171

172 Two cameras (Basler: resolution 4096×3072; lens: f/2.8, 25mm) are adopted to perform 2D DIC analysis
173 and monitor the deformation process around the bolts (Figure 5). The two cameras were oriented with the
174 lens direct towards the center of the two speckle areas (Figure 4c) and perpendicular to the specimen surface.
Jou

175 The photos were taken at 0.5 fps. Two light sources with constant luminosity were used. GOM Correlate
176 2019 was used to perform DIC analyses and obtain the displacement/strain field at each loading step. A
177 standard analysis, as defined by the software, was carried out. A facet size of 19 pixels and a spacing of 16
178 pixels (point distance) were defined to have a good resolution with computational viability [41].
9
 Journal Pre-proof

of
dn dh

Δn,1 Δh,1
Vn,1 θ Vh,1

pro
Figure 6: Sketch of measurement of relative displacement of the bolts.

179 The displacements of the center point on the two end faces of the bolts (Vn , nut and Vh , head) were
180 captured through DIC (see Figure 6) to monitor the deformation of the bolt. Similar measurements can be
181

182
re-
found in Zhang et al. [42] for dowel-type moment-resisting connections. The relative displacements at the
two ends are calculated as the difference between the steel plate displacement, V , and Vn and Vh :

∆n = V − Vn ·α1 ; ∆h = V − Vh (5)

183 where α1 = dh /dn = 35 mm/47 mm = 0.75 is a correction factor accounting for the different distance of the
184 measurement point (end of the bolt) from the steel plate under the assumption of linear deformed shape
lP
185 (dh and dn are defined in Figure 6). When two bolts are considered, an additional subscript is added to ∆
186 in Eq. 5 where 1 is the first bolt (the one near the end of the connection specimen) and 2 is the second
187 one. It should be noticed that ∆ is a measure of the deformation level of the bolts and can be converted
188 into a rotation under the assumption of linear deformed shape and concentrated rotation at the midpoint
189 as θ = arctan(∆h,1 /dh ).
Specimens were named following the designation L (G)-M S (D)-X-Y (Ave). L (G) indicates materials
rna

190

191 (LVL or glubam), M indicates the monotonic loading regime, S (D) is used to designate the amount of bolt
192 used on the upper part (Single or Double), X indicates the bolt diameter (8 mm or 10 mm), Y indicates
193 specimen number (1, 2 or 3) and Ave represents the average response of three test repetitions.
194 The tensile monotonic loading protocol is made of a preloading and a tensile loading phase according to
195 EN12512 [43]. In the first phase, the specimen was loaded up to 10% of the ultimate load (estimated using
196 some preliminary tests) followed by a constant load for 120 s. Then, the load was decreased to zero followed
197 by a pause of 30 s. Subsequently, the loading was monotonically increased at a loading rate of 1.5 mm/min.
Jou

198 The test was stopped at a global displacement of V = 40 mm.

199 Load vs displacement curves were processed to obtain some synthetic indicators according to ASTM
200 D5764-97a [38]. The following indicators are considered (Figure 7): initial stiffness (ke ), yielding load (Fy ),

10
 Journal Pre-proof

of
Fu
Fy

0.4 Fu
0.1 Fu
ke

pro
0.05d Vy Vu V

Figure 7: Definition of ke , Fy , Fu , and Vu and Vy (D) according to ASTM D5764-97a [38].

201 maximum load (Fu ), and ductility (D). The initial stiffness is the slope of the secant line corresponding to
202 0.1Fu and 0.4Fu , which can be expressed as:

0.3Fu
ke = (6)
V0.4 − V0.1
203

204 defined as:

D=
re-
where V0.4 and V0.1 are the displacements corresponding to 0.1Fu and 0.4Fu , respectively. The ductility is

Vu
(7)
Vy
205 where Vu is the ultimate displacement corresponding a load reduction to 80% of Fu . Fy and Vy are determined
lP
206 using a secant line (dashed blue in Figure 7) in offset by a displacement equal to 0.05d, where d is the diameter
207 of the bolt (Figure 3). The intersection between the offset line and the load-displacement curve is regarded
208 as the yielding point [38].

209 3. Results
rna

210 3.1. Materials physical and mechanical properties

211 Table 1 presents the average test results and coefficient of variations (CV ) for LVL and glubam. E0
212 is larger for LVL and fc,0 for glubam. Similar results were reported in the literature for LVL [44, 45, 46]
213 and for glubam [47, 48, 35]. fv,0 and ft,90 are slightly larger for glubam [14, 35, 49]. fh,0 and kh,0 are
214 calculated from the stress-displacement curves of dowel bearing strength tests reported in Figure 8. fh,0
215 and kh,0 is larger for glubam and similar results were reported in the literature for LVL [50, 51] and for
216 glubam [47, 48, 35]. It is noteworthy that kh,0 is expressed in the form of stress divided by the displacement,
therefore kh,0 should be multiplied by d to obtain the stiffness per unit length in Winkler model [52] (this
Jou

217

218 will be discussed in Section 4.2). Similar values of ρ were found for LVL and glubam.
219 Table 1 presents the average and the coefficient of variation (CV ) of My and fy . As expected, the
220 increase of d leads to an evident increase of My as effect of the increase of the second-moment order of

11
 Journal Pre-proof

Table 1: Properties of LVL and glubam. The number in the parenthesis indicates the Coefficient of Variation (CV). ∗ see

of
Figure 8.

E0 fc,0 fv,0 ft,90 fh,0 (8 mm) ∗

fh,0 (10 mm) ∗
kh,0 (8 mm) ∗
kh,0 (10 mm) ∗
ρ
Material
[GPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa/mm] [MPa/mm] [kg/m3 ]
LVL 11.45 (13%) 38 (6%) 6.98 (7%) 1.81 (25%) 40 (3%) 37 (8%) 42 (4%) 45 (10%) 614 (7%)
Glubam 8.56 (8%) 62 (13%) 8.18 (11%) 2.69 (14%) 86 (4%) 81 (7%) 79 (4%) 61 (6%) 749 (5%)

pro
LVL 8 mm LVL 10 mm

GLU 8 mm GLU 10 mm

(a)
re- (b)

Figure 8: Stress-displacement curves of dowel bearing strength tests (a). The red line is the average of the test across the
displacements. Summary of fh,0 and kh,0 for the different tests (b). The standard deviation values are shown with error bars.
lP
221 inertia (proportional to d4 ). Moreover, a slight increase in fyb is observed by increasing d. The increase
222 in fyb is related to the model assumed for the calculations (Eq. 3) considering full plasticization of the
223 cross-section.

224 3.2. Load vs displacement

225 Load vs displacement curves of tensile monotonic tests are shown in Figure 9a. Results are reported as
rna

226 each of the three tests (gray lines) and average across displacements (continuous red lines). Moreover, ke ,
227 Fy , Fu , and D (see Section 2.3 for their definition) of the tests reported in Figure 9a are summarized in
228 Figure 9b and the summary of results reported in Table A.3.
229 Figure 9a shows a good reproducibility of results on the three repetitions. The load vs displacement

Table 2: Mechanical properties of Grade 8.8 bolts. The number in the parenthesis indicates the CV.

d My fyb
Jou

[mm] [N · m] [MPa]
8 62 (3%) 721 (3%)
10 137 (5%) 824 (5%)

12
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
re- (a)
lP
rna
Jou

(b)

Figure 9: Load vs displacement curves of tensile monotonic tests (a). The red line is the average of tests across displacements.
Mechanical indicators (ke , Fy , Fu , and D) of different tests (b). The standard deviation values are shown with error bars.

13
 Journal Pre-proof

230 behavior reported in Figure 9a is characterized by four stages (Figure 10) and by two different failure modes

of
231 (shear or splitting) in the last stage (see Figure 13). A similar classification of the stages of the monotonic
232 behavior was previously proposed by Liu et al. [53].
233 A first stage (Figure 10) is characterized by an initial-slip happening for displacements smaller than
234 1 mm (not well observable in Figure 9a due to the y-axis scale, see Figure 18 for a close view). In this

pro
235 stage, friction between the steel plate and the internal surface of the slots and tolerances adopted in the
236 holes fabrication dominates the response [54, 55]. Generally, this stage does not exhibit any specific features
237 depending on the specimen and has a negligible effect on the next stages.
238 The second stage (Figure 10) is characterized by an elastic stage with an almost linear behavior. This
239 stage is strongly dependent on the specimen characteristics (Figure 9b). During this stage, the observed
240 stiffness (ke ) mainly depends on the bolt flexural stiffness (see Table 2) and on the embedding stiffness
241 [56, 57, 58] occurring on the internal hole surface (see Figure 8 and Table 1). There was a significant increase
242

243

244

245
re-
of ke associated with the increase of bolt diameter corresponding to the increase of the bolt stiffness. It is
noteworthy that the elastic stiffness of the bolt is proportional to d4 implying an increase of around 45%
from 8 to 10 mm. Increasing the number of bolts, an increase of ke is observed. Moreover, ke is always larger
for glubam rather than from LVL. This is associated with a different distribution of the loads on the bolts
246 and confirms the findings of kh,0 (see Figure 8) as it will be shown in Figure 17.
247 The third stage is characterized by the occurrence of two possible phenomena: embedment of the bolt in
lP
248 the wooden block (stage 3 up in Figure 10) and/or bending of the bolt with possible formation of a plastic
249 hinge at the cross-sections in contact with the steel plate (stage 3 bottom); this issue will be discussed later
250 in the paper. The embedment of the bolt in the wooden block is characterized by perfectly plastic behavior
251 [59] (Figure 9a) especially for LVL (Figure 8a) where lower values of fh,0 are found (Table 1). On the other
252 hand, the formation of the plastic hinge is characterized by strain hardening behavior [24, 60]. For instance,
253 looking at the case LM-S-10, it can be observed that the load vs displacement response is characterized by
rna

254 large perfectly plastic behavior therefore the without formation of the plastic hinge on the bolt. On the other
255 hand, LM-D-8 is characterized by strain hardening behavior of the bolts as effect of the larger embedment
256 strength of glubam.
257 The fourth stage is characterized by the failure in the form of shear or splitting cracks in the wooden
258 or bamboo block [e.g., 61] and the sudden drop of the load (see Figure 9a). The failures discussed herein
259 refer to the complete and final fracture of the specimens occurring, i.e., almost completely lost load-bearing
260 capacity [62]. Generally, Fu is increasing by increasing the number and diameter of bolts and is higher for
Jou

261 glubam compared with LVL. An opposite trend is observed in terms of D. As a matter of fact, the increase
262 of the embedment strength of glubam (see Table 1) is inducing larger loads producing a premature failure
263 (in terms of displacements) at a higher global load. This issue will be discussed in the next section.

14
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
Figure 10: Four stages of the nonlinear monotonic behavior and corresponding graphical description.

264 3.3. Relative displacements of the bolts

265 Figure 11 shows the load vs displacement curves (first row) and ∆h and ∆n (Eq. 5) (second row) vs
266

267

268

269
re-
displacement of single bolted (Figure 11a) and double bolted connections (Figure 11b). In the second row
of each subfigure, the dashed blue line represents ∆ = V corresponding to zero displacement of the bolt
(i.e., large rotations of the bolts around the steel plate). For the sake of shortness and clarity, results are
reported for one representative test since similar test results were observed in remaining cases.
270 The first phase is always characterized by small negative values of ∆ (not well observable in the figure
271 due to the y scale, see Figure 18 for a close view), indicating that the bolt is moving in the same direction
lP
272 of V . This first stage is ending when the bolt is moving due to the tolerance of the holes and consolidate
273 with the surface of the hole [54, 55]. The second stage is characterized by the load transfer between the bolt
274 and the surface of the hole in an elastic regime. In this case, the observed values of ∆ are generally small
275 indicating that the bolts are in a quasi-straight configuration.
276 The last two stages (Figure 10) are strongly dependent on the test case. For the single bolt cases (Figure
277 11a), large values of ∆ were observed for all the cases except for L-M-S103. The large values of ∆ are
rna

278 connected to large deformation of the bolts and formation of the plastic hinge in the region in contact with
279 the steel plate. ∆ is generally growing with symmetric trend (with respect to the nut ant head sides) until
280 formation of a crack (fourth phase, Figure 10). L-M-S82 is characterized by large ductility corresponding to
281 large values of ∆ indicating formation of the plastic hinge with large rotation values which can be calculated
282 at failure (V ∼
= 25 mm) as:

∆ 26 mm
arctan = arctan = 36◦ (8)
dh 35 mm
Jou

283 These large rotations are generally associated with enhanced rope effects [63], see Figure 13a. Rope effect
284 is considered as the contribution of the withdrawal resistance of the fasteners. The rope effect is generally
285 inducing a secondary nonlinear load increasing response of the fasteners under lateral load (Figure 9a).

15
 Journal Pre-proof

286 G-M-S83 is characterized by the formation of a first crack on the nut side (Figure 13) indicated by the

of
287 sudden reduction of ∆ for V ∼
= 20 mm. The crack is inducing a reduction of the global load and inducing
288 an asymmetric load inducing a rigid rotation of the bolt observable in terms of the large difference between
289 ∆n and ∆h . G-M-S101 has a first crack on the head side (reduction of ∆h for V ∼
= 9 mm) in the form of a
290 fully developed splitting failure (see Figure 13a). Simultaneously to the occurrence of the fully developed

pro
291 splitting failure on the head side, a partially developed splitting failure (i.e., formation of the crack on only
292 one shear plane) providing some residual capacity characterized by a slight increase of F (Figure 12a). For
293 V = 12.05 mm, a fully developed splitting failure is also detected on the nut side (Figure 12b). Finally after
294 this (i.e., for V ≥ 15 mm), ∆ assumes constant values equal to around 10 mm because the failure pattern is
295 symmetric on the two sides, and the global load is assuming low values and is not increasing. For L-M-S103,
296 a different trend is observed with approximately zero values of ∆ which are associated with the embedment
297 of the bolt in the LVL and glubam block. Moreover, the observed low values of ∆ are associated with
298

299

300

301
rotation, i.e., ∆n 6= ∆h .
re-
negligible deformation of the bolt without the formation of the plastic hinge. In this case, the first crack is
happening on the nut side as confirmed in Figure 13a with asymmetric loads on the bolts inducing a rigid

For the two bolts cases (Figure 11b), large values of ∆ were observed for all the cases except for L-M-
302 D103. The results are similar to the single bolt cases with a reduced ductility (see Figure 9b). For L-M-D83,
303 the crack is first starting on the top of the second bolt (i.e., reduction of ∆h,2 and ∆n,2 ) and is accompanied
lP
304 by a smooth reduction of the load. Subsequently, a major crack on the top of the first nut is observed
305 (i.e., reduction of ∆n,1 ) with asymmetric loads on the bolts inducing a rigid rotation, i.e., ∆n 6= ∆h . For
306 G-M-D82 and G-M-D101, similar behavior is observed with the formation of the first crack on the nut side
307 inducing a rigid rotation of the bolt, i.e., ∆n 6= ∆h . In these two cases, similar values of ∆ for the first
308 and second bolt are observed indicating that the two bolts are constrained to move together (see Figure
309 13b). After the crack, ∆ assumes stable values equal to around 5 mm for the head side and zero for the nut
rna

310 side with the global load not increasing. Finally, for L-M-D103, low values of ∆ are monitored indicating
311 negligible deformation of the bolt without the formation of the plastic hinge.

312 3.4. Crack pattern

313 Figure 13 shows photos from DIC cameras of the damage pattern in the head and nut surfaces. The
314 photos are representing the time when a first crack appears on the surface (stage 4, see Figure 10) and
315 corresponds to the first load drop. Moreover, Figure 13 reports for each case the associated displacement
Jou

316 to which the photo refers to allowing for understanding on which side the crack started first. It should be
317 highlighted that all the steel plates were inspected at the end of tests and no plastic deformation was found.
318 The failure mode of bolted connections varies with material type and the number and diameter of
319 the bolts adopted. The failure mode can be divided into shear failure and splitting failure (Figure 10).

16
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
n

re-
(a)
lP
rna

n,1

n,2

h,1

h,2

(b)

Figure 11: Load vs displacement curves (first row of the subfigure) and ∆h and ∆n (Eq. 5) (second row of the subfigure) vs
Jou

displacement for one representative test of single bolted (a) and double bolted connections (b). In the second row, the dashed
blue line represents ∆ = V corresponding to zero displacement of the bolt (i.e., rotation).

17
 Journal Pre-proof

of
(a) (b)

pro
Figure 12: Crack pattern of G-M-S101 on the nut surface at the first crack for V = 9.8 mm (a) and at full formation of the
splitting failure for V = 12.05 mm (b). Subfigure a is the same as in Figure 13a.

320 Moreover, the failure can happen after reaching embedded strength in the form of a combined failure mode
321 [29, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68] and/or formation of the plastic hinge in the bolt. LVL-S-8 connections present the
322 highest ductility (Figure 9b) and tend to deform significantly with the formation of the plastic hinge (Figure
323 11a) with embedment effect near the steel plate (this will be demonstrated in Figure 19) and large rope effect
324 [49]. LVL-S-8 connections fails in the form of splitting crack which could be related to the lower embedment
325

326

327

328
re-
strength and perpendicular-to-the-grain tensile strength (Table 1). LVL-S-10 connections exhibit a similar
final crack pattern but a full embedment effect along the entire hole surface is observed as an effect of the
reduced bolt rotation indicating no plasticization (see Figure 11a). To sum up, LVL-S connections failed in
the form of splitting failure with a different stage 3 depending on the bolt diameter, consistently with the
329 literature [e.g., 69].
330 Compared to LVL, GLB-S connections exhibit both shear failure and splitting failure and any dominating
lP
331 behavior without any embedment of the bolt in the glubam block since glubam has much higher embedment
332 strength compared with LVL (see Table 1). The occurrence of both shear failure and splitting failure can
333 be attributed to two competing mechanisms characterized by similar capacity; this issue will be discussed
334 in Section 4.4.
335 Double bolted connections exhibit lower ductility but higher bearing capacity compared with single bolt
connections (Figure 9b). LVL-D-8 connections perform the best ductility among double bolted connections
rna

336

337 (same as for the single bolt case). The failure of LVL-D-8 always originates from a shear failure in the
338 part between the two bolts, then followed by a splitting crack in the part above the first bolt (similar to
339 the single bolt case). No evident differences were observed for LVL-D-10 connections which tend to fail
340 with a shear failure in the part between the two bolts and splitting above the first bolt. However, LVL-
341 D-10 tests are characterized by enhanced embedment of the bolt in the LVL block, as confirmed by bolt
342 relative displacement measurements (see Figure 11b). Compared with the single bolt case, the embedment
343 displacement of the bolt is less due to a global reduced displacement capacity (ductility, see Figure 9b) of
Jou

344 the connection. Similar to single bolt connections, GLB-D specimens exhibit both shear failure and splitting
345 failure without any dominating behavior above the first bolt. Similar to LVL-D, shear failures in the part
346 between the two bolts were observed in GLB-D tests and reduced embedment as an effect of the higher

18
 Journal Pre-proof

347 glubam embedment strength compared with LVL (Table 1).

of
348 4. Discussion

349 4.1. Monotonic load vs displacement prediction model

pro
350 The non-linear load-deformation behavior of connections is complex to describe [70]. The overall analysis
351 of the structural response of timber buildings requires a complete constitutive model [e.g., 71, 72], which is
352 discussed in this section. A reasonable and useful analytical model should have a few parameters that are
353 related to the mechanical properties of the connections and be able to reproduce the observed monotonic
354 behavior.
355 An empirical model to simulate the nonlinear load-displacement behavior of composite connections sub-
356 jected to monotonic loading was proposed based on the observed shape of test curves by Foschi [31],
Lukaszewska et al. [73] and modified by Folz and Filiatrault [74], Hong and Barrett [75], Meghlat et al.
357

358 re-
[76]. This model is based on an exponential load-displacement relationship [77]:

 
ke
F (V ) = Fu 1 − exp − V
Fu

(9)

359 where ke is the initial stiffness, Fu is the maximum load capacity, and F and V are the predicted load and
360 corresponding displacement, respectively. Eq. 9 possesses two distinct mathematical features: (i ) if V = 0,
lP
361 the slope corresponds to ke , and (ii ) it will approach a horizontal asymptote, F = Fu , as the displacement
362 tends to large values. This straightforward mathematical expression has only two parameters, involving the
363 initial stiffness ke and the maximum load-carrying capacity Fu , which could be obtained by taking the mean
364 values from executed tests as provided in Table A.3 or directly obtained from the existing design formulas
365 without carrying out additional experiments. Figure 14 displays the fitting curves generated by using Eq.
366 9 for one representative test (the same considered in Figure 11) where ke and Fu are evaluated with the
rna

367 models described in Eq. 13 and Section 4.4, respectively. The prediction reported in Figure 14 is generally
368 acceptable in terms of elastic stiffness (ke ) and maximum load (Fu ) while the post-failure behavior is not
369 well captured (Eq. 9 has no limit for describing this behavior and cannot differentiate between brittle and
370 ductile failure). Similar prediction performances were found by Liu et al. [53] for bolted timber joints with
371 slotted-in steel plates parallel to the grain. The main drawback of this model is that it assumes the variation
372 of the stiffness with V (exponential modulating function) and is not considering the four stages described
373 in Figure 10 in a rational way.
Jou

374 To overcome the limitations of the model in Eq. 9, a phenomenological partially data-driven model is
375 proposed herein. The four stages (Figure 15) can be described by the following model through a piece-wise

19
 Journal Pre-proof

of
LVL GLB

S81 S82 S83 S101 S102 S103 S81 S82 S83 S101 S102 S103

pro
Head surface

V [mm] 29.10 26.95 31.05 12.35 18.35 23.95 15.50 15.85 17.10 9.80 8.85 8.45

Nut surface

V [mm] 27.70 31.85 28.05 17.55

re-
17.70 18.45 21.10 21.15 20.15 9.80 11.75 9.30

(a)

LVL GLB
lP
D81 D82 D83 D101 D102 D103 D81 D82 D83 D101 D102 D103
rna

Head Surface

V [mm] 9.50 10.90 18.20 5.05 12.25 9.00 5.90 6.40 6.85 5.45 5.00 5.30

Nut Surface
Jou

V [mm] 9.30 14.70 13.15 7.25 7.25 7.30 6.60 4.35 3.65 5.45 5.00 5.30

(b)

Figure 13: Crack pattern of specimen in each surface of single bolted (a) and double bolted connections (b). V is the
displacement corresponding to the photo. 20
 Journal Pre-proof

of
Foschi
40 40 40 40
Test
30 30 30 30

20 20 20 20

10 10 10 10

pro
0 0 0 0
0 15 30 0 15 30 0 15 30 0 15 30

60 60 60 60

40 40 40 40

20 20 20 20

0 0 0 0
0 15 30 0 15 30 0 15 30 0 15 30

376 function:
re-
Figure 14: Comparison between experimental and analytical load-displacement curves predicted using Eq. 9.



 0 if V ≤ Vs




lP


ke · (V − Vs ) if F < min {Fy , Fh }
F (V ) =  (10)



 min Fy + ke · [V − (Fy /ke + Vs ) + Vt ])b − ke · Vtb , Fh otherwise




Failed if V ≥ Vu
377 where Vs is the initial slip accounting for the tolerance in manufacturing the bolt hole, ke is the initial stiffness
378 (same as in Eq. 9), Fh is the embedment capacity, b is a parameter describing the hardening behavior, Vu
rna

379 is the displacement corresponding to the failure defined as the opening of a crack in the form of splitting
380 or shear pattern (see Stage 4 in Figure 10). Vu is not accounted by the model by Foschi [31], Lukaszewska
381 et al. [73] in Eq. 9. Vt is a factor ensuring continuity of the derivative or in other words that the slope of the
382 third function (first function in the minimum operator) at V = Fy /ke + Vs is equal to ke (as in the second
383 function) and is equal to:

r
1
(11)
(b−1)
Vt =
b
Jou

384 The proposed model in Eq. 10 can be used in the structural design procedure for performing checks
385 in terms of displacements or forces, or for performing non-linear monotonic analyses (e.g., push-over).
386 Moreover, the proposed model can be easily associated with performance levels (i.e., limit states) given the
387 rationale definition of the four limit states. It is noteworthy that if the designer is interested in a structural
21
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
Figure 15: Proposed monotonic load vs displacement prediction model.

388 check based on forces, the model in Eq. 10 can be always used to perform a preliminary incremental analysis
389 to find the peak values of the forces (i.e., connection force strength).
390 In the following, the different stages will be described and models for predicting the key parameters of
391

392

393
re-
Eq. 10 proposed. A comparison with experimental results provided in this study is finally provided.

4.2. Initial slip and elastic stiffness (Stages 1 and 2)

Since a sufficient tolerance during the assembling of specimens was considered when drilling holes in
394 the wooden blocks, an initial-slip Vs is used to describe the consolidation process between the bolt and
395 hole internal surface. The observed values of Vs are in the order of 0.5 to 0.7 mm (see Figure 11) and are
lP
396 compatible with the tolerance employed in CNC manufacturing of around 0.5 mm (Section 2.2). Dubas et al.
397 [78] highlighted that the initial slip is commonly smaller for connection tested in the laboratory due to the
398 higher precision compared to connections produced in practice, however, in these tests large values of the
399 tolerance were employed.
400 The initial stiffness is produced by the elastic deformation of the bolt and of the hole internal surface
(embedment stiffness). If the stiffness of the bolt is neglected (rigid behavior of the bolt, EI = ∞, being
rna

401

402 E and I the elastic modulus and cross-section inertia moment of the bolt, respectively), the elastic stiffness
403 can be calculated as:

ke = kh,0 · d · (t − ts ) (12)

404 where kh,0 is the embedment stiffness of the wooden block (see Table 1) and d, t, and ts are defined in Figure
405 3. If the elastic deformation of the bolt is taken into account, ke can be calculated according to a Winkler
model accounting for a beam on an elastic foundation [79, 80, 57]. In particular, the elastic stiffness of single
Jou

406

407 bolt joints can be calculated as [57]:

s
4EI
ke = β · kh,0 · d · 4
(13)
kh,0 · d
22
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
Figure 16: n and n0.9 (a2 /13d)0.25 (see Eq. 14) as a function of a2 for d = 8 and 10 mm. The dashed vertical line is the value
of a2 adopted in this study (a2 = 40 mm, see Figures 3 and 4).

408 where β is a coefficient ranging between 1 to 2 depending on the rotation degree of the midpoint of the
409 bolt (higher values implying fewer rotations). The observed rotations of the bolt at the midpoint during the
410 elastic stage are very small (Figure 18) thus β can be assumed equal to 2.
411

412

413

414
re-
Figure 17 compares the measured values of ke (see Figure 9b) and predicted ones based on Eq. 12 (gray
filled markers) and Eq. 13 (full markers). Generally, it can be observed that Eq. 12 and Eq. 13 are providing
similar prediction values, indicating that the role of deformation of the bolt in the stage is not dominating.
However, slightly better predictions are obtained when the bolt elastic behavior is taken into account (points
415 are nearer to the equivalence line in Figure 17). The observed difference is more evident for glubam (red
416 points) where this discrepancy could be attributed to the higher embedment stiffness inducing larger loads
lP
417 in the bolt and in turn larger deformations with a more important contribution to the total response.
418 The measured values of ke suggest that a link may exist between the elastic stiffness of a single bolt and
419 double bolt cases. The mean ratio between ke for single bolt and double bolt cases was found to be 1.43
420 and 1.54 for d = 8 and 10 mm, respectively. The observed ratio is comparable to the effective bolts factor
421 specified in Eurocode 5 [22]:
rna

 r 
a2
nef = min n, n0.9 4 (14)
13d
422 where n is the number of bolts and a2 is the bolt spacing. Figure 16 plots Eq. 14 for d = 8 and 10 mm as
423 a function a2 . From the figure, it can be observed that nef is less than n for a2 < 150 mm. In particular,
424 for a2 = 40 mm (Figures 3 and 4), nef = 1.47 and 1.39 for d = 8 and 10 mm, respectively. Therefore, the
425 measured and predicted effective bolts factor for stiffness are comparable. This finding, while preliminary,
426 suggests that Eq. 14 can be used as a multiplier of Eqs. 12 or 13 for the double bolt cases. The results for
the double bolt case are also reported in Figure 17 where it can be observed that the prediction deviation
Jou

427

428 is larger for the double bolt cases (as previously discussed) but still reasonable.
429 The comparison of the load vs displacement curves measured (black lines) and predicted using Eq. 10
430 (red lines) is shown in Figure 18. Figure 18 shows a close view in the range of V of 0 to 5 mm of Figure

23
 Journal Pre-proof

Single bolt Double bolts

of
pro
Figure 17: Comparison between the measured (average across test repetitions - Table A.3) and predicted ke based on Eq. 12
(gray filled markers) and on Eqs. 13 and 14 (full markers). Green is referring to LVL and red to glubam. Circles are referring
to d = 8 mm and triangles to d = 10 mm.

431

432

433

434
re-
11. The first stage considers Vs = {0.55, 0.55, 0.70, 0.65} mm for the single bolt case (Figure 18a, from left
to right) and Vs = {0.30, 0.12, 0.70, 0.6} mm for the double bolt case (Figure 18b, from left to right). The
latter values were obtained by solving a minimization error (minimum of the squared error) for the first two
stages. The slope of the second stage is calculated according to Eqs. 13 and 14. The results indicate that
435 Vs is generally larger for glubam and this can be attributed to the brittleness of the material during the
436 manufacturing inducing damage around the holes [81, 82]. Moreover, ke is well predicted, double confirming
lP
437 results reported in Figure 17.

438 4.3. Bolt hardening and embedment behavior (Stage 3)

439 The yielding load, Fy , is the load inducing the formation of a plastic hinge in the bolts (Figure 15) in
440 the third stage (Figure 10). Fy can be calculated using load equilibrium conditions (static limit) under the
assumption of uniformly distributed load (i.e., the bolt is considered rigid and straight and the reaction load
rna

441

442 on the hole are modeled as elastic), as [e.g., 83, 84]:

Fy t − ts 8My 8My
My = · ⇒ Fy = = (15)
2 2 t − ts 52 mm
443 where My is the bending yield moment (Table 2), and t and ts are defined in Figure 3. For the double
444 bolt cases, the yielding load is obtained by multiplying Fy by the number of bolts calculated for a single
445 bolt (Eq. 15). This assumption is justified by the fact that the two bolts are experiencing similar values of
Jou

446 relative displacements in stages 1 and 2 (i.e., ∆1 = ∆2 , see Figure 18b) implying similar loads acting on the
447 two bolts. Fy is shown in the load vs displacement dashed horizontal red line in Figure 18.
448 The embedment capacity, Fh , can be calculated as the load inducing the reaching of the embedment
449 capacity under the assumption of uniformly distributed load on the bolt (the bolt is considered rigid and

24
 Journal Pre-proof

450 straight and the reaction load on the hole are modeled as elastic, i.e., static limit) as [85]:

of
Fh = (t − ts ) · fh,0 · d (16)

451 where fh,0 is the embedment strength (Table 1), and d, t and ts are defined in Figure 3. Similar to Eq. 15,
for the double bolt cases, the embedment capacity is obtained by multiplying Fh by the number of bolts

pro
452

453 calculated for a single bolt (Eq. 16).

454 Experimental observations (see Figure 11) confirmed that the deformation of the bolts is negligible in
455 the second stage (i.e. for V ≤ Vs + Fy /Ke ) and begins to grow when plastic hinge forms, inducing hardening
456 behavior. In the load vs displacement (first row of each subfigure), Fy (Eq. 15) is represented with a
457 horizontal dashed green line while Fh (Eq. 16) is represented with a horizontal dashed green line. It can
458 be seen that Fh is generally larger than Fy indicating that the formation of a plastic hinge in the bolts is
459 generally occurring before. The only cases where Fy > Fh are L-M-S103 and L-M-D-103 where the two
460

461

462

463
capacities are quite similar Fh ∼
re-
= Fy indicating combined mechanisms [17]. It can be generally observed that
the distance between Fy and Fh is larger for glubam because of the larger values of fh,0 (Table 1). It should
be highlighted that Fy is only depending on the bolt characteristics (My in Table 2) and does not have a
direct dependency on the LVL and glubam block. However, the assumption of uniformly distributed load
464 on the bolt in Eq. 15 can be more or less accurate depending on the embedment stiffness [e.g., 86, 87, 88].
465 For the cases Fy < Fh , Figure 11 shows that a reduction of the stiffness is observed exceeded Fy occurring
lP
466 together with an increase of ∆ (symmetric on both sides of the wooden block and on the two bolts). The
467 hardening phase is described at the mesoscale level in the proposed model (Eq. 10) by the parameter b. The
468 proposed model is based on commonly used analytical stress-strain curves describing the hardening behavior
469 of steel [89, 90] with the correction term Vt (Eq. 11) accounting for derivative continuity of the function.
470 b depends on both the steel nonlinear hardening and the distribution of the loads on the bolt also under
large deformations. After fitting the model in stage 3, it was found that b = 0.11 provides a reasonable
rna

471

472 description of the hardening behavior. The latter value was found as the average of the values obtained on
473 all the tests solving a fitting problem based on minimization of root mean square error. The good prediction
474 for the cases Fy < Fh is shown in Figure 11. To better understand the process, it is useful to describe the
475 moment of the bolt as a function of the cross-section curvature, χ, as:

Z d/2 p
M (χ) = 2 σ(ε(χ)) · 2h · (d2 /4) − h2 dh (17)
0

where h is the distance from the centerline of the bolt and σ(ε) is the axial stress as a function of the axial
Jou

476

477 deformation ε expressed as χ · h. Eq. 17 assumes conservation of planar cross-section and zero axial load.

25
 Journal Pre-proof

478 The stress-strain relationship can be expressed as [91, 92]:

of
σ(h) = a1 · εa2 (18)

479 where a1 and a2 are two constants defining the stress-strain relationship. Eqs. 17 and 18 clearly show that
the hardening behavior is attributable to the stress-strain relationship through the main contribution of the

pro
480

481 term a2 and to the increase of the area with nonlinear behavior of the material (integral on the circular
482 sector in Eq. 17). In particular, Kaufmann et al. [91] suggested to assume a2 = 0.15 for A36 steel which is
483 not exactly equivalent to b but can be used as a proxy to understand the order of b.
484 For the cases Fy > Fh (i.e., L-M-S103 and L-M-D-103), the response can be simplified as rigid plastic for
485 F > Fh (see Eq. 10). Figure 11 shows that the experimental response is slightly underestimated for these
486 cases since some hardening is observed. However, it should be noted that for both L-M-S103 and L-M-D-103
487 the embedment and yielding loads are similar (Fh ∼
= Fy ) indicating a combination of mechanisms (formation
488

489

490
re-
of plastic hinge and embedment) justifying the observed hardening.

4.4. Prediction of bearing capacity and ultimate displacement (Stage 4)

For n = 1, the bearing capacity of the connection can be calculated using the model proposed by
491 Hanhijärvi and Kevarinmäki [93, 94]:


lP

 (t − ts ) · fh,0 · d (1)



Fu,1 = min 2 · kv · tef · a1 · fv,0 (2) (19)




F (3)
split

492 where d, t, ts , and a1 are defined in Figure 3, fh,0 and fv,0 are the embedment and shear strengths,
p
493 respectively, (see Table 1). kv = 0.4 + 1.4 G/E0 is the shear factor being G the shear modulus and E0 is
rna

494 the elastic modulus (Table 1). G is adopted equal to 0.532 GPa for LVL [95] and 0.428 GPa for glubam [48].
495 tef is the effective thickness defined as [96]:

 
d
tef = min 1, (t − ts ) (20)
0.6 · dgr,1
496 where dgr,1 is the shear factor defined as [96]:

q
dgr,1 = 2.45 · 0.5 · (t − ts ) · fh,0 /fyb (21)
Jou

497 where fyb is the bolt bending strength (Table 2). Fsplit in Eq. 19 is the splitting strength. Jorissen [96]
498 defined two different splitting modes: (1 ) splitting originating at the end of the wooden block and (2 )

26
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
re-
(a)
lP

n,1

n,2
rna

h,1

h,2

(b)

Figure 18: Load vs displacement measured (black lines) and predicted using Eq. 10 (red lines) (first row of each subfigure)
and ∆h and ∆n (Eq. 5) vs displacement (second row of each subfigure) for one representative test of single bolted (a) and
double bolted connections (b). In the first row, Fy (Eq. 15) is represented with a horizontal dashed magenta line and Fh is is
Jou

represented with a horizontal dashed green line. In the second row, the dashed blue line represents ∆ = V corresponding to
zero displacement of the bolt (i.e., zero rotation). This figure is a close view in the range of V of 0 to 5 mm of Figure 11.

27
 Journal Pre-proof

499 splitting originating at the dowel hole nearest to the end of the wooden block. The splitting strength

of
500 associated with these two modes can be defined as:


St90,hole = max (1, 0.65 · a1 /a3 ) (1)
Fsplit = 10 · kt90,cnctr · ft,90 · tef · a1 / max (22)

St90,end = 2.7/ cosh (a1 /a3 − 1.4) (2)

pro
501 where kt90,cnctr = 0.7 is the stress concentration factor, ft,90 is the tensile strength perpendicular to grain
502 (Table 1), and a3 is the distance between the row of bolts and the side edge of wooden block (Figure 3). It
503 should be highlighted that the first term in Eq. 16 corresponds to Fh in Eq. 16.
504 Figure 19 shows the load vs displacement curves of tensile monotonic tests for single bolt tests (same
505 as in Figure 9a). Moreover, the predictions using the models in Eqs. 15 and 19 are shown with horizontal
506 dashed lines having colors defined in the legend. The bearing capacity is the minimum of the three terms
507 reported in Eq. 19. The predicted bearing capacity is in good agreement with the experimental one. In
508

509

510

511
elasto-plastic behavior with large ductility (Figure 9b).
re-
particular, for L-M-S8, the third stage is characterized by hardening due to the formation of a plastic hinge
in the bolt (shown in Figure 18a) and subsequent reaching of Fu,1 (1) = Fh (see Figure 19) characterized by

The underestimation of the capacity is potentially due to the large rope effect (Figures 11a and 13a)
512 neglected in the predictive model (Eq. 19). This effect is generally treated as an additional term in bearing
513 capacity models. For instance, according to Eurocode 5 [22], the contribution of the rope effect may be up
lP
514 to 15–25% of the Johansen capacity adopted in Eurocode 5 [22] for different nails. Similar considerations
515 apply to L-M-S10 where the plastic hinge formed after reaching the embedment strength and very large
516 embedment of the bolt in the LVL block (Figure 13a). The withdrawal behavior of the fasteners does not
517 have a significant influence on the initial slip of slip curves but shows a pronounced influence on the load-
518 carrying capacity and the non-linear shape of the slip curves at large deformations [97]. For both L-M-S8
and L-M-S10, the weakest mechanism disregarding Fu,1 (1) = Fh in Eq. 19 (the last two mechanisms are
rna

519

520 producing the final failure, see Figure 10) is Fu,1 (e) which is in agreement with the shear failure observed
521 (Figure 13a).
522 For glubam blocks, the embedment is not the weakest mechanism therefore not large ductility is observed
523 (Figure 9b). In this case, the ductility is only related to the formation of the plastic hinge in the bolt. For
524 these two cases, it is found that Fu,1 (2) ∼
= Fu,1 (3) implying that these two mechanisms can occur in a random
525 way (or as a combination of the two) according to the uncertainties involved confirming observations reported
526 in Section 3.4 (Figure 13). Finally, the comparison between the measured (average across test repetitions)
Jou

527 and predicted Fu,1 is summarized in Figure 21 highlighting the slight underestimation (i.e., negative bias)
528 of bearing capacities of the proposed model.
529 In multiple bolt connections, uneven load distribution among the fasteners occurs generally implying

28
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
Figure 19: Load vs displacement curves of tensile monotonic tests for single bolt tests. The red line is the average of tests
across displacements. Predicted Fu,1 according to Eqs. 15 and 19 (dashed green line: Fu,1 (1) = Fh - embedment; dashed red
line: Fu,1 (2) - shear; dashed blue line: Fu,1 (3) - splitting; dashed magenta line: Fy - yielding).

530 that their bearing capacity is less than the simple sum of the bearing capacity of n equivalent single bolt
531 connections [98]. Jorissen [96] proposed Eq. 14 to evaluate the effective number of fasteners. Figure 16
532

533

534

535
re-
describes the relationship between effective bolt number and the bolt spacing. It is worthy of noting that
when the bolt spacing reaches about 140 mm, the interaction between each bolt can be ignored. For this
study (a2 = 40 mm), the effective number of bolts is around 1.5, implying a strong interaction between the
two bolts [99].
536 In this study, the bearing capacity of the connection for the double bolt case (n = 2) is calculated as the
537 sum (parallel system) of the strength of each bolt considered as independent:
lP
2
X
Fu (n) = Fu,i (23)
i=1

538 The bearing capacity of the first bolt is calculated according to Eq. 19. The capacity of the second
539 bolt (the one far from the free end of the wooden block) is evaluated considering the minimum of only two
540 possible mechanisms (i.e., by considering Fsplit = ∞ in Eq. 22) as:
rna



(t − ts ) · fh,0 · d (1)
Fu,2 = min (24)

2 · kv · tef · a2 · fv,0 (2)

541 The assumption Fsplit = ∞ was suggested by Yurrita and Cabrero [64] and is justified as the splitting
542 deformation is restricted by the part of the wooden block above the first bolt. However, it should be noticed
543 that for the cases reported in this study the splitting deformation (Fsplit ) is never the minimum of Eq. 24
544 if taken into account.
Jou

545 Figure 20 shows the load vs displacement curves of tensile monotonic tests for single bolt tests (same as
546 in Figure 9a). Moreover, the predictions using the models in Eqs. 15 and 23 are shown with magenta and
547 red horizontal dashed lines, respectively. There is a good agreement between the observed and calculated

29
 Journal Pre-proof

of
pro
Figure 20: Load vs displacement curves of tensile monotonic tests for double bolts tests. The red line is the average of tests
across displacements. Predicted load according to Eq. 15 (dashed magenta line) and Eq. 23 (dashed red line).

548 values of bearing capacity. For the double bolt case, the contribution of each mechanism of Eq. 23 cannot
549 be shown in the load vs displacement plane because there is a sum of two different mechanisms (Eq. 23).
To discuss the prediction of the failure modes for the double bolt case, Figure 21 shows the comparison
550

551

552

553
re-
between the measured and predicted values of Fu together with the specification of the weakest mechanism
for each bolt. For LVL (green markers), the weakest mechanism of each bolt (i.e., minimum in Eqs. 19
and 24) is connected to the reaching of the embedment strength (circles). For LVL, the weakest mechanism
554 disregarding the embedment strength in Eqs. 19 and 24 (the last two mechanisms are producing the final
555 failure, see Figure 10) is Fu,1 (3) for the first bolt and Fu,1 (2) in agreement with the crack pattern observed
(Figure 13b). For glubam (red markers), the weakest mechanism of the first bolt is associated with splitting
lP
556

557 similar to the single bolt case pointing out that Fu,1 (2) ∼
= Fu,1 (3) (Figure 19) and different mechanisms
558 above the first bolt can be observed (Figure 13b). However, for the second bolt, the weakest mechanism
559 is always associated with shear failure. This prediction of the failure mechanisms matches with the crack
560 pattern observed (Figure 13b). To sum up, the proposed model for the double bolt case is also able to
561 predict the different failure modes in each part (the part above the first bolt and the one between two bolts).
rna

562 A final note concerns the evaluation of the ultimate displacement (stage 4, see Figure 15). For the single
563 bolt cases, if the weakest mechanism is Fu,1 (2) or Fu,1 (3) (Figure 19) then Vu can be found as the intersection
564 between the model prediction (Eq. 10) and the load level associated with the weakest mechanism. This
565 condition was observed for glubam blocks. On the other hand, if the weakest mechanism is Fu,1 (1) (Figure
566 19) then a rigid-plastic response was observed characterized by large ductility. This ductility, as previously
567 discussed, is provided by the formation of the plastic hinge and embedment deformation. In fact, the largest
568 ductility (Figure 10) is observed for L-M-S8 where both mechanisms are active (Figure 19) while for L-M-S8
a reduction of the ultimate displacements is observed consistently with the activation of a single mechanism
Jou

569

570 (embedment deformation). Further work is required to quantify Vu for ductile mechanisms (Fy and Fu,1 (1)).
571 For the double bolt cases, Vu can be found as the intersection between the model prediction (Eq. 10) and
572 the load level associated with the weakest mechanism (Figure 20).

30
 Journal Pre-proof

Single bolt Double bolts

of
pro
Figure 21: Comparison between the measured (average across test repetitions, see Table A.3) and predicted Fu for single (left)
and double (right) bolts. Green markers are referring to LVL and red ones to glubam. Circles are referring to Fu,1 (1), triangles
to Fu,1 (2), and asterisks to Fu,1 (3) in Eq. 19. For the double bolt case (right), the black small markers inside the large ones
refer to the mechanism of the second bolt with the following legend: circles are referring to Fu,2 (1) and triangles to Fu,2 (2) in

573

574
Eq. 24.

4.4.1. Failure modes: DIC analysis

re-
2D-DIC technique was employed to experimentally investigate the distribution of the deformation at the
575 pre-fracture point (stage four). The major failure mode during tests was shear and splitting failure (see
576 Figure 13). Figure 22 shows the strain field (major strain and shear angle as defined in Mai et al. [100])
lP
577 obtained from DIC analyses at pre-crack point (stage four) on the side where the first crack is occurring.
578 For the sake of shortness and clarity, results are reported for one representative test since similar test results
579 were observed in the remaining cases. The figure also reports the value of V corresponding to the photo.
580 The spatial distributions of the major strain and shear angle are different among all tested connections.
581 For all the single bolt connections, the high-strain region originates from the end of the hole and expands
582 (more or less depending on the specific case) toward the end of the connection specimens in the form of single
rna

583 or multiple regions (shear planes). For L-S-82, the major strain at the pre-fracture point is characterized
584 by a distinctive single region above the bolt with high positive major strain levels where splitting failure
585 is occurring (Figure 13a) confirming the predictions of the proposed model (Figure 19). The large values
586 of the major strain are induced by the large rope effect making the head of the bolt under large rotations
587 (Figure 11a) push on the LVL and glubam part located above the bolt. The shear angle is characterized
588 by high levels around this region with opposite signs on the two sides (negative on the left and positive on
589 the right) indicating impending sudden fracture formation. For L-S-103, large values of the major strain
Jou

590 are observed in the area around the bolts as the effect of the large embedment deformation (Figure 13a).
591 Similar shear angle regions as for L-S-82 are found. For G-S-82 and G-S-101, two different situations are
592 shown. For G-S-82, the major strain at the pre-fracture point is characterized by three distinctive regions

31
 Journal Pre-proof

of
Single bolt Double bolts

L-S-82 L-S-103 G-S-83 G-S-101 L-D-83 L-D-103 G-D-82 G-D-101

pro
Major strain

Shear angle

V [mm] 26.95 18.45 17.10

re-
9.8 13.15 7.30 4.35 5.45

Figure 22: Strain field (major strain and shear angle) obtained from DIC analyses at the pre-fracture point. The side where
the first crack is occurring is showing, see Figure 13 for the identification of the first side. V is the displacement corresponding
lP
to the photo (the same point was considered in Figure 13). Note that the colormap scale of major strain is different while that
of the shear angle is the same.

593 above the bolt with high positive major strain levels where a combination of shear and splitting failure is
594 observed (Figure 13a). This further confirms that since Fu,1 (2) ∼
= Fu,1 (3) (Figure 19) the final fracture
595 mechanism can be a combination of shear and splitting failure. For G-S-101, the major strain at the pre-
rna

596 fracture point is characterized by a distinctive single region above the bolt with high positive major strain
597 levels where splitting failure is occurring (Figure 13a). This additionally confirms that for glubam since
598 Fu,1 (2) ∼
= Fu,1 (3) and there are some uncertainties involved in the problem, the failure can happen in the
599 form of shear, splitting, or a combination of the two.
600 For all the double bolt connections, the major strain generally shows two distinct peaks in the region
601 between the two bolts indicating shear failure while the part above the first bolt shows features similar to
602 the single bolt case. As in other cases, the shear angle is characterized by high levels around the regions
with high major strain with opposite signs on the two sides.
Jou

603

32
 Journal Pre-proof

604 5. Conclusions

of
605 The aim of the current study was to provide a more rational understanding of the tensile axial behavior
606 of bolted steel to laminated composite bio-based connections. Moreover, for the first time, a comparison of
607 two different laminated composite bio-based materials is provided. Based on the analysis of the test data,

pro
608 the following main conclusions can be drawn.

609 1. The observed behavior of the bolted steel to laminated composite bio-based connection strongly de-
610 pends on the layout (number and diameter of bolts) and on the material employed (LVL and glubam).
611 The response is generally brittle for glubam while it can exhibit large ductility for LVL. Comparing
612 LVL and glubam, the second one generally shows higher peak values (strength).
613 2. Based on the experimental findings, a new monotonic load vs displacement phenomenological predic-
614 tion model characterized by four stages is proposed which is capable of defining more rationally the
615

616

617

618
re-
observed tensile monotonic behavior and differentiating between brittle and ductile failures.
3. The first stage is characterized by an initial-slip due to displacements smaller than 1 mm mainly
attributable to the tolerance on holes and not depending on specimen characteristics. The load in this
stage is generally negligible and is approximated as zero in the proposed model.
619 4. The second stage is characterized by an elastic stage with almost linear behavior with stiffness mainly
620 depending on the bolt flexural stiffness and the embedding stiffness. Negligible relative displacements
lP
621 of the bolts are observed. The elastic stiffness was found to be well predicted by a model accounting
622 for bolt deformability. For the double bolt case, the elastic stiffness was found to be reasonably
623 proportional to the single bolt one multiplied by the effective bolts factor specified in Eurocode 5 [22].
624 5. The third stage is characterized by the occurrence of two possible phenomena: embedment of the bolt
625 in the base material and/or bending of the bolt with the possible formation of a plastic hinge at the
626 cross-sections in contact with the steel plate. The embedment of the bolt in the LVL and glubam
rna

627 block induces a perfectly plastic response with a constant load level while the formation of a plastic
628 hinge is characterized by a hardening response. For LVL, the embedment is the weakest for d = 10 mm
629 while it is the second one (after plastic hinge formation) for d = 8 mm. For d = 10 mm, the two
630 mechanisms have a quite similar capacity and a combination of them is observed. For glubam, the
631 embedment capacity is always much larger than the capacity associated with the formation of a plastic
632 hinge making the latter always the weakest mechanism. The formation of the plastic hinge is always
633 characterized by a sudden increase in bolt relative displacements. Similar considerations apply to the
Jou

634 double bolt cases.

635 6. The fourth stage is characterized by failure in the form of shear or splitting cracks of the base material
636 and the sudden drop of the load. For single bolt connections, LVL blocks are more prone to splitting
637 failure, while for glubam connections, shear and splitting failure or mixed failure mode are identified.
33
 Journal Pre-proof

638 The latter condition is attributable to the similar capacity level of shear and splitting mechanisms

of
639 inducing certain randomness of the observed failure mode due to uncertainties. For the double bolt
640 case, the whole connection is divided into two parts and the total capacity is obtained by summing the
641 capacity of each part considered independent (similar to the third stage). The failure of double-bolted
642 connections always originates from the shear failure of the part between two bolts and propagates in

pro
643 the upper part with mechanisms similar to the single bolt case.
644 7. The proposed tensile monotonic load vs displacement prediction model is characterized by good accu-
645 racy and can provide a rational description of the four stages corresponding to the different mechanisms
646 corresponding to different load levels. The proposed analytical model can be used for the analysis and
647 design of structural systems adopting bolted steel to laminated bio-based materials connections, also
648 accounting for the non-linear incremental behavior.

649

650

651
Acknowledgments
re-
This research is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2019YFD1101002).
This work has been partially supported by the Zhejiang University/University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
652 Institute.

CRediT
lP
653

654 S. Da: Writing - Original Draft, Methodology, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation; C.
655 Demartino: Supervision, Formal analysis, Methodology, Conceptualization, Writing - Review & Editing; Z.
656 Li: Writing - Review & Editing; Y. Xiao: Supervision, Writing - Review & Editing.

657 Declaration of Competing Interest

rna

658 The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that
659 could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

660 Data availability

661 The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, C.D., upon
662 reasonable request.
Jou

34
 Journal Pre-proof

663 References

of
664 [1] S. R. Imadi, I. Mahmood, A. G. Kazi, Bamboo fiber processing, properties, and applications, in: Biomass and bioenergy,
665 Springer, 2014, pp. 27–46.
666 [2] Y. Xiao, Z. Li, K. Liu, Modern Engineered Bamboo Structures: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
667 Modern Bamboo Structures (ICBS 2018), June 25-27, 2018, Beijing, China, CRC Press, 2019.

pro
668 [3] A. Bouchaïr, P. Racher, J. Bocquet, Analysis of dowelled timber to timber moment-resisting joints, Materials and
669 Structures 40 (2007) 1127–1141.
670 [4] Z. Guan, P. Rodd, Hollow steel dowels—a new application in semi-rigid timber connections, Engineering Structures 23
671 (2001) 110–119.
672 [5] K. F. Chung, W. Yu, Mechanical properties of structural bamboo for bamboo scaffoldings, Engineering structures 24
673 (2002) 429–442.
674 [6] J. J. Janssen, Designing and building with bamboo, International Network for Bamboo and Rattan Netherlands, 2000.
675 [7] L. Villegas, R. Morán, J. J. García, A new joint to assemble light structures of bamboo slats, Construction and Building
676 Materials 98 (2015) 61–68.
[8] M. H. Ramage, H. Burridge, M. Busse-Wicher, G. Fereday, T. Reynolds, D. U. Shah, G. Wu, L. Yu, P. Fleming,
677

678

679

680

681

682
Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 333–359.
re-
D. Densley-Tingley, et al., The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction, Renewable and Sustainable

[9] J. Wang, C. Demartino, Y. Xiao, Y. Li, Thermal insulation performance of bamboo-and wood-based shear walls in
light-frame buildings, Energy and Buildings 168 (2018) 167–179.
[10] S. Zhou, C. Demartino, Y. Xiao, High-strain rate compressive behavior of douglas fir and glubam, Construction and
683 Building Materials 258 (2020) 119466.
684 [11] A. Aloisio, M. Fragiacomo, Reliability-based overstrength factors of cross-laminated timber shear walls for seismic design,
lP
685 Engineering Structures 228 (2021) 111547.
686 [12] L. Stehn, K. Börjes, The influence of nail ductility on the load capacity of a glulam truss structure, Engineering Structures
687 26 (2004) 809–816.
688 [13] P. Kobel, A. Frangi, R. Steiger, Timber trusses made of european beech lvl, in: World Conference on Timber Engineering.
689 Aug, 2016, pp. 22–25.
690 [14] Y. Wu, Y. Xiao, Steel and glubam hybrid space truss, Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 140–153.
691 [15] G. Quaranta, C. Demartino, Y. Xiao, Experimental dynamic characterization of a new composite glubam-steel truss
rna

692 structure, Journal of Building Engineering 25 (2019) 100773.

693 [16] Z. Li, K. Ma, H. Geng, Y. Wu, R. Wu, Y. Xiao, Design of bamboo-steel hybrid spacial truss roof for a utility facility, in:
694 The 2020 World Congress on The 2020 Structures Congress (Structures20) 25-28, August, 2020, GECE, Seoul, Korea,
695 2020.
696 [17] L.-M. Ottenhaus, R. Jockwer, D. van Drimmelen, K. Crews, Designing timber connections for ductility–a review and
697 discussion, Construction and Building Materials 304 (2021) 124621.
698 [18] E. Frühwald, E. Serrano, T. Toratti, A. Emilsson, S. Thelandersson, Design of safe timber structures-how can we learn
699 from structural failures in concrete, steel and timber? (2007).
700 [19] E. F. Hansson, Analysis of structural failures in timber structures: Typical causes for failure and failure modes, Engi-
Jou

701 neering Structures 33 (2011) 2978–2982.

702 [20] G. W. Trayer, The bearing strength of wood under bolts, 332, US Department of Agriculture, 1932.
703 [21] K. W. Johansen, Theory of timber connections, Int Assoc Bridge Struct Eng 9 (1949) 249–262.
704 [22] E. . European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Design of timber structures: General rules and rules for buildings,
705 1995.

35
 Journal Pre-proof

706 [23] M. Patton-Mallory, P. J. Pellicane, F. W. Smith, Modeling bolted connections in wood, Journal of structural engineering

of
707 123 (1997) 1054–1062.
708 [24] K. Sawata, Strength of bolted timber joints subjected to lateral force, Journal of Wood Science 61 (2015) 221–229.
709 [25] J. Zhang, M. He, Z. Li, Mechanical performance assessment of bolted glulam joints with local cracks, Journal of Materials
710 in Civil Engineering 30 (2018) 04018094.
711 [26] H. Fahlbusch, Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Tragfähigkeit von Bolzen in Holz bei statischer Belastung, Ph.D. thesis, Hunold,

pro
712 1949.
713 [27] A. Jorissen, M. Fragiacomo, General notes on ductility in timber structures, Engineering structures 33 (2011) 2987–2997.
714 [28] M. Yurrita, J. M. Cabrero, On the need of distinguishing ductile and brittle failure modes in timber connections with
715 dowel-type fasteners, Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112496.
716 [29] J. Cabrero, M. Yurrita, Performance assessment of existing models to predict brittle failure modes of steel-to-timber
717 connections loaded parallel-to-grain with dowel-type fasteners, Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 895–910.
718 [30] G. Lantos, Load distribution in a row of fasteners subjected to lateral load, Wood Science 1 (1969) 129–136.
719 [31] R. O. Foschi, Analysis of wood diaphragms and trusses. part i: Diaphragms, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 4
720 (1977) 345–352.
721

722

723

724

725
re-
[32] L.-M. Ottenhaus, M. Li, T. Smith, P. Quenneville, Mode cross-over and ductility of dowelled lvl and clt connections
under monotonic and cyclic loading, Journal of Structural Engineering 144 (2018) 04018074.
[33] J. Porteous, A. Kermani, Structural timber design to Eurocode 5, John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
[34] Y. Xiao, Y. Wu, J. Li, R. Yang, An experimental study on shear strength of glubam, Construction and Building Materials
150 (2017) 490–500.
726 [35] Z. Li, X. He, Z. Cai, R. Wang, Y. Xiao, Mechanical properties of engineered bamboo boards for glubam structures,
727 Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 33 (2021) 04021058.
728 [36] GB/T50329-2002, Standard for testing methods of timber structures, 2002.
lP
729 [37] ASTM, Astm d143–09: standard test methods for small clear specimens of timber, 2009.
730 [38] ASTM, Astm d5764–97a (2013) standard test method forevaluating dowel-bearing strength of wood and wood-based
731 products, 2013.
732 [39] ASTM, Astm f1575-03: Standard test method for determining bending yield moment of nails, 2008.
733 [40] GB50005, Code for design of timber structures, 2017.
734 [41] J. D’Anna, G. Amato, J. F. Chen, G. Minafò, L. La Mendola, Experimental application of digital image correlation for
735 the tensile characterization of basalt frcm composites, Construction and Building Materials 271 (2021) 121770.
rna

736 [42] C. Zhang, H. Guo, K. Jung, R. Harris, W.-S. Chang, Screw reinforcement on dowel-type moment-resisting connections
737 with cracks, Construction and Building Materials 215 (2019) 59–72.
738 [43] E. . European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Timber structures-test methods-cyclic testing of joints made
739 withmechanical fasteners, 2001.
740 [44] D. S. Pilon, A. Palermo, F. Sarti, A. Salenikovich, Benefits of multiple rocking segments for clt and lvl pres-lam wall
741 systems, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 117 (2019) 234–244.
742 [45] L. Boccadoro, S. Zweidler, R. Steiger, A. Frangi, Bending tests on timber-concrete composite members made of beech
743 laminated veneer lumber with notched connection, Engineering Structures 132 (2017) 14–28.
744 [46] R. Jockwer, G. Fink, J. Köhler, Assessment of the failure behaviour and reliability of timber connections with multiple
Jou

745 dowel-type fasteners, Engineering Structures 172 (2018) 76–84.

746 [47] Z. Tang, B. Shan, W. Li, Q. Peng, Y. Xiao, Structural behavior of glubam i-joists, Construction and Building Materials
747 224 (2019) 292–305.
748 [48] G. Tang, L. Yin, Z. Li, Y. Li, L. You, Structural behaviors of bolted connections using laminated bamboo and steel

36
 Journal Pre-proof

749 plates, Structures 20 (2019) 324–339.

of
750 [49] Z. Li, C. Wang, R. Wang, Application of screw reinforcement in the slotted-in bamboo-steel-bamboo connections,
751 Structures 33 (2021) 4112–4123.
752 [50] G. G. Beltran, Determination of the embedding strength of plybamboo (2000).
753 [51] J. Zhou, D. Huang, F. Zhao, Experimental study on dowel-compression strength of parallel bamboo strand lumber,
754 Build. Struct. 45 (2015) 107–110.

pro
755 [52] A. T. Daloglu, C. G. Vallabhan, Values of k for slab on winkler foundation, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
756 Engineering 126 (2000) 463–471.
757 [53] Y. Liu, Y. Wang, Y. Zhang, M. Chen, X. Nie, Force–displacement relations of bolted timber joints with slotted-in steel
758 plates parallel to the grain, Journal of Wood Science 66 (2020) 1–13.
759 [54] A. Awaludin, T. Hirai, T. Hayashikawa, Y. Sasaki, Load-carrying capacity of steel-to-timber joints with a pretensioned
760 bolt, Journal of Wood Science 54 (2008) 362–368.
761 [55] G. A. MacRae, G. C. Clifton, H. Mackinven, N. Mago, J. Butterworth, S. Pampanin, The sliding hinge joint moment
762 connection, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43 (2010) 202–212.
763 [56] F. Lam, M. Gehloff, M. Closen, Moment-resisting bolted timber connections, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
764

765

766

767

768
Engineers-Structures and Buildings 163 (2010) 267–274.
re-
[57] Z. Zhang, J. Su, Mechanical model of stiffness and load-displacement relationship of timber bolted connections with
slotted steel plate, Journal of Tongji University 49 (2021) 312–321.
[58] H. Tao, H. Yang, G. Ju, B. Shi, Elastic stiffness of timber joints with dowel-type fasteners and slotted-in steel plate
based on the theory of beam on elastic foundation, Construction and Building Materials 294 (2021) 123569.
769 [59] A. Hassanieh, H. Valipour, M. Bradford, Load-slip behaviour of steel-cross laminated timber (clt) composite connections,
770 Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 110–121.
771 [60] A. Hassanieh, H. Valipour, M. Bradford, C. Sandhaas, Modelling of steel-timber composite connections: Validation of
lP
772 finite element model and parametric study, Engineering Structures 138 (2017) 35–49.
773 [61] T. Reynolds, B. Sharma, K. Harries, M. Ramage, Dowelled structural connections in laminated bamboo and timber,
774 Composites Part B: Engineering 90 (2016) 232–240.
775 [62] C. Ding, S. Torabian, B. W. Schafer, Strength of bolted lap joints in steel sheets with small end distance, Journal of
776 Structural Engineering 146 (2020) 04020270.
777 [63] X. Wang, E. Zhu, S. Niu, H. Wang, Analysis and test of stiffness of bolted connections in timber structures, Construction
778 and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124495.
rna

779 [64] M. Yurrita, J. M. Cabrero, New design model for brittle failure in the parallel-to-grain direction of timber connections
780 with large diameter fasteners, Engineering Structures 217 (2020) 110557.
781 [65] J. Sjödin, Strength and Moisture Aspects of Steel Timber Dowel Joints in Glulam Structures: An Experimental and
782 Numerical Study, Ph.D. thesis, Växjö University Press, 2008.
783 [66] J. Sjödin, C.-J. Johansson, Influence of initial moisture induced stresses in multiple steel-to-timber dowel joints, Holz
784 als Roh-und Werkstoff 65 (2007) 71–77.
785 [67] J. Sjödin, E. Serrano, B. Enquist, An experimental and numerical study of the effect of friction in single dowel joints,
786 Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff 66 (2008) 363–372.
787 [68] B.-H. Xu, M. Taazount, A. Bouchaïr, P. Racher, Numerical 3d finite element modelling and experimental tests for
Jou

788 dowel-type timber joints, Construction and building materials 23 (2009) 3043–3052.
789 [69] G. Chen, H. Jiang, Y.-f. Yu, T. Zhou, J. Wu, X. Li, Experimental analysis of nailed lbl-to-lbl connections loaded parallel
790 to grain, Materials and Structures 53 (2020) 1–13.
791 [70] R. Jockwer, A. Jorissen, Stiffness and deformation of connections with dowel-type fasteners, Design of Connections in

37
 Journal Pre-proof

792 Timber Structures, A State-of-the-Art Report by COST Action FP1402/WG3, Ed. Sandhaas, Munch-Andersen, Dietsch

of
793 (2018) 95–126.
794 [71] Y. Leng, Q. Xu, K. A. Harries, L. Chen, K. Liu, X. Chen, Experimental study on mechanical properties of laminated
795 bamboo beam-to-column connections, Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110305.
796 [72] K. Sawata, M. Yasumura, Estimation of yield and ultimate strengths of bolted timber joints by nonlinear analysis and
797 yield theory, Journal of Wood Science 49 (2003) 383–391.

pro
798 [73] E. Lukaszewska, H. Johnsson, M. Fragiacomo, Performance of connections for prefabricated timber–concrete composite
799 floors, Materials and structures 41 (2008) 1533–1550.
800 [74] B. Folz, A. Filiatrault, Cyclic analysis of wood shear walls, Journal of structural engineering 127 (2001) 433–441.
801 [75] J.-P. Hong, D. Barrett, Three-dimensional finite-element modeling of nailed connections in wood, Journal of Structural
802 Engineering 136 (2010) 715–722.
803 [76] E. Meghlat, M. Oudjene, H. Ait-Aider, J. Batoz, A new approach to model nailed and screwed timber joints using the
804 finite element method, Construction and Building Materials 41 (2013) 263–269.
805 [77] M. Li, R. O. Foschi, F. Lam, Modeling hysteretic behavior of wood shear walls with a protocol-independent nail connection
806 algorithm, Journal of Structural Engineering 138 (2012) 99–108.
807

808

809

810

811
re-
[78] P. Dubas, E. Gehri, T. Steurer, Einführung in die norm sia 164 (1981)–holzbau, Autographie, Zürich (1981).
[79] Y. Bai, B. Jiang, L. Yang, Y. Liu, X. Wang, Z. Li, Adoption of size effect combined with winkler elastic foundation beam
theory in section shield tunnel under underground space development, Arabian Journal of Geosciences 14 (2021) 1–8.
[80] Z. Zhang, M. Huang, C. Xu, Y. Jiang, W. Wang, Simplified solution for tunnel-soil-pile interaction in pasternak’s
foundation model, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 78 (2018) 146–158.
812 [81] L. M. P. Durão, J. M. R. Tavares, V. H. C. De Albuquerque, J. F. S. Marques, O. N. Andrade, Drilling damage in
813 composite material, Materials 7 (2014) 3802–3819.
814 [82] M. Nassar, R. Arunachalam, K. I. Alzebdeh, Machinability of natural fiber reinforced composites: a review, The
lP
815 International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 88 (2017) 2985–3004.
816 [83] M. B. U. Pedersen, Dowel Type Timber Connections Strength modelling, Technical University of Denmark, 2001.
817 [84] S. Svensson, J. Munch-Andersen, Theory of timber connections with slender dowel type fasteners, Wood Material Science
818 & Engineering 13 (2018) 7–15.
819 [85] K. Sawata, M. Yasumura, Determination of embedding strength of wood for dowel-type fasteners, Journal of Wood
820 Science 48 (2002) 138–146.
821 [86] M. Pavlović, Z. Marković, M. Veljković, D. Buđevac, Bolted shear connectors vs. headed studs behaviour in push-out
rna

822 tests, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 88 (2013) 134–149.

823 [87] U. A. Girhammar, N. Jacquier, B. Källsner, Stiffness model for inclined screws in shear-tension mode in timber-to-timber
824 joints, Engineering structures 136 (2017) 580–595.
825 [88] T. Mouka, E. G. Dimitrakopoulos, Simulation of embedment phenomena on bamboo culms via a modified foundation
826 modelling approach, Construction and Building Materials 275 (2021) 122048.
827 [89] J. Holmquist, A. Nadai, A theoretical and experimental approach to the problem of collapse of deep-well casing, in:
828 Drilling and Production Practice, OnePetro, 1939.
829 [90] W. Ramberg, W. R. Osgood, Description of stress-strain curves by three parameters, Technical Report, 1943.
830 [91] E. Kaufmann, B. Metrovich, A. Pense, Characterization of cyclic inelastic strain behavior on properties of a572 gr. 50
Jou

831 and a913 gr. 50 rolled sections, 2001.

832 [92] H. Hou, C. Wang, B. Qu, Y. Liang, Cyclic testing of bolted base connections for wide-flange columns, Engineering
833 Structures 235 (2021) 112024.
834 [93] A. Hanhijärvi, A. Kevarinmäki, Design method against timber failure mechanisms of dowelled steelto-timber connections,

38
 Journal Pre-proof

835 in: Proceeding of 40th CIB-W18-Meeting, Bled (SLO), 2007.

of
836 [94] A. Hanhijärvi, A. Kevarinmäki, Timber failure mechanisms in high-capacity dowelled connections of timber to steel,
837 Espoo, VTT publication 677 (2008) 53.
838 [95] W. Peixing, W. Quanzhong, Shear modulus measurement of laminated veneer lumber from poplar through seperating
839 rigidity, Journal of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering (2012).
840 [96] A. J. M. Jorissen, Double shear timber connections with dowel type fasteners, Ph.D. thesis, 1998.

pro
841 [97] T. Gečys, T. K. Bader, A. Olsson, S. Kajėnas, Influence of the rope effect on the slip curve of laterally loaded, nailed
842 and screwed timber-to-timber connections, Construction and Building Materials 228 (2019) 116702.
843 [98] A. Awaludin, D. N. Saputro, Bolt spacing and end distance of bolted connection of laminated veneer lumber (lvl) sengon,
844 Civil Engineering Dimension 19 (2017) 1–6.
845 [99] J. L. Jensen, P. Quenneville, Experimental investigations on row shear and splitting in bolted connections, Construction
846 and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2420–2425.
847 [100] B. V. Mai, C. H. Pham, G. J. Hancock, G. D. Nguyen, Block shear strength and behaviour of cold-reduced g450 steel
848 bolted connections using dic, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 151–160.

re-
lP
rna
Jou

39
 Journal Pre-proof

849 Appendix A. Summary of results of tensile monotonic tests

of
Table A.3: Summary of mechanical indicators (ke , Fy , Fu , Vy , Vu and D, see Figure 7 and Eq. 7 for their definition) for all
the tests. (Over-bar: average across the tests; CV: Coefficient of variation).

ke k̄e CV Fy F¯y CV Fu F¯u CV Vy V¯y CV Vu V¯u CV D D̄ CV

pro
ID
[kN/mm] [%] [kN] [%] [kN] [%] [mm] [%] [mm] [%] [%]
LMS8-1 20.95 15.06 21.03 1.31 26.56 26.53
LMS8-2 16.22 20.29 20.63 12.39 13.19 12.27 23.34 21.19 9.77 0.89 1.09 19.27 27.46 27.21 2.09 18.13 22.05 20.82
LMS8-3 23.73 12.13 19.20 1.08 27.61 21.49
LMS10-1 30.81 20.10 24.32 1.27 12.05 8.74
LMS10-2 22.77 24.61 13.84 17.99 19.33 5.40 21.55 22.76 8.38 1.15 1.23 5.69 17.92 15.86 20.81 11.96 9.30 24.23
LMS10-3 20.24 19.91 22.41 1.26 17.60 7.20
LMD8-1 26.10 23.69 33.48 1.74 9.68 5.53
LMD8-2 29.76 30.28 14.36 21.73 22.95 4.76 30.38 31.74 4.98 1.12 1.31 28.24 11.03 10.91 10.82 7.80 7.40 32.99
LMD8-3 34.99 23.42 31.38 1.08 12.03 8.88
LMD10-1
LMD10-2
LMD10-3
GMS8-1
GMS8-2
GMS8-3
40.70
44.84
53.13
28.77
23.95
20.73
46.22

24.48
15.40

16.48
35.31
36.17
39.43
17.06
17.01
17.68
36.97

17.25
6.52

1.98
36.69
43.75
47.16
27.30
30.60
33.30
42.54

30.40
re- 12.56

9.87
1.45
1.31
1.31
1.04
1.19
1.24
1.36

1.15
5.88

9.57
4.56
6.04
4.40
10.43
14.45
15.46
5.00

13.45
18.00

19.78
2.94
2.84
3.14
6.58
6.35
8.74
2.98

7.22
21.29

11.32

GMS10-1 34.99 27.20 38.59 1.30 9.09 4.80

GMS10-2 44.54 37.48 16.60 26.50 26.97 1.41 38.46 38.27 1.18 1.10 1.25 11.20 7.75 8.15 10.06 6.14 5.19 13.00
GMS10-3 32.92 27.20 37.76 1.37 7.61 4.64
lP
GMD8-1 31.71 36.19 45.07 1.61 5.14 2.10
GMD8-2 39.34 33.33 18.78 34.52 36.47 3.38 42.12 43.21 3.75 1.36 1.41 12.06 3.87 3.89 31.88 2.39 1.93 21.03
GMD8-3 28.92 38.70 42.43 1.28 2.66 1.31
GMD10-1 58.86 53.30 60.25 1.48 4.50 3.04
GMD10-2 43.92 49.70 15.89 53.97 54.03 1.22 62.98 62.15 2.65 1.80 1.69 10.65 3.99 4.23 6.15 2.22 1.98 17.79
GMD10-3 46.33 54.83 63.21 1.80 4.20 2.34
rna
Jou

40
 Journal Pre-proof

REVISED Manuscript (revised text UNMARKED) Click here to view linked References

Highlights

of
Axial load-deformation behavior and fracture characteristics of bolted steel to laminated tim-
ber and glubam connections

Da Shi, Cristoforo Demartino, Zhi Li, Yan Xiao

pro
• Bolted steel to laminated timber or glubam connections with slotted-in steel plates

• Axial load-deformation behavior and fracture characteristics

• DIC to monitor the deformation process and measure relative displacements of bolts

• New monotonic load vs displacement prediction model characterized by four stages

• Calibration and physical meaning of the proposed model by using the experimental tests as a bench-
mark re-
lP
rna
Jou
 Journal Pre-proof

Axial load-deformation behavior and fracture characteristics of bolted steel to

of
laminated timber and glubam connections

Da Shic , Cristoforo Demartinoa,b,∗, Zhi Lic,∗, Yan Xiaoa,b

a Zhejiang University - University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Institute, Haining 314400, Zhejiang, PR China
b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

pro
c College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, 310058 Zhejiang, PR
China

CRediT

S. Da: Writing - Original Draft, Methodology, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation; C.

re-
Demartino: Supervision, Formal analysis, Methodology, Conceptualization, Writing - Review & Editing; Z.
Li: Writing - Review & Editing; Y. Xiao: Supervision, Writing - Review & Editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that
lP
could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, C.D., upon
reasonable request.
rna
Jou

∗ Correspondingauthor
Email addresses: da.21@intl.zju.edu.cn (Da Shi), cristoforodemartino@intl.zju.edu.cn (Cristoforo Demartino),
li_zhi@zju.edu.cn (Zhi Li), yanxiao@intl.zju.edu.cn (Yan Xiao)

Preprint submitted to Composite Structures July 24, 2022

 Journal Pre-proof

of
Conflict of Interests

All authors have participated in (a) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of the data; (b)
drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (c) approval of the final
version.

pro
The Article I have submitted to the journal for review is original, has been written by the stated authors
and has not been published elsewhere.

The Images that I have submitted to the journal for review are original, was taken by the stated authors,
and has not been published elsewhere.

re-
lP
rna
Jou