This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]

On: 17 November 2014, At: 19:03

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Adhesion

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gadh20

Adhesively Bonded Hardwood Joints

under Room Temperature and Elevated
Temperatures
a

S. Fecht , T. Valle , T. Tannert & H. Fricke

Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced

Materials IFAM , Bremen , Germany
b

The University of British Columbia , Vancouver , Canada

Accepted author version posted online: 12 Sep 2013.Published
online: 10 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: S. Fecht , T. Valle , T. Tannert & H. Fricke (2014) Adhesively Bonded Hardwood
Joints under Room Temperature and Elevated Temperatures, The Journal of Adhesion, 90:5-6,
401-419, DOI: 10.1080/00218464.2013.836968
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2013.836968

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

The Journal of Adhesion, 90:401419, 2014

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0021-8464 print=1545-5823 online
DOI: 10.1080/00218464.2013.836968

Adhesively Bonded Hardwood Joints under

Room Temperature and Elevated
Temperatures
S. FECHT1, T. VALLEE1, T. TANNERT2, and H. FRICKE1
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and

Advanced Materials IFAM, Bremen, Germany
2
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Timber engineering sets high expectations on adhesive bonding as a

joining method to overcome a series of limitations related to partly
obsolete traditional techniques. Research on adhesively bonded timber joints has proved their superiority over mechanical fasteners in
terms of strength and stiffness, but this research was often limited to
softwood. Despite its abundant availability in Central Europe and
its high mechanical resistance, beech is only rarely considered as a
structural material. Furthermore, research on adhesively bonded timber joints almost exclusively focused on tests at room temperature.
Elevated temperatures, however, are critical in conjunction with
adhesives, making it paramount to shed more light on that particular
aspect. Based on experimental and numerical investigations, it was
found that the capacity of adhesively bonded hardwood joints
increased asymptotically with overlap length to a ceiling value; furthermore, it was concluded that temperature negatively impacts
capacity. Glass transition temperature, Tg, marked a clear transition,
but joints still sustained relatively high loads beyond Tg. A probabilistic approach was validated and successfully applied to predict the
joint capacity. The research contributes to fill knowledge gaps by offering the basis for subsequent dimensioning methods that at term will
enable practitioners to design their structures accordingly.

Received 16 July 2013; in final form 19 August 2013.

Address correspondence to S. Fecht, Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology
and Advanced Materials IFAM, Bremen, Germany. E-mail: simon.fecht@ifam.fraunhofer.de
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at
www.tandfonline.com/gadh.
401

402

S. Fecht et al.

KEYWORDS Adhesives for wood; Civil engineering; Finite

element analysis; Joint design; Stress distribution

1. INTRODUCTION

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

1.1. Adhesively Bonded Timber Joints

Timber as a structural material has experienced a revival; this is due for
aspects related to sustainability and the environment, its positive effect on
interior building climate, and the increased architectural possibilities offered
by engineered wood products, adhesive systems, and modern computer
numerically controlled machining. In recent years, research on adhesively
bonded connections in relation with timber has increased, as demonstrated
by the growing number of related publications, e.g., refs. [113], and briefly
discussed below. This is to a great deal due to the fact that traditional, mainly
mechanical, timber-joining techniques are not fully material adapted. Such
limitations contributed to refrain from the use of timber in more demanding
applications, as for example multi-storey buildings, or timber-based tower
structures (e.g., wind mills). The use of adhesive bonding is described as
one of the most interesting fields of development: just as adhesives have
freed timber of its structural and size limitations, adhesives can free timber
of the metal needed presently to make joints [1].
Adhesively bonded timber joints have been investigated in several
configurations, both experimentally and numerically: double-lap-joints
(DLJ) composed of spruce bonded with epoxies [2], DLJ bonded with polyurethanes [3], connections between spruce and steel plates [4], glued-in steel
rods [5,6], and glued-in G-FRP rods [7,8]. Timber has also been adhesively
bonded to other materials, for example to form timberconcrete composite
beams and slabs [911] and to form timberglass composite beams and
columns [12]. Besides these applications, adhesive bonding is used to repair
timber constructions with carbon epoxy patches [13]. This limited listing,
which by far does not claim to be exhaustive, shows the potential uphold
by adhesively bonded connections involving timber and other materials.
One of the main issues timber engineering has to address, especially in
relation with multi-storey buildings, is related to fire safety; at the level of
adhesively bonded joints, it can be distilled to their behaviour at high
temperatures. Fire safety of timber structures is a topic for which solutions
are almost exclusively found in constructive, mostly protective, solutions.
But besides fire, and owing to the thermal behaviour of the adhesives,
temperature has to be considered at much lower levels than those encountered in fires (up to 1000
C according to ISO 834). The performance of
adhesively bonded timber joints must be reliably described, and ideally
ensured, for temperatures up to values around 60
C, which are considered
to occur during the service life of structures.

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

Adhesively Bonded Hardwood Joints under Temperature

403

The thermo-mechanical behaviour of timber, explicitly excluding effects

resulting from exposure to temperatures that can cause ignition (>100
C), can
be summarized as following: (1) in a range of 0
C to 100
C, strength is almost
linearly dependent on temperature, with strength decreasing with higher temperatures; (2) the reduction in strength is reversible for temperatures below
100
C; (3) there is a strong interaction between strength at different temperatures
and moisture content (MC), at least for spruce with higher MC reinforcing the
strength degradation [14]. Earlier results from the 1950s [15] indicated that timber
strengths longitudinal and perpendicular to the fibre do not exhibit the same
relations with temperature (measured up to 80
C), nor MC: at MC 8%, strength
along the fibres decreased slightly with temperature, transverse tensile strength
remained relatively constant while shear strength was the component mostly
affected. Sixty years later, there is still little published quantitative research that
links temperature to timber strength, especially beyond 80
C, more specifically
regarding the individual strength components (axial, transverse, and shear).
Regarding the behaviour of most adhesives, both strength and stiffness
are affected by temperature. A key element in the quantification of the
adhesive performance is the glass transition temperature (Tg) which clearly
defines a temperature beyond which stiffness and strength are substantially
lower [16,17]. The impact of temperature on strength and ductility (at, below,
and above RT) was documented in ref. [18]; however this was limited to steel
adherends which exhibit a different failure mode if compared to timber.
Considering different adhesive types, in particular their mechanical response,
analytical formulae, corroborated by numerical modelling, and subsequent
experimental validation show that adhesive stiffness (expressed through
Youngs modulus EA) as well as the level of plasticity greatly influences the
stressstrain state inside bonded joints [3]. On the other hand, at least for those
joints involving brittle failure in the adherends, including timber, Vallee et al.
also [3] showed that adhesive stiffness and ductility impacted only marginally
corresponding joint capacities, despite the significant reduction of stress magnitudes, suggesting that the influence of adhesive stiffness on joint capacity is
not as dominant as corresponding stress magnitudes in the bonded splice.
Timber as a material can broadly be divided into softwood and hardwood; Softwood is processed from wood from gymnosperm trees such as
conifers while hardwood is processed from wood from angiosperm trees.
Typical representatives of softwood are Spruce and Pine; examples for hardwood are Beech and Oak. Both categories exhibit significant differences in
their mechanical properties, which can be tracked down to fundamentally
different anatomies [19], with hardwoods have a more complex structure
than softwoods; the dominant feature separating hardwoods from softwoods
is the presence of pores, or vessels. Softwood is currently to a very large proportion processed for structural applications, while hardwoods are employed
in a large range of non-structural applications including fuel, boat building,
furniture, musical instruments, and flooring. Among the issues reported with

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

404

S. Fecht et al.

hardwood is the fact that joinery, specifically adhesive bonding, tends to be

more complex compared to softwood. Although beech is currently only
rarely used as a construction material, often attributed to the difficult processing, its abundant availability in Central Europe and its high mechanical
resistance make it a promising material for structural applications.
Regarding hardwood in the context of adhesive bonding, work was
undertaken in the early 1990s to provide data for the setting of performance
levels. Dry specimen tests showed that fracture stress was insensitive to the rate
of loading; corresponding tests on wet joints indicated a far greater sensitivity
[20]. Glued-in rods in hardwood were considered an option with ample
aesthetic and functional possibilities in the design of timber structures, and different approaches were experimentally evaluated [21]. Considering adhesively
bonded hardwood DLJ, Tannert et al. [22] studied the influence of the overlap
length (40320 mm) on joints strength. It was found that joint strength
increased with the overlap length up to an apparent maximum of approximately 200 mm. The subsequent numerical investigations allowed determining
the stress state within the joints and provided input for a probabilistic capacity
prediction method. The results showed that design principles developed for
softwood apply for hardwood, with some caveats, however, regarding the
appropriate selection of adhesives, which proved to be challenging.

1.2. Strength Prediction of Adhesively Bonded Timber Joints

Despite its many advantages, bonding as a joining technique is still not generally accepted in timber engineering, mainly due to the fact that corresponding design methods are still lacking, not to speak about the absence of
standards that rule them. The few applications where bonding is generally
accepted, as for example in gluing laminated timber or cross laminated timber, are based on empirically determined evidence for which the adhesive
connection itself is not at the source of capacity design, due to its oversizing.
Failure of adhesively bonded joints falls into one of three categories:
adhesive failure, cohesive failure, or adherend failure. Adhesive failure indicates an incompatibility between adhesives and adherends and is ultimately
a matter of selecting the right adhesive or adequate surface preparation.
Cohesive and adherend failure on the other hand represent mechanical
problems relating stress levels to material strength. Since adhesive properties
are much more dependent on environmental influences which cannot be
controlled (as temperature and humidity) compared to commonly used
structural materials (as concrete, steel, and timber), adherend failure is the
preferred failure mode in civil engineering.
The capacity prediction of bonded timber joints is made difficult by the
complex multi-axial stress state generated inside them, the anisotropic and
brittle nature of timber under shear and tension loading, and finally the
uncertainties regarding the associated material resistance. In the context of

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

Adhesively Bonded Hardwood Joints under Temperature

405

adhesively bonded joints, adherend failure is usually triggered by a combination of shear and out-of-plane tensile stresses, in conjunction with axial
tensile stresses. To quantitatively address the question of strength, it is thus
fundamental to formulate an appropriate material failure criterion. Such work
falls in the domain of timber engineering and has been experimentally
addressed, e.g., on the basis of stressstrain behaviour of clear spruce under
multi-axial loading and interactions between tension and shear strengths [23].
These observations were subsequently set into a broader micro-mechanical
framework [24]. Timber exhibits a large variability of its mechanical
parameters, especially if considering strength data [25,26]. Practitioners usually
consider a multi-axial failure criterion provided by Norris [27] in such a way
that only those stresses that cause brittle failure are considered, see Eq. (1):
8
2


2
2
rX
rX rY
>
XY
>

rY sfXY
>
>
<
fX 2
fX fY 
fY 2
rY
/2F min
 rfYY rfZZ rfZZ
fY
>
>

2


2
2
>
>
: rZ  rZ rX rX sZX
fZ
fZ fX
fX
fZX

where /2F 1 defines failure, ri and si,j are the normal and shear stresses,
respectively, and fi and fi,j are the material strength parameters, while i and j
define the materials orientation on x, y, and z.
Since timber is highly brittle with regard to shear and transverse tensile
stresses, its failure is conceptually considered to be triggered by a single defect,
also labelled weak element. The probability that these randomly distributed
defects are encountered increases with component size; cf. [28] for the theoretical framework that links size of material samples and their respective failure
strength, and the derivation of cumulative survival probability, PS, of a volume,
V, subjected to a non-uniform stress distribution is given as follows:
2

3
Z
k
uF;i
dV 5;
PS exp4
m

where /F,i is the stress acting over a volume V, m is the characteristic stress or
scale parameter, and k is the shape parameter that gives a measure of the
strength variability. Consequently, for structural elements constituted of n such
elements, with a volume Vi of each element i and subjected to a value of the
failure function /2F ;i , the probability of survival of the whole joint member is as
follows:
"
"
 k #
 k #
n
n
X
Y
/F;i
/F;i
Vi
Vi
exp
:
3
exp  
 
PS
V0
m
V0
m
i1
i1

406

S. Fecht et al.

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

The value V0 stands for the volume of the material, herein timber, tested during
material characterization; it can be derived from the dimensions of the
dog-bone-shaped samples. For the investigations presented herein, and
detailed subsequently in Section 2.1, this volume was taken as the part of
the dog-bone-shaped specimens between the ends of the roundings, for which
an almost constant stress state was reasonably postulated. In figures,
5 mm  5 mm  25 mm, thus V0 625 mm3.
The debate on how to determine stresses in adhesively bonded joints
has been largely settled by a couple of recent review papers [29,30]; it is safe
to state that to account for the orthotropy of timber, FEA is the most rationale
tool.

1.3. Objectives
The first objective of this paper is to extend an available probabilistic capacity
prediction method from softwood to hardwood. The second objective of this
paper is to further extend the design approach to take into account effects
related to elevated temperature on the capacity of adhesively bonded timber
joints.

2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
2.1. Investigations on Timber
The subsequently described investigations were performed on adhesively
bonded DLJ involving timber adherends. The timber species used was beech
(Fagus sylvatica) cut from high quality defect-free boards. After cutting,
the material was stored in constant climate and conditioned to approximately
8% MC. The elastic properties of adherends were previously shown to have
very small influence on the capacity of adhesively bonded joints. As a consequence, these properties for beech were not specifically determined but
assumed according to own previous experiments [22].
For the subsequent joint capacity prediction however, and assuming
that the timber adherends fail, the beech had to be mechanically characterized with regard to strength. According to previous experience on bonded
timber joints, failure is triggered by a combination of axial stresses, rX,
transverse tensile stresses, rY, and shear stresses, sXY. Consequently, and in
accordance with previous validated practice, off-axis traction tests were
performed, see Fig. 1. A total of 107 dog-bone-shaped specimens were tested
to determine the material strength components fx, fy, and fxy. Four different
angles of the specimens longitudinal axis to the grain (0
, 10
, 45
, and 90
)
were considered. The specimen dimensions were the following: overall
length 35 mm, width of the grip section 5 mm leaving a gage length
25 mm with a corresponding cross section 5  5 mm.

407

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

Adhesively Bonded Hardwood Joints under Temperature

FIGURE 1 Off-axis specimens after testing (from left to right: 10
, 0
, and 45
).

Tests were carried out at room temperature (22
C), and elevated
temperatures of 60
C, 90
C, and 120
C, respectively. Before being tested,
the specimens were conditioned to reach these temperatures. Test results
are reported in Table 1. The MC of the test specimens were not measured
at the higher temperatures. For the temperatures of 90
C and 120
C, it can
be reasonably assumed that the timber reached oven dry condition (near
0% MC). Since both material characterization and the subsequent joint
capacities were experimentally determined under identical conditions, the
approach is coherent.

2.2. Investigations on the Adhesive

Previous experience [21] showed that adhesives that performed well on
softwood (spruce) are not necessarily adapted for hardwood, as beech. An
appropriate adhesive that achieves adherend failure, the preferred mode
for structural applications, was selected on the basis of single-lap-shear tests.
Corresponding specimens had a length of 100 mm, a width of 25 mm, and
a thickness of 4 mm; adhesive layer thickness was set to 1 mm. Several classes
TABLE 1 Strength Parameters of Beech Timber

fX
fY
fXY
k
m

Unit

@22
C

@60
C

@90
C

@120
C

[N=mm2]

53.8
14.3
12.1
3.844
1.101

62.4
13.0
13.4
3.401
1.110

54.7
10.5
13.9
2.814
1.124

54.4
10.1
9.3
2.226
1.139

[]
[]

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

408

S. Fecht et al.

FIGURE 2 Pre-selection of adhesives; specimen with the finally selected adhesive at the right.

of adhesives, as epoxies, polyurethanes and polyvinyl-acetates, were

considered; typical results are depicted in Fig. 2. A two-component epoxy
adhesive, Loctite Hysol 9492 by Henkel1, Dusseldorf, Germany, was finally
selected; besides its ability to achieve the expected failure mode, it is specified as having good performance under high temperature.
To quantify the influence of temperature on the selected adhesive,
more specifically its stiffness, a Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA) was
performed. Specimens of the adhesive with a length of 17.9 mm, a width
of 10.4 mm, and a thickness of 3.5 mm were exposed to dynamic bending
loads of 1 Hz, amplitudes of 1 mm, and temperatures from 50
C to 200
C,
with an increase of 2
C per min. Figure 3 shows, amongst others, the

FIGURE 3 Dynamic mechanical analysis of the selected adhesive.

409

Adhesively Bonded Hardwood Joints under Temperature

dependency of the storage modulus on the temperature, which corresponds to

Youngs modulus, EA, of the adhesive: EA is almost constant for temperatures
below approximately 60
C, with a value of around 5400 MPa; beyond 60
C,
after crossing the glass transition temperature (of around Tg 77
C), EA drops
to values around 80 MPa. The stiffness corresponding to the temperatures
at which the aforementioned experimental investigations were carried out
(22
C, 60
C, 90
C, and 120
C, respectively) are explicitly listed in Table 2.

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

2.3. Investigations on the Bonded Joints

To experimentally determine the capacity of the adhesively bonded beech joints,
symmetrical DLJ were built from the same timber as the dog-bone specimens.
Rectangular sections were manufactured consisting of two outer and two inner
timber boards connected by a layer of adhesive with a thickness of 1 mm. To
keep the cumulative cross section constant, the inner adherends were twice as
thick as the outer ones with 30 and 15 mm, respectively. The width of the adherends was kept constant at 30 mm. Before being bonded, the timber surfaces
were mechanically planed, residual dust was removed, and subsequently the
surfaces were degreased using Isopropanol. The adhesive layer thickness was
ensured using calibrated spacers. In all cases, after manufacturing, and in accordance with the data sheet, the adhesive was pre-cured in an oven with a temperature of 60
C for 1 h and subsequently cured for at least 1 week at a climate of
22
C and relative humidity of 50% according to DIN EN ISO 139.
Two series were considered:
.

S1, at room temperature (RT) of 22
C, in which the influence of the overlap
length on joint capacity was investigated. Three different overlap lengths
were considered: 80 mm, 120 mm, and 160 mm.
S2, in which, for a constant overlap length of 80 mm, the influence of
temperature (60
C, 90
C, and 120
C) on the capacity was investigated.

To ensure a statistical significance of the results, each configuration of

S1 was tested 5 times, and (owing to the more complex setup) only 3 times
TABLE 2 Stiffness Parameters of Materials
Material
Unit
Beech
Hysol at
Hysol at
Hysol at
Hysol at


Ey Ez

Ex
[MPa]
14 500
22
C
60
C
90
C
120
C

[]
790

5450
4500
175
75

n xz n yz

n xz

0.37

0.04
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

Assumed to be unaffected by temperature within the range of investigated range.

410

S. Fecht et al.
TABLE 3 Joint Capacities (Indicate Standard Deviation)
Configuration

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

S1,
S1,
S1,
S2,
S2,
S2,
S2,

RT, 80 mm
RT, 120 mm
RT, 160 mm
RT, 80 mm
60
C, 80 mm
90
C, 80 mm
120
C, 80 mm

Fexp [kN]

Fpred [kN]

Accuracy [%]

27.34  3.61
30.62  2.33
30.59  2.21
27.34  3.61
26.10  1.33
15.27  2.44
11.27  2.70

29.25
30.96
31.41
29.25
26.08
22.22
16.03

7
1
3
7
0
31
30

FIGURE 4 Joint capacities, series S1.

FIGURE 5 Joint capacities, series S2.

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

Adhesively Bonded Hardwood Joints under Temperature

411

FIGURE 6 Typical failure patterns of specimens from series S2.

FIGURE 7 Close up of failure of specimens of series S2: (a) at RT, (b) at 60
C, (c) at 90
C, and
(d) at 120
C.

for series S2. All specimens were tested in a universal testing machine,
which recorded the loads and corresponding displacements. Before testing
series S2, all specimens were conditioned to their respective temperatures
in an oven for 8 h before testing; the tensile tests were performed directly
in a climatic chamber at the corresponding temperature. All experimentally
determined joint capacities are listed in Table 3 and illustrated Figs. 4 and
5, while Figs. 6 and 7 depict typical failure patterns.

3. MODELLING
3.1. Modelling of Timber Strength
The experimental characterization of the anisotropic timber, considered
herein as transverse isotropic in 2D, was performed by means of off-axis
tests, a procedure widely used for composite materials, but also for timber
[31]. For off-axis samples with a cross section A, which are subjected to a

412

S. Fecht et al.

tensileforce P, the stresses r0 in the principal material axis (herein labelled

[ . . . ]X for parallel to grain and [ . . . ]Y for perpendicular, respectively,
[ . . . ]XY for shear in the XY-plane), can be determined by transformation of
r0 P=A as follows:

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

rX r0 cos2 a;

rY r0 sin2 a;

sXY r0 sin a cos a;

where a stands for the off-axis orientation related to the direction of the axis
of the tensile force. For each sample, the acting stress, r0, has to be transformed into the corresponding rX, rY, and sXY, which act simultaneously.
Subsequently, assuming that failure of beech under multi-axial stresses is
sufficiently described by the Norris criterion, Eq. (1), which contains three
unknown material parameters, fX, fY, and fXY, experimental data obtained
on three different off-axis angles, a, is required for their determination.
The results are summarized in Table 1.
In a further step, for all investigated dog-bone specimens, the scatter of
measured interaction strength values around the failure criterion value of
/2F 1 was considered for the statistical distribution, hypothesized as being
a two-parameter Weibull distribution. This data allowed to extract the two
parameters, k and m, following a rank regression on the linear form of the
cumulative probability density function (cpdf) according to a previously
described procedure [32,33]. This procedure was followed for the material
characterization at all considered temperatures, 22
C, 60
C, 90
C, and
120
C, respectively. The resulting Weibull cpdf are depicted in Fig. 8, with
the corresponding experimental data overlaid.

FIGURE 8 Weibull distribution of strength parameters of small specimens.

Adhesively Bonded Hardwood Joints under Temperature

413

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

3.2. Numerical Modelling

To assist the interpretation of the experimental results, in particular the
dependency of the stress profiles, including their peak values, on the overlap
length and temperature, all experimentally investigated configurations
were numerically modelled using ANSYS (v14)a CAE program by Ansys
Inc., Canonsburg, PA, USA. Previous experience of the authors indicated
that 2D instead of 3D modelling of adhesively bonded joints delivers accurate
results [2,3,22,33]; consequently, 2D 8-node orthotropic elements and plane
stress analysis was used; symmetry conditions were applied to reduce
the modelling to one-quarter. The anisotropic and inhomogeneous material
timber was assumed to be homogeneous and transverse isotropic with
identical properties in radial and tangential directions, herein the axis Y.
The longitudinal direction is referred to as parallel to grain, subsequently
defined by the subscript X. A fine quadratic mesh (element size 0.25 mm,
depicted in Fig. 9) was chosen according to previous experience. At this

FIGURE 9 FEA of the bonded joints (80 mm overlap, RT, reference load 10 kN) (a) axial
stresses, (b) transverse stresses, (c) shear stresses, and (d) vector plot of the main stresses
which also displays the selected mesh size.

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

414

S. Fecht et al.

point, it must be emphasized that the subsequent probabilistic modelling

ensures an almost mesh-size independent post-processing, the increase in
stress peaks associated to smaller meshes being compensated by the increase
in material resistance due to size effects.
Since brittle failure modes occurring in the timber adherends and initiating within the elastic range dictate the strength of adhesively bonded timber
joints, both, the adhesive and the timber material were regarded as linear
elastic, with the mechanical properties set to those listed in Tables 1 and 2.
In dependency of the temperature, the elastic properties of the adhesives
were drawn from the DMA. At all temperatures, adhesives were assumed
to behave linearly for the purpose of this study; the authors are aware that
this is a very crude assumption for elevated temperatures beyond Tg;
previous experience on bonded timber joints [3], however, showed that
simplifying complex plastic behaviour by its linear parts is a good proxy in
the context of predicting joint capacity.
For each considered configuration, two sets of data were extracted
from FEA: firstly, the profiles of the axial stresses, rX, the transverse stresses,

FIGURE 10 Stresses at the interface: series S1 transverse stress (a) and shear stress (b); series
S2 transverse stress (c) and shear stress (d).

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

Adhesively Bonded Hardwood Joints under Temperature

415

rY, and shear stresses, sXY along the inner overlap on which failure was
observed to initiate; secondly, the aforementioned stresses rX, rY, and sXY
for each timber element. Stress profiles along the overlap, computed herein
for an arbitrary reference load of 10 kN are plotted in Fig. 10 to allow for
an insight in the load transfer of the considered DLJ, respectively, for the
influence the overlap length and the temperature on the stress peaks.
The post-processing is described in a nutshell. Firstly, rX, rY, and sXY
stresses were determined using FEA for each element and subsequently
combined into the numerical value /2F as defined by Eq. (1); secondly,
a probability of survival Ps,i, according to Eq. (2), was associated to each
element that represented timber; thirdly, the individual probabilities of
survival were added up to determine the probability of survival of the whole
joint, Ps. Since calculations were performed at a reference load of 10 kN,
and owing to the material linearity, a simple iterative procedure was
performed to determine the load for which the probability of survival of
the joint amounted for 0.5; this load was subsequently labelled Fpred.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Timber Strength
The experimental results for material characterization, summarized in Table 1,
showed that timber strength exhibits a tendency to decrease with temperature. The decrease is not identical for all individual stress components: axial
tensile strength, fX, remains almost constant, with values of 53.8 MPa at 22
C,
62.4 MPa at 60
C, 54.7 MPa at 90
C, and 54.4 MPa at 120
C. Transverse tensile
strength, fY, decreased almost linearly from 14.3 MPa at 22
C to 10.1 MPa at
120
C; in contrast, shear strength, fXY, varied from 12.1 MPa at 22
C to
13.9 MPa at 90
C to and 9.3 MPa at 120
C also indicating an overall drop in
strength with temperature. Lower MC of timber while keeping temperature
constant is associated with increased material strength, whereas increasing
temperatures independently of MC negatively impacts the latter, thus leading
to contradictory effects on strength. A purely separated analysis of the
influences of temperature and MC on the strength of timber would be of
purely scientific interest without any practical implications and was, therefore, not pursued with this research.
The Weibull diagram of material strengths at different temperatures,
displayed in Fig. 8, shows good linear fits of experimental data at each of
the considered temperatures (22
C, 60
C, 90
C, and 120
C). The doublelogarithmic representation shows that measured and calculated values
compare well, with a statistical R2-value of around 95%, on average. Corresponding values for k range from 3.844 to 2.226, and m parameters vary from
1.101 to 1.139; all are listed in Table 1 for each temperature. It appears that

416

S. Fecht et al.

the parameter k is negatively correlated with temperature, while m has a

positive correlation.

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

4.2. Stresses at the Interface

The numerical modelling shows the typical load transfer occurring in bonded
joints, characterized by the significant peak stresses at the ends of the overlap
at normal temperatures, herein depicted in Fig. 10(a) and (b). All stress profiles, in particular for shear stresses, are typical for adhesively bonded joints
with their sharp stress peaks towards the ends of the overlaps. For series S2,
stresses exhibit a flattening of the stress profiles, particularly their peak
values, at elevated temperatures, see Fig. 10(c) and (d). Maximum values of
shear stresses significantly decrease with increasing temperatures: 10.9 N=
mm2 at 22
C, 10.4 N=mm2 at 60
C, 3.7 N=mm2 at 90
C and they drop to values
as low as 3.0 N=mm2 at 120
C. Similarly, maximum values for transverse
tensile stresses peak at 14.5 N=mm2 at 22
C to finally drop to almost a third,
5.5 N=mm2, at 120
C.

4.3. Joint Capacities and Capacity Prediction

All joints tested under RT (22
C), which include all specimens of series S1
and the first set of series S2, failed inside timber, as illustrated by Figs. 6
and 7; which in essence was similar for the tests performed at 60
, a temperature still below Tg (around 77
C) as determined by DMA. For specimens
tested beyond Tg, observations made after failure showed that the failure
patterns shifts towards adhesive failure: while at 90
C, a small proportion
of timber is still within the areas where failure initiated (i.e., end of the overlap), at 120
C 100% adhesive failure occurred.
Experimentally determined joint capacities at RT and in dependency of
the overlap length, series S1, are listed in Table 3 and graphically displayed in
Fig. 4. Capacities increase with the overlap length, the capacity plateau which
delivers an upper bound, seems to have been reached between overlaps of
120 mm and 160 mm, which is consistent with previous investigation, e.g., by
Neto et al. [34]. Comparing this data to results obtained on a similar experimental setup involving softwood [2] shows that the maximum of the joint
capacity is reached at a comparable overlap length of around 160 mm. Scattering of experimental capacities is comparable to what has been previously
observed [2,22]; if defined as the coefficient of variance it amounted to 11%.
The predicted capacities, on the basis of the probabilistic method, taking into
account the material properties, are also listed in Table 3 and graphically
overlaid to the experimental data in Fig. 4. Qualitatively, calculated joint
capacities follow the experimental trend, in that sense that from on overlap
length of 80120 mm calculated values increase noticeably from 27.34 kN to
30.62 kN, while no further corresponding increase for 160 mm is detected,

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

Adhesively Bonded Hardwood Joints under Temperature

417

reaching a value of 30.59 kN. Quantitatively, predicted values are in good

agreement with experimental values, which is well visualized by Fig. 4, the
deviation being between 1% and 7%.
Regarding the dependency of joint capacity on temperature, the experimental results of series S2 are shown in Fig. 5. Joint capacities decrease from
27.34 kN at 22
C to 11.27 kN at 120
C on average. Predicted joint strengths
are overlaid to the experimental data. The capacity prediction method
correctly foretells the qualitative relationship between capacity and temperature insofar as capacities decrease similarly to what has been experimentally
observed. Predictions are very good for temperatures below Tg of the
adhesive, covering the relevant temperature region for civil engineering
practice. Predictions are non-conservative for temperatures higher than Tg
(by 30% at 120
C). In this region, the probabilistic method that predicts
failure of timber under multi-axial stresses is no longer valid.
Three major differences to explain the qualitatively poorer accuracy of
the capacity predictions at higher temperatures might be invoked: (1) At
higher temperatures, more specifically beyond Tg, adhesives undergo major
chemical changes, which affects not only stiffness, as implicitly assumed in
this study. Taking into account the adhesive plasticity at higher temperature
also influences the stresses, and thus the joint capacity. However, previous
studies [3] showed that the relation between adhesive plasticity, associated
stress peak relief and joint capacity is not very pronounced. (2) The basis
of the numerical capacity prediction, as developed herein, assumes that failure of the bonded joints initiates from inside the timber. This assumption is in
excellent agreement for both RT and 60
C with the post-failure observations
documented in Fig. 6. At temperatures beyond Tg, herein 90
C and 120
C,
failure pattern shows that, although significant parts of timber are still visible
towards the end of the overlap coinciding with locations of stress concentrations, large parts of the overlapped area clearly exhibits adhesive, thus
cohesive failure occurred. (3) The characterization of timber at higher
temperatures, as performed in this study, yielded a decrease of strength with
temperature which is less pronounced than previously reported [14].

5. CONCLUSIONS
Adhesively bonded joints represent an opportunity for timber engineering to
extend its architectural potential towards innovative solutions, including
multi-storey buildings, thus increasing its competitiveness. Among the
challenges that adhesive bonding in the context of timber faces are the use
of hardwood and the behaviour at elevated temperatures. The research
presented herein addressed both topics.
Based on experimental and numerical investigations, following main
conclusions can be drawn: firstly, regarding bonded joints composed of

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

418

S. Fecht et al.

beech, a representative of hardwood, it has been shown thatat room

temperatureusing specifically selected adhesives, it is possible to manufacture such joints, that their failure is governed by the material strength of
timber under a combination of axial, transverse tensile, and shear stresses,
and that the corresponding joint capacity can be predicted accurately using
a probabilistic approach. These results do enable practitioners design joints
and corresponding structures safely and economically. Secondly, considering
elevated temperatures (60
C to 120
C); the results obtained on the characterization of the timber, the adhesive, and the joints indicated that the principles
developed for the capacity prediction method at RT remain basically valid
at elevated temperatures up to the adhesives glass transition temperature.
The accuracy of the predictions declined with increasing temperatures (up
to 30% at 120
C) clearly indicating the need for further research on this topic.

FUNDING
This research was supported by the Fraunhofer Institute, IFAM. The help
of the technicians is acknowledged. The analytical work carried out at the
University of British Columbia was supported by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

REFERENCES
[1] Estevez, J., Otero, D., Martn, E., and Vazquez, J. A., The use of adhesive bulbs
in the inner end of drills in order to improve the axial strength of steel threaded
bars glued in timber. World Conference of Timber Engineering (WCTE) (2010),
Riva del Garda, Italy.
[2] Tannert, T., Vallee, T., and Hehl, S., Wood Sci. Technol. 46, 579590 (2012).
[3] Vallee, T., Tannert, T., Murcia, J., and Quinn, D., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 30,
583594 (2010).
[4] Vallee, T., Tannert, T., and Hehl, S., Mater Struct. 44, 17451758 (2011).
[5] Bainbridge, R., Metten, C., Harvey, K., and Ansell, M., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 22,
4759 (2002).
[6] Steiger, R., Gehri, E., Widmann, R., Mater Struct. 40, 6978 (2006).
[7] Madhoushi, M. and Ansell, M. P., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 24, 319325 (2004).
[8] De Lorenzis, L., Scialpi, V., and La Tegola, A., Compos. Part B, 36, 279289
(2005).
[9] Brunner, M., Romer, M., and Schnuriger, M., Mater Struct. 40, 119126
(2006).
[10] Henrique, J., Oliveira, J. D., Miguel, F., Oliveira, M. D., Alexandra, C., Oliveira,
L. D., and Cachim, P. B., J. Struct. Eng. 136, 12361245 (2010).
[11] Henrique, J., Oliveira, J. D., Miguel, F., Oliveira, M. D., Alexandra, C., Oliveira,
L. D., and Cachim, P. B., J. Struct. Eng. 136, 12461254 (2010).

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:03 17 November 2014

Adhesively Bonded Hardwood Joints under Temperature

419

[12] Blyberg, L., Serrano, E., Enquist, B., and Sterley, M., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 35,
7687 (2012).
[13] Barreto, A. M. J. P., Campilho, R. D. S. G., de Moura, M. F. S. F., Morais, J. J. L.,
and Santos, C. L., J. Adhes. 86, 630648 (2010).
[14] Bekhta, P. and Niemz, P., Holzforschung 57, 539546 (2005).
[15] Kollmann, F., Technologie des Holzes und der Holzwerkstoffe. Vol. 1, (Springer,
Berlin, 1951).
[16] Habenicht, G., Applied Adhesive Bonding, (John Wiley & Sons, New York,
2008).
[17] Ehrenstein, G. W., Polymeric Materials: Structure, Properties, Applications,
(Hanser Verlag, Munich, 2001).
[18] Banea, M. D. and da Silva, L. F. M., Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. J. Mater. Des. Appl.
224 (2), 5162 (2010).
[19] Dinwoodie, J. M., Timber: Its Nature and Behaviour, (Taylor & Francis,
London, 2000).
[20] Rodwell, D. F. G., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 10, 4348 (1990).
[21] Chans, D. O., Cimadevila, J. E., and Gutierreza, E. M., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 28,
457463 (2008).
[22] Tannert, T., Vallee, T., and Hehl, S., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 37, 6569 (2012).
[23] J. Eberhardsteiner Mechanisches Verhalten von Fichtenholz-Experimentelle
Bestimmung der biaxialen Festigkeitseigenschaften. (2002) (in German),
Springer, Vienna, Austria.
[24] Grosse, M., and Rautenstrauch, K. Proc CIB-W18, Paper #377-16, Edinburgh,
Scotland (2004), pp. 377-16.
[25] Kohler, J., Srensen, J. D., and Faber, M. H., Struct. Saf. 29, 255267 (2007).
[26] Tannert, T., Vallee, T., Franke, S., and Quenneville, P., World Conference
Timber Engineering WCTE2012, Auckland, New Zealand (2012).
[27] Norris, C. B., Strength of orthotropic materials subjected to combined stresses.
Report No.1816, (1962) Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, USA.
[28] Weibull, W., Proceedings of the Royal Swedish Institute, Research No.151,
Stockholm, Sweden (1939).
[29] Da Silva, L. F. M., Das Neves, P. J. C., Adams, R. D., and Spelt, J. K., Int. J. Adhes.
Adhes. 29, 319330 (2009).
[30] Da Silva, L. F. M., Das Neves, P. J. C., Adams, R. D., Wang, A., and Spelt, J. K.,
Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 29, 331341 (2009).
[31] Xavier, J. C., Garrido, N. M., Oliveira, M., Morais, J. L., Camanho, P. P., and
Pierron, F., Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manufact. 35, 827840 (2004).
[32] Vallee, T., Correia, J. R., and Keller, T., Compos. Sci. Technol. 66, 19031914
(2006).
[33] Vallee, T., Correia, J. R., and Keller, T., Compos. Sci. Technol. 66, 19151930
(2006).
[34] Neto, J. A. B. P., Campilho, R. D. S. G., and da Silva, L. F. M., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes.
37, 96101 (2012).