Numerical Simulation of Timber Connections With Slotted-In Stell Plates. Michael Nygaard Nonbo 2010

Master Thesis
Numerical Simulation of Timber

Connections with Slotted-in Steel Plates
Michael Nygaard Nonbo

s052719
July 8th 2010
Content
Preface
This master thesis within the field of constructional engineering has been made in order
to try and clarify some of the accuracy issues by designing timber connections in
accordance with the conventional hand calculation methods.
The idea for the thesis was presented to me by my supervisor, Sigurdur Omarsson, and
the logical issue with the approach of the conventional hand calculation method of
distributing the fastener forces in a connection group from a geometric point of view
and not in respect to the stiffness of the wood material around the fasteners, appealed to
me and I took an interest in further investigating the problematic.
In that connection I would like to thank Sigurdur Omarsson for his great help through
the entire process of this thesis. He has been very motivating and a great support by
always taking time to answer questions.
Lyngby, July 2010
_____________________________________
Michael Nygaard Nonbo
Content
Summary
This master thesis describes the hand calculations and FEM-simulation of a loaded three
hinged glulam frame with moment stiff corners with a view to clarify differences in the
distribution and magnitude of the contact forces between the dowel and the timber in
worst load corner connection. The hand calculations are carried out in accordance with
Eurocode and an applied calculation method from (Larsen & Enjily 2009) under the
assumption that the wood material behaves elastically. The dowel forces found by the
hand calculation method are based on cross sectional forces by considering the frame as
consisting of beam elements. In the numerical analysis of the frame the wood material is
also assumed having elastic behaviour. However, the simulation is here carried out on
the frame consisting of beam element but with the worst loaded corner fully 3Dmodelled.
The analysis show that the dowel forces found by hand calculation in general are
perpendicular to the direction to the respective connection groups and that the largest of
the peripheral dowel forces (80.9 kN) is about twice as big as the smallest one (35.8
kN). With regards to the FEM-simulation the dowel force are pointing more in the fibre
direction than those found by hand calculation and the largest of the peripheral dowel
forces (95.9 kN) is here about 7 times bigger than the smallest one (13.6 kN). From the
FEM-simulation it is shown that you cannot expect dowel loaded perpendicular to the
fibre direction to take up nearly as much of the moment induced force in the connection
as by the hand calculation method.
Moreover, a FEM-simulation is carried out where the frame corner in question is
subjected to shrinkage corresponding to a reduction of 3% of the moisture content of the
wood. This causes radial stresses exceeding the strength of timber and dowel forces
exceeding the load carrying capacity of the dowel connection.
Content
Resume
Dette kandidatspeciale behandler hndberegninger p, og en FEM-simulering af en
belastet tre-hngslet limtrsramme med momentstive hjrner med henblik p at
klarlgge forskelle i fordelingen af, og retningen p kontaktkrfterne mellem dyvler og
limtr i den vrst belastede hjrnesamling. Hndberegningerne er udfrt i
overensstemmelse med Eurocode og en anvendt beregningsmetode fra (Larsen & Enjily
2009) under antagelse af at tret opfrer sig elastisk. Dyvelkrfterne fundet ved
hndberegning bygger p snitkrfter fundet ved at se rammen som bestende af
bjlkeelementer. I den numeriske analyse af rammen antages tret ligeledes at opfrer
sig elastisk, dog er simuleringerne her foretaget p rammen bestende af
bjlkeelementer, men hvor det vrst belastede rammehjrne er fuldt 3D-modelleret.
Analyserne viser at dyvelkrfterne fundet ved hndberegning generelt set er vinkelrette
p retningen til centrum af de pgldende dyvelsamlinger og at den strste af de
perifere dyvelkrfter (80.9 kN) er ca. dobbelt s stor som den mindste (35.8 kN). Hvad
angr FEM-simuleringen peger dyvelkrfter her mere i fiberretningen end dem fundet
ved hndberegning og den strste af de perifere dyvelkrfter (95.9 kN) er her ca. 7
gange s stor som den mindste (13.6 kN). Ud fra FEM-simulering er det vist, at man
ikke kan forvente at dyvler lastet vinkelret p fiberretning tager nr s stor en del af de
momentforrsagede krfter i samlingen som ved hndberegningsmetoden.
Ydermere er der foretaget en FEM-simulering, hvor det pgldende rammehjrne
udsttes for svind svarende til en reduktion af trets fugtindhold p 3 %. Dette
forrsager radiale spndinger, der overskrider styrken af tret og dyvelkrfter, der
overstiger breevnen af dyvelsamlingerne.
Content
Content
Preface .............................................................................................................................. 1
Summary........................................................................................................................... 2
Resume ............................................................................................................................. 3
List of figures ................................................................................................................... 6
List of tables ..................................................................................................................... 9
1
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 10
1.1
General ............................................................................................................. 10
1.2
Problem identification...................................................................................... 10
1.3
Structure of the thesis ...................................................................................... 12
1.4
Literature review .............................................................................................. 12
Hypothesis ............................................................................................................... 13
Geometry ................................................................................................................. 14
3.1
Frame and overall corner dimensions .............................................................. 14
3.2
Dowel placing and numbering ......................................................................... 16
3.3
Dimension of the steel plates ........................................................................... 17
Materials .................................................................................................................. 18
4.1
Wood ................................................................................................................ 18
4.2
Steel ................................................................................................................. 19
Load combination.................................................................................................... 20
Hand calculations .................................................................................................... 23
6.1
Method ............................................................................................................. 23
6.2
Results .............................................................................................................. 27
6.2.1
Cross sectional forces ............................................................................... 27
6.2.2
Deformations ............................................................................................ 29
6.2.3
Dowel forces ............................................................................................. 30
6.2.4
Load carrying capacity of the dowel connections .................................... 32
FEM-analysis .......................................................................................................... 34
7.1
Structure of the model...................................................................................... 34
7.2
Results .............................................................................................................. 42
7.2.1
Deformation .............................................................................................. 42
Content
7.2.2
Stresses ..................................................................................................... 43
7.2.3
Dowel forces ............................................................................................. 48
Comparing hand and FEM-calculations.................................................................. 50
Moisture load .......................................................................................................... 52

9.1
Applying moisture load ................................................................................... 53
9.2
Results .............................................................................................................. 54
9.2.1
Deformations ............................................................................................ 54
9.2.2
Stresses ..................................................................................................... 56
9.2.3
Dowel forces ............................................................................................. 59
9.3
Combining moisture with other load cases ...................................................... 60
9.3.1
Dead and moisture load combination ....................................................... 60
9.3.2
Design and moisture load combination .................................................... 62
10
Discussion and Conclusion.................................................................................. 64
11
Future research .................................................................................................... 65
12
References ........................................................................................................... 66
Appendix A ...................................................................................................................... 1
Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 5
Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix D .................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix E ..................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix F ..................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix G .................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix H .................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix I ...................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix J ...................................................................................................................... 27
Appendix K .................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix L ..................................................................................................................... 29
Appendix M .................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix N .................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix O .................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix P ..................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix Q .................................................................................................................... 38
5
Content
List of figures
Figure 1.1: Collapsed connections of the Siemens Super Arena in Ballerup. ................ 10
Figure 1.2: A three hinge frame with moment stiff corners where the left corner has
been fully modelled for further analysis. ........................................................................ 11
Figure 1.3: Principle construction of the corner section of the frame. ........................... 11
Figure 2.1: Sketch showing, in principle, the difference in load distribution on the
dowels between the hand calculation method and the numerical analysis. .................... 13
Figure 3.1: Dimensions expressed by variables and key points on the left of the frame
and the left corner. .......................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3.2: Numbering of the dowels with connection group 1 in the beam part and
connection group 2 in the column part and the required distances in accordance with the
Eurocode 5. ..................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3.3: Key points on the steel plates and the distance from the timber edge to the
steel plate edge. .............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 4.1: Illustration of the three orthotropic material directions of a wooden beam
longitudinal, l, radial, r, and tangential, t........................................................................ 19
Figure 5.1: Illustration of the pressure coefficients for external pressure used on the
frame. .............................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 5.2: Dead, wind and snow load son the frame. ................................................... 22
Figure 6.1: Illustration of the dowel group and the load action on the dowel group 1. . 23
Figure 6.2: Failure modes for connection with two slotted-in steel plates. .................... 26
Figure 6.3: The distribution of normal forces in N in the frame due to design load. ..... 28
Figure 6.4: The distribution of shear forces in N in the frame due to design load. ........ 28
Figure 6.5: The moment distribution in Nm on the frame due to design load. .............. 29
Figure 6.6: Deformation of the frame due to design load. ............................................. 29
Figure 6.7: Magnitude and direction of the hand calculated dowel forces..................... 32
Figure 7.1: Part 1 Corner peace of the column. ........................................................... 35
Figure 7.2: Part 2 Corner peace of the beam. .............................................................. 35
Figure 7.3: Part 3 One of the steel plates slotted into the wooden column and beam. 35
Figure 7.4: Part 4 One of the steel dowels................................................................... 35
Figure 7.5: Part 5 One of the wooden ring parts which are placed in the holes of the
larger wooden corner parts. ............................................................................................ 35
Figure 7.6: Part 6 One of the steel rings which are placed in the holes of the steel
plates. .............................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 7.7: The interface to define the material properties of the wood material. ......... 36
Figure 7.8: The assembling of the frame with numbering of Part 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and
the material orientations indicated by yellow coordinate axis. ...................................... 37
Figure 7.9: Contact surface between dowel and hole where the two mesh grids do not fit
perfectly together. ........................................................................................................... 39
Content
Figure 7.10: Meshing done in 20-node hexahedrons (black nodes at the left) with 27
Gauss points (red nodes at the right). ............................................................................. 40
Figure 7.11: Meshing of Part 1. ...................................................................................... 41
Figure 7.17: Deformation of the frame from the design load (magnitude 20 times). .... 42
Figure 7.18: Deformation of the frame corner and the local deformation of the dowel
holes 3 and 9 in CG 1 and 7 and 9 in CG2 magnified 20 times. .................................... 43
Figure 7.19: Significant rise in value of longitudinal stresses at the edge of an element
shown in principle. ......................................................................................................... 44
Figure 7.20: The longitudinal stresses in the corner of the frame with tension and
compression indicated by red and blue colours, respectively. ....................................... 45
Figure 7.21: Longitudinal stresses in the timber around dowel 3 and 9 in CG1 and 7 and
9 in CG2. ........................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 7.22: Radial stresses in the frame corner. ........................................................... 46
Figure 7.23: The radial stress distribution on connection group 1 and 2. ...................... 46
Figure 7.24: Shear stresses in the timber in the corner connection. ............................... 47
Figure 7.25: The dowel forces acting on the wood material .......................................... 49
Figure 8.1: The dowel forces from both the hand calculation and FEM-analysis plotted
as black and red arrows, respectively, along with some of the angle differences. ......... 51
Figure 9.1: Boundary conditions indicated by red arrows on the frame corner subjected
to moisture load. ............................................................................................................. 54
Figure 9.2: The moisture load is applied as an additional material behaviour to the wood
material. .......................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 9.3: Deformations of the frame corner and dowel 3 and 9 in CG1 and 7 and 9 in
CG2 (magnified 20 times). ............................................................................................. 55
Figure 9.4: Deformation of the frame corner around CG2 seen from the outer edge of
the frame (magnified 20 times). ..................................................................................... 56
Figure 9.5: The longitudinal stresses due to decrease in the timber of 3%. ................... 57
Figure 9.6: Radial stresses in the frame corner and in the timber around dowel 3 and 9
in CG1 and 7 and 9 in CG2 due to moisture loading. .................................................... 57
Figure 9.7: Shear stresses in the timber in the corner connection. ................................. 58
Figure 9.8: Sketch showing magnitude and direction of dowel forces caused by moisture
load (3% shrinkage), with magnitude and angle of the five dowel forces which exceed
the load carrying capacities. ........................................................................................... 59
Figure 9.9: The dowels forces caused by the combination of dead and moisture load
(3% shrinkage) shown by purple arrows. The magnitude and angle of those dowel
forces exceeding the load carrying capacity are also shown. ......................................... 62
Content
Figure 9.10: The dowels forces caused by the combination of design and moisture load
(3% shrinkage) shown by purple arrows. The magnitude and angle of those dowel
forces exceeding the load carrying capacity are also shown. ......................................... 63
Content
List of tables
Table 4.1: Characteristic and design strength parameters of GL32 [MPa]. ................... 18
Table 4.2: Stiffness properties of the wood material. ..................................................... 18
Table 6.1: Displacement of the frame top and corners in mm from hand calculation due
to design load. ................................................................................................................. 29
Table 6.2: The x- and y-components and magnitude of the moment contribution to the
resulting dowel force. ..................................................................................................... 30
Table 6.3: Hand calculated magnitudes and angles of the dowel forces in relation to the
fibre direction due to design load. .................................................................................. 31
Table 6.4: Magnitude and angle of dowel force, load carrying capacity and load
carrying capacity check of each of the 18 dowels. ......................................................... 33
Table 7.1: Displacement of the frame top and corners in mm from the numerical
analysis due to the design load. ...................................................................................... 42
Table 7.2: Magnitude and angle of the dowel forces in relation to the fibre direction due
to design load. (Abaqus) ................................................................................................. 48
Table 7.3: Magnitude and angle of dowel force from the design load, load carrying
capacity and load carrying capacity check of each of the 18 dowels. ............................ 49
Table 8.1: Comparison of reaction force found by Abaqus and hand calculation. ........ 50
Table 9.1: Magnitude and angle of the dowel forces in relation to the fibre direction due
to moisture load. ............................................................................................................. 59
Table 9.2: Magnitude and angle of dowel forces due to 3% decrease in timber moisture
content, load carrying capacity and load carrying capacity check of each of the 18
dowels. ............................................................................................................................ 60
Table 9.3: x-, y- and z-components and magnitudes of the dowel forces cause by the
dead load of the frame. ................................................................................................... 61
Table 9.4: Magnitude and angle of dowel forces due to a combination of dead and
moisture load, load carrying capacity and load carrying capacity check of each of the 18
dowels. ............................................................................................................................ 61
Table 9.5: Magnitude and angle of dowel forces due to a combination of design and
moisture load, load carrying capacity and load carrying capacity check of each of the 18
dowels. ............................................................................................................................ 63
Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 General
Through the ages wood has been one of the most important construction materials and it
is still widely used, for instance in small or large roof or frames constructions as the
ones used in the Siemens Super Arena in Ballerup. With large timber constructions
comes heavy loaded connections and in these kinds of constructions the laterally loaded
connections often are quite complex. The connections often involve two or more
slotted-in steel plates which are connected to the timber members with steel dowels or
bolts. The forces are typically transferred through the connections by mechanical
contact or friction between the dowel/bolts and the timber. For complex connections
with unknown line of force actions or connection exposed to climate changes (e.g.
moisture content variations) the stresses in the connection and around the dowels can be
difficult to determine (Omarsson, Dahlblom & Nygaard 2010). Incorrect design or
miscalculations may lead to critical under dimensioning with fatal consequences like to
collapse of the Siemens Super Arena.
Figure 1.1: Collapsed connections of the Siemens Super Arena in Ballerup.
1.2 Problem identification

The way timber connections are calculated by hand is based on isotropic elastic
behaviour of the timber and a geometric distribution of the dowel/bolt forces. Thereby
dowels loaded perpendicular to the fibre direction should be able to obtain the same
forces as those loaded in the fibre direction and that is not realistic since stiffness of the
wood is highly dependent on the fibre direction.
Since wood takes up water from the surrounding air it is sensitive to climate changes
and the change of moisture content causes swelling/shrinkage of the timber. The
dowel/bolts in the connection are then retaining the deformations of the timber resulting
10
Introduction
in additional forces in the fasteners. This poses a risk that the resulting forces in the
fasteners are larger or having more critical angles to the fibre direction the forces from
the mechanical loads the connection is design for. Moreover, the milling of grooves for
the slotted-in steel plates reduces the timber cross section but increases the surface area
and thereby increasing the sensitivity to climate changes.
A fastener force comparison of FEM-simulation and the hand calculation method will
be carried out on a three hinge frame with moment stiff corners as the one shown in
Figure 1.1. The hand calculation will be carried out on a beam model of the frame and
the FEM-simulation on a beam model of the frame with a fully solid modelled corner
(see Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2).
The main emphasis of the analysis carried out in this thesis is on finding the resulting
dowel force found by hand calculation and FEM-simulation and comparing the results.
Moreover, assessing the effects of moisture content differences on the dowel forces and
the stress distributions.
Figure 1.2: A three hinge frame with moment stiff corners where the left corner has been fully modelled
for further analysis.
Figure 1.3: Principle construction of the corner section of the frame.
11
Introduction
1.3 Structure of the thesis

The thesis is build so the subjects common for both analysis methods are described and
defined first. This relates to the material properties, the geometry and load combination
on the frame. Afterwards the hand calculations will be gone through with a description
of the method and a presentation of the results, with the main emphasis on the dowel
forces in the left corner connection. The FEM-analysis is then gone through with a
description of the modelling process and a presentation of the results, again with the
main emphasis on the dowel forces and here the stresses in the left corner connection as
well. The results from the two analysis methods are then compared and discussed.
Lastly the results of a FEM-analysis of the frame corner exposed to drying is presented
and discussed.
1.4 Literature review

FEM-analysis of timber connections has earlier been done, e.g. has the collapse of the
abutment connections been analysed by Jessen and Mougaard in (Jessen & Mougaard
2003), (Jessen & Mougaard 2003) and (Jessen & Mougaard 2004). They here
implement beam elements instead of dowels and applies some spring effect in the
connection with the perimeter of the holes. In (Hafsteinsson 2009) nailed bracket
connection has been analysed in Abaqus to find nail to timber stresses.
12
Hypothesis
2 Hypothesis
When performing a FEM-analysis on the corner connection in question a different
outcome than that for the hand calculations must be expected, since the load distribution
on the dowels are quite different from the two methods. In the hand calculation method
used in this thesis ((Johansen 1949) and (Larsen & Enjily 2009)) the loads are
distributed between the dowels in relation to the geometry regardless of the material
stiffness in the respective load direction. I.e. a dowel loaded perpendicular to the fibre
direction (where the stiffness of the timber is very low) will be subjected to the same
force as a dowel loaded parallel to fibre direction (where the stiffness of the timber is
high) if it has the same distance to the centre of the connection group. However, this is
not realistic and it must be expected, for the analysis of the corner connections, that the
angles of the dowel forces will tend to point more in the fibre direction and that the
dowels loaded in the fibre direction will take up more force than the ones loaded
perpendicular to the fibre direction of the timber. The difference in the load distributions
in the dowels between the hand calculation method and the numerical analysis is
principally sketched in the figure below. Two pieces of timber are here connected by a
slotted-in steel plate and four dowels in each of the two connection groups. The dowel
forces are distributed evenly in the four dowels for the hand calculation method due to
the double symmetric connection groups, but in the numerical analysis the dowels in the
top and bottom of the connection groups will take up much more load than those in
between because they are loaded in the fibre direction of the timber.
Figure 2.1: Sketch showing, in principle, the difference in load distribution on the dowels between the
hand calculation method and the numerical analysis.
13
Geometry
3 Geometry
The frame and corner in question is build up as shown in Figure 1.2 and the dimensions
of the frame and the left corner, where the dowel forces are to be found, will obviously
have to be determined before any calculation can be made. For the hand calculation
only a beam frame, to determine the cross sectional forces at the left corner, and the
dimensions of the connection groups, to determine the force distribution in the dowels,
are necessary but for the numerical analysis the frame and corner have to be modelled,
in some extent, as solid elements. However, if the numerical analysis should be carried
out on a fully modelled frame it would demand a large amount of calculation power and
time. Therefore, since only the dowel forces and the stresses at the connection groups
are of particular interest only some of the left corner will be modelled as solid elements
and the rest of the frame will be modelled as beam elements with material and profile
properties matching the frame in question. The frame and corner is defined by various
key points with variable coordinates, which makes it easy to changes the geometry of
the frame or corner. The geometry is divided into three parts; first the overall
dimensions of the frame (length and height) and the perimeter dimensions of the left
corner, secondly the dimensions and placing of the dowels and thirdly the dimensions of
the steel plates.
3.1 Frame and overall corner dimensions

In Figure 3.1 the dimensions of half a frame and the numbering of key points on it and
the corner is shown. Here the red dashed lines (L1, L4 and L5) are indicating the
dimensions of the part of the frame that has been replaced by beam elements, and the
beam elements shown as single continues black lines (L2 and L6) are indicating the
system lines for the frame which intersect in point P8. The system lines/beam elements
are perpendicular to the cut-off faces of the beam and column parts. g and k4 indicates
the original height and bottom point of the beam part at the corner before the making
cut-off at the angle of the top of the column part. The height of the beam then varies
from g at the corner to f at the top and the width of the column varies from e in the top
to d in the bottom. As it appear from the figure the centre of left support is located at
, 0 and the centre of the top at
. The remaining coordinates to the point
and the expressions for the lines are given in Appendix D. The further hand calculations
and numerical analysis will be carried out on a frame with the values of the variables in
Figure 3.1 to Figure 3.3 listed below.
14
Geometry
Figure 3.1: Dimensions expressed by variables and key points on the left of the frame and the left corner.
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
bt
st
v
dd
t1
t2
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
3.5
6.0
7.0
0.40
0.69
0.40
0.69
0.20
10
10
28
45
90
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
a1
= 5dd
= 140 mm
a2
= 4dd
= 112 mm
a3
= max(7dd , 80)
= 196 mm
a4
= 4dd
= 112 mm
Inside column height

Frame height at system line
Half frame width
Column width at support
Column width at frame corner
Beam height at frame top
Beam height at frame corner
Thickness of frame
Thickness of steel plates
Distance from timber to steel plate edge
Diameter of dowels
Thickness of outer member of corner
Thickness of middle member of corner
Minimum distance between fasteners in

the fibre direction
Minimum distance between fasteners
perpendicular to the fibre direction
Minimum distance from timber end to
the fastener
Minimum distance from timber edge to
the fastener
15
Geometry
3.2 Dowel placing and numbering

The dowels are divided into two connection groups (CG 1 and CG 2); number 1 in the
beam part and number 2 in the column part. They are placed with the required distances
to each other and to the ends and edges of the timber in accordance with (EC-5-1-1
2007). Here a1 and a2 are the required minimum distances between the dowels in and
perpendicular to the fibre direction, respectively, and a3 and a4 are the required
minimum distances to the edges and ends. The values of a3 and a4 are determined,
conservatively, as the minimum distances to loaded ends and edges and with the most
unfavourable angle to the fibre direction. The numbering of the dowels is shown in
Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2: Numbering of the dowels with connection group 1 in the beam part and connection group 2 in
the column part and the required distances in accordance with the Eurocode 5.
16
Geometry
3.3 Dimension of the steel plates

The perimeters of the steel plates are defined by six points numbered from S1 to S6 (see
Figure 3.3) and the plates are not entirely filling out the milled grooves. The edges of
the plates are parallel to the edges of the timber but with a distance of v between the two
material edges. As well as for the coordinates of the dowels the coordinates to the steel
plate perimeter point are defined in Appendix D. The distance from the timber edge to
the milled grooves, t1, and the distance, t2, between them are shown in Figure 3.3 and
indicate the three-dimensional location of the steel plates. The plates are located of
the glulam thickness from the edge which means that t2 = 2t1.
Figure 3.3: Key points on the steel plates and the distance from the timber edge to the steel plate edge.
17
Materials
4 Materials
The frame is done in two types of materials; wood and steel. In this section the material
properties of these materials will be described.
4.1 Wood
The wood or timber is an orthotropic material with different material properties in three
perpendicular directions longitudinal, l, radial, r, and tangential, t as sketched in
Figure 4.1. The frame analysed in this thesis is constructed in glulam (glued laminated
timber) consisting of thin wood lamellas glued together. The top and bottom lamellas
are placed with pith outwards to avoid sapwood splitting and the rest of the lamellas are
placed with their pith in the same direction in order to reduce moisture stresses. When it
comes to moisture stability, glulam is considered more stable than regular structural
timber because it is delivered dry with an approximate moisture content of 12%, and the
increased dimensions of glulam members in relation to timber members slows down the
moisture change (Larsen & Enjily 2009). When calculating the load carrying capacities
of the dowels the strength parameters listed in are based on glulam in strength class
GL32 with a density of k = 550 kg/m3. The design material strength parameters are
calculated from equation (4.1) (Larsen & Enjily 2009), where mk is the characteristic
value of the material parameter, kmod is a modification factor and M partial factor. Due
to the orthotropic of the wood the stiffness parameters shown in Table 4.2 varies from
each of the three directions. The modulus of elasticity, E, Poissons ratio, , and shear
modulus, G, are based on values from (Omarsson 1999).
(4.1)
Table 4.1: Characteristic and design strength parameters of GL32 [MPa].
Strength
Bending:
Tension, parallel:
Compression, parallel:
Tension, perpendicular:
Compression, perpendicular:
Shear:
fm
ft,0
fc,0
ft,90
fc,90
fv
Characteristic
32.0
22.5
29.0
0.5
3.3
3.8
Design
23.04
16.20
20.88
0.36
2.376
2.736
Table 4.2: Stiffness properties of the wood material.
El
Er
Et
lr
lt
rt
Glr
Glt
Grt
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
10.00
500.0
400.0
0.35
0.55
0.23
800.0
600.0
100.0
GPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
18
Materials
Figure 4.1: Illustration of the three orthotropic material directions of a wooden beam longitudinal, l,
radial, r, and tangential, t.
For the shrinkage/swelling coefficients of the glulam used in this analysis the following
values are used based on (Omarsson 1999):
l = 0.007
r = 0.19
t = 0.35
(4.2)
(4.3)
(4.4)
Here l, r and t indicate the longitudinal, radial and tangential strains, respectively.
The shrinkage/swelling strains are found as:
i = i
(4.5)
, where i is either l, r or t and is the change in moisture content of the timber.
4.2 Steel
Opposite the wood material the steel is considered an isotropic material which means
that is has the same material properties in all directions. The steel used for the slotted-in
plates and the dowels in this analysis has a module of elasticity of Es = 210 GPa, a
Poisson ratio of s = 0.3 and a characteristic yield strength of fuk = 400 MPa.
19
Load combination
5 Load combination
The frame will be designed to withstand a combination of permanent and variable loads
in accordance with the relevant Eurocode. The permanent load consists of the self
weight of the structure and the variable load includes the snow and wind loads. Based
on (EC-0 2007) the design load combination is determined. It is assessed that the worst
load case will be obtained from a situation with a dominating snow load. Therefore, the
chosen load combination for this frame is given as follows:
(5.1)
, where g is the dead load, s is the snow load, w is the wind load, G = 1.35 is the partial
coefficient on the permanent loads, Q = 1.50 (according to table A1.2 (B) in (EC-0
2007)) is the partial coefficient on the variable loads and 0 = 0.7 (according to A1.1 in
(EC-0 2007)).
Dead load
The dead load of both the roof of the frame and the column are assumed to be uniformly
distributed based on average cross sectional dimensions. For the column the surface
area in the x-y-plane is
and the volume is then
, where bt is the thickness of the frame. For a timber density of w = 550

kg/m this gives the following uniformly distributed dead load on the column:
3
0.794 kN/m
The surface area of the roof/beam of half a frame is
volume is
(5.2)
,
and the
and the uniform dead load on the beam is then:
0.794 kN/m
(5.3)
Snow load
The design snow load, s, is given by (5.1) in (EC-1-1-3 2007) (see eq. (5.5)). Here, the
snow load shape, i, is 0.8 for roof slopes smaller than or equal to 30 (the roof slopes is
17 for the frame in question), the exposure coefficient, Ce, is 1.0 which applicable for
the normal topography. The thermal coefficient, Ct, is also 1.0, since the factor,
otherwise, only reduces the snow load for roofs with high thermal transmittance. The
characteristic value for snow on the ground, sk, can, according to table C.1 in (EC-1-1-3
2007), be calculated from the following expression:
0.264
0.002 1
256
(5.4)
20
Load combination
, here Z is the zone number (varies from 3 to 4.5 for Denmark) and A is the altitude
above sea level. However, according to The Danish National Annex for (EC-1-1-3
2007) sk can be set to 0.9 kN/m2.
720 kNm2
(5.5)
When assuming that the distance between the frames in the building they should be
placed in is
4 m the uniform snow load is then:
4.32 kN/m
(5.6)
Wind load
The wind load on the frame is determined from the following equation from (EC-1-1-4
2007).
(5.7)
, where qp(ze) is the peak velocity pressure at the reference height ze and cpe is the
pressure coefficient for external pressure.
720 kN/m2
(5.8)
, where the exposure factor ce(z) = 2.0 for a terrain category II and a height of z = 7.5 m,
360 kN/m2 .
It is determined that the combination of pressure coefficients, cpe, shown in Figure 5.1
generates the largest cross sectional forces in the left corner and, thereby, the worst load
case.
Figure 5.1: Illustration of the pressure coefficients for external pressure used on the frame.
In Figure 5.2 the total load case is illustrated and here it is seen that the wind generates a
pressure on the right beam and column of 1.800 kN and 2.088 kN, respectively. While
the left beam is not affected by the wind the left column is subjected to a suction of
21
Load combination
1.296 kN. This load case results in the reaction forces at the two supports listed below
and shown in Figure 5.2.
RA,h
RA,v
RB,h
RB,v
=
=
=
=
32.59
46.04
16.12
46.07
kN
kN
kN
kN
Figure 5.2: Dead, wind and snow load son the frame.
22
Hand calculations
6 Hand calculations
6.1 Method
The hand calculations are performed in accordance with (EC-5-1-1 2007) and consist of
a load carrying capacity control of the frame itself and an analysis of the load carrying
capacity of the dowel connections. When checking the load carrying capacity of the
frame the shear and compression strength and a combination of bending and shear
compression is checked. Moreover, the load carrying capacity in respect to the
compressive stresses on the tapered edge is checked and the general load carrying
capacity control of the cross sectional dimensions of the frame is carried out
simultaneously as the calculation of dowel force in Appendix B with the use of the
material strength properties of GL24 in order to make sure it is the corner connection
that dictates the load carrying capacity of the frame. The frame is calculated as acting
elastically which means that the connection is considered failing if one dowel fails.
Figure 6.1: Illustration of the dowel group and the load action on the dowel group 1.
In order to transfer the cross sectional forces, shown in Figure 6.1, from the beam part
of the frame to the column part the dowels are subjected to different forces different in
magnitude and direction. The distribution of internal forces between the dowels is found
by considering the frame corner connection as an eccentrically loaded connection with
an unknown line of force action. It is an approach also used in (Larsen & Enjily 2009)
23
Hand calculations
and the resulting force in each dowel consists of a contribution from the normal and
shear forces and one from the moment.
The dowel forces from the normal and shear forces are evenly distributed between the
dowels in the two connection groups:
,,
,,
,,
,,
(6.1)
(6.2)
(6.3)
(6.4)
, here i is the dowel number in the connection group, i.e. i = [1, 2, ... , 9], n1 and n2 are
cos
the number of dowels in connection group 1 and 2, respectively.
and
sin
sin
are unit vectors pointing in the opposite direction of the normal and shear
cos
forces.
The moment contribution to the dowel forces depends on the dowels position in relation
to the centre of gravity of the connection group.
,,
,,
(6.5)
(6.6)
, here
is the polar moment of
,
,
,
,
inertia,
,
, and
,
, are the distances shown in Figure 6.1. ri,1
and ri,2 are the radii from the centre of the connection groups to the dowels and ,
,
,
and
are unit vectors perpendicular to a vector from the
centre of the connection group to the dowel.

The resulting dowel is then the sum of the three contributions:
,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
(6.7)
(6.8)
24
Hand calculations
It should be noticed that the shear and normal forces are creating moments opposite to
each other, and then the sum of these two moments can be optimised to be zero with the
right combination of eV,1 and eN,1.
When the dowel forces are set up as vectors the angle between the forces and the fibre
direction can be found as the angle between the force vector and a vector parallel to the
fibres. The fibre vector in the beam part is pointing towards the top of the frame and
the fibre vector in the column part is pointing towards the corner of the frame. The
vectors can be written as follows:
,
(6.9)
0
1
(6.10)
tan
In order to find the signed angle and not absolute angle the MatLab function
atan2(y,x) is used (see Appendix B) and it returns the angle from the x-axis to the
vector (x,y) within the closed interval [-;], where the positive direction is counter
clockwise from the x-axis. I.e. when subtracting the atan2 product of the fibre vector
from the force vector the angle between the dowel forces and fibre direction can be
written as:
,
atan2
,,
,,
atan2
, ,
, ,
(6.11)
, here j is the number of the connection group.

When it comes to the load carrying capacity of the dowel connections the theory
presented is based on Johansens theory from 1949 and describes the failure of dowel
and dowel connections in wooden materials. The different failure modes of a dowel
connection are illustrated in Figure 6.2 and they are based on symmetric timber-to-steel
connections with a single fastener and two slotted-in steel plates. The failure mode
depends on the hypothesis that the dowel remains straight during yielding, and the yield
moment of the dowel is reached at several points (Sawata, Sasaki & Kanetaka 2006).
According to (Johansen 1949) the strength of the connections depends partly on the
embedding strength of the timber and partly on the resistance of the dowel to bending
and the embedding of the timber and the bending of the dowels are both assumed to be
rigid-plastic. The characteristic embedding strength is given as:
, ,
, ,
(6.12)
, where , ,
0.082 1 0.01
is the characteristic embedding strength in the
fibre direction, qk is the characteristic wood density,
1.35 0.015 for softwood
and is the angle between the force direction and the fibre direction.
25
Hand calculations
The embedding strength is not a material but a system property depending on the
properties of both the timber and dowel materials. In accordance to (Thelanderson &
Larsen 2003) some of the most important parameters influencing on the embedding
strength is: density (embedding strength varies linear with density), fastener and hole
diameter (embedding strength decreases when fastener diameter increases), angle
between load and grain/fibre direction (It is seen that the embedding strength is highly
influenced by the angle and varies from fh,0,k to 0.56 fh,0,k when varies from 0 to 90
for a dowel diameter of 28 mm.), friction between dowel and the surrounding timber
(increased friction between dowel and timber surface increases embedding strength) and
moisture content (a decrease in moisture content of timber increases bending and
compression strength but shrinkage reduces cross sectional area all parameters affecting
the embedding strength).
Figure 6.2: Failure modes for connection with two slotted-in steel plates.
In order to check the characteristic load carrying capacity of the connections the failure
modes are set up as follows in accordance with (Sawata, Sasaki & Kanetaka 2006).
Failure mode I is a situation where the bending strength of the dowel exceeds the
embedding strength of the timber and the dowel therefore moves in timber;
, ,
(6.13)
Failure mode II is a situation where both the dowel and the timber fail. Two yield
hinges occurs in the dowel at the outer surfaces of the steel plates but the dowel remains
straight between them where the timber fails;
=
, ,
(6.14)
Failure mode III is a situation similar to that in failure mode II but here with four yield
hinges in the dowel;
,
(6.15)
Common for failure mode I to III is that the embedding strength of the centre member
exceeds the yield strength of the dowel. Failure mode IV is similar to failure mode I but
here the dowel has three yield hinges one at the middle and one at each inner surface
of the steel plates;
26
Hand calculations
(6.16)
Failure mode V is a combination of failure mode II and IV. Here the dowel has five
yield hinges one at the middle, one at each inner surface of the steel plates and one at
each outer surface of the steel plates;
, ,
(6.17)
Failure mode VI is a combination of failure mode III and IV. Here the dowel has seven
yield hinges one at the middle, one at each inner surface of the steel plates, one at each
outer surface of the steel plates and one somewhere in each of the outer members of the
timber;
,
(6.18)
, where t1 is the smaller of the thickness of the glulam side member, t2 is thickness of
the glulam middle member, ns is the number of steel plates,
, ,
,
, ,
, d is
the dowel diameter, fu,k is the characteristic strength of the dowels, fe,,k is the
characteristic embedding strength of the timber the direction of the dowel force action.
6.2 Results
6.2.1 Cross sectional forces
The program created by Niels Holck, attached as Appendix A, is made up from several
script files and is run by a main file (fe_frame.m) containing the dimensions and
strength and stiffness parameters of the frame, and the load on the frame. When running
the main file an interface will provide the possibility to get the desired outputs and the
program is used to find the deformations of, the normal and shear forces and the
moments in the frame. The moment, normal and shear force distribution is shown in
Figure 6.5, Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4, where the x- and y-axis indicates the dimensions
of the frame. From the distribution figures the cross sectional forces just above the left
corner are as listed below. Notice that the normal force and moment are listed positive
due to their directions in the principally illustration in Figure 6.1.
N =
V =
M =
39.96 kN
32.10 kN
105.35 kNm
27
Hand calculations
Figure 6.3: The distribution of normal forces in N in the frame due to design load.
Figure 6.4: The distribution of shear forces in N in the frame due to design load.
28
Hand calculations
Figure 6.5: The moment distribution in Nm on the frame due to design load.
6.2.2 Deformations
The load case described in section 5 with a combination of an uneven distributed wind
load and an even distributed snow load causes the frame to deform as shown in Figure
6.6. The displacements in the global x- and y-direction of the left and right corner and of
the top are here as shown in the table below.
Table 6.1: Displacement of the frame top and corners in mm from hand calculation due to design load.
x-direction
y-direction
Left corner Top

-26.8
0.96
-13.3
-40.5
Right corner
-0.07
-0.16
Figure 6.6: Deformation of the frame due to design load.
29
Hand calculations
It is seen that large displacements occur in the top and the left corner; at the top
primarily as a large horizontal displacement and at the left corner primarily as a large
vertical one. Even though the displacement of the right corner is very small the corner
still deforms due to a large corner moment. The moment in the left corner is even larger
hence a more distinctive deformation of this particular corner.
6.2.3 Dowel forces
When using the equations (6.1) to (6.6) the contribution to the dowel force from the
moment, normal and shear force can be calculated. With an angle of = 18 of the
roof/beam part of the frame and n1 = n2 = 9 dowels in each connection group the force
contribution from the normal and shear force is:
, ,1
, ,1
4.212 kN
1.403
, ,2
1.128 kN
3.384
, ,2
For Ip1 = 345.1103 mm2, Ip2 = 404.2103 mm2, eN = 1.188 m, eV = 1.128 m (see
Appendix B) and the direction vector mi,j as listed below the moment contribution to the
dowel forces can be calculated (see Table 6.2).
,1
,1
,1
,1
x-component -0.153 -0.195 -0.237 0.042

y-component -0.134
0.0 0.134 -0.134
,2
,2
,2
,2
x-component -0.085 -0.140 -0.195 0.055

y-component -0.212
0.0 0.212 -0.212
,1
,1
,1
,1
,1
0.0 -0.042 0.237 0.195 0.153

0.0 0.134 -0.134 0.0 0.134
,2
,2
,2
,2
,2
0.0 -0.055 0.195 0.140 0.085

0.0 0.212 -0.212 0.0 0.212
Table 6.2: The x- and y-components and magnitude of the moment contribution to the resulting dowel
force.
Dowel
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Connection group 1
xycomponent component Magnitude
[kN]
[kN]
[kN]
-51.98
-41.32
66.40
-64.12
-2.531
64.17
-76.26
36.26
84.44
4.545
-41.32
41.57
-7.596
-2.531
8.01
-19.74
36.26
41.29
61.07
-41.32
73.74
48.93
-2.531
49.00
36.79
36.26
51.66
Connection group 2
xycomponent component Magnitude
[kN]
[kN]
[kN]
15.95
55.81
58.04
31.00
-2.531
31.10
46.04
-60.87
76.32
-22.64
55.81
60.23
-7.596
-2.531
8.01
7.445
-60.87
61.32
-61.23
55.81
82.85
-46.19
-2.531
46.26
-31.15
-60.87
68.38
30
Hand calculations
The sum of the contributions in the x- and y-direction of the normal and shear force and
the moment is then the components of the resulting dowel force acting on the wood
material. In Appendix C the resulting x- and y-force components and the force
magnitudes are listed and it is seen that the sum of the y-components is -43.09 kN for
each of the two connection groups which shows that there is equilibrium between them.
As shown in the previous section the dead load on the columns is 0.794 kN/m and from
the geometry it is found that the centre of CG2 is located 3.709 m above the support.
The sum of the column dead load and the sum of y-components in one connection group
is -46.03 kN which is assessed to be sufficiently close to the vertical reaction force of
46.04 kN.
In Table 6.3 the resulting forces are listed with magnitudes and angles in relation to the
fibre direction of the timber in the respective connection group. It should be noticed that
the forces in dowel no. 3 and 7 in both connection groups are of large magnitudes and
that there angles to the fibre directions are rather steep. This could indicate that for the
hand calculation these two dowels will be decisive factors to the design load. The
dowels in question are also those with the greatest distance to the centres of the
connection groups (the no. 5 dowels) and according to the hand calculation method
from (Larsen & Enjily 2009) they will obtain the most of the forces caused by the
moment as it appears from Table 6.2. The resulting magnitudes of the dowel forces and
their angles from Table 6.3 and they are illustrated in Figure 6.7.
It is seen that all the peripheral dowel forces (i.e. all but the one in the centre) are more
or less perpendicular to their direction to the centre of the respective connection groups.
It is also seen that the largest of these forces in each of the connection groups (79.40 kN
and 80.87 kN) are about twice as big as the smallest ones (37.25 kN and 35.83 kN).
Table 6.3: Hand calculated magnitudes and angles of the dowel forces in relation to the fibre direction
due to design load.
Dowel
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Connection group 1
Force [kN]
Angle []
64.44
-155.87
59.80
166.17
79.40
136.22
44.51
-96.68
5.70
-141.22
37.25
95.70
78.74
-52.03
53.65
-23.55
53.49
21.04
Connection group 2
Force [kN]
Angle []
68.51
-22.88
41.95
-83.45
78.00
-133.35
64.25
10.73
5.70
-32.79
56.53
-161.30
80.87
38.69
35.83
82.32
57.33
159.08
31
Hand calculations
Figure 6.7: Magnitude and direction of the hand calculated dowel forces
6.2.4 Load carrying capacity of the dowel connections

The design load carrying capacities of the dowels are used to assess the dowel forces.
This value is found by multiplying the values from equation (6.13) to (6.18) by the
modification factor kmod = 0.9, which concerns glulam subjected to subjected to shortterm actions (snow and wind), and the partial factor for material properties which is M
= 1.25 for glulam. The design load carrying capacities for each of the 18 dowels in each
of the six failure modes are listed in Appendix C and from this it is seen that the lowest
load carrying capacity is for failure mode I in all of the dowels which indicates that it is
the glulam that fails before the dowels. In Table 6.4 the magnitude and angle of each of
the dowel forces are listed (as in Table 6.3) and the load carrying capacity of the
hole/dowel in the particular direction of the dowel force. Lastly a control is made
dividing the dowel force by the load carrying capacity and from this it is seen that the
dowel connection in the corner of the frame can carry the loads and that the dowels
closest to failure are number 3 and 7 in both connection groups. These are also the
32
Hand calculations
dowels which the moment in the corner has the largest influence on due their longer
distance to the centre of the respective dowel groups.
Table 6.4: Magnitude and angle of dowel force, load carrying capacity and load carrying capacity check
of each of the 18 dowels.
Dowel
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Connection group 1
Fdowel
[kN]
64.44
59.80
79.40
44.51
5.70
37.25
78.74
53.65
53.49
Angle
[]
FRd
[kN]
-155.87
166.17
136.22
-96.68
-141.22
95.70
-52.03
-23.55
21.04
104.40
112.87
86.10
66.97
90.50
66.86
79.70
104.94
107.20
Connection group 2
Fdowel/FRd
0.617
0.530
0.922
0.665
0.063
0.557
0.988
0.511
0.499
Fdowel
[kN]
68.51
41.95
78.00
64.25
5.70
56.53
80.87
35.83
57.33
Angle
[]
FRd
[kN]
-22.88
-83.45
-133.35
10.73
-32.79
-161.30
38.69
82.32
159.08
105.55
66.95
83.74
114.77
96.12
109.19
90.58
67.09
107.30
Fdowel/FRd
0.649
0.627
0.931
0.560
0.059
0.518
0.893
0.534
0.534
33
FEM-analysis
7 FEM-analysis
7.1 Structure of the model
The corner for the frame has been modelled in the finite element program Abaqus/CAE.
As mentioned in section 3 the model geometry is made from variables which provides a
certain amount of freedom within the choice of size of the frame. The values of these
variables including the load and strength parameters are chosen in the beginning of the
script (see in Appendix D). In Abaqus the modelling process is done graphically and
divided into a number of modules. In the following the structure of the model and there
by the script file (py-file) will be described in relation to these modules with an
indication of in which lines the modules are defined.
Part
(Line 235 to 722)
The part module is where the different parts of the model is constructed. The frame
modelled for this analysis consists of 10 different parts. Part 1 to 6 are solid elements
creating the fully modelled left frame corner and Part 7 to 10 are beam elements with no
modelled cross sectional dimensions, i.e. 1D elements. Each element is first constructed
in the x-y-plane using the key point coordinates described in section 3, and then the
planes are extruded in the z-direction to their respective thicknesses. In Part 1 and 2,
which are the column and beam parts shown in Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2, cuts/milled
grooves for the steel plates have been made as well as holes for the wooden ring twice
the diameter of the dowels. The wooden rings shown in Figure 7.5 are constructed from
a cylinder fitting to the size of the holes and only one is made and then later duplicated
and named in accordance with the number and numbering of dowels. A hole through the
cylinder with the diameter of the dowels is made and two cuts for the steel plates are
cutting the cylinder into three rings so they fit into the three timber members in Part 1
and 2. The steel plates (see Figure 7.3) are denoted as Part 3 and, as for the wooden
cylinder, only one is modelled and then later duplicated. Holes twice the diameter of the
dowels are also made in the steel plate(s) for the steel rings shown in Figure 7.6. The
rings are made as discs in the x-y-plane and then extracted in the z-direction to the
thickness of the steel plates. A hole is made in the centre to fit the dowels.
The beam elements are, as mentioned earlier, 1D-elements with beam properties. These
elements are following the system lines of the frame. Part 7 is the beam element
corresponding to the cut part of the left column. Part 8 is the beam element
corresponding to the cut part of the left beam. Part 9 and 10 are the beam elements
corresponding to the right column and beam, respectively.
34
FEM-analysis
Figure 7.1: Part 1 Corner peace of the

column.
Figure 7.2: Part 2 Corner peace of the beam.
Figure 7.3: Part 3 One of the steel plates

slotted into the wooden column and beam.
Figure 7.4: Part 4 One of the steel dowels.
Figure 7.5: Part 5 One of the wooden ring

parts which are placed in the holes of the
larger wooden corner parts.
Figure 7.6: Part 6 One of the steel rings which are

placed in the holes of the steel plates.
35
FEM-analysis
Properties
(Line 723 to 1554)
The property module is divided into a material and section part. First the properties of
the different materials used are defined (see Figure 7.7) then, by sectioning, these
properties are assigned to the respective parts and the material orientation for each part
is assigned. The material properties follows the ones defined section 4 and the Type is
chosen as Engineering Constants in order to apply the orthotropic elastic properties of
the wood material.
Figure 7.7: The interface to define the material properties of the wood material.
The material properties and section assignment can be edited later in the modelling
process but the partitioning of the parts remains the same throughout the rest of the
modelling process at has great influence on the geometry. Abaqus number the points,
edges and faces in an apparently random pattern and therefore, it is of great importance
that the partitioning is done right before continuing the modelling, otherwise, the user
risks having to change assembling of the parts, the user defined surfaces, areas
subjected to load etc.
Assembly
(Line 1555 to 3320)
As the name indicated the Assembly module is used, among other things, to assemble
the model by creating so called Instances. Each part is implemented in the numbers
wanted and then constrained to each other. The solid parts forming the left corner of the
frame (Part 1 to 6) all contains holes or at least curved surfaces and therefore, the
Coaxial constraint is used to make sure the inside curved surface of a hole aligns
properly with the corresponding curved outer surface of the part that should fit into the
36
FEM-analysis
respective hole. The coaxial constraint only gives the position in the x-y-plane and to
make sure the parts are not rotating in relation to each other the straight surfaces of the
parts in the x-y-plane and in the x-z-plane are constraint to each other with the Face to
Face constraint. The Face to Face-constraint constrains two surfaces so they are placed
in the same plane with the ability to define a clearance or distance between these planes
(default is 0.0 m). I.e. Part 1 and 2 are Face to Face constraint on the contact surfaces,
surfaces in the x-y-plane and surfaces in the y-z-planes. The steel plates are Coaxial
constraint in one hole with the corresponding one in Part 1, Face to Face constraint on
surfaces in the x-y-plane and Face to Face constraint on their bottom surfaces with the
corresponding bottom surfaces of the milled grooves in Part 1. The wooden rings are
Coaxial constraint to the holes in the wooden column and beam part (Part 1 and 2) and
the straight surfaces in the x-y-plane are Face to Face constraint with the corresponding
surfaces in the x-y-plane of Part 1 and 2. This means that they in principle are able to
rotate about the centre of the hole but this is overcome by defining a fixed rotation so
the material orientation of the wooden rings are matching the material orientation of the
wooden part they are constrained to. The same goes for the steel rings, even though the
alignment of the material orientations is of no importance. The dowels are Coaxial
constraint to the holes in the steel plates and then Face to Face constraint with the
outermost surface in the x-y-plane of Part 1but here with a clearance of
, where bl is
the extra length of the dowels in relation to the width, bt, of the frame.
When it comes to assembling the beam elements, they are connected to the corner by
Coincident Points at the corresponding angle of the system lines. I.e. the left beam
column element, Part 7, is fixed to the centre point of the bottom cut-off surface of Part
1 and Part 8 to the centre of the cut-off surface of Part 2. Part 8 and 10 are fixed at the
top point of the frame and Part 9 and 10 at the right corner of the frame. The total
assembled frame is shown in Figure 7.8 with the material orientations indicated
numbers on Part 1, 2 and 7 to 10.
Figure 7.8: The assembling of the frame with numbering of Part 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and the material
orientations indicated by yellow coordinate axis.
37
FEM-analysis
In the Assemble module different surfaces are also defined. These surfaces are made to
ease the process of defining which surfaces that are interacting with each other.
Step
(Line 3321 to 3331)
Creating multiple steps provides the possibility to capture changes in the loading and
boundary conditions (Hibbitt, Karlsson & Srensen 2008). The boundary conditions are
defined in the Initial step and the frame is then subjected to the loads in Step 1. The step
module is also where the History output is chosen and for the analysis the CFN is
chosen. CFN is the total forces and moments due to contact pressure and the output
consists of four values per contact surface: CFN1 contact force on the master surface
of the interacting surfaces in the global x-direction, CFN2 contact force on the master
surface in the global y-direction, CFN3 contact force on the master surface in the
global z-direction and CFNM magnitude of resulting contact force.
Interaction
(Line 3332 to 4268)
In the Interaction module the contact behaviour between the surfaces are defined. In this
analysis two types of contact behaviour are used Constraint and Interaction. When
choosing two surfaces for either Constraint or Interaction the first one chosen is the
slave surface and the second one is the master surface. This means that every node on
the slave surface will have the same values for its degrees of freedom as the point on the
master surface.
The type of constraint used is primarily Tie, and as the name says it ties two separate
surfaces together so that there is no relative motion between them. This type of
constraint allows you to fuse together two regions even though the meshes created on
the surfaces of the regions may be dissimilar (Hibbitt, Karlsson & Srensen 2008). Tie
is chosen for the contact between the wooden rings and Part 1 and 2, the steel rings and
the steel plates and between the steel rings and the dowels. The rings are obviously tie
constrained to the column and beam part of the corner and the steel plates because they
are only made in order to apply a finer mesh around the hole. The dowels are tie
constraint to the steel rings and there is not defined any interaction property between the
bottom surface of the milled grooves and the steel plate edges which allows the steel
plates to merge together with the beam and column parts without creating any stresses.
Thereby, all the load transfer through the frame corner will happen through the dowels
and the results becomes as comparable to those from the hand calculation as possible.
The contact between the dowels and the timber is defined as an Interaction and the type
of interaction is chosen as Surface-to-surface contact with a Degree of smoothing of the
master surface of 0.2. When applying a smoothing to contacting surfaces the
inaccuracies in contact pressures caused by mesh discretization on curved geometries is
reduced (Hibbitt, Karlsson & Srensen 2008). The frictional behaviour for the dowel-to-
38
FEM-analysis
timber interaction is defined, via the contact properties for these interactions, as
mechanical, tangential behaviour with an assumed uniform friction coefficient of 0.4 in
the contact area. The Penalty friction formulation is used which allows some relative
motion between the interacting surfaces a so called elastic slip. For instance, if a
situation occurs where the edge of the meshed surface of a dowel is in contact with a
face of the meshed hole surface, as illustrated in Figure 7.9, this would cause infinite
stresses because all should be transferred through a line without an area. The penalty
interaction and the smoothing prevent this by allows the surfaces to, in some extend,
merge together creating an even surface the forces can be transferred through.
Figure 7.9: Contact surface between dowel and hole where the two mesh grids do not fit perfectly
together.
Lastly, constraints are used between beam elements at the top of the frame, at the right
corner and between the column and beam parts and the beam elements. Here the
constraint is denoted as a Coupling and it is used to constrain the motion of a surface to
the motion a single point.
Load
(Line 4269 to 4438)
The load module you have the opportunity top apply the loads in different steps. In this
analysis the boundary conditions are applied in the Initial step and the load actions in
Step-1. The frame is, as for the hand calculation, assumed simply supported and
therefore, no movements in the x-, y- and z-direction is allowed. However, the two
supports are not retained from rotating about any of the three axis. Moreover, the frame
is retained from movement in the z-direction in the top, at the right corner, at the tip of
every dowel and on a surface of both Part 1 and 2.
The dead, snow and wind loads are applied as line loads on the beam elements with the
same directions and magnitudes as in the hand calculation and as uniform distributed
loads on Part 1 and 2.
39
FEM-analysis
Mesh
(Line 4439 to 4735)
The meshing divides the model into a finite number of elements. Before meshing the
parts the type of elements are chosen and the solid elements (Part 1 to 6) are 20-node
hexahedrons with 27 Gauss points, as sketched in Figure 7.10. The meshing of the parts
is done with the objective that each field (denoted Faces in Abaqus) should be
approximately square (in the x-y-plane). The seeding is done as Edge By Number. Here
it chosen how many seeding point there should be on the lines (denoted edges in
Abaqus) created by the partitioning. The greater the number the finer the mesh
becomes. This is only done for those edges where the user wants a certain number of
seeds, for the rest of the edge Abaqus chooses a seeding number in order to mesh the
whole part. In Figure 7.11 to Figure 7.16 the meshing of Part 1 to 6 is shown. The beam
elements (Part 7 to 10) are divided into 12, 36, 15 and 41 seeds, respectively.
Figure 7.10: Meshing done in 20-node hexahedrons (black nodes at the left) with 27 Gauss points (red
nodes at the right).
Job
(Line 4736 to 4746)
The job module is used to create a job and then initiate the analysis of the model created
and the job can be run on the PC/MAC you are working at. For this particular analysis
the job module was used to write an input file which then was run on a separate server.
Visualization
The visualization module is where you can view the results from the analysis. This can
be done by, e.g., viewing plots of the stress distributions or writing result data to report
files.
40
FEM-analysis
Figure 7.11: Meshing of Part 1.
41
FEM-analysis
7.2 Results
7.2.1 Deformation
The deformation of the frame is shown in Figure 7.17 and the deformation shape is
quite similar that found by the hand calculations. The displacements of the right corner,
the left corner (at the system line intersection) and the top of the frame are listed in
Table 7.1 but these values are not as similar to those found by hand. This could be
because of the modelled frame corner in the FEM-analysis.
Table 7.1: Displacement of the frame top and corners in mm from the numerical analysis due to the
design load.
x-direction
y-direction
Left corner Top

-20.2
0.66
-9.32
-31.0
Right corner
-1.34
-0.10
Figure 7.17: Deformation of the frame from the design load (magnitude 20 times).
When subjected to the large negative moment and normal and shear force design load
case described in Section 3 the frame corner deforms as shown in Figure 7.18. The
figure also shows the deformation of the holes exposed to the largest dowel forces and it
is easily seen that the holes are shaped elliptical due to the pressure from the dowels.
The local deformation of the wood material around the dowels results in gaps between
timber and steel opposite the force direction of the dowel. The four largest hole
deformations are the ones in hole 3 and 9 in connection group 1 and hole 7 and 9 in
connection group 2. As the Figure 7.18 also shows the column part and the beam part
merge together at inner contact surface. This is because there are no interaction
properties defined for contact between the top surface of the column and the bottom
surface of the beam, which also is the case for the surfaces of the steel plates and the
surfaces at the end of the milled grooves. As mentioned in section 7.1 the lack of
42
FEM-analysis
interaction between these abutting surfaces is made purposely in order to make the
results from the FEM-analysis and the hand calculations as comparable as possible.
Figure 7.18: Deformation of the frame corner and the local deformation of the dowel holes 3 and 9 in CG
1 and 7 and 9 in CG2 magnified 20 times.
7.2.2 Stresses
The stresses that will be investigated is only those in the wood material since these are
the critical ones as it is shown from the hand calculation that timber fails before any of
the dowels.
When assessing the stress plots of the frame corner it is import to keep the extrapolation
that Abaqus performs in mind. For instance, when looking at a cut, A-A, in a timber
ring element the longitudinal stresses might be distributed as sketched in Figure 7.19.
The plots of the stresses are based on the stress value in the Gauss points (marked as
black dots in the figure) and therefore, there is no nodal value of the stress at the edge of
an element (in this case the inner perimeter of the hole). To overcome this issue Abaqus
performs an extrapolation of the change in value from the second closest to the closest
43
FEM-analysis
Gauss point. If the difference of some reasons is big between these two Gauss points the
magnitude of the extrapolated values at the edge will be too big.
Figure 7.19: Significant rise in value of longitudinal stresses at the edge of an element shown in
principle.
Longitudinal stresses, 11
In Figure 7.20 the stresses in the left frame corner are shown where the red areas are in
tension and the blue ones are in compression. From the areas around the top right dowel
of the uppermost connection group (dowel PF1,3) and around the bottom left dowel of
the lowest connection group (dowel PF2,7) it is seen that outer edges of the frame is in
tension at the corner which is due to the large negative moment present. The large
moment obviously causes large stresses and since the corner connection is designed just
to have the sufficient load carrying capacity for the hand calculations (referring to
dowel PF1,7 with a dowel force to load carrying capacity ratio of 0.988 shown in Table
6.4), the timber around the dowels in the perimeter of the connection groups are, as
expected, subjected to stresses near or above the design strength values listed in section
4. The largest stresses in the longitudinal direction of the timber are found around dowel
PF1,3, PF1,9, PF2,7 and PF2,9 and they are shown in Figure 7.21. When looking at the
stresses around the dowels it is seen that some areas are grey and others black. In the
gray areas the tension exceeds the tension strength of ft,0,d = 16.2 MPa and in the black
areas the compression exceeds the compression strength of fc,o,d = 20.88 MPa. The
compression stresses are caused by the rotation of the slotted-in steel plates via the
contact with the dowels and the tension stresses are caused by deformation of the dowel
holes and the timber around dowel PF1,3 is especially exposed to both large tension and
compression stresses. The largest stresses in the frame corner are c,0 = 39.7 MPa and
t,0 = 56.8 MPa and both significantly exceeds the strength of the timber. It should be
kept in mind that the analysis is carried out under the assumption that the timber has
elastic material behaviours
44
FEM-analysis
Figure 7.20: The longitudinal stresses in the corner of the frame with tension and compression indicated
by red and blue colours, respectively.
Figure 7.21: Longitudinal stresses in the timber around dowel 3 and 9 in CG1 and 7 and 9 in CG2.
45
FEM-analysis
Radial stresses, 22
The stresses in the radial direction are shown in Figure 7.22 and Figure 7.23 and it is
seen that large tensile stresses originates from the number 1 dowel of both connection
groups and the timber in these areas are in great risk of splitting. As the gray colour
indicates the tensile strength of ft,90 = 0.36 MPa perpendicular to the fibre direction has
been exceeded in several areas and when looking closer at, for instance, dowel 3 and 9
in connection group 1 and dowel 7 and 9 in connection group 2 it is seen that also the
compressive strength, fc,90 = 2.376 MPa, perpendicular to the fibre direction has been
exceeded by the compression from the dowel contacts.
Figure 7.22: Radial stresses in the frame corner.
Figure 7.23: The radial stress distribution on connection group 1 and 2.
46
FEM-analysis
Shear stresses, 12
The shear stresses shown in Figure 7.24 are concentrated along the dowels near the
edges and they are largest at connection group 1. Here it is also seen that the shear
stresses at the some of the surfaces in contact with the dowels are exceeding the strength
of fv = 2.736 MPa and the largest shear stresses in the frame corner is 12 = 14.36 MPa.
Besides from the extended sides of the holes, the shear stresses occur at the dowel-totimber contact surfaces because of the friction between the timber and the dowels.
Figure 7.24: Shear stresses in the timber in the corner connection.
Even though the largest longitudinal, radial and shear stresses are exceeding the
corresponding strength values it is difficult to comment on the failure of the corner
connection because stresses should be assessed as a whole, and when combining shear
and compression the strength can be increased. None the less, the Norris criteria is for
instance obviously not obeyed because of this strength exceeding and it will therefore
not be investigated further.
47
FEM-analysis
7.2.3 Dowel forces

The history output produced in Abaqus gives the components of each contact surface
between the dowels and the wooden rings. However, these force components are listed
with all the x-components first, after that the y-components, then the z-components and
lastly the magnitude of the contact force in the raw data file
abaqus.design.dowel.forces.rpt (see Appendix E). The MatLab-script abq_cfn_design.m
in Appendix F lists the force components in order of dowel number and in Appendix G
the history output is then shown as the three vectors per dowel (one for each of the three
timber ring surfaces in contact with the respective dowel) containing the x-, y- and zdirection and magnitude of the contact force from the respective interacting surfaces,
i.e. 54 vectors in total. Besides from sorting the history output data the script
abq_cfn_design.m also puts out the summed x-, y- and z-components and force
magnitude in each dowel (see Appendix H). When having the direction components of
the forces in each dowel the angle between the dowel forces and fibre direction is then
calculated as in the hand calculation method. From the numerical analysis in Abaqus the
resulting forces and their angles in relation to the relevant fibre directions in each of the
18 dowels are shown in Table 7.2. The magnitude and direction of the forces are also
illustrated in Figure 7.25.
It is seen that the peripheral dowel forces have a tendency lean towards the fibre
direction and it is seen that the largest of these forces in each of the connection groups
(95.89 kN and 67.42 kN) are about 7 times bigger than the smallest ones (13.58 kN and
9.54 kN).
Table 7.2: Magnitude and angle of the dowel forces in relation to the fibre direction due to design load.
(Abaqus)
Dowel
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Connection group 1
Force [kN]
Angle []
49.82
-170.27
53.95
172.25
82.12
153.85
13.58
-95.43
0.32
68.35
21.34
74.80
60.77
-26.34
62.24
-5.80
95.89
9.17
Connection group 2
Force [kN]
Angle []
43.45
-9.19
9.54
-120.41
50.81
-166.97
42.06
5.17
4.62
-177.83
48.13
179.39
58.22
21.77
15.32
120.73
67.42
169.82
48
FEM-analysis
Table 7.3: Magnitude and angle of dowel force from the design load, load carrying capacity and load
carrying capacity check of each of the 18 dowels.
Dowel
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Connection group 1
Fdowel
[kN]
49.82
53.95
82.12
13.58
0.32
21.34
60.77
62.24
95.89
Angle
[]
FRd
[kN]
-170.27
172.25
153.85
-95.43
68.35
74.80
-26.34
-5.80
9.17
115.30
116.21
102.51
66.83
70.76
68.62
102.33
116.91
115.58
Connection group 2
Fdowel/FRd
0.432
0.464
0.801
0.203
0.004
0.311
0.594
0.532
0.830
Fdowel
[kN]
43.45
9.54
50.81
42.06
4.62
48.13
58.22
15.32
67.42
Angle
[]
FRd
[kN]
-9.19
-120.41
-166.97
5.17
-177.83
179.39
21.77
120.73
169.82
115.56
74.92
113.39
117.10
17.70
117.82
106.55
75.10
115.07
Fdowel/FRd
0.376
0.127
0.448
0.359
0.261
0.408
0.546
0.204
0.586
Figure 7.25: The dowel forces acting on the wood material
49
Comparing hand and FEM-calculations
8 Comparing hand and FEM-calculations

An important part of this analysis is the difference between the resulting dowel forces
found by the conventional hand calculation method described in section 6 and the FEManalysis done in Abaqus, and in order to check that the same amount of force is
transferred through the left frame corner in the two calculation method the reaction
forces at the frame supports are compared. In the table below the reaction forces in the
x-, y- and z-direction are listed along with the differences given as absolute values and
in percentage. It is seen that the differences between the reactions in the x- and ydirection are less than 1% which must be in sufficient consistent.
Table 8.1: Comparison of reaction force found by Abaqus and hand calculation.
i
Rx,i
Ry,i
Rz,i
Abaqus
[kN]
32.59
45.78
2.93E-3
Support A (left)
Hand
Diff.
Diff./RAbaqus
[kN]
[kN]
[%]
32.59
0.007
0.02%
46.04
0.264
0.58%
0 2.93E-3
100%
Abaqus
[kN]
-15.99
45.97
-7.34E-6
Support B (right)
Hand
Diff.
Diff./RAbaqus
[kN]
[kN]
[%]
-16.11
0.116
-0.73%
46.07
0.100
0.22%
0 7.34E-6
100%
The illustrations of the dowel force shown in Figure 6.7 and Figure 7.25 are collated in
Figure 8.1. As expected from the hypothesis put forward in section 2 the dowel forces
found by the FEM-analysis have a clear tendency to lean more towards the fibre
directions than the corresponding forces found by the hand calculation method. With
exception of those for the middle dowels (dowel 5 in both CG1 and CG2), some of the
largest angle differences are marked on the figure. The reason for ignoring the middle
dowels are that they are only loaded to something between 0.4% and 6.3% of the load
carrying capacity depending on the calculation method used.
When looking at connection group 1 the magnitude of the dowel forces from the hand
calculation and FEM-analysis in dowel 3 are of almost the same magnitude (79.4 kN
and 82.1 kN, respectively) but they are attacking with an angle difference of 17.6
which actually increases the load carrying capacity from 86.1 kN to 102.5 kN of this
particular dowel when using the FEM. Generally the dowel force to load carrying
capacity ratio is lower for the FEM-results but not in dowel 9 in connection group 1.
The Abaqus dowel force is here leaning more in the fibre direction than the hand
calculation dowel force but it is almost twice the magnitude (95.9 kN as opposed to
53.5 kN). This means that even though the load carrying capacity from the FEManalysis is increased the dowel force is increased more and here the dowel force is much
closer to the load carrying capacity (83% compared to 50%).
The difference in magnitude of the dowels loaded perpendicular to the fibre direction is
clearly seen in dowel 4 and 6 in connection group 1 and dowel 2 and 8 in connection
50
Comparing hand and FEM-calculations
group 2. The hand calculation dowel forces are here much larger (about 2 to 4 times)
than those found by Abaqus. This is also seen from the ratio between the largest and
smallest of the dowel forces within the connection groups; here the ratio about 2 for the
hand calculations and 7 for the FEM-analysis. I.e. according the the FEM-simulation the
dowels loaded in the fibre direction are taking up much more load than those loaded
perpendicular to the fibre direction.
By assessing the radial stresses shown in Figure 7.22 it is, furthermore, unrealistic that
the four dowels mentioned should be able to take up more load than they already are in
the finite element analysis. This flaw in the hand calculation method would be even
more distinctive if the connection group were more widespread in the fibre direction.
I.e. if the distances from the dowels in question to the centre of the connection groups
were increased in the fibre directions. Then the dowel force distribution from the hand
calculation would change because these dowels loaded perpendicular to the fibre
direction would take up more of the moment induced forces, whereas the dowel force
distribution from the FEM-analysis would be almost unchanged because the dowels in
question are unable to take up more load than they already are.
Figure 8.1: The dowel forces from both the hand calculation and FEM-analysis plotted as black and red
arrows, respectively, along with some of the angle differences.
51
Moisture load
9 Moisture load
Changes in the temperature and the relative humidity of the air causes changes in the
moisture content of the timber. These changes result in swelling and shrinkage of the
timber which might cause severe stresses in the timber if it is restrained in any way. As
mentioned in section 4.1 the glulam is generally less sensitive to thermal changes of the
surroundings than regular timber members because of the dimension difference. But
when looking at the corner connection in question the two milled grooves made for the
steel plates creates 4 extra surfaces in the x-y-plane and thereby the surface area of
the glulam is increased by about 6 times in the frame corner area. The increase in
surface area significantly increases the sensitivity to moisture changes. The
shrinkage/swelling coefficients of the glulam used in this analysis are, as mentioned
earlier, based on (Omarsson 1999).
l = 0.007
r = 0.19
t = 0.35
(9.1)
(9.2)
(9.3)
where l, r and t indicate the longitudinal, radial and tangential strains, respectively.
The shrinkage/swelling strains are found as:
i = i
(9.4)
, where i is either l, r or t and is the change in moisture content of the timber.

The moisture load is not directly taking in account in the described hand calculation but
it is taking into account through the use of the service classes determining the
modification factor kmod. In this section the dowel forces and stresses in the corner part
will be assessed by looking at the modelled corner part separately in order to save
computing time and because the couplings between the beam elements and the fully
modelled corner elements would cause additional stresses in the abutting areas. Only
considering the fully modelled corner part in this analysis can be done because only
shrinkage/swelling and no loads are acting on the frame and therefore the
shrinkage/swelling of the rest of the frame will not have an effect on the corner part.
The analysis in this thesis is based on a drop in the moisture content of the timber from
12% to 9% which is assessed as a reasonable decrease for an internal wooden frame not
directly subjected to any weather conditions. When referring to the moisture load in the
following sections it is this drying of 3% (i.e. = -0.03). The strains in the three
material directions are therefore:
l =
r =
0.2110-3
(9.5)
5.710-3
(9.6)
52
Moisture load
t =
10.510-3
(9.7)
9.1 Applying moisture load

The changes in the model script from design load to moisture load have been done by
adding the lines listed in Appendix I to the py-file defining the design load situation.
The add-on suppresses all the loads and boundary conditions, deletes the beam
elements, their couplings to the modelled corner and the section and material properties
assign to the beam elements. New boundary conditions on the frame corner are defined
as shown in Figure 9.1 by red arrows. The column part (Part 1) is simply supported at
the bottom cut-off surface by retaining the part in the x- and y-direction at one line,
retaining it in the x-direction at another line and retaining it in the z-direction at two
points. The beam part (Part 2) is supported in the z-direction at two points at its right
cut-off surface. The reason for only supporting the timber parts in the z-direction at
points is that the shrinkage/swelling strain in the tangential direction is the biggest and
therefore to avoid stresses at the supports due retention. As for the analysis of the design
load case including the beam elements the dowels are supported in z-direction.
The moisture load is applied the corner in the Property module as an additional material
property to the already defined Wood-Material. To the material behaviour a mechanical
expansion with the orthotropic shrinkage/swelling strains from equation (9.1) to (9.3) as
shown in Figure 9.2. The change in the moisture content of the timber is then applied in
the Predefined Field in the Load module as a temperature change. Instead of defining an
initial temperature it is just an initial moisture content, , in this case 12% (entered as
0.12), and in that connection it is assumed that the moisture content is constant through
the material. From the module tree the Predefined Field is then modified to another
value in Step-1 of 9 % creating the wanted reduction of 3% in the moisture content of
the timber.
53
Moisture load
Figure 9.1: Boundary conditions indicated by red arrows on the frame corner subjected to moisture load.
Figure 9.2: The moisture load is applied as an additional material behaviour to the wood material.
9.2 Results
9.2.1 Deformations
The deformations of the frame corner and some of the dowel holes caused by the 3%
decrease in moisture content of the timber are shown in Figure 9.3 and Figure 9.4. As
mentioned earlier the plates and dowels are made from the same steel material but, as
54
Moisture load
for the previous deformation plots, the steel plates are shown in a lighter grey colour
than the dowel in order to clarify the holes deformations. Even though the deformations
are magnified 20 times the large radial strains are clearly indicated in Figure 9.3 by the
visible areas of the steel plates, and the large tangential strains appears just a clear in
Figure 9.4 where the connection group 2 is shown in a view at the outer edge of the
frame corner. The width of the column varies significantly from being quite narrow at
the bottom to widen at the top due to the restrain of the steel plates that remain
undeformed. When it comes to the dowel holes it is clearly seen that they deform into
an elliptic shape in the radial direction but as it appears from Figure 9.4, holes subjected
to large contact forces from the dowels deform uneven in the tangential direction due to
the friction between the timber and the dowels. Thereby, the loaded part of the hole
surface is to some extend restrained from shrinking in the tangential direction.
Figure 9.3: Deformations of the frame corner and dowel 3 and 9 in CG1 and 7 and 9 in CG2 (magnified
20 times).
55
Moisture load
Figure 9.4: Deformation of the frame corner around CG2 seen from the outer edge of the frame
(magnified 20 times).
9.2.2 Stresses
Longitudinal stresses, 11
It is seen from Figure 9.5 that the shrinkage of the timber cause tension stresses in the
longitudinal direction between the edges of the timber and the dowel rows closest to the
edges. These stresses are properly caused by the large radial deformations that tend to
pull the timber towards the centres of the connection groups and thereby creating
tension in the timber around the perimeter of the connections groups. Since there are not
any areas with large compression around the holes it could indicate that the dowel
contact forces are all pointing perpendicular to the fibre direction.
56
Moisture load
Figure 9.5: The longitudinal stresses due to decrease in the timber of 3%.
Radial stresses, 22
Figure 9.6: Radial stresses in the frame corner and in the timber around dowel 3 and 9 in CG1 and 7 and
9 in CG2 due to moisture loading.
57
Moisture load
From the radial stress distribution shown in Figure 9.6 it is seen that the dowel force
actions are point somewhat perpendicular to the fibre directions and that both the tensile
and compressive strength of the timber is exceeding. The grey areas indicate that there
is a large tension zone in the radial direction between the outermost dowels of the
connection groups and the shape of this zone shows, that large areas of the timber
beyond the perimeters of the connection groups are influenced by the fact that the
timber is unable to freely shrink/swell. This is caused by the shear stiffness of the wood
material and it is the same effect you for instance see in the radial stresses over an
abutment on a beam. The shear force from the abutment is here taken up by a larger area
than that directly above the abutment. However, this effect increases the load carrying
capacity in the abutment situation but it causes the risk of failure in a larger area when
looking at this dowel connection.
Shear stresses, 12
Figure 9.7 shows that the shrinkage of the timber creates large shear stresses near the
timber surfaces in contact with the dowels.
Figure 9.7: Shear stresses in the timber in the corner connection.
58
Moisture load
9.2.3 Dowel forces

The procedure of extracting the data from the History Output from the Abaqus analysis
is the same here as for the design load case. In Appendix L the x-, y- and z-component
and magnitude of the contact force for each of the three contact surfaces between the
timber and each one of the dowels are listed and in Appendix M the x-, y- and zcomponent and magnitude of the total contact force in each of the 18 dowels are listed.
The resulting forces in each dowel and its signed angle to the fibre direction is listed in
Table 9.1 and shown in Figure 9.8.
Table 9.1: Magnitude and angle of the dowel forces in relation to the fibre direction due to moisture load.
Dowel
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Connection group 1
Force [kN]
Angle []
70,14
96,03
54,13
81,13
69,65
66,09
24,27
149,28
6,90
-7,32
37,69
-20,72
63,62
-122,58
56,17
-104,81
78,50
-87,34
Connection group 2
Force [kN]
Angle []
69,28
82,39
18,35
31,36
63,67
-62,34
55,08
95,79
8,67
-173,15
56,52
-76,09
72,68
109,17
35,97
-160,18
77,99
-92,63
Figure 9.8: Sketch showing magnitude and direction of dowel forces caused by moisture load (3%
shrinkage), with magnitude and angle of the five dowel forces which exceed the load carrying capacities.
59
Moisture load
As the stress distribution plots indicated the dowel forces are almost pointing
perpendicular to the fibre direction and moreover, it is seen that they are of magnitude
not far from those from the design load situation just with a much sharper angle to the
fibre directions. The generally steeper angles have a critical influence on the load
carrying capacities and when these in accordance with equation (6.13) to (6.18) it is
seen that the load carrying capacity of five of the 18 dowel are exceeded (marked with
red in Table 9.2). This is because of significant drops in the embedding strength and if
you look at dowel 9 in connection group 1 the force magnitude has dropped from 95.9
kN in the design load case to 78.5 kN in the moisture load case but due to change in
angle from 9.2 to 87.3 the load carrying capacity is almost reduced by half causing
failure at the dowel. This clearly shows that the moisture should be taking into account
when dimensioning connections in timber structures and especially because these
results are based on the moisture load alone without dead load or any external loads.
Table 9.2: Magnitude and angle of dowel forces due to 3% decrease in timber moisture content, load
carrying capacity and load carrying capacity check of each of the 18 dowels.
Dowel
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Connection group 1
Fdowel
[kN]
70,14
54,13
69,65
24,27
6,90
37,69
63,62
56,17
78,50
Angle
[]
FRd
[kN]
96,03
81,13
66,09
149,28
-7,32
-20,72
-122,58
-104,81
-87,34
66,89
67,27
71,70
98,12
116,38
107,48
76,18
68,52
66,64
Connection group 2
Fdowel/FRd
1,049
0,805
0,971
0,247
0,059
0,351
0,835
0,820
1,178
Fdowel
[kN]
69,28
18,35
63,67
55,08
8,67
56,52
72,68
35,97
77,99
Angle
[]
FRd
[kN]
82,39
31,36
-62,34
95,79
-173,15
-76,09
109,17
-160,18
-92,63
67,09
97,51
73,46
66,87
116,56
68,29
69,85
108,25
66,63
Fdowel/FRd
1,033
0,188
0,867
0,824
0,074
0,828
1,041
0,332
1,170
9.3 Combining moisture with other load cases

9.3.1 Dead and moisture load combination
The moisture load should obviously be checked in combination with at least the dead
load and this has been done by finding the dowel forces for the dead load alone and then
adding the x-, y- and z-components from these forces with those from the moisture load.
The dowel forces from dead load are found by the use of Abaqus with the same script
file as for the design load just without any contributions from snow or wind and the
force components are listed in Table 9.3. The magnitudes and angles of the resulting
dowel forces from the combination of dead and moisture load are listed in Table 9.4,
and from the load carrying capacity and the load carrying capacity control it is seen that
the dead load does not have any greater influence on the moisture load except that
dowel 3 in connection group 1 just exceeds it load carrying capacity. The minimum
60
Moisture load
effect the dead load has on the moisture load is illustrated in Figure 9.9, where the
dowel forces from the dead load is shown by green arrows, the dowel forces from the
moisture is shown by blue arrows and the combination of dead and moisture load shown
as purple arrows.
Table 9.3: x-, y- and z-components and magnitudes of the dowel forces cause by the dead load of the
frame.
Connection group 1
4
5
Dowel no.
1
2
3
6
xdirection
-43.92 -53.01
-81.37
3.05
0.02
-1.21
y-23.51 -9.99
11.03 -13.23
0.31
21.29
direction
1.14Ez-direction
8 1.1E-8 1.67E-8 2.12E-9 4.52E-10 3.59E-9
82.12 13.58
0.32
21.32
Magnitude 49.82 53.95
Connection group 2
4
5
1
2
3
Dowel no.
xdirection
6.94
8.23 11.46
-3.79
y42.89
-4.83 -49.50 41.89
direction
z-direction 1.2E-8 1.88E-9 1.23E-8 1.06E-8
Magnitude 43.45
9.54 50.81 42.06
0.18
60.19
60.73
84.98
-8.36
13.60
44.40
1.0E-8 1.26E-8 2.45E-8

60.77
62.23
95.88
-0.51
-21.59
-4.62 -48.12
54.07
1.38E-9 1.17E-8 1.83E-8
4.62
48.13
58.22
-13.17
-11.91
-7.83 -66.36
4.0E-9 1.85E-8
15.32
67.42
Table 9.4: Magnitude and angle of dowel forces due to a combination of dead and moisture load, load
Dowel
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Connection group 1
Fdowel
[kN]
69,78
54,24
70,65
23,52
6,85
37,49
62,80
55,03
77,55
Angle
[]
FRd
[kN]
101,29
88,42
74,55
152,84
-6,71
-16,18
-115,47
-96,70
-78,48
67,70
66,60
68,69
101,55
116,61
111,19
72,40
66,97
67,75
Connection group 2
Fdowel/FRd
1,031
0,815
1,028
0,232
0,059
0,337
0,867
0,822
1,145
Fdowel
[kN]
69,14
17,24
62,16
55,09
9,29
55,12
73,23
36,40
77,14
Angle
[]
FRd
[kN]
77,87
29,60
-68,11
90,30
-173,84
-82,26
103,54
-163,41
-98,85
67,88
99,20
70,86
66,57
116,80
67,10
68,20
110,88
67,27
Fdowel/FRd
1,019
0,174
0,877
0,828
0,080
0,821
1,074
0,328
1,147
61
Moisture load
Figure 9.9: The dowels forces caused by the combination of dead and moisture load (3% shrinkage)
shown by purple arrows. The magnitude and angle of those dowel forces exceeding the load carrying
capacity are also shown.
9.3.2 Design and moisture load combination

Contrary to the dead load the design load has a much larger influence on the dowel
forces caused by the moisture load, which is of cause because of the magnitude
difference in the design and dead load induced dowel forces. As it appears from both
Table 7.3, Table 9.5 and especially from Figure 9.10, the dowels forces from the design
and moisture load are of similar magnitudes but often almost perpendicular to each
other. Even though this combination might not be the most realistic one, it still shows
that the shrinkage and swelling of the timber have a great impact on stresses and dowel
forces in a multi dowel connection as the one analysed in this thesis.
62
Moisture load
Table 9.5: Magnitude and angle of dowel forces due to a combination of design and moisture load, load
Dowel
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Connection group 1
Fdowel
[kN]
83,36
75,67
109,72
22,17
6,99
41,47
83,06
77,01
116,84
Angle
[]
FRd
[kN]
132,64
126,60
114,49
-177,10
-4,82
10,06
-75,92
-51,86
-32,71
83,17
78,75
71,95
117,60
117,20
115,13
68,33
79,81
96,20
Connection group 2
Fdowel/FRd
1,002
0,961
1,525
0,189
0,060
0,360
1,215
0,965
1,214
Fdowel
[kN]
80,74
10,91
70,72
68,90
13,29
64,38
95,14
41,68
96,16
Angle
[]
FRd
[kN]
49,85
6,92
-106,38
58,17
-174,77
-122,44
71,49
178,66
-136,66
81,27
116,53
68,96
75,74
117,09
76,10
69,63
117,78
86,47
Fdowel/FRd
0,993
0,094
1,026
0,910
0,113
0,846
1,366
0,354
1,112
Figure 9.10: The dowels forces caused by the combination of design and moisture load (3% shrinkage)
shown by purple arrows. The magnitude and angle of those dowel forces exceeding the load carrying
capacity are also shown.
63
Discussion and Conclusion
10 Discussion and Conclusion

When comparing the dowel forces found by the hand calculation method with those
found by the FEM-analysis in Abaqus, it is seen that there is a clear pattern in the
direction and magnitude differences of the dowel forces calculated by the two different
methods. From the illustrations of the dowel forces it is seen that those found by the
Abaqus calculations clearly lean more towards the fibre direction than those from the
hand calculations which especially causes quite large angle differences between the
forces in the dowels along the edges of the timber members. The magnitude differences
of the dowel force between the two methods are not as distinct as the angle differences
except on the dowels loaded perpendicular to the fibre direction, where the dowel forces
found by hand are about 2 to 4 times larger than those found by Abaqus. The dowel
forces found by the FEM-analysis are clearly following the hypothesis of the dowels
loaded in the fibre direction taking up more force than those loaded perpendicular to the
fibre direction.
Based on the analysis on this particular frame corner it has not been possible to draw
any conclusions on whether the hand calculations are more or less conservative than the
FEM-analysis by looking at the specific corner and the design load case, subjecting the
frame to dead, wind and snow loads, used in this thesis. However, it is clear that the
hand calculation method is not accurate enough. This statement is based partly on the
illustrations showing the differences in the dowel forces and partly on the differences in
accuracy of the way to calculate the dowel forces (by hand) and the way to calculate the
load carrying capacity of the dowels. The hand calculation method described in (Larsen
& Enjily 2009) used to determine the dowel force is based on an assumption of elastic
isotropic timber and dowel materials, whereas the load carrying capacity calculation
method based on Johansens theory from 1949 is based on the assumption that the
timber and dowel materials behaves as rigid-plastic material. This means that the
orthotropic properties of the timber are not taken into account when determining the
dowel forces but the load carrying capacity is highly influenced by the angle between
the dowel forces and the fibre direction.
The frame and corner connection was designed in accordance with Eurocode and the
hand calculation method but as it is seen from the finite element moisture analysis the
stresses exceeds the strength values of the timber in several areas and especially in the
radial direction. Even though the simulation is done with elastic material behaviour
increasing the stresses, the stresses are still very large and should be taken into account.
The incoherence of comparing quite accurate dowel load carrying capacities with not as
accurate dowel forces, and the large radial stresses and dowel forces induced by 3%
drying of the timber, indicates that improvements of the hand calculation method might
be needed.
64
Future research
11 Future research
The comparison of results from the hand calculation and the FEM-simulations has
shown that hand calculation method is not as accurate as the FEM-analysis and it lets
dowel loaded perpendicular to the fibre direction take up larger forces than they are
capable of. Based on the FEM-analysis hand calculation method should be further
developed. However, if FEM-simulations should create basis for design of connections
in timber structure in general the models will have to be more adaptable than the one
used in this thesis. It should be interesting to implement a script than could vary the
numbers of dowels. At it is now the numbers of dowel are fixed due to the partitioning
of the different parts of the model. If you want to change the number of dowels you will
have to redo all the steps of the modelling process from the partitioning and forward.
Due to the random numbering of points, edges and faces such a script would have to
be able to check the position of these numbered elements in relation to coordinates of
the dowels.
Besides from the lack of freedom to vary the dimensions and dowel numbers another
adaptability issue with the script used in this thesis is the computing time of about 8
hour. It should very well be possible to fine-tune the script to run the analysis within
about 4 to 5 hours but the real computing time consumer is the interactions between the
dowels and the wood material. When using sheer tie constraints instead of interactions
the simulation is done in about 15 minutes but then the contact forces are not found and
the stress distributions are unrealistic. However, it should be possible to find a
compromise, for instance exchanging some of the dowels by beam elements in order to
reduce the number of meshed elements and this might lead to a reduction in the
processing time making the FEM-simulation a very powerful tool.
65
References
12 References
EC-0 2007, Eurocode 0: Basis of structural design, 2nd edn, Dansk Standard.
EC-1-1-3 2007, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 1-3: General actions - Snow
loads, 2nd edn, Dansk Standard.
EC-1-1-4 2007, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 1-4: General actions Wind
actions, 2nd edn, Dansk Standard.
EC-5-1-1 2007, Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures Part 1-1: General
Common rules and rules for buildings, 2nd edn, Dansk Standard.
Hafsteinsson, KH 2009, 'Numerical Study of a Nailed Angle Bracket', Department of
Civil Engineering, DTU.
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Srensen 2008, Abaqus Analysis User's Manual.
Jensen, BC 2009, Teknisk Stbi, 20th edn, Nyt Teknisk Forlag, Kbenhavn V.
Jessen, JC & Mougaard, JF 2003, 'Fuldskala brudforsg af limtrssamling fra kollapset
sprfag fra Ballerup Arena', Byg, DTU.
Jessen, JC & Mougaard, JF 2003, 'Sprfag Ballerup Siemens superarena', Byg, DTU.
Jessen, JC & Mougaard, JF 2004, 'Modellering af trsamling med kombineret lim- og
cornvirkemde', Byg, DTU.
Johansen, KW 1949, 'Theory of timber connenctions', IABSE, 1949.
Larsen, H & Enjily, V 2009, Practical design of timber structures to Eurocode 5, 1st
edn, Thomas Telford Limited, London.
Omarsson, S 1999, 'Numerical Analysis of Moisture-Related Distorsions in Sawn
Timber', PhD Thesis, Department of Structural Mechanics, Chalmers University of
Technology, KFS Lund, Gteborg, Sweden.
Omarsson, S, Dahlblom, O & Nygaard, MJ 2010, 'Finete element simulation of
mechanical and moisture-related stresses in laterally loaded multi-dowel timber
connections', World Comnference on Timber Engineering, Lyngby.
Sawata, K, Sasaki, T & Kanetaka, S 2006, 'Estimation of shear strength of dowel-type
timber connections with multiple slotted-in steel plates by European yield theory',
Journal of Wood Science, 2006.
66
References
Sawata, K & Yasumura, M 2003, 'Estimation of yield and ultimate strengths of bolted
timber joints by nonlinear analysis and yield theory', Journal of Wood Science, 2003.
Thelanderson, S & Larsen, HJ 2003, Timber Engineering, 1st edn, John Wiley & Sons,
West Sussex.
67
Appendix A
Appendix A
The folder fem_std containing the MatLab-program created by Niels Holck to
perform 2D frame calculations is only available on the attached CD-ROM.
The following is the input file fe_frame.m for the frame programme.
% Eksamensprojekt - Slotted-in steel plates
% Michael Julsbo Nygaard, s052719
clear all
close all
clc
format short eng
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FE_PATH % Saetter aktuel sti for de anv. programmer
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%
OPGAVETITEL
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
problemnavn='Frame slotted-in steel plates';
%
Default: Aktuel dato.
% Variables
a = 3.5;
% Inside height of the column
b = 6.0;
% Height of the house (centre line of the
apex)
c = 7.0;
% Half width of the house (centre line of
the column to the centre line of the house)
d = 0.40;
% Width of the column support
e = 0.69;
% Width of the column top
f = 0.40;
% Height of the apex
g = 0.69;
% Height og the beam at the corner
bt = 0.20;
% Thickness of the glulam
l = 4;
% Distance between frames
gamma_G = 1.35;
gamma_Q = 1.5;
psi_0 = 0.6;
variable action
% Partial factor for permanent actions

% Partial factor for variable actions
% Factor for combination value of a
% Key points
q5 = [d/2+c
b];
P5 = [0
a-(b-f/2-a)*e/(c+d/2-e)+g];
x8 = ((P5(2)-g/2)+(a*d/(e-d)))/((2*a/(e-d))-(b-(P5(2)-g/2))/(c+d/2));
y8 = (2*a/(e-d))*x8-(a*d)/(e-d);
P8 = [x8 y8];
L5_slope = ((b+f/2)-P5(2))/(c+d/2);
A.1
Appendix A
alpha_5 = atan(L5_slope);
L4_slope = (b-f/2-a)/(c+d/2-e);
Iyb = 1/12*bt*((f+g)/2*cos(alpha_5))^3; % Second moment of beam about
the weak axis
Iyc = 1/12*bt*((e+d)/2*cos(alpha_5))^3; % Second moment of column
about the weak axis
% Area and volume of beams and columns
A_b = 0.5*q5(1)*(g+f);
% Area of whole
V_b = A_b*bt;
% Volume of the
A_c = 0.5*a*(e+d);
% Area of whole
V_c = A_c*bt;
% Volume of the
beam
beam
column
column
% Calculating the load from the self weight

rho_wk = 550*9.81;
% Density of wood [N/m^3]
p_gb = gamma_G*(rho_wk*V_b)/(c+d/2);
% Load of beam
[N/m]
p_gc = gamma_G*(rho_wk*V_c)/a;
% Load of column [N/m]
% Snow load
% p_sb_l = 1.5*0.8*1100*l;
%
% p_sb_r = 1.5*0.8*1100*l;
%
p_sb_l = gamma_Q*0.8*900*l;
[N/m]
According EC1-1-4 NA
p_sb_r = gamma_Q*0.8*900*l;
[N/m]
According EC1-1-4 NA
% Wind load
p_wb_r = gamma_Q*psi_0*500*l;
beam [N/m]
p_wb_l = 0;
beam [N/m]
p_wc_r = gamma_Q*psi_0*580*l;
column [N/m]
p_wc_l = gamma_Q*psi_0*360*l;
column [N/m]
Vertical snow load on left beam [N/m]

Vertical snow load on right beam [N/m]
% Vertical snow load on left beam
% Vertical snow load on right beam
% Wind load (perpendicular) on right

% Wind load (perpendicular) on left
% Horizontal wind load on left
% Horizontal wind load on right
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%
KNUDEPUNKTSKOORDINATER
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%
_Selvvalgt knudenummer (Ingen gentagelser)
%
|
_X-koordinat
%
|
|
_Y-koordinat
%
|
|
|
%
knuder=[ 1
d/2
0
2
P8(1)
P8(2)
3
d/2+c
b
4 (q5(1)*2-P8(1))
P8(2)
5
2*c+d/2
0 ] ;
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%
UNDERSTOETNINGSBETINGELSER. (Kendte flytninger.)
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%
A.2
Appendix A
%
_Knudenummer.
%
|
_Retning (1: X
2: Y
6: drejning)
%
| |
_Stoerrelse
%
| | |
_Orintering af symbol for
understoetning (grader)
%
| | |
| (Har kun betydning for plot af
konstruktionen)
kendte_flytninger=[ 1
1
5
5
%
%
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
0 ];
Hvis kolonne 4 udelades saettes orintering = 0

Hvis ogs kolonne 3 udelades saettes stoerrelse = 0
% ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%
ELEMENTTYPE (Svarende til efterfoelgende data)
% ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
elementtype='bjaelke';
% ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%
ELEMENTDEFINITIONER. (Topologitabel)
% ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%
%
_Selvvalgt elementnummer (Ingen gentagelser)
%
|
_k1: Knudenummer i elementets ene ende
%
| |
_k2: Knudenummer i elementets anden ende
%
| | |
_Referancenr. til elementegenskaber
%
| | | |
elementer=[
%
%
%
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
5
2
1
1
2 ];
For hvert enkelt element defineres et

lokalt hoejre-koordinatsystem hvis
x-akse peger fra k1 mod k2.
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%
ELEMENTEGENSKABER
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%
_Referancenummer (Se elementer)
%
|
_E: Elasticitetskofficient [Pa]
%
|
|
_A: Tvaersnitsareal [m^2]
%
|
|
|
_I: Inertimoment [m^4]
%
|
|
|
|
_ Vaegt pr.
laengdeenhed [kN/m]
%
|
|
|
| |
_Ekscentricitet
%
|
|
|
| | |
% elementegenskaber=[1 10000000 (f+g)/2*bt 1/12*bt*((f+g)/2)^3
rho_wk*(f+g)/2*bt 0
%
2 10000000 (e+d)/2*bt 1/12*bt*((e+d)/2)^3
rho_wk*(e+d)/2*bt 0 ];
A.3
Appendix A
elementegenskaber=[1
2
10*10^9
10*10^9
(f+g)/2*bt
(e+d)/2*bt
Iyb
Iyc
0
0
0
0 ];
% Hvis kolonne 6 udelades, saettes ekscentricitet = 0

% Hvis kolonne 5 ogs udelades, saettes vaegt pr laengdeenh. = 0
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%
INDRE FRIHEDSGRADER I ELEMENTER (Chaenierer mv.)
% ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
% (Kan udelades hvis der ingen indre frihdsgrader forekommer)
%
_Elementnummer
%
|
_Lokalt knudenummer (1 eller 2)
%
|
|
_Retning (Se nedenfor)
%
|
|
|
_Konstant. kan udelades(se nedenfor)
%
|
|
| |
_ type. kan udelades(se nedenfor)
%
|
|
| | |
indre_frihedsgrader=[ 2
2 16 ];
%
% Retning 16 : Rotation om lokal z-akse (Charniere)
% Retning 12 : Forskydning langs lokal y-akse
% Retning 11 : Forskydning langs lokal x-akse
%
% Hvis type=0: Fri bevaegelighed(fx charniere hvis retning=16)
%
Naar type=0 er Konstant uden betydning
% Hvis type=1: Konstant=Fjederkonstant
% Hvis type=2: Konstant=Differensflytning (Anv. ved influenslinier)
% Hvis type=3: Konstant=Konstant snitkraft
% NB! Der maa kun forekomme EN vaerdi af type for hvert element
%
Hvis der forekommer mere en en vaerdi af type for et element,
%
vil kun den foerstnaevnte blive benyttet
%
% Hvis kolonne 5 udelades bliver type sat til 1
% Hvis kolonne 4 og 5 udelades bliver type sat til 0
%
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%
ELEMENTLASTE
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
% (Kan udelades hvis ingen elementlast eksisterer.)
%
%
_Elementnummer.
%
|
_Retning (1: X, 2: Y, 11: lokal x, 12: lokal y
%
| |
%
| |
_Lastintensitet
ved lokal knude nr 1
%
| |
|
_Lastintensitet ved lokal knude nr 2
%
| |
|
|
elementlast=[ 1 1
-p_wc_l
1 2
-p_gc
2 1
-p_wb_l*sin(alpha_5)
2 2 -p_wb_l*cos(alpha_5)-p_sb_l-p_gb
3 1
-p_wb_r*sin(alpha_5)
3 2 -p_wb_r*cos(alpha_5)-p_sb_r-p_gb
4 1
-p_wc_r
4 2
-p_gc ];
% Hvis kolonne 4 udelades bliver lasten ensformigt fordelt
DATA_IND
START_FE %
Start af program
A.4
Appendix B
Appendix B
The MatLab-script Hand.calculation.m computing components of the dowel forces,
their angle to the fibre direction in accordance with the hand calculation method and
checking the load carrying capacity of the dowels and the timber cross section.
% Handcalculation of 18-bolt timber corner connections

st = 0.010;
% Thickness of the steel plate
t1 = (bt-2*st)/4;
% Distance between steel plate and timber
edge [m]
t2 = 2*t1;
% Distance between the steel plates [m]
k1 = 0.77;
% cutting ratio of the column (% of the
column that is cutted)
k2 = 0.06;
% 1- cutting ratio of the beam
alpha = (5+0.0001)*pi/180; % Angle between bottom of beam and top
surface of column (OBS alpha can not be exactly = 0)
v = 0.01;
% Distance between the edge of the timber
frame and the edge of the steel plate
k3 = k1 + 0.1;
% Determines the height fo the steel plate
in relation to the height of the column part
k5 = e*0.1;
% Determines the width fo the steel plate
(k5>0)
n = 9;
% Number of bolts in each CG (only 9 or 12
is valid)
% Parameters for fasteners
dd = 0.028;
% Diameter of the fasteners
sw = 1.0;
a1 = 5*dd*sw;
% Minimum distance between the fasteners
in the fibre direction
a2 = 4*dd*sw;
% Minimum distance between the fasteners
perpendicular the fibre direction
a3 = max(7*dd,0.08)*sw;
% Minimum distance from timber end to the
fastener
a4 = 4*dd*sw;
% Minimum distance from timber edge to the
fastener
bl = 0.01;
% Extra length of bolts in relation to bt
% Material properties
Es = 210000.0*10^6;
[Pa]
nus = 0.3;
fuk = 400.0*10^6;
dowels [Pa]
kmod = 0.9;
gamma_M = 1.25;
E1 = 10*10^9;
Nuw = 0.35;
G1 = 800*10^6;
% Modulus of elasticity for steel plates

% Poisson's ratio for steel
% Characteristic strength value of the
%
%
%
%
%
Modification factor
Partial factor for material propeties
Modulus of elasticity for wood [Pa]
Poisson's ratio for wood
Shear modulus [Pa]
A.5
Appendix B
% rho_wk = 550*9.81;
% Density of wood [N/m^3]
% Strength and stiffness values for the wood

fmd = 24*10^6*kmod/gamma_M;
ft0d = 16.5*10^6*kmod/gamma_M;
ft90d = 0.4*10^6*kmod/gamma_M;
fc0d = 24*10^6*kmod/gamma_M;
fc90d = 2.7*10^6*kmod/gamma_M;
fvd = 2.7*10^6*kmod/gamma_M;
%--------------------------------------------------------------------%
Loading cross sectional forces
%--------------------------------------------------------------------% Applied loads
N = -Nx.bm2(2,5)
[N]
V = Vy.bm2(2,3)
M = Mz.bm2(2,5)
M_max = Mz.bm2(2,3)
% (The negative) Normal force on beam part

% Shear force on beam part [N]
% Moment on CG1 [Nm]
%--------------------------------------------------------------------%
Points on the frame
%--------------------------------------------------------------------% Points at support and apex
q1 = [0 0];
q2 = [d/2 0];
q3 = [d 0];
q4 = [d/2+c b-f/2];
q5 = [d/2+c b];
q6 = [d/2+c b+f/2];
% Points on the column part
P1 = [0 k1*a];
P3 = [e a];
P2 = [(P1(2)+a*d/(e-d))/(a/(e-d)+(e-d)/(2*a)), (a/(e-d))*((P1(2)...
+a*d/(e-d))/(a/(e-d)+(e-d)/(2*a)))-a*d/(e-d)];
L4_slope = (b-f/2-a)/(c+d/2-e);
L7_slope = -tan(alpha-atan(L4_slope));
P4 = [0 a-L7_slope*e];
P5 = [0 a-(b-f/2-a)*e/(c+d/2-e)+g];
P6 = [k2*(c+d/2) ((b+f/2)-P5(2))/(c+d/2)*(k2*(c+d/2))+P5(2)];
k4 = a-(b-f/2-a)*e/(c+d/2-e);
L8_slope = -(c+d/2)/(b-(P5(2)-g/2));
k8 = P6(2)-L8_slope*(k2*(c+d/2));
x7 = (k8-k4)/(L4_slope-L8_slope);
y7 = L8_slope*x7+k8;
P7 = [x7 y7];
% Calculation of point P8 i.e. intersection between system lines
x8 = ((P5(2)-g/2)+(a*d/(e-d)))/((2*a/(e-d))-(b-(P5(2)-g/2))/(c+d/2));
y8 = (2*a/(e-d))*x8-(a*d)/(e-d);
P8 = [x8 y8];
% Calculation of point P9 and P10 i.e. the connection points between
% the wires and the solid
A.6
Appendix B
x9 = (P1(1)+P2(1))/2;
y9 = (P1(2)+P2(2))/2;
P9 = [x9 y9];
x10 = (P6(1)+P7(1))/2;
y10 = (P6(2)+P7(2))/2;
P10 = [x10 y10];
% Calculation of point P11 and P12 i.e. the connection points between
the
% wires on the right side and the support point to the right
x11 = (q5(1)*2-P8(1));
y11 = P8(2);
P11 = [x11 y11];
x12 = (q5(1)*2-d/2);
y12 = 0;
P12 = [x12 y12];
%--------------------------------------------------------------------%
Coordinates to the fasteners
%--------------------------------------------------------------------% Fasteners in the column part
xF_2_1 = a4;
yF_2_1 = L7_slope*xF_2_1+P4(2)-a3;
PF_2_1 = [xF_2_1, yF_2_1];
xF_2_4 = PF_2_1(1);
yF_2_4 = PF_2_1(2)-a1;
PF_2_4 = [xF_2_4, yF_2_4];
xF_2_7 = PF_2_1(1);
yF_2_7 = PF_2_1(2)-2*a1;
PF_2_7 = [xF_2_7, yF_2_7];
xF_2_9
yF_2_9
PF_2_9
xF_2_6
yF_2_6
PF_2_6
=
=
=
=
=
=
(a*(d-a4)+(P4(2)-a3-2*a1)*(e-d))/(a-L7_slope*(e-d));
L7_slope*xF_2_9+(P4(2)-a3-2*a1);
[xF_2_9, yF_2_9];
PF_2_9(1);
PF_2_9(2)+a1;
[xF_2_6, yF_2_6];
xF_2_3 = PF_2_9(1);
yF_2_3 = PF_2_9(2)+2*a1;
PF_2_3 = [xF_2_3, yF_2_3];
xF_2_8
yF_2_8
PF_2_8
xF_2_5
yF_2_5
PF_2_5
xF_2_2
yF_2_2
PF_2_2
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
(PF_2_7(1)+PF_2_9(1))/2;
(PF_2_7(2)+PF_2_9(2))/2;
[xF_2_8, yF_2_8];
(PF_2_4(1)+PF_2_6(1))/2;
(PF_2_4(2)+PF_2_6(2))/2;
[xF_2_5, yF_2_5];
(PF_2_1(1)+PF_2_3(1))/2;
(PF_2_1(2)+PF_2_3(2))/2;
[xF_2_2, yF_2_2];
% Fasteners in the beam part

% Intersection between y-axis and L15 (line trough uppermost
fasteners)
A.7
Appendix B
k15 = P5(2)-a4/cos(alpha_5);
xF_1_1 = a2*cos(alpha_5);
yF_1_1 = L5_slope*xF_1_1+k15;
PF_1_1 = [xF_1_1, yF_1_1];
% Intersection between y-axis and L16 (line trough lowest fasteners)
k16 = P4(2)+a4/cos(alpha_5);
xF_1_7 = PF_1_1(1);
yF_1_7 = L5_slope*xF_1_7+k16;
PF_1_7 = [xF_1_7, yF_1_7];
xF_1_4 = PF_1_1(1);
yF_1_4 = (PF_1_7(2)+PF_1_1(2))/2;
PF_1_4 = [xF_1_4, yF_1_4];
xF_1_2
yF_1_2
PF_1_2
xF_1_8
yF_1_8
PF_1_8
xF_1_5
yF_1_5
PF_1_5
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
PF_1_1(1)+a1*cos(alpha_5);
PF_1_1(2)+a1*sin(alpha_5);
[xF_1_2, yF_1_2];
PF_1_2(1);
[xF_1_8, yF_1_8];
PF_1_2(1);
(PF_1_8(2)+PF_1_2(2))/2;
[xF_1_5, yF_1_5];
xF_1_3
yF_1_3
PF_1_3
xF_1_9
yF_1_9
PF_1_9
xF_1_6
yF_1_6
PF_1_6
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
PF_1_1(1)+2*a1*cos(alpha_5);
PF_1_1(2)+2*a1*sin(alpha_5);
[xF_1_3, yF_1_3];
PF_1_3(1);
[xF_1_9, yF_1_9];
PF_1_3(1);
(PF_1_9(2)+PF_1_3(2))/2;
[xF_1_6, yF_1_6];
PF1 = [ PF_1_1(1)
PF_1_2(1)
PF_1_3(1)
PF_1_4(1)
PF_1_5(1)
PF_1_6(1)
PF_1_7(1)
PF_1_8(1)
PF_1_9(1)
PF_1_1(2)
PF_1_2(2)
PF_1_3(2)
PF_1_4(2)
PF_1_5(2)
PF_1_6(2)
PF_1_7(2)
PF_1_8(2)
PF_1_9(2) ];
PF2 = [ PF_2_1(1)
PF_2_2(1)
PF_2_3(1)
PF_2_4(1)
PF_2_5(1)
PF_2_6(1)
PF_2_7(1)
PF_2_8(1)
PF_2_9(1)
PF_2_1(2)
PF_2_2(2)
PF_2_3(2)
PF_2_4(2)
PF_2_5(2)
PF_2_6(2)
PF_2_7(2)
PF_2_8(2)
PF_2_9(2) ];
% Point on the steel plates

PS1 = [v PF_2_7(2)-4*dd];
PS2 = [(PF_2_7(2)-4*dd)*(e-d)/a+d-v PF_2_7(2)-4*dd];
PS3 = [e-v, a+v];
PS4 = [PS3(1)+k5 ((b-f/2-a)/(c+d/2-e))*(PS3(1)+k5)+k4+v];
A.8
Appendix B
L6_slope = (b-(P5(2)-g/2))/(c+d/2);
k9 = PS4(2)+PS4(1)/L6_slope;
x95 = PS4(1);
% x-coordinate to intersection between L9
and L5
y95 = L5_slope*x95+P5(2);
% y-coordinate to intersection between L9
and L5
PS5 = [x95 y95-v];
PS6 = [P5(1)+v P5(2)-v];
%--------------------------------------------------------------------%
Controlling height of beam
%--------------------------------------------------------------------g_min = 2*(a4+a2)/cos(alpha_5)+abs((L7_slope*PF_1_1(1)L4_slope*PF_1_1(1)));
if g < g_min;
fprintf('The height, g, should be %.4f or more',g_min)
pause
end
%--------------------------------------------------------------------%
Loads on the fasteners
%--------------------------------------------------------------------% Polar moments of inertia for fastener group 1 and 2
Ip1 = 0;
for k=1:n;
Ip1 = Ip1+(((PF1(k,1)-PF1(5,1)))^2+(PF1(k,2)-PF1(5,2))^2);
end
Ip2 = 0;
for k=1:n;
Ip2 = Ip2+(((PF2(k,1)-PF2(5,1)))^2+(PF2(k,2)-PF2(5,2))^2);
end
Ip = Ip1+Ip2;
% Finding intersection, (xi,yi), between system line trough CG1 and
% perpendicular line through CG2
xi = (tan(alpha_6)*PF_2_5(1)-(1/tan(alpha_6))*PF_1_5(1)+PF_2_5(2)...
-PF_1_5(1))/(tan(alpha_6)-(1/tan(alpha_6)));
yi = tan(alpha_6)*(xi-PF_1_5(1))+PF_1_5(2);
% Calculating the distances eN and eV
eN = sqrt((xi-PF_2_5(1))^2+(yi-PF_2_5(2))^2);
eV = sqrt((xi-PF_1_5(1))^2+(yi-PF_1_5(2))^2);
% The load on each fastener, FN, acting in the direction of N
FN1 = N/n;
FN2 = N/n;
n_line = [cos(alpha_6); sin(alpha_6)];
FN1_line = FN1*n_line;
FN2_line = -FN2*n_line;
% The load on each fastener, FV, acting in the direction of V
FV1 = V/n;
FV2 = V/n;
v_line = [-sin(alpha_6); cos(alpha_6)];
FV1_line = FV1*v_line;
FV2_line = -FV2*v_line;
A.9
Appendix B
% Computing the matrices m1 and m2 containing the unit vectors

% perpendicular to the vectors from CG to dowel.
for i = 1:n;
m1(:,i) = [-(PF1(i,2)-PF1(5,2)); PF1(i,1)-PF1(5,1)]; % From
'Matematisk formelsamling' eq.(37)
end
for i = 1:n;
m2(:,i) = [-(PF2(i,2)-PF2(5,2)); PF2(i,1)-PF2(5,1)]; % From
'Matematisk formelsamling' eq.(37)
end
% The load on each fastener, FM, acting perpendicular to the line from
the
% individual fastener to the centre of the CG
for i = 1:n;
FM1(:,i) = (M/Ip1+(N*eN-V*eV)/Ip)*m1(:,i);
end
for i = 1:n;
FM2(:,i) = (-M/Ip2+(N*eN-V*eV)/Ip)*m2(:,i);
end
%---------------- Forces in bolts ---------------% Calculating the total load, FF, on each fastener
for i = 1:n
FF1_xy(:,i) = -(FV1_line + FN1_line + FM1(:,i)); % Load
components in x and y direction
FF2_xy(:,i) = -(FV2_line + FN2_line + FM2(:,i)); % Load
components in x and y direction
FF(i,1) = sqrt(FF1_xy(1,i)^2+FF1_xy(2,i)^2);
FF(i,2) = sqrt(FF2_xy(1,i)^2+FF2_xy(2,i)^2);
end
dlmwrite('FF1_xy.txt', FF1_xy, 'delimiter', '\t', 'precision', 6)
dlmwrite('FF2_xy.txt', FF2_xy, 'delimiter', '\t', 'precision', 6)
dlmwrite('FF.txt', FF, 'delimiter', '\t', 'precision', 6)
%---------------- Angle of forces ---------------% Calculating the angle between force and fibre direction.
% (0 degrees corresponds to a force pointing in the fibre direction
away from the (loaded) end)
fiber1 = [ 1; tan(alpha_6)];
% Vector pointing in the
fibredirection of the beam part
fiber2 = [ 0; 1];
fibredirection of the column part
for i = 1:n
alpha(i,1) = atan2(FF1_xy(2,i),FF1_xy(1,i))atan2(fiber1(2),fiber1(1));
if alpha(i,1) <= -pi
alpha(i,1) = 2*pi+alpha(i,1);
elseif alpha(i,1) > pi
alpha(i,1) = 2*pi-alpha(i,1);
end
end
for i = 1:n
A.10
Appendix B
alpha(i,2) = atan2(FF2_xy(2,i),FF2_xy(1,i))atan2(fiber2(2),fiber2(1));
if alpha(i,2) <= -pi
alpha(i,2) = 2*pi+alpha(i,2);
elseif alpha(i,2) > pi
alpha(i,2) = 2*pi-alpha(i,2);
end
end
alpha_degrees = alpha*180/pi;
%--------------------------------------------------------------------%
Load carrying capacity
%--------------------------------------------------------------------ns = 2;
% Number of steel plates
k90 = 1.35+0.015*dd*10^3;
% for softwood
% k90 = 1.30+0.015*dd*10^3;
% for LVL
% k90 = 0.90+0.015*dd*10^3;
% for hardwood
fh0k = (0.082*(1-0.01*dd*10^3)*(rho_wk/9.81))*10^(6); % Characteristic
embedding strength parallel to grain direction [Pa]
for j = 1:2;
for i = 1:n;
fhak(i,j) = (fh0k/(k90*sin(alpha(i,j))^2+cos(alpha(i,j))^2));
end
end
qk = fhak.*dd;
% Calculating the characteristic and design load carrying capacity for
each
% failure mode.
for j = 1:2;
for i =1:n;
% Failure mode I
FRk1(i,j) = (2*t1+(ns-1)*t2)*qk(i,j);
% Failure mode II
FRk2(i,j) = (2*t1*(sqrt(2+2/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)*(dd/t1)^2)-1)+(ns1)*t2)*qk(i,j);
% Failure mode III
FRk3(i,j) = (dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j))+(ns-1)*t2)*qk(i,j);
% Failure mode IV
FRk4(i,j) = (2*t1+(ns-1)*dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)))*qk(i,j);
% Failure mode V
FRk5(i,j) = (2*t1*(sqrt(2+2/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)*(dd/t1)^2)-1)+(ns1)*dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)))*qk(i,j);
% Failure mode VI
FRk6(i,j) = (ns*dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)))*qk(i,j);
end
end
for j = 1:2;
for i =1:n;
% Failure mode I
FRd1(i,j) = (2*t1+(ns-1)*t2)*qk(i,j).*(kmod/gamma_M);
% Failure mode II
FRd2(i,j) = (2*t1*(sqrt(2+2/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)*(dd/t1)^2)-1)+(ns1)*t2)*qk(i,j).*(kmod/gamma_M);
% Failure mode III
FRd3(i,j) = (dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j))+(ns1)*t2)*qk(i,j).*(kmod/gamma_M);
A.11
Appendix B
% Failure mode IV
FRd4(i,j) = (2*t1+(ns1)*dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)))*qk(i,j).*(kmod/gamma_M);
% Failure mode V
FRd5(i,j) = (2*t1*(sqrt(2+2/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)*(dd/t1)^2)-1)+(ns1)*dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)))*qk(i,j).*(kmod/gamma_M);
% Failure mode VI
FRd6(i,j) =
(ns*dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)))*qk(i,j).*(kmod/gamma_M);
end
end
% The design load carrying capacity for each failure mode in each
bolt.
for j = 1:2;
for i = 1:n;
%
FRD{i+j*n-n} =
FRD{i,j} = [ FRd1(i,j)
FRd2(i,j)
FRd3(i,j)
FRd4(i,j)
FRd5(i,j)
FRd6(i,j) ];
end
end
% Determining the characteristic and design load carrying capacity for
each
% bolt (i.e. worst failure mode).
for j = 1:2;
for i = 1:n;
FRk(i,j) = min([ FRk1(i,j)
FRk2(i,j)
FRk3(i,j)
FRk4(i,j)
FRk5(i,j)
FRk6(i,j) ]);
end
end
for j = 1:2;
for i = 1:n;
FRd(i,j) = min([ FRd1(i,j)
FRd2(i,j)
FRd3(i,j)
FRd4(i,j)
FRd5(i,j)
FRd6(i,j) ]);
end
end
%--------------------------------------------------------------------%
Checking load carrying capacity of bolts
%--------------------------------------------------------------------k = 0;
for j = 1:2;
for i = 1:n;
CONTROL(i,j) = FF(i,j)./FRd(i,j);
A.12
Appendix B
if CONTROL(i,j)>1;
k = k+1;
end
end
end
if k>0;
fprintf('%.0f bolts are under dimensioned',k)
end
%--------------------------------------------------------------------%
Checking load carrying capacity of wood cross section
%--------------------------------------------------------------------% Shear strength control
% Compression strength control
% Longitudinal
sigma_c0d = abs(Nx.bm2(2,5))/(bt*f);
if sigma_c0d > fc0d;
fprintf('The compression strength of the glulam is exceeded.')
end
% Radial
kc90 = 1.0;
sigma_c90d = V/(bt*sqrt((a-k4)^2+e^2));
% if abs(p_sb_r*cos(alpha_5)+p_wb_r)/bt > kc90*fc90d;
if sigma_c90d > kc90*fc90d;
fprintf('The shear strength of the glulam is exceeded.')
end
% Combined bending and axial compression
% Using 6.3.3 in EC5-1-1 and (4.23) in (Larsen
h_top = f*cos(alpha_5);
top
Iz_top = 1/12*h_top*bt^3;
about the weak axis at the top [m^4]
It_top = (1/3)*bt^3*h_top*(1*0.63*bt/h_top);
inertia at the top [m^4]
h_cor = (P5(2)-P4(2))*cos(alpha_5);
corner
Iz_cor = 1/12*h_cor*bt^3;
about the weak axis at the corner [m^4]
It_cor = (1/3)*bt^3*h_cor*(1-0.63*bt/h_cor);
inertia at the corner [m^4]
& Enjily, 2009)

% Frame height at the
% Moment of inertia
% Torsional moment of
% Frame height at the

% Moment of inertia
% Torsional moment of
lef = 0.9*sqrt((q5(1)-P8(1))^2+(q5(2)-P8(2))^2);% Effective length of

beam [m]
Wy_top = 1/6*bt*h_top^2;
the top [m^3]
Wy_cor = 1/6*bt*h_cor^2;
the corner [m^3]
% Section modulus at
% Section modulus at
sigma_m_crit_top = pi*sqrt(E1*Iz_top*G1*It_top)/(lef*Wy_top);
Critical bending stress at the top
A.13
Appendix B
sigma_m_crit_cor = pi*sqrt(E1*Iz_cor*G1*It_cor)/(lef*Wy_cor);
Critical bending stress at the corner
lambda_rel_m_top = sqrt((fmd/(kmod*gamma_M))/sigma_m_crit_top);
Relative slenderness
lambda_rel_m_cor = sqrt((fmd/(kmod*gamma_M))/sigma_m_crit_cor);
Relative slenderness
%
%
if lambda_rel_m_top <= 0.75;

k_crit_top = 1;
elseif 0.75 < lambda_rel_m_top <= 1.4;
k_crit_top = 1.56-0.75*lambda_rel_m_top;
else k_crit_top = 1/lambda_rel_m_top^2;
end
% lambda_rel_m_top
% kc_top = input('Enter instability factor, kc, bases on
lambda_rel_m_top: ');
kc_top = 0.995; % (from table 7.15 in "Teknisk Stbi")
if lambda_rel_m_cor <= 0.75;
k_crit_cor = 1;
elseif 0.75 < lambda_rel_m_cor <= 1.4;
k_crit_cor = 1.56-0.75*lambda_rel_m_cor;
else k_crit_cor = 1/lambda_rel_m_cor^2;
end
% lambda_rel_m_cor
% kc_cor = input('Enter instability factor, kc, bases on
lambda_rel_m_cor: ');
kc_cor = 0.984; % (from table 7.15 in "Teknisk Stbi")
sigma_md_top = 6*M_max/(bt*(f*cos(alpha_5))^2);
sigma_md_cor = 6*M_max/(bt*((P5(2)-P4(2))*cos(alpha_5))^2);
if (sigma_md_top/(k_crit_top*fmd))^2+sigma_c0d/(kc_top*fc0d)>1
fprintf('The bending strength at top of the glulam is exceeded.')
end
if (sigma_md_cor/(k_crit_cor*fmd))^2+sigma_c0d/(kc_cor*fc0d)>1
fprintf('The bending strength at corner of the glulam is
exceeded.')
end
% Using 6.4.2 in EC5-1-1
% For tensile stresses parallel to the tapered edge
% k_m_alpha = 1/sqrt(1+(fmd/(0.75*fvd)*tan(alpha_4alpha_5))^2+(fmd/ft90d*tan(alpha_4-alpha_5))^2);
% For compressive stresses parallel to the tapered edge
k_m_alpha = 1/sqrt(1+(fmd/(1.5*fvd)*tan(alpha_4alpha_5))^2+(fmd/fc90d*tan(alpha_4-alpha_5))^2);
if sigma_md_top > k_m_alpha*fmd;
fprintf('The bending strength at top of the (tapered) glulam is
exceeded.')
end
if sigma_md_cor > k_m_alpha*fmd;
fprintf('The bending strength at corner of the (tapered) glulam is
exceeded.')
end
A.14
Appendix C
Appendix C
Table Appendix C.1: x- and y-component and magnitude of the dowel forces found by the hand
calculation method.
Dowel no.
xdirection
ydirection
Magnitude
Dowel no.
xdirection
ydirection
Magnitude
Connection group 1
3
4
5
-47.47
-59.61
-71.75
9.06
-3.08
-15.23
65.58
53.44
41.30
-43.57
64.44
-4.79
59.80
34.00
79.40
-43.57
44.51
-4.79
5.70
34.00
37.25
-43.57
78.74
-4.79
53.65
34.00
53.49
Connection group 2
3
4
5
26.63
41.68
56.72
-11.96
3.08
18.13
-50.55
-35.51
-20.47
63.12
68.51
4.79
41.95
-53.55
78.00
63.12
64.25
4.79
5.70
-53.55
56.53
63.12
80.87
4.79
35.83
-53.55
57.33
Table Appendix C.2: The design load carrying capacity of each dowel in each failure mode.
Failure mode
Connection group 1
Dowel
no.
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
1
104.40
123.41
151.09
151.09
170.09
197.77
2
112.87
130.16
159.25
159.25
176.54
205.63
3
86.10
108.49
132.85
132.85
155.24
179.60
4
66.97
92.28
112.68
112.68
137.99
158.40
5
90.50
112.12
137.31
137.31
158.94
184.13
6
66.86
92.18
112.56
112.56
137.89
158.27
7
79.70
103.15
126.25
126.25
149.70
172.80
8
104.94
123.83
151.61
151.61
170.51
198.28
9
107.20
125.64
153.80
153.80
172.25
200.40
Failure mode
Connection group 2
Dowel
no.
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
1
107.30
125.73
153.90
153.90
172.33
200.50
2
67.09
92.39
112.82
112.82
138.11
158.55
3
90.58
112.19
137.40
137.40
159.01
184.22
4
109.19
127.23
155.72
155.72
173.77
202.26
5
96.12
116.72
142.95
142.95
163.54
189.77
6
114.77
131.67
161.07
161.07
177.96
207.36
7
83.74
106.54
130.43
130.43
153.23
177.13
8
66.95
92.26
112.67
112.67
137.97
158.38
9
105.55
124.32
152.20
152.20
170.98
198.86
A.15
Appendix D
Appendix D
The model-script MainFrameDesign.py is only available on the attach CD-ROM
because of the amount of physical pages required to print it.
A.16
Appendix E
Appendix E
The file abaqus.dowel.forces.rpt containing the raw data is only available on the
attached CD-ROM.
A.17
Appendix F
Appendix F
The MatLab-script abq_cfn_design.m computing the components of the dowel forces,
their angle to the fibre direction from the raw data of Abaqus and checking the load
carrying capacity of the dowels and the timber cross section.
%--------------------------------------------------------------------% File name:
abq_cfn_design.m
%
% Date:
July 8th 2010
%
% Description: By processing the raw contact data (cfn) from Abaqus
%
this script computes the dowel forces, their angle to
%
the fibre direction and it checks with the load
%
carrying capacity of each dowel.
%--------------------------------------------------------------------clear all
close all
clc
format short eng
n = 18;
f = 3;
% Number of bolts
% Number of forces pr. bolt
A = xlsread('abaqus.design.dowel.forces.xlsx',
'abaqus.design.dowel.forces', '$B$8:$HI$8');
% Matrices containing the forces in 1-, 2- and 3- direction and
% magnitude for each of the three wood surfaces
for i = 1:n;
cfn{i} = [ A(f*(i-1)+1:i*f)*(-1)
A(f*(n+i-1)+1:f*(n+i))*(-1)
A(f*(2*n+i-1)+1:f*(2*n+i))*(-1)
A(f*(3*n+i-1)+1:f*(3*n+i)) ];
end
dlmwrite('cfn.txt', cfn, 'delimiter', '\t', 'precision', 6)
% Vectors containing the forces in 1-, 2- and 3- direction and
% magnitude for each of the three wood surfaces
for i = 1:n;
CFN{i} = [ sum(cfn{i}(1,:))
sum(cfn{i}(2,:))
sum(cfn{i}(3,:))
sum(cfn{i}(4,:)) ];
end
dlmwrite('CFN .txt', CFN, 'delimiter', '\t', 'precision', 6)
% Vector containing only the magnitude of force in each bolt
for j = 1:2;
for i = 1:n/2;
CF(i,j) = sqrt(CFN{i+(n/2)*(j-1)}(1)^2+CFN{i+(n/2)*(j1)}(2)^2);
end
end
A.18
Appendix F
%--------------------------------------------------------------------%
Angles between forces and the relavent fibre direction
%--------------------------------------------------------------------a = 3.5;
% Inside height of the column
b = 6.0;
% Height of the house (centre line of the
% apex)
c = 7.0;
% Half width of the house
d = 0.40;
% Width of the column support
e = 0.69;
% Width of the column top
f = 0.40;
% Height of the apex
g = 0.69;
% Height og the beam at the corner
P5 = [0 a-(b-f/2-a)*e/(c+d/2-e)+g];
L6_slope = (b-(P5(2)-g/2))/(c+d/2);
alpha_6 = atan(L6_slope); % Angle of the system line through beam
part
fiber1 = [ 1; tan(alpha_6)];
fibredirection of the beam part
fiber2 = [ 0; 1];
fibredirection of the column part
% signed_angle = atan2(b.y,b.x) - atan2(a.y,a.x)
for j = 1:2;
for i = 1:n/2;
if j < 2
alpha(i,j) = atan2(CFN{i+(n/2)*(j-1)}(2),CFN{i+(n/2)*(j1)}(1))-atan2(fiber1(2),fiber1(1));
else
alpha(i,j) = atan2(CFN{i+(n/2)*(j-1)}(2),CFN{i+(n/2)*(j1)}(1))-atan2(fiber2(2),fiber2(1));
end
if alpha(i,j) <= -pi
alpha(i,j) = 2*pi+alpha(i,j);
elseif alpha(i,j) > pi
alpha(i,j) = 2*pi-alpha(i,j);
end
end
end
alpha_degrees = alpha*180/pi;
%--------------------------------------------------------------------%
Load carrying capacity
%--------------------------------------------------------------------ns = 2;
% Number of steel plates
dd = 0.028;
% Diameter of bolts [m]
k90 = 1.35+0.015*dd*10^3;
% for softwood
% k90 = 1.30+0.015*dd*10^3;
% for LVL
% k90 = 0.90+0.015*dd*10^3;
% for hardwood
kmod = 0.9;
% Modification factor
gamma_M = 1.25;
% Partial factor for material propeties
rho_wk = 550*9.81*10^(-6); % Density of wood [N/m^3]
st = 0.010;
% Thickness of the steel plate
bt = 0.20;
% Thickness of the glulam
t1 = (bt-2*st)/4;
% Distance between steel plate and timber
edge [m]
A.19
Appendix F
t2 = 2*t1;
fuk = 400.0;
dowels [MPa]
% Distance between the steel plates [m]

% Characteristic strength value of the
% Characteristic embedding strength parallel to grain direction [Pa]

fh0k = (0.082*(1-0.01*dd*10^3)*(rho_wk/9.81))*10^(6);
% Calculating the angle dependent charaqcteristic embedding strength
for j = 1:2;
for i = 1:n/2;
fhak(i,j) = (fh0k/(k90*sin(alpha(i,j))^2+cos(alpha(i,j))^2));
end
end
qk = fhak.*dd;
% Calculating the characteristic and design load carrying capacity for
each
% failure mode.
for j = 1:2;
for i =1:n/2;
% Failure mode I
FRk1(i,j) = (2*t1+(ns-1)*t2)*qk(i,j);
% Failure mode II
FRk2(i,j) = (2*t1*(sqrt(2+2/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)*(dd/t1)^2)-1)+(ns1)*t2)*qk(i,j);
% Failure mode III
FRk3(i,j) = (dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j))+(ns-1)*t2)*qk(i,j);
% Failure mode IV
FRk4(i,j) = (2*t1+(ns-1)*dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)))*qk(i,j);
% Failure mode V
FRk5(i,j) = (2*t1*(sqrt(2+2/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)*(dd/t1)^2)-1)+(ns1)*dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)))*qk(i,j);
% Failure mode VI
FRk6(i,j) = (ns*dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)))*qk(i,j);
end
end
for j = 1:2;
for i =1:n/2;
% Failure mode I
FRd1(i,j) = (2*t1+(ns-1)*t2)*qk(i,j).*(kmod/gamma_M);
% Failure mode II
FRd2(i,j) = (2*t1*(sqrt(2+2/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)*(dd/t1)^2)-1)+(ns1)*t2)*qk(i,j).*(kmod/gamma_M);
% Failure mode III
FRd3(i,j) = (dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j))+(ns1)*t2)*qk(i,j).*(kmod/gamma_M);
% Failure mode IV
FRd4(i,j) = (2*t1+(ns1)*dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)))*qk(i,j).*(kmod/gamma_M);
% Failure mode V
FRd5(i,j) = (2*t1*(sqrt(2+2/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)*(dd/t1)^2)-1)+(ns1)*dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)))*qk(i,j).*(kmod/gamma_M);
% Failure mode VI
FRd6(i,j) =
(ns*dd*sqrt(8/3*fuk/fhak(i,j)))*qk(i,j).*(kmod/gamma_M);
end
end
A.20
Appendix F
% The design load carrying capacity for each failure mode in each
bolt.
for j = 1:2;
for i = 1:n/2;
%
FRD{i+j*n-n} =
FRD{i,j} = [ FRd1(i,j)
FRd2(i,j)
FRd3(i,j)
FRd4(i,j)
FRd5(i,j)
FRd6(i,j) ];
end
end
% Determining the characteristic and design load carrying capacity for
each
% bolt (i.e. worst failure mode).
for j = 1:2;
for i = 1:n/2;
FRk(i,j) = min([ FRk1(i,j)
FRk2(i,j)
FRk3(i,j)
FRk4(i,j)
FRk5(i,j)
FRk6(i,j) ]);
end
end
for j = 1:2;
for i = 1:n/2;
FRd(i,j) = min([ FRd1(i,j)
FRd2(i,j)
FRd3(i,j)
FRd4(i,j)
FRd5(i,j)
FRd6(i,j) ]);
end
end
%--------------------------------------------------------------------%
Checking load carrying capacity of bolts
%--------------------------------------------------------------------k = 0;
for j = 1:2;
for i = 1:n/2;
CONTROL(i,j) = CF(i,j)./FRd(i,j);
if CONTROL(i,j)>1;
k = k+1;
end
end
end
if k>0;
fprintf('%.0f bolts are under dimensioned',k)
end
A.21
Appendix G
Appendix G
Force components of each contact surface caused by design load
Contact surfaces
Steel plates
Timber
Figure Appendix G.1: The three wooden surfaces in contact with each dowel.
A.22
Appendix G
Table Appendix G.1: Contact forces between the three timber surfaces per dowel surface given in the x-, y- and z-direction for connection group 1 due to the design
load. Moreover, the magnitude of each surface contact force is given. All the values are given in kN.
Connection group 1
3
Dowel no.
1
2
4
5
Contact
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
surface
x-direction -10.68 -22.56
-10.68 -13.05 -26.94
-13.03 -19.38 -42.61
-19.38
0.76
1.52
0.77
0.02
-0.01
0.01
y-direction -5.68 -12.11
-5.72 -2.40
-5.19
-2.40
2.85
5.35
2.84 -3.30
-6.63
-3.30
0.08
0.15
0.08
z-direction -1.7E-8 2.89E-8 5.75E-14 -1.5E-8 2.56E-8 6.54E-14 -2.1E-8 3.79E-8 -3.5E-13 -4.5E-9 6.6E-9 -6.2E-15 -2.1E-9 2.55E-9 -3.3E-15
Magnitude
12.09 25.61
12.12 13.27 27.43
13.25 19.59 42.95
19.59
3.39
6.80
3.39
0.09
0.15
0.08
6
Dowel no.
Contact
1
2
3
1
surface
x-direction -0.27
-0.67
-0.28 14.62
y-direction
5.19 10.90
5.19 -2.14
z-direction -6.1E-9 9.72E-9 -5.1E-14 -2E-8
Magnitude
5.20 10.92
5.20 14.77
7
2
8
3
9
3
30.96
14.61 14.92 30.90
14.90 20.21 44.57
20.20
-4.09
-2.14
3.25
7.09
3.25 10.56 23.29
10.56
2.98E-8 1.03E-13 -1.9E-8 3.14E-8 4.78E-14 -3.3E-8 5.73E-8 -4.8E-14
31.23
14.76 15.27 31.71
15.25 22.81 50.29
22.79
A.23
Appendix G
Table Appendix G.2: Contact forces between the three timber surfaces per dowel surface given in the x-, y- and z-direction for connection group 2 due to the design
Connection group 2
3
Dowel no.
1
2
4
5
Contact
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
surface
x-direction
1.68
3.54
1.72
2.06
4.10
2.06
2.86
5.78
2.83
-0.95
-1.92 -0.92
0.05
0.07
0.05
y-direction
10.41 22.06 10.42
-1.18
-2.48 -1.17
-12.02 -25.49 -11.99
10.30 21.35 10.24
-1.14
-2.33 -1.14
z-direction 7.54E-14 3.33E-8 -2.1E-8 4.37E-16 5.25E-9 -3.4E-9 9.94E-15 3.67E-8 -2.4E-8 7.3E-14 2.69E-8 -1.6E-8 -8.7E-15 4.16E-9 -2.8E-9
Magnitude
10.55 22.34 10.56
2.37
4.80
2.37
12.36 26.14 12.32
10.34 21.44 10.29
1.15
2.34
1.14
Dowel no.
Contact
surface
x-direction
y-direction
z-direction
Magnitude
6
1
7
3
8
3
9
3
-0.06
-0.41 -0.04
-5.23 -11.11 -5.26
-3.19
-6.79 -3.19
-2.84
-6.22 -2.85
-11.84 -24.56 -11.73
12.95 28.22 12.90
-1.89
-4.05 -1.89 -15.77 -34.82 -15.76
-2.3E-14 3.13E-8 -2.0E-8 -4.6E-14 4.72E-8 -2.9E-8 2.6E-14 1.34E-8 -9.4E-9 -1.2E-13 5.24E-8 -3.4E-8
11.84 24.56 11.73
13.97 30.32 13.93
3.71
7.91
3.71
16.03 35.37 16.02
A.24
Appendix H
Appendix H
Summed dowel force components caused by design load
Dowel no.
1
2
x-direction -43.92 -53.01
y-direction -23.51 -9.99
z-direction 1.14E-8 1.1E-8
49.82 53.95
Magnitude
Dowel no.
x-direction
y-direction
z-direction
Magnitude
Connection group 1
3
4
5
6
-81.37
3.05
0.02
-1.21
11.03 -13.23
0.31
21.29
1.67E-8 2.12E-9 4.52E-10 3.59E-9
82.12
13.58
0.32
21.32
Connection group 2
4
5
7
8
9
60.19
60.73
84.98
-8.36
13.60
44.40
1.0E-8 1.26E-8 2.45E-8
60.77
62.23
95.88
6.94
8.23
11.46
-3.79
0.18
-0.51 -21.59
42.89
-4.83 -49.50
41.89
-4.62 -48.12
54.07
1.2E-8 1.88E-9 1.23E-8 1.06E-8 1.38E-9 1.17E-8 1.83E-8
43.45
9.54
50.81
42.06
4.62
48.13
58.22
-13.17 -11.91
-7.83 -66.36
4.0E-9 1.85E-8
15.32
67.42
A.25
Appendix I
Appendix I
The model-script MainFrameMoisture.py is only available in its full length on the
attach CD-ROM because of the amount of physical pages required to print it. The addon to design model script MainFrameDesign.py that separates the two script files is
at the end of the file.
A.26
Appendix J
Appendix J
The file abaqus.moisture.dowel.forces.rpt containing the raw data is only available on
the attached CD-ROM.
A.27
Appendix K
Appendix K
The MatLab-script abq_cfn_moisture.m computing the components of the dowel
forces, their angle to the fibre direction from the raw data of Abaqus and checking the
load carrying capacity of the dowels and the timber cross section. Is only available on
the attached CD-ROM.
A.28
Appendix L
Appendix L
Force components of each contact surface caused by moisture load
Contact surfaces
Steel plates
Timber
Figure Appendix L.1: The three wooden surfaces in contact with each dowel.
A.29
Appendix L
Table Appendix L.1: Contact forces between the three timber surfaces per dowel surface given in the x-, y- and z-direction for connection group 1 due to moisture
Dowel no.
Contact
surface
x-direction
y-direction
z-direction
Magnitude
Dowel no.
Contact
surface
x-direction
y-direction
z-direction
Magnitude
1
1
-7.27 -14.88
15.22 33.27
-2.8E-8 4.7E-8
16.86 36.44
2
3
4
3
5
3
-6.89
-2.66 -4.31
-2.01
1.51
3.06
2.08
-6.07 -12.15
-5.49
0.87
3.98
1.92
15.36 12.67 27.80
12.90 16.65 35.68
16.98
1.15
2.72
1.30
0.17
0.75
0.41
4.1E-14 -1.7E-8 3.0E-8 2.9E-14 -1.6E-8 3.9E-8 -6.6E-14 -8.6E-9 1.6E-8 -3.0E-14 -5.0E-9 6.5E-9 1.5E-15
16.83 12.95 28.13
13.05 16.72 35.81
17.11
6.17 12.45
5.64
0.89
4.05
1.96
6
1
Connection group 1
3
7
3
8
3
9
3
8.92 18.94
9.80
-4.18 -8.03
-3.34
0.17
2.23
1.14
6.39 14.50
7.36
-0.51 -0.95
-0.05 -14.91 -32.03 -14.74 -13.72 -28.92
-13.39 -17.95 -37.88
-17.40
-1.1E-8 2.0E-8 -1.8E-14 -1.8E-8 3.4E-8 1.4E-13 -1.4E-8 3.1E-8 -7.4E-14 -1.8E-8 5.0E-8 -2.3E-13
8.93 18.96
9.80 15.49 33.02
15.12 13.72 29.01
13.44 19.05 40.56
18.89
A.30
Dowel no.
Contact
surface
x-direction
y-direction
z-direction
Magnitude
Dowel no.
Contact
surface
x-direction
y-direction
z-direction
Magnitude
Connection group 2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
-16.50 -35.74 -16.40
-2.26 -5.05
-2.23
2.09
4.17
2.90
3.47
7.91
4.28
8.9E-14 5.3E-8 -3.5E-8 1.1E-13 1.7E-8 -1.6E-8
16.63 35.99 16.66
4.14
9.39
4.82
6
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
13.58 29.19 13.62
-13.20 -28.37 -13.18
0.25
0.62
0.16
6.93 15.16
7.47
-1.44 -3.66
-0.45
-2.28 -5.04
-1.29
1.6E-13 5.3E-8 -3.8E-8 -2.2E-14 4.0E-8 -2.2E-8 -1.6E-14 9.5E-9 -6.3E-9
15.25 32.89 15.54
13.28 28.60 13.19
2.30
5.08
1.30
8
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
13.25 28.35 13.24 -16.86 -34.76 -17.01
3.06
6.13
3.00
18.90 40.02 18.98
3.20
6.50
3.89
-6.39 -12.22
-5.25
-9.10 -16.62
-8.12
-1.21 -1.82
-0.55
6.8E-14 4.2E-8 -2.6E-8 4.7E-14 5.7E-8 -1.7E-8 -9.2E-15 3.0E-8 -8.3E-9 -2.2E-13 5.9E-8 -2.7E-8
13.63 29.09 13.80
18.03 36.85 17.80
9.60 17.72
8.66
18.94 40.06 18.99
A.31
Appendix M
Appendix M
Summed dowel force components caused by design load
Dowel no.
x-direction
y-direction
z-direction
Magnitude
Dowel no.
x-direction
y-direction
z-direction
Magnitude
1
-29.03
63.84
1.9E-8
70.14
2
-8.99
53.37
1.4E-8
54.13
-68.65
-9.54
9.17
15.66
1.8E-8 2.0E-10
69.28
18.35
Connection group 1
4
5
6.66
69.32
2.3E-8
69.65
-23.71
5.17
7.8E-9
24.27
6.77
1.33
1.5E-9
6.90
Connection group 2
4
5
56.39
29.56
1.5E-8
63.67
-54.75
-5.55
1.8E-8
55.08
1.03
-8.61
3.1E-9
8.67
6
37.66
-1.51
8.9E-9
37.69
6
54.84
13.59
1.5E-8
56.52
7
-15.55
-61.68
1.6E-8
63.62
7
-68.63
-23.86
4.0E-8
72.68
8
3.54
-56.03
1.6E-8
56.17
8
12.19
-33.84
2.2E-8
35.97
9
28.24
-73.23
3.2E-8
78.50
9
77.90
-3.58
3.2E-8
77.99
A.32
Appendix N
Appendix N
Force components of each contact surface caused by dead load
Contact surfaces
Steel plates
Timber
Figure Appendix L.1: The three wooden surfaces in contact with each dowel.
A.33
Appendix N
Table Appendix L.1: Contact forces between the three timber surfaces per dowel surface given in the x-, y- and z-direction for connection group 1 due to dead load.
Moreover, the magnitude of each surface contact force is given. All the values are given in kN.
Connection group 1
Dowel
no.
Contact
surface
x
y
z
Mag
Dowel
no.
Contact
surface
x
y
z
Mag
1
1
2
3
3
3
-1,35 -2,85
-1,35 -1,66 -3,42
-1,65
-2,46 -5,40
-0,79 -1,66
-0,79 -0,35 -0,75
-0,35
0,32
0,60
-2,1E-9 3,5E-9 6,1E-15 -2,0E-9 3,3E-9 8,0E-15 -3,3E-9 5,5E-9
1,56 3,30
1,57
1,69 3,50
1,69
2,48
5,44
6
1
7
3
4
3
-2,46
0,12
0,23
0,12
-0,01
-0,04
-0,02
0,32
-0,40
-0,80
-0,40
0,02
0,03
0,02
-4E-14 -4,9E-10 7,4E-10 -8,6E-16 -1,3E-10 1,3E-10 -4,7E-17
2,48
0,42
0,83
0,42
0,02
0,05
0,02
8
3
9
3
-0,05 -0,10
-0,05
1,91 4,04
1,90
1,88
3,89
1,87
2,49
0,73 1,52
0,73 -0,17 -0,31
-0,17
0,52
1,11
0,52
1,44
-7,4E-10 1,2E-9 -7,8E-15 -2,7E-9 4,1E-9 1,1E-14 -2,6E-9 4,1E-9 5,9E-15 -3,7E-9
0,73 1,52
0,73
1,91 4,05
1,91
1,95
4,05
1,95
2,88
2
5,49
3,15
6,5E-9
6,33
3
2,49
1,44
-6E-15
2,88
A.34
Connection group 2
Dowel
no.
Contact
surface
x
y
z
Mag
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
0,26 0,54
0,26
0,26
0,51
0,26
0,32 0,65
0,32
-0,08 -0,17
-0,08
-0,01
-0,02
-0,01
1,30 2,76
1,30
-0,16
-0,35
-0,16
-1,55 -3,29
-1,55
1,29 2,68
1,29
-0,16
-0,32
-0,16
9,1E-15 4,6E-9 -3,1E-9 2,1E-16 7,3E-10 -4,4E-10 2,5E-15 5,1E-9 -3,5E-9 9,1E-15 3,7E-9 -2,3E-9 -9,2E-16 5,9E-10 -4,1E-10
1,32 2,81
1,32
0,31
0,62
0,31
1,58 3,35
1,58
1,29 2,69
1,29
0,16
0,32
0,16
Dowel
no.
6
Contact
1
2
3
1
surface
x
-0,05 -0,13
-0,05
-0,62
y
-1,51 -3,15
-1,50
1,61
z
-3,4E-15 4,6E-9 -3,1E-9 -5,0E-15
Mag
1,51 3,15
1,50
1,72
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
-1,32
-0,62
-0,44 -0,93
-0,44
-0,40 -0,87
-0,40
3,51
1,60
-0,25 -0,54
-0,25
-1,97 -4,35
-1,97
6,3E-9 -4,0E-9 2,9E-15 1,6E-9 -1,1E-9 -1,6E-14 7,3E-9 -4,8E-9
3,75
1,72
0,51 1,07
0,51
2,01 4,43
2,01
A.35
Appendix O
Appendix O
The model-script MainFrameDead.py is only available in its full length on the
attach CD-ROM because of the amount of physical pages required to print it.
A.36
Appendix P
The file abaqus.dead.dowel.forces.rpt containing the raw data is only available on the
attached CD-ROM.
A.37
Appendix Q
The MatLab-script abq_cfn_dead.m computing the components of the dowel forces,
their angle to the fibre direction from the raw data of Abaqus and checking the load
carrying capacity of the dowels and the timber cross section. Is only available on the
attached CD-ROM.
A.38

Numerical Simulation of Timber Connections With Slotted-In Stell Plates. Michael Nygaard Nonbo 2010

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Numerical Simulation of Timber Connections With Slotted-In Stell Plates. Michael Nygaard Nonbo 2010

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Master Thesis

Numerical Simulation of Timber

Michael Nygaard Nonbo

Lyngby, July 2010

Structure of the thesis ...................................................................................... 12

Literature review .............................................................................................. 12

Frame and overall corner dimensions .............................................................. 14

Dowel placing and numbering ......................................................................... 16

Dimension of the steel plates ........................................................................... 17

Hand calculations .................................................................................................... 23

Cross sectional forces ............................................................................... 27

Dowel forces ............................................................................................. 30

Load carrying capacity of the dowel connections .................................... 32

Structure of the model...................................................................................... 34

Dowel forces ............................................................................................. 48

Comparing hand and FEM-calculations.................................................................. 50

Moisture load .......................................................................................................... 52

Applying moisture load ................................................................................... 53

Dowel forces ............................................................................................. 59

Combining moisture with other load cases ...................................................... 60

Dead and moisture load combination ....................................................... 60

Design and moisture load combination .................................................... 62

Discussion and Conclusion.................................................................................. 64

Future research .................................................................................................... 65

Figure 1.1: Collapsed connections of the Siemens Super Arena in Ballerup.

1.2 Problem identification

Figure 1.3: Principle construction of the corner section of the frame.

1.3 Structure of the thesis

1.4 Literature review

3.1 Frame and overall corner dimensions

. The remaining coordinates to the point

Inside column height

Minimum distance between fasteners in

3.2 Dowel placing and numbering

3.3 Dimension of the steel plates

Table 4.1: Characteristic and design strength parameters of GL32 [MPa].

Table 4.2: Stiffness properties of the wood material.

, where i is either l, r or t and is the change in moisture content of the timber.

area in the x-y-plane is

and the volume is then

, where bt is the thickness of the frame. For a timber density of w = 550

The surface area of the roof/beam of half a frame is

and the uniform dead load on the beam is then:

are unit vectors perpendicular to a vector from the

centre of the connection group to the dowel.

, here j is the number of the connection group.

Left corner Top

Figure 6.6: Deformation of the frame due to design load.

x-component -0.153 -0.195 -0.237 0.042

x-component -0.085 -0.140 -0.195 0.055

0.0 -0.042 0.237 0.195 0.153

0.0 -0.055 0.195 0.140 0.085

6.2.4 Load carrying capacity of the dowel connections

Figure 7.1: Part 1 Corner peace of the

Figure 7.2: Part 2 Corner peace of the beam.

Figure 7.3: Part 3 One of the steel plates

Figure 7.4: Part 4 One of the steel dowels.

Figure 7.5: Part 5 One of the wooden ring

Figure 7.6: Part 6 One of the steel rings which are

Figure 7.11: Meshing of Part 1.

Figure 7.12: Meshing of Part 2.

Figure 7.13: Meshing of Part 3.

Figure 7.14: Meshing of Part 4.