Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Comparison of models and tests on bottom rails in timber frame shear

walls experiencing uplift
Giuseppe Caprolu a,, Ulf Arne Girhammar a, Bo Kllsner b
a
Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Division of Structural and Construction Engineering Timber Structures, Lule University of Technology,
SE-971 87 Lule, Sweden
b
Department of Building Technology, Faculty of Technology, Linnaeus University, Vxj, Sweden

h i g h l i g h t s

 We present a matching experimental study of three experiments programs.

 We evaluate several fracture mechanics models able to evaluate the failure load of each failure mode.
 The analytical models are compared with the test results.
 We present models for each failure mode that show the best tting with the experimental results.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The authors present two different studies: one experimental study and one where analytical models
Received 10 December 2014 developed to calculate the splitting failure capacity of bottom rails in partially anchored timber frame
Received in revised form 26 May 2015 shear walls are evaluated and validated. The experimental study was divided into three parts with spec-
Accepted 29 May 2015
imens matched to each other: (1) rst the splitting capacity and failure mode of bottom rails subjected to
uplift were studied; (2) then material properties such as tensile strength perpendicular to the grain; and
(3) fracture energy were determined by testing specimens cut from the specimens belonging to study
Keywords:
(1). The experimental results were compared with models based on a linear fracture mechanics approach
Bottom rail
Splitting of bottom rail
presented earlier, using as input values results from (2) and (3). Almost all tested models show good
Timber shear walls agreement with the test results. The models showing the best agreement have been selected and pro-
Partially anchored posed to be used as basis for calculation of the splitting failure capacity of bottom rails in partially
Fracture energy anchored timber frame shear walls.
Tensile strength perpendicular to the grain 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Shear walls are structural elements designed to transmit
horizontal and vertical forces in their own plane. Shear walls are
used, together with roof and oor diaphragms, to stabilise
timber-framed buildings against external loads. The structural
behaviour of shear walls is to a large extent determined by the
sheathing-to-framing joints and by the connection between walls
and the surrounding structure. Of particular importance is the
anchoring of the shear wall to the oor/foundation, which is pro-
vided by hold-downs and anchor bolts.
[1] pointed out the importance to understand the differences
between hold-downs and anchor bolts. Anchor bolts provide
Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 72 212 41 44.
E-mail addresses: giuseppe.caprolu@ltu.se (G. Caprolu), ulf.arne.girhammar@ltu.
se (U.A. Girhammar), bo.kallsner@lnu.se (B. Kllsner).
horizontal shear continuity between the bottom rail and the foun-
dation. Hold-downs serve as vertical anchorage devices between
the vertical end studs and the foundation. If the uplifting force is
prevented at the leading stud by any means, the case correspond-
ing to fully anchored shear walls, the vertical loads are directly
transferred to the substrate, resulting in a concentrated force at
the leading end of the wall, Fig. 1a. In this case the leading stud
fully interacts with the substrate and there is no vertical uplift of
the studs of the walls.
When hold-downs are not provided, the corresponding
tying-down forces may be replaced by vertical loads from
dead-weight or anchorage forces transferred from transverse walls.
In the case of no such anchoring forces or devices or if they do not
fully counteract the uplifting forces, the case corresponding to par-
tially anchored shear walls, the bottom row of nails transmits the
vertical forces in the sheathing to the bottom rail (instead of the
vertical stud) where the anchor bolts will further transmit the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.125
0950-0618/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163
(a)
(c)
Fig. 1. Structural behaviour of timber frame shear walls subjected to horizontal loading: (a) a fully anchored shear wall concentrated anchorage of the leading stud to
counteract the uplifting force; (b) a partially anchored shear wall distributed anchoring forces in the sheathing-to-framing joints along the bottom rail and through the
anchoring bolts down to the substrate; (c) a crack opening from the bottom surface of the bottom rail; and (d) a crack opening from the edge surface of the bottom rail along
the line of the sheathing-to-framing joints.
forces into the foundation. This results in a distributed force,
Fig. 1b. Because of the eccentric load transfer, transverse bending
is created in the bottom rail and splitting may occur.
In [2], an experimental study is presented. Four types of par-
tially anchored shear walls with varying nail size and spacing,
and with small round or big square washers, were tested under
tensile loading (perpendicular to the bottom rail) with three sam-
ples per type of conguration. Splitting along the bottom side of
the bottom rail was the predominant failure mode for shear walls
with small round washers, but in two of the nine tests, splitting
along the edge side of the bottom rail occurred. When square
washers were used, splitting along the edge side of the bottom rail
was the dominating failure mode. In one of the three tests, the
sheathing-to-framing joints of the top rail failed. Thus, big square
washers suppress the bottom rail cross-grain failure mode. These
specimens also showed an increased peak load.
In [3,4] two experimental programs on the splitting capacity of
bottom rails with single- and double-sided sheathing, respectively,
were presented, and it has been shown that two brittle failure
modes may take place in the bottom rail: (1) a crack opening from
the bottom surface of the bottom rail, according to Fig. 1c; and (2) a
crack opening from the edge surface of the bottom rail along the
line of the sheathing-to-framing joints, according to Fig. 1d.
In [5] a plastic model for the design of timber frame shear walls
was developed. The model covers only static loads and can be used
for both fully and partially anchored shear walls. However, in order
to use the method, the bottom rail must not experience brittle fail-
ure and a plastic behaviour of the sheathing-to-framing joints has
to be ensured. In [6] two models based on a linear fracture
mechanics approach, one for each failure mode were presented
and evaluated. In [7] other analytical models, still based on a linear
fracture mechanics approach, have been developed and evaluated.
Some of those models were based on the assumptions in [6] while
others were derived using the end-notched beam model in [8], the
beam model loaded perpendicular to the grain by a bolt located
close to the edge in [9] and a linear elastic fracture mechanics
model for a simply supported beam loaded perpendicular to the
grain by a single load at mid-span derived in [10].
When evaluating these models, the values of fracture energy, Gf ,
and tensile strength perpendicular to the grain, ft,90, were taken
149
(b)
(d)
from literature. The failure modes found during the bottom rail
tests needed a Gf value in approximately the TR and RT planes
and a ft,90 value in approximately the tangential and radial direc-
tions, for failure mode 1 and 2, respectively. This is of course an
approximation. Due to the annual ring orientations, it is hard to
exactly state the right orientation for each failure mode.
However, it is possible to say that these orientations are dominat-
ing with respect to the failure mode, even if in reality it is a mixture
between TR and RT planes for Gf and T and R directions for ft,90. Due
to the orthotropic characteristics of the timber, it was hard to nd
these values for the needed orientation and for the same timber
species. [11] summarized the results of some studies on ft,90,
namely [1214]. He pointed out that ft,90 strongly depends on the
annual ring orientations, the strain rates applied during the tests,
the density, the moisture, the temperature and the volume of the
specimen.
The aim of the present study is as follows:
 to experimentally determine the splitting capacity and failure
modes of bottom rails subjected to uplift;
 to experimentally determine the fracture energy Gf and the ten-
sile strength perpendicular to the grain ft,90 in the needed orien-
tation for failure mode 1, vertical crack, and mode 2, horizontal
crack, from the same specimen tested in the bottom rail exper-
imental program;
 to evaluate the models presented in [6,7] using the material
properties determined above and compare the results with
the experimental results obtained in the tests of bottom rails
subjected to uplift.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Matching test program
A comprehensive number of tests of bottom rails subjected to vertical uplift
have been reported in [3,4]. In order to obtain a deeper understanding of the timber
material properties used in the testing of the bottom rails, an additional experimen-
tal program was decided to be run. The reason was to obtain more reliable informa-
tion on material parameters that may be used in connection with the fracture
mechanics analyses. In this new test series with matched specimens three types
of tests were run:
150 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163

 Bottom rails subjected to uplift; Table 1

 Tensile strength perpendicular to the grain for horizontal and vertical crack Test program for bottom rail tests. PD = pith downwards, PU = pith upwards,
direction; b = width of rail (notations as in Fig. 3). The series vary according to the anchor
 Fracture energy for horizontal and vertical crack direction. bolt position bbolt, while the sets vary according to the distance s.

Series Bolt position Set Distance sa Size of washer Number

First the bottom rail was tested and then the two other specimens for the material
of tests
testing were cut from the bottom rail specimen, in order to have all parameters
needed to evaluate the formulas given in [6,7] using the individual material proper- bbolt [mm] [mm] PD PU
ties of each bottom rail. In [6,7] the analyses were carried out with bottom rail test
1 b/2 1 40 40  40  15 3 3
results from experimental programs run by the rst author, but with values of ft,90
60 mm 2 30 60  60  15 3 3
and Gf found in literature, which might have resulted in not so accurately results.
3 20 80  70  15 3 3
The original boards from which the specimens were cut had a cross section of 4 10 100  70  15 3 3
120  45 mm and a length of about 5 m. Each board was cut into four parts; then
two parts were used to build bottom rail specimens with expected failure mode 2 3b/8 1 25 40  40  15 3 3
1 and the other two to build bottom rail specimens with expected failure mode 45 mm 2 15 60  60  15 3 3
2, according to Fig. 2. Study A in [3] was used to foresee which kind of failure mode 3 5 80  70  15 3 3
would occur in the bottom rail. In that study, the distance between the nails in the 3 b/4 1 10 40  40  15 3 3
timber-to-sheathing joints was 25 mm. This distance was chosen; despite it is not a 30 mm 2 0 60  60  15 3 3
realistic distance, in order to avoid failure due to yielding and withdrawal of the
a
nails. For the bottom rail experimental program, as given in Table 1, the same char- Distance from washer edge to loaded edge of the bottom rail.
acteristics were used as in study A in [3]. The plan was to test 15 specimens for Gf
tests for horizontal crack and 33 for vertical crack, and 15 specimens for ft,90 for hor- bottom rail is dened as h. Six specimens were tested in each set, three with the
izontal crack and 33 for vertical crack. According to study A in [3] we can expect pith oriented downwards (PD) and three with the pith oriented upwards (PU).
that the vertical crack failure mode will occur for rails like the ones in Series 1, The test program is specied in Table 1.
Set 1, 2 and 3 and that the horizontal crack failure mode will occur for rails like
the ones in Series 2, Set 3 and Series 3, Set 1 and 2, with the variation of series given 2.2.3. Test set-up
by the anchor bolt position and that of sets by the variation of the washer size, The test set-up is shown in Fig. 3, for further details the reader should refer to
according to Table 1 and Fig. 3c. [3].
For bottom rails with expected mode 2 failure, but where there was also some The bottom rail was fastened to a supporting welded steel structure by two
possibility that failure mode 1 would occur, it was decided to test the fracture anchor bolts. The distance between the bolts was 600 mm and the distance
energy and the tensile strength perpendicular to grain in the directions of both fail- between bolt and the end of the bottom rail was 150 mm. A rigid square-or
ure modes. This was done to see if there were any relationships between the mate- rectangular-shaped washer was inserted between the bottom rail and the bolt head
rial properties and the failure modes and loads of the bottom rail. throughout all tests. The thickness of the washer (15 mm) was chosen so that there
would not arise any visible permanent deformations in the washers. A hydraulic
piston (static load capacity 100 kN) was attached to a steel bar, that was connected
2.2. Bottom Rail to the upper part of the hardboard sheathing using C-shaped steel proles and four
bolts 16. A hinge was used allowing the specimen to rotate, according to Fig. 3a.
2.2.1. Material properties The distance between the nails in the sheathing-to-timber joint was 25 mm. The
The specimens were built by hand using rails of length 900 mm with a cross reason to have such a small nail distance was to have strong
section of 45  120 mm, joined to a hardboard sheet of 900  500 mm by nails sheathing-to-framing joints in order to avoid yielding and withdrawal of the nails
50  2.1 mm. and have splitting failure in the bottom rails. A torque moment of 50 Nm was used
The details of the test specimens were as follow: to tighten the bolts. A tensile load was applied to the upper part of the panel with a
displacement rate of 2 mm/min.
 Bottom rail: spruce (Picea Abies), C24 according to [15], 45  120 mm. For each specimen the moisture content and density of the bottom rail were
 Sheathing: hardboard, 8 mm (wet process bre board, HB.HLA2, [16], Masonite measured after the test, according to [17,18], respectively.
AB).
 Sheathing-to-timber joints: Annular ringed shank nails, 50  2.1 mm (Duofast,
Nordisk Kartro AB). The joints were nailed manually and the holes were 2.3. Tensile strength perpendicular to the grain
pre-drilled, only in the sheet, 1.7 mm. The centre distance between nails was
25 mm. 2.3.1. Material properties
 Anchor bolt: 12 (M12). The holes in the bottom rails were pre-drilled, 13 mm. In this section for specimen is meant the part needed to be tested, while for full
specimen is meant the specimen glued to the two timber pieces needed for the
tests. The full specimens were built by hand using two different dimensions depen-
dent on the direction tested. The specimen was glued to two pieces of timber
2.2.2. Test program
1 month before testing and kept in a climate controlled chamber with relative
A total of 54 specimens, according to Fig. 3, were tested. The specimens were
humidity RH 65%. The density of the specimens was measured before gluing; how-
divided into three different series, where each series was divided into different sets.
ever for few of them, by mistake, it was not measured. Once that the full specimens
The series were subdivided with regard to the position of the anchor bolt (bbolt) with
were built, the surfaces were accurately prepared to ensure that they were plane.
respect to the width b of the bottom rail (Fig. 3b and c). Knowing the anchor bolt
This was made with an electronic planer.
position and the washer size, the distance s between the washer edge and the edge
The details of the test specimens were as follow:
of the bottom rail at the loaded side as shown in Fig. 3b and c, is dened. The sets
were subdivided with regard to the distance s (Fig. 3b and c). The depth of the
 Specimen: the timber was the same as for the bottom rail tests. The dimensions
of the specimen were as follow: 45  70  45 mm and 45  70  120 mm for
horizontal crack and vertical crack direction, respectively. Glue (two different
glues were used for the specimens):

1. Wood Glue PU Light 421 1-component moisture-curing polyurethane adhe-

sive, water resistant according to [19,20] class D4;
2. CASCO Adhesive, Adhesive 1711 + Hardener 2520 (Phenol Resorcinol).
 Reinforcement: Fiberglass.

2.3.2. Test program

Fig. 2. Scheme of how to cut and select the boards for the specimens (PU = pith
upwards, PD = pith downwards). *Specimens with expected mode 1 failure. These
boards were then selected and specimens for tests for Gf and ft,90 for the vertical
crack direction were cut. **Specimens with expected mode 2 failure. These boards
were then selected and specimens for test for Gf and ft,90 for the horizontal crack
direction were cut.
According to [21], the dimensions of a structural timber specimen for determi-
nation of the tensile strength perpendicular to grain should be as given in Fig. 4a
with an area of 45  70 mm for the glued interface and with a depth e of
180 mm. However, due to the small dimensions of the bottom rails studied it was
not possible to follow these requirements.
The dimensions of the specimens used in the experimental program are speci-
ed in Table 2. In Fig. 4b and c it is shown how the specimens were cut from the
bottom rails.
 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163 151

Fig. 3. Test set-up and boundary conditions of sheathed bottom rails subjected to single-sided vertical uplift. (a) Boundary conditions: a hinge is used allowing the specimen
to rotate; (b) cross-section of the specimen. The distance s is the distance between the washer edge and the loaded edge of the bottom rail; and (c) series and set variation of
the test program. The series vary according to the anchor bolt position bbolt and the set according to the distance s. Units in mm.

It is important to note that the difference in specimen size gives a difference in
specimen volume. As highlighted in [11] the perpendicular to grain tensile strength
is strongly size dependent and this should be taken into account when analysing
the results.
A total of 48 specimens, according to Fig. 5, were tested: 15 for the horizontal
crack direction and 33 for the vertical crack direction. For both the directions, a
few trial tests were made. When the trial tests failed in the right way, they were
included in the test program. The dimensions of the test specimens differ with
respect to the direction tested. For the horizontal crack direction the specimen
had dimensions according to Fig. 5a and b while for the vertical crack direction
the specimen had dimensions according to Fig. 5d and e. The width u, the thick-
ness v and the depth e are also dened in Fig. 5b and e. The test program and ure plane is directed to that area and then the Weibull theory to account for the vol-
specimen sizes are specied in Table 2; where in the last row the dimensions of
the specimens according to [21] are given.
then taken. For the specimens tested for the vertical crack direction, the volume of
the specimen was reduced by two half circles, or here called waist, having a diam-
eter of 18 mm. They were positioned at the middle of the specimen depth along the
edges, as shown in Fig. 5a and d. The reason for this was to have a part of the spec-
imen with a smaller cross section and to have the failure there. For the specimens
tested for the horizontal crack direction the tensile strength perpendicular-to-grain
was found to be higher than that found for the other crack direction, therefore the
addition of the waist was not enough in order to get the failure within the speci-
men. For that reason the glue lines were strengthened by addition of berglass (this
was made also for a few specimens in tangential direction), as shown in
Fig. 5c and f. (It should be mentioned that due to the reduction of the area the fail-
ume effect is not directly applicable under these circumstances. Also, the reduced
area creates some stress concentrations that can have some inuence).

2.3.3. Test set-up 2.4. Fracture energy

The test set-up is shown in Fig. 5. Each specimen was glued to two pieces of
timber, with dimensions according to Table 2 and Fig. 5a and d, dependent on
the direction tested. The full specimen was then connected to steel bars which in
turn were connected to the testing machine by dowels, as shown in Fig. 5g. The
machine used was a universal testing Machine UTM Alwetron TCT 50. The tests
were performed under displacement control and a tensile load was applied by a
hydraulic piston with a rate of 10 mm/min until a load of 20 N was reached and
then with a rate of 0.5 mm/min until failure. The displacement rate was chosen
according to [21], where it is suggested that it shall be adjusted so that the maxi-
mum load is reached within (300 120) seconds. A few trial tests were performed
in order to nd the right displacement rate. During the trial tests the failure was
found to occur in the glued interface instead of the specimen. Two measures were
2.4.1. Material properties
The preparation of the specimens was the same as for the specimens for the
tensile strength perpendicular to the grain in Section 2.3.1.
The details of the test specimens were as follow:
 Specimen: the timber was the same as for the bottom rail tests. The dimensions
of the specimen were as follow: 45  45  45 mm for both vertical and horizon-
tal crack orientation, with a notch length of 0.6  45 mm and a width of 2 mm.
In order to obtain a stable curve after the peak load had been passed, the notch
length was increased by 3 mm with a razor blade. Glue (two different glues
were used for the specimens):
152 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163

Fig. 4. Dimensions of test specimens for determination of tensile strength perpendicular to grain. (a) Specimen according to [21]; (b) specimen for determination of the
tensile strength perpendicular to the vertical crack, corresponding to mode 1 failure; and (c) specimen for determination of the tensile strength perpendicular to the
horizontal crack, corresponding to mode 2 failure. Only the part to the right, surrounded by dashed lines, belongs to the specimen.

Table 2
3. Results
Test program of ft,90 tests (notation as in Fig. 5).

Series Direction of the crack Specimen size Number of tests
[mm]
u v e Two primary failure modes were found during the tests:
1 Horizontal 70 45 45 18a
2 Vertical 70 45 120 34b
Specimen size as in [21] 70 45 180
a
15 tests were planned but the three trial tests have been added.
b
33 tests were planned but one of the three trial tests has been added.
1. Wood Glue PU Light 421 1-component moisture-curing polyurethane adhe-
sive, water resistant according to [19] and [20] class D4;
2. CASCO Adhesive, Adhesive 1711 + Hardener 2520 (Phenol Resorcinol).
2.4.2. Test program
A total of 48 specimens, according to Fig. 6 and [22], were tested: 15 for the hor-
izontal crack orientation and 33 for the vertical crack orientation. For both the
directions, a few trial tests were made. The dimensions of the test specimens were
chosen according to Fig. 6a and b. The width c, the thickness d and the depth
equal to c are also dened in Fig. 6a and b. The dimensions of the notch are
dened in Fig. 6b. The two different orientations tested are shown in
Fig. 6c and d, while in Fig. 6e and f details of the test set-up are shown. The test pro-
gram is specied in Table 3.
2.4.3. Test set-up
The test set-up is shown in Fig. 6. The specimen was glued to two pieces of
timber, according to Fig. 6a. The dimensions were chosen according to
Fig. 6a and b. The tests were made according to [22]. The full test specimen
was simply supported at both ends by two steel cylinders, as shown in Fig. 6f,
and loaded at midpoint through a cone connected to the load cell, according
to Fig. 6e. A 1 mm thick rubber layers were placed between the wood test spec-
imen and the supports. The same was done between the wood test specimen
and the cone connected to the load cell. The machine used was the same as
for the tensile strength perpendicular to the grain tests; a universal testing
Machine UTM Alwetron TCT 50.
The tests were performed under displacement control and a compression load
with a rate of 1.30 mm/min until failure was applied by a hydraulic piston. The dis-
placement rate was chosen according to [22], where it is suggested that it shall be
adjusted so that collapse is obtained in about 3 1 min. A few trial tests were per-
formed in order to nd the right displacement rate.
During the trial tests the load vs. deection curve was found to be unstable. As a
solution, the length of the notch was increased by 3 mm using a razor blade, accord-
ing to Fig. 6e.
3.1. Bottom rail
(1) Splitting along the bottom side of the rail according to
Fig. 7a.
(2) Splitting along the edge side of the rail according to Fig. 7b.
This is according to what was found during the other experi-
mental programs related to bottom rail tests, [3,4], but where also
a third failure mode, yielding and withdrawal of the nails in the
sheathing-to-framing joints, was found. This third failure mode
did not happen in this experimental program probably due to the
small distance 25 mm between the nails, that we deliberately
choose to use.
In Fig. 8, the number of observations of the two different failure
modes is graphically shown for the series of the study. It is noted
that the predominant failure mode is failure mode 1, splitting fail-
ure along the bottom side of the rail. It is also possible to note an
inuence between the distance s and the failure mode. For small
values of distance s, failure mode 2 occurs.
The failure load for the two brittle failure modes is dened as
the load at which there is a rst distinct decrease in the load car-
rying capacity due to a propagating crack in the bottom rail. The
results of the different tests are summarized in Table 4. The failure
loads of the study are presented with respect to the pith orienta-
tion. Mean failure load and mean density are presented with
respect to the failure mode. The dry density, dened as the ratio
between the mass of the specimen after drying and the volume
of the specimen before drying at moisture content x, indicated
as q0,x, is shown in Table 4 as mean value per set and failure mode.
The mean moisture content per set, indicated as x, is also shown.
For failure mode 1 the location of the crack initiation, the dis-
tance bcrack1, somewhere between the middle of the width and
the loaded edge of the bottom rail, according to Fig. 7a, was
recorded. For failure mode 2 the length of the horizontal crack
before it changes in a more vertical direction, bcrack2, according to
Fig. 7b, was also recorded. These values, together with failure mode
and load, are given in Table 5 for each specimen.
 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163 153

Fig. 5. Test set-up for the tensile strength perpendicular to grain tests. (a) Specimen glued to two pieces of timber for test for the horizontal crack direction; (b) dimensions of
the test specimen for horizontal crack direction; (c) berglass reinforcement for specimen tested for horizontal crack direction; (d) specimen glued to two pieces of timber for
test for the vertical crack direction; (e) dimensions of the test specimen for vertical crack direction; (f) berglass reinforcement for specimen tested for vertical crack
direction; and (g) the connection between the specimen and the steel bars connected to the hydraulic piston.

Fig. 6. Test set-up for the fracture energy tests. (a) Specimen glued to two pieces of timber; (b) dimensions of the test specimen (annual ring oriented as in the case of
horizontal crack); (c) annual ring orientation for specimens tested for the horizontal crack orientations; (d) annual ring orientation for specimens tested for the vertical crack
orientations; (e) details of the test set-up (annual ring oriented as in the case of horizontal crack); and (f) details of the test set-up. The dashed lines in (c) and (d) show the
part of the rail from where the specimen was cut.

3.2. Tensile strength perpendicular to the grain 3.3. Fracture energy

All curves were found to show a similar stiffness and a brittle
failure load, typical for timber loaded by a tensile load perpendic-
ular to the grain. The results are presented in Table 6 with respect
to the direction tested. Mean failure load, dened as the average of
the maximum load reached during the tests, mean tensile strength
perpendicular to grain and mean density are presented.
The loaddeection curve for each specimen has been recorded.
They have been determined by measuring continuously corre-
sponding values of load, F, and deection or cross head movement,
u. For the test to be valid it is required that the load deection
response is stable, where by stable curve is meant a continuous
curve.
154 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163
Table 3
Test program of Gf tests (notation as in Fig. 6).
Series Crack orientation Specimen Number of tests
size [mm]
c d
1 Horizontal 45 45 15
2 Vertical 45 45 33
For specimens tested for the horizontal crack plane 6 curves
were stable, 4 almost stable and 5 unstable. For specimens tested
for the vertical crack plane 2 curves were stable, 6 almost stable
and 25 unstable. In Fig. 9 one example of each type of curve is
shown. The reason for this high number of unstable curves for
the vertical crack plane, which was already known before testing,
is discussed below.
For specimens with vertical crack orientation most of the curves
were unstable. This is believed to be due to the annual ring orienta-
tion, as shown in Fig. 10. In Fig. 10a the crack for specimens with hor-
izontal crack orientation is shown. In this case most of the curves
were found to be stable or almost stable. The stability is probably
due to the annual ring orientation since the crack is able to develop
following an annual ring. In Fig. 10b the crack has vertical orienta-
tion. In this case most of the curves were found to be unstable. The
difference in the crack path is noted with respect to the horizontal
crack orientation, since in this case the crack develops perpendicular
to the annual ring jumping from one annual ring to another. It is
believed that the drops of load in the post peak behaviour of the load
displacement curves are due to this.
The results of the tests are summarized in Table 7. The results
are presented with respect to the direction tested. Mean failure
load, mean fracture energy and mean density are presented.
3.4. Compilation of matched experimental results
Since the three types of tests are performed with specimens
having matched material properties, it is interesting to show the
bcrack1
a) Mode 1
bcrack2
b) Mode 2
Fig. 7. (a) Splitting failure along the bottom side of the rail; and (b) splitting failure along the edge side of the rail. The left column of pictures refers to bottom rails with the
pith oriented downwards (PD = N) and the right column with the pith oriented upwards (PU = U).
results of the three types of experiments with specimens cut from
the same board, in order to see if, for example, due to an increase or
decrease of the bottom rail failure load correspond to an increase
or decrease of the fracture energy or tensile strength perpendicular
to the grain. Tables 8 and 9 show the results of this correlation. The
tables are divided with regard to the pith orientation of the bottom
rail, PD for Table 8, and PU for Table 9. Not all bottom rail speci-
mens are presented but only those for which the fracture energy
and the tensile strength were tested. The rst number of the bot-
tom rail ID refers to the series tested, the second number to the
set and the third is just the progressive number of the specimen.
When planning the experiments it was decided that for bottom rail
specimens of series 1 the fracture energy and the tensile strength
would be tested only for the vertical crack directions, since we
were sure that the failure mode would become failure mode 1.
For bottom rail specimens of series 2 and 3, on the contrary, there
were the same possibilities to get failure mode 1 and 2, therefore, it
was decided to test the fracture energy and the tensile strength for
both cases. This was done also in order to see the possible inuence
of these properties on the failure mode, since specimens of the
same set could fail in different ways. For each Gf value the type
of curve characteristics is also listed in the last column.
4. Analysis
In [6,7], models based on a fracture mechanics approach have
been presented and derived in order to calculate the load carrying
capacity of bottom rails in partially anchored shear walls. The for-
mulas derived depend on the failure mode. In those papers the
analysis have been carried out using values of fracture energy
and tensile strength perpendicular to the grain found in literature.
However, due to the orthotropic characteristics of the wood mate-
rial, it was hard to nd proper values for the orientations wanted.
With the values listed in Tables 8 and 9, the same formulas used in
[6,7] are here used and their accuracy evaluated. When referring to
mean values in this paper, the values listed in Table 10 below are
used, where the ft,90 and Gf values are the mean values calculated
bcrack1
bcrack2
 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163 155

Fig. 8. Recorded failure modes for the different test series and sets belonging to the experimental study (PU = pith upwards, PD = pith downwards). *Size of washer [mm].
Mode 1: splitting along the bottom side of the rail and mode 2: splitting along the edge side of the rail.

Table 4
Results from bottom rail tests with the pith oriented downwards (PD) and upwards (PU). Failure modes: (1) splitting along the bottom side of the rail; and (2) splitting along the
edge side of the rail. q0,x = dry density with respect to volume at x = moisture content.

Series Set Number of Mean failure load per failure mode Number of q0,x Mean value x Mean
tests tests per per failure mode value [%]
All failure modes (1) (2)
failure mode [kg/m3]
Mean Std. dev. COV Mean Std. dev. COV Mean Std. dev. COV (1) (2) All (1) (2)
[kN] [kN] [%] [kN] [kN] [%] [kN] [kN] [%]
Pith Down
1 1 3 10.8 2.74 25.3 10.8 2.74 25.3 3 421 421 16.0
2 3 12.1 4.09 33.7 12.1 4.09 33.7 3 410 410 16.3
3 3 17.1 1.40 8.19 17.1 1.40 8.19 3 409 409 15.1
4 3 21.6 1.51 7.00 21.6 1.51 7.00 3 342 342 14.5
2 1 3 12.3 2.66 21.5 12.3 2.66 21.5 3 367 367 14.5
2 3 15.8 2.07 13.1 15.8 2.07 13.1 3 372 372 14.1
3 3 27.4 2.83 10.3 27.4 2.83 10.3 3 390 390 14.3
3 1 3 22.9 2.17 9.49 22.9 2.17 9.49 3 403 403 14.7
2 3 26.7 6.10 22.8 28.9 22.5 2 1 382 399 347 14.3
Mean 388 390 347 14.9
value
Pith Up
1 1 3 8.62 1.14 10.5 8.62 1.14 10.5 3 416 416 15.4
2 3 12.1 3.39 28.0 12.1 3.39 28.0 3 418 418 16.5
3 3 15.5 5.39 31.5 15.5 5.39 31.5 3 378 378 14.7
4 3 18.0 4.25 19.7 18.0 4.25 19.7 3 368 368 14.9
2 1 3 11.4 2.91 23.6 11.4 2.91 23.6 3 365 365 14.2
2 3 11.7 1.43 9.08 11.7 1.43 9.08 3 398 398 14.8
3 3 24.5 2.83 10.3 25.2 23.2 2 1 403 409 393 14.4
3 1 3 17.5 2.12 9.24 16.4 19.7 2 1 365 353 390 14.8
2 3 23.1 2.30 8.58 23.1 2.30 8.58 0 3 390 390 13.7
Mean 389 389 391 14.8
value

from the tests presented in this paper and E and G according to [6], the compliance method, a branch of the linear elastic fracture
where E = E90 and G = GRT were used. The same E and G values have mechanics theory (LEFM). In Fig. 11 the geometry used to derive
been here used for both failure modes 1 and 2, since their variation Eqs. (1), (36) is shown. c is a length added to the cantilever span
according to the failure mode is negligible. Other values listed in be to account for the fact that fully clamped conditions at the edge
Table 10, and shown in Figs. 11,12 and 14,15, are the width b, of the washer cannot be practically assumed.
the length l, and depth h of the bottom rail, the depth he of the Eq. (1) was derived considering a part the bottom rail as a can-
cantilever beam considered when deriving the formulas and tilever beam fully clamped at the crack position, according to
the shear correction factor bs. Fig. 11. The compliance has been calculated considering both ex-
ural and shear deformations.
4.1. Analysis for failure mode 1 v
u
u 2GGf =be
P lh  at  be 2 1
The formulas used are listed below. For their derivation the 12 GE ha bs
reader should refer to [6,7]. All of them have been derived using
 156 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163

The crack length a, can be calculated using the initial crack

Measured crack data for specimens with the pith oriented downwards (PD) and upwards (PU). For failure mode 1 the distance between vertical crack and loaded edge of the bottom rail (bcrack1) is given. For failure mode 2 the length of
the horizontal crack before it changes direction (bcrack2) is given. End 1 and End 2 indicate the two bottom rail ends, but no distinction is here made between them. All distances and crack lengths are given in mm, whilst the failure load

length acr, according to Eq. (2), given in [23]:

End

28
2

EGf
acr 2
Set 2

pf 2t
End

12

28

21
24
35
40
1

Simplied versions of Eq. (1) can be obtained assuming a small

2/22.5
1/33.7

2/24.7

2/24.2
1/24.0

2/20.5
M/La

crack length (a ? 0), Eq. (3), assuming that bending deformations

can be ignored (G/E ? 0), Eq. (4), and assuming both small crack
length and that bending deformations can be ignored, Eq. (5).
End

31

23

29
v
2

u
u 2GGf =be
Set 1

P lht  2 3
End

31d
30c
15
26

38
21
30
12 GE bhe bs
1
Series 3

1/25.2

1/15.5
2/19.7
1/17.3
1/20.9

s
22.6b
M/La

12/

2GGf
P lh  a 4
be bs
End

52
57

48
50
2

s
2GGf
Set 3
End

P lh 5
45

29

45
37
22
50
1

be b s
1/27.8
1/24.4

1/22.6
1/27.8
2/23.2
1/30.0
M/La

Eq. (6) was derived using the same geometry as Eq. (1).
However, in this case is assumed that the cantilever is not com-
pletely rigidly clamped at end, but some nite rotation occurs. In
End

48

44

52
34
44
60

[7] the compliance was calculated and then Eq. (6) was derived.
2

p
Set 2
End

2GGf =be
45

42

41

47
60

60

P lh  a q 6
1

be
p
12 GE ha bs
1/14.4
1/14.8
1/18.2

1/11.9
1/13.0
1/10.2
M/La

Again, if a small crack length is considered, a simplied version

of Eq. (6), given by Eq. (7) can be obtained.
End

63
52

42
47
41
50

p
2

2GGf =be
P lh q
7
Set 1

p
End

42

45

45
51
40

50

12 GE bhe bs
1
Series 2

1/9.43

1/9.44
1/9.99
1/14.6

1/14.7
1/13.0

Assuming negligible bending deformations or both small crack

M/La

length and negligible bending deformations would lead to Eqs.

(4) and (5).
End

63
62

57
58
36
70

Eq. (8) has been derived using the end-notched beam model in
2

[8], and the geometry according to Fig. 12. However, since that
Set 4
End

model has different type of crack propagation compared to that of

55

52

81
62
60

40
1

failure mode 1 of bottom rails, a different compliance has been used.

1/22.1
1/22.8
1/19.9

1/17.2
1/22.5
1/14.1

v
M/La

u
u 2GGf =be
P lahu
t G  be 2 q 8
43aa3
G p be
12 E ah 18 bs
End

5 E 3 ah
67
64
59

58
44
50

1a1a
2

For this specimen it was difcult to distinguish the failure mode.

Set 3

In Eq. (9), a simplied version, considering small crack length, of

End

55
54
51

58

64
70
1

Eq. (8) is given.

v
1/15.7
1/18.5

1/17.1
1/9.43
1/19.8
1/17.0

u
M/La

2GGf =be
bcrack1 if failure mode 1 is considered as failure mode.
bcrack2 if failure mode 2 is considered as failure mode.

u
P lht   2
q 9
12 GE he 6 65 GE bhe bs
b
End

56

63

65
56
60

30
2

The formulas above have been used, together with the values
Set 2
End

listed in Table 10, to calculate the root mean square error

57
53
53

58
65
69

M = failure mode and L = failure load.

q
P
1

(RMSE) values, RMSE 1=n n1 D2 , where n is the number of

1/12.1
1/16.2

1/9.66
1/15.9
1/8.03

1/10.6
M/La

specimens tested and D is dened as the value of the difference

between failure load from tests and failure load calculated accord-
ing to the formulas above. The RMSE-values are calculated in two
End

58
58
52

58
51
58
2

ways: (1) by using the individual values for Gf and ft,90 for each
q
P
Set 1

specimen listed in Table 8 and 9, i.e. RMSE 1=n n1 D2ind , and

End

53
55
53

62
74
60
1

(2) by using the mean values for values for Gf and ft,90 as listed in
is given in kN.

Pith Down

q
P
Series 1

Pith Up

Table 10, i.e. RMSE 1=n n1 D2mean . These calculated

1/13.5

1/9.89
1/7.69
1/8.28
1/10.9

1/8.04
M/La
Table 5

RMSE-values are listed in Table 11, where the values are divided
c
b
a

with respect to the pith orientation.

 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163 157

Table 6
Results from testing of specimens in tensile strength perpendicular to grain. H = horizontal crack direction, V = vertical crack direction.

Series Crack direction Number of tests Failure load Tensile strength perpendicular to the grain ft,90 Mean density
Mean Min and max Std. dev. COV Mean Min and max Std. dev. COV [kg/m3]
[kN] [kN] [kN] [%] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [%]
1 H 18 4.73 3.26 0.83 17.4 2.28 1.54 0.40 17.4 467a
6.45 3.10
2 V 34 3.63 1.98 0.88 24.1 1.79 0.98 0.39 22.1 463b
6.11 2.84
a
Result calculated with 9 specimens.
b
Result calculated with 31 specimens.

In Fig. 13 the failure load versus distance s has been plotted,

with the failure load curves calculated with Eqs. (1), (38). In the
100
gure only specimens failed in mode 1 are plotted, and an expo-
80 nential trend-line for the test results is plotted. Fig. 13a and b refer
to specimens with pith oriented downwards and upwards, respec-
Load [N]

60 tively, while in Fig. 13c all specimens failed in mode 1 are shown
(a) independently of the pith orientation. The curves are plotted using
40 the mean values listed in Table 10.
Eqs. (3) and (5) give values too high with respect to the test
20
results, while Eqs. (6) and (8) too low. The Eqs. (1), (4), (7) and (9)
0 were found to give the best agreement. However, if graphical com-
0 2 4 6 8 parison between them is made, is noted that Eq. (4) gives values too
Displacement [mm] high for distance s > 10 mm and Eq. (1) follow the general beha-
viour of the results but predicting low values. The best agreement
100 is shown by Eqs. (7) and (9). Good agreement is also shown, with
respect to the test results, between the failure load and the distance
80 s, where the coefcient of determination is 0:56 6 R2 6 0:76.
In [24], where an experimental study of bottom rails with
Load [N]

60
single- and double-sided sheathing was presented, an empirical
(b) relationship for the mean value of the load-carrying capacity ver-
40
sus the distance s was given as F mean 27:9e0:0227s . Similar empir-
20 ical relationships have been found in the present study: (1)
F mean 28:3e0:0280s for specimens in Fig. 13a; (2)
0
F mean 21:9e0:0224s for specimens in Fig. 13b; and (3)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement [mm]
F mean 25:8e0:0227s for specimens in Fig. 13c.

200
4.2. Analysis for failure mode 2

160 For failure mode 2, a total of six equations, given in [6,7] have
been tested. The equations are listed below.
Load [N]

120
(c)
80
40
0 v
0 2 4 6
Displacement [mm]
Fig. 9. Examples of loaddeection curves. (a) Stable curve; (b) almost stable curve;
and (c) unstable curve.
In the formulas above be = s + c, where s is the distance between
the edge of the washer and the loaded edge of the bottom rail and
c, according to Fig. 11, is an additional length to the ctitious
clamped end. In this case c = 20 mm has been used.
From Table 11 it is noted that the difference between
RMSE-values for individual test values and RMSE-values for mean
test values is negligible, since the values are in the same order of
magnitude. It is evident that the best agreement is given by the
Eqs. (7) and (9), for the case of RMSE-values for individual test val-
ues, and by Eqs. (1), (7) and (9) for the case of RMSE-values for
mean test values.
Eq. (1), Eq. (10) was derived considering a part of the bottom
rail as a cantilever beam fully clamped at the crack position and
the compliance was calculated in the same way considering both
exural and shear deformations. In Fig. 14 the geometry used for
the derivations of Eqs. (1013) is shown.
8 10 12 u 2GGf he
P lu
t  2 10
G a
12 E he bs
Assuming small crack length (a ? 0) or assuming that bending
deformation can be ignored as compared with the shear deforma-
tions, (i.e. G/E ? 0) leads to a simplied version of Eq. (10):
q
P l 2GGf he =bs 11
Eq. (12) has been derived using again the model of splitting fail-
ure of an end-notched beam derived in [8]. The difference with the
previous model is given by a different compliance, calculated tak-
ing into account contributions from the part of the beam with
depth h and from additional rotation of the cantilever due to the
fact that the stiffness of the beam with depth h cannot be fully acti-
vated in the immediate vicinity of the corner of the notch. The
solution given in [8], if used on a bottom rail, leads to Eq. (12).
158 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163

(a)

(b)

Fig. 10. Examples of crack growth during the fracture energy tests. (a) Horizontal orientation of the crack; and (b) vertical orientation of the crack.

Table 7
Results from fracture energy testing for horizontal and vertical crack direction, H and V, respectively.

Series Crack direction Number of tests Failure load Fracture energy Gf Mean density
Mean Min and max Std. dev. COV Mean Min and max Std. dev. COV [kg/m3]
[N] [N] [N] [%] [N/m] [N/m] [N/m] [%]
1 H 15 98.0 60.0 27.4 27.9 322a 190 86.7 26.9 455b
169 476
2 V 33 123 69.0 29.7 24.2 303c 196 66.5 21.9 474c
192 432
a
Result calculated with 15 specimens.
b
Result calculated with 14 specimens.
c
Result calculated with 31 specimens.

Table 8
Compilation of the matched experimental results. Bottom rail specimens with PD. Gf = fracture energy, ft,90 = tensile strength perpendicular to the grain. V = crack orientation for
failure mode 1 in bottom rail specimens and H = crack orientation for failure mode 2. S, A and U: stable, almost stable and unstable Gf curve, respectively. When two results are
given in the column for the type of the Gf curve, the rst refers to specimens with V crack orientation and the second to specimens with H crack orientation.

Bottom rail Bottom rail failure load Gf (V) Gf (H) ft,90 (V) ft,90 (H) Failure mode Type of Gf curve
Specimen ID [kN] [N/m] [N/m] [MPa] [MPa]
111 PD 10.9 231 1.44 1 U
112 PD 13.5 237 1.82 1 U
113 PD 8.04 356 1.93 1 A
Mean for set 10.8 265 1.73
121 PD 12.1 251 1.89 1 U
122 PD 16.2 432 2.14 1 S
123 PD 8.03 285 1.49 1 U
Mean for set 12.1 323 1.84
131 PD 15.7 279 1.70 1 A
132 PD 18.5 225 1.36 1 U
133 PD 17.0 364 1.69 1 U
Mean for set 17.1 289 1.58
231 PD 27.8 352 1.75 2.15 1
232 PD 24.4 366 441 1.37 2.53 1 A/U
233 PD 30.0 316 371 2.34 2.06 1 U/A
Mean for set 27.4 341a 388 1.82 2.25
311 PD 20.9 266 381 1.71 3.10 1 U/U
312 PD 25.2 245 225 1.24 1.88 1 U/S
313 PD 22.6 233 310 1.40 1.75 1 U/U
Mean for set 22.9 248 305 1.45 2.24
321 PD 22.5 356 436 1.44 2.33 2 A/U
322 PD 33.7 375 476 2.84 2.11 1 U/S
323 PD 24.0 271 280 1.89 2.50 1 U/A
Mean for set 26.7 334 397 2.06 2.31
a
Result calculated with 2 specimens.
 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163 159

Table 9
Compilation of the matched experimental results. Bottom rail specimens with PU. Gf = fracture energy, ft,90=tensile strength perpendicular to the grain. V = crack orientation for
failure mode 1 in bottom rail specimens and H = crack orientation for failure mode 2. S, A and U: stable, almost stable and unstable Gf curve, respectively. When two results are
given in the column for the type of the Gf curve, the rst refers to specimens with V crack orientation and the second to specimens with H crack orientation.

Bottom rail Bottom rail failure load Gf (V) Gf (H) ft,90 (V) ft,90 (H) Failure mode Type of Gf curve
Specimen ID [kN] [N/m] [N/m] [MPa] [MPa]
111 PU 9.89 1
112 PU 7.69 2.08 1
113 PU 8.28 231 1.44 1
Mean for set 8.62 1.76a
121 PU 9.66 300 2.58 1 U
122 PU 15.9 423 1.76 1 U
123 PU 10.6 1032b 1.90 1 S
Mean for set 12.1 362 2.08
131 PU 17.1 345 1.99 1 A
132 PU 9.43 196 0.98 1 U
133 PU 19.8 373 1.98 1 U
Mean for set 15.4 305 1.65
231 PU 22.6 233 2.05 2.75 1 U
232 PU 27.8 328 2.40 1.54 1 U
233 PU 23.2 212 352 2.11 2.15 2 U/U
Mean for set 24.5 258 2.19 2.15
311 PU 15.5 306 299 1.65 2.24 1 U/A
312 PU 19.7 388 190 1.51 2.59 2 U/S
313 PU 17.3 249 260 1.52 2.13 1 U/S
Mean for set 17.5 314 250 1.56 2.32
321 PU 24.7 316 331 1.34 1.99 2 U/S
322 PU 20.5 246 231 1.65 2.44 2 U/S
323 PU 24.2 390 243 1.80 2.10 2 U/A
Mean for set 23.1 317 268 1.60 2.18
a
Result calculated with 2 specimens.
b
This result is considered not trustable due to the difference with the other results.

Table 10
Material properties and data used in the evaluation.

Material properties Values Unit

E = E90 500 MPa
G = GRT 50 MPa
ft = ft,90,Va 1.80 MPa
ft = ft,90,Hb 2.30 MPa
Gf = Gf,Va 300 N/m
Gf = Gf,Hb 320 N/m
b 120 mm
l 900 mm
h 45 mm
he 22.5 mm
bs 1.20
a
Values calculated in the tests and used in equations for failure mode 1.
b
Values calculated in the tests and used in equations for failure mode 2.

Fig. 11. Geometry used to derive Eqs. (1), (36) for failure mode 1.

q
GGf
h
P lh q q 12
3 1a
5 a
ha 6 GE a13  1

A simplied version may be obtained in the special case of a

small crack or if assuming that the bending deformations are neg-
ligible as compared with the shear deformations, giving Eq. (13):

r
he
P lC 1
1hhe Fig. 12. Geometry used to derive Eqs. (8) and (9).
q 13
C 1 53 GGf P P0 p1
2 2f1
p
Eq. (14) is based on the model derived in [9] where a beam P0 2lC 1 he
loaded perpendicular to the grain by a bolt located close to the q 14
edge and close to the end is considered, according to Fig. 15. The C 1 53 GGf
q
horizontal crack in a bottom rail may be considered as a special
f Cf 1 10 GE h1e
case of that solution, namely for be ! 0. t
160 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163

Eq. (1) he =h ! 0 is considered, the failure load P P0 , with P 0 from Eq.

50
Pith Downwards
Eq. (3) (14). P 0 may therefore be considered as a special case of the model
45 Eq. (4) in [10]. A semi-empirical generalized version of Eq. (10) may be
Eq. (5)
proposed, as in Eq. (15).
40 Eq. (6)
Eq. (7)
r
he
35 Eq. (8) P clC 1
1hhe
Failure load [kN]

Eq. (9) 15
30 1
ETLa) (R2 = 0.76) c p
2f1
25 Exp. Data PD
In Table 12 the RMSE-values for individual test values and the
20 RMSE-values for mean test values, as previously dened, are listed.
15 The table shows values only for specimens with pith upwards,
since for pith downwards only one specimen failed in mode 2
10 and a statistical evaluation would not be meaningful.
5 The best agreement is given by the Eqs. (10), (11) and (15). In
Fig. 16 the failure load versus distance s has been plotted, with
0 the failure load calculated according to Eqs. (1015). Only speci-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance s [mm] mens failed in mode 2 are plotted, independently of their pith ori-
entations, and the linear regression line for the test results is
(a)
plotted only for specimens with pith upwards, since there was only
Eq. (1)
50 one specimen with pith downwards failed in mode 2 The failure
Eq. (3)
Pith Upwards
Eq. (4) load has been calculated using the mean values listed in Table 10.
45
Eq. (5) It is noted that the failure load for mode 2 is independent of the
40 Eq. (6) distance s according to Eqs. (1015). This would suggest that the
Eq. (7) upper surface is free from any washer and that the model is appli-
35 Eq. (8)
cable only if the distance s is larger than the cantilever length a
Failure load [kN]

Eq. (9)
30 (s > a). However, it is obvious on the other hand that mode 2 com-
ETLa) (R2 = 0.56)
Exp. Data PU pared to mode 1 occurs only for small s-values, which is conrmed
25
by the experimental results where a weak trend with lower capac-
20 ity for increasing values of distance s is found. This means that the
side crack opens even when there is a washer within the distance
15
a. This may due to the fact that large portions of the bottom rail
10 have no washer on the upper side and that the cracks develop in
those areas and then later (or immediately) reach the area where
5
the washers are located. There is a 3-dimensional effect. It is also
0 noted that the anchor bolts and washers are discretely located
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
along the bottom rail in the experiments and, therefore, the third
Distance s [mm]
dimension of the problem will have an effect on the initiation of
(b) cracks.
Eq. (1) Eq. (13) gives values too high with respect to the test results,
50
Eq. (3) while Eqs. (12) and (14) give too low values. This agrees with the
Pith Downwards + Pith Upwards
Eq. (4)
45
Eq. (5)
results listed in Table 12. The Eqs. (10), (11) and (15), which were
Eq. (6) found to give the best agreement, are pretty close to test results.
40
Eq. (7) Eq. (10) gives lower values compared to Eqs. (11) and (15), which
35 Eq. (8) give more or less the same value (they have similar RMSE-values).
Failure load [kN]

Eq. (9)
30
ETLa) (R2 = 0.65)
4.3. Combined design curves for mode 1 and mode 2
Exp. Data PD + PU
25
In the previous two sections Eqs. (7) and (15) have been found
20
to give the best RMSE-value with respect to the test results. A limit
15 between the two formulas has been determined, according which
failure mode 2 is applicable for s < 10 mm and mode 1 for s P 10
10
mm. The limit is shown in Fig. 17, together with the test results.
5 Figs. 17a and b show test results for specimens with pith down-
wards and upwards, respectively, while Fig. 17c include all test
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 results independently on the pith orientations. Further the
Distance s [mm] RMSE-value calculated for Eq. (7) versus test results of failure
(c) mode 1 for specimens with s P 10 mm and for Eq. (15) versus test
results of failure mode 2 for specimens with s < 10 mm, is shown.
Fig. 13. Failure load versus distance s for specimen failed in mode 1. Curves
according to Eqs. (1), (38). (a) Specimens with pith downwards; (b) specimens 5. Discussion
with pith upwards; and (c) all specimens independently on the pith orientation.
a
ETL = Exponential trend line.
The results from the bottom rail experimental program are in
In [10], a linear elastic fracture mechanics model was derived line with the previous experimental programmes presented in
for a simply supported beam loaded perpendicular to grain by a [3,4]. For the details the reader should refer to those papers, here
single load at mid-span. For that model, if small edge distance only a summary of the main ndings is given. Two brittle failure
 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163 161

Table 11
Comparison between mean values of individual RMSE-values and RMSE-values using mean values of Gf and ft,90 for failure mode 1.

Eq. (1) [kN] Eq. (3) [kN] Eq. (4) [kN] Eq. (5) [kN] Eq. (6) [kN] Eq. (7) [kN] Eq. (8) [kN] Eq. (9) [kN]
RMSE-values for individual test values PD 7.87 8.54 6.68 15.4 10.2 3.33 10.0 3.39
PU 4.49 9.19 6.54 16.4 7.01 3.13 6.70 3.19
RMSE-values for mean test values PD 4.48 8.94 5.88 16.0 8.48 3.02 8.15 3.21
PU 3.44 11.3 8.48 18.7 5.74 4.88 5.49 4.89

the sheathing-to-framing joints. In comparison with [3,4], in this

study, the yielding and withdrawal of the nails in the
sheathing-to-framing joint was not found, due to the deliberately
small distance chosen between the nails: 25 mm. The failure mode
is dependent on the distance s between the washer edge and the
loaded edge of the bottom rail; in fact for s P 10 failure mode 1
is the only failure mode, while for s 6 10 mm failure mode 2
appears. The failure load was also found to be dependent on the
distance s, and increases when s is decreased. Further, such as
the previous experimental programmes, the failure load of bottom
rails with the pith oriented downwards is higher than for speci-
mens with the pith oriented upwards. Since the density and mois-
ture content of all the specimens are similar, it is believed that this
Fig. 14. Geometry used to derive Eqs. (1013). is an effect of the initial cupping of the bottom rail due to the ani-
sotropic shrinkage from drying or a consequence of the anisotropic
material properties in the radial-tangential plane of the timber.
The tensile strength perpendicular to the grain was found to be
higher for specimens with horizontal crack direction than that
with vertical. Results of [14] discussed in [11], show that ft,90
increases with increasing density and decreases with the increas-
ing moisture content and temperature. However, the inuence of
these parameters do not explain the difference found between val-
ues for different crack direction, since the mean density has been
found to be similar for the specimens tested in the two directions
and the moisture and temperature were kept constant for all tests.
One reason for the difference between radial and tangential
direction could be the different volumes between the two speci-
Fig. 15. Geometry used to derive Eqs. (14) and (15).
mens, which is commonly explained by the weakest link of theory
of Weibull. However, for such small specimens and small differ-
40 ence in volume, and, as mentioned earlier, with the presence of
Pith Downwards + Pith Upwards Eq. (10) the waist in the specimens, it is not believed that the volume has
35 Eq. (11) any major inuence. Hence it can be concluded that the difference
Eq. (12) between ft,90 in the two direction is just due to the orthotropic
Eq. (13) characteristic of wood. [12] has presented results of ft,90 strength
30
Eq. (14)
of Scots pine at various load directions and his results also show
Eq. (15)
Failure load [kN]

25 that the strength value for the horizontal crack direction is higher
LTLa) (R2 = 0.33)
than that for vertical crack direction in agreement with the results
Exp. Data PD
20 presented in this paper. It is noted that the tensile strength values
Exp. Data PU
are lower for both directions, than the values used earlier in [6,7]. It
15 is believed that the tensile strength together with the fracture
energy, are the governing parameters for the failure capacity of
10
the bottom rail. From this point of view, the results of the tensile
strength tests are important.
The reliability of the fracture energy test results could be ques-
5
tioned, since most of the curves were found to be unstable or
almost stable and just a few were stable. However, the results have
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 been compared with fracture energy values of previous experi-
Distance s [mm] ments such as those in [27] and those shown in [26] referred to
by [25], where similar values were found, meaning that even if
Fig. 16. Failure load versus distance s for specimen failed in mode 2. Failure load
the curves are not stable the Gf values calculated from them are
calculated according to Eqs. (1015). All specimens independent on the pith
orientation. aLTL = Linear trend line. not far from the values found in literature. Further, similar values
have already been used in [6,7].
modes were found during the experimental program: (1) a crack When the values have been used in the analysis in the previous
opening from the bottom surface of the bottom rail; and (2) a crack section, not all formulas gave results in agreement with the test
opening from the edge surface of the bottom rail along the line of results. Regarding failure mode 1, the RMSE-values in Table 11
162 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163

Table 12
Comparison between mean values of individual RMSE-values and RMSE-values using
mean values of Gf and ft,90 for failure mode 2.

Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq.

(10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
[kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN]
RMSE-values for PU 4.30 2.85 9.56 6.36 8.06 2.46
individual test
values
RMSE-values for PU 2.94 2.03 8.66 9.04 6.92 2.00
mean test
values

shows a rather good agreement for almost all formulas, with the
exception of Eq. (5). This was expected, since that equation is a
simplied version of Eq. (1), which was one of those giving the best
agreement, where the initial crack length and the bending defor-
mations were ignored. Eq. (7) was found to give the best agree-
ment. The results here conrm the good agreement with bottom
rail test results as already found in [6,7].
Regarding failure mode 2, the results for pith downwards can be
omitted, since only one specimen failed in mode 2 and hence it is
not statistically reliable. The RMSE-values in Table 12 shows that
the best agreement is given by Eq. (15), which is a simplied ver-
sion of Eq. (14) Also in this case the results conrm the good agree-
ment with bottom rail test results, as already found in [6,7].

6. Conclusions

Fracture mechanics models for the splitting capacity of bottom

rails in partially anchored shear walls are compared to results from
conducted full-scale bottom rail tests, where also matching test
results for the main fracture mechanics parameters were obtained.
Tests on the splitting capacity of the bottom rail, fracture energy
and tensile strength perpendicular to the grain have been con-
ducted. The results of the bottom rail tests conrm the behaviour
presented in previous studies presented in [3,4]. Results of tensile
strength tests show a tensile strength higher for specimens with
horizontal crack direction than those with vertical. This conrms
results from a previous study found in the literature. It is noted
that the resulting values are lower than the values used in [6,7].
Since it is believed that the tensile strength together with the frac-
ture energy, are the governing parameters with respect to the fail-
ure capacity, the results of this study are considered very
important. The results of the fracture energy tests instead are ques-
tionable due the high number of unstable curves. However, since
the mean values from the tests have been found to be in good
agreement with literature values, they have been considered
reliable.
Most formulas investigated in this paper, show good agreement
with the tests results. The formulas giving the best agreement, one
per failure mode, have been chosen and it is believed that they can
be used for calculating the splitting failure capacity of the bottom
rail. If the splitting failure capacity can be calculated and, hence,
these brittle failure modes can be avoided and the plastic beha-
viour of the sheathing-to-framing joints can be ensured, the plastic
design method proposed in [5] can then be applied.

7. Future work

This paper concerns the splitting failure capacity of bottom rails

Fig. 17. Limit between failure mode 1 and 2 for Eqs. (7) and (15). (a) Specimens
in partially anchored shear walls, both experimentally and analyt-
with pith oriented downwards; (b) specimens with pith oriented upwards; and (c) ically. In this paper the equations believed to be the best for calcu-
all specimens independent on the pith orientation. lating this capacity have been compared.
 G. Caprolu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 148163
The present two-dimensional models do not consider some
inuencing factors such as the friction under the bottom rail, the
cupping of the bottom rail, the effect of the pretension force and
the discretely placed washers. In order to study in more detail
the inuence of these parameters and, especially, the effect of
the third dimension, a future work based on an XFEM (Extended
Finite Element Method) analysis, is planned and, in fact, already
has started.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation for
the nancial support from the County Administrative Board in
Norrbotten, the Regional Council of Vsterbotten and the
European Unions Structural Funds The Regional Fund.
References
[1] Prion HGL, Lam F. Shear walls diaphragms. In: Thelandersson S, Larsen HJ,
editors. Timber engineering. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2003.
p. 383408.
[2] NAHB, Full-scale tensile and shear wall performance testing of light-frame
wall assemblies sheathed with windstorm OSB panels. Test Report 4105-008,
Upper Marlboro, USA: MD: NAHB Research Center; 2005.
[3] Caprolu G, Girhammar UA, Kllsner B, Lidelw H. Splitting capacity of bottom
rail in partially anchored timber frame shear walls with single-sided
sheathing. IES J Part A: Civil & Struct Eng 2014;7:83105.
[4] Caprolu G, Girhammar UA, Kllsner B. Splitting capacity of bottom rails in
partially anchored timber frame shear walls with double-sided sheathing. IES J
Part A: Civil & Struct Eng 2015;8:123.
[5] Kllsner B, Girhammar UA. Plastic design of partially anchored wood-framed
wall diaphragms with and without openings. In: Proceedings CIB-W18 Timber
Structures Meeting, Karlsruhe, Germany, Paper 38-15-7, 2005.
[6] Caprolu G, Girhammar UA, Kllsner B. Analytical models for splitting capacity
of bottom rails in partially anchored timber frame shear walls based on
fracture mechanics. Wood Mater Sci Eng, 2014c. (accepted for publication).
[7] Jensen JL, Caprolu G, Girhammar UA. Fracture mechanics models for brittle
failure of bottom rails due to uplift in timber frame shear walls. 2014.
(submitted for publication).
[8] Gustafsson PJ. A study of strength of notched beams. In: Proceedings CIB-W18
Timber Structures Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, Paper 21-10-1, 1988.
[9] Jensen JL. Quasi-non-linear fracture mechanics analysis of splitting failure in
moment-resisting dowel joints. J Wood Sci 2005;51:5838.
163
[10] van der Put TACM, Leijten AJM. Evaluation of perpendicular to grain failure of
beams caused by concentrated loads of joints. In: Proceedings CIB-W18
Timber Structures Meeting, Delft, The Netherlands, Paper 33-7-7, 2000.
[11] Gustafsson PJ. Fracture perpendicular to grain structural applications. In:
Thelandersson S, Larsen HJ, editors. Timber engineering. Chichester,
England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2003. p. 10330.
[12] Bostrm L. Method for determination of the softening behavior of wood and
the applicability of a nonlinear fracture mechanics model [Doctoral Thesis].
Report TVBM-1012, Division of Building Materials, Lund University, Sweden;
1992.
[13] Holmberg S. A numerical and experimental study of initial debration of wood
[Doctoral Thesis]. Report TVSM-1010, Division of Structural Mechanics, Lund
University, Sweden; 1998.
[14] Siimes FE. The effect of specic gravity, moisture content, temperature and
heating time on the tension and compression strength and elasticity
properties perpendicular to the grain of Finnish pine, spruce and birch wood
and the signicance of these factors on the checking of timber at kiln drying.
Julkaisu 84 publication: VTT The Technical Research Centre of Finland; 1967.
[15] EN 338. Structural timber Strength classes. European Committee for
Standardization: Brussels, Belgium; 2009.
[16] EN 622-2. Fibreboards Specications Part 2: Requirements for hardboard.
European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium; 2004.
[17] ISO 3130. Wood Determination of moisture content for physical and
mechanical tests. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva,
Switzerland; 1975.
[18] ISO 3131. Wood Determination of density for physical and mechanical tests.
International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland; 1975.
[19] EN 204. Classication of thermoplastic wood adhesives for non-structural
applications. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium;
2001.
[20] EN 205. Adhesives Wood adhesives for non-structural applications
Determination of tensile shear strength of lap joints. European Committee
for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium; 2003.
[21] EN 408. Timber structures Structural timber and glued laminated timber
Determination of some physical and mechanical properties. European
Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium; 2010.
[22] NT BUILD 422. Wood: Fracture energy in tension perpendicular to the grain.
1993.
[23] Serrano E, Gustafsson PJ. Fracture mechanics in timber engineering strength
analyses of components and joints. Mater Struct 2006;40:8796.
[24] Girhammar UA, Kllsner B. Design against brittle failure of bottom rails in
partially anchored wood frame shear walls. 2014. (submitted to journal).
[25] Smith I, Landis E, Gong M. Principle of fracture mechanics. In: Smith I, Landis E,
Gong M, editors. Fracture and fatigue in wood. Chichester, England: John Wiley
& Sons Ltd; 2003. p. 6797.
[26] Reiterer A, Stanzl-Tschegg SE, Tschegg EK. Mode I fracture and acoustic
emission of softwood and hardwood. Wood Sci Technol 2000;34:41730.
[27] Larsen HJ, Gustafsson PHJ. The fracture energy of wood in tension
perpendicular to the grain results from a joint testing project. In:
Proceedings CIB-W18A Timber Structures Meeting, Lisbon, Portugal, Paper
23-19-2, 1990.