Bishara Suzy Thesis

Lapped scarf joint with inclined faces and wooden dowels intended for tensile loads: analysis and
design.
DECLARATION
Name:
Suzy Bishara
Email:
Suz.bishara@gmail.com
Title of the
Lapped scarf joint with inclined faces and wooden dowels intended for tensile
Msc Dissertation:
loads: analysis and design.
Supervisor(s):
Ji Kuneck
Year:
2015/2016
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance
with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I
have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.
I hereby declare that the MSc Consortium responsible for the Advanced Masters in Structural Analysis
of Monuments and Historical Constructions is allowed to store and make available electronically the
present MSc Dissertation.
University:
Czech Technical University and the Institute of Theoretical and Applied

Mechanics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
Date:
nd
July 22 , 2016
Signature:
___________________________
Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS
Lapped scarf joint with inclined faces and wooden dowels intended for tensile loads: analysis and design.

ii
I would like to dedicate this thesis to Mom, Mary, Helen and Mena. You are all very supportive and
amazing.

iii

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am very grateful for this year and upon completing my thesis, I would like to thank God and some of
the individuals who made the work possible.
-Prof. Ji Kuneck, my thesis supervisor, who gave me the opportunity to work under his guidance.
- Ing. Hana Hasnkov, for all the help and directions she gave me.
-The entire staff at the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Academy of Sciences of
the Czech Republic (ITAM) for providing me with a cozy workplace.
- Prof. Petr Kabele, for always answering queries and making necessary arrangements during our stay
at CVUT.
-The Professors at the University of Minho for harvesting a friendly learning environment.
- Prof. Paulo Loureno, for being available although he has many obligations.
- Prof. Daniel Oliveira for being an inspiring case study supervisor.
-Ana Fonseca for her continued patience when handling paperwork throughout the length of the
program.
-The concerned faculty of the Czech Technical University in Prague and the University of Minho for
organizing informative and wonderful field trips that contributed to both our knowledge as well as our
friendship.
-The SAHC consortium for selecting me for this program and for providing me with scholarship.
-I especially thank my classmates in the program that made the learning experience enjoyable. Arezoo
for making amazing eggplant, Carol for baking cakes, Francesca for the lasagna and Meera for the
variety of Indian dishes. Alexandra, Andi, Artem, David, Esra, Francisco, Hamed, Mathew, Margarita,
Menard, Sarawanan and Tomas thank you as well for being supportive classmates.
-I have learned much from the program as well as everyone mentioned above and I am grateful that I
was granted such a unique opportunity.


vi
ABSTRACT
The object of the thesis is to design a lapped scarf joint with inclined faces that would be
suitable in use for repairing timber beams. The new portion of the beam would be attached to the old
intact part of the beam. The joint would have inclined faces and would be held together using wooden
dowels. In this case there would be nine wooden dowels in order to optimize the behavior of the joint
under tensile stresses. Experimental tests will be performed for tension and bending. In addition, a
numerical model will be developed using ANSYS and will be validated with the experimental model.
Upon validation of the numerical model, an additional numerical test would be done for compression.
The stresses will be evaluated along specific sections of the beam to determine the stresses
produced under different load applications. The Von Mises stresses are obtained and used to produce
Mohr circle diagrams to characterize the type of stress present at various nodes.
This study is part of a progression of previous studies that have investigated lapped scarf
joints, which would be introduced and used for comparison accordingly. The ultimate outcome is to
provide understanding for the behavior of lapped scarf joints with wooden dowels and be able to
reproduce such joints for different cases, using different beam sizes and determining the adequate
dowel design for sufficient support. Design diagrams for use in constructions are assessed.
Keywords: Lapped scarf wood joints, FEM, timber repair and Mohr circle.

vii

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1
properties and behaviour of wood ............................................................................................ 5
2.
Stresses in a beam ....................................................................................................................... 6
2.1
how the wood fails ..................................................................................................................... 8
3.
Joint Typology ............................................................................................................................ 13
4.
Repair method ............................................................................................................................. 16
4.1
the Lapped scarf joint .............................................................................................................. 18
4.2
The scarf joint with nine dowels ............................................................................................. 19
4.3
Forces in the joint ..................................................................................................................... 20
4.4
the design of the joint .............................................................................................................. 21
5.
experiments................................................................................................................................. 24
5.1
Bending Load Test ................................................................................................................... 26
5.2
Tension Load Test .................................................................................................................... 32
5.3
Additional investigation of the numerical model .................................................................. 37
6.
Numerical Analysis..................................................................................................................... 47
6.1
Sectional Properties ................................................................................................................. 49
6.1.1
Sectional Properties for the 16 x 14 member: .................................................................... 49
6.1.1.1
Behaviour without the joint for 5 kn: ................................................................................ 49
6.1.1.2
Assessment of the beam with joint: ................................................................................. 50
6.1.2
6.1.2.1
6.1.2.2
6.1.3
6.1.3.1
6.1.3.2
7.
Conclusion and discussion ....................................................................................................... 66
8.
Proposed design ......................................................................................................................... 67
9.
References .................................................................................................................................. 68

Figure 1 Behavior of wood after cutting ................................................................................................. 4

Figure 2 Variations within the tree trunk ................................................................................................ 4
Figure 3. Arrangement of fibers. ............................................................................................................ 5
Figure 4. Growth ring. ........................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 5. Typical cubical pattern of cross checks in brown-rotted wood. ............................................... 6
Figure 6 .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 7. Interpretation of Wood with cross grain in uniaxial tension: .................................................... 7
Figure 8. Von Mises stresses: S1, S2 and S3 ....................................................................................... 7
Figure 9. S1, S2 and S3 and the nature of stress. ................................................................................. 7
Figure 10. Orientation of planes. ............................................................................................................ 8
Figure 11 ................................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 12 ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 13 .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 14 .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 15. Failure types of nonbuckling clear wood in compression parallel to grain: ......................... 10
Figure 16. Failure types of clear wood in tension parallel to grain: A- Splintering tension, B- Combined
tension and shear, C- Shear and D- Brittle tension...................................................................... 11
Figure 17. Effects of knots on the mode of the tensile failure in lumber. ............................................. 11
Figure 18. Failure types of clear wood in compression perpendicular to the grain: A- Crushing of an
earlywood zone, B- Shearing along a growth ring and C- Buckling of the growth rings. ............. 11
Figure 19 .............................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 20 .............................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 21 .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 22 .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 23 .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 24 .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 25. Restoration at the exhibition hall in the Giardini, Venice. ............................................... 16
Figure 26. Scarf joint blending with the old timber. .............................................................................. 17
Figure 27. Forces acting on the joint .................................................................................................... 20
Figure 28 .............................................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 29 .............................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 30. Perspective view. ................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 31. Tension Test ....................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 32. Bending Test ....................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 33. Humidity test. ...................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 34. Sample one: prior to failure ................................................................................................. 26
Figure 35. Sample one: post failure. .................................................................................................... 27
Figure 36. Sample two: prior to failure. ................................................................................................ 28
Figure 37. Sample two: post failure. .................................................................................................... 28
2
Figure 38 .............................................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 39 .............................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 40 .............................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 41. Samples prior to testing ...................................................................................................... 32
Figure 42. Failure at the weakest sections .......................................................................................... 33
Figure 43. Two beams failing at the same location. ............................................................................. 33
Figure 44 .............................................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 45 .............................................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 46 .............................................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 47 .............................................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 48 .............................................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 49 .............................................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 50 .............................................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 51 .............................................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 52. LC1 .................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 53. LC2 ..................................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 54 .............................................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 55 .............................................................................................................................................. 47
Figure 56 .............................................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 57 .............................................................................................................................................. 54
Figure 58 .............................................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 59 .............................................................................................................................................. 57
Figure 60 .............................................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 61 .............................................................................................................................................. 59
Figure 62 .............................................................................................................................................. 60
Figure 63 .............................................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 64 .............................................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 65. Displacement graphs. ......................................................................................................... 64
Figure 66 .............................................................................................................................................. 65
Figure 67 .............................................................................................................................................. 67

1.
INTRODUCTION
Wood is a renewable organic material that is easily found along forested regions. It has been
used since antiquity in post and lintel architecture. It is a versatile anisotropic material that could be
modified to fit in locations where the conditions are favorable. Once a tree is cut into pieces in order to
become a structural element, it becomes a dying organism. The dying process takes time and
meanwhile it can function as a structural element for a long period of time. The organic nature of the
wood gives it much of its unpredictable character when used in construction. Knots produce
discontinuities and slope the grain often reducing the strength and stiffness of an element. Gum and
resin veins decrease the shear strength by disturbing interconnectivity within the element. Pith and
core wood contain weak juvenile wood.
In addition to the characteristics intrinsic to nature, the trees themselves could be prestressed and once the wood is cut off this stress is relieved causing various degrees of bending and
springing as can be seen in below. Ever susceptible to decay, timber beams need to be periodically
restored, as a result, restoration becomes necessary in ensuring the longevity of beam structures.
Many methods could be used for restoring historic timber beams and could include various materials
ranging from steel to resins.
The scarf joint is esthetically pleasing in that it produces a smooth appearance on all sides of
the restored beam. In the case of discussion the scarf joint is manually produced by carpenters and
the design is limited to the skill of the manufacturer. The half lap joint is manufactured by cutting out
the end of the beam to half its depth and an equal length of both sides to be joined. In the case of this
joint, the two sides are joined together by nine dowels. Different configurations may exist that further
bond the two sections by pegs. In any case, the dowels mechanically join the wood elements without
any glue for bonding, the joint is held together by mechanical interlocking only. The beam that will be
used for testing is composed of Norwegian spruce while dowels are chiseled from English Oak.
Figure 1. Behavior of wood after cutting.
Figure 2. Variations within the tree trunk.

4
1.1
PROPERTIES AND BEHAVIOUR OF WOOD
Wood is composed of fibers that are mainly oriented longitudinally and bound together with
rays. It is higher in strength and stiffness parallel to the grain. The fibers are the cells of the wood and
they composed of the subcellular, cellulose, lignin and hemicellulose. These components give the
wood its properties; cellulose is the major subunit, which interconnects through cross-linking by the
hemicellulose and bonded by the lignin.
When a tree trunk is cut, it reveals annual wood rings that could be divided into categories.
The innermost is the core and it is where the oldest fibers are present. The layer right outside of that
is the heartwood and it is where the cells are no longer growing. Around that layer is the sapwood,
this layer is living and transfers water and nutrients from the roots to the leaves. It is less dense,
lighter in color and has a thicker cell wall thickness; it is susceptible to attack and tends to require
treatment. The outermost ring is where the cambium layer or the growth layer where the new wood is
laid outside the tree trunk.
Figure 3. Arrangement of fibers.
Figure 4. Growth ring.
The annual rings are produced on a yearly cycle; they are composed of the early wood and the
late wood. Latewood is produced later in the growth season, is denser and stronger. Considerations
to be taken when considering how to fix a beam include the environmental effects it has been
subjected to. Timber is not indicated in highly arid areas and care should be taken in maintaining it
with regards to the biological attacks of mold and termites. Other than that it is fairly flexible and
strong. The flexibility of wood stems from the existing variety produced by nature, from teak to pine,
the matching variety could be chosen in order to accommodate a certain use or function in a
structure. Many of the problems that arise in wood are associated with moisture and this is because it
allows for further damage from biological organisms. Other problems present in wood could stem from
the interaction of the timber as a structural element with elements made of other material in a
structural setting. These interactions could be in the form of surface condensation to physical
deformation and weakening of sections.
Wood looses much of its structural stability when subject to prolonged exposure to elevated
temperatures. Short-term extreme heat may cause some damage but the main issue is prolonged
heat exposure. The effect of drying damage varies amongst different species and ranges in the loss
of structural ability by 5-15%. Biological damage can go undetected for many years and would cause
a severe damaging effect to the integrity of the wood and ultimately its ability to support a structure.
One of the major wood destroyers is fungus and it has
the capability of degrading all sorts of wood composites,
an example can be seen in Figure 5.
These effects are being mentioned, as they are
important when it comes to diagnosing the cause of
cracks existing in beams. As can be seen in the figure,
fungi damage may present as cracks, misleading into
assuming that replacing a portion would be ok, while it
would probably be inefficient unless the conditions for the
fungal growth is eliminated.
In general, much can be deduced from carefully

examining the timber element under consideration. The
color, grain, features and surface smoothness all indicate
the species of the wood, which in turn reflects its
Figure 5. Typical cubical pattern of
cross checks in brown-rotted wood.
properties. In addition, the same features relay the

integrity of the member itself. The shade of the wood
indicate if it is wet, dry or biologically infested and these
are all indications on how such a member would behave structurally. It should be noted that the decay
of wood is a natural process and if measures are not taken to prevent it, it should be understood that
3
it would take its course over time. After the condition of the faulty beam is established, a proposal is
made to restore the integrity of the beam.
2.
STRESSES IN A BEAM
Hoffman proposes that the microstructure of orthotropic elements predetermines the planes of
4
elastic symmetry and ultimately the planes of stresses. Thus when working with timber it is
predictable that under loads higher than the element can handle, the timber will fail in either the
conjunction of the grain of the wood, and along any natural discrepancies.
Parts of the beam fail due to unforeseen loading or physical point damage that a beam has
incurred. In Figure 7 the stresses experienced by the wood can be visualized through the Mohr circle
solution, which aids in interpreting how the normal stresses affect the orthotropic nature of the wood.
Furthermore, the illustrations in the below figures illustrate the resulting Mohr circle of different stress
applications.
A reference here is important in relating the results obtained from the numerical analysis to
the Mohr-Coulomb. This is because the numerical analysis will be applied using the Von Mises
criterion, which is a simplification of the Mohr-Coulomb stress yield criteria. Under such conditions, it
is assumed that the stress states inside the surface only causes elastic deformations whereas stress

6
states on the surface leads to elastoplastic deformations. By definition, stress states outside the
surface are not possible.
Figure 6
Figure 7. Interpretation of Wood with cross

grain in uniaxial tension:
Figure 8. Von Mises stresses: S1, S2 and

S3
(a) Stress direction,

(b) Mohrs circle solution.
The Mohr circle draws the relationship between the three principal stresses, S1, S2 and S3.
When it comes to evaluating the results obtained from the three principal stresses resulting from the
forces applied to the beam. S1 tends to be positive and associated with tension, S3 tends to be
negative and associated with compression and S2 that has a value in between as expressed in the
equation of Figure 6 and manifested in the stress scenarios in Figure 9.
Figure 9. S1, S2 and S3 and the nature of stress.

2.1
HOW THE WOOD FAILS
Since wood is an orthotropic material, it behaves differently depending on the direction from
which the force is applied. It is stronger in tension, compression, bending, shear and bearing when
these forces are in a direction parallel to the grain. In addition to strength, it exhibits a higher modulus
of elasticity parallel to the grain as well.
Figure 10. Orientation of planes.
Most of the theories that address failure of

a structural element are related to homogeneous
isotropic material. Nonetheless, they will be
briefly mentioned as they could be applied to
predict the behavior of wood considering their
limitations. The first is Rankines Maximum
Principal Stress Theory, which relates to failure
to a maximum normal stress characteristic of the
material
Maximum
itself.
The
Shearing
second
Stress
is
Coulombs
Theory,
which
focuses on ductile material by limiting shearing

stress at which failure occurs. Thirdly there is
Saint-Venants Maximum Strain Theory and it
assumes that failure occurs when the normal
strain reaches a limiting level. The BeltramiHaigh Total Strain Energy Theory predicts failure
and refers to it as the inelastic behavior that
Figure 11
occurs when the strain energy per unit volume exceeds a specific limit. While the Huber-Henky-von
8
Mises Maximum Distortion Energy Theory bases it failure criterion on a limiting energy of distortion.

8
According
to
Weibull,
the
flaws
present in all materials are responsible for

triggering failure. In the case of wood this is
present in the form of knots and junctions
between early and late wood. Nonetheless,
it
is
accepted
that
wood
is
not
as
predictable as isotropic materials and its

fracture mechanism has not been narrowed
down to an exact science but is under
constant ambiguous experimentation. The
mode of fracture can be characterized
under three modes as can be seen in
Figure 12.
The
process
of
the
crack
development can be categorized into four

phases;
the
first
is
nucleation,
then
Figure 12
Mode I is opening cleavage, II is forward shear and
III is transverse shear.
initiation, then propagation and then the ultimate failure. The nucleation could stem from microscopic
incoherence innately present in the wood and is hard to anticipate beforehand. In the condition of
small cracking, the material should not be viewed as static, but as a component in which widespread
small cracks are present and alternatively relieve each other in a state of equilibrium. Once the load
exceeds that of the state of equilibrium, some of these small cracks, grow larger and propagate in
relation to the increased load. In this case, the propagation is related to the location of initiation, in the
case that the crack is arrested if it extends into a region capable of resisting it, while it accelerates in
areas of low resistance. Figure 11 shows crack arrest in the early wood of Douglas fir.
The following figures show failure cracks produced as a result of different outcomes of the
application of loads on various beams. It is clear that the presence of knots and orientation of the
grain majorly affects how timber beams behave and because of that, it is difficult to accurately
generalize the behavior of beam. Nonetheless the damage can be predicted according to the species
of wood and where they originate. Figure 13 and Figure 14 display different beam failures as a
consequence of the presence of knots, orientation and thickness of early and latewood.

Figure 13.
Types of failure of lumber in bending
caused by knots
A- Diagonal tension
B- Compression near a knot
C- Localized cross-grain tension
Figure 14.
Types of failure in bending with span
parallel to the grain
A- Simple tension
B- Cross-grain tension
C- Splintering tension
D- Brash tension
E- Compression
F- Horizontal shear
In general, timber elements are taken to display more strength when the load is applied
parallel to the grain.
Figure 15. Failure types of nonbuckling clear wood in compression parallel to grain:
A- Crushing, B- Wedge Splitting, C- Shearing, D- Splitting, E- Crushing and Splitting and F- Brooming.

10
Figure 16. Failure types of clear wood in tension parallel to grain: A- Splintering tension, B- Combined
tension and shear, C- Shear and D- Brittle tension.
Figure 17. Effects of knots on the mode of the tensile failure in lumber.
Figure 18. Failure types of clear wood in compression perpendicular to the grain: A- Crushing of an
earlywood zone, B- Shearing along a growth ring and C- Buckling of the growth rings.

11
Figure 17. Failure types of clear wood in tension perpendicular to grain: A- Tension failure of
earlywood B- Shearing along a growth ring and C- Tension failure of wood rays.
As can be observed from the different types of failure exhibited in the figure above, it is of
importance to orient the timber elements in an orientation that would optimize the elements behavior.
This is best done when the products are produced manually as they could be inspected in the
process, as opposed to automated machinery that is not capable of distinguishing such variation.

12
3.
JOINT TYPOLOGY
There are a variety of basic construction joints that are indicated on different occasions.
Overlap joints are simple and could be used for general purpose, where appearance is not critical as
they tend to be fastened by non-esthetic nails as is seen in Figure 19. Other kinds of joints include the
butt joint, which is commonly used where wall plates intersect or connect trusses as is seen in Figure
20.
Figure 19
Figure 20
Halving joints are commonly used in wall frame construction and connection. There are a variety of
ways in producing these joints, which tend to be customized for the location and use of the
connection. Several kinds can be seen in Figure 21. There are also the housing joints, which are
mainly used to connect studs to wall plates. There tends to be a grove in the side joist in which a stud
fits. This type of joint is convenient in connecting a timber element to a larger existing structure by
creating a divot that would fit the connection element as is seen in Figure 22.

13
Figure 21
Figure 22
Another variety will also be mentioned here and that is the notched, cogged and checked joint.
These can be used in a variety of situations to prevent bending and twisting. They could be single or
double notched and tend to be placed in open framed structures as can be visualized in Figure 23.
The traditional connections listed so far are used

commonly but in addition to these, carpenters can
beautifully make connection in ample ways. Some
artisanal joints are seen in the following page but
these are highly specialized and only used where
the carpenter is highly artistically qualified. These
can be especially found in traditional Japanese
architecture. Many of the joints in the figures have
been tested and revealed that in addition to their
complexity they do function properly, the drawback
in using them is in essence the complexity of the
design that they have design, which requires a
skilled
carpenter
that
could
produce
them
accurately. There is also, the mass manufacturing

method of fabrication, which would make producing
those joints easier, but it may be inaccessible in the
case of immovable beams.
10
Figure 23

14
Figure 24.

15
4.
REPAIR METHOD
There are several methods that could be implemented when repairing historical timber. If a
wooden beam is affected by a long longitudinal crack it could be repaired using a synthetic resin for
glue or even stirrups, longitudinal steel plates as to support for the weakened beam. In the presence
of horizontal forces, transversal elements should be used to resist such force. More recently, FRPs
have been used to repair timber as well.
11
The repair method is basically replacing the faulty parts of the beam with new timber elements
using a scarf joint. The scarf joint repair allows retaining as much original wood as possible, this is an
advantage when it comes to repairing historic timber as it is preferable to keep as much of the original
12
structure when possible.
It can be used when part of the beam is broken but the rest is intact. It is
not indicated if the whole beam has lost its structural integrity and this is where the careful diagnosis
is important.
The joint would have slanted faces for contacts and dowels in order to transmit the forces. The figures
below show the contrast between repairing a scarf joint using metal element versus the proposed all
timber joint. It is clearly visible that the timber joint is the least invasive visually while arguably the joint
with a metal adds an alternate character. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the all timber joint is less
visually invasive. The figures below show two scarf joints, one is strengthened by steel components
while the other is a drawing of completely made of wood. The second is the one that will be
addressed in this thesis and can be visualized in the following page.
Figure 25. Restoration at the exhibition hall in the Giardini, Venice.

16
Figure 26. Scarf joint blending with the old timber.

17
4.1
THE LAPPED SCARF JOINT
The joint in discussion is an outcome of a series of work investigating lapped scarf joints with
keys and dowels and examining their performance under bending, tension and compression. The
joints that have been investigated tend to respond well to bending but behave poorly under tensile
stresses.
It was decided that the dowels be of slightly higher modulus of rupture, elastic modulus and crushing
strength than the timber used for the beam itself this is to compensate for having smaller diameter
which is an advantage that will be discussed throughout this study. The property values for each kind
of wood can be seen in Table 1.
Common Name(s): English Oak, European Oak
Common Name(s): Norway Spruce, European
Scientific Name: Quercus robur
Spruce, German Spruce
Distribution: Most of Europe, to Asia Minor, and
Scientific Name: Picea abies
North Africa
Distribution: Northern and central Europe

3
Average Dried Weight: 42 lbs/ft (675 kg/m )
Average Dried Weight: 25 lbs/ft (405 kg/m )
Specific Gravity (Basic, 12% MC): .53, .67
Specific Gravity (Basic, 12% MC): .32, .41
Janka Hardness: 1,120 lbf (4,980 N)
Janka Hardness: 380 lbf (1,680 N)
Modulus of Rupture: 14,100 lbf/in (97.1 MPa)

2
Elastic Modulus: 1,544,000 lbf/in (10.60 GPa)

2
Crushing Strength: 6,720 lbf/in (46.3 MPa)
13
Modulus of Rupture: 9,130 lbf/in (63.0 MPa)

2
Elastic Modulus: 1,406,000 lbf/in (9.70 GPa)

2
Crushing Strength: 5,150 lbf/in (35.5 MPa)
14

18
Table 1
Norway Spruce
MOE (MPa)
EL
7490
(MPa)
ER
ET
(MPa)
GLR
GLT
13,201
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
English Oak
13,066
11,778
763
1028
279
2046
458
1100
554
234
GRT
(MPa)
51.2
1041
LR
(MPa)
0.014
0.064
LT
(MPa)
0.557
0.37
RT
(MPa)
0.023
0.033
a obtained from standard bending tests.

b Modified with factor L=7940/8210.
4.2
15
THE SCARF JOINT WITH NINE DOWELS
The collective efforts in producing this joint, is based on previous studies that will be referred to
in this paper.
16
The dimensions and geometry of the joint can be seen in Figure 28. In this case, Lp
was taken to be 5.25h, this was done as the previous test gave a higher range of stability and allowed
for an increased joint length and accommodated and higher number of dowels.
The joint to be discussed is a scarf joint that is joined using nine dowels. This is simpler to
produce as opposed to pegs, which require more work from the carpenter fabricating them. The beam
proper is made of Norway spruce while the dowels are of English Oak. It was previously determined
o
that an inclination of 60 is only suitable for combined compressive and bending stresses which is
o
found in rafters while joints of lower inclination (inclination below 40 ) is found to be better for bending.
o 17
For that reason, to facilitate fabrication, the inclination of the scarf was chosen to be 45 .
The inclination of the scarf joint is meant to reduce the transferred shear force V from the larger
members, reducing the resultant force applied to the dowels and transferring them in the direction
perpendicular to the grain. In addition, the oblique faces prevent displacement that could be caused
by the friction present between the two faces. The diameter of the dowels is chosen as determined by
the dimensions of the rest of the beam to have a surface area large enough to handle the forces but
small enough as to not cause tearing of the surrounding wood. For this reason, stiffer wood is used to
make the dowels, in order to compensate for its size.
The shear load is neglected, as its magnitude does not greatly influence the load bearing
capacity. The two main components that are investigated when examining the behavior of the joint
are the normal forces, which reflect the behavior of the element under tension and compression and
19
the bending moment. The load bearing capacity diagrams that will follow reflect the relationship
between the amount of forces and moments that the beams can support. It is important to note that
under combination loads of bending/tension and bending/compression, the joint has performed 25%
better in the combination with compression, because the friction present between the faces improves
the behavior of the system.
The balance between choosing the dowel diameter is imperatively important in that a dowel
with a larger circumference performs better but it in turn reduces the volume of the original member,
which consecutively reduces its strength. Thus it is important to choose a dowel size that is large
enough to handle the forces but small enough to keep the integrity of the original member.
18
In
compliance with the previous article and preferring the dowel diameter to be larger than h/10, the
proportion to be taken is h/7.5.
4.3
FORCES IN THE JOINT

In general, the forces acting on a scarf joint are the torque moment (Mx), the bending moment
(Mz), which could be eliminated in the presence of elements that prevent sideway shifts. These
elements could be decking, keys, dowel or could be an outcome of a beam too massive for shifting. In
this case, sideway shift prevented by the dowels and as a result the forces considered in this analysis
are those acting on the xz plane, which are noted on the figure below.
Figure 27. Forces acting on the joint

20
When loads are applied to the joint, the following forces are generated:
Forces acting at the abutment of faces, these are labelled in the figure above as (Ni), they are
parallel to the axis of the member, are in the x-direction and perpendicular to (Vi) in the zdirection.
Forces in the dowels, these are labelled in the figure above as (Nki), they are parallel to the
axis of the member, are in the x-direction and perpendicular to (vki) in the z-direction.
Figure 27 only shows the forces on the left end of the joint but these same forces are present,
opposite and equal on the right side of the joint.

When considering the strength in the joint, tension and compression in the direction
perpendicular to the fibers of the force Vi produces the most impact on the joint, making the point of
action the weakest point.
The strength of the joint is finally determined in relation to the failing of individual components
and is translated into ratios that could be used systematically for beams and joints of different sizes.
These components are the member itself, the effect of friction and the dowel.
4.4
19
THE DESIGN OF THE JOINT

The guidelines in designing the joint are taken from the guidelines described in the Euro code
5.
20
The classification of the timber elements is taken in relation to humidity, temperature and
condition of the structural wood. The fabrication of the joint should be manageable and systematic in
order to build a joint that performs as is accepted. The design is to be verified through experiments
and further used to implement further numerical analyses.
The timber is considered to have an f0,max = 40 MPa in relation to the limit tensile and
compression strength parallel to the grain.
The load bearing capacity of the system of dowel in relation to the hole drilled parallel to the
2
grain was determined according to experiments at fdowel,0,max = 12.5d 54d [N], where d is the
diameter of the dowel in millimeters
The load bearing capacity of the system of dowel in relation to the hole drilled perpendicular
to the grain was determined as fdowel,90,max = fdowel,0,max
!!,!"
!!,!
[N], where fh,0 is the strength in
deformation in the direction parallel to the grain and fh,90 is the strength in deformation in the
direction perpendicular to the grain.
The load bearing capacity perpendicular to the grain was taken to be a limiting condition in
the formation of cracks on the face as was determined through experiments. This criteria is to
be considered as fface,90,max =nd
!
!
ft,90,max [N], where nd is the distance of the dowel from the
face of the joint in the direction parallel with the grain (n is the number of diameters, d is the
dowel diameter.
!
!
is a half of the section divided by two because of the usual presence of

21
drying cracks extending up to half of the joint section and ft,90,max is the experimental load
bearing capacity of timber in tension in a direction perpendicular to the grain.
The diagrams of load bearing capacity are computed for dowel diameter d =
Stiffness is approximated within the limits 10 <

h is its height.
!
!
21
!
!.!
< 50, where L is the length of the beam and
22
Figure 28
The joint is to be designed for the ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state, estimating
the maximum deflection. The notations below follow those of normal practices where the section width
is b, the section height is h and the length of the beam is expressed as L. The following
recommendations are taken from the previous study on Lapped Scarf Joints for Repairs of Historical
Structures done by Kuneck et al.
23
The end of the linear section of the joint loading diagram determines the values of the load
bearing capacity.
The moments acting perpendicular to the longitudinal vertical plane are considered negligible,
thus neglected and the structure is simplified to a planar one.
Twisting at the scarf joint is neglected.
All measurements are taken in relation to the centerline of the beam where points L1, L1+ Lp
o
are the centers on the 45 faces.
The dowel diameter should have dimensions of minimum

to be
!
!.!
!
!"
or larger. In this case it is taken
The minimum distance from the end of the joint to the edge of the beam is 2h.
If two scarf joints are to be used in the same beam, the minimum distance that should be
between the two joints is 6h.
!
The joints can only be designed for section of <
< 1.
Due to high bending moments at the middle of the beam, the joint should never be located in
the middle or have a length greater than half the beam.
The direction of the faces of the joint should have the same orientation as a V where the left
side is the left arm of the V and the right side has a face as the of the right arm of the V. (\ /)
22
Figure 29
The relations between the dimensions in the joint used for the experiment are given in Table 2 and
visualized in Figure 29.
Table 2
Lab$Experiment$
h$
b$
0,12$
0,1$
L$
Diameter$
h/D
Sigma$X$
Face$
3,00$
0,0160$
7,50$
40$
4,8$
Dowel$X$
Dowel$Y$
2,43$
1,53$

23
Left Volume
Right Volume
D2
D4
D1
D3
D6
D5
D8
D7
D9
Figure 30. Perspective view.
5.
EXPERIMENTS
There were a total of six loading tests. Four of the samples were used to test the behavior of
the joint under tensile loading while the other two samples were tested for bending. The beams tested
are made of Norway spruce, are three meters long and are held together with dowels made of English
Oak.
According to the Euro code, the ideal humidity for timber is around or slightly less than 12%
o
and the temperature is around 20 Celsius. In addition much of the grading that is used to determine
the state of the timber is visual and based on the examiner, this makes the classification difficult to
standardize.
24
The percent humidity was measured for the beams that were subject to the load test
and are documented in Table 3.

The pictures below display the samples used for tension and compression, their orientation
and how the load is applied. When producing the joint, material should be carefully chosen, as it
should be compatible with the existing beam. The regularity of the structure and compatibility should
be accomplished between the late and early wood in both the sample and the new addition. Knots,
twisted grains as well as drying cracks should be carefully inspected and if present should be placed
in non-critical sections where it is know that the stresses would be high. Wood moisture should be
less than 20%. Wood should be harvested after the growing season.
The dowels are more carefully chosen and should be made from split straight grain oak
heartwood without defect. The dowels are produced in accordance with the table given above
!
!.!
Chiseling blocks of wood, creating a rough round shape, produces the dowels and then they are
refined through passing smaller sizes until the desirable diameter is achieved. The location of the
24
scarf joint is determined by the extent of the damage but there are limitations that were stated above
between the length of the joint and the overall length of the beam. The longitudinal cut is determined
in relation to the axis of the grain in the center of the beam in order to cause the least disturbance to
the arrangement of the wood fibers. This is a work through process where the face is roughly cut first
in order to inspect for any knots and then refined accordingly. Once the location is determined, the cut
is executed manually by a two-man saw and finished with a chisel axe. The oblique face of the joint is
also done as a step-by-step work in progress; it is to be removed roughly in the direction
perpendicular to the grain at the point of the estimated center of the joint. The side of the undercut is
determined, outlined and then carefully carved with a handsaw. It would be difficult to achieve this
outcome with machinery and it is preferable to cut the joint manually.
Once the parts are prepared, they are temporarily fastened together, all the parts are checked
for alignment and the holes for the dowels are drilled using an auger bit. The two images below show
the samples placed, ready for testing.
25
Figure 31. Tension Test
Figure 32. Bending Test
Table 3
% Humidity
Tension
Tension
Tension
Tension
Bending
Bending
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Sample 1
Sample 2
9.1%
9.55%
10.2%
10.3%
11.05%
11.2%
Figure 33. Humidity test.

25
5.1
BENDING LOAD TEST

The bending test was done for two samples. The samples were manufactured manually and
inspected in the same way as that for the tension-loading test. the timber beam was laid horizontally
as can be seen in Figure 32. The load was gradually applied until the beams failed. This test is done
to test the behavior of the joint under bending conditions.
Figure 34. Sample one: prior to failure

It is clear in the figures above that the first sample of the bending test had a large longitudinal
drying crack on what is continuously referred to as the right member of the joint system. The drying
cracks were in a non-critical location of the beam and thus were overlooked. This was rightly
estimated as the figures that follow demonstrate that the beam had failed at a different location than
those in which the drying crack is. The joint failed in the right member but in a different location than
26
the largest drying crack. This might be the location of another inconsistency but it is consistent in that
it failed at the smallest cross-section, which is expected. The other location at which this sample failed
is due to the sliding among the left and right member, thus the friction energy was overcome; this did
not affect the dowels.
Figure 35. Sample one: post failure.

27
Figure 36. Sample two: prior to failure.

The second sample had a few smaller drying cracks but they were at different locations.
Figure 37. Sample two: post failure.

The second sample failed by two mechanisms, the first is the opening of the joint as was the
case with the first sample. What distinguishes this sample from the first one is that it failed
longitudinaly in relation with a drying crack that was smaller than the one present in the first sample.
This is to assert that the location of the defect is integral to how the timber element would fail. This is
to emphasize the importance of manually producing the joint and inspecting it carefully. The
longitudinal cracks present in the second sample seemed negligible but they were underestimated.
What is consistent between the two samples is that the joint failed by sliding across the faces. This
was previously addressed by providing a joint with a longer face and a lower angle but this is limited
by the space and technology to provide for such a joint and is counterbalanced by providing stronger
26
dowels.

28
A numerical model was produced for the timber beam and the joint using the program
ANSYS
TM
in order to investigate further behaviour of the joint under additional conditions. The first
numerical model was produced mirroring the bending experiment as can be viewed in Figure 38. The
5 kN load was applied in the same location as the load was applied in the lab. The main difference
between the numerical model and the experiment in the lab is that the only 5 kN were applied to the
numerical model while the beam in lab was tested until failure.
First Load Case
5KN
Bending Test
Figure 38

29
12000"
10000"
8000"
Force"Test1"
6000"
Force"Test2"
Numerical"Force"
4000"
2000"
0"
0"
5"
10"
15"
20"
25"
30"
35"
Figure 39
The graph above relays the relationship between the displacements of the center of the beam
in relation to the applied load. The two samples behaved in a similar fashion and it is clear that past
the application of 6 kN the beam becomes unstable and fails. The results obtained from the numerical
model are represented by the green dot. This is because only the maximum displacement was
measured at the application of the 5 kN force. The graph relays that the numerical model displaces
approximately 7 mm at the application of 5 kN. This value is higher than what has been observed
from the experiments and this could be due to two reasons. The first is that the timber might be better
than expected or the other is that the numerical model bases the analysis on the poorest expected
behavior. Nonetheless this makes the use of the numerical model for analysis and estimation of
behavior as a viable option is it would not underestimate the failure but amplifies it. Thus, results
obtained from the numerical analysis will be considered as indicatory and non-endangering to
structures and their users.
The stresses and displacement obtained from the numerical model are relayed in Figure 40.
There is the incidence of the joint opening in the numerical model in the same fashion as it did in the
laboratory test. The figures relaying the displacement in the x-direction on the top, and the bottom one
displaying the stresses justify the locations in which the beam failed. There is a higher concentration
of stresses in the right beam; on the top there is compression and the bottom there is tension. A
detailed explanation of the stresses and its characterization with the Mohr circle will follow in the
section labeled additional investigation of the numerical model. For the purpose of identification this
test will be labeled as LC1 throughout the text for reference.

30
Solution for the application of 5 kN vertical load at the middle of the beam
STEP=1
SUB=1
TIME=1
UX (NOAVG)
DMX = 0.011348
SMN = -0.852 E-03
SMX = 0.868 E-03
Stresses on the X-Axis
-0.852E-03
-0.661E-03
-0.470E-03
-0.279E-03
-0.877E-04
0.104E-03
0.295E-03
0.486E-03
-0.010028
-0.008737
-0.007445
-0.006154
-0.004863
-0.003571
-0.00228
.487E+07
0.972E+07
-0.988E-03
0.303E-03
STEP=1
SUB=1
TIME=1
UY (NOAVG)
DMX = 0.011348
SMN = 17720.2
SMX = 0.437 E+08
Resultant Stresses
17720.2
0.868E-03
STEP=1
SUB=1
TIME=1
UY (NOAVG)
DMX = 0.011348
SMN = -0.011319
SMX = 0.303 E-03
Stresses on the Y-Axis
-0.011319
0.677E-03
0.146E+08
0.194E+08
0.243E+08
0.291E+08
0.340E+08
0.388E+08
0.437E-08
Figure 40

31
5.2
TENSION LOAD TEST

Figure 41 shows a close up of the samples that were used for the tension test showing the
quality of their workmanship prior to attempting the test. The samples were mounted and the load was
applied until the beam failed. The loading was applied incrementally in a way to simulate regular use
through applying a load then subsequently providing relief but not to regress to the original state of
non-loading. The test lasted about fifteen minutes for each sample until it obviously failed. The four
samples that were used behaved in a similar fashion in relation to the load that was applied and the
location at which the joint failed. Figure 42 and Figure 43 show different samples failing at similar
location. It is noteworthy that the fractures that occurred are not related to the drying cracks.
Figure 41. Samples prior to testing

32
Figure 42. Failure at the weakest sections
Figure 43. Two beams failing at the same location.

33
It is clearly visible from the samples that the member did not fail
at the joint but in the beam proper. This is an indication that the joint is a
viable option for use in restoration. Although four tests were completed
for tension, they are not separately labeled as they mostly failed in the
same manner this can be visualized in the figure above
As both samples failed at an identical location. The consistent location
of failure for the beams is located at the surface of the scarf. This has
been observed in the bending test as well but the failure was on a
different face of the scarf. What makes this failure different from the
failure observed in bending, in that in the case for tension, the crack is
parallel to the plane in which the two volumes facing each other. This
could be the result of the small micro fractures that emerged during the
process of longitudinally sawing the timber members. Another possibility
is that the holes placement for the bolts that are part of the load
applying machinery resulted in producing weaker members towards the
Figure 44
ends of the beam.
The exception is the beam than can be seen in Figure 44. This occurred to the sample
labeled as test three in the graph that will follow and it has to be noted that this was not the first sign
of failure in the beam; the dowels failed secondly after another section of the beam failed. The beam
that behaved the poorest is labeled as two on the graph. This beam has failed in the same location as
the others but the failure occurred at lower loads. This is possibly due to the presence of more knots
or drying cracks in critical locations. This asserts the variation that is present in wooden construction
elements.
A numerical model was designed using the program ANSYS
TM
in order to do further studies on
the behavior of the beam. While the beams tested in the lab were loaded until failure, the numerical
model had a 10 kN force applied to the right of the beam as can be seen in Figure 45 which shows
both the numerical and real test samples. The graph in Figure 47 shows the relation between the
behavior of the joint under tensile stresses in the lab and with the numerical model. In contrast to the
numerical model that was produced for the bending test, the stresses and displacements observed in
this test are not consistent with the locations in which at least two of the beams failed. This is to assert
that the location of failure that was observed in the laboratory test is possibly the result of the
weakening of the cross sections at the edges of the beam, which was not modeled numerically. This
is to assert the criteria that the scarf joint should be located within a value of 6h from any other joint or
sectional discrepancies as was relayed in the section on the design of the joint above and a distance
of 2h from the end of the beam.

34
Second Load Case

10KN
Tension Test
Figure 45.
The stresses observed in the numerical model are consistent with the failure in sample
number three. This indicates although the other three samples failed at different locations, the
numerical model still has value, as it is not completely imaginative. And again, it will be restated that
the failure that occurred in the three samples is a result of the weakening of the section, too close to
the joint through the introduction of bolts in order to apply the load. This could be avoided if the beam
was longer but there were limitations in manufacturing the sample.

35
Solution for the application of 10 kN horizontal load at the right end of the beam
STEP=2
SUB=1
TIME=2
UX (NOAVG)
DMX = 0.011348
SMN = -0.852 E-03
SMX = 0.868 E-03
-0.284E-04
0.676E-04
0.164E-03
0.260E-03
0.356E-03
0.452E-03
0.548E-03
0.644E-03
-0.568E-06
0.228E-04
0.461E-04
0.695E-04
0.928E-04
0.116E-03
0.140E-03
.532E+07
0.106E+08
0.163E-03
0.186E-03
STEP=2
SUB=1
TIME=2
UY (NOAVG)
DMX = 0.00314
SMN = 840.167
SMX = 0.478 E+08
Resultant Stresses
840.167
0.836E-03
STEP=2
SUB=1
TIME=2
UY (NOAVG)
DMX = 0.00314
SMN = -0.239 E-04
SMX = 0.186 E-03
-0.239E-04
0.740E-03
0.160E+08
0.213E+08
0.266E+08
0.319E+08
0.372E+08
0.425E+08
0.478E-08
Figure 46.

36
40000"
35000"
30000"
25000"
Force"Test1"
Force"Test2"
20000"
Force"Test3"
Force"Test4"
Numerical"Force"
15000"
10000"
5000"
0"
0"
1"
2"
3"
4"
5"
6"
7"
8"
Figure 47.
The maximum force applied in the numerical model is represented by the blue dot and produces
more displacement than it does in reality and thus it can be concluded that the numerical model
produces results that are safer than those observed in reality. It is more conservative and thus
reliable. It can be deduced from the graph that the timber beam can sustain a tensile load of up to 15
kN. This may vary with lower quality timber. According to the numerical analysis, this load test results
in the failure of both the dowels and the right member. The left member does not experience as much
tension as it is relieved the moment the dowels fail. In depth examination of the stresses and their
magnitudes on different members of the joint is to follow in the Mohr diagrams explanation. For the
purpose of identification this test will be labeled as LC2 throughout the text for reference.
5.3
ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL

In addition to the two numerical models that mirrored the real lab test and served for validation
purposes, a numerical beam was tested for the application of a 5 kN load in the middle of the beam
combined with the application of a 10 kN horizontal force applied to the right side of the beam. The
results can be seen in the figures obtained from the numerical analysis below. The third model, which
will be consistently referred to as LC3 throughout the text, displays the shape of the deformations
incurred by the beam in LC1. Nonetheless, As expected, the third model with the combined loading
experiences internal stresses at higher magnitudes and the characterization of the stress is more
related with increased loadings in the dowels. This is a possible outcome of triaxial compressive
stress as will be relayed from the diagrams obtained from developing the Mohr circles.
37
Solution for the application of 5 kN vertical load at the middle of the beam and
10 kN horizontal load at the right end of the beam
STEP=3
SUB=1
TIME=3
UX (NOAVG)
DMX = 0.012408
SMN = -0.271 E+08
SMX = 0.731 E+08
-0.271E+08
-0.159E+03
-0.480E+07
0.634E+07
0.175E+08
0.286E+08
0.397E+08
0.509E+08
-0.499E+07
-0.377E+07
-0.255E+07
-0.133E+07
-115046
0.110E+07
0.232E+07
0.815E+07
0.163E+08
0.354E+07
0.476E+07
STEP=3
SUB=1
TIME=3
UY (NOAVG)
DMX = 0.012408
SMN = 30855.3
SMX = 0.731 E+08
Resultant Stresses
30855.3
0.731E+08
STEP=3
SUB=1
TIME=3
UY (NOAVG)
DMX = 0.012408
SMN = -0.621E+07
SMX = 0.476 E+07
-0.621E+07
0.620E+08
0.244E+08
0.325E+08
0.406E+08
0.488E+08
0.569E+08
0.650E+08
0.731E+08
Figure 48

38
The following series of illustrations address the characterization of the stresses present in
LC1, LC2 and LC3. The first three Mohr illustrations are drawn to scale and reflect the magnitudes of
the stresses present in different members and the location of maximum and minimum stresses
present in the member under different loading conditions.
Prior to discussing the diagrams in depth, it will be beneficial to reintroduce the principal
stresses S1, S2 and S3. The principal stresses are associated with their respective planes; S1 is
always the highest of all stresses or in the least equal to one or two of the other stresses. As a result it
tends to be associated with tension as it is the least negative stress present in a stress situation. As
the plane for S1 is set once the highest principal stress is determined, the second plane, relating to
S2 is chosen based on its value being lower than S1 and higher than S3. In some instances, S2 can
be equal to either S1 or S3. When all three principal stresses have the same value, the state of stress
is characterized to be under hydrostatic pressure, where it experiences the same magnitude of stress
on all the planes. In the case where S1 is equal to S2 and both are equal to zero, the stress state is
characterized to be under uniaxial tension. In another instance where S2 is equal to S3 and both are
equal to zero, the stress state is characterized to be under uniaxial tension. When S2 has a value of
zero and S3 is equal to the negative value of S1, the stress state is determined to be in pure shear.
There exists different variations as can be seen in the diagrams below but the aforementioned
statements hold true.
The following three illustrations display the state of stress at the locations of maximum stress
at each member for LC1, LC2 and LC3. The Mohr diagrams are produced to scale and are compared
with in Figure 9 above. The maximum stresses are associated with behavior of uniaxial compression,
thus failure in any of the members is a result of compression. This is also observed in LC2, although it
is only associated with the application of tensile loading, this can be explained as wood is stronger
under tension than it is in compression. For this reason, although in LC2 the loads applied are purely
tensile loads, the timber elements fail due to the counterbalancing of the tension by compression of
different locations of the beam.
It is worth noting that S1 for both LC1 has the largest magnitude in both the members
whereas LC2 and LC3 have a smaller gap between the highest magnitude of stress in the large
members and the dowels.
The three illustrations that follow display the Mohr circle at the areas of highest values of the
principal stresses S1, S2 and S3, the drawings are to scale. They are referred to as LC1, LC2 and
LC3. In LC1 and as is expected, the highest stress value is associated with a Mohr circle that
expresses uniaxial compression and is counterbalanced with the highest minimum S3 value at the
bottom. The force affects the right member the most as it directly applied to it, where as it has a lower
magnitude on the left and the least on the dowels.
In LC2, the member experiencing the largest stresses is the right member as well, but in this
case, the left member is not drastically different as the force is applied on the centerline of both the
left and right members. This reflects the integrity of the joint and those members of significant size
experience similar stress although they are transferred across the surfaces and the dowels. The
dowels themselves incur some stresses but they are not significant. This is contrasted in LC3 where
39
the dowels display the most stress reactions out of the other three cases. Nonetheless, the effects
seem to be concentrated in the right member. This is in harmony with the lab tests, as the beams
failed in the beam itself and not in the location of the dowels.
On another notes, the samples that were tested in lab failed at the points of maximum
stresses as reflected in the following images. The area with the most concentrated stresses were in
the member, in the location of least cross section near the faces of the scarf joints.

40
First Load Case
5KN
Mohr Circle Presentations at Point of Maximum S1
S3
S1
S2
Node of Maximum Stress in the Dowels
Dowels
Max S1
Max S2
Max S3
Node
S1
48328
48314
65745
S2
7.08E+06
3.68E+06
4.80E+06
S3
1.47E+05
3.42E+05
2.55E+05
1.10E+05
-1.18E+05
1.72E+05
S3
S2
S1
Node of Maximum Stress in the Left Volume
VLeft
Max S1
Max S2
Max S3
Node
S1
69537
58152
58152
S2
1.98E+07
3.98E+06
3.98E+06
S3
-3.73E+05
1.58E+06
1.58E+06
-1.03E+06
7.85E+05
7.85E+05
Node of Maximum Stress in the Right Volume
S3
S2
S1
Vright
Max S1
Max S2
Max S3
Node
S1
68648
53281
54519
S2
4.42E+07
6.42E+06
1.50E+07
S3
8.84E+05
5.10E+06
2.58E+06
2.60E+05
-2.96E+05
1.34E+06
Figure 49. LC1

41
Second Load Case

10KN
S3
S2
S1
Dowels
Max S1
Max S2
Max S3
S3
Node
S1
67414
48040
48040
S2
1.23E+07
7.83E+06
7.83E+06
S3
2.90E+05
4.80E+05
4.80E+05
1.26E+05
3.62E+05
3.62E+05
S2
S1
VLeft
Max S1
Max S2
Max S3
Node
S1
69517
69168
54885
S2
4.36E+07
2.17E+06
8.38E+06
S3
-4.60E+05
1.58E+06
8.25E+05
-8.78E+05
-4.52E+06
3.34E+05
S3
S2
S1
Vright
Max S1
Max S2
Max S3
Node
S1
68688
53273
53009
S2
4.69E+07
1.04E+07
1.68E+07
S3
-6.93E+05
1.51E+06
8.02E+05
-1.17E+06
1.44E+05
5.95E+05
Figure 50. LC2

42
Third Load Case

10KN
5KN
S3
S2
S1
Dowels
Max S1
Max S2
Max S3
Node
S1
67414
63611
63615
S2
1.82E+07
1.01E+07
1.09E+07
S3
4.14E+05
7.05E+05
6.38E+05
2.39E+05
4.64E+05
5.01E+05
S3
S2
VLeft
Max S1
Max S2
Max S3
S1
Node
S1
69517
57417
58150
S2
5.09E+07
2.94E+06
4.55E+06
S3
5.22E+05
2.30E+06
1.56E+06
-2.94E+05
-7.70E+05
1.15E+06
S2
S3
S1
Vright
Max S1
Max S2
Max S3
Node
S1
68648
53277
54519
S2
7.33E+07
1.18E+07
2.33E+07
S3
8.51E+05
4.97E+06
3.49E+06
4.72E+05
-1.65E+05
1.84E+06
Figure 51. LC3

43
LC1
5KN
Left Volume
Right Volume
Dowels
Max S1
Max S2
Max S3
Min S1
Min S2
Min S3
Min S1
Max S1
Figure 52. LC1

44
LC2
10KN
Left Volume
Right Volume
Dowels
Max S1
Max S2
Max S3
Min S1
Min S2
Min S3
Min S1
Max S1
Figure 53. LC2

45
LC3
10KN
5KN
Left Volume
Right Volume
Dowels
Max S1
Max S2
Max S3
Min S1
Min S2
Min S3
Min S1
Max S1
Figure 54. LC3.

46
6.
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
Since it has been deduced that the numerical model is reflective of reality in a conservative
manner, further tests will be done to investigate the behavior of the joint. Three models were
TM
simulated and were investigated with the finite element method using the program ANSYS . Table 4
shows the dimensions of the sections simulated. The different beams had different cross sections but
all of them were lapped scarf joints, connected with nine dowels, as was the case with the previous
example.
The first beam has cross section of
First Load Case: Downward Moment
16 x 14, the second 22 x 18 and the third

28 x 24. The rest of the dimensions are an
outcome of the proportions given previously
on the section detailing the design of the
Second Load Case: Tension
joint. Four load situations were applied to

each section and displayed in Figure 55.
Each section was subjected to four load
applications, the first is a downward moment,
Third Load Case: Compression
the second is tension, the third is

compression and the fourth is an upward
moment. As expected the larger the beam,
the less stresses it experienced under each
Fourth Load Case: Upward Moment
different load situations. What will be

discussed in more depth is the behavior of
the joint in response to the different applied
loads. Table 4 gives the dimensions of the
three different cross sections. The forces
applied for the moment load conditions is
Figure 55
5kN while that for the tension and

compression is 10 kN.
Table 4
Numerical Analysis
h
b
0,16
0,14
0,22
0,18
0,28
0,24
L
4,00
5,50
7,00
Diameter
0,0220
0,0300
0,0380
h/D
7,27
7,33
7,37
Sigma X
40
40
40
Face
9,2
16,2
27,4
Dowel X
4,60
8,55
13,72
Dowel Y
2,76
4,79
7,13

47
Figure 56

48
6.1
SECTIONAL PROPERTIES
f!,!
f!,!,!
6.1.1
! = 1.3
f!,! = 20!MPa
f!,!,! = 12!MPa
E!"#$ = 9.5!!GPa
k !"# = 0.8
f!,!
20
= ! k !"#!
= 0.8!
= 12.3!MPa
!
1.3
f!,!,!
12
= ! k !"#!
= 0.8!
= 7.38!MPa
!
1.3
SECTIONAL PROPERTIES FOR THE 16 X 14 MEMBER:

A = bh = 0.14!!0.16 = 0.022!m!
bh! 0.14!!0.16!
w! =
=
= !5.97!!10!! !m! !
6
6
bh! 0.14!!0.16!
I! =
=
= 4.78!!10!! m! !
12
12
6.1.1.1 BEHAVIOUR WITHOUT THE JOINT FOR 5 kN:

Bending at mid-point
!,!,! !,!
+
1
f!,!,!
f!,!
M!
7.5!!10!!
!,! = !
=
= !12.5!MPa!
W! 5.97!!10!!
N! 5!!10!!
!,!,! = !
=
= !0.22!MPa!
A
0.022
!,!,! !,!
+
=11
f!,!,!
f!,!
Cross Section Compliant
Maximum Deflection
w!"#,!"#$! = !
w! = !
L
3
=!
= 0.012
250
250
PL!
50003!
=!
= 6.2!X10!! !
48EI
48(9.510! )(4.78!!10!! )
Bending Stiffness
k =!
48EI 48(9.510! )(4.78!!10!! )

=
= !807.06!kNm!! !
PL!
50003!

49
6.1.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE BEAM WITH JOINT:

Maximum Deflection
L
= 0.25,
12
L! = 0.357!m,
w! = w! !
L! = 5h = 0.8,
b = 0.14,
h = 0.16!m
40
h!.!
! !.! = 0.009m
L
1
(8.3 9.4 !
) L
L 12
Bending Stiffness
k =!
6.1.2
L!
1 h!.!
)
L 12 L!.!
= 411!kNm!!
1.25
100Eb(8.3 9.4

A = bh = 0.22!!0.18 = 0.040!m!
bh! 0.22!!0.18!
w! =
=
= !1.45!!10!! !m! !
6
6
bh! 0.22!!0.18!
I! =
=
= 1.58!!10!! m! !
12
12

!,!,! !,!
+
1
f!,!,!
f!,!
M!
7.5!!10!!
!,! = !
=
= !5.17!MPa!
W! 1.45!!10!!
N! 5!!10!!
!,!,! = !
=
= !0.13!MPa!
A
0.04
!,!,! !,!
+
= 0.43 1
f!,!,!
f!,!
Maximum Deflection
w!"#,!"#$! = !
w! = !
L
3
=!
= 0.012
250
250
PL!
50003!
=!
= 1.85!X10!! !
48EI
48(9.510! )(1.58!!10!! )
Bending Stiffness
k =!
48EI 48(9.510! )(1.58!!10!! )

=
= !2697.49!kNm!! !
PL!
50003!

50

Maximum Deflection
L
= 0.25,
12
L! = 0.357!m,
w! = w! !
L! = 5h = 0.8,
b = 0.18,
h = 0.22!m
40
h!.!
! !.! = 0.003m
L
1
(8.3 9.4 !
) L
L 12
Bending Stiffness
k =!
6.1.3
L!
1 h!.!
)
L 12 L!.!
= 1212.43!kNm!!
1.25
100Eb(8.3 9.4

A = bh = 0.28!!0.24 = 0.067!m!
bh! 0.28!!0.24!
w! =
=
= !3.14!!10!! !m! !
6
6
bh! 0.28!!0.24!
I! =
=
= 4.39!!10!! m! !
12
12

!,!,! !,!
+
1
f!,!,!
f!,!
M!
7.5!!10!!
!,! = !
=
= !12.5!MPa!
W! 3.14!!10!!
N! 5!!10!!
!,!,! = !
=
= !0.074!MPa!
A
0.067
!,!,! !,!
+
= 0.20 1
f!,!,!
f!,!
Maximum Deflection
w!"#,!"#$! = !
w! = !
L
3
=!
= 0.012
250
250
PL!
50003!
=!
= 6.7!X10!! !
48EI
48(9.510! )(4.39!!10!! )
Bending Stiffness
k =!
48EI 48(9.510! )(4.39!!10!! )

=
= !7414.89!kNm!! !
PL!
50003!

51

Maximum Deflection
L
= 0.25,
12
L! = 0.357!m,
w! = w! !
L! = 5h = 0.8,
b = 0.28,
h = 0.24!m
40
h!.!
! !.! = 0.001m
L
1
(8.3 9.4 !
) L
L 12
Bending Stiffness
k =!
L!
1 h!.!
)
L 12 L!.!
= 3025.9!kNm!!
1.25
100Eb(8.3 9.4

52
The following set of graphs in Figure 57, compare the force distribution among the different
members under the four different loading conditions on the x-axis. The three beams respond similarly
under the different loading conditions. Under the first loading condition of downward moment, the left
and right volumes in all beam sizes absorb most of the force and thus under these conditions, the
dimensions and properties of the dowels are sufficient. This is contrasted under the second and fourth
loading conditions. In the second loading condition of pure tensile loading, most of the forces acting in
the x-direction are concentrated in the dowels and very little on the right and left volumes. The third
loading condition of the application of compressive forces on both ends of the beam results in a more
even distribution of the forces amongst the various members, with dowel 1 and 9 having a slightly
higher force distribution than the rest of the members. The fourth loading condition places much of the
forces of the dowels in the upper rows.
16x14%magnitude%of%the%forces%in%the%X%direc6on%
7000"
Dowel"1"
6000"
Dowel"2"
Dowel"3"
5000"
"Dowel"4"
4000"
"Dowel"5"
Dowel"6"
3000"
Dowel"7"
Dowel"8"
2000"
Dowel"9"
1000"
Le3"Volume"
Right"Volume"
0"
0"
0.5"
1"
1.5"
2"
2.5"
3"
3.5"
4"
4.5"
7000"
Dowel"1"
6000"
Dowel"2"
Dowel"3"
5000"
"Dowel"4"
4000"
"Dowel"5"
Dowel"6"
3000"
Dowel"7"
Dowel"8"
2000"
Dowel"9"
1000"
Le3"Volume"
Right"Volume"
0"
0"
0.5"
1"
1.5"
2"
2.5"
3"
3.5"
4"
4.5"

53
7000"
Dowel"1"
6000"
Dowel"2"
Dowel"3"
5000"
"Dowel"4"
4000"
"Dowel"5"
Dowel"6"
3000"
Dowel"7"
Dowel"8"
2000"
Dowel"9"
1000"
Le3"Volume"
Right"Volume"
0"
0"
0.5"
1"
1.5"
2"
2.5"
3"
3.5"
4"
4.5"
Figure 57. Forces in the X-direction.
16x14%magnitude%of%the%forces%in%the%Y%direc6on%
7000"
Dowel"1"
6000"
Dowel"2"
Dowel"3"
5000"
"Dowel"4"
4000"
"Dowel"5"
Dowel"6"
3000"
Dowel"7"
Dowel"8"
2000"
Dowel"9"
1000"
Le3"Volume"
Right"Volume"
0"
0"
0.5"
1"
1.5"
2"
2.5"
3"
3.5"
4"
4.5"
7000"
Dowel"1"
6000"
Dowel"2"
Dowel"3"
5000"
"Dowel"4"
4000"
"Dowel"5"
Dowel"6"
3000"
Dowel"7"
Dowel"8"
2000"
Dowel"9"
1000"
Le3"Volume"
Right"Volume"
0"
0"
0.5"
1"
1.5"
2"
2.5"
3"
3.5"
4"
4.5"

54
7000"
Dowel"1"
6000"
Dowel"2"
Dowel"3"
5000"
"Dowel"4"
4000"
"Dowel"5"
Dowel"6"
3000"
Dowel"7"
Dowel"8"
2000"
Dowel"9"
1000"
Le3"Volume"
Right"Volume"
0"
0"
0.5"
1"
1.5"
2"
2.5"
3"
3.5"
4"
4.5"
Figure 58. Forces in the Y-direction.

The graphs above display the magnitude of the acting force on the three beams under the
four different loading conditions in the y-plane of the. Under the first loading condition, the two larger
members absorb significantly more force than the dowels as was observed in the x-plane, the major
difference is the shift of the member experiencing the highest force to the left member as opposed to
the right member in the x-plane. The second loading condition produces similar results as has been
observed in the x-plane and both the left and right members experience very little force, while most of
the force concentration is focused on the dowels. The third loading condition in the y-plane focuses
most of the force on the larger member, but it is not significantly higher than the forces experienced
by the dowels. The fourth loading condition of upward moment produces a similar reaction of that of
the second loading condition, except in this case, the left volume experiences more force than it does
in the second. In addition, dowel 1 (the first dowel on the bottom left) experiences the most force
followed by the successive dowels on the bottom row, which is contrasting, to the resulting forces in
the x-plane.
In addition to the forces, the following set of plots display the deformed shape as well as the
concentration of the stress in the three separate beams under the four different loading conditions. As
it will be evident again, that the three beams behave similarly under the corresponding loading
conditions, the three beams will be addressed as a group but distinction will be made for each loading
scenario.
The first loading scenario causes bending in the middle of the beam causing the most stress
at the mid-point of the beam. The upper faces experiences compression while the bottom is under
tensile stresses. Since most of the stresses are in the middle of the beam, the right member
experiences most of it, followed by the left member and lastly the dowels. Thus, for this loading
condition, this joint orientation is optimal in that the member experiences the force in a similar fashion
to a newly installed whole beam.
The second loading condition of tension on the ends of the beam results in much force on the
dowels. This is observed as a sliding action between the two larger members, where the dowels are
left to resist the slip. Once the resistance of the dowels secedes, the joint simply fails. The simple
55
solution for this would be to increase the dowel diameter but this would in turn weaken the members
themselves. There should be more investigation to improve this joint under tension.
The third loading condition of compression causes much stress in the dowels but the lap
faces produce a counter balance. This leaves the joint more intact than in tension but much of the
stresses are still present in the dowels.
The fourth loading condition of upward moment is more potent than that of the downward
moment in that in this orientation the joint has the tendency to open. The plots relay stress in the right
members but this is rapidly transferred to the dowels and the left member.

56
Stress results for the beam with a cross section of 16 x 14
Figure 59.

57
Figure 60.

58
Figure 61.

59
Figure 62.

60
Figure 63.

61
Figure 64.

62
The following four graphs reflect the displacements of the three beams under the different
loading scenarios. The highest displacements are observed in the smallest beam and the largest
section experiences the least deformations. This is consistent with the slenderness of the beams with
smaller sections. Under the first loading scenario, downward moment, the beam displaces the most in
the x-direction and very little horizontally. In the two conditions of compression and tension, the joint
exhibits the least displacement. As has been observed in the stress figures above, the fourth loading
condition, which is the application of the upward moment, causes the most deflection as the joint
easily opens up. This is the condition under which the joint behaves the worst and thus would not be
indicated under the circumstances that a beam experiences an upward moment.
First Loading Scenario

Downward Moment
1.80E-03
1.60E-03
1.40E-03
1.20E-03
1.00E-03
8.00E-04
6.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04
0.00E+00
Max UX
Max UY

63
Second Loading Scenario

Tension
7.00E-04
6.00E-04
5.00E-04
4.00E-04
Max UX
3.00E-04
Max UY
2.00E-04
1.00E-04
0.00E+00
0
Third Loading Scenario

Compression
3.00E-04
2.50E-04
2.00E-04
1.50E-04
Max UX
1.00E-04
Max UY
5.00E-05
0.00E+00
-5.00E-05
Fourth Loading Scenario

Upward Moment
4.50E-02
4.00E-02
3.50E-02
3.00E-02
2.50E-02
2.00E-02
1.50E-02
1.00E-02
5.00E-03
0.00E+00
Max UX
Max UY
Figure 65. Displacement graphs.

64
The outcome design values are given in Figure 66. The magnitude of the graphs is reflective
of the dimensions of the sections which is understandable, the larger the section the more load and
momentum the beam can resist. The margins inside the blue lines contain the values of the forces
that each beam can handle. The diagrams are to scale.
28 x 24
22 x 18
16 x 14
1 37 kN
4 2.39 kNm
N [kN]
1 68 kN
N [kN]
1 107 kN
N [kN]
2 7.29 kNm
M [kNm]
3 31.7 kN
4 5.65 kNm
2 19.2 kNm
M [kNm]
4 10.7 kNm
2 39.6 kNm
M [kNm]
3 57.8 kN
1
2
3
4
3 90 kN
Figure 66

65
7.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

As has been discussed in the pertaining sections of the concepts investigated, the joint is a
definite vial option for restoration and exhibits acceptable behavior under tension. The guidelines in
Figure 66 gives the safe guidelines for manufacturing the lapped scarf joint. It is less invasive than
other methods, it is also simple to construct and provides sufficient strength to the structure. Both the
numerical analysis and the laboratory test indicate that the joint fails in the member itself prior than it
does in the dowels under compressive strength and downward moment. In the first numerical analysis
and in conjunction with the results observed in lab, the dowels failed in tension in only one of the four
tests. This indicates that the stresses in tension are more evenly distributed than they are under
compression and downward moment. This is the outcome of two reasons, the first is that the dowels
are made of a stronger wood and thus can tolerate more. Larger dowels are associated with
increased dowels strength but this is not indicated in this case, as larger dowels will produce weaker
members.
The numerical analysis is conservative and magnifies the damage that occurs in the beam by
an approximate 25% but it likely estimates a lower quality of wood. This is justifiable as it was clear in
the lab tests, that although there was a correlation between the results of the separate members,
knots and drying cracks at critical locations caused premature failure of the beams. In addition sample
three of the tension test, failed at the dowels and although this was not the initial point of failure, it
demonstrates that maybe the dowel with the highest stress (dowel number 9) had a discontinuity and
failed ultimately propagating the failure to the group of dowels. It could be suggested to use a form of
glue if a beam is known to undergo much tension. This might prevent the separation that occurs
between the two large members, which in turn expose the dowels and subject them to much stress.
The numerical analysis that was performed on the different cross sections resulted in a
predictable outcome in that the larger the cross section, the more loads a beam can handle.
Nonetheless, that the size proportions suggested above and function similarly in a parametric
measure and in relation with size. The upward momentum was only tested numerically and thus has
not been observed in reality. As a result it could be presumed that the dowels would fail in the case of
upward moment.
It is plausible that if the joint is to be laced in a location that experiences much tension or
upward moment to apply glue for strengthening. This may improve the behavior and delay the
separation of the members. Further studies can be investigated in altering the weakest area in the
beam and this could be done by modifying the surface of the scarf joint as a slope that would be flush
instead of the abrupt angle. This might increase the strength of that section and the members may be
able to handle higher applied loads. The difficulty may be an outcome of fabrication on a regular
basis.

66
8.
PROPOSED DESIGN
It was observed during the analysis that the joint tends to fail as a result of the scarf
overcoming the friction energy and separating from the attached member. The proposed joint would
have the same dimensions as the samples tested in lab and have the same amount of dowels. This
would be done in order to have a relatable comparison between the proposed joint and the previous
studies.
In addition to being double inclined, there is a key that would be inserted at the tip of the lap
as is. This key is intended to eliminate the tip of the triangle and in for increasing the contact surface.
Imagining an x-ray vision from the top, the key would extend the whole width of the joint. It would
serve to increase surface area on half the joint by being in contact with both the right and left
members while serving only as an anchor on one of the members. This should in turn relieve the
pressure experienced by the collection of the dowels.
Figure 67.

67
9.
1
REFERENCES
Kuklik, Petr. Characteristics of Timber [PDF]. Retrieved from lecture notes of the SAHC Repairing
and Strengthening Techniques course.

2
Bodig, Jozsef, and Benjamin A. Jayne. Mechanics of Wood and Wood Composites. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold, 1982. Print.

3
Kuklik, Petr. Structural Timber [PDF document]. Retrieved from lecture notes of the SAHC Repairing

4
Hoffman, Oscar. The Brittle Strength of Orthotropic Materials. Palo alto, California, USA. 1966.
PDF.
5
Cite the 101.pdf chapter on stress.
P. B. Loureno . Structural Analysis Techniques - Elastoplasticity [PDF document]. Retrieved from
lecture notes of the SAHC Structural Analysis Techniques course.

Cite Lecture SA2-9-11-mjpl-plasticity
7
P. Kuklik. Structural Timber [PDF document]. Retrieved from lecture notes of the SAHC Repairing

8
Bodig, Jozsef, and Benjamin A. Jayne. Mechanics of Wood and Wood Composites. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold, 1982. Print.

9
TAFE NSW. Basic Building and Construction Skills: Carpentry and Other General Construction
Trades. Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2009. Print.

10
S. Torashichi and J. Matsui. Wood Joints in Classical Japanes Architecture. Japan. 1991.
11
Croci, Giorgio.The Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage. WIT Press.
1998.
12
http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/rooftimber/rooftimber.htm
13
http://www.wood-database.com/lumber-identification/hardwoods/english-oak/
14
http://www.wood-database.com/lumber-identification/softwoods/norway-spruce/
15
A. Arciszewska-Kedzior, J. Kunecky, H. Hasnkov and V. Sebera. Lapped scarf joint with inclined
faces and wooden dowels: Experimental and numerical analysis. Engineering Structures 94. Elsevier.
2015. PDF.
16
J. Kunecky, P. Fajman, H. Hasnkov, P. Kuklk, M. Kloiber, V. Sebera and J. Tippner. Lapped
Scarf Joints for Repairs of Historical Structures. Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic. 2016. PDF.
17
18
Ibis.
19
Ibis.
20
EN 1995-1-1:2004+A1 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures - Part 1-1: General -
Common rules and rules for buildings. CEN; 2008.

68
21
Pogaj, A., Chovanec, D., Kurjatko, S., Babiak, M.: truktra a vlastnosti dreva, Prroda Bratislava,
p.473 1997.
22
23
Ibis.
24
EN 1995-1-1:2004+A1 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures - Part 1-1: General -
Common rules and rules for buildings. CEN; 2008.

25
26
J. Kunecky, V. Sebera, H. Hasnkov, A. Arciszewska-Kedzior, J. Tippner and M. Kloiber.
Experimental assessment of a full-scale lap scarf timber joint

accompanied by a finite element analysis and digital image correlation. Construction and Building
Materials 76. Elsevier. 2015. PDF.

69

Bishara Suzy Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bishara Suzy Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lapped scarf joint with inclined faces and wooden dowels intended for tensile loads: analysis and

loads: analysis and design.

Czech Technical University and the Institute of Theoretical and Applied

Erasmus Mundus Programme

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

Erasmus Mundus Programme

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

Erasmus Mundus Programme

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

Erasmus Mundus Programme

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

properties and behaviour of wood ............................................................................................ 5

Stresses in a beam ....................................................................................................................... 6

how the wood fails ..................................................................................................................... 8

Joint Typology ............................................................................................................................ 13

Repair method ............................................................................................................................. 16

the Lapped scarf joint .............................................................................................................. 18

The scarf joint with nine dowels ............................................................................................. 19

Forces in the joint ..................................................................................................................... 20

the design of the joint .............................................................................................................. 21

Bending Load Test ................................................................................................................... 26

Tension Load Test .................................................................................................................... 32

Additional investigation of the numerical model .................................................................. 37

Sectional Properties ................................................................................................................. 49

Sectional Properties for the 16 x 14 member: .................................................................... 49

Behaviour without the joint for 5 kn: ................................................................................ 49

Assessment of the beam with joint: ................................................................................. 50

Sectional Properties for the 22 x 18 member: .................................................................... 50

Behaviour without the joint for 5 kn: ................................................................................ 50

Assessment of the beam with joint: ................................................................................. 51

Sectional Properties for the 28 x 24 member: .................................................................... 51

Behaviour without the joint for 5 kn: ................................................................................ 51

Assessment of the beam with joint: ................................................................................. 52

Conclusion and discussion ....................................................................................................... 66

Proposed design ......................................................................................................................... 67

Erasmus Mundus Programme

Figure 1 Behavior of wood after cutting ................................................................................................. 4

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

Erasmus Mundus Programme

Figure 1. Behavior of wood after cutting.

Figure 2. Variations within the tree trunk.

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

PROPERTIES AND BEHAVIOUR OF WOOD

Figure 3. Arrangement of fibers.

Figure 4. Growth ring.

In general, much can be deduced from carefully

properties. In addition, the same features relay the

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

Figure 7. Interpretation of Wood with cross

Figure 8. Von Mises stresses: S1, S2 and

(a) Stress direction,

Figure 9. S1, S2 and S3 and the nature of stress.

HOW THE WOOD FAILS

Figure 10. Orientation of planes.

Most of the theories that address failure of

focuses on ductile material by limiting shearing

Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS