A Comparison Between the EN 383 and ASTM D5764 Test Methods for Dowel-Bearing Strength Assessment of Wood: Experimental and Numerical Investigations

• Type: Article in International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2010

Authors

Santos, CL (Author) Other; de Jesus, AMP (Author) Other; Morais, JJL (Author) Other; Lousada, JLPC (Author) Other

Journal

Title: Strain

Vol. 46

Pages: 159-174

ISSN: 0039-2103

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell

Indexing

ISI Web of Knowledge - 21 Citations

Scopus - 33 Citations

Scientific classification

FOS: Engineering and technology > Materials engineering

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-003-85E

DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1305.2008.00570.x

Abstract (EN): The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparison between embedding tests covered by the EN383 and ASTM D5764 standards, highlighting some difficulties regarding the application of the referred standards. These embedding tests are essential to evaluate the embedding strength of wood, which is required for the assessment of joints strength. The proposed comparison is based either on experimental data and numerical simulations through the finite element (FE) method. Tests were performed on maritime pine wood (Pinus pinaster Ait. species) according to the longitudinal and radial directions, allowing the comparison of the embedding strength and elastic foundation modulus. Three dimensional FE models of the tests were built using contact elements technology and assuming the steel dowel and wood as linear elastic isotropic and orthotropic materials, respectively. The contact modelling is a challenging topic for which this paper also proposes some guidance. The test configuration proposed in the EN383 standard for assessment of the embedment strength in compression is more susceptible to the dowel bending than the half-hole test configuration proposed in the ASTM D5764 standard. The numerical simulation of the EN383 embedding test raises some additional difficulties regarding the dowel boundary conditions.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 16