DETERMINATION OF YIELD POINT AND DUCTILITY OF TIMBER

ASSEMBLIES: IN SEARCH FOR A HARMONISED APPROACH

Williams Muñoz Mohammad Mohammad
Research Scientist, Building Systems Group Leader, Building Systems
FPInnovations – Forintek FPInnovations – Forintek
Québec (QC) Canada Québec (QC) Canada
Alexander Salenikovich Pierre Quenneville
Associate Professor Professor of Timber Design
Université Laval University of Auckland
Québec (QC) Canada Auckland, New Zealand

ABSTRACT
Knowledge of the yield point and ductility of a structure is important in seismic design. The yield
point of an assembly is defined as a point where it begins to plastically deform, while ductility
describes its ability to yield without substantial reduction in strength. These parameters can be
determined from the analysis of the load-deformation curves resulting from destructive tests. To
date, several methods have been adopted around the world to quantify these properties for timber
structures, however, there is no standardised approach. There is a need for a uniform approach to
the yield point and ductility calculations because of the growing interest in harmonisation of
standard testing and analysis procedures and the increased attention to seismic design of timber
construction systems. This study is focused on comparing six analysis methods commonly used in
the determination of yield load and deformation and examines the applicability of these methods to
various types of assemblies in an attempt to identify the most universal approach to estimating
ductility and overstrength-related force modification factors used in seismic design of timber
structures. Results are discussed and recommendations are provided.
1. Introduction
Design codes require that structures remain elastic under gravity loads. However in seismic design,
plastic deformations are allowed for ductile structures. Therefore, it is important to know the yield
point, when the plastic deformation begins, and ductility, how much plastic deformation the
structure can undergo without significant loss of strength. In timber connections, the yielding of
assemblies is the result of a combination of the wood and connector deformations which eventually
lead to the failure of the assembly. A series of equations based on the yield theory were developed
by Johansen [1] enabling one to predict the yield mode and resistance of dowel-type connections.
Presently, researchers use different methods to determine the yield point of timber structures and
connections ([2], [3] and [4]). As a result, findings from these studies sometimes are difficult to
compare. In North-America, there are three common methods to calculate the yield point,
depending on the application. ASTM E2126 [5] adopted the equivalent energy elastic-plastic
(EEEP) curve for analysis of shearwalls. ASTM D5764 [6] uses the 5% diameter offset line to
determine the dowel-bearing strength of wood. The third approach, proposed by Karacabeyli and
Ceccotti [7] for shear walls, utilises the point at 50% of the maximum load. In Europe, the yield
point is determined using a bilinear graph based on the initial stiffness of the joint [8]. In Japan, the
yield point is calculated using a combination of the initial stiffness and the stiffness of the first
plastic deformation before reaching the maximum load [9]. In Australia, the yield point of a joint is
found at 1.25 times the displacement at the elastic limit [10]. This study examines the applicability
of these six methods to various types of assemblies in an attempt to identify the most universal
approach to estimating ductility and overstrength-related force modification factors used in seismic
design of timber structures.
2. Methodology
To obtain a representative sample of wood assemblies, several types of connections with single and
multiple fasteners and nailed shearwalls were considered. For connections with more than one
fastener, the load was divided by the number of fasteners. The various types of studied assemblies
are given in Table 1.
Table 1: Wood assemblies.
Assembly Fastener Number of fasteners Type of test Number of specimens
Nail 2 – (Ø4.1 x 89-mm) static 10
Wood-to-wood Screw 1 - (SDS Ø6.4 x 76.2 mm) static 10
Screw and glue (*) 1 - (SDS Ø6.4 x 76.2 mm) static 10
Nail 1 – (Ø2.9 x 63.5-mm) static 15
OSB-to-wood
Nail 3 – (Ø2.9 x 63.5-mm) static 15
- N/A static 6
Shearwall (**)
- N/A cyclic 12
(*) Non-structural glue (**) 2.44 m x 2.44 m

2.1. Yield points

The following provides some details on the most common analysis methods that are being used in
North America, Europe, Japan and Australia for the estimation of the yield point from typical load-
deformation curves generated from laboratory tests on timber connections or assemblies.
(a) Karacabeyli and Ceccotti (K&C)
In this method, the yield point is considered as the point on the load-deformation curve
corresponding to 50% of the maximum capacity (Figure 1a).
(b) European Committee for Standardisation (CEN)
CEN uses a secant and a tangent line to two sections of the load-deformation curve to determine the
yield point. The first line represents the initial stiffness (Kα), which is usually calculated from 10%
to 40% of the peak load. This secant line forms an angle α with the displacement axis. The second
line (Kβ), is drawn at a slope equals to one sixth of the slope of the secant line of the load–
displacement curve. The yield point is determined as the intersection of those two lines (Kα and Kβ)
as can be seen in Figure 1b.
(c) Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
In this case the yield point is obtained by multiplying the value of the displacement at 40% of the
peak load by a factor of 1.25. The point on the load-deformation curve formed by the intersection of
the projected line from the new factored displacement value is taken as the yield point and the
corresponding yield load is determined (Figure 1c).
(d) Equivalent Energy Elastic-Plastic Curve (EEEP)
This curve was conceived originally for concrete and steel systems. The bilinear curve represents
perfect elastic-plastic behaviour of an assembly (Figure 1d). The area below the test curve is
assumed equivalent to the area under the bilinear curve. The first straight line corresponds to the
initial stiffness (K), defined between 0% and 40% of the peak load. Deformation at failure is
defined as the deformation at 80% of peak load. The yield load (Py) can be calculated using the
following equation:
 2w failure 
Py = ∆ failure − ∆2 failure − *K (1)
 K 

Where, Py: yield load, ∆failure: deformation at failure, and wfailure: energy dissipated until failure.
Once the yield load Py is defined, the corresponding yield deformation can be determined.
(e) Yasumura and Kawai (Y&K)
The initial stiffness is calculated in this method between 10% and 40% of the peak load. A straight
line between 40% and 90% of the peak load is determined and a straight line tangent to the load–
displacement curve and parallel to the 40% and 90% secant line is determined. This last line
represents the immediate post-elastic zone before reaching the peak load. The point of intersection
between the initial stiffness with this new tangent is projected horizontally towards the load–
displacement curve to obtain the respective yield point displacement (see Figure 1e).
(f) 5% of diameter (5% diameter)
The yield point in this case is defined as the intersection of a straight line which is parallel to the
initial stiffness (slope between 0% and 40% of the peak load) and the load-deformation test curve.
This straight line has an offset on the displacement axis equals to 5% of the connector diameter
(Figure 1f). The yield load value is an intermediate point between the proportional load and the
peak load. This value represents the nominal embedment resistance of the wood and the bending
resistance of the connector in the National Design Specification ® [11].

(a) Karacabeyli and Ceccotti (b) CEN (c) CSIRO

K //40-90
P K40-90 P
K10-40 max

Py

y max

(d) EEEP (e) Yasumura and Kawai (f) 5% diameter

Figure 1: Commonly used analysis methods for the determination of the yield point.
2.2. Ductility ratio
The correct estimate of the yield point and the selection of the ultimate or failure loads are crucial
for the calculation of the ductility ratio (µ). In many types of structural timber connections, the load-
deformation relationship is distinctly nonlinear and unambiguous definition of the yield load is
difficult. As discussed below, different analysis methods produce different yield point estimates,
which would ultimately over- or under-estimate the ductility ratio hence assign the same connection
to a different ductility category. Furthermore, the basis for the calculation of the ductility ratio (i.e.,
use of ∆failure/∆ yield vs. ∆max/∆ yield) may also result in different ductility category. In this study, the
ratio ∆failure/∆ yield was used to determine the level of ductility of the connections and wall systems.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Connections
A summary of load and displacements at the yield point for the connection systems listed in Table 1
are given in Table 2. Numbers in parenthesis represent coefficient of variation (COV) in percentage.
Comparisons were made using the 5% diameter offset method as a reference.
Figure 2 shows representative graphs for each type of connector used. For all types of connections,
the EEEP yield points were always found to be located off the curve, giving yield loads that do not
exist in reality (Figure 2). K&C and CSIRO methods do not predict well the yield point if the
connection has an initial stiffness that extends beyond 50% of the maximum capacity. This anomaly
generated yield points that are located within the elastic range as observed in nailed and screwed
wood-to-wood connections (Figure 2, Nail - Screw). The K&C method depends exclusively on the
peak load, and, if the real yield point is located ahead of the point on the curve that corresponds to
50% of the peak load, the measured point will be situated in the first part of the plastic deformation
This phenomenon was observed in OSB-to-wood connections which showed a residual strength due
to the embedment of the head connector into the OSB panel (i.e., the string effect) (Figure 2).
2
kN For CEN, it was noticed that the method
Wood-to-wood, Nail (*) overestimates the yield load if the system has a
EEEP lower initial stiffness (Figure 2, OSB). In this
case, the second slope was tangent to the test
1
Y&K
5% Diam.
curve in a zone close to the plateau and the
CEN
K&C
intersection of the slopes was located further
CSIRO away from the load-deformation curve. The Y&K
method generally provided better estimates of the
0
yield load, well balanced out by the second
0 10 20 30 mm
40 independent slope that represents the immediate
6
kN
post-elastic zone. The intersection of the slopes
Wood-to-wood, Screw and its projections on the load-deformation curve
provided realistic yield points for all types of
EEEP tested connections (Figure 2).
3 Y&K
The yield loads estimated from the various
K&C
5% Diam.
methods and expressed as a percentage of the
CEN
CSIRO
peak load (Pmax), were compared as shown in
Figure 3a. The yield loads as determined using
0
EEEP method were found to be significantly
0 10 20 30 mm
40 higher in the evaluated systems, where as the
2
kN
lowest yield load values were those estimated
OSB-to-wood, Nail using CSIRO method. The bilinear approaches
(i.e., CEN and Y&K) helped balancing the yield
EEEP
loads depending on the curve shape, despite the
problems observed for CEN when applied to
1 CEN systems with low stiffness. The 5% diameter
K&C
CSIRO method could be easily used to determine the
5% Diam.
Y&K yield load after the normalisation of the load.
Overall, results indicate that the yield loads
0
mm
estimated following EEEP method were
0 5 10 15 20 25
unrealistic compared to all other proposed
Figure 2: Location of yield points on the methods.
load-deformation curve. (*): Normalised.
The yield deformations were compared with the 5% diameter approach being used as a reference
(Figure 3b). Y&K and EEEP method gave the highest deformation value for wood-to-wood
connections, while the yield deformation values calculated using K&C and EEEP for OSB-to-wood
connections were the highest. On the other hand, the lowest yield deformations were obtained with
CSIRO and CEN for wood-to-wood connections, and CSIRO and 5% diameter for OSB-to-wood
connections. The variation of the deformation between the six methods was significant, reaching up
to 80% in some cases for a same connection (Figure 3b). The problem with the variation arises if
those different displacements are used to calculate ductility ratios (∆failure/∆yield), because the
presence of significant variations in yield displacement produces distortions on the comparisons of
ductility of the systems.
Smith et al. [12] proposed four different ductility classes for connections. They used the ductility
ratio (µ) as ∆Pmax/∆yield and limits of each category fluctuate from less than 2 up to values superior to
6. For this study, however, the ductility was taken as the ratio between ∆failure/∆yield, therefore the
lower and upper limit values for those categories can change. Nonetheless, the highest and lowest
averaged variation of ductility for all connections, referenced to the ductility ratio as determined
using the 5% diameter method, were found to be 34% and 26%, respectively. In the present study,
the ductility ratios were considerably higher than 6, defined as the lower limit of a high ductility. In
other cases, where the ductility ratio of the system is found to be within the category limits, this
difference could result in the same connection being assigned to two or three different categories.
Table 2: Calculated yield points and ductility ratios for connection tests.
Yield Points and Ductility ratios (µ)
Method Type of connection
Nail (*) Screw Screw & Glue OSB-wood S OSB-wood M (*)
µ 21 22 21 14 13
EEEP mm 1.19 (78) 1.29 (52) 1.45 (22) 1.29 (50) 1.59 (34)
kN 1.56 (8) 4.16 (14) 3.91 (7) 1.21 (13) 1.09 (10)
µ 41 43 35 21 19
CEN mm 0.61 (63) 0.68 (66) 0.88 (25) 0.87 (70) 1.06 (52)
kN 0.95 (12) 2.26 (13) 2.25 (11) 0.70 (21) 0.65 (20)
µ 26 21 20 19 18
Y&K mm 0.95 (48) 1.41 (27) 1.57 (17) 0.98 (31) 1.11 (23)
kN 1.02 (11) 2.61 (9) 2.53 (5) 0.63 (11) 0.58 (5)
µ 33 25 28 13 13
K&C mm 0.75 (59) 1.15 (59) 1.09 (20) 1.48 (44) 1.50 (41)
kN 0.86 (9) 2.38 (13) 2.22 (6) 0.71 (13) 0.62 (10)
µ 38 39 38 24 22
CSIRO mm 0.65 (76) 0.75 (57) 0.82 (23) 0.76 (51) 0.92 (35)
kN 0.75 (10) 1.99 (15) 1.90 (6) 0.59 (12) 0.54 (9)
µ 33 28 26 23 21
5%
mm 0.75 (40) 1.04 (34) 1.17 (16) 0.82 (38) 0.97 (26)
Diam.
kN 0.93 (7) 2.35 (8) 2.27 (7) 0.62 (11) 0.55 (7)
(*): Normalised connections

100
(%) 200
(%)

75 150

50 100

25 50

0 0
Nail Screw Sc&glue OSB S OSB M Nail Screw Sc&glue OSB S OSB M
EEEP CEN Y&K K&C CSIRO 5% Diam. EEEP CEN Y&K K&C CSIRO 5% Diam.

(a) (b)
Figure 3: Yield loads expressed a percentage of Pmax (a); and yield deformations expressed as a
percentage of the deformation reference to the 5% diameter approach (b).

3.2. Shearwalls
For more complex systems, composed of different materials and different types and/or dimensions
of connectors (i.e., shearwalls), it was obvious that the adoption of the 5% diameter method was not
practical. Even if it is assumed that a shearwall can be represented as an assembly with “multiple
connection”, it is impossible to “normalise” this connection. Therefore, only five methods were
considered for static and cyclic shearwall tests: K&C, CSIRO, CEN, Y&K, and EEEP. To compare
the different methods, the EEEP yield point was taken as the reference basis, considering its widely
accepted use. The results are given in Table 3 and Figure 4 shows yield points in typical static and
cyclic shearwall test curve graphs. Figure 5 presents a comparison of estimated yield loads and
displacements within each group following the various methods.
Generally, the CSIRO approach provided the lowest values of yield loads in all cases (i.e., similar to
what was observed for connections). Again, the EEEP values were the highest and were located off
the load-displacement curves. The estimated CEN yield points were representative of the
displacement but not so representative in terms of load. The presence of a low initial stiffness lead
to a considerable reduction in the slope of the line determined at one sixth of the initial stiffness.
kN
30 kN
30

20
EEEP
20 10

CEN 0
Y&K -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 mm
150
10 K&C -10
CSIRO
-20

0 -30
0 50 100 mm
150 Y&K CEN EEEP K&C CSIRO

(a) (b)
Figure 4: Load-displacement curve and yield point positions, static shearwall test.
The result of this anomaly was an intersection point located far away from the curve and,
subsequently, unrealistic values were produced as a result. Yield loads generated using K&C,
CSIRO and Y&K approaches were more consistent. Nonetheless, the Y&K method was generally
more precise because the component representing the first plastic deformation was helping to
balance the position of the yield load.
Table 3: Calculated yield points and ductility ratios for shearwall tests. M: static, C: cyclic.
Yield points and Ductility ratios (µ)
EEEP CEN Y&K K&C CSIRO
Test kN mm µ kN mm µ kN mm µ kN mm µ kN mm µ
1NM 7.8 12 4 6.6 10 5 5.5 10 5 4.5 7 7 4.2 6 8
2NM 7.2 9 5 5.8 8 6 4.6 7 7 4.1 6 8 3.9 5 10
3NM 5.6 7 10 3.6 5 14 3.2 6 12 3.3 6 12 2.9 4 18
1HDM 19.3 22 6 14.4 17 7 10.7 14 9 10.7 14 9 9.9 12 11
2HDM 19.4 17 5 14.5 13 7 11.8 13 7 10.8 11 8 10.1 10 9
3HDM 20.1 16 8 13.7 11 12 11.9 12 11 11.1 10 14 10.2 9 14
1NC 10.1 14 4 8.7 12 5 6.4 9 6 5.3 8 7 5.4 7 7
2NC 9.0 13 4 7.5 11 4 5.6 9 5 4.7 8 6 4.6 7 7
3NC 8.4 12 4 7.2 11 4 5.0 8 6 4.6 7 6 4.4 7 7
1HDC 18.5 19 5 14.7 16 6 11.3 14 7 11 12 7 10.0 11 8
2HDC 20.1 17 5 15.7 14 6 12.4 13 6 12 11 7 10.8 10 8
3HDC 18.4 16 6 13.9 12 8 11.4 12 8 10.9 10 9 9.5 9 10

100
(%) 150
(%)

75
100

50

50
25

0 0
1N 2N 3N 1HD 2HD 3HD 1N 2N 3N 1HD 2HD 3HD
EEEP CEN Y&K K&C CSIRO EEEP CEN Y&K K&C CSIRO

(a) (b)
Figure 5: Percentage of yield loads to Pmax (a), and yield displacements reference to EEEP (b).
As for the yield displacements, variation between one method and another for the same type of
connection configuration was as high as 50%. It was observed that the CSIRO method produced the
lowest yield displacements, whereas the highest displacements were associated with the EEEP
method. Yield point displacements determined using CEN, Y&K and K&C methods were generally
close despite the high variation in some cases.
In Canada, the yield loads and displacements in shearwalls are typically used for the calculations of
the force modification factors adopted in the seismic design section of the 2005 NBCC [13]. The
required ductility-related force modification factor (Rd) specified in the code is made equal to 3.0.
According to Boudreault et al. [14], Rd can be calculated using the following equation:
Rd = 2µ − 1 (2)
Where µ represents the measured ductility expressed as the ratio of the displacement at failure and
that at yield, which is typically calculated using the EEEP method. The averaged Rd factor as
calculated from shearwall tests, using EEEP was 3.2. However, if a different method is used for the
calculations of the yield point, that would yield a higher ductility ratio (e.g., CSIRO), then the value
for Rd factor will increase up to 4.3. This certainly highlights the need for a harmonized approach
for the determination of the yield displacements for ductility calculations.
The ratio Pmax/Pyield is used to calculate the factor Ryield when evaluating the overstrength-related
force modification factor (Ro) in the 2005 NBCC as given below:
Ro = Rsize ⋅ Rφ ⋅ R yield ⋅ Rsh ⋅ Rmech (3)
Where,
Rsize = 1.15, overstrength due to restricted choices for member sizes and dimension rounding [15]
Rφ = 1.43, overstrength due to the difference between nominal and factored resistance (Rφ = 1/φ,
with φ as the resistance factor equal to 0.7) [15]
Ryield = Ratio of probable yield strength to minimum specified yield strength (calculated from tests),
with the Equivalent Energy Elastic-Plastic bilinear model (EEEP)
Rsh = 1.05, overstrength due to strain hardening [15]
Rmech = 1.00, overstrength developed when a collapse mechanism is formed [15]
Ro is taken as being equal to 1.7 for nailed shearwalls with wood-based panels in the 2005 NBCC,
with Ryield taken equal to 1.0. However, the calculated Ryield value from shearwall tests based on
EEEP, can fluctuate from 1.11 to 1.22 as reported by Boudreault et al. [14]. A higher value of Ryield
is even expected if another method is used for the estimation of the yield loads (e.g., CSIRO).
4. Conclusions
Six different methods were used in the calculations of the yield point and ductility ratio in various
types of connections and wall assemblies. The following conclusions and comments can be made.
• The utilisation of different methods for assessing the yield point in wood connections and
assemblies give different results.
• The EEEP method produced the highest yield loads which were always located off the load-
displacement curves as determined from tests. Its relatively high yield displacement values can lead
to a misclassification of the systems in terms of ductility class.
• The CSIRO method generated the lowest yield load values and was usually located within the
elastic zone. In terms of yield displacement, the method generally produced the lowest values
among other methods, which could lead to overestimation of the ductility ratio of systems.
• The K&C method presented a highly dependent load-deformation curve shape approach. For
shearwalls, the method produced realistic values but certainly not for connections due to the
additional residual strength developed as a result of the embedment of the connector’s head in the
wood.
• The 5% diameter criterion was precise when calculating the yield point in simple and multiple
normalised connections. For complex and/or hybrid systems its validity becomes questionable.
• The CEN method obtained reasonable values of yield point for systems with an elevated initial
stiffness. However, at a lower initial stiffness, the estimate becomes unrealistic as the yield point
becomes located off the load-deformation or envelope curve.
• The combination of independent slopes of initial and “immediate post-elastic” stiffness
proposed by the Y&K method produced reasonable estimates of the yield points for all the
evaluated systems regardless of the load-deformation curve shape.
• In general, the range of variation observed for the yield displacements was always significant,
but such variation is considered small if compared with the total displacements attained by the
systems. However, differences up to 100% can be found in the calculations of the ductility ratio
between one method and another.
• A harmonised approach to determine the yield point could lead to more realistic values of
ductility ratios and force modification factors, enabling optimisation of the seismic design of timber
structures.

5. References
[1] Johansen, K. W. 1949. Theory of timber connections. Publ. 9. Bern: International Association of
Bridge and Structural Engineering.
[2] Park, R. 1989. Evaluation of ductility of structures and structural assemblages from laboratory testing.
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering. 22 (3): 155-166.
[3] Branston, A.E. 2004. Development of a design methodology for steel frame/wood panel shear walls.
M. Eng. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University,
Montréal (QC) Canada.
[4] Chui, Y., I. Smith, and Z. Chen. 2006. Influence of fasteners size on lateral strength of steel-to- wood
screw joints. Forest Products Journal. 56 (7/8): 49-54.
[5] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005a. ASTM E 2126-05. Standard Test Method
for Cyclic (Reversed) Load Test for Shear Resistance of Walls for Buildings. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
[6] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005b. ASTM D 5764-97a. Standard Test
Method for Evaluating Dowel-Bearing Strength of Wood and Wood-Based Products. Annual Book of
ASTM Standards. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
[7] Karacabeyli, E., and A. Ceccotti. 1996. Quasi-static reversed cyclic testing of nailed joints.
Proceedings of International Council for Building and Research Studies and Documentation Working
Commission W18 – Timber Structures. Pap. 29-7-7. Karlsruhe, Germany.
[8] Ceccotti, A. 1995. Timber connections under seismic actions. In: Timber engineering–STEP 1. 1st
Edition. STEP/EUROFORTECH. The Netherlands, ISBN 90-5645-001-08. Pp. C17/1-C17/10
[9] Yasumura, M., and N. Kawai. 1998. Estimating seismic performance of wood-framed structures.
Proceedings of 1998 I.W.E.C. Switzerland. Vol.2. pp. 564-571.
[10] Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). 1996. Timber evaluation of
mechanical joint systems. Part 3, Earthquake loading. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.
[11] American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). 1999. General dowel equations for calculating lateral
connection values. Technical report 12. American Wood Council. Washington DC, USA.
[12] Smith, I., A. Asiz, M. Snow, and Y.H. Chui. 2006. Possible Canadian/ISO approach to deriving design
values from test data. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction.
Working Commission W18–Timber Structures. 39th meeting, August 2006, Florence, Italy.
[13] NBCC. 2005. National Building Code of Canada. Institute for Research in Construction, National
Research Council of Canada. Ottawa, Canada.
[14] Boudreault, F.A., C. Blais, and C.A. Rogers. 2007. Seismic force modification factors for light-gauge
steel-frame–wood structural shear walls. Canadian Journal of civil Engineering. (34): 56-65.
[15] Mitchell, D., R. Tremblay, E. Karacabeyli, P. Paultre, M. Saatcioglu, and D. Anderson. 2003. Seismic
force modification factors for the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada.
Canadian Journal of civil Engineering. (30): 308-327.