4.7 Article

Evaluation of the mechanical contribution of wood degraded by insects in old timber beams through analytical calculations and experimental tests

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 339, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127653

Keywords

Existing timber structures; In-situ survey; Biological damage; Mechanical properties; Structural reliability

Funding

  1. Toscana Region [11430.27102016.099000169]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study analyzed the impact of degraded timber on load bearing capacity and developed an analytical procedure to include this contribution in structural calculation. The results showed that the procedure was effective for timber elements without major defects or anomalies.
Existing timber structures are often affected by peripheral degradation due to insect attack. The contribution of the degraded areas of the beam cross-section to the load bearing capacity is usually neglected, leading to an over-conservative approach to the structural verification of historic wooden constructions. This work analyses timber elements dismantled from a nineteenth century building by means of a comprehensive geometrical survey, the evaluation of the degraded portion of the cross-section and by destructive bending tests. An iterative procedure based on the linear elastic theory of composite beams was set up to define a reduction coefficient of the me-chanical properties of degraded wood, in order to include the contribution of the degraded parts during the structural calculation. The analytical procedure proved to be effective only for timber elements without localised major defects or anomalies, such as woodworking or internal decay, which may alter the linear elastic flexural behaviour of the beam. The values obtained of the reduction coefficient ranged from 1.7 to 5.0 and were suc-cessfully verified by numerical models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available