Effect of shear performance by the duration of load in parallel to the grain direction of wood

Effect of shear performance by the duration of load in parallel to the grain direction of wood | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Effect of shear performance by the duration of load in parallel to the grain direction of wood Kaito YAMAGATA, Makoto NAKATANI, Takuro MORI This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6578725/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 03 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Wood Science and Technology → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract High-strength joints are increasingly used in timber structures to exploit the shear properties of wood. Therefore, understanding the long-term shear performance is essential. In this study, the long-term shear behavior of timber was evaluated using the tensile-shear test method. A duration of load (DOL) test was conducted to assess shear performance parallel to the grain under sustained loading. The test was carried out at loading levels ranging from 70–90%, and strength modification factors as well as duration of load coefficients were calculated to ensure conservative values relative to current design standards. The results indicate that the deformation at failure tends to converge at approximately 0.3 mm. A correlation was observed between deformation and environmental conditions, with the specimens loaded in April demonstrating greater deformation than the loaded in October. The strength modification factor was determined to be 0.67, which is considered a safe value compared to the current standard of 0.55. This result is consistent with values reported in the previous study involving creep limit test study. Duration of load Parallel to the grain Tensile shear test Timber Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 1 Introduction The law has been revised to promote the utilization of timber in nonresidential buildings as well as in tall and large structures (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan 2023 ). Consequently, the demand for structures with high-strength and high-stiffness joints is increasing (Yang et al. 2016 ; Odani et al. 2022 ; Rebouças et al. 2022 ; Murakami et al. 2024 ; Odani and Murakami 2024 ; Tombleson et al. 2024 ). Examples of such joints include lag screw bolt joints (Wakashima et al. 2010 ), glued-in rod joints (Zhang et al. 2023 ), and drift pin joints (Nakashima et al. 2014 ). The performance of these joints is closely related to the shear, cracking, and embedment capacities of timber. In nonresidential buildings, it is crucial to evaluate the long-term mechanical performance of timber, as these joints must provide high strength and stiffness while ensuring long-term durability. One method for evaluating the long-term performance of timber is duration of load (DOL) testing, which examines the effects of sustained loading. Although several studies have investigated bending performance (Sugiyama 1957 ; Kimura et al. 2002 ; Nakamura et al. 2010 ; Wu et al. 2021 ; Takanashi et al. 2021 ) and joint performance (Takahashi et al. 2002 ; Isoda et al. 2007 ; Brandner et al. 2019 ; Ogawa and Kobayashi 2020 ; Park et al. 2020 ; Shi et al. 2020 ), there are few creep and DOL tests specifically focused on the shear performance of timber and wood-based materials (Hong and Arima 1998 ; Ohashi et al. 2009 ; Li and Lam 2016 ; Nakamura 2017 ; Tamura et al. 2019 ; Ando et al. 2023 ; Shimazaki and Ando 2024 ; Bengtsson et al. 2024 ). The current Japanese design criteria for timber structures (Architectural Institute of Japan 2006 ) determine DOL coefficients based on the Madison curve proposed by Wood ( 1951 ). However, applying this approach to shear performance is inappropriate because the Madison curve is derived from bending tests using clear wood specimens. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the DOL coefficient for shear performance through dedicated shear testing. The testing method requires the application of sustained loads over long periods and the measurement of deformation. ASTM D143 (ASTM International 2023 ), a widely used shear test method for wood, presents challenges due to the instability of the load axis during testing. To address this issue, the authors proposed a tensile-shear testing method to evaluate the long-term shear performance of wood (Yamagata et al. 2023 , 2024 ). They conducted creep and creep- limit tests to determine the strength and deformation modification factors. In this study, DOL testing was conducted using the tensile-shear testing method, and the strength modification factor for the DOL, corresponding to the loading level after 50 years in relation to the shear strength, was calculated. 2 Testing Method 2.1 Specimen Figure 1 shows the test specimens. The test used four pieces of E65-F255 (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan 2006) Japanese cedar ( Sugi ), with all plies classified as L70 grade and measuring 4,000×105×180 mm. The average air-dried densities of each specimen were as follows: DOL-1, 393 kg/m 3 ; DOL-2, 400 kg/m 3 ; DOL-3, 429 kg/m 3 ; and DOL-4, 412 kg/m 3 . The shear planes of the specimen measured 30 mm×30 mm, matching those of the JIS (Japanese Standards Association 2009) block shear specimens. The specimens specifications were consistent with those previously report (Yamagata et al. 2023). 2.2 Testing Method The cutting rules for the control and DOL specimens are illustrated in Fig. 2. The specimens were selected from 4,000×105×180 mm members with minimal defects, such as knots. The control and DOL specimens were obtained from side-matched positions along the thickness direction. The loading levels were determined as the ratio of the applied load to the maximum load obtained from a static test of the side-matched control specimens. The specimens were named according to the loading level percentage, for example, the “70 % specimen”. The loading method is illustrated in Fig. 3, which illustrates the tensile-shear testing method. Long-term loading tests were conducted using a machine that applied force based on the lever principle, as shown in Fig. 4. This setup generated a tensile force approximately 14 times the weight applied to the specimen. Tables 1-3 present the total maximum load on the two shear planes of the control specimens, deformation at failure, and the load applied to the long-term specimens. Loading levels were set at 70 %, 80 %, and 90 %, with the number of specimens at each level as follows: 70 % (n = 7), 80 % (n = 6), and 90 % (n = 10). Additionally, specimens 2-7 in DOL-2 were included in the calculation, although their load level was set to 87 % due to a setting error. However, this deviation was deemed negligible and did not affect the overall evaluation. The ratios of the maximum capacity of each member to the average are shown in Tables 1-3. The tests were conducted indoors in the laboratory at Hiroshima University under variable temperature and humidity conditions without air-conditioning. Deformation, elapsed time after loading, temperature, and humidity were measured. Deformations were measured using four transducers (CDP-5; Tokyo Measuring Instruments Laboratory, Tokyo, Japan) mounted on the left, right, front, and back sides to measure shear deformation at the shear section. The average value of each shear section deformation was used as the shear deformation value (Fig. 5). Data were recorded every second during the first hour, every minute over the next 3 h, and every hour thereafter. Temperature and humidity were measured hourly using a temperature and humidity sensor (Ondotori RTR-503; T&D Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Table 1 Control shear tests and DOL tests (DOL-1) 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 Co P max (kN) 12.72 12.87 10.41 12.52 12.21 12.26 11.97 11.87 Load level of the side matching (%) 80 80 70 70 80 90 90 90 Load level of the average (%) 84 85 60 72 81 91 89 88 Load (kN) 10.18 10.30 7.29 8.76 9.77 11.03 10.77 10.68 Deformation at failure (mm) 0.15 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.47 0.17 0.18 0.17 Loading date 10/27 10/27 10/27 11/5 10/28 11/1 11/4 11/4 Failure date 10/28 11/2 5/9 3/12 10/30 11/1 11/4 11/4 Loading days (day) 0.42 5.67 193.37 127.40 1.57 moment 0.01 0.10 DOL deformation at failure (mm) 0.15 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.10 0.14 0.13 Table 2 Control shear tests results and applied load of creep tests (DOL-2) 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 Co P max (kN) 10.79 9.50 9.76 10.11 12.08 11.01 9.86 10.66 11.00 Load level of the side matching (%) 90 70 70 90 80 90 87 80 90 Load level of the average (%) 92 63 65 86 92 94 81 81 94 Load (kN) 9.71 6.65 6.83 9.10 9.66 9.91 8.58 8.53 9.90 Deformation at failure (mm) 0.08 0.12 1.35 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.20 0.24 0.29 Loading date 12/6 3/24 12/28 12/2 12/8 12/2 3/22 3/3 12/7 Failure date 12/6 7/2 5/19 12/8 12/27 12/3 3/22 3/7 12/7 Loading days (day) 0.03 99.89 142.31 5.99 18.9 1.63 0.02 4.18 0.03 DOL deformation at failure (mm) 0.18 0.28 0.30 0.19 0.15 0.24 0.12 0.13 0.14 Table 3 Control shear tests results and applied load of creep tests (DOL-3 & DOL-4) 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 4-1 4-2 4-3 Co P max (kN) 6.89 8.75 6.88 8.40 7.27 9.31 8.84 8.99 Load level of the side matching (%) 70 70 80 90 90 70 80 90 Load level of the average (%) 63 81 73 100 86 62 67 77 Load (kN) 4.82 6.12 5.51 7.56 6.54 6.51 7.07 8.09 Deformation at failure (mm) 0.08 0.14 0.06 0.17 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.11 Loading date 10/12 10/12 10/5 10/12 4/18 8/7 8/20 8/7 Failure date 8/6 8/16 10/5 4/17 8/6 8/15 9/8 8/7 Loading days (day) 298.16 311.32 0.28 187.99 109.15 8.37 19.34 0.14 DOL deformation at failure (mm) 0.31 0.25 0.17 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.10 0.15 3 Results and Discussions 3.1 Results The days from loading to failure and the deformation of the specimens at each loading level are presented in Tables 1 –3. The relationship between days and deformation at each representative loading level is shown in Fig. 6. Shear failure was defined as the point at which the deformation of one of the shear planes increased rapidly, and the days to failure were measured up to that point. The loading start and end dates are shown at the top left and right of each graph, respectively. Figure 6 presents the data recorded daily at 12:00 AM. The days to failure for 70% specimens ranged from 100 to 200 days; for the 80% specimens, from 0 to 19 days; and for the 90% specimens, from immediately after loading to 188 days. The reason for the shorter time to failure observed in the 80% specimens remains unclear. One possible explanation is the natural variability of wood. The loading start dates varied because the loadings were conducted sequentially based on specimen failure, as shown in Tables 1 –3. Therefore, this section examines the differences in deformation behavior depending on the loading start time. Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between deformation and days for two 90% specimens: DOL-3-4, loaded from October 2023 to April 2024, and DOL-3-5, loaded from April 2024 to August 2024. The specimen loaded in October exhibited deformation within the range of 0.05–0.1 mm, whereas the specimen loaded in April showed a continuous increase in deformation from the start. Aratake et al. ( 2021 ) investigated differences in creep behavior between summer and winter loading and found that creep deformation was greater for specimens loaded during winter, likely due to the effects of the rainy season. We consider that the difference in deformation behavior observed in Fig. 7 resulted from the rainy season, which started approximately 1–2 months after the April loading. Figure 8 shows the relationship between deformation, days, and humidity for each load level. The 70% of the specimen was DOL-3-2, the 80% specimen was DOL-4-2, and the 90% specimen was DOL-3-4. These specimens were selected for comparison because they exhibited the longest failure days under their respective loads. For the 70% and 90% specimens, only the data recorded daily at 12:00 AM were included. The deformation tended to increase with rising humidity, consistent with the findings of a previous study (Yamagata et al. 2024 ). In the 70% and 90% specimens, the deformation remained relatively constant for approximately three-quarters of the loading period, followed by a rapid doubling of deformation during the final quarter. Figure 8 shows the relationship between deformation and days, with the effects of temperature and humidity excluded by subtracting the deformation of the unloaded dummy specimen from that of the DOL specimen. Because one measurement point could not be measured, the average of remaining three points was used. The measured values are represented by circles, while the values excluding the effects of temperature and humidity are represented by black dots. When the effects of temperature and humidity were excluded, the deformation tended to increase steadily with the duration of the load, owing to the reduced variation in the data. Figure 9 shows that the difference between the values with and without the effects of temperature and humidity tended to increase from April when the temperature and humidity increased. This indicates that the influence of environmental conditions on deformation became more pronounced during this period. In a previous study (Yamagata et al. 2024 ), creep tests were conducted at 30% and 40% load levels showed only small difference between the dummy and creep specimens, suggesting that temperature and humidity have a considerable effect on deformation. However, in the present study, although the deformation fluctuated with the temperature and humidity, as shown in Fig. 9, an increase in deformation was still observed even after subtracting the dummy specimen’s values. Therefore, at load levels above 70%, it is considered that the deformation due to the duration of load exceeds that caused by fluctuations in temperature and humidity. Figure 10 shows the relationship between deformation at failure in the DOL test and the days to failure. The results are based on the specimens that withstood at least 5 min of loading. Except for a few specimens, deformation tended to increase with days to failure, likely due to the viscoelasticity behavior of wood. The specimen with the greatest deformation exhibited 0.31 mm after 298 days of loading, while another showed 0.28 mm after only 8 days, suggesting that failure generally occurs around 0.3 mm of deformation. Most specimens failed early at the 90% loading level, whereas some specimens at the 70% loading level endured longer. However, because several specimens at 90% loading also failed after 180 days, no clear correlation between loading level and duration to failure can be established. Using the power-law process shown in Fig. 10, the estimated deformation after 50 years was 0.31 mm. This indicated that, within the range of the results from this study, specimens are highly likely to fail after 50 years of continuous loading. Additionally, since the specimen with the smallest deformation failed at 0.1 mm, caution is warranted when members are subjected to long-term shear forces. In a previous study (Yamagata et al. 2024 ), the predicted deformation after 50 years in the creep test ranged from 0.18–0.34 mm according to the power-law method, indicating that failure risk depends on specimen variability and loading levels. Figure 11 shows the relationship between the maximum loads of the control specimens and the days to failure of the DOL specimens. The maximum loads were taken from the side-matched control specimens, assumed to represent approximately the same member characteristics. The correlation coefficient was low, approximately 0.1, indicating no significant correlation between shear strength and load duration. 3.2 Modification factor for duration of load Figure 12 shows the relationship between load level and days to failure on a logarithmic scale. The strength modification factors for the duration of the load were calculated using linear regression of the relationship, along with the load ratio corresponding to 50 years. The Madison curve (Wood 1951 ) is plotted as a dotted line for comparison. The side-matching method was calculated based on the load levels listed in Tables 1 –3, while the average method was determined using the ratio of the average capacity of the control specimens for each member. Both methods yielded load levels exceeding 0.55 after 50 years, which aligns with the Madison curve (Wood 1951 ). In previous creep limit test (Yamagata et al. 2024 ), the reported creep limit was between 60% and 70%, consistent with the Japanese design criteria (Architectural Institute of Japan 2006 ). The results of the present study similarly indicate modification factors of 0.67 and 0.68, suggest minimal variation in strength across the members. The overall strength modification factor for the duration of the load parallel to the grain was determined to be 0.67. 4 Conclusion A duration of load (DOL) test was conducted to investigate the long-term shear performance of the wood using a tensile-shear testing method. The following conclusions were drawn. The relationship between days to failure and deformation at failure showed a tendency for deformation to increase to increase as the days to failure increased. Although some specimens exhibited large deformations at failure, the overall trend followed a power-law approximation, suggesting that the deformation at failure converged at approximately 0.3 mm. Deformation behavior varied depending on whether the loading started in April or October, with the effects of temperature and humidity becoming more pronounced from April onward. Under long-term loading, the deformation remained relatively constant for approximately three-quaters of the total loading period, followed by a sudden increase during the final quarter loading to failure. The modification factors for the DOL with respect to shear force were consistent: 67% using the side-matching method and 68% using the average method. These values align with those from previous creep limit tests (Yamagata et al. 2024 ), which reported values between 60% and 70%, confirming similar trends in the present study. Declarations Author Contribution K.Y. wrote the manuscript, designed and conducted the experiments, summarized and discussed the results; T.M. and M.N. designed and conducted the experiments, summarized and discussed the results. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Acknowledgments This research was based on JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research 22K04406, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Fundamental Research C, “The long-term performance of shear, cracking and embedment strength of timber joints in relation to the manifestation of timber side load capacity” (Principal Investigator: Makoto Nakatani). We thank Yoshiki Toyooka, then at the Graduate School of Hiroshima University; Ryo Inoue, now an assistant professor at the Graduate School of Kumamoto University; and Mahiro Kawamoto, at the Graduate School of Hiroshima University, for their cooperation in conducting the experiments and organizing the data. We express our gratitude for the support provided. References Ando K, Nakamura R, Kushino T (2023) Variation of shear creep properties of wood within a stem: effects of macro- and microstructural variability. Wood Sci Technol 57:93–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-022-01439-1 Aratake S, Matsumoto A, Nakatani M et al (2021) Bending creep of Sugi and Karamatsu dimension lumber for wood frame construction Ⅲ -effect of seasonal variation and estimation of creep factor. In: Abstract of the 71st Annual Meeting of the Japan Wood Research Society. pp 93–94 Architectural Institute of Japan (2006) Standard for structural design of timber structures. 158–159 ASTM International (2023) ASTM D143-23 Standard Test Methods for Small. Clear Specimens of Timber Bengtsson R, Bergeron L, Afshar R et al (2024) Evaluating the viscoelastic shear properties of clear wood via off-axis compression testing and digital-image correlation. Mech Time-Depend Mater 28:2069–2083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11043-023-09604-0 Brandner R, Ringhofer A, Sieder R (2019) Duration of Load Effect on Axially-Loaded Self-Tapping Screws Inserted Parallel to Grain in Soft- and Hardwood. Int Netw Timber Eng Res Hong S-I, Arima T (1998) Shear creep and mechanosorptive behavior of nail-plate-jointed laminated-veneer lumber. J Wood Sci 44:186–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00521961 Isoda H, Kitamura T, Takahashi S et al (2007) Calculation methods on creep behavior of glulam beam with joint under normal condition. J Struct Eng 53B:317–322 Japanese Standards Association (2009) JIS Z 2101 Methods of Test for Woods Kimura M, Kusunoki T, Oshiumi S (2002) Bending creep behavior of full-size Douglas fir glulam beams. J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 67:169–176. https://doi.org/10.3130/aijs.67.169_2 Li Y, Lam F (2016) Reliability analysis and duration-of-load strength adjustment factor of the rolling shear strength of cross laminated timber. J Wood Sci 62:492–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-016-1577-0 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (2023) Guidelines on the Public Use of Forests Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (2006) Japanese Agricultural Standard for Glued Laminated Timber Murakami M, Sasano T, Hashimoto Y, Odani R (2024) Development of semi-rigid timber frame preceded by shear yield at panel zone of beam-column connections. J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 89:548–559. https://doi.org/10.3130/aijs.89.548 Nakamura N (2017) Test of duration of load effect to interface between timber frame members and adhesive. AIJ Summ Tech Pap Annu Meet 127–128 Nakamura N, Aratake S, Iijima Y, Horie K (2010) Proposal of test method for duration of load effect (DOL) and calculation of DOL factor. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 56:326–332. https://doi.org/10.2488/jwrs.56.326 Nakashima S, Kitamori A, Mori T, Komatsu K (2014) Propose Alternative Design Criteria for Dowel Type Joint with CLT. In: Aicher S, Reinhardt H-W, Garrecht H (eds) Materials and Joints in Timber Structures. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 739–748 Odani R, Hayashi T, Murakami M (2022) Study on shear design method of beam-to column connections in semi-rigid timber frame (part 1). J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 87:93–103. https://doi.org/10.3130/aijs.87.93 Odani R, Murakami M (2024) Study on shear design method of beam-to column connections in semi-rigid timber frame (part 2). J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 89:582–591. https://doi.org/10.3130/aijs.89.582 Ogawa K, Kobayashi K (2020) Estimation of creep limit of screw joints between timber and structural plywood under constant shear loading. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 66:187–194. https://doi.org/10.2488/jwrs.66.187 Ohashi Y, Matsumoto K, Sato T, Hirai T (2009) Mechanical properties of wooden I-beams with plantation timber materials in Hokkaido Ⅲ shear creep property. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 55:217–225. https://doi.org/10.2488/jwrs.55.217 Park J, Song Y, Hong S (2020) Bending creep of glulam and bolted glulam under changing relative humidity. J Korean Wood Sci Technol 48:676–684 Rebouças AS, Mehdipour Z, Branco JM, Lourenço PB (2022) Ductile Moment-Resisting Timber Connections: A Review. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12020240 . Buildings 12: Shi B, Yang H, Liu J et al (2020) Short- and long-term performance of bonding steel-plate joints for timber structures. Constr Build Mater 240:117945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117945 Shimazaki K, Ando K (2024) Analysis of shear creep properties of wood via modified Burger models and off-axis compression test method. Wood Sci Technol 58:1473–1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-024-01578-7 Sugiyama H (1957) The creep deflection of wood subjected to bending under constant loading. Trans Archit Inst Jpn 55:60–70. https://doi.org/10.3130/aijsaxx.55.0_60 Takahashi S, Kitamura T, Mori T et al (2002) Relationship and seasonal influence of the creep behavior on glulam member, joint and frame under non-controlled condition. J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 67:87–94. https://doi.org/10.3130/aijs.67.87_1 Takanashi R, Ohashi Y, Ishihara W, Matsumoto K (2021) Long-term bending properties of cross-laminated timber made from Japanese larch under constant environment. J Wood Sci 67:65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10086-021-01997-1 Tamura K, Nakajima S, Nakagawa T, Nakashima S (2019) Creep rupture behavior of steel plate insertion type drift pin joint. AIJ J Technol Des 25:151–154. https://doi.org/10.3130/aijt.25.151 Tombleson J, Newcombe M, Leslie S, Hewitt A (2024) Standardised timber moment-resisting frames for multistorey buildings. N Z Soc Earthq Eng Wakashima Y, Okura K, Kyotani K (2010) Development of ductile semi-rigid joints with lag screw bolts and glued-in rods. In: Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Timber Engineering-WCTE 2010 Wood LW (1951) Relation of strength of wood to duration of load. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory Wu Q, Huo L, Zhu E et al (2021) An investigation of the duration of load of structural timber and the clear wood. Forests 12:1148 Yamagata K, Mori T, Nakatani M (2023) Proposal of tensile shear testing method in parallel to the grain direction of wood. J Soc Mater Sci 72:737–742. https://doi.org/10.2472/jsms.72.737 Yamagata K, Nakatani M, Mori T (2024) Study of shear creep performance in parallel to the grain direction of wood. J Soc Mater Sci 73:861–866. https://doi.org/10.2472/jsms.73.861 Yang H, Liu W, Ren X (2016) A component method for moment-resistant glulam beam–column connections with glued-in steel rods. Eng Struct 115:42–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.02.024 Zhang H, Li H, Dauletbek A et al (2023) Research status of glued-in rods connections in wood structures. J Build Eng 65:105782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105782 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 03 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Wood Science and Technology → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 01 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 21 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 04 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 May, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 13 May, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 13 May, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 02 May, 2025 First submitted to journal 02 May, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6578725","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":456928136,"identity":"762b1a76-bd37-40c9-9211-8bc2d3e85e4d","order_by":0,"name":"Kaito YAMAGATA","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hiroshima University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kaito","middleName":"","lastName":"YAMAGATA","suffix":""},{"id":456928137,"identity":"85e390b1-4a10-44ef-a388-97d80b8fa0d2","order_by":1,"name":"Makoto NAKATANI","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Miyazaki Prefectural Wood Utilization Research Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Makoto","middleName":"","lastName":"NAKATANI","suffix":""},{"id":456928138,"identity":"174a3e0c-01e1-49ac-bc53-369201328f26","order_by":2,"name":"Takuro MORI","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hiroshima University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Takuro","middleName":"","lastName":"MORI","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-02 13:23:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6578725/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6578725/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-026-01757-8","type":"published","date":"2026-03-03T16:00:03+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82904776,"identity":"1a5e7b85-f746-4511-a780-81abc30dd355","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 14:02:57","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":46629,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTensile-shear test specimen (Yamagata et al. 2023)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6578725/v1/5447e298c418ef6cdab3b339.jpg"},{"id":82904777,"identity":"24ef2e25-df4c-44e8-9a6e-fe8959e1e9ad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 14:02:57","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":34137,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSpecimens matching\u003csup\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e(Yamagata et al. 2024)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6578725/v1/d21ae96ce32cf170a7b8f789.jpg"},{"id":82906096,"identity":"5a8443fd-ad4b-4eab-9ac8-3adaba411f3a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 14:18:57","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":80177,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMethod of tensile shear testing\u003csup\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e(Yamagata et al. 2023)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6578725/v1/aba347e816c492d3f7450f9d.jpg"},{"id":82904775,"identity":"299475d1-5ed6-4bea-bcf3-4a620047fd4b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 14:02:57","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":40213,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLong-term shear testing\u003csup\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e(Yamagata et al. 2024)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6578725/v1/833f652487b0ed54bbc14506.jpg"},{"id":82904803,"identity":"1100d8aa-1dce-4a86-aa4a-67b0c27d432d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 14:02:58","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":86893,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMeasurement method (Yamagata et al. 2024)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6578725/v1/36b195cf72c2863f53d21e1b.jpg"},{"id":82904791,"identity":"f721d80a-fbae-4d45-a603-e1c254c1e4f2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 14:02:58","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":98364,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationship between deformation and days (upper: 70 %, left: 80 %, right: 90 %)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6578725/v1/d0932bca075617beea4974a5.jpg"},{"id":82906097,"identity":"d7f91a06-07a5-4230-bede-e4e3d97272f3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 14:18:57","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":120081,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationship between deformation and days\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6578725/v1/f41d74dad266f1f7ef877ca7.jpg"},{"id":82904783,"identity":"9e6c35b9-a9d7-49f4-b8c0-8e9610d9979d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 14:02:57","extension":"jpg","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":113083,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationship between loading time and deformation and relative humidity and temperature (upper: \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;70 %, left: 80 %, right: 90 %)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6578725/v1/4efc7407fca979b29e518bee.jpg"},{"id":82905681,"identity":"0da3a2e8-3b71-4448-b0ed-0f7bfac49862","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 14:10:57","extension":"jpg","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":128573,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationship between loading time and deformation without effects of temperature and humidity (Left: 90 %, right: 70 %)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6578725/v1/2dfb92f1341a481574b3b8ac.jpg"},{"id":82905687,"identity":"51fde0de-0916-4221-8de4-4219c14ac4bb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 14:10:58","extension":"jpg","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35864,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationship between deformation at failure and days to failure.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"10.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6578725/v1/99b3c76993b6f1850e0c22d4.jpg"},{"id":82904789,"identity":"8e1e0851-af3e-4658-826e-cdea619ff76b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 14:02:57","extension":"jpg","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":50370,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationship between \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003emax\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e of control specimen and time.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"11.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6578725/v1/e3e281a759f2bd61873232c1.jpg"},{"id":82905685,"identity":"26ea2dbc-fdde-4559-9064-9029bccd3460","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-16 14:10:58","extension":"jpg","order_by":12,"title":"Figure 12","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":91432,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationship between loading level and time (left: side matching method, right: average method)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"12.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6578725/v1/4effc22eb0a87e5ec8398e94.jpg"},{"id":104250746,"identity":"cbb351b0-567f-46d1-ab64-e4cb04be6cce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-09 16:07:34","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1515354,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6578725/v1/627b039d-76ef-460b-b123-6a8bcc142421.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Effect of shear performance by the duration of load in parallel to the grain direction of wood","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe law has been revised to promote the utilization of timber in nonresidential buildings as well as in tall and large structures (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, the demand for structures with high-strength and high-stiffness joints is increasing (Yang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Odani et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Rebou\u0026ccedil;as et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Murakami et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Odani and Murakami \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Tombleson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Examples of such joints include lag screw bolt joints (Wakashima et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), glued-in rod joints (Zhang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and drift pin joints (Nakashima et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The performance of these joints is closely related to the shear, cracking, and embedment capacities of timber. In nonresidential buildings, it is crucial to evaluate the long-term mechanical performance of timber, as these joints must provide high strength and stiffness while ensuring long-term durability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne method for evaluating the long-term performance of timber is duration of load (DOL) testing, which examines the effects of sustained loading. Although several studies have investigated bending performance (Sugiyama \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1957\u003c/span\u003e; Kimura et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Nakamura et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Wu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Takanashi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and joint performance (Takahashi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Isoda et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Brandner et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Ogawa and Kobayashi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Park et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Shi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), there are few creep and DOL tests specifically focused on the shear performance of timber and wood-based materials (Hong and Arima \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Ohashi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Li and Lam \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Nakamura \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Tamura et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Ando et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Shimazaki and Ando \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Bengtsson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current Japanese design criteria for timber structures (Architectural Institute of Japan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) determine DOL coefficients based on the Madison curve proposed by Wood (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1951\u003c/span\u003e). However, applying this approach to shear performance is inappropriate because the Madison curve is derived from bending tests using clear wood specimens. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the DOL coefficient for shear performance through dedicated shear testing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe testing method requires the application of sustained loads over long periods and the measurement of deformation. ASTM D143 (ASTM International \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), a widely used shear test method for wood, presents challenges due to the instability of the load axis during testing. To address this issue, the authors proposed a tensile-shear testing method to evaluate the long-term shear performance of wood (Yamagata et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). They conducted creep and creep- limit tests to determine the strength and deformation modification factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, DOL testing was conducted using the tensile-shear testing method, and the strength modification factor for the DOL, corresponding to the loading level after 50 years in relation to the shear strength, was calculated.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Testing Method","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1 Specimen\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 1 shows the test specimens. The test used four pieces of E65-F255 (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan 2006) \u003cem\u003eJapanese cedar\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eSugi\u003c/em\u003e), with all plies classified as L70 grade and measuring 4,000\u0026times;105\u0026times;180 mm. The average air-dried densities of each specimen were as follows: DOL-1, 393 kg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e; DOL-2, 400 kg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e; DOL-3, 429 kg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e; and DOL-4, 412 kg/m\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e. The shear planes of the specimen measured 30 mm\u0026times;30 mm, matching those of the JIS\u0026nbsp;(Japanese Standards Association 2009)\u0026nbsp;block shear specimens. The specimens specifications were consistent with those previously report\u0026nbsp;(Yamagata et al. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2 Testing Method\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe cutting rules for the control and DOL specimens are illustrated in Fig. 2. The specimens were selected from 4,000\u0026times;105\u0026times;180 mm members with minimal defects, such as knots. The control and DOL specimens were obtained from side-matched positions along the thickness direction. The loading levels were determined as the ratio of the applied load to the maximum load obtained from a static test of the side-matched control specimens. The specimens were named according to the loading level percentage, for example, the \u0026ldquo;70 % specimen\u0026rdquo;. The loading method is illustrated in Fig. 3, which illustrates the tensile-shear testing method. Long-term loading tests were conducted using a machine that applied force based on the lever principle, as shown in Fig. 4. This setup generated a tensile force approximately 14 times the weight applied to the specimen. Tables 1-3 present the total maximum load on the two shear planes of the control specimens, deformation at failure, and the load applied to the long-term specimens. Loading levels were set at 70 %, 80 %, and 90 %, with the number of specimens at each level as follows: 70 % (n = 7), 80 % (n = 6), and 90 % (n = 10). Additionally, specimens 2-7 in DOL-2 were included in the calculation, although their load level was set to 87 % due to a setting error. However, this deviation was deemed negligible and did not affect the overall evaluation. The ratios of the maximum capacity of each member to the average are shown in Tables 1-3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe tests were conducted indoors in the laboratory at Hiroshima University under variable temperature and humidity conditions without air-conditioning. Deformation, elapsed time after loading, temperature, and humidity were measured. Deformations were measured using four transducers (CDP-5; Tokyo Measuring Instruments Laboratory, Tokyo, Japan) mounted on the left, right, front, and back sides to measure shear deformation at the shear section. The average value of each shear section deformation was used as the shear deformation value (Fig. 5). Data were recorded every second during the first hour, every minute over the next 3 h, and every hour thereafter. Temperature and humidity were measured hourly using a temperature and humidity sensor (Ondotori RTR-503; T\u0026amp;D Corporation, Tokyo, Japan).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"627\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"10\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 627px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eControl shear tests and DOL tests (DOL-1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCo P\u003csub\u003emax\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e(kN)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoad level of the side matching (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoad level of the average (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoad (kN)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDeformation at failure (mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoading date\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11/5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11/4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11/4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFailure date\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5/9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3/12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11/1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11/4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11/4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoading days (day)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e193.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e127.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emoment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDOL deformation at failure (mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"627\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"11\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 627px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e Control shear tests results and applied load of creep tests (DOL-2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCo P\u003csub\u003emax\u003c/sub\u003e (kN)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoad level of the side matching (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoad level of the average (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoad (kN)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDeformation at failure (mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoading date\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3/24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3/22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFailure date\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7/2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5/19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3/22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3/7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoading days (day)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e142.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDOL deformation at failure (mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"627\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"11\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 627px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eControl shear tests results and applied load of creep tests (DOL-3 \u0026amp; DOL-4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3-3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3-5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4-3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCo P\u003csub\u003emax\u003c/sub\u003e (kN)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoad level of the side matching (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoad level of the average (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoad (kN)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDeformation at failure (mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoading date\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4/18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8/7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8/20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8/7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFailure date\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8/6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8/16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10/5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4/17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8/6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8/15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9/8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8/7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLoading days (day)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e298.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e311.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e187.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e109.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 145px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDOL deformation at failure (mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"3 Results and Discussions","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe days from loading to failure and the deformation of the specimens at each loading level are presented in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;3. The relationship between days and deformation at each representative loading level is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;6. Shear failure was defined as the point at which the deformation of one of the shear planes increased rapidly, and the days to failure were measured up to that point. The loading start and end dates are shown at the top left and right of each graph, respectively. Figure\u0026nbsp;6 presents the data recorded daily at 12:00 AM.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe days to failure for 70% specimens ranged from 100 to 200 days; for the 80% specimens, from 0 to 19 days; and for the 90% specimens, from immediately after loading to 188 days. The reason for the shorter time to failure observed in the 80% specimens remains unclear. One possible explanation is the natural variability of wood.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe loading start dates varied because the loadings were conducted sequentially based on specimen failure, as shown in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;3. Therefore, this section examines the differences in deformation behavior depending on the loading start time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure 7 illustrates the relationship between deformation and days for two 90% specimens: DOL-3-4, loaded from October 2023 to April 2024, and DOL-3-5, loaded from April 2024 to August 2024. The specimen loaded in October exhibited deformation within the range of 0.05\u0026ndash;0.1 mm, whereas the specimen loaded in April showed a continuous increase in deformation from the start. Aratake et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) investigated differences in creep behavior between summer and winter loading and found that creep deformation was greater for specimens loaded during winter, likely due to the effects of the rainy season. We consider that the difference in deformation behavior observed in Fig.\u0026nbsp;7 resulted from the rainy season, which started approximately 1\u0026ndash;2 months after the April loading.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure 8 shows the relationship between deformation, days, and humidity for each load level. The 70% of the specimen was DOL-3-2, the 80% specimen was DOL-4-2, and the 90% specimen was DOL-3-4. These specimens were selected for comparison because they exhibited the longest failure days under their respective loads. For the 70% and 90% specimens, only the data recorded daily at 12:00 AM were included. The deformation tended to increase with rising humidity, consistent with the findings of a previous study (Yamagata et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In the 70% and 90% specimens, the deformation remained relatively constant for approximately three-quarters of the loading period, followed by a rapid doubling of deformation during the final quarter.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure 8 shows the relationship between deformation and days, with the effects of temperature and humidity excluded by subtracting the deformation of the unloaded dummy specimen from that of the DOL specimen. Because one measurement point could not be measured, the average of remaining three points was used. The measured values are represented by circles, while the values excluding the effects of temperature and humidity are represented by black dots. When the effects of temperature and humidity were excluded, the deformation tended to increase steadily with the duration of the load, owing to the reduced variation in the data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;9 shows that the difference between the values with and without the effects of temperature and humidity tended to increase from April when the temperature and humidity increased. This indicates that the influence of environmental conditions on deformation became more pronounced during this period. In a previous study (Yamagata et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), creep tests were conducted at 30% and 40% load levels showed only small difference between the dummy and creep specimens, suggesting that temperature and humidity have a considerable effect on deformation. However, in the present study, although the deformation fluctuated with the temperature and humidity, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;9, an increase in deformation was still observed even after subtracting the dummy specimen\u0026rsquo;s values. Therefore, at load levels above 70%, it is considered that the deformation due to the duration of load exceeds that caused by fluctuations in temperature and humidity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure 10 shows the relationship between deformation at failure in the DOL test and the days to failure. The results are based on the specimens that withstood at least 5 min of loading. Except for a few specimens, deformation tended to increase with days to failure, likely due to the viscoelasticity behavior of wood. The specimen with the greatest deformation exhibited 0.31 mm after 298 days of loading, while another showed 0.28 mm after only 8 days, suggesting that failure generally occurs around 0.3 mm of deformation. Most specimens failed early at the 90% loading level, whereas some specimens at the 70% loading level endured longer. However, because several specimens at 90% loading also failed after 180 days, no clear correlation between loading level and duration to failure can be established.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing the power-law process shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;10, the estimated deformation after 50 years was 0.31 mm. This indicated that, within the range of the results from this study, specimens are highly likely to fail after 50 years of continuous loading. Additionally, since the specimen with the smallest deformation failed at 0.1 mm, caution is warranted when members are subjected to long-term shear forces. In a previous study (Yamagata et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), the predicted deformation after 50 years in the creep test ranged from 0.18\u0026ndash;0.34 mm according to the power-law method, indicating that failure risk depends on specimen variability and loading levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure 11 shows the relationship between the maximum loads of the control specimens and the days to failure of the DOL specimens. The maximum loads were taken from the side-matched control specimens, assumed to represent approximately the same member characteristics. The correlation coefficient was low, approximately 0.1, indicating no significant correlation between shear strength and load duration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Modification factor for duration of load\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure 12 shows the relationship between load level and days to failure on a logarithmic scale. The strength modification factors for the duration of the load were calculated using linear regression of the relationship, along with the load ratio corresponding to 50 years. The Madison curve (Wood \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1951\u003c/span\u003e) is plotted as a dotted line for comparison.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe side-matching method was calculated based on the load levels listed in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;3, while the average method was determined using the ratio of the average capacity of the control specimens for each member. Both methods yielded load levels exceeding 0.55 after 50 years, which aligns with the Madison curve (Wood \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1951\u003c/span\u003e). In previous creep limit test (Yamagata et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), the reported creep limit was between 60% and 70%, consistent with the Japanese design criteria (Architectural Institute of Japan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). The results of the present study similarly indicate modification factors of 0.67 and 0.68, suggest minimal variation in strength across the members. The overall strength modification factor for the duration of the load parallel to the grain was determined to be 0.67.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"4 Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eA duration of load (DOL) test was conducted to investigate the long-term shear performance of the wood using a tensile-shear testing method. The following conclusions were drawn.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationship between days to failure and deformation at failure showed a tendency for deformation to increase to increase as the days to failure increased. Although some specimens exhibited large deformations at failure, the overall trend followed a power-law approximation, suggesting that the deformation at failure converged at approximately 0.3 mm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeformation behavior varied depending on whether the loading started in April or October, with the effects of temperature and humidity becoming more pronounced from April onward.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnder long-term loading, the deformation remained relatively constant for approximately three-quaters of the total loading period, followed by a sudden increase during the final quarter loading to failure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe modification factors for the DOL with respect to shear force were consistent: 67% using the side-matching method and 68% using the average method. These values align with those from previous creep limit tests (Yamagata et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), which reported values between 60% and 70%, confirming similar trends in the present study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eK.Y. wrote the manuscript, designed and conducted the experiments, summarized and discussed the results; T.M. and M.N. designed and conducted the experiments, summarized and discussed the results. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research was based on JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research 22K04406, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Fundamental Research C, \u0026ldquo;The long-term performance of shear, cracking and embedment strength of timber joints in relation to the manifestation of timber side load capacity\u0026rdquo; (Principal Investigator: Makoto Nakatani). We thank Yoshiki Toyooka, then at the Graduate School of Hiroshima University; Ryo Inoue, now an assistant professor at the Graduate School of Kumamoto University; and Mahiro Kawamoto, at the Graduate School of Hiroshima University, for their cooperation in conducting the experiments and organizing the data. We express our gratitude for the support provided.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndo K, Nakamura R, Kushino T (2023) Variation of shear creep properties of wood within a stem: effects of macro- and microstructural variability. Wood Sci Technol 57:93\u0026ndash;110. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-022-01439-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00226-022-01439-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAratake S, Matsumoto A, Nakatani M et al (2021) Bending creep of Sugi and Karamatsu dimension lumber for wood frame construction Ⅲ -effect of seasonal variation and estimation of creep factor. In: Abstract of the 71st Annual Meeting of the Japan Wood Research Society. pp 93\u0026ndash;94\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArchitectural Institute of Japan (2006) Standard for structural design of timber structures. 158\u0026ndash;159\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eASTM International (2023) ASTM D143-23 Standard Test Methods for Small. Clear Specimens of Timber\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBengtsson R, Bergeron L, Afshar R et al (2024) Evaluating the viscoelastic shear properties of clear wood via off-axis compression testing and digital-image correlation. Mech Time-Depend Mater 28:2069\u0026ndash;2083. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11043-023-09604-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11043-023-09604-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrandner R, Ringhofer A, Sieder R (2019) Duration of Load Effect on Axially-Loaded Self-Tapping Screws Inserted Parallel to Grain in Soft- and Hardwood. Int Netw Timber Eng Res\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHong S-I, Arima T (1998) Shear creep and mechanosorptive behavior of nail-plate-jointed laminated-veneer lumber. J Wood Sci 44:186\u0026ndash;190. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF00521961\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/BF00521961\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIsoda H, Kitamura T, Takahashi S et al (2007) Calculation methods on creep behavior of glulam beam with joint under normal condition. J Struct Eng 53B:317\u0026ndash;322\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJapanese Standards Association (2009) JIS Z 2101 Methods of Test for Woods\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKimura M, Kusunoki T, Oshiumi S (2002) Bending creep behavior of full-size Douglas fir glulam beams. J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 67:169\u0026ndash;176. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3130/aijs.67.169_2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3130/aijs.67.169_2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi Y, Lam F (2016) Reliability analysis and duration-of-load strength adjustment factor of the rolling shear strength of cross laminated timber. J Wood Sci 62:492\u0026ndash;502. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-016-1577-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10086-016-1577-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (2023) Guidelines on the Public Use of Forests\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (2006) Japanese Agricultural Standard for Glued Laminated Timber\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMurakami M, Sasano T, Hashimoto Y, Odani R (2024) Development of semi-rigid timber frame preceded by shear yield at panel zone of beam-column connections. J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 89:548\u0026ndash;559. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3130/aijs.89.548\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3130/aijs.89.548\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNakamura N (2017) Test of duration of load effect to interface between timber frame members and adhesive. AIJ Summ Tech Pap Annu Meet 127\u0026ndash;128\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNakamura N, Aratake S, Iijima Y, Horie K (2010) Proposal of test method for duration of load effect (DOL) and calculation of DOL factor. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 56:326\u0026ndash;332. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2488/jwrs.56.326\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2488/jwrs.56.326\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNakashima S, Kitamori A, Mori T, Komatsu K (2014) Propose Alternative Design Criteria for Dowel Type Joint with CLT. In: Aicher S, Reinhardt H-W, Garrecht H (eds) Materials and Joints in Timber Structures. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 739\u0026ndash;748\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOdani R, Hayashi T, Murakami M (2022) Study on shear design method of beam-to column connections in semi-rigid timber frame (part 1). J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 87:93\u0026ndash;103. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3130/aijs.87.93\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3130/aijs.87.93\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOdani R, Murakami M (2024) Study on shear design method of beam-to column connections in semi-rigid timber frame (part 2). J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 89:582\u0026ndash;591. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3130/aijs.89.582\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3130/aijs.89.582\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOgawa K, Kobayashi K (2020) Estimation of creep limit of screw joints between timber and structural plywood under constant shear loading. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 66:187\u0026ndash;194. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2488/jwrs.66.187\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2488/jwrs.66.187\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOhashi Y, Matsumoto K, Sato T, Hirai T (2009) Mechanical properties of wooden I-beams with plantation timber materials in Hokkaido Ⅲ shear creep property. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 55:217\u0026ndash;225. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2488/jwrs.55.217\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2488/jwrs.55.217\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePark J, Song Y, Hong S (2020) Bending creep of glulam and bolted glulam under changing relative humidity. J Korean Wood Sci Technol 48:676\u0026ndash;684\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRebou\u0026ccedil;as AS, Mehdipour Z, Branco JM, Louren\u0026ccedil;o PB (2022) Ductile Moment-Resisting Timber Connections: A Review. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12020240\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/buildings12020240\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Buildings 12:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShi B, Yang H, Liu J et al (2020) Short- and long-term performance of bonding steel-plate joints for timber structures. Constr Build Mater 240:117945. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117945\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117945\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShimazaki K, Ando K (2024) Analysis of shear creep properties of wood via modified Burger models and off-axis compression test method. Wood Sci Technol 58:1473\u0026ndash;1490. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-024-01578-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00226-024-01578-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSugiyama H (1957) The creep deflection of wood subjected to bending under constant loading. Trans Archit Inst Jpn 55:60\u0026ndash;70. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3130/aijsaxx.55.0_60\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3130/aijsaxx.55.0_60\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTakahashi S, Kitamura T, Mori T et al (2002) Relationship and seasonal influence of the creep behavior on glulam member, joint and frame under non-controlled condition. J Struct Constr Eng AIJ 67:87\u0026ndash;94. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3130/aijs.67.87_1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3130/aijs.67.87_1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTakanashi R, Ohashi Y, Ishihara W, Matsumoto K (2021) Long-term bending properties of cross-laminated timber made from Japanese larch under constant environment. J Wood Sci 67:65. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s10086-021-01997-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s10086-021-01997-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTamura K, Nakajima S, Nakagawa T, Nakashima S (2019) Creep rupture behavior of steel plate insertion type drift pin joint. AIJ J Technol Des 25:151\u0026ndash;154. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3130/aijt.25.151\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3130/aijt.25.151\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTombleson J, Newcombe M, Leslie S, Hewitt A (2024) Standardised timber moment-resisting frames for multistorey buildings. N Z Soc Earthq Eng\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWakashima Y, Okura K, Kyotani K (2010) Development of ductile semi-rigid joints with lag screw bolts and glued-in rods. In: Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Timber Engineering-WCTE 2010\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWood LW (1951) Relation of strength of wood to duration of load. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu Q, Huo L, Zhu E et al (2021) An investigation of the duration of load of structural timber and the clear wood. Forests 12:1148\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYamagata K, Mori T, Nakatani M (2023) Proposal of tensile shear testing method in parallel to the grain direction of wood. J Soc Mater Sci 72:737\u0026ndash;742. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2472/jsms.72.737\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2472/jsms.72.737\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYamagata K, Nakatani M, Mori T (2024) Study of shear creep performance in parallel to the grain direction of wood. J Soc Mater Sci 73:861\u0026ndash;866. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2472/jsms.73.861\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2472/jsms.73.861\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang H, Liu W, Ren X (2016) A component method for moment-resistant glulam beam\u0026ndash;column connections with glued-in steel rods. Eng Struct 115:42\u0026ndash;54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.02.024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.02.024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang H, Li H, Dauletbek A et al (2023) Research status of glued-in rods connections in wood structures. J Build Eng 65:105782. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105782\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105782\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"wood-science-and-technology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"wsat","sideBox":"Learn more about [Wood Science and Technology](http://link.springer.com/journal/226)","snPcode":"226","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/226/3","title":"Wood Science and Technology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Duration of load, Parallel to the grain, Tensile shear test, Timber","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6578725/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6578725/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eHigh-strength joints are increasingly used in timber structures to exploit the shear properties of wood. Therefore, understanding the long-term shear performance is essential. In this study, the long-term shear behavior of timber was evaluated using the tensile-shear test method. A duration of load (DOL) test was conducted to assess shear performance parallel to the grain under sustained loading. The test was carried out at loading levels ranging from 70\u0026ndash;90%, and strength modification factors as well as duration of load coefficients were calculated to ensure conservative values relative to current design standards. The results indicate that the deformation at failure tends to converge at approximately 0.3 mm. A correlation was observed between deformation and environmental conditions, with the specimens loaded in April demonstrating greater deformation than the loaded in October. The strength modification factor was determined to be 0.67, which is considered a safe value compared to the current standard of 0.55. This result is consistent with values reported in the previous study involving creep limit test study.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Effect of shear performance by the duration of load in parallel to the grain direction of wood","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-16 14:02:53","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6578725/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-12-01T15:45:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-21T08:40:39+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-04T21:07:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"278848078645948766977326089548566127227","date":"2025-05-21T16:16:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"163872980394373908160969486342766128186","date":"2025-05-18T20:15:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-05-13T10:44:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-05-13T10:03:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-05-02T14:30:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Wood Science and Technology","date":"2025-05-02T13:12:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"wood-science-and-technology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"wsat","sideBox":"Learn more about [Wood Science and Technology](http://link.springer.com/journal/226)","snPcode":"226","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/226/3","title":"Wood Science and Technology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"69f46d8f-1703-4ec1-9f4d-8941e46b24b2","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 16th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-09T16:04:01+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6578725","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-026-01757-8","journal":{"identity":"wood-science-and-technology","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Wood Science and Technology"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-03 16:00:03","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 3rd, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-16 14:02:53","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s00226-026-01757-8","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-026-01757-8","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6578725","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6578725","identity":"rs-6578725","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}