Comparison of the use of angle brackets in timber joints with eurocode 5

•The maximum forces from calculations based on Eurocode 5 are higher than forces from experiments.•The calculation models correlate well with experiments.•The standard EN 26891 is not convenient for joints with brackets. The aim of this study is to describe the design of steel angle bracket in timber joints. The design has insufficient support in the existing standards. The load-bearing capacity of these connections can be calculated in accordance with EN 1995-1-1 Eurocode 5, Chapter 8 Connections with metallic fasteners. The main drawback is that this manual only focuses on the metallic fasteners itself. The other disadvantage is that it does not look into the question of stiffness of the joint, its deformation, which is often a problem with these connections. This issue was confirmed by experiments in this study. Eight different angle brackets have been tested in the load direction where the part of the metallic fasteners is stressed in the pull and the second part in the shear. In addition, three different angle brackets were tested in the load direction where all the metallic fasteners are stressed in shear. These experiments were compared with computational models and the calculations according to EC 5. The computational models were performed in software RFEM5. The angle brackets were modeled, nails and wood were replaced by point or flat supports. The results from computational models are comparable to experiments. However, the values given by the calculations according to EC 5 are considerably higher than the real load-bearing capacities obtained from the experiments. Therefore the use of EC 5 for this type of connections can be dangerous in practice. The differences between experiments, models and calculations indicate the difficulty of designing timber joints with three-dimensional nailing plates.