4.6 Article

Cyclic behaviour of typical metal connectors for cross-laminated (CLT) structures

期刊

MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 1841-1857

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1617/s11527-014-0278-7

关键词

CLT metal connectors; Cyclic tests; Analytical models; Capacity based design; Overstrength ratio; Ductility; Timber

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An extended experimental programme on typical cross-laminated (CLT) connections was performed at IVALSA Trees and Timber Institute. The paper discusses the results of monotonic and cyclic tests in shear and tension (pull-out) carried out on hold-downs and steel angle brackets used to anchor the wall panels to foundations or to connect wall panels to floor panels. Mechanical properties such as strength, stiffness, energy dissipation, impairment of strength and ductility were evaluated and are critically discussed in the paper. Significant ductility and energy dissipation was attained in most of the tests. Nevertheless, brittle failure modes were observed in some tests, indicating the need for introduction of capacity based design principles for CLT connections. The overstrength factors, which are needed for capacity based design, were also evaluated for the different types of connection tested. A comparison between the test results and the analytical formulas provided by current codes of practice and new proposals is also provided. The approach developed by Uibel and Blass gives slightly more accurate CLT metal strength predictions compared to the existing formulas in Eurocode 5. Both approaches lead to very conservative results. However, analytical models for the prediction of CLT metal connectors' stiffness significantly overestimate the experimental values. Therefore, it is recommended that currently only experimental strength and stiffness values of hold-downs and angle brackets be used in seismic analyses. Some proposals to improve the mechanical performance of metal connectors in terms of strength and stiffness are also given based on this experimental and analytical study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据