4.4 Article

Group Effects for Shear Connections with Self-Tapping Screws in CLT

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
卷 145, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002357

关键词

Cross-laminated timber; Self-tapping screws; Shear connections; Group effect

资金

  1. MITCAS Canada through an Accelerate project
  2. My-Ti-Con Timber Connectors, Canada
  3. SWG-Schraubenwerk Gaisbach Germany
  4. Structurlam Products
  5. British Columbia Innovation Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels, when used as shear walls or diaphragms, are commonly connected with multiple (n) dowel-type fasteners in a row. For such connections, it is frequently observed that the load-carrying capacity of multiple fasteners is less than the sum of the individual fastener capacities, a phenomenon referred to as the group effect. The research presented in this paper investigated the group effect in self-tapping screw (STS) shear connections between CLT panels. Different joint types (surface splines with STS in shear, and half-lap and butt joints with STS in either shear or withdrawal) were evaluated in a total of 175 quasi-static monotonic and reversed cyclic tests, with the number of STS in one row varied between 2 and 32. The results showed that the group effect for the joint capacity (strength) can be expressed as neff=0.9n for all joints under static loading, where neff is the effective number of fasteners. In case of cyclic loading, a more pronounced group effect was observed that can be expressed as neff=n0.9. These reductions are significantly less conservative than the current Canadian design provisions for lag screws. For the reduction in stiffness and ductility, neff=n0.8 and neff=n0.9 can be used for all joints under static and cyclic loading, respectively. Finally, the capacity, ductility, and stiffness for joints under cyclic loading where the STS acted in withdrawal were on average 10% lower compared with the static values.

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

4.4
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