MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2292692465 · doi:10.14288/1.0064044

Reinforced multiple bolt timber connections

2009· article· en· W2292692465 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Mastschuch

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueWood Treatment and Properties
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésForensic engineeringStructural engineeringEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Bolted connections have been used in heavy timber construction for centuries. Yet design rules are very inconsistent and failure modes are often of a brittle nature, contrary to design rules that are based on a yield model approach. To improve the ductility of bolted connections especially in seismic design applications, reinforcing measures can be applied in the connection region. The reinforcement restrains the expansion of timber in the perpendicular-to-grain direction and is meant to prevent a sudden release of energy and the associated brittle failure of the connection. This thesis reports on an experimental investigation into the effect of various reinforcing techniques on multiple bolt connections in glue-laminated timber (Glulam) and parallel strand lumber (PSL). Several reinforcing techniques were investigated; (i) threaded rods and glued-in rods were applied internally; (ii) truss plates, nailed plates and glued-on plates were used as a surface reinforcement. Different configurations and materials within each reinforcement group were compared. A total of 79 specimens were tested, 58 under monotonic tension and 21 under reverse cyclic loads. All connections consisted of 2 rows of 5 bolts each, attached to 19mm thick steel side plates. As a pilot study, three replicas of each ten-bolt connection were tested in monotonic tension. From these results, the joints considered to display good strength, ductility and energy dissipation characteristics were later tested in cyclic static loading. The parallel strand lumber specimens were 89x140mm and glue-laminated specimens 89x130mm in cross section with the bolts penetrating the short distance (89mm). The connection geometry was in all cases based on the bolt diameter and followed the Canadian code rules in CAN/CSA 086.1-94. The end distance, and the bolt and row spacing were respectively lOd, 4d and 4d in all the connections. The slenderness of the bolts (1/d ratio) was varied by using different bolt diameters in the tests - 9.5mm(3/8"), 12.7mm(l/2") and 15.9mm(5/8"). The bolts (Grade 5) were tested in bending to obtain their yield stress. The larger diameter (1/2", 5/8") bolted connections with lag screw and truss plate reinforcement exhibited brittle fractures (splitting and shear plug). The reinforcement helped to maintain the integrity of the connection and considerable nonlinear deformations occurred with a relatively small reduction in load. The most promising reinforcement method consisted of coarse threaded lag screws (4mm thread) inserted perpendicular to the grain halfway between each of the connection bolts. These specimens reached the highest displacement ductility ratio (15 on average) in the 3/8" bolt connections. Further achievement was achieved when the reinforcing rod was offset from the bolt, and higher ductility was reached when compared to the reinforcing rod in the mid-position. Fine threaded ready rod (1.8mm thread) did not have adequate bond to prevent perpendicular-to-grain tension splitting. In these cases the connections failed suddenly and in brittle failure modes with a ductility ratio of 4.7 in 5/8" PSL and 6.1 in 1/2" Glulam connections. The tests with the truss plates showed that the teeth of the truss plates were not long enough. Especially in the cyclic tests, the huge cumulative displacement caused the truss plates to prematurely pull out from the timber. Thus a more sudden drop in the strength and stiffness followed after the peak load, compared to the lag screw reinforced cases. The use of epoxy glue with different forms of reinforcement (glued-on plates, glued-in rods and rebars) mostly increased the strength (-1.7%, 32.1% and 14% on average) but did not prevent sudden failures. Ductility ratios of 2.9, 4.1 and 4.2 (on average) were reached for the three bolt sizes. Little plate crushing in the bolt location and nail bending were observed when finishing nails and thin plates (0.6mm) were used as reinforcement. When 2"spiral nails with 1.2 mm thick plate were used, the stiff nails caused cracking of the specimen at peak load and no plate crushing was observed. Both configurations failed in a brittle manner. One of the specimens was reinforced with a stiffened truss plate. Whereas the truss plates in general acted as passive reinforcement only, in this case most of the force was directly transferred through truss plate teeth to the wood. The plate prematurely pulled out off the wood, which caused a brittle failure (ductility of 3.3). The Glulam connections were stronger than their PSL equivalents, but less ductile. The damage on the Glulam specimens was less predictable and cracks typically propagated along the entire specimen length. Cracks in PSL joints stopped at 10-15cm from the last bolt due to the denser and random wood strand orientation in the PSL cross section.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,017

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,146
Écart entre enseignants0,139 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Même sujetWood Treatment and PropertiesTravaux en français237 207