This paper presents an experimental campaign conducted on the beam-to-column glulam joints combing glued-in rods and steel brackets (BCGS glulam joints) aiming to investigate the mechanical behaviour of these glulam joints under low cyclic loading. Three types of steel brackets were designed for connecting the beam and column combing with glued-in rods and to work as energy dissipaters. In each group of specimens (except for group MJ4), two specimens were tested under monotonic loading and the others were subjected to low cyclic loading. The test results were summarized comprehensively in terms of failure modes, joint stiffness, hysteresis loops, ductility and energy dissipation ability. Generally, the difference of load capacity between BCGS glulam joints and the beam-to-column glulam joints only with glued-in rods (BCG glulam joints) was not significant. The joint stiffness of BCG glulam joints was higher than that of the BCGS glulam joints, while the stiffness degradation of the later is slower than the former. The hysteresis loops of the BCGS glulam joints exhibited less pinching effect obviously compared with the BCG glulam joints, which indicated that the energy dissipation ability of the glulam joints with glued-in rods could be improved significantly by using the steel brackets as energy dissipaters. Moreover, it should be noted that the hysteresis loops of groups CJ1 showed slipping effect obviously during testing. This might due to the insufficient shear resistance of these two groups, so that further investigations on BCG glulam joints with shear-resisting components are urgently needed.
In this paper, some of the results are presented from a series of quasi-static tests on CLT wall panels conducted at FPInnovation-Forintek in Vancouver, BC. CLT wall panels with various configurations and connection details were tested. Wall configurations included single panel walls with three different aspect ratios, multi-panel walls with step joints and different types of screws to connect them, as well as two-storey wall assemblies. Connections for securing the walls to the foundation included: off-the-shelf steel brackets with annular ring nails, spiral nails, and screws; combination of steel brackets and hold-downs; diagonally placed long screws; and custom made brackets with timber rivets. Results showed that CLT walls can have adequate seismic performance when nails or screws are used with the steel brackets. Use of hold-downs with nails on each end of the wall improves its seismic performance. Use of diagonally placed long screws to connect the CLT walls to the floor below is not recommended in high seismic zones due to less ductile wall behaviour. Use of step joints in longer walls can be an effective solution not only to reduce the wall stiffness and thus reduce the seismic input load, but also to improve the wall deformation capabilities. Timber rivets in smaller groups with custom made brackets were found to be effective connectors for CLT wall panels. Further research in this field is needed to further clarify the use of timber rivets in CLT.
