DESIGN OF GLASS STRUCTURES:

EFFECTS OF INTERLAYE R TYPES ON HEAT-TREATED LAMINATED

GLASS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

VERDA AKDENİZ

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR
THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING SCIENCE
IN
ARCHITECTURE

SEPTEMBER 2007
 Approval of the thesis:

DESIGN OF GLASS STRUCTURES

EFFECTS OF INTERLAYE R TYPES ON HEAT-TREATED LAMINATED
GLASS

Submitted by VERDA AKDENİZ in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Science in Building Science in Architecture Department,
Middle East Technical University by,

(Ms.) Canan Özgen, Ph. D.; Professor; Director,

Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences _______________________

(Mr.) Güven Arif Sargın, Ph. D.; Assoc. Prof. &

Chair, Department of Architecture _______________________

(Mr.) Arda Düzgüneş, Ph. D.; Assoc. Prof.;

Supervisor, Department of Architecture _______________________

Members of the Examining Committee:

(Ms.) Ömür Bakırer, Ph. D.; Professor,

Department of Architecture, METU (Chair) _______________________

(Mr.) Arda Düzgüneş, Ph. D.; Assoc. Prof.,

Department of Architecture, METU _______________________

(Mr.) Ali Murat Tanyer, Ph. D.; Asst. Prof.,

Department of Architecture, METU _______________________

(Mr.) Halis Günel, Ph. D.; Instructor,

Department of Architecture, METU _______________________

(Ms.) A. Berrin (Zeytun) Çakmaklı; Ph. D.,

Instructor, Department of Interior Design,
Başkent University _______________________

Date: (September,7th 2007)

I hereby declare that all informati on in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and refere nced all
material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last name: Verda AKDENİZ

Signature:

iii
 ABSTRACT

DESIGN OF GLASS STRUCTURES:

EFFECTS OF INTERLAYE R TYPES ON HEAT-TREATED LAMINATED
GLASS

Akdeniz, Verda
M.Sc. in Building Science, Department of Architecture
Supervisor: (Mr.) Arda Düzgüneş, Ph. D.;Assoc. Prof.

September 2007, 108 pages

Glass is an inherrently strong and elastic building material that allows the enclosure
of spaces to provide both comfort and æsthetic appeal. It is evidentl y due recognition
of these properties that has resulted in the current propensity to use it in ever larger
sizes; and then with minimum –if not total absence–of visible supporting structure. It
is, however, its lack of plastic behavior under stress –leading to catastrophic failure
without warning–that has been the main drawback preventing its use as a structural
material on its own. Ergo, the development of composite configurations with plastic
interlayers, commonly known as structural glass. Contemporary wo rking methods for
glass have also been able to provide better structural characteristics –particularly after
heat treatments, which reduce its vulnerability to cracking and brittle failure. In com -
bination, these methods offer designers the possibility of u sing glass panels capable
of acting as load-carrying structural elements.

iv
The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of glass -adhesive-glass
composite, or laminated, elements and the use of glass as a structural material in light
of their inherent strength properties. Here, an attempt was made to define the be -
havior of interlayers in structural glass and to then prepare a selection guide. To this
end, it was necessary to first gather information about the materials and design
methods used to create glass structures. As the literature notes that such stresses are
particularly important to structural glass design due to the inability of the material to
flow plastically and to thus relieve high stresses, pertinent simulation techniques
(e.g., finite element analysis) were then used to investigate shear transfer between
glass panes and interlayers. These simulations allowed determination of stiffness
with different types of interlayer for panes of different dimensions and orien -
tation in respect to loading conditions . It was the results of these analyses that
were finally compiled into the selection guide already noted. It is expected that these
results will make a worthwhile contribution to developing glass structure design and
its application in practice.

Keywords: structural glass, laminated glass, SentryGlas ®Plus, SJ Mepla, selection

guide

v
 ÖZ

CAM YAPILARIN TASARIMI:

ARAKATMAN ÇEŞİTLERİN İN ISISAL İŞLEM GÖRMÜŞ LAMİNE CAMLAR
ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

AKDENİZ, Verda
Yüksek Lisans, Yapı Bilgisi Anabilim Dalı, Mimarlık Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Arda Düzgüneş

Eylül 2007, 108 sayfa

Cam konfor ve estetik sağlamak amacıyla büyük hacimlerin kaplanmasına izin veren
önemli bir yapı malzemesidir. Son zamanlarda camın yaygın kulla nımı alışılmış
taşıyıcı yapıları en aza indirgeme hatta tamamıyla kullanımdan kaldırma eğiliminin
bir belirtisi olarak yorumlanabilir. Ancak, diğer yapısal elemanlardan farklı olarak
cam aşırı kırılgan bir yapıya sahiptir.

Bu çalışma camın doğal mukavemet özellikleri ışığında cam -ara katman-cam

kompozit elemanının performansını ve camın yapısal eleman olarak kullanımını
açıklamıştır. Modern yöntemler, özellikle bazı ısısal işlemler cama gelişmiş yapısal
özellikler kazandırmakta ve camın çatlamaya karşı has sasiyetini ve kırılganlık
özelliğini azaltmaktadır. Bu işlemlere ek olarak cama noktasal delikler açılabilmekte
ve cama laminasyon işlemi uygulanabilmektedir. Sözü geçen bu metotlar

vi
tasarımcılara cam panelleri yapısal taşıyıcı eleman olarak kullanmasına ol anak
sağlamaktadır.

Bu çalışma modelleme teknikleri kullanarak yapısal cam elemanlarda kullanılan

değişik ara katman çeşitlerinin davranışını açıklamayı ve seçim rehberi hazırlamayı
amaçlamıştır. Bu çalışma kapsamında cam yapıları oluşturmak için gereke n
malzemeler ve tasarım yöntemleri ile ilgili bilgiler bir araya getirilmiştir. Modelleme
teknikleri, cam paneller ve ara katmanlar arasındaki kesme kuvveti aktarımını
araştırmak için kullanılmıştır. Yazım bölümünde belirtildiği camın yüksek ge rilimleri
azaltmak için plastik akma yapamaması nedeniyle yapısal cam tasarımında kesme
gerilimi önem kazanmakta ve bu nedenle genelde stresin yeniden dağılımının
sağlanması amacıyla cam panellerin arasına yapışkan ara katmanlar konulmaktadır.
Yapılan modellemeler değişik ölçü ve konumdaki camların farklı ara katman çeşitleri
kullanılarak yükleme problemlerinin tahlil edilmesini ve bu çerçevede seçim rehberi
hazırlanmasını sağlamıştır. Sonuçların yapısal cam tasarımının gelişimine ve onların
uygulamalarına katkıda bulunması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Sözcükler: yapısal cam elemanlar, lamine cam , SentryGlas®Plus, SJ Mepla,

seçim rehberi

vii
 To
my parents,
Ayşe and Mükremin Akdeniz,
for their
unwavering support and love.

viii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I express my sincere thanks and appreciation to Asst. Prof. Dr. Arda Düzgüneş, my
advisor, for his support, persistent guidance, kind attitude and insight throughout the
study.

I am also grateful to Mr. Gürsel Özbay for his invaluable c ontributions. Starting from
the first draft he has always helped to me with his ideas, suggestions and comments
during every phase of the study. I would also like to thank him for his time and for
his attention and continuous encouragement.

I would like to thank to Mr. Dirk Bohmann for his kind patience in responding to my
endless questions and for his scientific support during my studies and to his brother,
Mr. Ray Bohmann for his kind support in use of the Analysis Program.

Many thanks also to represen tatives of DuPont Turkey, Ms. Ayten Gümüş and Mr.
Kemal Özışıkçılar for their support and cooporation.

I am very grateful to my colleague, Mr. Şükrü Sezer, not only for his cooperation and
endless patience, but also for standing in during my many and freq uent absences.

Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my parents for their

encouragement and patience, which gave me the inspiration to complete this study.

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................iv
ÖZ .......................................................................................................................... vi
DEDICATION ................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................ix
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... xii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................xvi
LIST OF NOTATIONS ......................................................................................xvii
LIST OF UNITS ................................................................................................ xviii

CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
1.1. Argument ............................................................................................. 1
1.2. Objectives ............................................................................................. 5
1.3. Procedure ............................................................................................. 6
1.4. Disposition ........................................................................................... 7
2. SURVEY OF LITERATURE ........................................................................... 8
2.1. Glass as a Material ................................................................................ 8
2.1.1. Glass Substrate ......................................................................... 8
2.1.2. Strength of Glass ..................................................................... 10
2.1.3. Strengthening of Glass ............................................................ 12
2.2. Structural Analysis Methods ................................................................ 22
2.2.1. Structural Design Methods ....................................................... 22
2.2.2. Use of Finite Element Method for Glass .................................. 24
2.3. Structural Glass Elements ................................................................... 26
2.3.1. Glass Beams and Fins .............................................................. 26
2.3.2. Glass Columns ......................................................................... 30
2.3.3. Glass Walls and Point-supported Glass .................................... 35

x
 TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued

2.3.4. Glass Roofs and Floors ........................................................... 38

2.3.5. Glass Dome ............................................................................. 40
3. MATERIAL AND METHOD ......................................................................... 42
3.1. Study Material .................................................................................... 42
3.1.1. Glass Type, Thickness and Stock Dimension ............................ 43
3.1.2. Interlayer Types and Thickness ................................................. 45
3.2. Methodology ...................................................................................... 46
3.2.1. Structural Elements .................................................................. 47
3.2.2. Support Conditions .................................................................. 48
3.2.3. Load Conditions ...................................................................... 48
3.2.4. Temperature Conditions............................................................ 50
3.2.5. Structural Analysis Program and Parameters ............................. 51
3.2.6. Data Processing ....................................................................... 52
3.2.7. Determination of Variation Chart Intervals ............................... 54
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................ 60
4.1. Glass Wall Interlayer Type Selection Guide ........................................ 60
4.2. Glass Floor Interlayer Type Selection Guide ....................................... 67
4.3. Glass Roof Interlayer Type Selection Guide ........................................ 72
4.4. Glass Dome Interlayer Type Selection Guide ...................................... 79
5. CONCLUSION AND FURTHER CLAIMS .................................................. 87

LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................ 90

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 94
A. Glass Wall Limits ................................................................................ 94
B. Glass Floor Limits ................................................................................ 98
C. Glass Roof Limits .............................................................................. 101
D. Glass Dome Limits ............................................................................ 105

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Properties of float glass ......................................................................10

Table 2.2 Comparison of glass characteristics .................................................... 13
Table 2.3 Stiffness properties of PVB ................................................................ 20
Table 2.4 Properties of SGP ...............................................................................21
Table 2.5 Stiffness properties of SGP ................................................................ 21
Table 2.6 Maximum allowable stresses .............................................................. 23
Table 2.7 Maximum spans for toughened glass panels using bolted clamp
plates developed by Pi lkington Glass Consultants ........................... 36
Table 3.1 Glass types ......................................................................................... 43
Table 3.2 Glass thickness ................................................................................... 44
Table 3.3 Trakya Cam Sanayii A. Ş. product dimension schedule ...................... 45
Table 3.4 Glass parameters ................................................................................ 47
Table 3.5 Wind load .......................................................................................... 49
Table 3.6 Determination of maximum limit for glass simply supported on
four sides ........................................................................................... 56
Table 3.7 Determination of maximum limit at 0,1 m intervals ............................ 57
Table 4.1 Parameters for glass walls ..................................................................61
Table 4.2 Parameters for glass floors .................................................................68
Table 4.3 Parameters for glass roofs ..................................................................73
Table 4.4 Parameters for glass domes ................................................................ 80
Table A.1 Glass wall limits, 1 .............................................................................. 94
Table A.2 Glass wall limits, 2 .............................................................................. 95
Table A.3 Glass wall limits, 3 .............................................................................. 96
Table A.4 Glass wall limits, 4 .............................................................................. 97
Table B.1 Glass floor limits, 1 ............................................................................. 98
Table B.2 Glass floor limits, 2 ........................................................................... 99

xii
 LIST OF TABLES, continued

Table B.3 Glass floor limits, 3 ......................................................................... 100

Table C.1 Glass roof limits, 1 .......................................................................... 101
Table C.2 Glass roof limits, 2 .......................................................................... 102
Table C.3 Glass roof limits, 3 .......................................................................... 103
Table C.4 Glass roof limits, 4 .......................................................................... 104
Table D.1 Glass dome limits, 1 ........................................................................ 105
Table D.2 Glass dome limits, 2 ........................................................................ 106
Table D.3 Glass dome limits, 3 ........................................................................ 107
Table D.4 Glass dome limits, 4 ........................................................................ 108

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Transformation Phenomenon ............................................................. 9

Figure 2.2 Comparison of stress-strain curves of glass and steel ....................... 10
Figure 2.3 Stress distribution in a float glass pane after thermal pre -stressing ...12
Figure 2.4 Load-carrying behavior of laminated safety glass under
different temperatures ................................ ................................ ....17
Figure 2.5 Shear modulus, G, of PVB depending on temperature and time .......18
Figure 2.6 Laminated glass beam model ........................................................... 19
Figure 2.7 Flexural stress distributions in laminated glass panes ....................... 19
Figure 2.8 Linear and non-linear calculation models ......................................... 23
Figure 2.9 Principle of lateral torsional buckling ............................................... 28
Figure 2.10 Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, Norwich, 1978 ............................ 29
Figure 2.11 Shops in the Musee du Louvre, Paris, 1993 ......................................30
Figure 2.12 Administration building in Saint -German-en-Laye
near Paris, 1994 .............................................................................. 33
Figure 2.13 Rigidly clamped column specimen next to untested column
specimen ......................................................................................... 34
Figure 2.14 Buckled column specimen ............................................................... 34
Figure 2.15 Museum of Science and Technology, Paris, 1986 ............................. 37
Figure 2.16 Kempinski Hotel in Munich, 1994 ................................................... 38
Figure 2.17 Glass Bridge, Rotterdam, 1993 ......................................................... 39
Figure 2.18 Glass canopy of the Yurakucho Underground Station,
Tokyo, 1996 .................................................................................... 40
Figure 2.19 Osaka Maritime Museum, the diagrid shell a nd
the ring beam .................................................................................. 41
Figure 3.1 Dimension chart for glass panes simply supported on four sides .......55
Figure 3.2 Indication of dimension intervals for glass panes simply supported
on four sides ................................................................................... 57

xiv
 LIST OF FIGURES, continued

Figure 3.3 Dimension chart for glass panes simply supported on two
opposite sides ................................................................................... 58
Figure 3.4 Indication of dimension intervals for glass panes simply supported
on two opposite sides ......................................................................59
Figure 4.1 Comparison chart 1 for glass walls ................................................... 62
Figure 4.2 Comparison chart 2 for glass walls ................................................... 62
Figure 4.3 Comparison chart 3 for glass walls ................................................... 64
Figure 4.4 Comparison chart 4 for glass walls ................................................... 64
Figure 4.5 Comparison chart 5 for glass walls ................................................... 66
Figure 4.6 Comparison chart 6 for glass walls ................................................... 66
Figure 4.7 Comparison chart 1 for glass floors ................................................... 69
Figure 4.8 Comparison chart 2 for glass floors ................................................... 69
Figure 4.9 Comparison chart 3 for glass floors ................................................... 71
Figure 4.10 Comparison chart 4 for glass floors ................................................... 71
Figure 4.11 Comparison chart 1 for glass roofs .................................................... 74
Figure 4.12 Comparison chart 2 for glass roofs .................................................... 74
Figure 4.13 Comparison chart 3 for glass roofs .................................................... 76
Figure 4.14 Comparison chart 4 for glass roofs .................................................... 76
Figure 4.15 Comparison chart 5 for glass roofs .................................................... 78
Figure 4.16 Comparison chart 6 for glass roofs .................................................... 78
Figure 4.17 Comparison chart 1 for glass domes .................................................. 81
Figure 4.18 Comparison chart 2 for glass domes .................................................. 81
Figure 4.19 Comparison chart 3 for glass domes .................................................. 83
Figure 4.20 Comparison chart 4 for glass domes .................................................. 83
Figure 4.21 Comparison chart 5 for glass domes .................................................. 85
Figure 4.22 Comparison chart 6 for glass domes .................................................. 85

xv
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

CEN European Committee for Standardization
CSI Construction Specifiers' Institute
ENs European Norms
FEM Finite Element Method
GANA Glass Association of North America
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LAG Laminated architectural glas s
LSG Laminated Safety Glass
OSCO Osaka Sheet Glass Company
PPG Pittsburg Plate Glass Company
PVB Polyvinyl Butyral
SGP SentryGlas ® Plus
TSE Türk Standartları Enstitüsü (Turkish Standards Institute)
UV Ultraviolet

xvi
 LIST OF NOTATIONS

NOTATIONS

λ Coefficient of thermal conduction

H Height
v In-plane displacement
L Length
P Load
E Modulus of Elasticity
I Moment of Inertia
ν Poissons ratio
λc Safety ratio
G Shear Modulus
ε Strains
σ Stress
σallowable Maximum allowable surface stress
σmax Maximum surface stress
ΔT Temperature difference
φ Torsion angle

xvii
 LIST OF UNITS

UNITS
o
C Centigrade Degree Celcius
kg Kilogram
kg/m2 Kilogram per meter square
kg/m3 Kilogram per cubic meter
g Gram
g/cm3 Gram per cubic centimeter
m Meter
cm Centimeter
mm Millimeter
min minute
mm/min millimeter per minute
N Newton
kN Kilo Newton
N/mm2 Newton per square millimeter
N/m2 Newton per square meter
kN/m2 Kilo Newton per square meter
kN/mm 2 Kilo Newton per square millimeter
kN/m3 Kilo Newton per cubic meter
W/mK Watt per meter Kelvin
Mpa Mega Pascal
µm Micrometer

xviii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter is first presented the argument for and the objectives of the study,
under Sections 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. It continues with Section 1.3, 'Procedure',
where a succinct account of the basic steps followed in i ts conduct is outlined and
concludes with a preview of what is embodied in subsequent chapters, under the last
section, 1.4, titled, 'Disposition'.

1.1 ARGUMENT

Traditionally, the main use of sheet glass has been as infill where, basically, it was
only required to resist out-of-pane wind loads, provided these loads –as well as its
own weight–were duly carried into the building structure proper by some kind of
framing. That is to say, its brittle nature and variable strength were not considered to
be significant, the main interest being transparency.

On the other hand, contemporary architects today use more glass than in all previous
times combined. While their superficial stand was increasing the level and
penetration of natural light in their buildings –particularly with the advent of the open
office environment, they were, in fact, simply fascinated by the idea of a transparent
building. Ergo, the fully glazed skyscrapers that adorn the skyline of major cities all
over the world. In time, not only have the sizes of glass sheet available increased
many times over, but the methods of their support have become more and more
complex.

1
In recent years, improvements in production and refining technologies have made the
structural use of glass possible and have le d to new, innovative and architecturally
unique structures and building envelopes. Perhaps more than in the mere practical
interest of achieving higher levels of illumination, but simply to enable even more
daring designs, much effort has gone into elimi nating non-transparent elements from
the envelope altogether, so that glass is now being us ed in self-supporting
configurations, again with structural members of glass. In view of the ever -increasing
demand for such glass applications, the safety of their design has become a major
concern, as glass must now be capable of withstanding long -term in-plane loading.
This arises from the fact that glass behaves quite differently when the loading is
long-term rather than short-term and transient; also, glass appea rs to become weaker
as the duration of loading increases.

One might ask why glass is used in these new applications if it is a material so un -
suitable in structural terms. The simple answer is cost. Glass is mass -produced with
ubiquitous raw materials and is therefore one of th e cheapest fully-transparent
materials available. It is seen that glass is a crucial material if the new transparent
architecture is to be welcomed by way of its price.

In materials science, the term “glass” is often used to desi gnate any substance which
does not exhibit long-range molecular order. For purposes of this study, however, it
has been taken in its ordinary sense, as the commonplace substance used for glazing
windows. Soda-lime-silica glass is a solid, non -crystalline, brittle material. Its
elasticity is perfectly linear until failure, with a Young’s modulus of 70MPa, similar
to that of aluminum. Its failure is governed by fracture, which occurs at cracks on its
surface. In most cases these cracks are too small to be see n by the naked eye. Owing
to variation in the size of the cracks, there is a variation in actual failure stress.

Values for short-term strength range from 20 to 200MPa. Glass also undergoes a loss
in strength with duration of loading, commonly referred t o as “static fatigue”. Its
long-term strength depends on a myriad of factors. While it is predominantly affected

2
by surface finish, it is also influenced by glass type, by environmental conditions
(especially loading), by production defects and by sev eral other factors of lesser
importance. Essentially, the performance of glass is highly predictable under normal
operation, but the point at which failure occurs can appear to be a quite random one.

Until recently there was little information publicly availab le on the structural design
of commercial glass. The variability in glass failure strength was demonstrated by
Fair (1996), who loaded a series of annealed and heat -toughened beams in bending.
Strength variability was also en countered by Wren (1998), who t ested cylindrical
glass columns. In the traditional uses of glass, the compressive loads encountered are
modest and generally similar in magnitude to the tensile stresses likely to be
generated. Since glass failure arises at zones of tension, it is therefo re tensile stresses,
rather than compressive ones, which are critical in design. In the new structural glass
applications, greater concentrations of loads are found in compressive members, such
as columns.

An M.Sc. thesis by Crompton (1997) reports on a number of design theories and

their applicability to glass. Accordingly, existing design methods for steel, concrete
or timber structures cannot be applied directly to structural glass elements owing to
properties particular to the material itself. Also in vestigating the matter of alternative
load paths this author found that use of more than one member/ply for each structural
element had become common practice in glass construction, the underlying reason
being to thus provide just such alternative load pat hs in the event any one single
member/ply became subject to brittle failure. The consequences of such failure are
other reasons for this added redundancy: Apart from any material loss caused by the
failure itself, serious injury could be sustained by occup ants from falling or flying
shards of glass.

Studied in the investigation by Crompton (1997) was the case of a multi -ply beam
with a constant overall width. The same statistically probabilistic strength parameters
were applied to each layer in the glass m ember. It was shown that, as the number of

3
plies increased, the probability of failure under a given load decreased. It was thus
concluded that having alternative load paths –as resulting from the discrete plies,
provided greater safety in design and was mo re economical, as the total volume of
glass required for any particular stress was actually reduced.

The issue of shear stress is particularly important in structural glass design due to the
inability of the glass itself to flow plastically and to thus r elieve high stresses; ergo,
the benefit of laminated glass –glass with polymer interlayers –in facilitating such
stress redistributions. Norville (1997) points out on the basis of published
experimental data that the strength of laminated glass under certain conditions equals
or exceeds that of monolithic glass having comparable dimensions. Studying
interlayer thicknesses, the author asserts that the strength of laminated glass panes
increases dramatically with increasing interlayer thickness.

In an experiment on treatment time, Amos (2005) studied temperature defects fo r

different types of interlayer for computing stress development and deflection
behavior in laminated glass. In result, it was argued that strength and deflection for
bending-dominated cases were dependent on the modulus properties of the polymer
interlayer.

Strength performance, characterized by stress development and deformation behavior

under specified loading and support conditions w as used as a primary design
consideration that dictated t he final constructional configuration of many laminated
glass applications. ASTM has also developed design tables for standard types of
interlayer. By the same token, growing demand for laminated glass in building
facades has itself spawned research into d eveloping new interlayer compositions that
can extend even further the physical performance of such laminates.

It was thus with the foregoing aspects in mind that the scope of the study reported on
here was delimited to investigating the overall effect of two interlayer types–one
with high yield stress and stiffness properties and the other, with lower values in

4
these respects–on acceptable limits of loading for di fferent orientation of stock float
glass sheet. In this, focus was therefore on stress develo pment and deformation
behavior in the composite laminate itself, as an integral element. It was also
considered worthwhile to formulate dedicated analyses for wall, floor, roof and dome
applications in anticipation of potential variation that might arise f rom such.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

While glass demonstrates a certain degree of elasticity under ideal conditions, its
inherent brittleness does remain as the crucial problem in structural applications. We
must therefore always remind ourselves that glass structures are a step into unknown
territory at such time as they are so designed.

The responsibility of designers in regard to user safety is of great concern. Glass, all
by itself and as an integral component of the façade system, must be able to perform
safely and durably as the sole intermediary between continuously chan ging outdoor
and indoor climatic conditions being kept suitable for the occupants.

In the light of these concerns, the specific objectives of the study were:

1- To compile a precise of existing knowledge on structural glass in general and on

interlayer materials in particular.

2- To understand the function and performance of i nterlayers–structural and

otherwise–as used in composing structural glass members within safety limits.

3- To evaluate and classify interlayers and thereby introduce possible design criteria
for different structural glass members and/or applications.

5
4- To establish probabilistic load and resistance models adapted to the material -
specific needs for the design of glass st ructures.

5- To construct design charts for specified laminate combinations considering the

probability of glass breakage.

6- To point out, if possible, potential structure -versus-form relationships from both

architectural and constructional points of v iew.

It was finally deemed that results emanating from this study could be put to good use
by all parties concerned–from designers and fabricators to contractors, as those done
so far appear lacking in the specifics needed for practical application.

1.3 PROCEDURE

The study was designed to evaluate two different types of interlayer depending on
maximum allowable glass dimensions and para meters by using finite element model
analyses. Apart from a literature survey conducted on libr ary databases, several
related websites were visited to obtain required background information. Contact
with professional firms through interviews and e -mail were other sources for this as
well as for the interpretation of results. Descriptive booklets, technical brochures and
photos depicting the structural use of glass were g leaned from a variety of
professional companies.

Information on structural glass systems and th e interlayers used between them was
obtained from manufacturing and construction companies and from existing pro jects
using structural glass. While most was downloa ded from websites, some were
received by post, direct from the manufacturing companies themselves.

6
After gathering all related documents, whole information was analyzed to explore
differences and similarities between stiff interlayer with a high yield stress and less
stiffer interlayer with a low yield stress. Both interlayers were analyzed in s ame
predetermined parameters to compare them easily and then possib le maximum
design options were investigated by the use of both interlayer. Thereafter, whole
analyze results were combined in comparison charts.

1.4 DISPOSITION

The study is comprised of five chapters. Apart from this, Chapter 1, where its
argument, its objectives, its procedure and the disposition o f the text following is put
forth, presented in Chapter 2 is a summary of the comprehensive literature survey
conducted on the subject. This latter includes discussions on treatments, load
principles, standards, structural properties and beha vior of structural glass and
concludes with an overview of design principles.

In Chapter 3 are described the study material and the methodology applied thereto.
That is international standards were investigated and they were delimited such as
glass thickness, interlayer types, load and support conditions. These data were used
as input in the finite element analyses.

The chapter following, Chapter 4, then summarizes the results obtained from the
analyses, accompanied by brief discussions on their significance in ligh t of studies
and analyses reported in the literature. These included comparisons between soft and
rigid interlayers and between different support conditions. Finally, in Chapter 5, are
stated the conclusions drawn from the study together with questions con sidered to be
germane for further and future research.

7
 CHAPTER 2

SURVEY OF LITERATURE

In this chapter are presented the literature survey about structural glass, its material
properties, treatments, adhesives, standards, element types and their des ign methods.
This is studied basically under three main topics; glass as a material, structural
analysis methods and structural glass elements. General properties and different
types of glass used in structural glass production are presented. Its weak and brittle
nature is explained. Structural adhesives used for structural application are studied;
interlayer properties are examined . Secondly, structural use of glass is investigated;
structural glass design methods are described. At the final part structura l glass
elements are studied regarding their structural properties.

2.1 GLASS AS A MATERIAL

Behling & Behling (1999) says that one obvious advantage of glass is its simple
constituents, such as sand, soda and potash, which are formed into crystal -clear
industrial substances with the application of heat and energy. Since its initial
production glass has been transformed into a high -tech product. By making changes
to the surface, it can be given many different appearances and technical properties.

2.1.1 Glass Substrate

The Osaka Sheet Glass Company (2006) describes glass as a non -crystalline solid
subjected to Transformation Phenomenon, called as a super cooled liquid as shown
in Figure 2.1.

8
 Figure 2.1. Transformation Phenomenon.
Source: www.osgco.com, 2006

Likewise, Leitch (2005) claims that glass is a uniform amorphous solid material in
which there is not long-range order to the positions of the atoms. This type of atomic
structure occurs when a viscous molten material cools to a rigid form without
allowing crystallization to form a regular network. Although liquids are characterized
by a disordered structure, glass is differen t from a liquid because its inherent rigidity
prevents it from flowing. It is this disordered crystal structure lacking a periodic
geometry that makes glass behavior so difficult to study. It is a biologically inactive
material that can be formed into smoo th and impervious surfaces. It is brittle and will
break into sharp ends. These properties can be modified or changed with the addition
of other compounds or by heat treatment.

According to Glass-on-web (2006), float glass does not resist to high tempera tures,
to sudden thermal changes and to corrosive chemicals. Osaka Sheet Glass Company
(2006) further emphasizes that glass break without forewarning due to microscopic
cracks on its surface. If a cracking force is concentrated to one of those cracks, it
grows to break force against the glass. Glass cannot prevent cracks growing since it
does not have any bounda ry like solid structures. Table 2.1 shows mechanical
properties of float glass.

9
 Table 2.1. Properties of float glass.
Source: Renckens, 1998

Properties of Float Glass Values Unit

Specific weight 2,5 g/m3
Elasticity module at 20 0C 7,3* 10 4 N/mm2
Coefficient of elongation 6-11* 10 -6 per 0C
Coefficient of thermal conduction λ 0,8 W/mK
Poisson Ratio 0,22-0,25

2.1.2 Strength of Glass

According to Renckens (1998), mechanically, glass is an especially strong material.

The high share of silicon oxide is decisive for its hardness and strength; also the
brittleness of glass is determined by it . Glass is not subjected to plastic deformation.
If the plastic deformation limit is minimally exceeded, the glass breaks
spontaneously. There is no alarm mechanism as in metals indicating an excessive
strain as shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2. Comparison of stress-strain curves of glass and steel.

Source: Kallioniemi, 1999

10
Leitch (2005) points out that on paper; however, glass seems fairly strong , failure
usually occurs long before the theoretical value is achieved. Similarly, compressive
strength of glass should fall around same value; however, any attempt to measure
compressive stress generates tensile stresses, so an accurate representation of actual
allowable compressive stress is difficult to obtain. In theory, given it’s commonly
accepted chemical bonds and the energy it would take to break them, the values for
the tensile strength of manufactured glass is much lower than expected.

Renckens (1998) claims that some solid inclusions and bubbles may be found in float
glass. The formations of these are important because faults may form in glass plate at
bubble and inclusion boundaries.

Leitch (2005) also explains a theory that if glass inherently flawed by minuscule
defects and any force is applied, that lead breaking of the inter -atomic bonds, then
generating cracks lead to failure. According to A.A. Griffith, these minute defects
result from particles of dust and moisture contaminating the surface, the more
Griffith flaws, and the more failure of glass. The variability of Griffith flaws in each
sheet of glass makes it nearly impossible to determine the exact strength of single
pieces. By performing stress and breakage tests on an established size of glass, the
results produced by the samples set the value, which can be used as measurement
level for the failure point. However, this is nor foolproof, since it is impossible to
achieve 100% survival rate for every piece of glass. At best, one can achieve a level
of low risk and a high percent of confidence in the survival rate.

Leitch (2005) further says that glass is also subjected to static fatigue. Glass may be
strong enough to endure stress for a brief period; however, failure will definitely
occur if the stress is applied for a long period of time. This pressure would build up
around any of the glass’s defects, perhaps a single crack or multiple Griffith flaws
that weakened the inter-atomic bond, until the strain causes the glass to fail. It is
interesting to note that glass can actually withstand applied loads, at twice the rate of
long-term loads it would take to cause failure.

11
In this regard, Renckens (1998) further claims that , although glass appears “fragile”,
its resistance may withstand loads such as gusty winds, and pedestrian traffic.
Historically, the inherent flaws governed its limited use as a structural element.
Today, however, several processes compensate for the negative impacts of surface
integrity, and produce glass that is as strong as conventional building material.

2.1.3 Strengthening of Glass

According to the Glass web site (2006), the rate of cooling directly affects the
strength of glass. The regular process of cooling or annealing float glass results in a
slow rate. Stronger glass can be produced by changing the rate of cooling.

Renckens (1998) also states that if a glas s panel is bent, tensile stress occurs at the
“elongated” side, and compressive strain on the “shortened” side. In the case of too
high tensile stress, glass breaks. A possibility to increase stress capacity of a glass
pane is the application of a pressure area on both exterior sides of the glass pane. In
case of deformation, tensile stress up to the degree of pre -stressing will then be
compensated for by the already present compressive strength. The strains become
stronger on the compressed side. This proc ess of applying compressive strains is
called pre-stressing of glass. Stress distribution in a float glass after thermal pre -
stressing is shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3. Stress distributions in a float glass pane after thermal pre -stressing.
Source: Guardian Glass Company, 2007

12
Moreover, Leitch (2005) states that to improve the safety and strength performance
of structural glass, there are four primary processes that can be conducted following
basic manufacturing: annealing, tempering, heat -strengthening, and laminating.
Although each of these processes has contributed to the advancement of structural
glass, lamination is the most significant. According to Glass Association of Nort h
America, characteristics of glass can be compared in the table follows :

Table 2.2. Comparison of glass characteristics .

Source: Specifiers Guide to Architectural Glass, 2005

Performance Monolithic Heat- Laminated Laminated Heat- Laminated Fully

Fully Tempered
Characteristic Annealed Strengthened Annealed Strenthened Tempered

%75- %100 as Almost twice Almost four times

Two times basic Two times basic
strong as strong as laminated strong as laminated
Wind-loading Basic Glass glass strength of glass strength of
monolithic annealed of the annealed of the
strength Strength (1x) the same the same thickness
annealed of the same thickness same thickness (3x-
thickness (2x) (4x)
same thickness (1.5x-1.8x) 3.6x)

Thermal stress Low resistance Low

breakage to Resists high Resists high resistance to Resists high Resists high
resistance (edge- high thermal thermal stresses thermal stresses high thermal thermal stresses thermal stresses
strength) stresses stresses

Starburst pattern
Many Cracks Entire lite breaks Simple, few cracks One or two lites
Simple, few from impact
Break pattern forming large, into small, and larger pieces, may break into
cracks and larger point, one or
upon impact long and narrow irregular shaped one or both lites small, irregular
pieces both lites may
shards fragments. my break shaped fragments.
break

Good resistance Good resistance Good resistance

Penetration None after
Limited after Limited after (proportional to (proportional to (proportional to
resistance (after breakage
breakage breakage interlayer interlayer interlayer
breakage)
thickness) thickness) thickness)

2.1.3.1 Annealed Glass

The Wikipedia Encyclopedia (2006) defines annealed glass as glass without internal
stresses caused by heat treatment ( i.e. toughening or heat strengthening). Glass
becomes annealed if it becomes heated above a transition point and then allowed to
cool slowly. Thus glass made using the float glass process is annealed by the process
of manufacture.

13
In this regard, Leitch (2005) claims that a nnealed glass behaves perfect elastically
until brittle fracture. Fracture can result from impact, bending stress, thermal stress,
and imposed strains. When and where it fractures also depend on the flaws in the
glass that could be inherent, or resulted from cutting, grinding or drilling.

2.1.3.2 Heat-Toughened Glass

The Wikipedia Encyclopedia (2006) states that tempered glass, heat-toughened glass,
is a type of safety glass that has increased strength and will usually shatter in small,
square pieces when broken. It is used when strength, thermal resistance and safety
are important considerations. Although toughened glass is most susceptible to
breakage via edge damage, breakage can also occur from impacts at th e centre of the
glass pane.

According to Renckens (1998), the maximum admissible bending/ tensile stress of

this type of glass is approximately 200 N/mm 2. In practical, a permissible bending/
tensile stress of 50 N/mm 2 is accepted which globally correspo nds to one quarter of
the mean tension at the collapse of glass.

2.1.3.3 Heat-Strengthened Glass

Renckens (1998) also argues that if glass must be pre -stressed only in order to
intercept thermal tensions resulting from partial shading and heat built -up from solar
loading, it is heat strengthening, semi -pre-stressing. The glass is cooled less quickly
than during full thermal pre -stressing. The maximum admissible bending/ tensile
stress thus are 2 to 2.5 times higher than annealed glass, sufficient to avoi d thermal
fracture, and amounts to approximately 100 N/mm2. Practical work is done with a
permissible bending/ tensile stress of 30 N/mm2

14
Moreover, The Wikipedia Encyclopedia (2006) claims that heat-strengthened glass,
is glass that has been heat treated to induce surface compression, but not to the extent
of causing it to "dice" on breaking in the manner of tempered glass. On breaking,
heat-strengthened glass breaks into sharp pieces that are typically somewhat smaller
than those found on breaking anneale d glass, and is intermediate in strength betwee n
annealed and toughened glass .

Renckens (1998) further states that by semi -pre-stressing the glass, the maximum
admissible bending/tensile stress of glass is greatly determined by the quality of the
glass edges. Thermal tensions are higher there, and small damages, by inaccurate
cutting or unprofessional storage, may induce thermal fracture. Pre -stressed glass
must have been submitted to all kinds of mechanical processing beforehand (drilling,
grinding). After the process this is no longer possible since glass pane would break
into fragments at contact with the interior area which is subject to tensile stress.

2.1.3.4 Laminated Glass

The Glass web-site (2006) points out that being a type of safety glass, la minated
glass is held in place by an interlayer, typically of PVB (Polyvinyl Butyral) between
two or more layers of glass, in the event of breakage. The interlayer’s high strength
prevents the glass from breaking up into large sharp pieces. This produces a
characteristic "spider web" cracking pattern when the impact is not enough to pierce
the glass completely. Laminated glass is normally used when there is a possibility of
human impact or where the glass could fall if shattered.

Laminated Glass Standards

Savineau (1999) claims that laminated glass test methods and performance
requirements are relatively well known in Europe and USA. It is manu factured
according to standards.

15
Session 8

According to Mortelmans (2002), the level and durability of adhesion between PVB
interlayer and glass determine largely the performance of the laminate. CEN-TC129
National Building Codes are in place but the determination of laminated glass
thickness varies strongly from one c ountry to another. This is the result of the
different glass strength factors used to calculate the so called “equivalent thickness”.
However the forthcoming European Standards will clarify and standardize the
approach. Three essential documents -Design of glass panes – are circulating for
enquiry: draft prEN 13474-1 gives a general basis for the design of glass panes, draft
prEN 13474-2 specifies a method to calculate the thickness of flat glass panes
required to resist uniformly distributed actions ( e.g. self-weight, wind and snow
loads) acting normal to the glass pane, draft prEN 13474 -3 design for line and
concentrated loads.

Interlayer Types

According to Bennison (2006), architectural laminated glass is dominated by the use

of PVB interlayers. This a scendancy can be traced to the over 60 years, successful
history of PVB use in the automotive industry for laminated safety glass windshields.
Although many requirements for automotive laminates and architectural laminates
are the same, there are notable differences. The demands of performance longevity
for architectural applications generally exceed those needed for automotive
applications. If we relax the need for post -glass breakage compliance (softness) and
scrutinize the performance needs for architec tural applications, we quickly realize
that polymers with enhanced structural, temperature and durability performance are
attractive for architectural applications.

a) Polyvinyl Butyral (PVB)

Leitch (2005) claims that with a perfect cohesion of the glass la yers, PVB laminated
glass achieve the transparency, durability, and scratch resistance of standard float
glass. Currently, Germany is one nation that does not permit design using the

16
composite behavior of laminated glass, meaning that a member composed of separate
panes bonded by PVB should not be considered to have the same behavior as a single
member of glass of equivalent dimensions. This is primarily due to the lack of
understanding of shear transfer between glass panes. However, it is responsible for
the shear transfer and the intrinsic adhesion level of it can vary depending on type.
PVB producers offer it with low/medium/high adhesion level. Moisture content of it
is a key element for adhesion and impact performance of the laminate.

Leitch (2005) asserts that the behavior of PVB depends on the load duration and the
temperature, with secondary effects stemming from thickness of the foil and
buckling length of the member as shown in Figure 2.4. Thus, the shear modulus
becomes the critical factor when d etermining the design strength of a composite
laminated member. Research by Albrecht et al discovered that the aging process
aided by UV light and humidity also produces an effect on the shear modulus of
PVB. This study showed the current importance of inv estigating laminated members
using a finite element analysis that links the deformation of individual panes, using
the properties of PVB.

Figure 2.4. Load carrying behavior of Laminated Safety Glass.

(L=800mm, 8mm/, 1,52mm/8mm) under different tempe ratures.
Source: Leitch, 2005

17
Accordingly, monolithic behavior can be described as a member acting with the
dimensions corresponding to the thickness of the glass panes and the thickness of the
PVB interlayer. A laminated glass assembly behaves more like a monolithic glass
member when experiencing short duration loading at low temperatures. Figure 2.5
illustrates the shear modulus of PVB depending on temperature and time.

Figure 2.5.Shear modulus, G, of PVB depending on temperature and time.

Source: Leitch, 2005

According to Norville (1997), the thicker interlayer accounts for the increase in
strength. He advanced a theoretical beam model based on engineering mechanics.
His model explains the role of PVB interlayer in laminated glass bending under
uniform loading. The laminated glass beam in Figure 2.6 is made from two glass
panes each having thickness s, and a PVB interlayer having thickness t. In a
laminated glass beam, the flexural behavior of the PVB near the middle surface of
the beam becomes insignificant. The PVB serves only two functions. It maintains the
spacing and transfers some portion of the horizontal shear force between the glass
plies. The percentage of horizontal shear force that the PVB transfers varies
principally as a function of t emperature. Figure 2.7 shows the flexural stress
distribution at a section of the laminated glass beam in Figure 2.6.

18
Figure 2.6. Laminated glass beam. Figure 2.7. Flexural stress distributions
in laminated glass panes.
Source: Norville, 1997

Norville (1997) concluded the results of experiments as the effective section modulus
provides a measure of th e strength of a laminated glass beam. As the effective
section modulus increases, the strength of the laminated glass beam also increases.
Two factors affect the strength of laminated glass beam: the ability to transfer
horizontal shear force and the thick ness of the interlayer.

In addition to Norville (1999), Amos (2005) also asserts that key to the accurate
structural analysis of laminates is adequate characterization of the time -temperature
nature of polymer interlayers. Particular emphasis is placed o n how to treat time and
temperature effects on strength and how different types of interlayer affect the
performance of the laminated glass. He displays stiffness properties of the type of
PVB (Butacite) interlayer in Table 2.2. These values represent the end point states
after relaxation at the temperature and load duration.

Amos (2005) further explains that strength and deflection for a bending -dominated
case are dependent on the modulus properties of the polymer interlayer. Enhanced
structural performance can be achieved with the use of stiffer and stronger interlayer
like SentryGlas® Plus interlayer.

19
 Table 2.3. Stiffness properties of PVB (Butacite®).
Source: Amos, 2005

Property Temperature Load Duration Shear Modulus Poisson Ratio

30 C 3 second 0,971 0,4998
30 C 1 month 0,069 0,5
30 C > 1 year 0,052 0,5
Butacite
50 C 3 second 0,44 0,4999
50 C 1 month 0,052 0,5
50 C > 1 year 0,052 0,5

b) Structural non-PVB interlayer/ SentryGlas ® Plus

In his assay Bennison (2006) introduces SGP (SentryGlas® Plus) as follows;

It is based on a different chemistry to PVB and has been developed from a class of
DuPont proprietary polymers. The performance limits for PVB -based laminated
glass are generally well known and in some cases they are defined clearly in national
standards. For example, ASTM E1300 -04 uses design charts to map the strength of
laminates under wind load. The charts show that for short -duration loading up to
50ºC in four-side supports. However, where support is less than four sides, PVB
laminates are weaker than equivalent monoliths . High temperatures and long
duration loads challenge the load transfer of the PVB interlayer resulting on sub -
monolithic performance. Invariably, design solutions require the use of thick glass to
compensate for the lack of load transfer across the PVB interlayer .

According to the brochures of the DuPont:

SGP is 100 times stiffer and 5 times stronger than traditional interlayers, helping
thinner laminates meet specified wind loads or structural requirements. It has low
mechanical strain under loads, and outstanding post -breakage resistance to creep and
collapse. Glass constructions can be designed wi th thinner glass when using it.

20
Accordingly, upon impact, the g lass may break, but dangerous fragments will adhere
to the SGP interlayer, reducing the risk of injury and fallout by use of its post -glass
breakage performance. Moreover, curvature in panes of glass can be detrimental in
many constructions. SGP laminates show less deflection for many different types of
supported glass configurations. In addition to them, laminated glass made with SGP
tolerates high stress loads. The interlayer becomes a higher performing structural
layer in the multilayer composite. The ph ysical properties of the SGP are shown in
Table 2.4 and 2.5 respectively.

Table 2.4. Properties of SGP.

Source: SentryGlas® Plus Introduction Brochure, 2005

Property Units Metric Value ASTM Test

Young's Modulus Mpa 300 D5026
Tensile Strenght Mpa 34.5 D638
Elongation % 400 D638
3
Density g/cm 0.95 D792
Flex Modulus 23 0C (780F) Mpa 345 D790
Heat Deflection Temperature at 0
C 43 D648
0.46 Mpa
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
- 10-15 x 10 -5 /C0 D696
(-20 0C to 32 0C)

Table 2.5. Stiffness properties of SGP.

Source: Amos, 2005

Property  Temperature Load Duration Shear Modulus Poisson Ratio

30 C 3 second 65,7 0,484
30 C 1 month 3,1 0,499
SentryGlas ® 30 C > 1 year 2,9 0,499
Plus 50 C 3 second 7,1 0,498
50 C 1 month 2 0,5
50 C > 1 year 2 0,5

21
Laminating procedures for SGP are similar to those for more conventional materials.
Differences in handling and processing of SGP relate mainly to its supplied form cut
sheets instead of wound rolls and it does not need refrigerated sto rage. SGP can be
laminated using existing manufacturing lines and equipment. Available maximum
sizes are 2540mm x 4724mm and thicknesses are 1.52mm, 2,28mm and 2.54mm.

2.2 SRUCTURAL ANALYSIS METHODS

Under this title, was a brief literature survey given on structural analyses methods of
glass through references from selected sources. Due to the fact that simulation
methods provide better capabilities to professionals, documentation on simulation
methods was also presented.

2.2.1 Structural Design Methods

Heyder (2006) says that structural glass defines not only modernity, but also value,
richness and "future technology". However, the knowledge about technological
properties and proven construction details are less than for any other modern
building material.

The author asserts his studies as “Glass can always break, even if designed properly.
Glass structures must be designed redundantly, so if one glass part breaks, the rest of
the structure either steel or glass parts will still be safe, with reduced level of safety.
Redundancy is assessed by means of analysis, but mostly by experiments. Since
glass is typically used as plates with linear or punctual supports, bending moments
and support reactions are obtained by using simple FEA programs with plate
elements or by literature with tabulated values for plates. The approach with the
linear-elastic theory, Kirchhoff -theory, is used because it’s at safe side. Deflections
more than plate thickness indicate the limit of that theory. Thus the nonlinear
calculation is yield lower stresses shown in Figure 2.8 .”

22
 Figure 2.8. Difference for the results in case linear and nonlinear calculation for an
example of a glass pane a/b=2000/2000mm, t=2x6mm, p=2,0 kN/m 2.
Source: Siebert, 2005

Heyder (2006) further writes that for the allowable stress approach the forces and
bending moments need no load factors included. FEM programs give the stresses in
both direction and the principal stresses. Due to glass crack mechanism, the principal
tension stress will lead to the c rack, so this maximum value ought to be compared
with the allowable stress. Although there is currently no code of practice for
structural glass, the following values for maximum allowable stresses include global
safety factor of 2.4 against 5% -quantil value for breaking are shown in table 2.6.

Table 2.6. Maximum allowable stresses.

Source: Heyder, 2006

Allowable
Glass Stress Comment
Tempered Glass/ ESG 50 N/mm2 also in laminated glass
Tempered Glass/ ESG 30 N/mm2 if imprinted at tension side
Heat-Strength Glass/ TVG 37 N/mm2 also in laminated glass
Heat Strength Glass/ TVG 18 N/mm2 if imprinted at tension side
Float Vertical 18 N/mm2 slope up to 10 to the vertical
Float Horizontal 0 N/mm2 in overhead glazing forbidden
Float Horizontal in only applicable for upper glass, the
Insulating Glass 12 N/mm2 lower glass must be a laminated glass

23
The author further asserts as follows:

“Experiments have shown that in -plane stresses lead earlier to failure than plate
stresses due to bending, so for the maximum allowable stress for in -plane loads,
shear panel loads, 90% of the values above should be taken. Punctual fittings
consider much more detailing knowledge. The common way is to test the actual
fitting type with the glass type and find experimentally the maximum break load.

Deflection of glass is limited to 1/100 ... 1/200 of span. Actually, in terms of

breaking the deflection does not matter at all, due to the low Young’s modulus of
glass that lets to bend astonishi ngly wide before breaking. More important is the
deflection of the steel substructure of the glass. The allowable substructure
movement can be checked by FEM analysis as well.

2.2.2 Use of Finite Element Method for Glass

Finite element method is used f or design and static of glass panes with various
support conditions and under various types of loading in the engineering practice.
Low tensile strength with high variability and decreasing strength with increasing
size, duration of load and age of the gla ss characterize the inherent nature of glass
strength. Many researchers have explained this inherent nature by the existence of
microscopic flaws in the surface of the glass. It is difficult to predict the strength of
glass panels, not only due to the natu re of the glass itself, but also due to the fact that
when glass panels are subjected to high loads, the relationship between the applied
loads and the resulting stresses becomes non -linear.

Sophisticated computer programs are enabling a solution of the p roblem to be

obtained. These programs are used to calculate the stresses over the surface of the
glass panels and then a Weibull probability distribution is used, to approximate the
variability of glass breakage data and to predict the probability of break age of the

24
glass panels at a given load. SJ MEPLA is a program for design and static o f multi
layered sandwich plates.

Bohmann & Bohmann describes SJ MEPLA program as folows:

“All inputs, like the geometry, the boundary conditions, the kind of loading, t he
calculation approach or the requested output, are guided and displayed by input
masks. The control and output of the results occurs visually on a graphics surface and
a calculation protocol which can be used for the static assessment.

Finite element methods allow the simple input and quick calculation of sandwich
plates, e.g. laminated glass. Thus the program is suited for dimensioning as well as
for assessment purposes, by use of various calculation possibilities; a utomated mesh
generation for the gene ral basic forms. All subsequent calculations can be made
linear or non-linear. Any sandwich structure, e.g. laminated safety glass, can be
calculated considering the stiffness of the compound material only by defining the
thickness and the order of layers. Support conditions are springs in any direction,
pre-defined edge supports, elastic edge and line supports, elastic base, reinforcing
edge beams, spacers within insulation glass units and point fixings.

Load conditions are face loads, dead weight in any direction, concentrated loads, line
loads, point loads, climatic loads, temperature loads within the panes, and all these
loads can be combined. The program gives pressure hits, wind -and detonation blasts,
calculation protocol of all input and outputs, cu rve diagram of force, displacement
and stress distribution during impact for each pre -defined positions.

Manifold evaluation possibilities within the graphics surface are: s tresses across the
plate thickness and layer order at any point, output of all st ress components, display
of the spring forces, vector-plot of the principal stresses and colored displacements”

25
2.3 STRUCURAL GLASS ELEMENTS

Behling & Behling (1999) explain that a number of glazing systems are suitable for
use in façade construction. N owadays, glass buildings that are as transparent as
possible are once again in vogue. Therefore, modern façade systems reflect this
desire to achieve maximum transparency by reducing the non -transparent bearing
structure. Further dematerialization is possi ble when glass itself assumes bearing
functions and is even used in supporting mullions or beams. In this section are
presented basic structural glass elements under five titles in the light of their
definitions, strength and stability considerations and e xamples. Further experiments
are presented to express their specific design considerations.

2.3.1 Glass Beams and Fins

Definition

Glass beam members are usually simply supported or cantilevered and the span of
glass beams are limited to the length t hat a single piece of glass can be manufactured,
In some cases, glass beams can be assembled from shorter members to extend past
these lengths.

Leitch (2005) claims that glass fins like glass beams are thin load bearing members
made of glass. They are ve rtical or sloping beams used to support facades and to help
resist wind and other lateral loads. Fins are assumed to be loaded in bending. The
primary difference between fins and beams is the inherent difficulty forming joints
with fins that carry sustaine d bending moments, particularly in laminated glass. Fins
are not generally limited by the length of glass that can be produced, and are often
spliced together using friction -grip connections to achieve the desired height. The
material “gripping” the glass fins must be enough not to cause stress concentrations
on the glass, and must be elastic enough to accommodate possible differential
thermal behavior between the glass and the splice plates.

26
Beam Strength

Leitch (2005) further claims that glass beams and fins should be designed to sustain
minimal tensile stress. Tensile stress promotes the gradual propagation of cracks due
to microscopic flaws. Most glass beams are designed with substantial redundancy, or
are designed so that steel cables carry the tensil e loads putting the glass in
compression. Tensile loads imposed on the structure usually result from short -
duration wind gusts, vibration, or deflection. Any material imperfection dramatically
reduces the beam’s capacity to endure tensile loads. Thus, glas s beams must be
designed for low levels of stress, deflection is rarely problematic.

Elastic Stability

Accordingly, all thin structural members can become unstable if not adequately
braced. For example, a glass façade provides some rigidity and rotation al restraint for
the glass fins affixed to it. This relationship makes instability failure less probable.
Rotational restraint is essential to prevent buckling of many columns, fins and
beams. A finite element analysis is preferable for the design of a gla ss wall supported
by glass fins. Local buckling should be investigated in addition to the buckling of the
free edge.

Belis & Impe (2006) also explains that the failure mechanism that is usually
described is brittle fracture due to exaggerated tensile stre sses. These stresses are
induced by simple bending along the strong axis, so the beam is supposed to deform
only in its own plane. Due to the slenderness of the rectangular cross - section,
however, the potential risk of a more critical second failure mecha nism increases.
This mechanism is based on instability, in particular on lateral torsional buckling.

In favor of general comprehensibility, lateral torsional buckling is br iefly illustrated

in Figure 2.9, in which the combined action of out - of-plane displacement u, in-plane
displacement v and torsion angle φ due to a post -critical in-plane load P is indicated.

27
Lateral torsional buckling can be the factor that limits the load -bearing capacity
instead of fracture due to in -plane bending. Precautions in ord er to prevent lateral
torsional buckling are lateral supports provided along the length of the beam,
excluding any out-of- plane movement.

Figure 2.9. Principle of lateral torsional buckling.

Source: Belis & Impe, 2006

Belis & Impe (2006) further ex plains that in the numerical analysis, the amplitude of
the half sinusoidal wave is L/400, where L re presents the length of the beam . For
simple float glass, the initial shape imperfections should be considered of Span/333,
according to the value of overal l bow found in EN 572-2.

The author further asserts that the parameter that influences the buckling load most is
the visco-elastic behavior of the interlayer. For short -term loadings, the PVB is able
to increase the overall buckling resistance considerab ly. At long-term loadings or
higher temperatures, however, the gain in torsional stiffness and moment of inertia
around the weak axis, which could be expected from the application of the adhesive
interlayer, disappears. The study of the initial shape imper fection showed that overall
bow will cause out-of-plane displacements very quickly, which penalties the overall
load-bearing capacity of the glass beam. Lateral torsional buckling instead of
strength seems to be the failure mechanism for beams with a slend er cross-sections

28
and a long span in case they are composed of thermally treated glass. Depending on
the beam’s geometry, even float glass beams can fail due to buckling.

Examples

The elongated Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts building in Norwich, Engla nd,
constructed by Foster and Partners in 1974 -1978, is enclosed by two 30 m x 7, 5 m
glazing. They consist of 2.4 m x 7.5 m toughened panes that are stiffened by glass
fins with a width of 60cm as illustrated in Figure 2.1 0.

Figure 2.10. Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, Norwich, 1978.

Source: www.fosterandpartners.com , 2007

The successful usage of glass fins for wind bracing resulted in the idea of also using
them as supports or beams. In 1993, arc hitects J. Brunet and E. Saunier constructed a
roof glazing with glass beams for the shops in the Musee du Louvre, Paris. For the 4
m x 16 meter roof glazing, laminated panes supported by laminated beams were used
as shown in Figure 2.11. The material behavior was examined in comprehensive
elements. The elements showed that the glass beams can be loaded with 12.2 to 14
tons instead of the previously estimated 5 tons.

29
 Figure 2.11. Shops in the Musee du Louvre, Paris, 1993.
Source: Behling & Behling, 1999

2.3.2 Glass Columns

Architects and clients do not like columns; they stand in the way and they block the
view. Architects ask the columns to be made as small as possible. On the contrary,
structural engineers reduce the span of beams and floors, and mak e structures less
complicated. Another way to make columns more attractive and less repulsive to
architects would be to make them out of glass.

Column Strength

Leitch (2005) claims that although glass performs well under compression; there is a
danger of buckling, which makes it hard to conceive a safe glass column. Buckling
will result in tensile stresses and the miniature cracks will play their spoilsport role.
If one part fails for whatever reason, the remaining parts must still be able to carry
the load so that the damaged element can be replaced.

The author further claims that the general design principles for glass columns are
similar to those for other not reinforced piers or walls. The applied load, however,
must be carefully distributed into the glass column in a way that localized areas of

30
concentrated stress do not develop a brittle failure. The edges of the glass panels
have to be ground with chamfers to avoid stress concentrations at the edges that
cause premature failure of the glass column. Structural elements have to be doubled,
tripled or more. Similar caution must be exercised when introducing load into
laminated glass columns. It is common for the panes of glass to line up somewhat
unevenly at the edges, creating non -homogenous load transfer into the layers of the
glass. To ensure structural participation from all layers of glass, steel shoes should be
used to support the glass.

Accordingly, when a load is applied, a column resists and responds by deforming and
developing internal and ed ge stresses. Glass under increasing axial compression will
deform elastically until experiencing sudden failure by elastic instability. It is
important to minimize exposure of a column to endue impact or abrasion by locating
it in sheltered location. It is advisable to make a column using toughened, pre -
compressed glass, even though it may seem counterintuitive to add additional axial
force to a compressive member. The pre -compression serves to reduce the “out -of-
straightness” effects of unanticipated later al load by keeping the glass surface in
compression. There are instances where annealed glass is used in lieu of toughened
glass, but in such cases, protective laminations must be adhered to either side of the
glass compression member. Not only will the ad ditional laminations protect the
internal layer, but they also increase the bending stiffness and increase the degree of
redundancy.

Elastic Stability

Leitch (2005) further claims that there are three ways in which columns can collapse.
The first one is by crumbling, slowly yielding under too big a compression load. The
second is by buckling, by sudden breaking in the middle. This case is most of the
times the critical one. The third is by breaking due to shear force; sliding along each
other. Like glass fins, glass columns are most likely to fail due to lack of stability,
which includes column buckling and lateral torsional buckling. Buckling tests

31
performed on laminated glass compression members show visco -elastic buckling
behavior. Concepts of Eular buc kling are applicable for pinned, axially loaded
members in compression; however, a safety factor must b e applied.

The author further explains that columns be designed to withstand shear and bending
forces in addition to axial loads. Under these condition s, the columns act like a beam
or fin and consequently are designed as such. Despite the column dimensions, the
column should not be subjected to excessive compressive stress, since it will fall first
along a shear plane instead of a crushing mechanism. Th e critical load that would
induce loss of stability, or bifurcation, splitting into two parts, buckling, can never be
attained in practical applications due to inherent material flaws that reduce the
member capacity. The most significant factors influencin g load capacity include,
glass thickness, initial geometric deformation, visco -elastic PVB, and the breakage
stress of glass.

Deflection

According to Institute of Structural Engineers (1999), the high modulus of elasticity,

the lack of creep and shrinkag e, and the low working stresses that indicate axial
shortening should not be an issue. Glass has a modulus of elasticity comparable to
that aluminum, and greater than those of timber and concrete. The Institute goes on
to say that lateral deflection of col umns is not usually a major consideration unless
the sway of an entire building storey is being considered.

Examples

A spectacular application of glass supports is presented in the glass roof of the

central courtyard of the community administration buil ding in Saint-German-en-
Laye, Figure 2.12, constructed by architects J. Brunet and E. Saunier in 1994. The 24
m x 24 m roof glazing consists of supporting steel work made of steel profiles
holding the roof glazing on spacers. This glass roof is carried by cross-shaped 22 cm

32
x 22 cm glass supports consisting of laminated fins with three toughened panes. The
cross-shaped supports, approved for a load of 6 tons, but calculated for 50 tons;
represent a world’s first in glass construction.

Figure 2.12. Administration building in Saint -German-en-Laye, Paris, 1994.

Source: www.brunet-saunier.com , 2007

Further Experiments

Veer (1999) claims that, although transparent columns exist, these are either made of
flat glass resulting in architecturally undesirable and mechanically inefficient shapes.
The most efficient shape for a column is a tubular member. During the development
of a transparent column; the concentric tubes are put in a special holder that keeps
them equidistant along their whole axis. The space between the tubes is filled with a
specially developed UV curing resin.

The author further asserts that, columns which are sufficiently short, or rigidly
clamped, to avoid buckling, fail by gradual fragme ntation from the base. The
columns deform spreading out like a mushroom while still carrying the full
maximum load as shown in Figure 2.1 3 Tested prototypes of length 550 mm,
diameter 40 mm and with a wall thickness of 4 mm loaded to 35 kN before failure
started.

33
 Figure 2.13. Rigidly clamped column specimen next to untested specimen.
Source: Veer, 1999

The author further explains that, on the contrary, columns that have a high ratio of
length to width and with the bases that can rotate fail by bucklin g as shown in Figure
2.14. Specimens of similar dimensions as used before showed elastic behavior up to
loads of 110 kN after which buckling started. The columns started to show
considerable deflection while still carrying the maximum loads. Failure starte d in the
compression zone where the outer glass layer disintegrated.

Figure 2.14. Buckled column specimen.

Source: Veer, 1999

34
2.3.3 Glass Walls and Point Supported Glass

Glass Walls

Leitch (2005) claims that walls have evolved to allow building o ccupants to visually
connect with the environment and also it protect us from the environment. Glass
walls essentially behave like very wide glass columns. To sustain loads, walls must
have substantial thickness and, consequently, multiple plies. Like colu mns, designer
must be careful that load transfer does not generate undue concentrated stresses. To
minimize this possibility, the support should be as centralized as possible. Also, the
most likely mode of collapse is via buckling or plying.

Accordingly, glass walls present a safety risk in two ways. Glass could fracture and
fall out of the pane causing harm to people and property below, or it could allow
someone to fall out of the building itself. The development of safety glass intended to
prevent such injuries. In these situations, it is necessary that the wall continue to
protect its occupants even after breaking.

Point Supported Glass

Most engineers almost immediately associate glass curtain walls with spider
connections. The metallic fingers that a re supported today’s curtain walls allow the
designer to increase transparency and translucency by minimizing the structural
framing.

The maximum span for bolted clamp plates of toughened glass is given in the
following table from the Institute of Structu ral Engineers. Smaller spans correlate
with Planar and Spider type bolted fittings. Manufacturer product information is
integral in making responsible engineering decisions. It is only after extensive
product testing and quality control that manufacturer’s offer design resources for the
application of their products.

35
 Table 2.7. Maximum spans for toughened glass panels using bolted clamp plates.
Source: Institute of Structural Engineers, 1999

Loading Maximum Span (mm) for toughend glass

UDL in Point Load in
6 mm 8 mm 10 mm 12 mm
kN/m2 kN
0,50 kN 0,25 kN 1.400 mm 1.800 mm 2.150 mm 2.450 mm
1,00 kN 0,50 kN 900 mm 1.500 mm 1.800 mm 2.050 mm
1,50 kN 1,50 kN - - 1.200 mm 1.650 mm

Behling & Behling (1999) explains th at glass plates deform and develop stresses
when coping with uniformly distributed surface pressure, like wind pressure.
Deformations are elastic until they exacerbate inherent surface flaws in the material
and minute cracks reach a critical length. If the flaw occurs near a concentration of
stresses, around a bolt for example, than the tensile stress the panel can withstand is
diminished. This relationship between stress and flaws indicates the influence of
additional factors including area, loading histor y, surface compressive stress, and
quality of the installation.

The author further claims that deflection is not a significant design criterion unless
on the macro scale where the sway of the entire structure is being considered. Glass
walls can be designed to have low stiffness and tolerate large deflections. The limit
of the deflections is then determined according psychological response - human
perception of safety. Companies and employees will not occupy a building if they
find deflections alarming, des pite whether the building is structurally sound. Rule of
thumb, limits glass wall flexibility to roughly span/175

Examples

Point-fixing systems with articulated fittings are used in order to reduce the
concentration of high bending forces and torsional f orces around the bore-hole. The

36
first fastening system with articulated fixings was developed by Adrien Fainsilber
and the glass structure specialists Rice -Francis-Ritchie for the greenhouses of the
Museum of Science and Technology in Paris 1986 as shown in Figure 2.15. The
glazing consists of toughened 2 x 2 meter panes, 12 mm thick, which form square
fields with 8 meter long sides.

Figure 2.15. Museum of Science and Technology, Paris, 1986.

Source a-b: www.rfr.fr, 2007

The other step in the dematerialization of bearing structures is the reduction of the
linear elements to a point -fixing systems without perforation, the glass panes are
fixed in position by fittings attached on both sides, which are either locate d at the
joints or at their corners. An example of this is the central courtyard glazing of the
Kempinski Hotel at the Munich airport, completed by architects Murphy/Jahn in
1994 illustrated in Figure 2.16. The load bearing structure consists of crosswise
arranged cables that form a flat cabling mesh. At the nodal points the laminated
panes (1,5 x 1,5 meter) are fastened by clamping plates that have been specifically
developed for this purpose.

37
 Figure 2.16. Kempinski Hotel in Munich, 1994.
Source: www.kempinski-airport.de , 2007

2.3.4 Glass Roofs and Floors

Glass Roofs

Leitch (2005) explains that the roof can be most distinctive part of a structure. In
urban areas where buildings continue to push up toward the sky, they look down
upon the “fifth façade”. Glass roofs seem to be conventional for horticultural
purposes, but they remain elegant nonetheless. The benefit of the glass roof is that it
transmits natural daylight, but this feature also leads to undesirable thermal gain. The
development of PVB technology and glass tinting allows designers to control the
amount of light transmitted and refracted in to a structure, an ability that makes glass
roofs, once again, highly desi rable.

Floors

Humans are fascinated by the prospect of walking through the air, or on water.
Although it may make the hearth race, glass floors are desirable because they capture
the imagination. It is always a very conscious feature of any structure uti lizing this
design feature.

38
Behling & Behling (1999) emphasize that because of its perfect smooth appearance,
it may seem to compromise safety using glass as a floor. Designers attempt to protect
glass from excessive contact and tend to situate it in prote cted locations, because
surface starches tend to increase tensile forces, ultimately resulting in failure of the
member. A floor contradicts this off -limits concept, so the degree of robustness must
be adjusted according to the traffic and abuse the floor will see. In addition to surface
abrasion from traffic, floors are potentially subjected to longer load duration.

Examples

In 1993, Glass Bridge by Architects Krajvanger and Urbis in Rotterdam,

Netherlands, connected the second floor of two adjacent bui ldings. The 3.2 m long
bridge structure consists of laminated panes that are connected to one another by
stainless-steel point fasteners. The base plate is a laminated pane resting on two glass
beams made of laminated panes.

Figure 2.17. Glass Bridge, Rotterdam, 1993.

Source: Behling & Behling, 1999

39
In 1996, the glass canopy of the Yurakucho underground station in Tokyo, Japan,
designed by Rafael Vinoly Architects. The projecting glass structure is 10.6 m long,
4.8 m wide and 4.8 m high at its top. The load bearing structure consists of three
parallel, cantilevering beams that are composed of several triangular, interlocked
laminated panes and plexiglass panes which are used because they are earthquake -
safe. The roof glazing made of laminated panes i s point-fastened to these cantilevers.

Figure 2.18. Glass Canopy of the Yurakucho Underground Station, Tokyo, 1996.
Source a: Behling & Behling, 1999
Source b: www.lusas.com, 2007

2.3.5 Glass Domes

Leitch (2005) claims that the synthesis of metal and glass structures immediately
incubated the generation of domed structures. Domes proliferated over markets and
train stations in the 19 th century. The glass panels were not structural and were fixed
onto a lightweight metal frame. Single panes o f glass were used in early examples of
glass domes, which would not provide adequate safety by today’s standards.

Innovation came in 1863 when Schwendler included stiffening diagonals to the

ribbed dome. Years later, geodesic domes using strut -and-tie geometry was

40
developed. Then, the evolution of free -formed glass domes came later, around 1989,
with the invention of the grid shell. A steel net of rods and nodes are erected in a
infinite number of configurations, or spatial geometries. Grid shells are vul nerable to
unbalanced loads, like snow. This system provides flexibility to accommodate the
double curvature structures.

Examples

Osaka Maritime Museum is designed by Architect Paul Andreu, in 2000. 70m

diameter, fully- glazed steel dome is a hemispheri cal single layer grid shell fixed at
its ‘equator’ level to a circular reinforced concrete wall. The spherical surface is
approximated by a series of squarish planes with maximum repetition. The glazing
system uses laminated flat glass, without panel bendi ng or warping or any noticeable
steps between panels. The rods are pre -stressed so that none goes slack under any
design load combination. Seismic and wave loads were considered in addition to
dead and wind loads.

Figure 2.19. Osaka Maritime Museum, the diagrid shell and the ring beam.
Source: Dallart & Facer, 2001

41
 CHAPTER 3

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Here are presented the materials and methods of the study. The former describes per -
tinent physical characteristics of the glass type and of the two int erlayer substances
taken into consideration for the investigation. The latter then presents a detailed ac -
count of the various input parameters assumed for the analysis proper –as derived
from the literature, such as structural elements, support conditions, load and
temperature conditions; and so on. A brief overview on specifics of the SJ Mepla
simulation program as applied for the structural analyses is also included here.

This study did not analyze any form of wired, patterned, etched, sandblasted, dril led,
notched or grooved glass with surface edge treatments that alter the mechanical
properties of glass. This study was addressed only the laminated glass with heat -
treated panes and their deformation and resistance to uniformly distributed loads.

3.1 STUDY MATERIAL

The analyses were carried out on a range of interlayer types and on glass elements
having rectangular geometry covering aspect ratio (long dimension/ short dimension)
from 1/3 to 5. Heat-treated laminated glass panes with different types, thicknesses
and dimension were used. Here is presented glass types and interlayers as study
material under two main topics.

42
3.1.1 Glass Types, Thickness and S tock Dimensions

Here is a presented glass type s, glass thickness and glass stock dimension that is used
as material in the study.

Glass Types

Laminated glass was the main material that was used for the study. Nevertheless only
the lamination was not enough to compose structural glass elements. As mentioned
in the second chapter, heat -treated glass, tempered or heat-strengthened, was used for
this purpose. In order to achieve the required glass type s table for each structural
element, they were classified under two main topics; first they were grouped
according to their direction vector of gravit y respectively vertical elements i.e glass
walls and the horizontal elements, e.g. glass floors, roofs and domes, which are also
called as over-head glazing. Then the second group was organized depending on
their thermal tension possibility. That was one o f the main parameters to choose
heat-strength glass for over-head glazing. Consequently, Table 3. 1 was prepared.

Table 3.1. Glass types.

Laminated Glass with Laminated Glass with Heat-

Glass Type
Tempered Panes Strengthened Panes
Element Type Glass Floor Glass Walls, Roofs and Domes

Glass Thicknesses

Engineers and architects use standard laminated glass combinations depending on

load carrying capacity and their availability from manufacturer’s standard production
tables. In this study Trakya Cam product profile was used as a main resource for

43
glass thickness. Glass types were tempered or heat-strengthened type to com pose
laminated glass, thus available thicknesses were between 4 mm and 19 mm.

General production and preference range for thickness selection were 6 mm, 8 mm,
10 mm and almost 12 mm depending on structural elements that is in usage. As
studied in “Strengthening of Glass” section, in order to combine laminated glass two
glass panes was required to the outer sides of the interlayer. Moreover in “Structural
Design Methods” section usage of glass panes that have equal thicknesses were
advised. According to th is information Table 3. 2 was prepared to show selected
thickness as input for the analyses. As interlayer thickness was identified as IT in the
table. Whereas for glass floor 3 layer laminated glass usage is general, for glass
walls, roofs and domes two la yered laminated glass was preferable.

Table 3.2 Glass thickness.

Element Type Glass Floor Glass Walls, Roofs and Domes

10 mm+ IT+ 10 mm+ IT+10mm 6 mm+ IT+6mm,
Glass
8 mm+ IT+8mm,
Thickness 12 mm+ IT+ 12 mm+ IT+12 mm 10 mm+ IT+10mm

Stock Dimension

Glass pane dimension was the other parameter affecting the structural performance
of a laminated glass, whereas as noted previously glass pane dimension was also
depended on available dimension of heat -treated glass. Thus available sizes of
tempered and heat-strengthened glass were gathered in the Table 3. 3, obtained from
the Turkey’s biggest glass producer Trakya Cam Sanayii A.Ş., so as to achieve base
dimension selection.

44
 Table 3.3. Trakya Cam Sanayii A.Ş. product dimension schedule.
Source: Trakya Cam Sanayii web -site, 2007

Dimension (mm)
Glass Type
Minimum Maximum
Tempered (grinding in ) 350mm x 105mm 4500mm x 2400mm
Heat-Strenght (grinding in ) 350mm x 105mm 4500mm x 2400mm
Laminated - 6000mm x 3210mm
*Dimensional tolerances are excluded from this table

3.1.2 Interlayer Types and Thickness

Here is a presented interlayer types and thickness that is used as material in the
study.

Interlayer Types

In this study explained in the Literature Survey, t wo different types of interlayers

were investigated. The first and the traditional one was PBV layer, which is widely
used around the world to make laminated glass. It has some advantages such as; it
achieves transparency, durability, and shear resistance. In addition, it provides
impact resistance, better acoustic insulation, and enhanced regulation of solar impact.
And also it is more economical than the other interlayer types. On the other hand,
pointed out the structural design method part, the static b ehavior of the laminate
glass the shear composite effect ought to be neglected, since it is not sure.

The second interlayer type, described as DuPont SentryGlas® Plus, has some more
advantages than standard PVB layer. It is more durable against delaminati on when
exposed to outside weather. In addition to them, it is stiffer and stronger. It has
stronger post-breakage performance. It shows less deflection relative to standard
PVB interlayers.

45
Interlayer Thickness

The interlayer thickness that was used in analysis depends on interlayers types
standard production table and their availability. Commonly used PVB interlayer
thickness were 0.38mm, 0.76mm, 1.14mm, 1.52mm, 2.28mm, and 2.54mm.

On the other hand SentryGlas® Plus interlayer thickness were 1.52mm, 2. 28mm and
2.54mm. The conversation with the SentryGlas® Plus showed that the common
usage is mainly 1,52mm regarding standard façade. As the main purpose of this
material was to make safe windows against hurricane effects, 2.28mm and 2.54mm
thickness was mostly preferable in hurricane zones. Regarding the information, this
study was delimited to use 1.52mm thickness interlayer.

3.2 METHODOLOGY

In this study, an optimization approach was proposed where the evaluation criteria
was related to the structural performance of the glass interlayer, in terms of strength.
For this purpose, the study was conducted as parametric study to be able to identify
the contributions of interlayers to laminated structural glass. In this part, the method
and process of the parametric study is explained.

The study was carried on different types of interlayers, as a main component of

laminated glass, and their effects on variable structural glass elements. In this regard,
the parameters that affect the structural glass analysis were described briefly. Support
conditions, load types and duration, maximum allowable stress and deflection
consideration were taken into account according to EN, German and ASTM
standards. To determine glass parameter selection strategy, all inputs were gathered
and grouped according to their relation to the structural glass elements. Finally, a
glass parameter selection table was prepared as shown in Table 3. 4. The parameters
that were determined as input for each analyses were demonstrated with dots.

46
Selected parameters and their selection reasons were summarized in the following
sections.

Table 3.4. Glass parameters.

PARAMETER TYPE
BASE PARAMETERS DEPENDENT PARAMETERS
INTERLAYER SUPPORT GLASS LOAD TEMPERATURE
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

Glass Thickness
Interlayer Type

Thickness (mm)

Load Duration

Temperature
Support Type

Glass Type

Differance
Laminated

Load Type
Condition
Interlayer

Support

(mm)

Outside/ ΔT:500C
Simple Support

Inside/ ΔT:00C
Heat-Strength
Four Sided
Two Sided

Tempered

10+10+10
12+12+12
10+10

Snow
Wind

Short
Long
PVB

Live
SGP

1,52

6+6
8+8

Glass Wall ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Glass Floor ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Glass Roof ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Glass Dome ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

3.2.1 Structural Elements

Structural glass element types were one of the main information for the study . All
analyses were conducted according to structural glass elements. However, as
mentioned in the literature survey section, every structural element has its own
characteristic structural behavior and they need special application individually.
Thus, in this study glass walls, glass floors, glass roofs and glass domes were
analyzed according to pre -defined parameters. On the other hand, glass column, glass
beam, glass fin and point supported glass were excluded from analysis study, as they
need very complex calculation process by using Finite Element Method and special
knowledge about application of this simulation type.

47
3.2.2 Support Conditions

Support conditions were accepted according to ASTM -E1300 standard test methods.
For every structural element co ntinuous simply supported panes along two and four
edges were used. All elements were simply supported and free to slip in plane, acts
as simply supported beam.

3.2.3 Load Conditions

The third prerequisite for the structural analysis was to determine t ype and duration
of loads with regard to international and national codes. Under this section, types of
loads were classified as wind loads, snow loads, dead weight and the live loads, and
also their effects on load duration were explained. As sited in “st rengthening of
glass” section they affect the strength of the glass.

Type of Loads

In this study for the determination of the Loads TS498 Standard was taken as a main
resource. All load types were assumed to be uniformly distributed load.

Wind Load

In the TS 498-T1/1997, wind load was accepted to effect in horizontal direction and
wind load value was mainly depended on the geometry of the building. Pressure,
suction and friction impacts were calculated together. Wind velocity and suction
values relative to height from the ground was determined in mentioned standard.
According to TS498, wind load information was given in Table 3. 5. If the wind is
affected in an angular way, the formula on height of the building/ width of the
building ratio has to be fall owed. If height of the building/ width of the building ratio
is smaller than 5, C value had to be 1,2 and if this ratio is bigger than 5, C had to be
calculated 1,6.

48
 Table 3.5. Wind load relative to height from the ground.
Source: TS498-T1

Height from ground level C=1,2 W C=1,6 W

0–8m 600 N/m2 800 N/m2
9 – 20 m 960 N/m2 1280 N/m2
21 – 100 m 1320 N/m2 1760 N/m2
> 100 m 1560 N/m2 2080 N/m2

The study assumption was to limit height of the building between 8 meter and 20
meter, and to take the building height/width ratio minimum than 5. Then the wind
load parameter of the study was accepted as 960 N/m 2.

Snow Load

Snow load was accepted depending on the structural element position that was
analyzed. All structures assumed to be situated on the territory and for glass roofs
that is assumed the slope of the roof is lower than 30 . Snow load chart indicated
1250 N/m 2 where the altitude was 800 m and the place was in the fourth region.
However, for the glass dome this method was not available.

The glass dome had its own characteristic therefore that has to be calculated
separately. The section angles of Glass Dome were changing almost between 0 90
in other words that was the worst case, both snow and wind load had to be calculated
together. According to TS498 in order to calculate snow and wind load together the
formula 1 or formula 2 had to be used. Pk was the snow load and W was the wind
load. The worst condition was taken into account.

Pk= W x 0,5…………………………………… (1)

or W= Pk x 0,5……………………………..…….. (2)

49
According to this formula our load combination for the glass dome was;

W2:960 N/m 2 and Pko: 1250 N/m 2 → P: 1730 N/m 2

Dead Weight and live loads

Unit weight of the glass was accepted as 25kN/m 3. For the structural elements during
the calculation process, the extra weights that have to be carried ought to be
calculated i.e. live loads for the glass floor s. Live load was accepted as 5 kN/m 2
according to TS498/ Section 12/ “uniformly distributed live load for general public
place”

Load Duration

Firstly depending on the load types, load duration varies. For example wind load was
a short duration load, whe reas snow load and live load was long duration load. As
mentioned in The Literature Survey, the strength of the laminated glass changes with
the load duration. Glass and interlayer perform less structural behavior when the
loading is long term rather than short term and transient, and also the laminated glass
appears to become weaker as the duration of loading increase. As glass had a safety
factor of 2,4 for it’s maximum allowable design stress, load duration mainly affected
the interlayer. Then, as noted previously in literature survey interlayer stiffness
values were selected from Table 2.3 and Table 2.5, according to their load -time
dependent values.

3.2.4 Temperature Conditions

Structural elements were grouped according to their general usage conditio ns. Glass
wall, glass roof and glass dome were exposed to outside air condition and
temperature difference between inside and outside of laminated glass pane was

50
identified as 50 0C. Only the glass floor was not exposed to outside air condition, thus
temperature difference was accepted 0 0C

3.2.5 Structural Analysis Program and Parameters

As mentioned in the second chapter, static analysis of glass panes with various glass
types and sizes, support conditions and under various types of loading were
calculated by the sophisticated finite element method, SJ Mepla. It was used to
calculate the stresses over the surface of the glass panels which uses Weibull
probability distribution, to approximate the variability of glass breakage data and to
predict the probability of breakage of the glass panels at a given load.

All inputs, like geometry, mechanical properties of layers, boundary conditions, load
conditions, the calculation approach or the requested output, were guided and
displayed by input masks. The control and output of the results were given visually
on a graphics surface and a calculation protocol which was used for the static
assessment.

All calculations were made geometrically non -linear method which releases large
deformations. Laminated glass conside ring the stiffness of the compound material
was defined by thickness and the order of layers. Support conditions of springs in
three direction and pre-defined simple supports were used. Load conditions of
uniformly distributed f ace loads, dead weight in su itable direction, climatic loads,
temperature loads and live loads within the panes were combined. The program gave
calculation protocol of all input and outputs, displacement and stress distribution
during impact for each pre -defined positions.

The structural analysis parameters are the evaluation criteria depend on the properties
of the glass type and dimension of the glass pane applied to the case analysis. They
were used to assess the relative condition created by selected parameter cases. In the
framework of this study maximum allowable stress value was used to evaluate

51
strength limit of selected glass type and maximum allowable deflection to evaluate
displacement limit within the glass according to German and ASTM standards.
Maximum values were selec ted and they were compared with the maximum
allowable limits. One of the maximum limits was exceeded; it was the critical one.
That is the other limit was not affecting the glass pane any more.

According to German and ASTM standards heat -strengthened glass maximum

allowable stress was accepted as 37 N/mm 2. However, for tempered glass ASTM
standards and German Standards were varying. Then to be on the safe side smaller
one was accepted as critical limit. Thus, for tempered glass 50 N/mm 2 were accepted
as maximum allowable stresses. Regarding ASTM standards maximum allowable
deflection limit was accepted as Span/175.

3.2.6 Data Processing

At this stage of the study, the analyses were limited to combine a selection strategy.
Every structural element had its own characteristic, where as they had some common
parameters, explained in Material Section. For every structural glass element
analyses conducted to evaluate effects of the base parameters independently. Only
one base parameter was changed at a time and all other base and dependent elements
kept constant. For each base parameter evaluated, a new chart was created. For
example a simulation analyzing one of the base parameter, effect of interlayer
stiffness on pane, was created by altering only its inte rlayer type without any change
in other properties. The effect of each base parameter was evaluated, according to
their influence on the output measures.

During the study, the base parameters were changed and then the resulting
parameters were simulated r egarding structural element types. In the next step, the
result of the simulations was compared in the charts. This requires manually
computing the dimension variables and entering the values in appropriate places in
sections of SJ Mepla. New layer compos itions were created to describe different

52
interlayer choices and configurations. The evolving descriptions were PVB and SGP
interlayer. This was a repetitive process including interval selection, finding possible
critical dimension, adjusting the geometry, glass pane and interlayer types, load and
support condition and evaluation. Then if critical limits are achieved entering data to
the tables and preparing the comparison charts, etc.

This section explains the process used to evaluate the variables. In ad dition, the data
that is used to evaluate the performance of the variables i.e. constant and output
measures, are describes in this section.

Base Measures

In this study three distinct base parameters were evaluated; type of structural
element, type of interlayer and type of support condition. Each step was represented
as a different layout. The parameters were applied according to glass parameters,
previously illustrated in Table 3.4. In other words structural element types, interlayer
types and support conditions were kept throughout the study; they were analyzed
according to their effect on strength.

Variable measures

The dependent measures of the parametric study were kept unchanged for one
structural element cases that are analyzed throughout the st udy. They were only
changed if structural element type was also changed. The analyzed dependent
parameters were glazing type, glazing thickness, load condition and temperature
differences within the glass pane. After detailed evaluation of each single para meter
the combination of best performing ones were applied to structural elements.
According the assumptions and the acceptance from the norms as detailed
descriptions was given earlier; analyses were conducted following these parameters.

53
3.2.7 Determination of Variation Chart Intervals

The main problem for the dimensioning was to select intervals to prepare the glass
variation chart regarding their maximum allowable stress and maximum allowable
deflection consideration. In order to solve this problem th e references were searched,
and it was observed that in ASTM test methods, aspect ratio of glass was taken as a
parameter.

According to aspect ratio information, rectangular glass panes having diagonal

geometry covering aspect ratio (long dimension/ shor t dimension) from 1 to 5 was
used for plate shaped four sides simply supported structural elements. Then the
ASTM standard dimension chart, Figure 3.1., was modified according to this ratio
information for the study.

However this method was not only enou gh to compose variation chart. For this
reason, the modulation of the glass was designed by the help of static analysis
program that which intervals were more critical regarding aspect ratio information.

According to results, for the four sides simply sup ported elements 0,1 m interval
created considerably great difference between maximum allowable stresses and
maximum allowable deformations in long direction, when the other dimension was
fixed. Therefore the sample glass dimensions were selected through 0, 1 m intervals
for that direction.

The chart indicates the terminology as follows; plate length is the maximum
dimension of the glass, plate width is the minimum dimension of the glass. AR is the
aspect ratio, the ratio of the glass to the short dimension of the glass is always equal
or greater than 1.0 for the four sides simply supported.

54
 Figure 3.1. Dimension chart for glass panes simply supported on f our sides.

The chart was modified according to maximum available size of the heat -treated
glass. Maximum length was 4,5 m and maximum width was 2,4 m, every 0,5 m
distance and also 0,1 m variation interval distance was defined in both direction. As
shown in the chart, there was not aspect ratio information smaller than 1/1. That if
the maximum dimensio n of the glass combination was changing, maximum
dimension of the plate was accepted as plate length like four sides simply supported
standard plate.

At a given one fixed dimension, in order to define the exact maximum stress or
deflection point for the short direction, proximity method was used. First of all, the
smallest, the biggest and the intermediate dimension values were analyzed and
maximum limits were checked. The intermediate dimension was the main component
for this method. That is; if maximum allowable stress or deflection limit was
exceeded at the intermediate dimension, then the critical limit was between
intermediate and the smallest dimension. If not, the limit was at the other side. This
proximity method was used until achieving 5mm interv al which is just below the
maximum limits. Then the achieved limit value was maximum dimension of pane
indicated as italic bolded row 4 in Table 3. 6.

55
 Table 3.6. Determination of maximum limit for four sides simply supported glass.

Maximum Maximum
Width Height σ max σ allowable
Deflection Allowable
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
(mm) Deflection (mm)
Exceeds
4.500 mm 1.540 mm -8,85 mm -8,8000 mm 13,09 N/mm2 37,00 N/mm2
Critical Limit
Critical Limit 4.500 mm 1.535 mm -8,75 mm -8,7714 mm 13,03 N/mm2 37,00 N/mm2
Below Critical
4.500 mm 1.530 mm -8,66 mm -8,7429 mm 12,96 N/mm2 37,00 N/mm2
Limit

Width refers to long dimension and height refers to short dimension of the glass in
mm. Maximum deflection was shown as approximate maximum lateral deflection
within the glass after loading in mm and maximum allowable deflection was Span/
175 mm of glass according to ASTM 1300 -04. σmax is maximum principle stress

within the glass pane after loading in N/mm 2. σallowable is the maximum allowable
surface stress in N/mm 2 previously defined according to standards.

Then to find maximum limits for 0.1 m fix ed dimension, variations were checked for
linear intervals on short dimension. The variations had non-linear behavior. In order
to achieve nearest maximum limit, at least two or tree 0.1 m interval was found by
the help of proximity method. Then the short edge dimension was controlled for if
the standard interval could be achieved. Firstly, the interval variation was depended
on the plate behavior. If the aspect ratio exceeds its limit, the glass plate behaves like
a one way slab, and thus the interval vari ations were too small and mainly linear.
After exceeding aspect ratio limit, the variations were non-linear.

The variation differences between each 0,1 m intervals were studied. Depending on
the distance from maxim um aspect ratio limit, limit variations w ere differing as
second or third degree func tion. As the aspect ratio limits were changing for each
case calculated, limits for the functions were also calculated by the help of proxim ity
method as shown in Table 3.7 .

56
 Table 3.7. Determination of maximum li mit among each 0,1 m intervals.

width height Δ: 1. degree Δ: 2. degree Δ: 3. degree

3.400 mm 2.065 mm
45 mm
3.300 mm 2.110 mm 15 mm
60 mm 0 mm
3.200 mm 2.170 mm 15 mm
75 mm 15 mm
3.100 mm 2.245 mm 30 mm
105 mm 25 mm
3.000 mm 2.350 mm 55 mm
160 mm
2.900 mm 2.510 mm

First row displays the 0.1 m interval values through width of the pane and second
row is variation value among them. Third, fourth and fifth rows display degree of
function to find out variation relation respectively. Then the maximum limits for the
each 0,1 m interval were listed for each case. Finally the points were exactly defined
in the variation charts and they were connected by the help of spines as indicated in
Figure 3.2

Figure 3.2. Indication of dimension intervals for glass panes simply supported on
four sides.

57
For plate shaped two opposite sides simply supported structural element, it was
accepted that the plate was behaving like one way slab throughout the all plate,
different from the four sides simply supported glass plate. Then the, aspect ratio
information was accepted not to have direct effect on variation determination, but it
was suggested that it will help comparison the resultant charts of the cases. As a
result 1/3 to 5 aspect ratio information was defined when analyzing.

For the two opposite sides simply supported elements, critical limits were
investigated similarly to four side simply supported glass. That is; 0,5 m interval
created slightly small difference between maximum allowable stresses and
deformations at supported edge direction, thus the glass dimension were selected
beginning from the minimum to maximum sizes through 0,5 m intervals. For the
non-supported direction the maximum limits were also controlled for each 0,005 m
interval by the help of proximity method. The maximum limits were also changing
slight smaller variations that are they were almost linear. As a result two opposite
sides simply supported glass variation chart, Figure 3.3, is prepared.

Figure 3.3. Dimension chart for glass panes simply supported on two opposite sides.

58
The chart was also modified according to maximum available size of the heat -treated
glass. Maximum length was 4,5 m and maximum width was 2,4 m, every 0,5 m
distance and also 0,5 m variation interval distance was defined in supported
direction. Finally the points were exactly defined in the variation charts and they
were connected by the help of spines for each case and they were indicated as circles
in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4. Indication of dimension intervals for glass panes simply supported on two
opposite sides.

59
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter the results of the analyses are presented. A number of structural
element types were def ined for the analyses. They were analyzed in FEM based SJ
Mepla structural glass analysis program and the each parameters were applied based
on glass parameters table information. In order to reach critical limits, thousands of
analyses were run and the mi nimum interval 5mm was achieved. At the next step, the
analyses results were gathered in a table shown in Appendix. They were combined
according to their parameters and limitations. The first limitation was deflection
consideration and the second was maxim um allowable stress. Thereafter, the
resultant values were analyzed comparison charts were prepared.

All parameters display same properties in terms of their affect on laminated glass,
but because of interlayer properties and different support conditions , their resultant
strength values were not same. In order to represent their differences following charts
were created which represents reliable maximum sizes of laminated glass according
to pre-defined parameters. In the following sections, detailed resul ts of various cases
are discussed and effects of the base parameters are presented.

4.1 Glass Walls

The parameters are represented in Table 4.1 and analyses were conducted following
these parameters. The results of the simulations are presented in Figur e 4.1 to 4.6
respectively depending on their glass thickness parameters and support conditions.
Their limit values are also presented as Appendix A.

60
 Table 4.1. Parameters for glass walls.

PARAMETER TYPE
BASE PARAMETERS DEPENDENT PARAMETERS
INTERLAYER SUPPORT GLASS LOAD TEMPERATURE
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

Laminated Glass

Glass Thickness
Thickness (mm)
Interlayer Type

Load Duration
Support Type

Temperature
Differance
Load Type
Condition
Interlayer

Support

(mm)
Type

Outside/ ΔT:500C
Simple Support

Heat-Strength
Four Sided
Two Sided

10+10

Wind

Short
PVB

SGP

1,52

6+6

8+8
Glass Wall ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

As a main component of this study gl ass wall structure analyses were conducted
throughout this section. Base parameters were two types of interlayer, PVB and SGP
and support conditions, two sided or four sided support. Interlayer thickness 1,52mm
and support type, simple support, were kept u nchanged. Glass type was defines as
heat-strength laminated glass and thickness combinations were defined as 6 mm+
1,52mm+ 6 mm, 8 mm+ 1,52mm+ 8 mm, 10 mm+ 1,52mm+ 10 mm respectively. As
direction vector of gravity of glass wall is vertical and it was loca ted on the outer
contour of the building, it was affected by wind load value of 960 N/m 2 and defined
as short time loading. Thus temperature difference was selected as 50 0C.

Discussions on Results

As observed, different types of interlayers with differe nt stiffness properties created

significantly big difference in critical limits and maximum possible dimensions for
different types of glass thickness and support conditions. Maximum allowable
deflection limit was dominant factor when analyzing the maximum possible
dimension. Maximum allowable stress limit was never achieved.

61
 Figure 4.1. Comparison chart 1 for glass walls.
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 6 mm+ 6 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SC: Four Side
Simply Supported, LC: Short Time Loading

Figure 4.2. Comparison chart 2 for glass walls.

*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 6 mm+ 6 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SC: Two Opposite
Sides Simply Supported, LC: Short Time Loading

62
The results of Figure 4.1 show that both of th e interlayers were behaving as a one
way slab and variations between each 0.1m distance changes slightly small till
exceeding aspect ratio two. After exceeding that point, significantly great differences
among variations and also maximum deflection and min imum stress within the glass
pane were observed.

Maximum height limit dimension for 6 mm+ 6 mm glass with PVB was 1,9 m to
1,955 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 2,5 m to 2,585 m which was also beyond
the maximum available glass dimension. Possible maxim um dimension difference
between PVB and SGP were varying around 0,6m till aspect ratio two. After that
point, possible dimension difference was reaching 1,2 m at 2,5m width which was
almost 100% bigger than PVB dimension. Maximum deflection 14,29 mm was
achieved with SGP interlayer at that dimension.

Two opposite sides simply supported condition for 6 mm+ 6 mm glass results are
presented in Figure 4.2. Both of the interlayers were behaving as a one way slab and
dimension, deflection and stress variations between each 0.5m distance changes
slightly small throughout available dimensions.

Maximum dimensions for 6 mm+ 6 mm glass with PVB were 4,5 m x 1,27 m to 0,5
m x 1,285 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 4,5 m x 1,765 m to 0,5 m x 1,765 m.
It was observed that all dimensions were in the limit of available glass dimensions.
Possible maximum dimension difference between PVB and SGP were varying
around 0,5 m throughout the pane width and differing with slightly small intervals
and SGP was 50% bigger than PVB interlayer. Maximum deflection 10,25 mm was
achieved with SGP interlayer at 0,5 m to 1,8 m dimension.

63
 Figure 4.3. Comparison chart 3 for glass walls.
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 8 mm+ 8 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SC: Four Side
Simply Supported, LC: Short Time Loading

Figure 4.4. Comparison chart 4 for glass walls.

*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 8 mm+ 8 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SC: Two Opposite
Sides Simply Supported, LC: Short Time Loading

64
The results of Figure 4.3 show that both of the interlayers were behaving as a one
way slab and variations between each 0.1m distance changes slightly small till
exceeding aspect ratio two. After exceeding that point, significantly great differences
among variations and a lso maximum deflection and minimum stress within the glass
pane were observed.

Maximum height limit dimension for 8 mm+ 8 mm glass with PVB was 2,5 m to
2,56 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 3,2 m to 3,285 m, both were also beyond
the maximum available glass dimensions. Possible maximum dimension difference
between PVB and SGP were varying around 0,7 m till aspect ratio two. After that
point, possible dimension difference was reaching 1,5 m at 3,2m width which was
almost 70% bigger than PVB dimension. Max imum deflection 18,28 mm was
achieved with SGP interlayer at that dimension.

Two opposite sides simply supported condition for 8 mm+ 8 mm glass results are
presented in Figure 4.4. Both of the interlayers were behaving as a one way slab and
dimension, deflection and stress variations between each 0.5 m distance changes
slightly small throughout available dimensions.

Maximum dimensions for 8 mm+ 8 mm glass with PVB were 4,5 m x 1,725 m to 0,5
m x 1,765 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 4,5 m x 2,300 m to 0,5 m x 2,355 m.
It was observed that all dimensions were in the limit of available glass dimensions.
Possible maximum dimension difference between PVB and SGP were varying
around 0,6 m throughout the pane width and differing with slightly small intervals
and SGP was 35% bigger than PVB interlayer. Maximum deflection 13,44 mm was
achieved with SGP interlayer at 0,5 m to 2,355 m dimension.

65
 Figure 4.5. Comparison chart 5 for glass walls.
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 10 mm+ 10 mm, IT: 1,52 mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SC: Four Side
Simply Supported, LC: Short Time Loading

Figure 4.6. Comparison chart 6 for glass walls.

*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 10 mm+ 10 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SC: Two
Opposite Sides Simply Supported, LC: Short Time Loading

66
The results of Figure 4.5 show that throughout the all dimensions significantly great
differences among variations and also maximum deflection and minimum stress
within the glass pane were observed.

Maximum height limit dimension for 10 mm+ 10 mm glass with PVB was 3,1 m to
3,14 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 3,9 m to 3,94 m, both were also beyond the
maximum available glass dimensions. Possible maximum dimension difference
between PVB and SGP were varying between 1 m to 1,8 m which w ere almost
between 50% to 89%. Maximum deflection 22,26 mm was achieved with SGP
interlayer at 3,9 m to 3,94 m dimension.

Two opposite sides simply supported condition for 10 mm+ 10 mm glass results are
presented in Figure 4.6. Both of the interlayers we re behaving as a one way slab and
dimension, deflection and stress variations between each 0.5 m distance changes
slightly small throughout available dimensions.

Maximum dimensions for 10 mm+ 10 mm glass with PVB were 4,5 m x 2,2 m to 0,5
m x 2,26 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 4,5 m x 2,845 m to 0,5 m x 2,905 m. It
was observed that PVB dimensions were in the limit of available glass dimensions in
contrast SGP dimensions were exceeding this dimension. Possible maximum
dimension difference between PVB and SGP were varying around 0,64 m throughout
the pane width and differing with slightly small intervals and SGP was 30% bigger
than PVB interlayer. Maximum deflection 16,60 mm was achieved with SGP
interlayer at 0,5 m to 2,905 m dimension.

4.2 Glass Floors

The parameters are represented in Table 4.2 and analyses were conducted following
these parameters. The results of the simulations are presented in Figure 4.7 to 4.10
respectively depending on their glass thickness parameters and support conditions.
Their limit values are also presented as Appendix B.

67
 Table 4.2. Parameters for glass floors.

PARAMETER TYPE
BASE PARAMETERS DEPENDENT PARAMETERS
INTERLAYER SUPPORT GLASS LOAD TEMPERATURE

STRUCTURAL ELEMENT

Laminated Glass

Glass Thickness
Interlayer Type

Thickness (mm)

Load Duration
Support Type

Temperature
Differance
Load Type
Condition
Interlayer

Support

(mm)
Type

Inside/ ΔT:0 0C
Simple Support
Four Sided
Two Sided

Tempered

10+10+10

12+12+12

Long
PVB

Live
SGP

1,52

Glass Floor ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Glass floor structure analyses were conducted throughout this section. Base
parameters were two types of interlayer, PVB and SGP and su pport conditions, two
sided or four sided support. Interlayer thickness 1,52mm and support type, simple
support, were kept unchanged. Glass type was defines as tempered laminated glass
and thickness combinations were defined as 10 mm+ 1,52mm+ 10 mm+ 1,52mm +
10 mm and 12 mm+ 1,52mm+ 12 mm+ 1,52 mm+12 mm respectively. As direction
vector of gravity of glass floor is horizontal and it was located inside of the building,
it was affected by live load value of 5000 N/m 2 and defined as long time loading.
Thus temperature difference was selected as 0 0C.

Discussions on Results

As observed, different types of interlayers with different stiffness properties created

significantly big difference in critical limits and maximum possible dimensions for
different types of glass thickness and support conditions. Maximum allowable
deflection limit was dominant factor when analyzing the maximum possible
dimension. Maximum allowable stress limit was never achieved.

68
 Figure 4.7. Comparison chart 1 for glass floors.
*Standard Parameters: GT: Tempered, GTk: 10 mm+ 10 mm+ 10 mm, IT: 1,52mm, LL: 5000 N/m 2, SC: Four
Side Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

Figure 4.8. Comparison chart 2 for glass floors.

*Standard Parameters: GT: Tempered, GTk: 10 mm+ 10 mm+ 10 mm, IT: 1, 52mm, LL: 5000 N/m 2, SC: Two
Opposite Sides Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

69
The results of Figure 4.7 show PVB interlayer was behaving as a one way slab and
variations between each 0.1m distance changes slightly small till exceeding aspect
ratio two. After exceeding that point, significantly great differences among variations
and also maximum deflection and minimum stress within the glass pane were
observed.

Maximum height limit dimension for 10 mm+ 10 mm+ 10 mm glass with PVB was
1,7 m to 1,825 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 3,5 m to 3,155 m which was also
beyond the maximum available glass dimension. Possible maximum dimension
difference between PVB and SGP were varying around 1,75m to 1,965 m. At 3,1m
width difference was reaching 165%. Maxim um deflection 17,70 mm was achieved
with SGP interlayer at 3,1 m x 3,155 m.

Two opposite sides simply supported condition for 10 mm+ 10 mm+ 10 mm glass
results are presented in Figure 4.8. Both of the interlayers were behaving as a one
way slab and dimension, deflection and stress variations between each 0.5m distance
changes slightly small throughout available dimensions.

Maximum dimensions for 10 mm+ 10 mm+ 10 mm glass with PVB were 4,5 m x
1,11 m to 0,5 m x 1,115 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 4,5 m x 2,01 m to 0,5 m
x 2,08 m. It was observed that all dimensions were in the limit of available glass
dimensions. Possible maximum dimension difference between PVB and SGP were
varying around 0,9 m throughout the pane width and differing with slightly sm all
intervals and SGP was 80% bigger than PVB interlayer. Maximum deflection 11,87
mm was achieved with SGP interlayer at 0,5 m to 2,08 m dimension.

70
 Figure 4.9. Comparison chart 3 for glass floors.
*Standard Parameters: GT: Tempered, GTk: 12 mm+ 12 mm + 12 mm, IT: 1,52mm, LL: 5000 N/m 2, SC: Four
Side Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

Figure 4.10. Comparison chart 4 for glass floors.

*Standard Parameters: GT: Tempered, GTk: 12 mm+ 12 mm+ 12 mm, IT: 1,52mm, LL: 5000 N/m 2, SC: Two
Opposite Sides Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

71
The results of Figure 4.9 show PVB interlayer was behaving as a one way slab and
variations between each 0.1m distance changes slightly small till exceeding aspect
ratio two. After exceeding that point, significantly great differences among variations
and also maximum deflection and minimum stress within the glass pane were
observed.

Maximum height limit dimension for 12 mm+ 12 mm+ 12 mm glass with PVB was
2,1 m to 2,145 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 3,7 m to 3,7 8 m which was also
beyond the maximum available glass dimension. Possible maximum dimension
difference between PVB and SGP were varying around 1,75m to 2,36 m. At 3,7m
width, difference was reaching 165%. Maximum deflection 21,13 mm was achieved
with SGP interlayer at 3,7 m x 3,78 m.

Two opposite sides simply supported condition for 12 mm+ 12 mm+ 12 mm glass
results are presented in Figure 4.10. Both of the interlayers were behaving as a one
way slab and dimension, deflection and stress variations between each 0.5m distance
changes slightly small throughout available dimensions.

Maximum dimensions for 12 mm+ 12 mm+ 12 mm glass with PVB were 4,5 m x
1,325 m to 0,5 m x 1,33 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 4,5 m x 2,42 m to 0,5 m
x 2,5 m. It was observed that SGP dimensions were out of the limit of available glass
dimensions. Possible maximum dimension difference between PVB and SGP were
varying around 1,1 m throughout the pane width and differing with slightly small
intervals and SGP was 85% bigger than P VB interlayer. Maximum deflection 14,25
mm was achieved with SGP interlayer at 0,5 m to 2,5 m dimension.

4.3 Glass Roofs

The parameters are represented in Table 4.3 and analyses were conducted following
these parameters. The results of the simulations ar e presented in Figure 4.11 to 4.16
respectively depending on their glass thickness parameters and support conditions.
Their limit values are also presented as Appendix C.

72
 Table 4.3. Parameters for glass roofs.

PARAMETER TYPE
BASE PARAMETERS DEPENDENT PARAMETERS
INTERLAYER SUPPORT GLASS LOAD TEMPERATURE
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

Laminated Glass

Glass Thickness
Thickness (mm)
Interlayer Type

Load Duration
Support Type

Temperature
Differance
Load Type
Condition
Interlayer

Support

(mm)
Type

Outside/ ΔT:500C
Simple Support

Heat-Strength
Four Sided
Two Sided

10+10

Snow

Long
PVB

SGP

1,52

6+6

8+8
Glass Roof ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Glass roof structure analyses were conducted throughout this section. Base
parameters were two types of interlayer, PVB and SGP and support conditions, two
sided or four sided support. Interlayer thickness 1,52mm and support type, simple
support, were kept unchanged. Glas s type was defines as heat -strength laminated
glass and thickness combinations were defined as 6 mm+ 1,52mm+ 6 mm, 8 mm+
1,52mm+ 8 mm, 10 mm+ 1,52mm+ 10 mm respectively. As direction vector of
gravity of glass wall is horizontal and it was located on the o uter contour of the
building, it was affected by snow load value of 1250 N/m 2 and defined as long time
loading. Thus temperature difference was selected as 50 0C.

Discussions on Results

As observed, different types of interlayers with different stiffness properties created

significantly big difference in critical limits and maximum possible dimensions for
different types of glass thickness and support conditions. Maximum allowable
deflection limit was dominant factor when analyzing the maximum possible
dimension. Maximum allowable stress limit was never achieved.

73
 Figure 4.11. Comparison chart 1 for glass roofs.
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 6 mm+ 6 mm, IT: 1,52mm, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC: Four Side
Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

Figure 4.12. Comparison chart 2 for glass roofs.

*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 6 mm+ 6 mm, IT: 1,52mm, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC: Two Opposite
Sides Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

74
The results of Figure 4.11 show that both of the interla yers were behaving as a one
way slab and variations between each 0.1m distance changes slightly small till
exceeding aspect ratio two. After exceeding that point, significantly great differences
among variations and also maximum deflection and minimum stre ss within the glass
pane were observed.

Maximum height limit dimension for 6 mm+ 6 mm glass with PVB was 1,5 m to
1,52 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 2,1 m to 2,165 m which were within the
maximum available glass dimension. Possible maximum dimension d ifference
between PVB and SGP were varying around 0,35 m till aspect ratio two. After that
point, possible dimension difference was reaching 1,15 m at 2,5m width which was
almost 110% bigger than PVB dimension. Maximum deflection 11,97 mm was
achieved with SGP interlayer at 2,1 m x 2,165 m.

Two opposite sides simply supported condition for 6 mm+ 6 mm glass results are
presented in Figure 4.12. Both of the interlayers were behaving as a one way slab and
dimension, deflection and stress variations between e ach 0.5m distance changes
slightly small throughout available dimensions.

Maximum dimensions for 6 mm+ 6 mm glass with PVB were 4,5 m x 0,905 m to 0,5
m x 0,9 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 4,5 m x 1,325 m to 0,5 m x 1,35 m. It
was observed that all dimensions were in the limit of available glass dimensions.
Possible maximum dimension difference between PVB and SGP were varying
around 0,4 m throughout the pane width and differing with slightly small intervals
and SGP was 50% bigger than PVB interlayer. Maximum deflection 7,68 mm was
achieved with SGP interlayer at 0,5 m to 1,35 m dimension.

75
 Figure 4.13. Comparison chart 3 for glass roofs.
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 8 mm+ 8 mm, IT: 1,52mm, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC: Four Side
Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

Figure 4.14. Comparison chart 4 for glass roofs.

*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 8 mm+ 8 mm, IT: 1,52mm, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC: Two Opposite
Sides Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

76
The results of Figure 4.13 show that both of the interlayers were behaving as a one
way slab and variations between each 0.1m distance changes slightly small till
exceeding aspect ratio two. After exceeding that point, significantly great differences
among variations and also maxi mum deflection and minimum stress within the glass
pane were observed.

Maximum height limit dimension for 8 mm+ 8 mm glass with PVB was 1,9 m to
2,05 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 2,7 m to 2,82 m, SGP was exceeding
maximum available glass dimension. P ossible maximum dimension difference
between PVB and SGP were varying around 0,6 m till aspect ratio two. After that
point, possible dimension difference was reaching 1,45 m at 2,7m width which was
almost 110% bigger than PVB dimension. Maximum deflection 15,41 mm was
achieved with SGP interlayer at 2,7 m x 2,82 m.

Two opposite sides simply supported condition for 8 mm+ 8 mm glass results are
presented in Figure 4.14. Both of the interlayers were behaving as a one way slab and
dimension, deflection and st ress variations between each 0.5 m distance changes
slightly small throughout available dimensions.

Maximum dimensions for 8 mm+ 8 mm glass with PVB were 4,5 m x 1,184m to 0,5
m x 1,185 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 4,5 m x 1,73 m to 0,5 m x 1,77 m. It
was observed that all dimensions were in the limit of available glass dimensions.
Possible maximum dimension difference between PVB and SGP were varying
around 0,6 m throughout the pane width and differing with slightly small intervals
and SGP was 50% bigger than PVB interlayer. Maximum deflection 10,10 mm was
achieved with SGP interlayer at 0,5 m to 1,77 m dimension.

77
 Figure 4.15. Comparison chart 5 for glass roofs.
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 10 mm+ 10 mm, IT: 1,52mm, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC: Four Side
Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

Figure 4.16. Comparison chart 6 for glass roofs.

*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 10 mm+ 10 mm, IT: 1,52mm, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC: Two
Opposite Sides Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Load ing

78
The results of Figure 4.15 show PVB interlayer was behaving as a one way slab and
variations between each 0.1m distance changes slightly small till exceeding aspect
ratio two. After exceeding that point, significantly great differences among variations
and also maximum deflection and minimum stress within the glass pane were
observed.

Maximum height limit dimension for 10 mm+ 10 mm glass with PVB was 2,4 m to
2,435 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 3,4 m to 3,305 m, both were also
exceeding maximum ava ilable glass dimensions. Possible maximum dimension
difference between PVB and SGP were varying between 0,9 m to 1,7 m which were
almost between 58% to 100%. Maximum deflection 18,04 mm was achieved with
SGP interlayer at 3,5 m to 3,16 m dimension.

Two opposite sides simply supported condition for 10 mm+ 10 mm glass results are
presented in Figure 4.16. Both of the interlayers were behaving as a one way slab and
dimension, deflection and stress variations between each 0.5 m distance changes
slightly small throughout available dimensions. Maximum dimensions for 10 mm+
10 mm glass with PVB were 4,5 m x 1,445 m to 0,5 m x 1,45 m. By comparison,
with SGP it was 4,5 m x 2,115 m to 0,5 m x 2,175 m. It was observed that all
dimensions were in the limit of availab le glass dimensions. Possible maximum
dimension difference between PVB and SGP were varying around 0,7 m throughout
the pane width and differing with slightly small intervals and SGP was 50% bigger
than PVB interlayer. Maximum deflection 12,41 mm was achie ved with SGP
interlayer at 0,5 m to 2,175 m dimension.

4.4 Glass Domes

The parameters are represented in Table 4.4 and analyses were conducted following
these parameters. The results of the simulations are presented in Figure 4.17 to 4.22
respectively depending on their glass thickness parameters and support conditions.
Their limit values are also presented as Appendix D.

79
 Table 4.4. Parameters for glass domes.

PARAMETER TYPE
BASE PARAMETERS DEPENDENT PARAMETERS

STRUCTURAL ELEMENT
INTERLAYER SUPPORT GLASS LOAD TEMP.

Support Type

Temperature
Glass Type

Load Type

Differance
Laminated
Interlayer

Condition

Thickness
Interlayer
Thickness

Duration
Support

Glass

(mm)

Load
(mm)
Type

Heat-Strength
Four Sided
Two Sided

ΔT:50 0C
Outside/
Support
Simple

10+10

Snow
Wind

Short

Long
PVB

SGP

1,52

6+6

8+8
Glass Dome ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Glass dome structure analyses were conducted throughout this sectio n. Base
parameters were two types of interlayer, PVB and SGP and support conditions, two
sided or four sided support. Interlayer thickness 1,52mm and support type, simple
support, were kept unchanged. Glass type was defines as heat -strength laminated
glass and thickness combinations were defined as 6 mm+ 1,52mm+ 6 mm, 8 mm+
1,52mm+ 8 mm, 10 mm+ 1,52mm+ 10 mm respectively. As the section angles of
Glass Dome were changing almost between 0 90 in other words that was the worst
case, both snow and wind load had to be calculated together and it was located on the
outer contour of the building, it was affected by both wind and snow load and the
value is 1730 N/m 2 and defined as long time loading. Thus temperature difference
was selected as 50 0C.

Discussions on Results

As observed, different types of interlayers with different stiffness properties created

significantly big difference in critical limits and maximum possible dimensions for
different types of glass thickness and support conditions. Maximum allowa ble
deflection limit was dominant factor when analyzing the maximum possible
dimension. Maximum allowable stress limit was never achieved.

80
 Figure 4.17. Comparison chart 1 for glass domes.
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 6 mm+ 6 mm, IT: 1, 52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC:
Four Side Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

Figure 4.18. Comparison chart 2 for glass domes.

*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 6 mm+ 6 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC:
Two Opposite Sides Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

81
The results of Figure 4.17 show that both of the interlayers were behaving as a one
way slab and variations between each 0.1m distance changes slightly small till
exceeding aspect ratio two. After that point , significantly great differences among
variations and also maximum deflection and minimum stress within the glass pane
were observed.

Maximum height limit dimension for 6 mm+ 6 mm glass with PVB was 1,3 m to
1,375 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 1,9 m to 1,905 m which was also beyond
the maximum available glass dimension. Possible maximum dimension difference
between PVB and SGP were varying around 0,35 m till aspect ratio two. After that
point, possible dimension difference was reaching 1 m at 1,9 m wi dth which was
almost 105% bigger than PVB dimension. Maximum deflection 10,82 mm was
achieved with SGP interlayer at 1,9 m x 1,905 m dimension.

Two opposite sides simply supported condition for 6 mm+ 6 mm glass results are
presented in Figure 4.18. Both of the interlayers were behaving as a one way slab and
dimension, deflection and stress variations between each 0.5m distance changes
slightly small throughout available dimensions.

Maximum dimensions for 6 mm+ 6 mm glass with PVB were 4,5 m x 0,895 m to 0,5
m x 0,82 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 4,5 m x 1,18 m to 0,5 m x 1,2 m. It was
observed that all dimensions were in the limit of available glass dimensions. Possible
maximum dimension difference between PVB and SGP were varying around 0,4 m
throughout the pane width and differing with slightly small intervals and SGP was
45% bigger than PVB interlayer. Maximum deflection 6,82 mm was achieved with
SGP interlayer at 0,5 m x 1,2 m dimension.

82
 Figure 4.19. Comparison chart 3 for glass domes.
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat-Strength, GTk: 8 mm+ 8 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC:
Four Side Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

Figure 4.20. Comparison chart 4 for glass domes.

*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 8 mm+ 8 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC:
Two Opposite Sides Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

83
The results of Figure 4.18 show that both of the interlayers were behaving as a one
way slab and variations between each 0.1m distance changes slight ly small till
exceeding aspect ratio two. After that point, significantly great differences among
variations and also maximum deflection and minimum stress within the glass pane
were observed.

Maximum height limit dimension for 6 mm+ 6 mm glass with PVB w as 1,7 m to
1,81 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 2,4 m to 2,535 m which was beyond the
maximum available glass dimension. Possible maximum dimension difference
between PVB and SGP were varying around 0,5 m till aspect ratio two. After that
point, possible dimension difference was reaching 1,29 m at 2,4 m width which was
almost 105% bigger than PVB dimension. Maximum deflection 13,68 mm was
achieved with SGP interlayer at 2,4 m x 2,525 m dimension.

Two opposite sides simply supported condition for 6 mm+ 6 mm glass results are
presented in Figure 4.20. Both of the interlayers were behaving as a one way slab and
dimension, deflection and stress variations between each 0.5m distance changes
slightly small throughout available dimensions.

Maximum dimensions for 6 mm+ 6 mm glass with PVB were 4,5 m x 1,085 m to 0,5
m x 1,085 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 4,5 m x 1,555 m to 0,5 m x 1,59 m. It
was observed that all dimensions were in the limit of available glass dimensions.
Possible maximum dimension differ ence between PVB and SGP were varying
around 0,5 m throughout the pane width and differing with slightly small intervals
and SGP was 45% bigger than PVB interlayer. Maximum deflection 9,06 mm was
achieved with SGP interlayer at 0,5 m x 1,59 m dimension.

84
 Figure 4.21. Comparison chart 5 for glass domes.
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 10 mm+ 10 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SL: 1250 N/m 2,
SC: Four Side Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

Figure 4.22. Comparison chart 6 for glass do mes.

*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 10 mm+ 10 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SL: 1250 N/m 2,
SC: Two Opposite Sides Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading

85
The results of Figure 4.21 show PVB interlayer was behaving as a one way slab and
variations between each 0.1m distance changes slightly small till exceeding aspect
ratio two. After exceeding that point, significantly great differences among variations
and also maximum deflection and minimum stress within the glass pane were
observed.

Maximum height limit dimension for 10 mm+ 10 mm glass with PVB was 2,2 m to
2,2 m. By comparison, with SGP it was 3,0 m to 3,095 m, SGP was exceeding
maximum available glass dimensions. Possible maximum dimension difference
between PVB and SGP were varying betw een 0,7 m to 1,5 m which were almost
between 52% to 100%. Maximum deflection 17,12 mm was achieved with SGP
interlayer at 3,0 m to 3,095 m dimension.

Two opposite sides simply supported condition for 10 mm+ 10 mm glass results are
presented in Figure 4.22. Both of the interlayers were behaving as a one way slab and
dimension, deflection and stress variations between each 0.5 m distance changes
slightly small throughout available dimensions. Maximum dimensions for 10 mm+
10 mm glass with PVB were 4,5 m x 1 ,335 m to 0,5 m x 1,34 m. By comparison,
with SGP it was 4,5 m x 1,92 m to 0,5 m x 1,97 m. It was observed that all
dimensions were in the limit of available glass dimensions. Possible maximum
dimension difference between PVB and SGP were varying around 0, 6 m throughout
the pane width and differing with slightly small intervals and SGP was 47 % bigger
than PVB interlayer. Maximum deflection 11,22 mm was achieved with SGP
interlayer at 0,5 m to 1,97 m dimension.

86
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

There is an increasing demand for structural glass elements, their designs become a
major concern. A well known problem, glass is brittle. Laminated glass is emerging
as a solution to an increasing variety of design problems. Interlayers are inserted
between the glass panes to facilitate stresses to compose structural glass design as
glass is unable to flow plastically to relieve high stresses.

This thesis describes the investigations conducted on interlayer’s modulus properties.

These investigations were based on d esign characteristics such as, the properties of
the materials, materials thicknesses and construction standards. Possible maximum
laminated glass dimensions were evaluated according to combination of parameters
related to modulus properties of the interla yers and its structural performance.

Due to large number of variables considered in the analyses of several alternatives,

computer assistance was essential to achieve minimum energy conservation. In this
study laminated glass panes strength and deflection behavior created on pre -defined
pane dimension were predicted by using the detailed finite element based simulation
program SJ Mepla. The computer model was used for accurate description of the
allowable limits and to create assessment of the maximum safe dimensions
depending on pre-defined parameters.

During the study base and dependent parameter descriptions were composed by
applying universal standards. In the next step structural element cases with different
interlayer properties, support conditions, glass, loadings and temperature differences

87
were generated with the simulation program. The results of the simulations were
compared for each structural element regarding base parameters.

Interlayer modulus properties were proved to be an important facto r in structural

performance. Significant dimension differences could result with proper choice of
interlayer type. This research study was examined effects of two types of interlayer
case; SentryGlas® Plus and Polyvinyl Butyral. Laminated glass panes stren gth and
deflection for bending dominated cases are dependent on the modulus properties of
the interlayer. Analyses of the research showed that a difference in maximum
possible dimensions between SGP and PVB can result depending on their modulus
properties. The highest dimension with allowable conditions was reached when SGP
were used when compared to the corresponding element with PVB in base case.

The research study showed that the enhanced temperature performance was achieved
when a combination of stiffe r interlayer was used. Overall deflections of SGP -
laminates were lower than those predicted for PVB -laminates and that the deflection
response is essentially stable with the time for these conditions. The stiffness of SGP
versus PVB results in significant performance enhancements in deflection response
over time at elevated temperatures.

The results of the simulation of this study have shown that where the type of the
interlayer was the major concern, support type was the predominant effective
structural factor. Four sided simple support had the highest effect on dimension,
within the practical range of the glass dimension that has been established in
evaluating case; increasing support edge have significant effect on reducing stress
values.

This study revealed that in analyzing the impact of the aspect ratio information, four
side simply supported cases always affected by aspect ratio dependent on structural
element type that was analyzed. This information points out possible structure -form
relation within the architectural and constructional perspectives.

88
With respect to maximum glass product profile, the analyses showed that this
property should be improved. The results of the simulations have shown that
maximum available glass dimension was exceeded. Companies involved in
production must enhance current technology to achieve development in architectural
and structural concept.

These results show the importance of interlayer types as the benefit were
significantly high when considered that the evaluat ions were carried out on the
interlayer types. These findings reveal that by expanding interlayer types to further
interlayer related aspects of the construction, it is possible to create higher strength
capacity or higher dimension possibilities. Such per formance attributes present
architect and engineers with more design options for optimum performance glass
structures. The future researchers can therefore analyze the aspects related to
interlayer properties and their application on structural elements. As economical
features were not analyzed throughout this study another aspect can be investigating
the cost related properties of interlayer types and further structural usage of
laminated glass.

Further claims

The increasing application of glass to enab le transparent architecture also for

structural elements leads to wish of users to simple use design tables. However it is
not possible to design one design table or the diagram for the design of complex
structures. Further investigations and research has to be done to develop universal
design tables for such a complex structural elements.

89
 LITERATURE CITED

ASTM Standard E-1300 (1997). Determining Load Resistance of Glass in Buildings,

ASTM Annual Book of Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, P.A.

Amos, T. & Bennison S.J. (2005). Strength and Deformation Behavior of Laminated
Glass, Glass Processing Days.

Behling, S. & Behling, S. (1999). Glass: Structure and Technology in Architecture,

Prestel Press.

Belis, J.& Impe, R.V.I. (2006). Stability Approach of the Dimensioning of Glass
Beam, Ghent University Press.

Bennison, S.J. (2006). Glazing Solutions with Laminated Glass beyond the PVB
Limit: the Use of a Structural Interlayer, Glass Processing Days Proceedin g Book.

Bohmann, D. & Bohmann, R. (2007). SJ Mepla Info Book, SJ Software GmbH.

Crisinel, M. (2004). Stability of Load Carrying Elements of Glass, Faculty of ENAC,

Institute of Structure.

Crompton, P.R. (1999). Assessment of Design Procedures for Str uctural Glass
Beams, Master Thesis, University of Oxford.

Dallart P. & Facer M. (2001). Osaka Maritime Museum, The Arup Journal, Spring,
21-26.

Haldmann, M. (2002). Design and Safety of Glass Structures, Ecole Polytechnique

Federale de Lausenne.

90
Heng, H. (2004). Design of Structural Glass Fitting for Seismic Condition,
University of Southern Queensland Faculty of Engineering and Surveying.

Kallioniemi, J. (1999). Joint and Fastening in Steel -Glass Facades, Master Thesis,
Helsinki University of Techn ology.

Leitch, K. K. (2005). Structural Glass Technology: Systems and Applications”,

Master Thesis, MIT.

Mortelmans, H. (2002). Long Term Stability of Laminated Safety Glass, Glasstech

Asia Conference Proceeding Book.

Norville, H.S. (1997). The Effec t of Interlayer Thickness on Laminated Glass

Strenght, Glass Processing Days Proceeding Book.

Pliny, E. (AD 77). Naturalis Historia Encyclopedia.

Reckens, J.L.M. (1998). Façades and Architecture, Fascination in Aluminum and

Glass. TU Delft.

Siebert, B. & Siebert, G. (2005). Easy Design Of Overhead Glazing by Using Design
Tables, University of the German Federal Armed Forces.

Specifiers Guide to Architectural Glass, (2005). Glass Association of North America

(GANA).

Structural Use of Glass in Build ings, (1999). London: Institution of Structural

Engineers.

Savineau, G.F. (1999). Laminated Architectural Glass Test and Performance Criteria
and Reality, Solitia Eurpe S.A.

Tempered Glass Technical Data (2005). Guardian Industries Product Development

Center.

91
Turkish National Code (1997). TS498/T1 -Design Loads for Buildings, Ministry of
Public Works of Turkey, Ankara.

Veer, F.A. & Pastunink, J.R. (1999). Developing a Transparent Tabular Laminated
Column, Delft University of Technology.

Websites:

“Administration Building in Saint -German-en-Laye near Paris”

Address: www.brunet-saunier.com [Accessed: January 2007]

“A House in Almere, Netherlands ”

Address: www.benthemcrouwel.nl/portal_presentation/housing/hou se-almere
[Accessed: January 2007]

“Architectural Glass”
Address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architect ural_glass
[Accessed: November 2006]

“Explore Glass Chemical Composition”

Address: http://www.glassonweb.com/art icles/article/41 [Accessed: November 2006]

“Façade Structures”, Jimmy Yang

Address: http://www.bath.ac.uk/csae/new/activities/facade/structures.html
[Accessed: October 2006]

“Glass”
Address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass [Accessed: November 2006]

“Glass Canopy of the Yurakucho Underground Station, Tokyo”

Address: www.lusas.com/case/civil/cantilevered.html [Accessed: January 2007]

“Glass Fins at AMHL, İzmir” Address: http:// www.hasmatik.com.tr

[Accessed: February 2007]

92
“Glass Ingredients”
Address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass#Glass_in_buildings
[Accessed: November 2006]

“Glass, What a Mysterious Substance It is”

Address: http://www.osgco.com/eigo/e_glassarem.html [Accessed: November 2006]

“Kempinski Hotel, Munich”

Address: www.kempinski-airport.de [Accessed: January 2007]

“Museum of Science and Technology, Paris”

Address:
www.rfr.fr/index.php?Menu1=Travaux&Menu2=Par_pays&op=detail&id=P217#
[Accessed: January 2007]

“Renault Center, Swindon”

Address: www.fosterandpartners.com/Projects/0295/Default.aspx
[Accessed: January 2007]

“Strengthening Glass”
Address: http://www.glass.org/indres/info.htm [Accessed: December 2006]

“Structural Glass”, Dipl. -Eng Heyder

Address: www.structural.de/text/strglass -e.html [Accessed: November 2006]

“The Discovery of Glass”

Address: http://www.glassonline.com/infoserv/history.html
[Accessed: November 2006]

“Trakya Cam Sanayii A.Ş. Product Profile”

Adress: http://www.trakyacam.com.tr/Mimari_Camlar [Accessed: June 2007]

93
 Glass Wall/ 6+6 glass/ PVB Glass Wall/ 6+6 glass/ SGP
Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.
max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 1.270 -7,21 -7,26 11,56 37,00 4.500 1.765 -10,04 -10,09 12,79 37,00
4.000 1.260 -7,14 -7,20 10,35 37,00 4.000 1.760 -10,03 -10,06 13,61 37,00
3.500 1.265 -7,20 -7,23 10,41 37,00 3.500 1.760 -10,03 -10,06 13,28 37,00
3.000 1.260 -7,17 -7,20 11,04 37,00 3.000 1.760 -9,99 -10,06 13,27 37,00
2.500 1.260 -7,15 -7,20 10,79 37,00 2.500 1.765 -10,05 -10,09 13,43 37,00
2.000 1.265 -7,19 -7,23 11,03 37,00 2.000 1.770 -10,06 -10,11 13,62 37,00
1.500 1.270 -7,21 -7,26 11,06 37,00 1.500 1.780 -10,16 -10,17 13,71 37,00
1.000 1.280 -7,31 -7,31 11,18 37,00 1.000 1.790 -10,22 -10,23 13,65 37,00
500 1.285 -7,30 -7,34 11,06 37,00 500 1.800 -10,25 -10,29 13,38 37,00

Glass Wall/ 8+8 glass/ PVB Glass Wall/ 8+8 glass/ SGP
Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.
max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 1.725 -9,81 -9,86 10,54 37,00 4.500 2.300 -13,11 -13,14 13,42 37,00
4.000 1.720 -9,80 -9,83 11,18 37,00 4.000 2.300 -13,07 -13,14 13,41 37,00
3.500 1.725 -9,84 -9,86 11,21 37,00 3.500 2.305 -13,14 -13,17 13,73 37,00

94
3.000 1.725 -9,80 -9,86 10,95 37,00 3.000 2.310 -13,17 -13,20 13,62 37,00
2.500 1.735 -9,91 -9,91 11,22 37,00 2.500 2.315 -13,18 -13,23 13,70 37,00
2.000 1.740 -9,91 -9,94 11,24 37,00 2.000 2.325 -13,28 -13,29 13,86 37,00
1.500 1.750 -10,00 -10,00 11,33 37,00 1.500 2.330 -13,25 -13,31 13,79 37,00
1.000 1.755 -10,00 -10,03 11,34 37,00 1.000 2.345 -13,40 -13,40 13,70 37,00
500 1.765 -10,06 -10,09 11,17 37,00 500 2.355 -13,44 -13,46 13,50 37,00
Table A.1. Glass wall limits, 1.

Glass Wall/ 10+10 glass/ PVB Glass Wall/ 10+10 glass/ SGP
Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.
APPENDIX A/ GLASS WALL LIMITS

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 2.200 -12,56 -12,57 11,34 37,00 4.500 2.845 -16,23 -16,26 13,82 37,00
4.000 2.200 -12,52 -12,57 11,08 37,00 4.000 2.850 -16,27 -16,29 13,70 37,00
3.500 2.205 -12,54 -12,60 11,29 37,00 3.500 2.855 -16,30 -16,31 13,87 37,00
Supported, LC: Short Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175

3.000 2.215 -12,63 -12,66 11,23 37,00 3.000 2.860 -16,30 -16,34 13,82 37,00
2.500 2.225 -12,71 -12,71 11,40 37,00 2.500 2.870 -16,40 -16,40 13,96 37,00
2.000 2.230 -12,69 -12,74 11,42 37,00 2.000 2.875 -16,38 -16,43 13,92 37,00
1.500 2.240 -12,77 -12,80 11,50 37,00 1.500 2.885 -16,44 -16,49 13,85 37,00
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat-Strength, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SC: Two Opposite Sides Simply

1.000 2.250 -12,85 -12,86 11,48 37,00 1.000 2.895 -16,49 -16,54 13,66 37,00
500 2.260 -12,90 -12,91 11,32 37,00 500 2.905 -16,54 -16,60 13,49 37,00
 6+6 glass/ PVB 6+6 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 1.180 -6,73 -6,74 13,07 37,00 4.500 1.715 -9,79 -9,80 14,15 37,00
4.400 1.180 -6,73 -6,74 13,06 37,00 4.400 1.720 -9,81 -9,83 14,12 37,00
4.300 1.180 -6,72 -6,74 13,04 37,00 4.300 1.720 -9,82 -9,83 14,91 37,00
4.200 1.180 -6,71 -6,74 13,02 37,00 4.200 1.725 -9,83 -9,86 14,85 37,00
4.100 1.180 -6,70 -6,74 13,00 37,00 4.100 1.735 -9,91 -9,91 14,83 37,00
4.000 1.185 -6,77 -6,77 13,05 37,00 4.000 1.740 -9,89 -9,94 14,74 37,00
3.900 1.180 -6,74 -6,74 11,74 37,00 3.900 1.750 -9,94 -10,00 14,69 37,00
3.800 1.180 -6,73 -6,74 11,70 37,00 3.800 1.765 -10,06 -10,09 14,67 37,00
3.700 1.180 -6,70 -6,74 11,65 37,00 3.700 1.780 -10,16 -10,17 14,61 37,00
3.600 1.185 -6,75 -6,77 11,66 37,00 3.600 1.795 -10,24 -10,26 14,54 37,00
3.500 1.190 -6,79 -6,80 11,66 37,00 3.500 1.810 -10,31 -10,34 14,11 37,00

95
3.400 1.190 -6,75 -6,80 11,59 37,00 3.400 1.835 -10,48 -10,49 14,05 37,00
3.300 1.195 -6,78 -6,83 11,56 37,00 3.300 1.860 -10,61 -10,63 13,94 37,00
3.200 1.205 -6,87 -6,89 11,58 37,00 3.200 1.890 -10,77 -10,80 13,82 37,00
3.100 1.210 -6,88 -6,91 11,52 37,00 3.100 1.930 -11,02 -11,03 13,90 37,00
3.000 1.215 -6,93 -6,94 12,16 37,00 3.000 1.980 -11,31 -11,31 13,74 37,00
2.900 1.225 -6,99 -7,00 12,10 37,00 2.900 2.040 -11,63 -11,66 13,43 37,00
Table A.2. Glass wall limits, 2.

2.800 1.235 -7,02 -7,06 12,01 37,00 2.800 2.130 -12,16 -12,17 13,21 37,00
2.700 1.250 -7,10 -7,14 11,93 37,00 2.700 2.255 -12,88 -12,89 12,97 37,00
2.600 1.270 -7,23 -7,26 11,84 37,00 2.600 2.455 -14,02 -14,03 12,56 37,00
2.500 1.295 -7,38 -7,40 11,48 37,00 2.500 2.585 -14,28 -14,29 12,50 37,00
2.400 1.330 -7,60 -7,60 11,36 37,00
2.300 1.370 -7,81 -7,83 11,18 37,00
2.200 1.435 -8,19 -8,20 11,09 37,00
Simply Supported, LC: Short Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175

2.100 1.535 -8,76 -8,77 10,70 37,00

2.000 1.730 -9,87 -9,89 10,24 37,00
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 6 mm+ 6 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SC: Four Sides

1.900 1.955 -10,83 -10,86 10,11 37,00

 8+8 glass/ PVB 8+8 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)

4.500 1.550 -8,85 -8,86 11,85 37,00 4.500 2.305 -13,66 -13,17 14,64 37,00
4.400 1.580 -9,00 -9,03 12,07 37,00 4.400 2.325 -13,27 -13,29 13,29 37,00
4.300 1.585 -9,02 -9,06 12,05 37,00 4.300 2.345 -13,35 -13,40 14,45 37,00
4.200 1.590 -9,04 -9,09 12,02 37,00 4.200 2.375 -13,55 -13,57 14,39 37,00
4.100 1.600 -9,13 -9,14 12,02 37,00 4.100 2.405 -13,71 -13,74 14,29 37,00
4.000 1.600 -9,12 -9,14 12,66 37,00 4.000 2.440 -13,91 -13,94 14,40 37,00
3.900 1.610 -9,19 -9,20 12,62 37,00 3.900 2.485 -14,18 -14,20 14,28 37,00
3.800 1.620 -9,24 -9,26 12,57 37,00 3.800 2.535 -14,45 -14,49 14,13 37,00
3.700 1.630 -9,27 -9,31 12,51 37,00 3.700 2.600 -14,84 -14,86 13,87 37,00

96
3.600 1.645 -9,36 -9,40 12,45 37,00 3.600 2.685 -15,34 -15,34 13,69 37,00
3.500 1.665 -9,50 -9,51 12,41 37,00 3.500 2.790 -15,93 -15,94 13,47 37,00
3.400 1.685 -9,62 -9,63 12,33 37,00 3.400 2.940 -16,80 -16,80 13,26 37,00
3.300 1.705 -9,71 -9,74 11,97 37,00 3.300 3.155 -18,02 -18,03 12,91 37,00
Table A.3. Glass wall limits, 3.

3.200 1.735 -9,88 -9,91 11,88 37,00 3.200 3.285 -18,28 -18,29 12,85 37,00
3.100 1.775 -10,13 -10,14 11,77 37,00
3.000 1.820 -10,38 -10,40 11,79 37,00
2.900 1.885 -10,77 -10,77 11,61 37,00
2.800 1.970 -11,24 -11,26 11,31 37,00
Simply Supported, LC: Short Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175

2.700 2.105 -12,02 -12,03 11,03 37,00

2.600 2.345 -13,39 -13,40 10,67 37,00
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 8 mm+ 8 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SC: Four Sides

2.500 2.560 -14,26 -14,29 10,58 37,00

 10+10 glass/ PVB 10+10 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)

4.500 2.030 -11,58 -11,60 12,95 37,00 4.500 3.115 -17,79 -17,80 14,45 37,00

4.400 2.045 -11,66 -11,69 12,90 37,00 4.400 3.185 -18,18 -18,20 14,17 37,00

4.300 2.065 -11,80 -11,80 12,86 37,00 4.300 3.275 -18,70 -18,71 14,00 37,00

4.200 2.085 -11,91 -11,91 12,80 37,00 4.200 3.390 -19,37 -19,37 13,88 37,00

4.100 2.105 -12,01 -12,03 12,45 37,00 4.100 3.535 -20,19 -20,20 13,64 37,00

97
4.000 2.135 -12,20 -12,20 12,39 37,00 4.000 3.740 -21,37 -21,37 13,34 37,00

3.900 2.165 -12,36 -12,37 12,29 37,00 3.900 3.940 -22,26 -22,29 13,15 37,00

3.800 2.205 -12,60 -12,60 12,20 37,00

3.700 2.250 -12,85 -12,86 12,25 37,00

Table A.4. Glass wall limits, 4.

3.600 2.310 -13,19 -13,20 12,11 37,00

3.500 2.385 -13,62 -13,63 11,93 37,00

3.400 2.485 -14,18 -14,20 11,67 37,00

3.300 2.635 -15,05 -15,06 11,43 37,00

3.200 2.870 -16,39 -16,40 11,13 37,00

Simply Supported, LC: Short Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175

3.100 3.140 -17,69 -17,71 10,99 37,00

*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 10 mm+ 10 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SC: Four Sides
 10+10+10 glass/ PVB 10+10+10 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 1.110 -6,30 -6,34 18,57 50,00 4.500 2.010 -11,48 -11,49 20,22 50,00
4.000 1.110 -6,30 -6,34 18,60 50,00 4.000 2.010 -11,46 -11,49 19,73 50,00
3.500 1.105 -6,26 -6,31 16,95 50,00 3.500 2.015 -11,51 -11,51 19,75 50,00

3.000 1.105 -6,26 -6,31 16,99 50,00 3.000 2.020 -11,54 -11,54 20,09 50,00
2.500 1.105 -6,31 -6,31 18,05 50,00 2.500 2.025 -11,53 -11,57 20,03 50,00
2.000 1.105 -6,31 -6,31 17,63 50,00 2.000 2.035 -11,57 -11,63 20,08 50,00

1.500 1.105 -6,29 -6,31 17,77 50,00 1.500 2.050 -11,68 -11,71 20,22 50,00
1.000 1.110 -6,34 -6,34 18,06 50,00 1.000 2.065 -11,77 -11,80 20,36 50,00
500 1.115 -6,34 -6,37 17,72 50,00 500 2.080 -11,87 -11,89 20,50 50,00

98
12+12+12 glass/ PVB 12+12+12 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 1.325 -7,54 -7,57 18,79 50,00 4.500 2.420 -13,82 -13,83 20,43 50,00
Table B.1. Glass floor limits, 1.

4.000 1.320 -7,51 -7,54 17,14 50,00 4.000 2.420 -13,78 -13,83 20,72 50,00
3.500 1.320 -7,51 -7,54 17,17 50,00 3.500 2.425 -13,80 -13,86 20,73 50,00
APPENDIX B/ GLASS FLOOR LIMITS

3.000 1.315 -7,45 -7,51 18,10 50,00 3.000 2.435 -13,88 -13,91 20,75 50,00
2.500 1.315 -7,46 -7,51 17,67 50,00 2.500 2.445 -13,93 -13,97 20,67 50,00
2.000 1.315 -7,44 -7,51 18,03 50,00 2.000 2.460 -14,04 -14,06 20,91 50,00
Supported, LC: LongTime Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175

1.500 1.320 -7,51 -7,54 18,13 50,00 1.500 2.475 -14,14 -14,14 21,02 50,00

1.000 1.325 -7,55 -7,57 18,13 50,00 1.000 2.490 -14,22 -14,23 21,13 50,00
500 1.330 -7,54 -7,60 17,69 50,00 500 2.500 -14,25 -14,29 21,17 50,00
*Standard Parameters: GT: Tempered Glass, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 5000 N/m 2, SC: Two Opposite Sides Simply
 10+10+10 glass/ PVB 10+10+10 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 1.155 -6,55 -6,60 18,74 50,00 4.500 2.230 -12,68 -12,74 20,88 50,00
4.400 1.155 -6,54 -6,60 18,71 50,00 4.400 2.250 -12,84 -12,86 20,44 50,00
4.300 1.155 -6,53 -6,60 18,67 50,00 4.300 2.270 -12,97 -12,97 20,40 50,00
4.200 1.160 -6,61 -6,63 18,76 50,00 4.200 2.290 -13,08 -13,09 20,34 50,00
4.100 1.160 -6,59 -6,63 18,71 50,00 4.100 2.310 -13,16 -13,20 20,23 50,00
4.000 1.160 -6,57 -6,63 18,66 50,00 4.000 2.340 -13,35 -13,37 20,18 50,00
3.900 1.165 -6,65 -6,66 18,72 50,00 3.900 2.370 -13,51 -13,54 20,35 50,00
3.800 1.160 -6,57 -6,63 16,94 50,00 3.800 2.410 -13,75 -13,77 20,25 50,00
3.700 1.165 -6,64 -6,66 16,98 50,00 3.700 2.455 -14,00 -14,03 20,11 50,00
3.600 1.165 -6,60 -6,66 16,89 50,00 3.600 2.515 -14,36 -14,37 19,99 50,00
3.500 1.170 -6,65 -6,69 16,90 50,00 3.500 2.585 -14,76 -14,77 19,68 50,00
3.400 1.175 -6,69 -6,71 16,89 50,00 3.400 2.675 -15,27 -15,29 19,48 50,00

99
3.300 1.180 -6,73 -6,74 16,86 50,00 3.300 2.800 -15,99 -16,00 19,33 50,00
3.200 1.185 -6,75 -6,77 16,82 50,00 3.200 2.985 -17,05 -17,06 18,98 50,00
3.100 1.190 -6,77 -6,80 16,75 50,00 3.100 3.155 -17,70 -17,71 18,81 50,00
3.000 1.195 -6,77 -6,83 16,65 50,00
2.900 1.200 -6,80 -6,86 17,47 50,00
2.800 1.210 -6,86 -6,91 17,39 50,00
2.700 1.225 -6,98 -7,00 17,35 50,00
Table B.2. Glass floor limits, 2.

2.600 1.240 -7,07 -7,09 17,25 50,00

2.500 1.255 -7,13 -7,17 16,69 50,00
2.400 1.280 -7,31 -7,31 16,58 50,00
2.300 1.305 -7,43 -7,46 16,38 50,00
2.200 1.340 -7,62 -7,66 16,41 50,00
2.100 1.390 -7,92 -7,94 16,13 50,00
2.000 1.460 -8,33 -8,34 15,65 50,00
1.900 1.570 -8,97 -8,97 15,27 50,00
1.800 1.760 -10,05 -10,06 14,58 50,00
1.700 1.825 -9,71 -9,71 14,76 50,00
Four Sides Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175
*Standard Parameters: GT: Tempered Glass, GTk: 10 mm+ 10 mm+ 10mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 5000 N/m 2, SC:
 12+12+12 glass/ PVB 12+12+12 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm 2) (N/mm 2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm 2) (N/mm 2)
4.500 1.385 -7,85 -7,91 17,09 50,00 4.500 2.920 -16,66 -16,69 20,80 50,00
4.400 1.390 -7,92 -7,94 17,12 50,00 4.400 2.970 -16,95 -16,97 20,69 50,00
4.300 1.390 -7,88 -7,94 17,04 50,00 4.300 3.030 -17,31 -17,31 20,41 50,00
4.200 1.395 -7,93 -7,97 17,05 50,00 4.200 3.095 -17,65 -17,69 20,25 50,00
4.100 1.400 -7,98 -8,00 17,05 50,00 4.100 3.185 -18,18 -18,20 20,09 50,00
4.000 1.405 -8,02 -8,03 17,03 50,00 4.000 3.295 -18,81 -18,83 19,99 50,00
3.900 1.410 -8,05 -8,06 17,00 50,00 3.900 3.440 -19,64 -19,66 19,74 50,00
3.800 1.415 -8,07 -8,09 16,96 50,00 3.800 3.650 -20,85 -20,86 19,40 50,00
3.700 1.420 -8,09 -8,11 16,90 50,00 3.700 3.780 -21,13 -21,14 19,32 50,00
3.600 1.425 -8,09 -8,14 16,82 50,00
3.500 1.430 -8,13 -8,17 17,68 50,00

100
3.400 1.440 -8,20 -8,23 17,63 50,00
3.300 1.450 -8,25 -8,29 17,54 50,00
3.200 1.465 -8,36 -8,37 17,50 50,00
3.100 1.480 -8,45 -8,46 17,40 50,00
3.000 1.495 -8,51 -8,54 17,27 50,00
Table B.3. Glass floor limits, 3.

2.900 1.515 -8,62 -8,66 16,74 50,00

2.800 1.540 -8,77 -8,80 16,61 50,00
2.700 1.570 -8,93 -8,97 16,44 50,00
2.600 1.610 -9,18 -9,20 16,51 50,00
2.500 1.660 -9,46 -9,49 16,26 50,00
2.400 1.730 -9,88 -9,89 15,84 50,00
2.300 1.825 -10,41 -10,43 15,48 50,00
2.200 1.975 -11,27 -11,29 15,06 50,00
2.100 2.145 -11,98 -12,00 14,70 50,00
Four Sides Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175
*Standard Parameters: GT: Tempered Glass, GTk: 12 mm+ 12 mm+ 12 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 5000 N/m 2, SC:
 6+6 glass/ PVB 6+6 glass/ SGP
Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.
max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 905 -5,13 -5,17 13,75 37,00 4.500 1.325 -7,52 -7,57 14,91 37,00
4.000 905 -5,13 -5,17 13,79 37,00 4.000 1.320 -7,49 -7,54 13,37 37,00
3.500 905 -5,13 -5,17 13,82 37,00 3.500 1.320 -7,49 -7,54 13,38 37,00
3.000 900 -5,13 -5,14 12,62 37,00 3.000 1.315 -7,45 -7,51 14,11 37,00
2.500 900 -5,13 -5,14 12,66 37,00 2.500 1.320 -7,54 -7,54 13,86 37,00
2.000 895 -5,09 -5,11 13,43 37,00 2.000 1.320 -7,49 -7,54 14,06 37,00
1.500 895 -5,09 -5,11 13,13 37,00 1.500 1.330 -7,59 -7,60 14,14 37,00
1.000 895 -5,06 -5,11 13,40 37,00 1.000 1.340 -7,65 -7,66 14,20 37,00
500 900 -5,09 -5,14 13,32 37,00 500 1.350 -7,68 -7,71 14,12 37,00

8+8 glass/ PVB 8+8 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.
max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 1.185 -6,73 -6,77 14,12 37,00 4.500 1.730 -9,87 -9,89 14,04 37,00
4.000 1.185 -6,73 -6,77 14,16 37,00 4.000 1.725 -9,85 -9,86 14,84 37,00
3.500 1.175 -6,65 -6,71 12,84 37,00 3.500 1.725 -9,84 -9,86 14,83 37,00

101
3.000 1.175 -6,64 -6,71 12,88 37,00 3.000 1.725 -9,82 -9,86 14,47 37,00
2.500 1.170 -6,61 -6,69 13,66 37,00 2.500 1.730 -9,86 -9,89 14,76 37,00
2.000 1.170 -6,61 -6,69 13,35 37,00 2.000 1.735 -9,87 -9,91 14,75 37,00
1.500 1.175 -6,70 -6,71 13,58 37,00 1.500 1.745 -9,94 -9,97 14,81 37,00
1.000 1.175 -6,64 -6,71 13,69 37,00 1.000 1.755 -9,98 -10,03 14,79 37,00
500 1.185 -6,76 -6,77 13,54 37,00 500 1.770 -10,10 -10,11 14,73 37,00
Table C.1. Glass roof limits, 1.

10+10 glass/ PVB 10+10 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.
APPENDIX C/ GLASS ROOF LIMITS

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 1.445 -8,19 -8,26 13,10 37,00 4.500 2.115 -12,02 -12,09 15,33 37,00
4.000 1.445 -8,19 -8,26 13,13 37,00 4.000 2.115 -12,02 -12,09 14,97 37,00
3.500 1.440 -8,17 -8,23 13,94 37,00 3.500 2.120 -12,09 -12,11 15,29 37,00
Supported, LC: Short Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175

3.000 1.440 -8,17 -8,23 13,96 37,00 3.000 2.125 -12,13 -12,14 15,15 37,00
2.500 1.440 -8,17 -8,23 13,64 37,00 2.500 2.130 -12,13 -12,17 15,30 37,00
2.000 1.440 -8,15 -8,23 13,76 37,00 2.000 2.140 -12,21 -12,23 15,36 37,00
1.500 1.445 -8,21 -8,26 13,90 37,00 1.500 2.150 -12,26 -12,29 15,37 37,00
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, IT: 1,52mm, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC: Two Opposite Sides Simply

1.000 1.450 -8,25 -8,29 13,97 37,00 1.000 2.160 -12,29 -12,34 15,30 37,00
500 1.450 -8,14 -8,29 13,52 37,00 500 2.175 -12,41 -12,43 15,24 37,00
 6+6 glass/ PVB 6+6 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 940 -5,37 -5,37 13,99 37,00 4.500 1.390 -7,93 -7,94 13,88 37,00
4.400 940 -5,36 -5,37 13,52 37,00 4.400 1.390 -7,92 -7,94 13,85 37,00
4.300 940 -5,36 -5,37 13,98 37,00 4.300 1.390 -7,89 -7,94 13,81 37,00
4.200 940 -5,36 -5,37 13,97 37,00 4.200 1.395 -7,96 -7,97 13,84 37,00
4.100 940 -5,35 -5,37 13,96 37,00 4.100 1.395 -7,93 -7,97 13,89 37,00
4.000 940 -5,35 -5,37 13,95 37,00 4.000 1.400 -7,98 -8,00 13,81 37,00
3.900 940 -5,34 -5,37 13,93 37,00 3.900 1.405 -8,02 -8,03 13,82 37,00
3.800 940 -5,34 -5,37 13,92 37,00 3.800 1.405 -7,98 -8,03 13,74 37,00
3.700 940 -5,33 -5,37 13,89 37,00 3.700 1.410 -8,01 -8,06 13,73 37,00
3.600 940 -5,32 -5,37 13,41 37,00 3.600 1.420 -8,11 -8,11 13,76 37,00
3.500 945 -5,40 -5,40 13,95 37,00 3.500 1.420 -8,10 -8,11 14,45 37,00
3.400 945 -5,38 -5,40 13,91 37,00 3.400 1.425 -8,10 -8,14 14,37 37,00
3.300 945 -5,36 -5,40 13,86 37,00 3.300 1.435 -8,16 -8,20 14,34 37,00
3.200 945 -5,34 -5,40 13,81 37,00 3.200 1.445 -8,21 -8,26 14,28 37,00

102
3.100 940 -5,31 -5,37 12,49 37,00 3.100 1.460 -8,32 -8,34 14,24 37,00
3.000 945 -5,37 -5,40 12,52 37,00 3.000 1.475 -8,40 -8,43 14,17 37,00
2.900 950 -5,42 -5,43 12,52 37,00 2.900 1.495 -8,53 -8,54 13,81 37,00
2.800 950 -5,37 -5,43 12,42 37,00 2.800 1.520 -8,68 -8,69 13,73 37,00
2.700 955 -5,40 -5,46 12,39 37,00 2.700 1.545 -8,79 -8,83 13,59 37,00
Table C.2. Glass roof limits, 2.

2.600 960 -5,42 -5,49 12,33 37,00 2.600 1.585 -9,04 -9,06 13,65 37,00
2.500 970 -5,52 -5,54 12,33 37,00 2.500 1.635 -9,32 -9,34 13,47 37,00
2.400 975 -5,56 -5,57 12,99 37,00 2.400 1.710 9,77 -9,77 13,17 37,00
2.300 985 -5,61 -5,63 12,90 37,00 2.300 1.815 -10,36 -10,37 12,89 37,00
2.200 1.000 -5,71 -5,71 12,81 37,00 2.200 2.005 -11,45 -11,46 12,54 37,00
2.100 1.015 -5,78 -5,80 12,66 37,00 2.100 2.165 -11,97 -12,00 12,37 37,00
2.000 1.035 -5,88 -5,91 12,20 37,00
1.900 1.065 -6,05 -6,09 12,01 37,00
Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175

1.800 1.110 -6,33 -6,34 11,94 37,00

1.700 1.175 -6,69 -6,71 11,55 37,00
1.600 1.295 -7,38 -7,40 10,96 37,00
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 6 mm+ 6 mm, IT: 1,52mm, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC: Four Sides

1.500 1.520 -8,54 -8,57 10,33 37,00

 8+8 glass/ PVB 8+8 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 1.235 -7,01 -7,06 14,19 37,00 4.500 1.860 -10,58 -10,63 15,03 37,00
4.400 1.235 -7,00 -7,06 14,15 37,00 4.400 1.870 -10,65 -10,69 15,02 37,00
4.300 1.240 -7,07 -7,09 14,21 37,00 4.300 1.880 -10,72 -10,74 14,99 37,00
4.200 1.240 -7,05 -7,09 14,16 37,00 4.200 1.890 -10,77 -10,80 14,94 37,00
4.100 1.235 -7,04 -7,06 12,85 37,00 4.100 1.900 -10,81 -10,86 14,88 37,00
4.000 1.235 -7,01 -7,06 12,80 37,00 4.000 1.915 -10,90 -10,94 14,83 37,00
3.900 1.240 -7,07 -7,09 12,81 37,00 3.900 1.930 -10,98 -11,03 14,77 37,00
3.800 1.240 -7,02 -7,09 12,74 37,00 3.800 1.950 -11,12 -11,14 14,41 37,00
3.700 1.245 -7,07 -7,11 12,74 37,00 3.700 1.970 -11,22 -11,26 14,33 37,00
3.600 1.250 -7,11 -7,14 12,72 37,00 3.600 1.995 -11,36 -11,40 14,25 37,00
3.500 1.255 -7,13 -7,17 12,69 37,00 3.500 2.030 -11,59 -11,60 14,18 37,00
3.400 1.260 -7,15 -7,20 12,64 37,00 3.400 2.065 -11,78 -11,80 14,25 37,00

103
3.300 1.270 -7,25 -7,26 12,64 37,00 3.300 2.110 -12,03 -12,06 14,11 37,00
3.200 1.275 -7,24 -7,29 12,56 37,00 3.200 2.170 -12,38 -12,40 13,96 37,00
3.100 1.280 -7,29 -7,31 13,24 37,00 3.100 2.245 -12,80 -12,83 13,68 37,00
3.000 1.290 -7,33 -7,37 13,16 37,00 3.000 2.350 -13,41 -13,43 13,45 37,00
2.900 1.305 -7,44 -7,46 13,11 37,00 2.900 2.510 -14,34 -14,34 13,21 37,00
Table C.3. Glass roof limits, 3.

2.800 1.320 -7,52 -7,54 13,00 37,00 2.800 2.775 -15,85 -15,86 12,83 37,00
2.700 1.340 -7,65 -7,66 12,90 37,00 2.700 2.820 -15,41 -15,43 12,90 37,00
2.600 1.360 -7,74 -7,77 12,46 37,00
2.500 1.390 -7,91 -7,94 12,32 37,00
2.400 1.430 -8,15 -8,17 12,14 37,00
2.300 1.485 -8,48 -8,49 12,08 37,00
2.200 1.560 -8,91 -8,91 11,68 37,00
Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175

2.100 1.680 -9,59 -9,60 11,30 37,00

2.000 1.915 -10,94 -10,94 10,70 37,00
1.900 2.005 -10,85 -10,86 10,73 37,00
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat-Strength, GTk: 8 mm+ 8 mm, IT: 1,52mm, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC: Four Sides
 10+10 glass/ PVB 10+10 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)

4.500 1.535 -8,75 -8,77 13,03 37,00 4.500 2.430 -13,86 -13,89 14,82 37,00
4.400 1.540 -8,79 -8,80 13,01 37,00 4.400 2.455 -14,00 -14,03 14,74 37,00
4.300 1.545 -8,82 -8,83 12,98 37,00 4.300 2.485 -14,17 -14,20 14,67 37,00
4.200 1.550 -8,84 -8,86 12,94 37,00 4.200 2.520 -14,37 -14,40 14,78 37,00
4.100 1.555 -8,85 -8,89 12,90 37,00 4.100 2.565 -14,65 -14,66 14,68 37,00
4.000 1.565 -8,94 -8,94 12,89 37,00 4.000 2.615 -14,94 -14,94 14,56 37,00
3.900 1.565 -8,92 -8,94 13,57 37,00 3.900 2.675 -15,28 -15,29 14,41 37,00
3.800 1.575 -8,98 -9,00 13,53 37,00 3.800 2.750 -15,71 -15,71 14,16 37,00
3.700 1.585 -9,03 -9,06 13,46 37,00 3.700 2.845 -16,24 -16,26 13,97 37,00

104
3.600 1.595 -9,06 -9,11 13,37 37,00 3.600 2.975 -16,99 -17,00 13,80 37,00
3.500 1.610 -9,15 -9,20 13,31 37,00 3.500 3.160 -18,04 -18,06 13,50 37,00
3.400 1.630 -9,30 -9,31 13,25 37,00 3.400 3.305 NA -18,89 NA 37,00
3.300 1.645 -9,34 -9,40 13,13 37,00
3.200 1.670 -9,51 -9,54 12,74 37,00
Table C.4. Glass roof limits, 4.

3.100 1.700 -9,70 -9,71 12,63 37,00

3.000 1.735 -9,90 -9,91 12,50 37,00
2.900 1.780 -10,17 -10,17 12,52 37,00
2.800 1.835 -10,47 -10,49 12,30 37,00
2.700 1.915 -10,94 -10,94 11,95 37,00
2.600 2.030 -11,60 -11,60 11,63 37,00
Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175

2.500 2.210 -12,62 -12,63 11,22 37,00

2.400 2.435 -13,69 -13,71 10,88 37,00
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat-Strength, GTk: 10 mm+ 10 mm, IT: 1,52mm, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC: Four Sides
 6+6 glass/ PVB 6+6 glass/ SGP
Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.
max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 895 -3,33 -5,11 7,50 37,00 4.500 1.180 -6,73 -6,74 16,04 37,00
4.000 825 -4,71 -4,71 15,12 37,00 4.000 1.180 -6,73 -6,74 16,06 37,00
3.500 825 -4,71 -4,71 15,16 37,00 3.500 1.175 -6,68 -6,71 14,38 37,00
3.000 825 -4,71 -4,71 15,20 37,00 3.000 1.175 -6,68 -6,71 14,38 37,00
2.500 815 -4,58 -4,66 13,71 37,00 2.500 1.175 -6,71 -6,71 15,22 37,00
2.000 815 -4,63 -4,66 14,65 37,00 2.000 1.175 -6,69 -6,71 14,83 37,00
1.500 815 -4,63 -4,66 14,33 37,00 1.500 1.180 -6,71 -6,74 14,95 37,00
1.000 815 -4,61 -4,66 14,61 37,00 1.000 1.190 -6,78 -6,80 15,18 37,00
500 820 -4,64 -4,69 14,60 37,00 500 1.200 -6,82 -6,86 15,15 37,00

8+8 glass/ PVB 8+8 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.
max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 1.085 -6,19 -6,20 15,41 37,00 4.500 1.555 -8,88 -8,89 15,04 37,00
4.000 1.085 -6,19 -6,20 15,44 37,00 4.000 1.555 -8,88 -8,89 15,04 37,00
3.500 1.075 -6,08 -6,14 13,98 37,00 3.500 1.550 -8,84 -8,86 15,85 37,00

105
3.000 1.075 -6,08 -6,14 14,02 37,00 3.000 1.550 -8,83 -8,86 15,47 37,00
2.500 1.070 -6,04 -6,11 14,83 37,00 2.500 1.550 -8,80 -8,86 15,70 37,00
2.000 1.070 -6,04 -6,11 14,49 37,00 2.000 1.560 -8,91 -8,91 15,64 37,00
1.500 1.075 -6,13 -6,14 14,75 37,00 1.500 1.565 -8,89 -8,94 15,76 37,00
1.000 1.075 -6,08 -6,14 14,88 37,00 1.000 1.575 -8,94 -9,00 15,79 37,00
500 1.085 -6,20 -6,20 14,77 37,00 500 1.590 -9,06 -9,09 15,78 37,00
Table D.1. Glass dome limits, 1.

10+10 glass/ PVB 10+10 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.
APPENDIX D/ GLASS DOME LIMITS

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 1.335 -7,57 -7,63 15,62 37,00 4.500 1.920 -10,97 -10,97 16,41 37,00
4.000 1.330 -7,58 -7,60 14,28 37,00 4.000 1.920 -10,96 -10,97 16,40 37,00
3.500 1.330 -7,58 -7,60 14,31 37,00 3.500 1.920 -10,95 -10,97 16,00 37,00
3.000 1.325 -7,55 -7,57 15,15 37,00 3.000 1.920 -10,91 -10,97 16,25 37,00
2.500 1.325 -7,55 -7,57 14,80 37,00 2.500 1.925 -10,93 -11,00 16,09 37,00
Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175

2.000 1.325 -7,54 -7,57 15,11 37,00 2.000 1.935 -11,01 -11,06 16,22 37,00
1.500 1.325 -7,50 -7,57 15,09 37,00 1.500 1.945 -11,07 -11,11 16,35 37,00
1.000 1.330 -7,54 -7,60 15,11 37,00 1.000 1.960 -11,20 -11,20 16,39 37,00
500 1.340 -7,64 -7,66 14,83 37,00 500 1.970 -11,22 -11,26 16,26 37,00
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/ m 2, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC: Two Opposite Sides
 6+6 glass/ PVB 6+6 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 895 -3,17 -5,11 7,11 37,00 4.500 1.235 -7,04 -7,06 16,58 37,00
4.400 875 -3,00 -5,00 7,05 37,00 4.400 1.235 -7,03 -7,06 16,57 37,00
4.300 855 -2,84 -4,89 6,97 37,00 4.300 1.235 -7,03 -7,06 16,56 37,00
4.200 855 -4,88 -4,89 15,32 37,00 4.200 1.235 -7,02 -7,06 16,54 37,00
4.100 855 -4,88 -4,89 15,31 37,00 4.100 1.235 -7,05 -7,06 14,93 37,00
4.000 855 -4,88 -4,89 15,31 37,00 4.000 1.235 -7,03 -7,06 14,90 37,00
3.900 855 -4,88 -4,89 15,30 37,00 3.900 1.235 -7,01 -7,06 14,86 37,00
3.800 855 -4,87 -4,89 15,29 37,00 3.800 1.240 -7,08 -7,09 14,91 37,00
3.700 855 -4,87 -4,89 15,27 37,00 3.700 1.240 -7,05 -7,09 14,86 37,00
3.600 855 -4,86 -4,89 15,26 37,00 3.600 1.245 -7,11 -7,11 14,88 37,00
3.500 855 -4,85 -4,89 15,23 37,00 3.500 1.245 -7,07 -7,11 14,81 37,00
3.400 855 -4,85 -4,89 15,21 37,00 3.400 1.250 -7,11 -7,14 14,81 37,00
3.300 855 -4,83 -4,89 15,18 37,00 3.300 1.255 -7,14 -7,17 14,79 37,00
3.200 855 -4,82 -4,89 15,14 37,00 3.200 1.260 -7,17 -7,20 14,76 37,00
3.100 860 -4,91 -4,91 15,24 37,00 3.100 1.265 -7,22 -7,23 15,53 37,00

106
3.000 860 -4,88 -4,91 15,18 37,00 3.000 1.270 -7,22 -7,26 15,44 37,00
2.900 860 -4,86 -4,91 15,11 37,00 2.900 1.280 -7,28 -7,31 15,40 37,00
2.800 860 -4,90 -4,91 13,77 37,00 2.800 1.295 -7,40 -7,40 15,38 37,00
2.700 860 -4,86 -4,91 13,67 37,00 2.700 1.305 -7,42 -7,46 15,25 37,00
2.600 865 -4,91 -4,94 13,68 37,00 2.600 1.325 -7,56 -7,57 14,88 37,00
2.500 870 -4,95 -4,97 13,66 37,00 2.500 1.345 -7,65 -7,69 14,76 37,00
Table D.2. Glass dome limits, 2.

2.400 875 -4,98 -5,00 13,61 37,00 2.400 1.375 -7,83 -7,86 14,65 37,00
2.300 880 -4,99 -5,03 13,53 37,00 2.300 1.415 -8,08 -8,09 14,70 37,00
2.200 885 -5,03 -5,06 14,23 37,00 2.200 1.465 -8,35 -8,37 14,48 37,00
2.100 895 -5,09 -5,11 14,14 37,00 2.100 1.545 -8,82 -8,83 14,13 37,00
2.000 910 -5,20 -5,20 14,06 37,00 2.000 1.670 -9,53 -9,54 13,82 37,00
1.900 925 -5,27 -5,29 13,89 37,00 1.900 1.905 -10,82 -10,86 13,82 37,00
1.800 945 -5,38 -5,40 13,38 37,00
1.700 975 -5,54 -5,57 13,15 37,00
1.600 1.020 -5,80 -5,83 13,03 37,00
1.500 1.095 -6,24 -6,26 12,49 37,00
1.400 1.245 -7,11 -7,11 11,83 37,00
Four Sides Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175

1.300 1.375 -7,39 -7,43 11,60 37,00

*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 6 mm+ 6 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC:
 8+8 glass/ PVB 8+8 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
4.500 1.125 -6,38 -6,43 15,48 37,00 4.500 1.650 -9,37 -9,43 15,41 37,00
4.400 1.125 -6,37 -6,43 15,45 37,00 4.400 1.655 -9,41 -9,46 15,40 37,00
4.300 1.125 -6,36 -6,43 15,43 37,00 4.300 1.660 -9,44 -9,49 15,38 37,00
4.200 1.130 -6,45 -6,46 15,51 37,00 4.200 1.670 -9,54 -9,54 15,41 37,00
4.100 1.130 -6,43 -6,46 15,47 37,00 4.100 1.670 -9,53 -9,54 16,17 37,00
4.000 1.130 -6,41 -6,46 15,43 37,00 4.000 1.675 -9,53 -9,57 16,11 37,00
3.900 1.130 -6,39 -6,46 15,38 37,00 3.900 1.685 -9,60 -9,63 16,09 37,00
3.800 1.135 -6,37 -6,49 15,44 37,00 3.800 1.695 -9,66 -9,69 16,04 37,00
3.700 1.130 -6,43 -6,46 13,98 37,00 3.700 1.705 -9,70 -9,74 15,98 37,00
3.600 1.130 -6,39 -6,46 13,91 37,00 3.600 1.720 -9,80 -9,83 15,93 37,00
3.500 1.135 -6,44 -6,49 13,93 37,00 3.500 1.735 -9,88 -9,91 15,86 37,00
3.400 1.140 -6,49 -6,51 13,93 37,00 3.400 1.755 -10,02 -10,03 15,48 37,00
3.300 1.145 -6,53 -6,54 13,91 37,00 3.300 1.775 -10,11 -10,14 15,38 37,00

107
3.200 1.150 -6,57 -6,57 13,88 37,00 3.200 1.805 -10,31 -10,31 15,31 37,00
3.100 1.155 -6,59 -6,60 13,83 37,00 3.100 1.835 -10,46 -10,49 15,19 37,00
3.000 1.160 -6,59 -6,63 13,75 37,00 3.000 1.875 -10,69 -10,71 15,25 37,00
2.900 1.165 -6,64 -6,66 14,50 37,00 2.900 1.925 -10,97 -11,00 15,07 37,00
2.800 1.175 -6,70 -6,71 14,44 37,00 2.800 1.995 -11,38 -11,40 14,78 37,00
Table D.3. Glass dome limits, 3.

2.700 1.185 -6,75 -6,77 14,33 37,00 2.700 2.095 -11,97 -11,97 14,55 37,00
2.600 1.200 -6,85 -6,86 14,26 37,00 2.600 2.240 -12,80 -12,80 14,28 37,00
2.500 1.215 -6,91 -6,94 14,12 37,00 2.500 2.490 -14,22 -14,23 13,83 37,00
2.400 1.235 -7,03 -7,06 13,66 37,00 2.400 2.525 -13,68 -13,71 13,95 37,00
2.300 1.260 -7,16 -7,20 13,49 37,00
2.200 1.295 -7,36 -7,40 13,31 37,00
2.100 1.345 -7,67 -7,69 13,27 37,00
2.000 1.415 -8,08 -8,09 12,84 37,00
Four Sides Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175

1.900 1.525 -8,70 -8,71 12,45 37,00

1.800 1.740 -9,94 -9,94 11,79 37,00
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 8 mm+ 8 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SL: 1250 N/m 2, SC:

1.700 1.810 -9,68 -9,71 11,87 37,00

 10+10 glass/ PVB 10+10 glass/ SGP

Width Height σ max. σ all. Width Height σ max. σ all.

max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm) max. def. (mm) max. all. def. (mm)
(mm) (mm) (N/mm 2) (N/mm 2) (mm) (mm) (N/mm 2) (N/mm 2)
4.500 1.395 -7,92 -7,97 14,18 37,00 4.500 2.125 -12,14 -12,14 16,50 37,00
4.400 1.400 -7,98 -8,00 14,20 37,00 4.400 2.135 -12,16 -12,20 16,42 37,00
4.300 1.400 -7,93 -8,00 14,13 37,00 4.300 2.150 -12,24 -12,29 16,01 37,00
4.200 1.405 -7,98 -8,03 14,13 37,00 4.200 2.170 -12,37 -12,40 15,96 37,00
4.100 1.410 -8,02 -8,06 14,12 37,00 4.100 2.195 -12,54 -12,54 15,92 37,00
4.000 1.415 -8,06 -8,09 14,10 37,00 4.000 2.215 -12,62 -12,66 15,81 37,00
3.900 1.420 -8,08 -8,11 14,06 37,00 3.900 2.245 -12,80 -12,83 15,74 37,00
3.800 1.425 -8,10 -8,14 14,02 37,00 3.800 2.280 -13,01 -13,03 15,89 37,00
3.700 1.435 -8,20 -8,20 14,02 37,00 3.700 2.320 -13,24 -13,26 15,74 37,00
3.600 1.435 -8,10 -8,20 13,88 37,00 3.600 2.370 -13,52 -13,54 15,60 37,00

108
3.500 1.445 -8,24 -8,26 14,69 37,00 3.500 2.430 -13,86 -13,89 15,43 37,00
3.400 1.455 -8,29 -8,31 14,62 37,00 3.400 2.510 -14,33 -14,34 15,15 37,00
3.300 1.465 -8,33 -8,37 14,53 37,00 3.300 2.615 -14,93 -14,94 14,93 37,00
3.200 1.480 -8,43 -8,46 14,46 37,00 3.200 2.765 -15,80 -15,80 14,71 37,00
3.100 1.495 -8,50 -8,54 14,35 37,00 3.100 2.995 -17,11 -17,11 14,34 37,00
Table D.4. Glass dome limits, 4.

3.000 1.515 -8,62 -8,66 13,93 37,00 3.000 3.095 -17,12 -17,14 14,32 37,00
2.900 1.540 -8,78 -8,80 13,83 37,00
2.800 1.570 -8,96 -8,97 13,69 37,00
2.700 1.605 -9,14 -9,17 13,52 37,00
2.600 1.655 -9,45 -9,46 13,53 37,00
2.500 1.715 -9,77 -9,80 13,26 37,00
2.400 1.810 -10,34 -10,34 12,85 37,00
2.300 1.950 -11,14 -11,14 12,48 37,00
2.200 2.200 -12,56 -12,57 11,91 37,00
SC: Four Sides Simply Supported, LC: Long Time Loading, Non -Linear Calculation, Max. All. Def.:L/175
*Standard Parameters: GT: Heat -Strength, GTk: 10 mm+ 10 mm, IT: 1,52mm, WL: 960 N/m 2, SL: 1250 N/m 2,