Circumferentially Adhesive Bonded Glass Panes for Bracing Steel

235 Pages·2009·4.76 MB·English

Circumferentially Adhesive Bonded Glass Panes for
Bracing Steel Frames in Façades

Edwin M.P. Huveners
Bouwstenen 135
ISBN 978-90-6814-621-9
Cover design by Ton van Gennip
Printed by University Press Facilities, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
Copyright © 2009 Edwin M.P. Huveners
Circumferentially Adhesive Bonded Glass Panes for
Bracing Steel Frames in Façades

PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, op gezag van de
rector magnificus, prof.dr.ir. C.J. van Duijn, voor een
commissie aangewezen door het College voor
Promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen
op donderdag 3 december 2009 om 16.00 uur

door

Edwin Michel Pierre Huveners

geboren te Maastricht
Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotoren:
prof.ir. F. van Herwijnen
en
prof.ir. F. Soetens
Copromotor:
dr.ir. H. Hofmeyer
Samenstelling promotiecommissie:
prof.ir. J. Westra TU Eindhoven (voorzitter)
prof.ir. F. van Herwijnen TU Eindhoven
prof.ir. F. Soetens TU Eindhoven
dr.ir. H. Hofmeyer TU Eindhoven
univ.-prof.dr.-ing. G. Siebert Universität der Bundeswehr, Munich, Germany
prof.dr.ir. J. Rots TU Delft
dr.ir. L.J. Govaert TU Eindhoven
dr.-ing. F. Wellershoff Permasteelisa Central Europe GmbH, Würzburg,
Germany

Acknowledgements
This thesis is the product of seven years part-time research with the last year even full-time to
complete the job. Many people supported, encouraged and stimulated me during these years
and this is my opportunity to thank them all and in particular the following persons below.
First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my promoters Frans van Herwijnen
and Frans Soetens for supervising this research work and their support. I profoundly
appreciate their comments, valuable remarks and suggestions throughout the duration of this
project. I owe a special depth of gratitude to Herm Hofmeyer, my copromotor. He kept a bird-
eye's view on the research project. He supported me by the design of the experiments and the
finite element models, and he has advised me to clarify the mechanical models. The other
members of the committee are also acknowledged for their comments, valuable remarks and
suggestions on the draft version of this thesis.
A lot of time was spent to carry out the experiments in the Pieter van Musschenbroeck
Laboratory at Eindhoven University of Technology. I would like to thank Hans Lamers for
also giving a short course about polymers, Theo van de Loo and in particular Martien Ceelen,
he was my help and stay through out the years. In this research, there was also a need for
assistance of other laboratories. I really appreciate the hospitality of Leon Govaert of the
section Polymer Technology of the department of Mechanical Engineering for using their
testing apparatus and Peter Cappon of the unit Building Physics and Systems of the
department Architecture, Building and Planning for using their chemical laboratory. I thank all
my colleagues at Eindhoven University of Technology, unit Structural Design and
Construction Technology for having a great time. I would like to thank Johan van den Oever
for helping me with all my computer problems and Mark Wolffe for adding books about
structural glass to the collection in our library. Many students I guided with master and
graduate projects related to my research project. I would like to thank them all and in particular
Bas Koggel who graduated successfully in 2006.
I would like to thank for supplying testing materials and guidance during my research in
particular Theo Rögels of Scheuten Glasgroep in Venlo and Berrie Roelofs of Sika
Netherlands in Utrecht. I would like to express my great gratitude to Anton Tapper of Façade
Consulting & Engineering in Eindhoven for his advices.
During the first 5 years I also worked part-time as structural designer at the engineering office
Volantis in Maastricht. I returned to Volantis in May 2009. I would like to thank all my
colleagues for their support and in particular Bert Schepers.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank my parents Pierre Huveners and Corrie Huveners-
Valkenhoff van Doorn, my uncle Michel Huveners and my partner Kristel Tijssens.
Edwin Huveners
Eindhoven, October 2009
i
ii
Circumferentially Adhesive Bonded Glass Panes for
Bracing Steel Frames in Façades
Summary
Contemporary architecture desires large glass surfaces in the building envelop with a minimum
of non transparent members such as steel braces needed for the stability of a building. Glass
panes have the capacity to resist in-plane loads and can replace the steel braces of a one-storey
building. The vertical stability system of a building is a primary structural component and has
to comply with strength (safety) and building stiffness (serviceability). A circumferentially
adhesive bonded joint is a suitable connection to introduce in-plane loads into the glass pane.
For the research three joint types have been defined. Joint type 1 is a flexible adhesive bonded
joint (polyurethane) across the full thickness of the glass pane. Joint type 2 is a two-sided stiff
adhesive bonded joint (epoxy) along the edges of the glass pane. Joint type 3 is a one-sided stiff
adhesive bonded joint (epoxy) along the edges of the glass pane. The steel frame, the single
annealed glass pane and one of the three joint types form the system which is only subjected to
a horizontally concentrated in-plane load at the top of the system. The objective of the
research is to get more insight in the structural behaviour of these systems and to set-up
mechanical models and possibly design rules. The research methodology consisted of
experiments, finite element simulations and parametric studies.
The experiments were carried out with square glass pane sizes of 1.0 m with nominal glass
pane thickness of 12 mm. Systems with joint type 1 had a very small in-plane stiffness of the
system, a glass-steel contact at large horizontal in-plane displacements at the top of the system
and a good residual capacity, namely large horizontal in-plane displacements at the top of the
system with increasing horizontal in-plane load. Systems with joint type 2 had much larger in-
plane stiffness of the system than systems with joint type 1. The residual capacity was very
good, because the horizontal in-plane load kept increasing after the first and following glass
cracks. Systems with joint type 3 had slightly smaller in-plane stiffness of the system than
systems with joint type 2. The residual capacity after the first glass breakage was very poor.
One finite element model for systems with joint types 1 to 3 was developed and calibrated with
experiments. The results of the finite element simulations matched well with the results of
experiments till the onset of the first crack in the glass pane or till the glass-steel contact for
systems with joint type 1.
The parametric studies only focused on the variation of the thickness, the width and the height
of the glass pane. For systems with joint type 1, the in-plane stiffness of the system depends on
the width-height ratio of the glass pane and the stiffness of the adhesive bonded joint. Systems
with the rectangular glass panes have two glass-steel contacts at increasing horizontal in-plane
displacements at the top of the system. Besides the stiffness criterion for vertical stability
systems of buildings the normal strain rate and the shear strain rate can also be a criterion. For
systems with joint type 2 and 3, the in-plane stiffness of the system is determined by the width-
height ratio and the thickness of the glass pane. The maximum principle (tension) stress in the
glass pane rapidly increases at the vicinity of the corners in which the ‘tension diagonal’ is
iii
anchored, caused by the difference in in-plane displacements between the stiff adhesive
bonded joint and the bolted connection between the outside beam and the beadwork of the
steel frame. Moreover, for systems with joint type 3, the eccentric load transfer between the
steel frame and the glass pane results in bending of the glass pane.
The mechanical models for systems with joint type 1 well predict the in-plane stiffness of the
system, the largest maximum principle (tension) stress in the glass pane and the maximum
normal and shear stresses in the adhesive bonded joint. The criteria were the limitation of the
horizontal in-plane displacement at the top of the system or the limitation of the strain rates of
the adhesive bonded joint. For the residual capacity, the mechanical models also predict well
the horizontal in-plane load and the horizontal in-plane displacement at the top of the system
at the first glass-steel contact. For systems with joint type 2 and 3, no mechanical models were
developed, because the very stiff adhesive bonded joint and the very small in-plane
displacements of the bolted connection between the outside beam and the beadwork of the
steel frame resulted in a complex stress distribution along the edges of the glass pane as well as
in the adhesive bonded joint. A range of several shear stiffnesses of the adhesive bonded joint
has been presented which has a positive influence on the distribution of the principle stresses
in the glass pane as well as the normal stresses and shear stresses in the adhesive bonded joint
without losing of the in-plane stiffness of the system.
Glass panes as bracing elements in steel frames have a great potential. For systems with joint
type 1, all glass panes have to be structurally bonded to the steel frame of the façade to
guarantee the stability of the building because of the small in-plane stiffness. The residual
capacity is good, because the horizontal in-plane load increases at overloading. Furthermore,
the large horizontal in-plane displacements of the building visually warn for overloading. For
systems with joint types 2 and 3, few bays in the façade are sufficient to guarantee the stability
of the building by the larger in-plane stiffness. However, systems with joint type 2 produced
the best results for a transparent vertical stability system for buildings because of the residual
capacity at overloading. The applied epoxy adhesive behaved too stiff and therefore, it is
recommended a range of several shear stiffnesses for the adhesive bonded joint for systems
with joint type 2 which more favourably loads the glass pane as well as the adhesive bonded
joint without a reduction of the in-plane stiffness of the system.
iv