Design of Pane-Like Laminated Glass Columns

Structures and Buildings
Volume 169 Issue SB6

Design of pane-like laminated glass
columns
Langosch and Feldmann
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Structures and Buildings 169 June 2016 Issue SB6
Pages 403415 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.13.00117
Paper 1300117
Received 29/12/2013
Accepted 19/01/2016
Published online 05/04/2016
Keywords: buildings, structures & design/columns/
composite structures
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved
Design of pane-like laminated

glass columns
1
&
Katharina Langosch Dr.-Ing.
2
&
Markus Feldmann Prof. Dr.-Ing.
Research Engineer for Glass Structures, Department of Civil

Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Institute of Steel Construction,
Aachen, Germany (corresponding author: langosch@stb.rwth-aachen.de)
Head of Institute, Department of Civil Engineering, RWTH Aachen

University, Institute of Steel Construction, Aachen, Germany
To achieve transparency of buildings, load-bearing elements made of glass are essential, such as pane-like glass
columns with laminated sections of heat-strengthened or toughened glass. An ultimate limit state design of such
structures requires consideration of the composite interlayer. Using second order theory and the elastic shear bond
between the glass layers allows the prediction of loaddeflection of a laminated glass section under axial
compression force. The introduction of a limit state function then results in equations for European buckling curves,
which are also presented in this paper. The validity of these analytical equations is shown by experimental studies.
Stability experiments on laminated glass columns were performed under variation of loading type and loading rate at
room temperature. Laminated glass sections of heat-strengthened and toughened glass are the focus of this study.
Notation
A
Ai
B
d
di
E
e0
e(x)
Ffailure
Fmax
F(x)
fu,c
fu,t = fu
Gf
Gf,begin
Gf,end
I
Ieff
Ii
Io
Iv
area of monolithic cross-section
area of respective glass layer of laminated
cross-section
width of glass column
thickness of monolithic cross-section
thickness of respective glass layer of laminated
cross-section
modulus of elasticity
initial (effective) imperfection in middle of glass
column
initial (effective) imperfection along the length of
glass column
experimentally determined failure load
experimentally determined maximal normal force
partial longitudinal force in each glass layer
compressive strength of glass
tensile strength of glass
shear modulus of interlayer
shear modulus at beginning of experiment
shear modulus at end of experiment (moment of
fracture)
moment of inertia of monolithic glass
effective moment of inertia referring to a
cross-section with partial composite action
moment of inertia for each respective glass layer of
laminated glass
moment of inertia of laminated glass with no
composite effect
Ks
L
Ls
Mi (x)
M(x) = M
m
N
Ncr
Ncr,eff
Ncr,v
NED
NRD
nf
qs(x)
qz(x)
s112
sF
sM
s(x)
T
t, ti
V(x)
moment of inertia referring to a cross-section with

full composite action
slip stiffness
buckling length of glass column
nominal length of specimens
partial moment in each glass layer
external moment
parameter for equations of partial forces and
partial moments as well as of the effective
cross-section values
normal force
Euler buckling force of monolithic glass column
effective Euler buckling force of laminated glass
column
Euler buckling force referring to a cross-section
with full composite action
normal force on the load side
normal force on the resistance side
strength value between the compressive and tensile
strength
flow of shear force along interlayer
external line load
number of the specimens
slip differential due to elongation
slip differential due to curvature
slip in interlayer
temperature
thickness of interlayer
shear force
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF MORATUWA] on [14/11/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
403


columns
Vi (x)
Vz(x)
v
x
W
Weff
action in terms of strength and stiffness the structural behaviour

is between the limits of full composite and no composite effect,
namely, partial composite action, Figure 2. For this partial
composite action, effective cross-sectional properties such as
effective moment of inertia (Ieff ) and effective moment of resistance (Weff ) are required, Figure 2, considering the temperatureand time-dependent shear stiffness of the interlayer.
Weff,i
Wi
wfailure
w(x)
wtotal(x)
z
zi
i,
2s , s, s
eff,i, f
t;eff
t;full = t;v
c
sg
t
(x)
i (x)
c, c
t, t
1.
partial shear force in each glass layer

resulting shear force run in the buckling case
loading rate
coordinate along length of glass column
moment of resistance of monolithic glass
effective moment of resistance referring to a
cross-section with partial composite action
effective moment referring to a cross-section with
partial composite action for each glass layer
moment of resistance for each respective glass
layer of the laminated glass
experimentally determined lateral displacement in
middle of specimen
flexural bending deflection along length of glass
column due to normal force
total deflection (e(x) + w(x)) along length of glass
column
sum of distances z1 and z2
distance between the centre of gravity of the whole
laminate and that of each glass layer
factors for the buckling curve of laminated glass
columns
parameters for the slip differential equation
factors for the buckling curve of laminated glass
columns
effective non-dimensional slenderness referring to
a cross-section with partial composite action
non-dimensional slenderness referring to a
cross-section with full composite action
mathematical constant
stress equation for the compression side of the
laminated glass column
failure stress measured by strain gauges
stress equation for the tension side of the
laminated glass column
stress equation of monolithic glass
partial stress equation for each glass layer of the
laminated glass
angle due to the curvature
parameter for the buckling curve in the European
format
parameters for the buckling curve in the European
format for the compression side of the laminated
glass column
parameters for the buckling curve in the European
format for the tension side of the laminated glass
column
In contrast to these recent investigations, in this paper the consideration of the composite action occurring between the glass
panes and the interlayer is based on the generalised differential
equation related to slip, from which the effective cross-section
values can be derived; these are presented first. The theory of the
generalised differential equation related to slip is based on the
partial action theory developed by Newmark (1951). This theory
is further developed by several authors and used, for example, in
the fields of sheet pile walls (Dercks, 2004) or steelconcrete
composite beams (Faella et al., 2010; Schnabl et al., 2007). In
this paper, the equations in particular for laminated glass section
with two and three glass layers are derived and presented.
Introduction
In load-bearing members such as pane-like glass columns,

Figure 1, mainly laminated cross-sections and viscoelastic interlayers are used. The flexural buckling behaviour of these laminated glass elements differs from that of monolithic glass
columns due to the composite action of the interlayer such as
for example polyvinyl butyral (PVB). Owing to the composite
404
Recently many analytical, numerical and experimental investigations in the field of buckling behaviour on laminated glass
columns have been published by several authors. Luible (2004)
and Holberndt (2006), for example, focus on the numerical
derivations of buckling curves, which are verified by experimental results performed by Luible (2004). Furthermore,
Amadio and Bedon (2012, 2013) recently presented scientific
research studies of buckling behaviour on laminated glass
columns. Their results maintain one buckling curve for both
monolithic and laminated glass columns according to the
European format for the buckling curves of steel columns. The
appropriate coefficients and 0 are opportunely calibrated
using numerical and experimental results from the literature.
The composite action of the interlayer is considered using a
model based on the concept of an equivalent glass thickness,
teq,w (Amadio and Bedon, 2012), in which the shear modulus
of the interlayer is implemented.
Figure 1. Glass pavilion Rheinbach (Germany)


columns
w(x)
e(x)
wtotal(x)
(a)
d
Outer pane
Flexural tension
d2 d1
d3 = d1 d2 d1
Inner pane
Inner pane
Outer pane
Pressure
Flexural tension
Flexural tension
Pressure
Pressure
(b)
Monolithic glass
Laminated glass
Full composite (Iv = Ii + (Ai zi2))
No composite effect (I0 = Ii)
Partial composite (Ieff)

(c)
Figure 2. (a) Deformed imperfect system of a slender column.

(b) Notation of glass pane, glass side and glass thickness,
The effective cross-section values are then implemented into

the stress equations (limit state function) for laminated glass
columns in order to derive mathematical exact buckling curves
according to the European format corresponding to Maquoi
and Rondal (1978). The buckling curves presented here depend
on the non-dimensional slenderness, referring to a crosssection with full composite action, t;full . In this way, the
impact of the composite action of the interlayer can be shown.
Finally, for the purpose of comparison with the analytical
work, some experimental investigations are presented.
2.
Deflection and stress equations for

laminated glass columns with free slip at
the endings
The non-linear loaddeflection of axially loaded members

with laminated cross-sections can be calculated using second
order theory, taking into account the material properties of the
glass and the interlayer. Initially, the analytical equation for
monolithic glass is recalled, which reads
x
1
1:
wtotal x wx ex e0
sin
N
L
1
Ncr
(c) General composite action using glass elements with laminated

cross-sections (Langosch, 2013)
2:
3:
N cr
N N eo
+
A
W
1
N
1
Ncr
x
sin
L
2 EI
L2
Using glass columns with laminated cross-sections, the crosssection values such as moment of inertia, I, or the moment of
resistance, W, must be replaced by effective cross-section properties such as Ieff, Weff, and so on.
First, a laminate with two different glass layers (d1 d2) or a
symmetric triple glazing with (d1 = d3 d2) and flexible slim
interlayer, each with the thickness t, is to be considered,
Figure 2. The elastic interlayer is able to carry shear stresses.
The shear modulus of the interlayer shall be called Gf. If the
laminated glass pane is considered as a beam under external
load qz(x), in each layer partial moment Mi, partial longitudinal force Fi and partial shear force Vi can be found. The
405


columns
example of the double laminated glass pane in Figure 3 shows

further that, due to an external load qz(x), the flow of shear
force qs(x) along the interlayer provokes a slip s(x) with
4:
qs x K s sx
Ks
Gf
B
t
9:
10:
dMx
dM 1 x dM 2 x
V x
dx
dx
dx
dF x
z V x 0
dx
6:
dV x
qz x 0
dx
7:
dF x
qs x 0
dx
Assuming that the interlayer is incompressible, the curvature of

each glass layer is the same. Thus the shear force can be distributed on each glass layer according to its own bending stiffness
w100 x
s0 x w100 x z1 w200 x z2 F x
00
w1000 x
11:
s x
12:
s00 x
z1
w2000 x
1
1
EA1 EA2

dFx
1
1
z2
dx
EA1 EA2

1 dM 1 x
dFx
1
1
z
EI 1 dx
dx
EA1 EA2
M 1 x
M 2 x
w200 x
EI 1
EI 2
13:
s00 x 2s sx s V x
The parameters 2s and s can now be determined in dependence of the number of glass layers and interlayers. For laminated glass with two different glass layer thicknesses the
outcome of the parameters 2s and s is presented in Table 1.
The parameters z1 and z2 correspond to the distance between
the centre of gravity of the whole laminate and that of each
glass layer.
dx
dx
dx
qz(x)
M1 + dM1
M1
d1
t
d2
z1
z2
V1 + dV1
V1
M2
V2
qs(x)dx
F + dF
M2 + dM2
V2 + dV2
F + dF
sF'
Figure 3. Sectional forces and slip differentials due to elongation

and curvature using the example of the double laminate
(Feldmann and Langosch, 2011; Langosch, 2013)
406
By introducing Equations 59 into Equation 12 and undertaking some mathematical operations, the general inhomogeneous differential equation can be written in the established
form
The total moment M(x) due to the external load qz(x) is split
up into the sectional partial moments Mi (x) of each glass layer
and a further moment from F(x)z.
8:
1 dM 1 x
1 dM 2 x
w2000 x
EI 1 dx
EI 2 dx
Further, the change of slip is considered, that is, the slip differentials, see Figure 3. The slip differentials originate from the
strain differences of the glass surfaces at each interlayer
Equilibrium at the cross-section yields
5:
w1000 x
'
sM


columns
d1 d2
d1 = d3 d2 and t1 = t2 = t
d1
z1
z2
d2
d1
t
z1
z2
d2
z2
z1
t
d1
z
z
B
B
K s z1 z2 2
1
1
A1 A2
E
I1 I2
2s
2z1 z2 2
1
A1
2I 1 I 2
Ks
E
z1 z2
EI 1 I 2
z1 z2
E2I 1 I 2
(z1 + z2)
2 (z1 + z2) = 2 z
Table 1. Parameters for the slip differential equation for

laminated glass (Feldmann and Langosch, 2011; Langosch, 2013)
s(0)
x
L
Vz
Vz : V(x) = Vz cos (
x
)
L
Shear force curve
Slip curve
(a)
(b)
Figure 4. (a) Buckling member as well as beam with shear force

curve Vz(x) and slip curve s(x). (b) Free slip condition at the endings
of the bar or beam (Feldmann and Langosch, 2011; Langosch,

2013)
Analogously, for a laminated pane with symmetrical layers

d1 = d3 d2 and t1 = t2 = t the parameters 2s and s can be
determined, see Table 1.
to sinusoidal transverse load, Figure 4. The resulting shear

force Vz(x) further shows a cosine run according to Figure 4.
Then the slip equation for the buckling case can be written
as follows
The general inhomogeneous differential Equation 13 can now

be solved for different load cases. The differential Equation 13
is composed of a homogeneous and a particulate part, using
the appropriate boundary conditions. The solution of the
differential equation provides the required slip function s(x) in
the interlayer. In the buckling case of a single span beam subjected to axial load N, the deflection shows a sinusoidal wave,
as well as in the loading case of a single span beam subjected
14:
x
sx 2s
V z x 2s
V z cos
L
2s
2s
L
L
Therefore, it is now clear that the run of the slip over the
length is also half cosine shaped and affine to the shear force
curve (Figure 4), provided free slip at the endings.
407


columns
From the slip distribution (s(x): Equation 14), the shear flow
qs(x) according to Equation 4 can directly be obtained. The
force F(x) in each of the glass layers then reads
x
x
F x qs xdx Ks sx dx
0
0

15:
K s V z s L
x
L
x
2
sin
mV z
sin
L
2s
L
so that the effective moment of inertia reads for sinusoidal

moment distribution
P
P
Ii
Ii
22:
I eff
K s s s 1 s m
1 2
2s
L
Considering that F(0) = 0, the partial moments Mi (x) of every

glass layer can be specified as well. Equation 5 together with
Equations 68 can then be written as

Ii
L
x
1 s m
16:
M i x P V z
sin
L
Ii
which equals the expressions given in Mhler (1956) and

Stamm and Witte (1974).
The equations presented here for the effective critical buckling
load Ncr,eff, as well as the effective moment of inertia Ieff and
the effective moment of resistance Weff, respectively, can now
be implemented into the loaddeflection-function (Equation 1)
and the stress function (Equation 2) , so that all required equations for the buckling case now exist.
3.
The total moment of the laminated section is
17:

L
x
sin
Mx M 1 x M 2 x Fx z V z
Using Equation 15 for the force F(x) and the solution of

Equation 16 for the partial moments Mi (x) the partial stress
equations of every glass layer can be determined
F x M i x
+
Ai
W
i

Vz
L
x
6I i
P
sin
+d

m+
1

m
i
s
L
Ii
B d 2i
Analogously to monolithic glass columns (Feldmann and

Langosch, 2009, 2010; Langosch, 2013), also for laminates the
second order stresses have to be verified both for the tension
side and for the compression side. It is necessary to keep in
mind that the magnitude of the compressive strength of glass,
fu,c, differs from the magnitude of the tensile strength, fu,t
i x +
18:
Buckling curves for laminated glass

columns under consideration of the
composite action using any shear
modulus for the interlayer
N
N e0

t P
Ai W eff;i
23:
(
f u;t
Then the effective moment of resistance for each glass pane of

the laminated glass beam can be written as
19:
W eff;i
1

m
di
+
+ P 1 s m
B di 2 I i
21:
408
Mx
N cr;eff
wtotal x
Vz
L x
sin
x
Vz L3
P 1 s m sin
L
E 3 I i
2 E I eff
L2
f u;t
with
Ncr;eff
70 N=mm for HSG

120 N=mm2 for TSG
N
N e0

c P
Ai W eff;i
with
With the total deflection and the total moment of the laminated glass, the critical buckling load is
1
where HSG is heat-strengthened glass and TSG is toughened

safety glass.
24:
and the total deflection wtotal(x) of the laminate
x x
M i x
dxdx
wtotal x
0 0 EI i
20:
3
Vz
L
x
P
1 m s
sin
L
E Ii
e:g:
1
1
f u;c
Ncr;eff
f u;c 500 N=mm2
With a view to a consistent verification format, which avoids

the double check for both the compression and tensile case,
buckling curves are to be proposed for laminated pane-like
glass columns. Using such curves the slenderness range can be
separated into two parts, one where the compressive strength is
controlling failure and one where the tensile strength performs
this role. Thereby buckling curves of the European format
according to Maquoi and Rondal (1978) are pursued
25:
N
Ai f u;t


columns
Strength limits
Compressive stress (inner pane side)
Flexural tensile stress (outer pane side)
d1 d2 with d1 and d2 according to Figure 1
Validity
Reference value of
the strength fu
HSG
t;eff 0:52
TSG
t;eff 0:73
or
rather
t;eff . 0:52
c > 1.60
t;eff . 0:73
nf
q
2
2
c nf
t 1. 60
1
q
2
2
t t t;v

1
2
1 eff;i t;v
t
2

1
2
t
1 i t;v t;v
2
t;v

1
2
1 eff;i nf t;v
c
2

1
2
c
1 i t;v nf t;v
2
i factor
Further factors
t 3.07
f u f u;t 70 N=mm
f u f u;t 120 N=mm2
c
factor
or
rather
HSG
TSG
factor
c > 3.07
Ncr;v
;
N cr;eff
eff;i
P
e 0 Ai
i
with e0 L=400
W eff;i t;v

P
f u;c
e0 Ai
7:14 for HSG ;
; nf
4:17 for TSG
W eff;i
f u;t
t;eff
s
P
Ai f u;t
N cr;eff
Table 2. European buckling curves for laminated glass columns

(Langosch, 2013)
They depend on the non-dimensional slenderness referring to a

cross-section with full composite action t;full with
26:
t;full t;v
s
P
Ai f u;t
2 EI v
N cr;eff
with N cr;v
N cr;v
L2
The reference strength shall be the standardised tensile strength

fu,t (index t at fu,t, t;full and t). Using further factors, such as
, eff,i, nf and the imperfection e0 = L/400 according to
Feldmann and Langosch (2009, 2010) and Langosch (2013),
the quadratic equations following Maquoi and Rondal (1978)
can be specified
27:
2
2
0 t 2t t;v t eff;i 1 t t;v
28:
0 c 2c t;v c eff;i nf nf c t;v

2
29:
N cr;v
;
N cr;eff
eff;i
The solution of the quadratic Equations 27 and 28

provides buckling curves as functions depending on the nondimensional slenderness with a full composite section, see
Table 2. Using the effective cross-section values, any shear
modulus of the interlayer can be taken into account.
The results of the buckling curves are presented in Figure 5 for
double and triple laminated glass columns with equal thicknesses. To illustrate the range of buckling curves, the shear
moduli of the limits full composite (Gf = ) and no composite (Gf = 0), as well as with a shear modulus Gf = 5 N/mm,
chosen by way of an example, were used. Figure 5 also shows
that the buckling curves for laminated glass provide two parts,
one where the tensile strength and one where the compression
strength governs the failure. In this way, the range in which
failure in compression (t = c > 3.07, t;eff 0.52 for HSG and
t = c > 1.60, t;eff 0.73 for TSG) resp. failure in tension
(t = c 3.07, t;eff > 0.52 for HSG and t = c 1.60,
t;eff > 0.73 for TSG) is decisive can be seen.
P
e0 Ai
;
W eff;i
sP
(

)
f
7:14 for HSG
Ai f u;t
u;c
; t;eff
nf

f u;t
N
cr;eff
4:17 for TSG
Furthermore, it can be seen that the buckling curves rise above

the value of 1.0. The reason for this is that the compressive
strength is much higher than the tensile strength. However, the
tensile strength is used as the reference value of the strength,
and thus values greater than 1.0 occur (Langosch, 2013;
Langosch and Feldmann, 2012).
4.
Experimental tests
The analytical equations have been verified by experimental

tests on laminated glass columns, performed at the RWTH
409


columns
5.0
5.0
BC TSG, compressive stress, Gf

BC TSG, flexural tensile stress, Gf
BC TSG, compressive stress, Gf = 5
BC TSG, flexural tensile stress, Gf = 5
BC TSG, compressive stress, Gf 0
BC TSG, flexural tensile stress, Gf 0
4.0
BC TSG, compressive stress, Gf

BC TSG, flexural tensile stress, Gf
BC TSG, compressive stress, Gf = 5
BC TSG, flexural tensile stress, Gf = 5
BC TSG, compressive stress, Gf 0
BC TSG, flexural tensile stress, Gf 0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
(0.33/1.60)
Gf = 5
1.0
Gf
(0.21/1.60)
Gf 0
0
0
(0.73/1.60)
2.0
(0.73/1.60)
2.0
3.0
Gf
Gf 0
0
1.0
Gf = 5
1.0
2.0
3.0
t,full
t,full
Double laminated glass with d1 = d2 = 10 mm

(a)
Triple laminated glass with d1 = d2 = d3 = 10 mm

(b)
Figure 5. Buckling curves for laminated glass columns: (a) double

laminated glass; (b) triple laminated glass; as an example, on the
glass type TSG with the use of some selected shear moduli Gf of
the interlayer with the thickness of 1.52 mm (Langosch, 2013)
View
90
150
75 75
25
300
50
150 25
100
100
700
300
Cut AA
120 90
Glass specimen
250
25 50
Aluminium
plates
M12
M20
Roller bearing
Type SKF C6912V
335 kN
Cut BB
105 50
390
A
155
80
140 80
300
25
Steel + Klingersil
both sides
45
150
75 75
25 150
100
60
Aluminium
plates
[mm]
Figure 6. Experimental set-up for buckling of laminated glass

according to Luible (2004)
Aachen University. The glass columns were simply supported

at their ends according to Eulers case II. The experimental
set-up for buckling, and in particular the design of the bearings, is similar to that used by Luible (2004), Figure 6. The
load was applied centrically by a hydraulic jack fixed on the
upper bearing and was measured by a load cell. The lateral
410
deformation in the middle of the glass pane was measured by

a displacement transducer. In addition, the temperature was
measured by digital devices.
The test specimen was placed in the steel bearings. To avoid
contact between steel and glass and for the application of


columns
d1
d2
d1
50
650
mm
Fracture origin
Fracture origin
High loading
rate
50
Fracture origin
High loading
rate
low loading
rate
Delaminated glass pane from the laminates
Ls/3
Ls/3
Ls/3
Only the middle pane broken
Middle and one of the outside glass broken
Figure 7. Dimensions of the test specimens and breakage

behaviour of the specimens (Langosch, 2013)
high loads, 6 mm thick aluminium plates were used on both

sides of the glass edge as an interlayer, Figure 6. Also, in the
middle of the glass laminates, strain gauges were located on
both sides of the glass panes. In the case of triple laminate,
to prevent any blockage of the slip between the glass layers at
the endings, the endings were step-like, made such that the
load introduction was only through the core layer (Feldmann
and Langosch, 2009, 2010; Langosch, 2013).
Many specimens of double and triple laminated glass columns
were tested in flexural buckling with consideration of the timeand temperature-dependent material properties. In the following, the flexural buckling tests on triple laminates with the
interlayer PVB are presented. The dimensions of the 16 specimens were 250 mm 750 mm and the sectional properties
were 6/10/6 mm or 5/10/5 mm of toughened safety glass, each
with 1.52 mm PVB. The ends of the test specimens were
formed as step-like with free slip at the endings of the laminates, Figure 7.
The tests were performed as force-controlled (with 18 kN/s
and 35 kN/h) as well as displacement-controlled (with 1.0 mm/s
and 2.5 mm/h), in each case at a low and high loading rate,
see Table 3. The temperature corresponded to room temperature, about 23C. The specimens were loaded to failure and the
breakage of the glass columns always occurred with a loud
bang. The failure of the laminated glass columns was initiated
with the breakage of the middle glass pane. The fracture origin
generally could be located either at the edge, or rather at the
step of the middle pane (point of load application, at high

loading rate) or in the border area (in the third middle of the
glass pane, at low loading rate), Figure 7. Moreover it could
be observed that usually only the middle glass pane was
broken and the outside glass panes were intact (in total for ten
specimens). In five of the specimens the middle and one of the
outside glass panes were broken. Only in one glass column
were all three glass panes broken. After the breakage, either all
of the glass panes kept together (five specimens) or one of the
outside glass panes was separated from the laminates (eight
specimens, where predominantly the pressure-loaded inner
pane was delaminated), Figure 7.
The test parameters and the results of all 16 experimental tests
are listed in Table 3. In the same way as for monolithic glass
panes, the effective imperfection was determined by the socalled Southwell plot using the measured values up to the
maximum (Langosch, 2013; Luible, 2004; Timoshenko and
Gere, 1961). Moreover, an elastic shear modulus at the beginning of the test up to the maximum (Gf,begin) and an elastic
shear modulus at the time of fracture (Gf,end) were also calculated according to (Langosch, 2013).
Figure 8 illustrates the experimental results of buckling
tests on triple laminates using the example of specimens with
5/10/5 mm of toughened safety glass. The normal force
displacement-curves show clearly the influence of the loading
rate on the bearing behaviour of laminated glass columns.
Due to the time-dependent behaviour of the interlayer, the
411

412
Nominal values
Effective
imperfection
Loading
rate
Temperature
Failure stress
strain gauges
Max. carrying
capacity
Failure
load
Lateral
displacement
Effective shear
modulus Gf
B
mm
d1/d2/d1
mm
e0
mm
T
C
N/mm
Fmax
kN
Ffailure
kN
wfailure
mm
Gf,begin
N/mm
Gf,end
N/mm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
6/10/6
6/10/6
6/10/6
6/10/6
6/10/6
6/10/6
6/10/6
6/10/6
5/10/5
5/10/5
5/10/5
5/10/5
5/10/5
5/10/5
5/10/5
5/10/5
2.85
0.20
1.36
1.40
0.85
0.14
0.48
0.28
0.47
0.10
1.20
0.14
1.00
0.26
0.21
0.63
1 mm/s
1 mm/s
18 kN/s
2.5 mm/h
1 mm/s
2.5 mm/h
35 kN/h
35 kN/h
35 kN/h
35 kN/h
2.5 mm/h
2.5 mm/h
1 mm/s
18 kN/s
18 kN/s
1 mm/s
21
22
22
20
21
21
20
20
20
21
20
20
21
20
24
26
5/27
54/87
23/46
102/116
/111
92/105
150/175
161/189
130/150
161/189
87/99
97/117
/111
28/58
64/91
88/108
98.1
180.4
128.9
50.0
131.0
62.4
64.4
67.2
55.7
71.4
43.3
56.7
131.0
143.2
144.6
105.2
97.9
180.1
128.9
49.5
122.7
51.2
64.4
67.2
55.7
71.4
42.1
44.2
122.7
140.6
144.6
97.2
2.7
7.6
6.4
27.7
16.5
24.0
36.0
37.8
34.0
37.3
26.4
30.5
16.5
6.3
10.1
17.0
13.0
10.7
7.1
1.0
6.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.9
1.0
1.3
10.5
9.0
8.7
4.9
13.0
10.7
7.1
0.6
4.7
0.6
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.9
0.6
0.6
6.8
9.0
8.7
3.9
Table 3. Summary of all specimens, the test parameters and the

results (remark: buckling length L = Ls + 12 mm due to test set-up)
(Langosch, 2013)

columns
Ls
mm
No.

160

columns
140
s10, e0 = 0.10 mm
70
s14, e0 = 0.26 mm
120
Normal force, N: kN
Normal force, N: kN
80
s15, e0 = 0.21 mm
s13, e0 = 1.00 mm, T = 21C
100
s16, e0 = 0.63 mm, T = 26C
80
60
40
s13 (5/10/5), displ.-controlled

s14 (5/10/5), force-controlled
20
0
0
10
15
50
s12, e0 = 0.14 mm
40
s11, e0 = 1.20 mm
30
20
0
0
20
10
20
30
Lateral displacement: mm
(a)
(b)
40
glass at (a) the high loading rate or (b) the low loading rate
(Langosch, 2013)
60
G f,begin= Gf,end = 1.1 N/mm
50
Normal force, N: kN
50
Normal force, N: kN
s9, e0 = 0.47 mm
10
Figure 8. Loaddisplacement behaviour of buckling tests using

the example of specimens with 5/10/5 mm of toughened safety
60
60
40
30
20
10
e 0 = 0.47 mm
0
0
s9 (5/10/5), test, force-controlled

Analytical, G f,begin= G f,end = 1.1 N/mm
No composite effect
10
20
30
40
G f,begin = 1.3 N/mm
40
G f,end = 0.6 N/mm
30
20
10
e 0 = 0.14 mm
0
0
(a)
s12 (5/10/5), test, displ.-controlled

Analytical, G f,begin = 1.3 N/mm
Analytical, G f,end = 0.6 N/mm
No composite effect
10
20
30
40
(b)
Figure 9. Comparison of (a) the force-controlled and (b) the

displacement-controlled experimental tests with the analytical
analysis using the example of specimens with 5/10/5 mm of

toughened safety glass at the low loading rate (Langosch, 2013)
tests with high loading rate show a much higher load-bearing

capacity than those with low loading rates. In addition, the
lateral displacement of the low loading rate is higher than that
of the high loading rate.
dependent on the loading rate and the imperfection. This

means that, at a low loading rate with increasing imperfection,
the maximum flattens.
Figure 8 also shows that the force-controlled experiments

exhibit stiffer behaviour than the displacement-controlled tests
under identical conditions (dimensions, imperfection and so
on). The force-controlled tests therefore achieve higher loads
than the displacement-controlled experiments. Furthermore, it
is clearly visible that the curves of force-controlled tests
increase monotonously, whereas the curves of displacementcontrolled tests may drop after a maximum. The maximum is
Figure 9 shows the comparison of force-controlled and displacement-controlled buckling tests with analytical calculations
using Equation 1 for lateral displacement with consideration
of the effective critical buckling load Ncr,eff according to
Equation 21. At this point, elastic shear moduli Gf,begin and
Gf,end in agreement with Table 3 have been used for the interlayer to evaluate the experimental tests. Beyond the curve of
the lower limit (no composite action) is also presented in the
graphical evaluation.
413

1.2
1.2
BC, full composite

BC, flexural tensile stress, Gf = 1.9
BC, no composite effect
(Gf = 1.9)
Test 5/10/5, s10
(Gf = 1.1)
Test 5/10/5, s9
Tests 5/10/5, s11, s12 ) (Gf = 0.6)
1.0
0.8

columns
1.0
0.8
0.6
BC, fully composite

BC, no composite effect
Test 6/10/6, s8 (Gf = 1.2)
Test 6/10/6, s7 (Gf = 1.1)
Test 6/10/6, s6 (Gf = 0.6)
0.6
0.4
0.4
Gf
Gf
0.2
0.2
Gf 0
0
0
Gf 0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
t,full
2.0
3.0
t,full
(a)
(b)
Figure 10. Comparison of the derived buckling curves with

experimental tests on triple laminated glass columns with
(a) 5/10/5 mm and (b) 6/10/6 mm of toughened safety glass and

1.52 mm PVB as interlayer (Langosch, 2013)
In Figure 9(a) the analytically derived loaddeformation

curves are in good agreement with the force-controlled experiments. It can be clearly seen that for the tests with a forcecontrolled loading rate a constant value for the shear modulus
Gf = Gf,begin = Gf,end could be used. In contrast, the displacement-controlled tests can be calculated using two different
shear moduli. At the starting point and for a short period
afterwards a shear modulus Gf,begin is used and at the moment
of fracture a shear modulus Gf,end is necessary. For stability
design, the fracture state is important, so the elastic shear
moduli that occur at this point in time could be used (here
Gf,end). Moreover, the curves are well above the limiting case
without any composite effect.
6.
5.
Comparison of the analytical buckling

curves to experimental tests
The analytically derived buckling curves are now compared to

the experimental test on the triple-layered laminates. For the
evaluation of the buckling curves, the nominal glass thickness
and an elastic shear modulus Gf,end according to Table 3 were
considered in the equations of Table 2.
Due to the fact that the glass columns with high loading rate are
broken at the edge or at the ends of the middle pane (point of
application) and not in the border area (in the middle third of
the glass pane), these tests are not considered in further analyses.
The results and the comparisons are shown in Figure 10. It
can be seen that the experimental results agree with the buckling curves; the test values are located on the buckling curves.
414
Conclusions
The application of laminated glass structures as columns

requires knowledge of the stability behaviour of such transparent load-bearing elements. Furthermore, it requires analytical
equations for stability verification. In this context, stress and
deflection equations for double and symmetric triple laminates
based on the slip differential function were derived and presented in this paper, in which the shear modulus Gf of the
interlayer can be implemented. These stress equations form
the basis for analytical buckling curves, which are based on the
established European format for the buckling curves of steel
columns.
For the design of laminated glass columns, buckling curves
( t;full ) are now available. These curves take into account any
kind of partial or even full composite action of the interlayer
using arbitrary values of the shear modulus. Hence the stability verification can be carried out as follows
N ED
1:0
NRD
The research results provide a basis for the consideration of the

composite action when designing laminated glass structures
under axial loads. Nevertheless, for long-term loading (e.g. permanent loads) the shear modulus of PVB tends to zero.
Therefore it is recommended that, for long-term loading of
laminates with PVB, no composite action (lower limit) should
be taken into account.


columns
Another important finding from the present study is revealed

in the fracture behaviour of the step-like ending detail of the
laminated glass section. From a constructive point of view and
because of the failure scenario shown here (breaking of the
step and delamination of the glass pane from the laminated
system), the application of step-like laminated endings for real
glass columns should be avoided. To prevent premature fracture at the endings, the glass layers should be bound together,
for example with a U-shaped, glued edging without any step at
the support. The formulas and the prediction models are then
on the safe side.
Langosch K (2013) Das Tragverhalten von Glassttzen mit
REFERENCES
Amadio C and Bedon C (2012) Standardized buckling curves
for the verification of glass columns, beams and panels.

Proceedings of XXVII ATIV Conference From a Grain of
Sandto the Strength of a Structure Engineering &
Architectural Session: Special Glass Structures, Parma,
Italy, pp. 113120.
Amadio C and Bedon C (2013) A buckling verification
approach for monolithic and laminated glass elements
under combined in-plane compression and bending.
Engineering Structures 52: 220229.
Dercks C (2004) Momenten-Rotationstragfhigkeit
von Spundwnden aus Z-Bohlen und U-Bohlen mit
verminderter Schubtragfhigkeit. Dissertation,
Lehrstuhl fr Stahlbau und Leichtmetallbau, RWTH
Aachen University, Shaker Verlag, Issue 53, Aachen,
Germany.
Faella C, Martinelli E and Nigro E (2010) Steelconcrete
composite beams in partial interaction: closed-form
exact expression of stiffness matrix and the vector of
equivalent nodal forces. Engineering Structures 32(9):
27442754.
Feldmann M and Langosch K (2009) Vereinfachte und
einheitliche Stabilittsnachweise fr Bauteile aus
Einscheiben- und Verbundsicherheitsglas fr Druck und
Biegung. Research funded by the German Steel
Construction Association (DSTV) and the German
Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi),
research project 15060/N, Deutscher Ausschu fr
Stahlbau (DASt), Dsseldorf (in press).
Feldmann M and Langosch K (2010) Knickfestigkeit
und einheitliche Knickkurven fr scheibenfrmige
Glassttzen mit Monoglasquerschnitt aus TVG
und ESG. Stahlbau (Glasbau) 79(S1): 7079
(in German).
Feldmann M and Langosch K (2011) Zum Biegeverhalten
von VSG-Laminaten unter Quer- oder Lngsbelastung.
Stahlbau (Glasbau) 80(S1): 5260 (in German).
Holberndt T (2006) Entwicklung eines Bemessungskonzepts fr
den Nachweis von stabilittsgefhrdeten Glastrgern unter
Biegebeanspruchung. Dissertation, TUBerlin, Fraunhofer
IRB Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Mono- und Verbundquerschnitten. Dissertation, Lehrstuhl

fr Stahlbau und Leichtmetallbau, RWTH Aachen
University, Shaker Verlag, Issue 75, Aachen, Germany.
Langosch K and Feldmann M (2012) VSG-Glassttzen unter
kombinierter Langzeit- und Kurzzeitbelastung. Stahlbau
(Glasbau) 81(S1): 149158.
Luible A (2004) Stabilitt von Tragelementen aus Glas.
Dissertation thesis no. 3014, EPFL, Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Maquoi R and Rondal J (1978) Analytische Formulierung
der neuen Europischen Knickspannungskurven. Stahl
1/1978, Acier/Stahl/Steel 1978, pp. 2328.
Mhler K (1956) ber das Tragverhalten von Biegetrgern
und Druckstben mit zusammengesetzten Querschnitten
und nachgiebigen Verbindungsmitteln. Habilitation.
Technische Universitt Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Newmark NM (1951) Test and analysis of composite beams
with incomplete interaction. Proceedings of Society for
Experimental Stress Analysis 9(1): 7592.
Schnabl S, Saje M, Turk G and Planinc I (2007) Analytical
solution oft wo beam taking into account interlaywer slip
and shear deformation. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE 133(6): 886894.
Stamm S and Witte H (1974) Sandwichkonstruktionen.
Berechnung, Fertigung, Ausfhrung. Springer Verlag,
Vienna, Austria and New York, NY, USA.
Timoshenko SP and Gere JM (1961) Theory of Elastic Stability,
2nd edn. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York,
NY, USA.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students. Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing
papers should be 10002000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
415

Design of Pane-Like Laminated Glass Columns

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Design of Pane-Like Laminated Glass Columns

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Structures and Buildings

Volume 169 Issue SB6

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers