01 Sulvetro PF

Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes
Optimal design of glass plates loaded transversally

Paolo Foraboschi
Universit IUAV di Venezia, Dipartimento di Architettura Costruzione Conservazione, Convento delle Terese, Dorsoduro, 2206, 30123 Venice, Italy
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 March 2014
Accepted 17 May 2014
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Glass design
Laminated Glass
Minimum thicknesses
Optimal design
Polymeric interlayers
Sacricial ply
a b s t r a c t
This paper focuses on glass used in buildings and presents a criterion for fail-safe optimal design of glass
plates.
First, the paper shows that the glass plate is fail-safe only if the load-bearing system is composed of two
glass layers bonded to one another with an elastomeric interlayer (Laminated Glass), and if the live loads
act upon a sacricial glass ply (tri-layer system).
Then, activity was directed at analyzing the simply-supported fail-safe glass plate loaded out-of-plane,
and carrying out research targeted at reducing the incidence of weight and cost (optimal design). The
results, obtained using an analytical exact model, show that the limit states are always dictated by the
maximum deection and not by the load-carrying capacity. Thus, optimal design requires nding
the thickness of the glass layers and the stiffness of the interlayer that provide the plate with exactly
the minimum allowable stiffness, while the stress verications are fullled automatically.
Finally, for every span and load that is found in building applications of glass, the paper provides the
thicknesses and the materials of the glass layers and interlayers that adjust capacity to match demand.
These results may also replace structural analysis and assessment of Laminated Glass plates.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
To optimize the performance and cost of a structure, the task of
a structural designer is to determine the material(s) and geometry
of component(s) under some functional requirements and constraints [115]. To select the optimal structure among possible
similar structures is called optimal design.
This paper is devoted to the optimal design of plates made of
glass, loaded predominantly out-of-plane, and used as primary or
secondary structures, or as non-bearing elements. Primary structures include oors and roofs [1621]; secondary structures
include overhead glazing supported by primary structures and elements of staircases [16,20]; non-bearing elements include faades
and partitions [22,23].
Not only do glass elements have to withstand the design loads,
but also they have to fulll fail-safe design [16,21,22,2428]. Fail
safe design of glass is based on a fundamental evaluation namely,
the ratio between the load-carrying capacity and ultimate load
demand, and the ratio between the span and maximum deection
do not provide an exhaustive description of safety. That these
ratios are adequate is a necessary but not a sufcient condition.
Tel.: +39 041 2571289.

E-mail address: paofor@iuav.it
In order to achieve an exhaustive description of safety, three

other conditions have to be considered in designing and assessing
glass elements. When these conditions are satised, glass is called
fail-safe.
2. Fail-safe transparent plates

Glass ensures safety, security, and safeguarding only with a failsafe design. Moreover, glass ensures transparency only if its thickness is not excessive.
2.1. Fail-safe conditions
Glass is fail-safe if it satises the following three conditions.
2.1.1. First fail-safe condition: Redundancy
The presence of aws is unavoidable in glass. From the structural point of view, the aws that are worthy of attention are the
cracks, since glass breaks when the combination of a load and a
crack causes the stress intensity factor to reach the critical stress
intensity factor [24,25,2933].
Cracks can be divided into two types namely, cracks that
occur during manufacturing due to production processes, and
cracks that occur during the service life due to concentrated loads,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.05.030
0261-3069/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Foraboschi P. Optimal design of glass plates loaded transversally. J Mater Design (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.matdes.2014.05.030
P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx
impacts, abrasions or piercings. The former are called initial cracks

and the latter contact-induced cracks.
If glass has only the initial cracks, the stress that causes a glass
element to break is substantial, while if glass also has contactinduced cracks, it may be marginal. Moreover, if glass has only
the initial cracks, the load-carrying capacity of a glass element
can be predicted and guaranteed, while if glass also has contactinduced cracks, it cannot be predicted or warranted against.
Contact-induced cracks are produced by the live loads. Therefore, fail-safe design requires that the glass elements that collect
the live loads are neglected during assessment of load-carrying
capacity. In so doing, glass can be designed so that the load-carrying capacity and the stiffness do not depend on contact-induced
cracks. As a result, any piece of glass is part of a system that has
a certain amount of redundancy.
2.1.2. Second fail-safe condition: Mode of collapse
In the event of a glass element breaking, the large and jagged
shards must be held in place and only some small blunt edged particles can fall down at most, so as to avoid injury to people or pets
due to ying, shattering or falling glass [25,27,33]. Fail-safe design,
therefore, requires that when a glass ply is broken no sharp shard
falls down from a broken glass element.
Thus, fail-safe glass has to be designed so that, when an element
breaks, it shatters into small, dull pieces and that the system keeps
the vast majority of the pieces together anyway.
2.1.3. Third fail-safe condition: Post-peak load-carrying capacity
Glass elements exhibit a very steep post-peak descending
loaddeection curve, which ends with a utterly brittle collapse
[24,25,27,31,32,3437]. Conversely, fail-safe glass requires that
the post-peak loaddeection curve descends slowly from the
peak, which represents the load-carrying capacity (rst-cracking)
to the collapse (ultimate displacement) and that the collapse is
not fragile.
Thus, glass has to be designed so as to ensure adequate postpeak performance, in particular a certain residual post-fracture
strength. Hence, fail-safe glass must be composed of more elements, whose composition provides redundant paths, so that if
one individual glass element fails, the structure will remain standing, and so that the collapse is reached only after a considerable
post-peak displacement.
Furthermore, when collapse propagates from the stable state to
an unstable state until total failure occurs, the unabsorbed portion
of gravitational energy has to be moderate, so that the structure
releases only minor kinetic energy.
2.2. Fail-safe glass
The only way to satisfy the second and third fail-safe conditions
is to use Laminated Glass (LG) [1719,2123,25,26,3539], while
monolithic glass cannot satisfy these conditions.
LG is composed of two or more plies of glass attached to one
another with transparent thermoplastic interlayer(s). As used
herein, the term interlayer refers to any material now known
or developed in the future, for manufacturing and assembling LG.
Currently, the use of Poly Vinyl Butyral (PVB) interlayer dominates
LG [23,27,3638,40]. However, the growing demand for LG in engineering structures and in building faades and interiors has driven
the development of new transparent thermoplastic materials that
extend the physical performance of LG. As a result, for some years
now there are other types of interlayers that are in use in LG
[16,22,25,28,35,4042], such as Ethylene Vinyl Acetate copolymers
(including various Vinyl-Ester polymers), Poly-Carbonates (in particular Thermoplastic Poly Urethane), and Ionoplast Polymers (IPs).
The greatest enhancements in mechanical properties of interlayers have been provided by IPs, which currently hold an appreciable fraction of the world market share [24,26,28]. The key
mechanical property difference between an IP interlayer and a
PVB interlayer is the visco-elastic behavior for high temperatures
and long-term load durations, which provides an IP interlayer with
a signicant stiffness advantage over a PVB interlayer. In particular,
for high temperatures and long loading durations, the shear elasticity modulus of IP may be more than two orders of magnitude
greater than that of PVB [3944].
Since the newer interlayers are signicantly stiffer than the traditional interlayers, these recent developments in technology have
split the thermoplastic family for lamination of glass into two classes namely, the utterly compliant interlayers, such as PVB, and
the relatively stiff interlayers, such as IP [44].
When a glass ply is broken, almost all the glass shards adhere to
the polymeric interlayer rather than scatter, avoiding injury to
people or pets from broken glass. Thus, LG fullls part of the
demand of the second fail-safe condition, whereas LG does not fulll automatically the other part of this condition.
More specically, when the glass is broken, the polymeric interlayer holds in place almost all the pieces of glass, but some pieces
of glass can fall down anyway. Thus, the layer that can give rise to
ying, shattering or falling glass (e.g., the inferior layer of horizontal glazing) has to disintegrate into pieces that are small and not
sharp (i.e., small dice shapes, instead of dangerous shards). However, this last demand of the second fail-safe condition is not satised automatically by LG, but it requires that specic glass types are
used, according to the structural function of the glass. In so doing,
the second fail-safe condition is satised completely.
LG also provides the system with some post-breakage load-carrying capacity. In fact, the common boundary between the glass
ply and interlayer keeps the fracture in the glass ply where it has
started; i.e., the interface prevents the crack from propagating into
the whole system. Accordingly, when a glass layer is broken, the
other glass layer may bear the applied load at least as an individual
element. It follows that a LG system guarantees a residual capacity
at least equal to the strength of the intact glass layer [43,45,46].
Hence, the loaddeection curve of LG descends slowly from
the peak up to the failure of the other glass layer. Thus, LG satises
automatically two of the demands posed by the third fail safe condition namely, the ultimate displacement is fairly large and the
rst branch of the post-peak loaddeection curve is not steep.
Conversely, LG does not satisfy automatically the last demand
posed by the third fail safe condition namely, the collapse of
LG must not convert excessive potential energy into kinetic energy.
In order to avoid that shortcoming, one of the layers has to be
made of a glass type that, in the event of breaking, fractures into
large chunks and slivers. The interlayer can connect these large
pieces of broken glass to each other, which provides the laminated
system with a certain residual capacity. As a result, the system can
carry the dead load even when all glass layers are broken. In so
doing, the last branch of the post-peak loaddeection curve is
not steep and the system dissipates almost all the potential energy
before reaching the collapse. This system cuts down the kinetic
energy released during the breakage, and it meets completely the
third fail-safe condition.
Ultimately, only LG can fulll the second and third fail-safe conditions; however, LG does not fulll automatically all these conditions. To be fail-safe LG also has to fullls the requirements of
Section 2.3.
The rst fail-safe condition can be satised only by using the
sacricial ply design criterion [26,43,4749]. This criterion can
be synthesized as follows: The glass ply that collects the live loads
is allowed to fracture in service (sacricial ply). According to the
sacricial ply design criterion, hence, the layer that collects the live
j.matdes.2014.05.030
loads has to be considered as broken, independently of whether it

is actually undamaged (intact) or broken (fractured).
Thus, the sacricial ply is redundant against the ultimate limit
states, and sometimes it is also considered redundant against the
serviceability limit state. Hence, the role of the sacricial ply is to
allow for the possibility of accidental glass breakage due to contact
damage (Fig. 1).
Since limit analysis does not take into account the sacricial ply,
safety verications do not depend on this ply. Hence, the sacricial
ply design criterion implies that safety assessment is unrelated
with contact-induced cracks, which provides adequate reliability
to model predictions, limit analysis, safety assessment and
verications.
The sacricial ply may be kept in service also in fractured condition; it has to be substituted only when it has lost the capacity of
shielding the other layers or causes alarm to users or pedestrians.
Ultimately, only LG can fulll the three fail-safe conditions.
However, in order to be fail-safe, LG must satisfy three other conditions. Firstly, the outer layers have to ensure that, in the event of
breaking, the shards cannot injure people. Secondly, the system
has to include a layer that breaks into large pieces of glass, so as
to provide adequate residual capacity. Thirdly, the layer that collects the live loads has to be sacricial. If the live loads, including
the environmental actions (windborne debris) may act on both
the external faces of the member, two sacricial plies are necessary
(Figs. 1 and 2).
Solutions different from the tri-layer (quadri-layer) system
should be considered only when the fail-safe conditions that are
violated by the LG are fullled by the whole building. For instance,
when breakage does not involve users or pedestrians, or the postbreakage structural capacity can be made available at the level of
the structural system, instead of at the level of the LG element.
2.3. Fail-safe transparent Laminated-Glass
Beyond 5560 mm of thickness, glass cannot be considered
transparent (sometimes, not even translucent) [14,16,2022].
Thus, the sum of the thicknesses of all the layers and interlayers
cannot exceed that limit, apart from colored glass members or
the elements that are not intended to be transparent, such as glass
columns, which cannot be thin.
The thickness of a sacricial glass ply cannot be lower than
2 mm and it should be no less than one fth of the thickest layer.
Fig. 1. LG plate loaded on the top face, designed according to the sacricial ply
concept. Tri-laminated system (three glass plies and two interlayers): upper glass
layer, central glass layer, and lower glass layer. The glass ply that collects the live
loads (upper layer) is sacricial.
Fig. 2. LG plate loaded on the top and bottom faces, designed according to the
sacricial ply concept. Quadri-laminated system (four glass plies and three
interlayers). The glass plies that collect the live loads are sacricial.
The total thickness of the interlayers ranges from 0.76 mm to

approximately 3 mm. Therefore, in the case of transparent tri-layer
systems, the thickness of the cross-section that carries the loads
should not surpass approximately 55 mm and in the case of transparent quadri-layer system 50 mm. Thus transparent members
require that the load-bearing system is composed of two layers.
On the contrary, three or more layers either would entail more
laminations than is necessary or would exceed the thickness limit
that guarantees transparency.
Hence, the system that simultaneously satises the demand for
transparency and is fail-safe is the tri-layer (quadri-layer) plate. In
the tri-layer system, the glass ply that collects the live loads is sacricial (upper layer), and consequently safety assessment takes
into account only the other two glass plies (central and lower layers) together with the connecting interlayer (Fig. 1).
However, a tri-layer (quadri-layer) glass system is not automatically fail-safe; it is fail-safe only if the types of glass used for each
layer are adequate to the role that each layer has in the system. In
particular, the glass type has to provide the layer with adequate
ultimate stress and failure mode.
Thus, there is a need to develop criteria for choosing the best
single material for each individual glass layer.
2.3.1. Sacricial glass ply
The sacricial ply has to be made of toughened glass (usually
tempered glass), since it has to tolerate high local tension stresses
due to contact forces (Fig. 1). In fact, toughened glass guarantees
surface compression stresses (together with compensating tension
stresses in the glass interior zone), which are developed during the
tempering process in the case of tempered glass [33,36] or during
the ion-exchange process in the case of chemically-strengthened
glass [50]. Due to these coactive stresses, toughened glass [51]
has signicantly higher tensile strength than annealed glass [35]
and higher strength than heat-strengthened glass [27].
Moreover, in the event of breaking, toughened glass disintegrates into small pieces [33,36,50,51], while annealed [35] and
heat-strengthened [27] glass break into large, razor-sharp slivers.
When the glass is shattered, if some broken pieces of glass fall
down instead of being held in place, these are only small pieces
of blunt glass, instead of dangerous shards (Fig. 1).
j.matdes.2014.05.030
Ultimately, only if the sacricial glass ply is made of toughened

glass, the system satises the rst and second fail-safe condition.
Herein, the sacricial ply is referred to as upper glass layer of the
tri-layer system.
The thickness of the upper layer has to be adequate to provide
the ply with shielding capacity. Conversely, the thickness must not
be related to the load-bearing capacity of the system, which does
not depend on it.
2.3.2. Load-bearing system of the tri-layer Laminated Glass plate
The load bearing system is the whole system minus the sacricial glass ply (plies) and minus the interlayer that connects this ply
to the other glass layer. Hence, the load bearing system is composed of two glass layers and the polymeric interlayer midway
between these layers. The bending and shear stresses due to the
design loads are assumed to exist only in the load-bearing system.
Herein, the glass layer adjacent to the sacricial ply is referred
to as central (glass) layer of the tri-layer system, and the other
glass layer of the load-bearing system as lower (glass) layer
(Fig. 1). Hence, the outer layers of the tri-layer system are the sacricial ply and the lower layer.
To make the best use of the materials, the layers of the loadbearing system must have equal thickness. In the case of live loads
applied to both the faces of the plate (quadri-layer system, not considered here but in Section 7.4), this requirement is obvious. In the
case of live loads applied to a face only (with the same direction as
the dead load), a wide-ranging analysis proved that the symmetric
load-bearing system minimizes the costs (which depend on both
thicknesses and glass types) and optimizes the post-breakage
behavior.
In order to obtain a fail-safe laminated system, the LG plate has
to be composed of layers made of different types of glass. In general, using two or more types of glass in the LG plate is a good solution, which is not restricted by manufacturing or other problems
[16,21,22] (Fig. 1).
Glass elasticity modulus does not depend on the treatment.
Hence, the elasticity modulus of the annealed, heat-strengthened,
tempered, and chemically-strengthened glass is the same (approximately 70,000 N/mm2).
Fig. 4. Stress prole in the load-bearing system (central and upper layers, together
with the connecting interlayer; Fig. 3). The stress prole is anti-symmetric with
respect to the middle plane of the load-bearing system (shown in the gure).
Shadowed areas: tension stresses. The gure shows the symbols used for the
stresses throughout the paper.
Fig. 5. Stress prole in the load-bearing system, in the case of high value of the
interlayer stiffness, k. The central layer is completely in compression and the lower
layer is completely in tension.
Fig. 3. Load-bearing system: bi-layer system composed of the central and lower
layers of the tri-laminated system, together with the connecting interlayer
(shadowed). Prole of the longitudinal displacement, u, due to anti-clockwise
rotation angle of the cross-section, h. The points P, R, S and, respectively, P0 , R0 , S0 are
anti-symmetric with respect to the middle plane of the load-bearing system. Thus,
the u-displacements of P, R, S are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction with
respect to P0 , R0 , S0 .
Hence, the load-bearing system is anti-symmetric with respect

to the plane midway between the central and lower layers (the
middle plane of the connecting interlayer; Figs. 35).
Restraint against rotation along the edges of the plate would not
be suitable for glass, since such a restraint would perform a clamping action that would damage the glass. Moreover, the normal oat
process that produces the sheets of glass consists of a tin bath
about 34 m wide. Thus, glass continuous plates with multiple
supports are not common. Thus, glass plates are free from bending
moments at the edges.
The maximum tension stress occurs at the center of the external
(bottom) surface of the lower layer, rgo (Figs. 4 and 5). Thus, the
lower layer has to be made of a glass type whose strength is adequate to bear the maximum tension strength due to the design
loads. But this layer is external. In the event of breaking, this layer
has to shatter into small, blunt pieces, so that dangerous shards
cannot fall down. In order to fulll both the requirements, this
layer has to be made of toughened glass (Fig. 1). In many cases,
heat-strengthened or annealed glass could satisfy the stress
j.matdes.2014.05.030
demand, but these glass types never fulll the failure mode
demand.
The central glass layer is subjected to compression stresses and
usually also to tension stresses (Fig. 3). This layer bears the maximum compression stress of the tri-layer system, rgo (Figs. 4 and
5), which occurs at the center of the surface connected to the sacricial ply through the interlayer. Conversely, the tension stress in
the central glass layer is always less than in the lower glass layer.
The maximum tension stress in the central layer, rgi, approaches
rgo when the stiffness of the interlayer approaches the stiffness
of the layers.
Fail-safe design of glass requires that at least one layer of the
laminated system is made of either heat-strengthened or annealed
glass, in order to provide the system with adequate post-breakage
capacity when all glass layers are broken. In fact, a heat-strengthened glass layer (sometimes even an annealed glass layer) can
carry the entire dead load of the plate when the load-bearing system is broken as well as the sacricial glass ply, since the interlayer
connects the broken pieces of heat strengthened glass.
Considering that the lower layer has to be made of toughened
glass and that the central layer has to bear tension stresses less
than the lower layer, the central layer has to be made of either
heat-strengthened glass or annealed glass, according to the maximum tension stress in this layer rgi (Figs. 1, 4 and 5).
The fact that the central lass layer breaks into large chunks and
slivers with razor sharp edges poses no risk of injure to people,
since this layer is inner.
3. Optimal design of fail-safe Laminated Glass plates
The criterion that allows glass to optimize the structural performance, maximize transparency, and minimize the cost (optimal
design criterion) is that the thicknesses of the central and lower
layers and the stiffness of the interlayer produce a behavior that
matches the most severe limit of the plate.
The load-bearing system (Section 2.3.2; Figs. 1 and 2) must have
adequate strength to resist the most severe loads and adequate
stiffness to resist all the behaviors that can compromise the serviceability of the plate. The rst requirement is satised if and only
if the maximum tension stress in each glass layer (i.e., rgo and rgi;
Figs. 4 and 5) does not exceed the tension strength of the glass that
the layer is made of. The second requirement is satised if and only
if the maximum deection of the plate (i.e., wmax) does not exceed
the maximum allowable deection.
Consistently with the optimal design criterion, the glass type
and thickness of the central layer and the lower layer, together
with the stiffness of the interlayer have to produce either a maximum tension stress in one of the two layers that is equal to the
tension strength of that layer or a maximum deection of the plate
that is equal to the maximum allowable deection. One condition
is matched exactly while the other two conditions with a certain
margin.
Tension strength of glass depends on the glass types used for
the layers and also on the duration of load, which inuences glass
strength [23,24,3639,42]. Moreover, this limit has to include a
partial factor that allows for the class of consequences associated
to the intended use of the plate as well as the uncertainties in
the material strength.
The load to be used in the ultimate limit state verications in
accordance with the considered code has to produce stresses that
do not exceed the strength of each type of glass that the system
is composed of. If this limit is respected, the strength of the glass
plate is adequate.
For the dead loads (i.e., long-duration load), the limits that fulll
the main codes on glass [43,45,46,5263] are 5.5 N/mm2 for the
annealed glass, 25.0 N/mm2 for the heat-strengthened glass,
65.0 N/mm2 for the tempered glass, and 80.0 N/mm2 for the chemically-strengthened glass.
For the wind loads (i.e., short-duration load), the limits that fulll the main codes on glass [43,45,46,5263] are 19.0 N/mm2 for
the annealed glass, 40.0 N/mm2 for the heat-strengthened glass,
80.0 N/mm2 for the tempered glass, and 105.0 N/mm2 for the
chemically-strengthened glass.
The maximum deection of the plate depends on the intended
use of the plate and the lifespan of the building. The load to be used
in the serviceability limit state verications in accordance with the
considered code has to produce a ratio between the maximum
deection and span that is less than a maximum value. If this limit
is respected, the stiffness is greater than the minimum required by
the code.
The deections must not damage the construction or cause
alarm to users, and the vibrations must not cause ailments to users
or generate or propagate noises. In order to guarantee these serviceability conditions, two ratios have to be considered. Firstly,
the ratio that results from the deection due to the total load (dead
plus live load) and secondly, the ratio that results from the deection due to the live load only. The rst ratio measures the stiffness
against the damage of the construction, and ensures adequate
durability. The second ratio measures the stiffness against the
vibrations, and prevents the occurrence of deections that could
cause alarm to users.
The maximum allowable deection-to-span ratio prescribed for
glass depends on the intended use of the element [21,22].
If the intended use of the plate is a oor, the maximum allowable deection-to-span ratio recommended by almost all the codes
is 1/200 under the live loads. If the intended use of the plate is a
roof, it is still 1/200 but under the total loads [43,45].
If the intended use of the plate is a faade or a partition, the
maximum allowable deection-to-span ratio recommended by
the most important codes is 1/65 under the live load
[43,45,46,5255].
It is to note that the maximum allowable deection-to-span
ratio used for glass faades and partitions is very high, and that
used for glass oors is double than the limit commonly used for
other materials. The reason is that the elasticity modulus of glass
is low, i.e. approximately 70,000 N/mm2. If the common limits
were used, transparent architecture would be impossible. Hence,
the deection limits were calibrated so as to foster the use of glass
in architecture. Nevertheless, the deection beyond which a glass
element no longer fullls the relevant design criteria is usually
well represented by the values adopted by codes. It being understood that designers should check the limit used case by case.
4. Analytical modeling of the Laminated Glass plate
Until a short time ago, the sandwich plates, including LG plates,
were modeled by using either nite element models or practical
formulas.
The layer-to-interlayer elastic modulus ratio and layer-to-interlayer thickness ratio may be very high. For LG, the former ratio may
reach one million and the latter may be greater than fty. These
values impinge upon all the numerical solutions [23,36,42,47,64
68]. Thus, the numerical results need to be checked and calibrated
against exact results. However, no exact solution existed; therefore, numerical results could be neither checked nor calibrated.
Moreover, no closed-form formula is available with a numerical
model; therefore, numerical models allow optimal design to be
performed only with a trial and error approach.
The practical formulas of LG, which were derived either empirically or from numerical models, replace the laminated system with
an equivalent monolithic system. However, not only are these formulas rough, but above all they provide the maximum stress and
j.matdes.2014.05.030
deection only, while they do not provide the complete stress eld
in the LG plate. Thus, practical formulas are not viable tools for optimal design of LG plates.
Ultimately, numerical models and practical formulas do not
allow the structural designer to select the optimal LG plate among
the fail-safe plates. In order to determine the thickness and material
of layers and interlayer under any functional requirements and constraints, the design has to use an analytical closed-form (exact)
model.
Now, the LG plate can be modeled analytically, since a closedform exact model was recently obtained [19,6971], which provides the stresses and displacements of the sandwich plate. The
modeling assumptions are that the glass layers are governed by
the KirchhoffLove hypotheses and that the polymeric interlayer
has an elastic behavior.
Hence that model is linear. The deection-to-span limit within
which geometrical non-linearity of a plate is always negligible is
lower than 1/65. However, the simple-support is a restraint that
reduces geometrical non-linearity. As a result, geometrical non-linearity is not substantial in LG [72], and it may be neglected. However, geometric non-linearity increases the safety margin.
The interlayer materials behave in a visco-elastic way, but they
can be modeled in a linear-elastic way by means of the modulus of
elasticity in shear Gt, provided that Gt is related to temperature and
loading duration [18,23,25,36,37,4044,64]. Ultimately the results
of the analytical model do not suffer from any constraining
assumption.
When the structural designer commits to certain materials (i.e.,
glass type and a polymer for the interlayers), that analytical model
[19,6971] may provide a technique to optimally determine the
geometry of the sandwich plate. Likewise, when the geometry is
chosen, that model together with the fail-safe conditions may provide a technique to select the best materials for the layers and
interlayers.
Fixing one in general inuences the optimality of the other, but
concurrently determining the optimal geometry and selecting the
best materials remained an open issue in LG plate design. Therefore, activity was directed at carrying out research targeted at providing a general framework for optimal design of LG plate based on
a criterion suitable for LG plates, and at reducing the incidence of
weight in the design of LG plates.
To this end, the aforesaid model was applied to the laminated
system that fullls the fail safe condition, in the framework of
the optimal design.
Since the upper layer is sacricial, analytical modeling does not
consider the tri-layer system (Fig. 1), but the sandwich system
(Fig. 6). Hence, analytical modeling took into account the LG plate
whose cross-section is formed by two glass layers, each one of thickness h (Figs. 36), called central and lower layer respectively, plus an
interlayer of thickness t. This research considered the rectangular
plate with sides L B (L 6 B), simply-supported at the four edges,
subjected to a uniformly distributed lateral load p (Figs. 1 and 6).
The material properties of the layers are the elastic modulus,
shear (elastic) modulus, and Poissons ratio of glass, Eg, Gg, and mg,
respectively. For structural glass, commonly: Eg = 70,000 N/mm2,
Gg = 28,689 N/mm2, and mg = 0.22, independently of the glass type
[43,45,46,5263].
The interlayer material properties are the shear modulus Gt and
the elasticity modulus Et.
The behavior of the interlayer can be represented by its stiffness, k (Fig. 6):
2 Gt
t
The greater the shear modulus Gt or the thinner the interlayer,

the greater k, and vice versa.
Fig. 6. Diagram of the load-bearing system of the laminated glass plate, with the
geometric and mechanical symbols. The diagram shows the glass types of the load
bearing system. The system together with the sacricial glass ply (plies) satises
the fail-safe conditions.
Fig. 7. Bi-layer system proposed as alternative to the fail-safe tri-layer system of

Fig. 1. If the live loads act onto both the faces of the plate, a bottom sacricial ply is
added to the bi-layer system, so as to obtain an alternative design solution to the
fail-safe quadri-layer system of Fig. 2. The bottom sacricial ply has no role in
the structural behavior; therefore it can be ignored. The bi-layer system shown in
the gure incorporates the sacricial ply into the load-bearing system: The upper
glass layer may be sacricial with respect to the strength verication, while it is
usually considered in the stiffness verication. In the stress state shown in the
gure, the depth of the neutral axis in the upper layer, which depends on k, L, B, and
h, is greater than the depth of the load-induced crack, which depends on contact
loads but not on the design loads. Consequently, the load-induced crack is in
compression. In this case, the upper glass ply can be taken into account in the
strength verication as well (i.e., in this loading condition, the upper layer can be
not sacricial in any limit state verication).
The dependence of the shear elasticity modulus of the interlayer Gt on temperature and loading duration is dictated by the
interlayer material, which is a design option. Moreover, t is a
design parameter as well. Hence, k is a design parameter whose
values, within certain limits, can be chosen so as to obtain the optimal design.
j.matdes.2014.05.030
5. Laminated Glass plates that match exactly the most severe

limit
The optimal design criterion is that the thickness of the central
and lower layers, which are equal to one another, and the shear
stiffness of the interlayer have to produce a behavior that matches
the most severe limit of the plate.
5.1. Wide-ranging analysis on Laminated Glass plates
An extensive analysis was carried out on the LG plate, which
aimed at identifying the solutions to the optimal design problems
formulated above.
The analysis considered all the spans and loads that can be
found in building applications of glass. In particular, the analysis
ranged from 2.00 m to 6.00 m spans. Lower spans belong to glass
used in fenestration, so they are outside the scope of this paper.
Greater spans make manufacturing difcult and may cause problems during the installation. The analysis considered all the possible design loads of bearing and non-bearing members. Moreover,
the analysis considered, for glass layers and polymeric interlayers,
only products that are available on the market. In so doing, realistic
results were obtained, which should be relevant not only to
researchers in academia but also to engineers and designers in
industry, as well as practitioners.
Float glass is produced in varying thicknesses; different thicknesses are not available. Glass panes can be found in standard metric thicknesses of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 19, and 25 mm.
Sometimes, also the thickness of 22 mm can be found, although
it is less common. Accordingly, the analysis considered these thicknesses only (the 22-mm-thickness was necessary in one case only).
It is to note that the 3-mm-gap between two consecutive thicknesses of the panes from the 12-mm-thickness to the 25-mmthickness strongly conditioned the optimality of the solutions.
The treatments that these panes can be subjected to are annealing [56,57], heat-strengthening [58,59], tempering [60,61] and
chemically strengthening [62,63] processes. It is to note that thermal treatments of very thin panes may encounter some difculties;
however, the 2-mm-thichness was necessary in one case only.
Likewise, the heat-strengthened process of glass panes with thickness greater than 15 mm may encounter some difculties too,
since in this case the enthalpy (heat content) is very high due to
a cooling process slower than that of the tempered glass. Thus, in
the heat-strengthening treatment, the core of thick panes remains
hot when the surface is already cold and solidied. The subsequent
cooling of the core might develop further surface compression
coactive stresses, which modify the failure mode toward that of
tempered glass, but without reaching the strength of tempered
glass.
Polymeric interlayers for LG are produced in sheets with a
thickness of 0.38 mm. Interlayers are obtained by using one sheet
or by stacking sheets, usually up to a maximum 4. Accordingly to
the number of sheets that are piled up, an interlayer may have a
thickness of 0.38, 0.76, 1.14, and 1.52 mm. Accordingly, the analysis considered these interlayer thicknesses only.
More specically, the maximum values of rgo, rgi, and wmax used in
the limit analysis, and the parameters used in the models were the
following:
The maximum allowable stresses (strength) considered in ultimate limit state verications of LG plates used for oors or covering roofs were 5.5, 25.0, 65.0, and 80.0 N/mm2 for annealed,
heat-strengthened, tempered, and chemically-strengthened
glass, respectively.
These stress values include all the strength-reduction factors of
glass, barring the factor that takes into account the type of edge
work, since the maximum tension stress is away from the edges.
In particular, these values consider that the load duration is equal
to the lifespan of the element. Moreover, these values include the
material partial factors for the ultimate limit state prescribed by
the codes.
The maximum allowable stresses (strength) of each glass type
considered in ultimate limit state verication of LG plates used
for faades and partitions were 19.0, 40.0, 80.0, and 105.0 N/
mm2 for annealed, heat-strengthened, tempered, and chemically-strengthened glass, respectively.
Also these stress values (and for the same reason) include all the
strength-reduction factors of glass, barring the factor that takes
into account the type of edge work. These values consider that
the stresses are produced by the wind action or impacts, whose
load duration was assumed to be 5 s. These stress values also
include the material partial factors for the ultimate limit state prescribed by the codes.
The maximum allowable displacement considered in serviceability limit state verication of LG plates used for oors and
covering roofs was 1/200 of the minor span of the plate.
The maximum allowable displacement considered in serviceability limit state verication of LG plates used for faades
and partitions was 1/65 of the minor span.
For every glass type, Eg = 70,000 N/mm2 and mg = 0.22.
The analysis considered two interlayer materials namely, PVB
and IP (i.e., the most common utterly compliant and relatively
stiff types, respectively) and two types of glass members
namely, primary or secondary bearing members, as oors or
covering roofs, and non-bearing members, as faades and
partitions.
The conditions considered for oors and roofs (bearing members) were a loading duration of more than 50 years and a temperature of at least 50 C. The interlayer shear elasticity modulus used
for this combined condition was Gt = 0.052 N/mm2 in the case of
PVB material and Gt = 1.50 N/mm2 in the case of IP materials.
The conditions considered for faades and partitions (non-bearing members) were a loading duration of 30 s (the wind gust can
act on a plate already loaded by the mean wind) and a temperature
of 50 C. The interlayer shear elasticity modulus used for this combined condition was Gt = 0.300 N/mm2 for PVB material and
Gt = 105.00 N/mm2 for IP materials.
5.2. Modeling and limit analysis

5.3. Analytical results
The analytical model described in Section 4 was used to obtain
the maximum stresses in the glass layers, rgo and rgi (Figs. 4 and 5)
under the combination of actions for the ultimate limit state, and
the maximum deection wmax of the plate under the combination
of actions for the serviceability limit state.
The maximum allowable values used in the analysis were those
prescribed by the main codes on glass (Section 3) [43,45,46,5263].
The results of the analysis are presented in Tables 1 and 2,

which show the geometry of the glass layers and the stiffness of
the interlayer that provide the optimal solution among all the LG
plates whose behavior fullls the limit states.
Table 1 considers bearing members and the relevant limits;
Table 2 considers non-bearing members and the relevant limits.
j.matdes.2014.05.030
Table 1
Laminated Glass plate congurations that match the most severe limit state of
bearing glass members. L = span of the plate; B = width of the plate; p = load
uniformly distributed on the plate (on the sacricial glass ply, which is the upper
layer); h = thickness of each glass layer of the bi-layer system that carries the stresses
(i.e., of the central layer and the lower layer); k = stiffness of the interlayer between
the central and lower layer, dened by Eq. (1); rgo = maximum tension stress in the
lower glass layer; rgi = maximum tension stress in the central glass layer; wmax =
maximum deection of the plate.
Data
Design
Behavior
L
mm
B
mm
p
kN/m2
h
mm
k
N/mm3
rgo
rgi
N/mm2
N/mm2
L/wmax
mm/mm
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
1500
1500
1500
1500
2000
2000
2000
2000
2500
2500
2500
2500
2000
2000
2000
2000
2500
2500
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
3000
2500
2500
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
3000
3500
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3500
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4000
4500
4500
4500
4500
5000
5000
5000
5000
3500
3500
3500
3500
4000
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
3
4
5
6
4
5
6
8
4
5
8
8
5
5
8
10
5
6
8
10
5
8
10
10
5
8
8
10
6
8
10
12
6
8
10
12
8
8
12
12
6
8
10
12
8
10
12
15
8
10
12
15
8
10
15
15
8
10
15
15
8
10
12
15
8
3.6512
3.4571
5.5368
4.5128
1.4723
2.2415
4.7642
1.8212
2.9663
4.9663
1.0563
3.2632
0.6855
7.4374
1.1913
0.7281
1.6479
3.7532
3.0116
1.8108
3.8705
0.7448
1.0369
3.4539
4.0558
0.7600
3.4964
3.3766
1.7650
1.5023
2.1618
1.7737
4.9142
3.1047
4.9194
3.3684
0.5216
7.8622
1.3590
6.7982
4.3127
2.7732
4.3107
2.9583
0.6256
0.8733
1.6805
1.0136
0.9958
1.4670
3.2853
1.6689
1.5933
2.4221
0.7350
2.5796
2.553
4.3150
0.9655
3.9043
0.8780
1.2522
2.7321
1.4377
1.8864
7.32
9.01
11.62
12.92
7.58
9.70
12.81
13.43
8.59
11.08
12.32
15.06
6.56
9.76
10.52
11.81
9.99
10.02
12.41
13.45
8.73
9.56
12.15
15.04
7.68
8.34
12.47
13.19
7.77
9.50
12.14
13.50
8.78
10.61
13.60
14.98
7.77
11.61
12.81
16.30
7.78
9.39
12.05
13.27
7.16
9.13
15.04
13.01
15.07
15.01
15.03
14.14
8.43
10.79
12.24
15.20
8.96
11.50
12.77
16.16
6.99
8.94
11.80
12.65
7.91
1.88
3.28
3.68
5.43
2.83
3.34
3.20
6.26
1.56
1.68
5.07
4.20
4.61
1.40
7.30
9.92
7.68
2.22
3.91
6.12
1.16
4.20
5.20
3.89
1.31
5.93
1.76
5.06
2.25
3.66
4.39
5.92
0.84
2.06
2.28
3.73
3.09
8.25
4.25
2.07
1.10
2.71
3.04
5.00
3.63
4.46
11.92
7.05
7.84
9.99
13.20
5.14
1.83
2.10
5.17
3.75
1.21
1.25
4.37
2.69
3.43
4.13
3.84
6.80
1.88
200.4
200.0
199.7
199.8
199.8
200.7
200.5
201.3
200.6
200.3
199.6
199.4
200.2
200.2
200.4
200.6
200.2
199.7
199.3
199.4
199.9
200.4
200.0
200.3
200.1
199.8
199.2
200.0
200.2
199.4
199.0
199.6
199.9
200.2
199.8
200.2
200.1
199.4
199.3
200.4
200.5
200.6
199.7
199.5
200.6
199.7
199.5
199.7
199.1
199.9
199.6
200.1
200.2
199.7
199.5
200.1
200.0
199.7
200.3
199.2
200.1
199.3
199.4
199.6
199.1
Table 1 (continued)
Data
Design
Behavior
L
mm
B
mm
p
kN/m2
h
mm
k
N/mm3
rgo
rgi
N/mm2
N/mm2
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
5000
5000
5000
5000
6000
6000
6000
6000
4000
4000
4000
4500
4500
4500
4500
5000
5000
5000
5000
5500
5500
5500
5500
4000
4000
4000
4000
4500
4500
4500
4500
5000
5000
5000
5000
6000
6000
6000
6000
5000
5000
5000
5000
6000
6000
6000
6000
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
10
15
15
10
12
15
19
10
12
15
19
10
12
15
19
8
12
15
15
10
12
15
19
10
12
15
19
10
15
19
19
10
15
19
19
12
19
22
25
3.1368
0.8134
3.0526
0.4792
0.8984
1.2644
0.6858
0.6706
1.3285
1.9211
0.9641
0.8951
1.9685
2.9474
1.2772
4.5208
0.7796
1.0842
6.3684
0.6966
1.4169
2.0573
0.9958
1.1326
2.9274
4.8447
1.5450
4.2421
0.6770
0.8453
4.1179
5.1868
0.6508
0.8158
4.2921
5.3184
0.3693
0.9239
1.1618
10.12
11.30
14.23
7.40
9.63
12.24
13.33
7.84
10.28
13.01
14.07
8.25
10.87
13.89
14.74
7.92
8.68
11.05
14.23
7.30
9.60
12.25
13.09
7.92
10.51
13.44
14.13
9.06
9.97
12.57
16.00
8.00
8.71
10.98
14.11
8.07
8.50
11.29
13.00
2.00
6.13
3.97
3.48
3.81
4.62
6.92
2.80
2.89
3.42
5.68
2.28
2.13
2.45
4.73
0.88
4.90
5.98
2.41
3.24
3.23
3.80
6.69
2.27
1.79
1.88
5.00
0.68
3.56
4.53
2.36
0.64
4.86
6.18
2.86
0.55
5.67
5.41
5.93
L/wmax
mm/mm
200.4
200.3
199.8
199.9
199.3
199.5
199.4
200.1
199.6
199.7
199.6
200.2
200.3
199.9
200.2
199.5
200.0
199.6
199.6
200.2
199.8
199.5
199.5
200.1
200.0
200.0
199.1
200.4
200.2
200.1
200.4
200.3
200.0
200.1
199.7
199.4
199.7
199.4
200.0
For each plate, these tables provide the minimum thickness of the
glass layers and the minimum stiffness of the interlayer that allow
the plate to satisfy the serviceability and ultimate limit states.
Hence, each LG plate with the relevant geometry and stiffness in
Tables 1 and 2 satises both the deection verication and the
strength verication; one verication exactly, the other verication
with a certain margin.
Moreover, Tables 1 and 2 provide, for each case, the maximum
stress in the lower glass layer rgo, the maximum stress in the central glass layer rgi (Fig. 4), and the ratio between the span L and
maximum deection wmax. The shear stress in the interlayer can
be calculated from those values, using Eg and Gt.
Tables 1 and 2 allow the design to select the optimal combinations of thicknesses of the glass layers and spans of the plate, for a
given design load.
6. Discussion
The analysis considered all the spans and loads of LG plates
used in civil engineering, for bearing (Table 1) and non-bearing
(Table 2) members. Moreover, the analysis considered only real
glass plies and interlayers, which restricted the domain in which
the minimum values had to be found. In fact, the minimum thickness of each glass ply and the minimum stiffness of the interlayer
were found in a discrete domain, with a substantial increment
from one value to the next. The discrete domain implied that the
minimum thickness found among the glass plies available on the
j.matdes.2014.05.030

Table 2
Laminated Glass plate congurations that match the most severe limit state of nonbearing glass members. This table uses the same nomenclature as Table 1. The minus
sign indicates that the stress is compression.
Data
Design
Behavior
L
mm
B
mm
p
kN/m2
h
mm
k
N/mm3
rgo
rgi
N/mm2
N/mm2
L/wmax
mm/mm
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
1500
1500
1500
2000
2000
2000
2500
2500
2500
2000
2000
2000
2500
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
2500
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
3000
3000
3000
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4500
4500
4500
5000
5000
5000
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4500
4500
4500
5000
5000
5000
5500
5500
5500
4000
4000
4000
4500
4500
4500
5000
5000
5000
6000
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
5
3
4
5
4
4
6
4
4
6
4
5
6
4
5
8
5
6
8
4
5
8
5
6
8
5
6
8
5
8
8
6
8
10
5
6
8
5
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
8
1.9394
1.0369
21.6921
0.5022
3.6685
3.2616
0.8289
0.8289
15.5658
0.8951
0.9185
1.3544
3.1372
2.6109
4.6053
0.5886
24.2728
1.7303
0.5577
100.5886
1.6133
1.2140
1.9737
7.2368
3.3603
9.2625
0.7288
0.6105
1.1776
1.0511
2.9040
8.1671
0.6679
0.7450
1.6535
1.3158
1.3978
5.0498
2.7714
3.1422
0.4189
8.9258
0.5900
0.5299
0.7532
1.1374
3.8640
2.3196
6.0815
0.4621
0.6457
0.8252
0.7065
1.0112
1.3960
1.0652
1.6467
2.8421
1.5942
2.5901
0.6788
0.6087
0.8933
1.5269
1.0970
1.8027
10.0763
2.6609
4.9477
0.3777
15.16
17.60
27.10
15.11
22.07
27.18
16.70
20.93
31.5
14.44
17.93
23.01
17.63
21.60
27.97
16.21
24.95
27.21
14.15
22.05
23.94
16.47
21.27
28.52
18.64
24.17
25.70
16.91
22.40
27.41
16.52
21.40
22.64
15.74
20.92
25.54
17.49
23.57
28.37
19.10
20.53
31.00
17.46
21.54
27.40
15.66
21.03
25.31
18.04
18.94
24.15
16.80
20.55
26.26
18.14
22.02
28.11
19.34
23.40
29.98
15.18
18.53
23.58
17.05
20.66
26.31
18.89
22.63
29.10
16.76
4.10
10.49
0.56
7.53
3.30
6.26
5.26
7.49
0.70
6.88
10.13
12.20
1.82
4.17
4.22
6.01
0.48
7.52
8.19
1.74
10.12
4.38
4.85
2.32
1.42
0.58
10.81
5.26
5.51
8.43
1.86
0.70
14.45
5.69
5.15
9.07
3.30
1.56
4.92
1.35
8.43
1.36
4.88
7.22
8.78
4.55
2.39
6.62
0.36
9.90
12.15
4.60
7.41
8.93
2.90
5.43
6.16
1.35
3.86
4.17
6.13
9.55
11.32
3.00
6.13
6.61
0.08
2.76
2.55
5.78
64.7
65.0
64.6
65.5
65.2
64.7
65.3
64.7
65.0
65.0
65.1
64.8
64.9
64.8
64.5
65.5
64.6
65.4
65.3
64.43
64.6
64.7
64.5
64.6
64.7
64.5
64.3
65.4
64.3
64.4
64.7
64.9
64.7
65.4
65.1
64.5
65.1
64.3
64.7
64.7
64.8
64.4
64.7
64.4
64.5
64.7
64.7
64.9
64.4
65.1
64.9
65.0
64.7
64.5
64.8
64.8
65.1
64.8
64.5
64.5
64.5
64.8
65.3
64.3
64.1
65.1
64.0
64.8
64.3
64.8
Table 2 (continued)
Data
Design
L
mm
B
mm
p
kN/m2
h
mm
4000
4000
5000
5000
5000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
5000
5000
5000
6000
6000
6000
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
10
12
8
10
12
8
12
15
Behavior
k
N/mm3
0.5315
1.0799
0.3714
0.5216
1.0631
16.8526
0.4580
0.6395
rgo
rgi
N/mm2
N/mm2
21.40
28.04
14.59
18.66
24.58
17.37
18.73
23.89
7.06
7.14
7.70
9.39
9.28
0.40
9.25
11.24
L/wmax
mm/mm
64.6
64.6
65.3
64.9
64.6
64.9
65.0
64.7
market did not depend on the choice of the interlayer; and vice
versa, the minimum stiffness of the interlayer obtainable using
products available on the market did not depend on the choice of
the glass plies. This result facilitated the analysis and simplies
this discussion.
When the maximum deection is equal to 1/200 of the span, the
maximum tension stress in the lower glass layer rgo is always less
than one-quarter of the allowable tension stress for tempered glass
and it is always less than two-thirds of the allowable tension stress
for heat-strengthened glass (Table 1). Simultaneously, the maximum tension stress in the central glass layer rgi is always less than
30% of the allowable tension stress for heat-strengthened glass and
it exceeds the allowable tension stress for annealed glass only in
approximately one-fth of the cases (Table 1).
When the maximum deection is equal to 1/65 of the span, the
maximum tension stress in the lower glass layer rgo is always less
than 40% of the allowable tension stress for tempered glass, it is
always less than approximately three-quarters of the allowable
tension stress for heat-strengthened glass, and in approximately
two fth of the cases it is less than the maximum allowable tension
strength of annealed glass (Table 2). Simultaneously, the maximum
tension stress in the central glass layer rgi is always less than
approximately one-third of the allowable tension stress for heatstrengthened glass and it is always less than the allowable tension
stress for annealed glass (Table 2). Note that the allowable tension
stress (strength) of non-bearing members is greater than that of
bearing members, since in the former case the duration of the
design load is much shorter than in the latter case.
Hence, the design and structural assessment of the simply-supported LG plates whose lower layer is made of toughened glass and
whose central layer is made of heat-strengthened glass are always
dictated by the allowable deection. The design and structural
assessment can disregard the stress eld and strength of materials;
the limit state analysis can ignore resistance verication, while it
has to consider only the stiffness verication. Glass tension stresses and strength, as well as resistance verication have to be considered only when the central layer is made of annealed glass, but
only in few cases (some spans and loads), which are shown in
Tables 1 and 2.
Another result was that the choice of the interlayer does not
inuence the optimal selection for the glass layers, and vice versa.
Accordingly, the optimal design of the glass layers and of the interlayer can be separated from one another, which simplies the optimal design process.
7. Simultaneous selection of geometry and materials
This section is devoted to the optimal design of the simply-supported LG plate.
Tables 1 and 2 provide the design solutions with the minimum
weight of glass and the minimum stiffness of the interlayer to
j.matdes.2014.05.030
10
Table 3
Materials and thicknesses to obtain the optimal congurations found in Table 1 for bearing Laminated Glass plates. This table uses the same nomenclature as Table 1. Moreover,
type refers to the glass and material to the interlayer, where A = annealed glass, H = heat-strengthened glass, T = toughened glass (tempered or chemically strengthened),
IP = Ionoplast Polymers.
Central glass layer
L
mm
B
mm
p
kN/m2
Type
Label
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
1500
1500
1500
1500
2000
2000
2000
2000
2500
2500
2500
2500
2000
2000
2000
2000
2500
2500
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
3000
2500
2500
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
3000
3500
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3500
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4000
4500
4500
4500
4500
5000
5000
5000
5000
3500
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4000
4500
4500
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
H
H
A
A
H
A
A
A
A
A
H
A
A
A
A
A
H
A
A
A
A
A
H
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
H
H
H
H
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
A
A
H
A
A
A
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Interlayer
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Lower glass layer
h
mm
Material
Label
t
mm
Type
Label
3
4
5
6
4
5
6
8
4
5
8
8
5
5
8
10
5
6
8
10
5
8
10
10
5
8
8
10
6
8
10
12
6
8
10
12
8
8
12
12
6
8
10
12
8
10
12
15
8
10
12
15
8
10
15
15
8
10
15
15
8
10
12
15
8
10
15
15
10
12
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
0.76
0.76
0.38
0.38
1.52
1.14
0.38
1.52
0.76
0.38
1.52
0.76
1.52
0.38
1.52
1.52
1.52
0.76
0.76
1.52
0.76
1.52
1.52
0.76
0.38
1.52
0.76
0.76
1.52
1.52
1.14
1.52
0.38
0.76
0.38
0.76
1.52
0.38
1.52
0.38
0.38
0.76
0.38
0.76
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
0.76
1.52
1.52
1.14
1.52
1.14
1.14
0.38
1.52
0.76
1.52
1.52
0.76
1.52
1.52
0.76
1.52
0.76
1.52
1.52
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
h
mm
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
H
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
3
4
5
6
4
5
6
8
4
5
8
8
5
5
8
10
5
6
8
10
5
8
10
10
5
8
8
10
6
8
10
12
6
8
10
12
8
8
12
12
6
8
10
12
8
10
12
15
8
10
12
15
8
10
15
15
8
10
15
15
8
10
12
15
8
10
15
15
10
12
j.matdes.2014.05.030
11

Table 3 (continued)
Central glass layer
L
mm
B
mm
p
kN/m2
Type
Label
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
5000
5000
5000
5000
6000
6000
6000
6000
4500
4500
5000
5000
5000
5000
5500
5500
5500
5500
4000
4000
4000
4000
4500
4500
4500
4500
5000
5000
5000
5000
6000
6000
6000
6000
5000
5000
5000
5000
6000
6000
6000
6000
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
A
H
A
A
A
H
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
A
A
A
A
H
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
A
A
H
A
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Interlayer
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Lower glass layer
h
mm
Material
Label
t
mm
Type
Label
15
19
10
12
15
19
10
12
15
19
8
12
15
15
10
12
15
19
10
12
15
19
10
15
19
19
10
15
19
19
12
19
22
25
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
0.76
1.52
0.38
1.52
1.52
0.38
1.52
1.52
1.14
1.52
1.52
0.76
0.38
1.52
0.38
1.52
1.52
0.38
0.38
1.52
1.52
0.38
0.38
1.52
1.52
1.52
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
h
mm
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
15
19
10
12
15
19
10
12
15
19
8
12
15
15
10
12
15
19
10
12
15
19
10
15
19
19
10
15
19
19
12
19
22
25
Only the Ionoplast Polymers allow the interlayer to reach the stiffness shown in Table 1. In many cases, it is possible to choose between two glass types for the central layer. It
is always possible to choose between two glass types for the lower layer. The table presents all the glass types that can be used for each layer to satisfy the limit states of the
plate; however, these glass types do not all necessarily satisfy the fail-safe conditions.
satisfy the limit states, for bearing and non-bearing members,

respectively. Tables 3 and 4 demonstrate how those design solutions can be obtained using products available on the market. For
each case, thus, Table 3 (bearing members) and Table 4 (non-bearing members) provide both the glass type and thickness of the central and of the lower layers, and provide the combination of the
interlayer material and thickness.
More specically, Tables 3 and 4 provide the glass types that
allow each layer, whose thickness is the minimum possible (which
is one of the results in Tables 1 and 2) to bear the maximum tension stress induced by the design load. Hence, the glass types in
Tables 3 and 4 only allow for the strength verications, while not
all these glass types allow for the fail-safe conditions. The glass
types that do not fulll the fail-safe conditions can be chosen only
if the design satises in another way those fail-safe conditions that
are not met.
Moreover, Tables 3 and 4 provide the combinations of the material and thickness of the interlayer that allow each plate to reach at
least the minimum stiffness that is necessary to satisfy the limit
states (the minimum stiffness is another result of Tables 1 and
2). In some cases there is only one combination of material and
thickness.
layer with adequate strength and stiffness. Since both of these

options meet the fail-safe conditions, the choice is dictated by
the cost, which is less for annealed glass.
In all cases in Tables 3 and 4, both the toughened and heatstrengthened glass types provide the lower layer with adequate
strength and stiffness. Moreover, in several cases in Table 4, also
the annealed glass provides the lower layer with adequate strength
and stiffness. However, the lower layer completely satises the
second fail-safe condition only if it is made of toughened glass.
Conversely, a lower glass layer made of heat-strengthened or
annealed glass does not satisfy part of the second fail-safe condition. Therefore, this option can be considered only for the bi-layer
plate dealt with in Section 7.3, as an alternative of the tri-layer
plate dealt with here.
Note that heat-strengthened glass does not cost less than
toughened glass, although it is less resistant, since it requires an
extra process.
Ultimately, strength and stiffness conditions would make it
possible for the structural designer to choose among more glass
options, but fail-safe conditions drastically restrict these options.
Accordingly, a choice is only possible for the central layer, which
can be made of either heat-strengthened or annealed glass, according to the maximum stress rgi (Tables 3 and 4).
7.1. Selecting the glass type

Tables 3 and 4 show the glass types that provide the LG plate
considered in the analysis with adequate stiffness and strength
to satisfy the limit states.
In the vast majority of cases in Table 3 and in all cases in Table 4,
both heat-strengthened and annealed glass provide the central
7.2. Selecting the interlayer

While the glass type inuences the stiffness of neither the ply
nor the system, the interlayer material inuences the stiffness of
j.matdes.2014.05.030
12
Table 4
Materials and thicknesses to obtain the optimal congurations found in Table 2 for non-bearing Laminated Glass plates. This table uses the same nomenclature as Tables 1 and 3;
moreover, PVB = Poly Vinyl Butyral.
Central glass layer
L
mm
B
mm
p
kN/m2
Type
Label
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
1500
1500
1500
2000
2000
2000
2500
2500
2500
2000
2000
2000
2500
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
2500
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
3000
3000
3000
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4500
4500
4500
5000
5000
5000
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4500
4500
4500
5000
5000
5000
5500
5500
5500
4000
4000
4000
4500
4500
4500
5000
5000
5000
6000
6000
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Interlayer
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
h
mm
Material
Label
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
5
3
4
5
4
4
6
4
4
6
4
5
6
4
5
8
5
6
8
4
5
8
5
6
8
5
6
8
5
8
8
6
8
10
5
6
8
5
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
8
10
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
Lower glass layer

t
mm
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52/0.76
1.52/0.38
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
Type
Label
0.38
1.14
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.76
0.76
0.38
0.76
0.76
0.38
0.38
0.76
0.76
0.38
0.38
1.14
0.76
1.14
0.76
0.38
1.14
0.76
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.76
0.76
0.38
0.38
0.38
1.52
1.14
A
A
H
A
H
H
A
H
H
A
A
H
A
H
H
A
H
H
A
H
H
A
H
H
A
H
H
A
H
H
A
H
H
A
H
H
A
H
H
H
H
H
A
H
H
A
H
H
A
A
H
A
H
H
A
H
H
H
H
H
A
A
H
A
H
H
A
H
H
A
H
h
mm
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
T
H
H
T
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
8
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
10
T
T
T
T
A
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
5
3
4
5
4
4
6
4
4
6
4
5
6
4
5
5
6
8
4
5
8
5
6
8
5
6
8
5
8
8
6
8
5
6
8
5
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
6
8
10
8
10
j.matdes.2014.05.030
13

Table 4 (continued)
Central glass layer
L
mm
B
mm
p
kN/m2
Type
Label
4000
5000
5000
5000
6000
6000
6000
6000
5000
5000
5000
6000
6000
6000
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Interlayer
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
h
mm
Material
Label
12
8
10
12
8
12
15
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
Lower glass layer

t
mm
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
PVB
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
Type
Label
0.38
1.52
1.14
0.38
1.14
0.76
H
A
A
H
A
A
H
h
mm
H
H
H
H
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
12
8
10
12
8
12
15
In many cases, it is possible to choose between two interlayer materials. It is always possible to choose between two glass types for the central layer. It is always possible to
choose between two glass types, and in many cases between three glass types, for the lower layer. The table presents all the glass types that can be used for each layer to
satisfy the limit states of the plate; however, these glass types do not all necessarily satisfy the fail-safe conditions.
the interlayer and, therefore, of the whole system. In fact, Gt

strongly depends on the interlayer material.
The stiffness of the interlayer also depends on its thickness, as
shown by Eq. (1). Thus, material and thickness of the interlayer
have to be dealt with together. For each plate, the combination
of the two choices has to guarantee a stiffness greater than the relevant value in Table 1 or Table 2, which is the minimum stiffness
that allows each LG plate to satisfy both the limit states.
According to Eq. (1), the interlayer shear elasticity modulus
divided by the minimum stiffness obtained for the considered LG
plate provides the maximum thickness of the interlayer. More specically, 0.052 N/mm2 for PVB interlayers and 1.50 N/mm2 for IP
interlayers, divided by each stiffness in Table 1 provides the maximum theoretical thicknesses of the interlayer for each case in
Table 1; 0.300 N/mm2 for PVB interlayers and 105.00 N/mm2 for
IP interlayers divided by each stiffness in Table 2 provides the maximum theoretical thicknesses of the interlayer for each case in
Table 2. The minimum thickness that can be used in the design
was obtained by rounding off the theoretical minimum values to
the inferior value between the possible thicknesses of the
interlayer.
The thicknesses that were obtained in that way and the polymeric material that each thickness is associated with, are shown
in Tables 3 and 4. In some cases, a structural designer can choose
between a PVB and an IP interlayer, each one with an associated
thickness. In other cases, only an IP interlayer can be used, since
not even the minimum thickness (i.e., 0.38 mm) would provide a
PVB interlayer with adequate stiffness.
7.3. Updating the fail-safe design concept: First proposal
The large distance of the maximum tension stress from glass
strength in the LG plates that fulll the sail-safe conditions
(Section 2) and satisfy the limit states, suggested that the fail-safe
concept should be revised.
The rst fail-safe condition can be considered only for the
strength verication but not for the deection verication. This
position is justied by the fact that a crack is a local phenomenon,
and therefore it reduces drastically the local strength, while it
reduces the stiffness of the ply only marginally. Accordingly, even
one load-induced crack cut down the plys strength, while only a
great number of load-induced cracks can reduce considerably the
plys stiffness. Thus, the strength of a glass ply exposed to live loads
cannot even be guaranteed by frequent inspections, while the stiffness can be guaranteed by a normal inspection and maintenance
program.
The above proposal allows the structural designer to decide the
geometric dimensions of the load-bearing system considering only
the strength verication. Under the combination of actions for the
ultimate limit state, the central and lower glass layers that
compose the load-bearing system have to produce stresses less
than the strength of each glass layer. Conversely, the combination
of actions for the serviceability limit state is carried by the whole
tri-layer system (load-bearing system plus sacricial ply); i.e., the
deection verication includes the upper layer. In brief, the upper
layer is sacricial for the stress verication while can be considered
for the stiffness verication.
Since the combination of actions for the ultimate limit state is at
least 1.4 times greater than the combination of actions for the serviceability limit state, this design option signicantly reduces the
thickness of the LG plate. Design and assessment can still be
accomplished using Tables 1 and 2, since the behavior of the LG
plate is linear.
7.4. Updating the fail-safe design concept: Second proposal
The results show that heat-strengthened glass would provide
the lower glass layer with enough strength to resist the loads
(Tables 1 and 2). However, this layer is external; in the event that
this glass layer breaks, therefore, no sharp shards can fall, according to the second fail-safe condition. Thus, the lower layer has to be
made of toughened glass, which shatters into small, blunt pieces.
Conversely, heat-strengthened glass breaks into large, razor-sharp
slivers.
On one hand, to replace the toughened glass with heatstrengthened glass would not provide any economic benet, since
the latter costs no less than the former. On the other hand, however, this result suggests another updating of the fail-safe concept.
There are glass plates whose collapse does not involve building
occupants and pedestrians. These glass plates can be fail-safe also
without the toughened glass at the lower layer. For these plates,
the design can use a bi-layer system instead of a tri-layer system:
An upper layer made of toughened glass and a lower layer made of
heat-strengthened (or annealed) glass, together with the polymeric
interlayer between these glass layers. The layers should have the
same thickness. Since falling glass fragments, although neither
small nor blunt, cannot create potential injury or risk of death to
users and pedestrians, this LG plate fullls the second fail-safe condition. Moreover, the upper layer is devoted to collecting the live
loads (toughened glass), while the lower layer is devoted to providing the plate with adequate post-breakage capacity (heat-strengthened or annealed glass). Thus, this system is completely fail-safe.
There are glass plates whose live loads may act on both the
faces. These glass plates can be fail-safe only if the laminated system uses two sacricial ply, one at the top and one at the bottom.
For these plates, the design can use the above-described bi-layer
system plus a bottom sacricial ply made of toughened glass (and
the interlayer), instead of a quadri-layer system. Since this
j.matdes.2014.05.030
14
bottom layer shatters into small, blunt pieces, this LG plate fullls
the second fail-safe condition. Thus, this system is always failsafe, while the bi-layer system is fail-safe only if collapse does
not endanger users and pedestrians.
Since the sacricial ply added at the bottom of the bi-layer system has no structural role, the structural behavior of this system is
identical to that of the bi-layer system it derives from. Hence, only
the bi-layer system is considered in this subsection, which nevertheless includes both the design solutions.
The upper layer of the bi-layer system is not sacricial for the
serviceability verications. Thus, the deection verication due
to the combination of actions for the serviceability limit state is
performed using the bi-layer system. Hence, wmax is calculated
by considering the composite behavior of the LG plate.
Conversely, the upper layer of the bi-layer system may be considered sacricial for the ultimate verications. If it is sacricial,
the strength verication due to the combination of actions for
the ultimate limit state is performed using the lower layer only.
Hence, the maximum tension stress in the system is calculated
considering the monolithic behavior of the lower plate.
However, it is not mandatory to consider the upper layer sacricial. In many cases, the depth of the neutral axis is greater than
the depth of the load-induced cracks (Fig. 7). E.g. the stress proles
produced by rgo and rgi in Tables 1 and 2 show that, at the midspan, the compression zone is often greater than t/2 (while the
length of a load-induced crack is substantially less than t/2). The
neutral axis positions provided by the analytical model showed
that, in many cases, this condition remains true for the entire LG
plate. This condition is directly connected to the stiffness of the
interlayer, as dened by Eq. (1).
In those cases, the load-induced cracks are subjected to compression stresses and not to tension stresses (Fig. 7). Therefore,
the magnitude of the tension stresses is amplied by a stress intensity factor that is dictated, not by the load-induced cracks, but by
the cracks due to the aws, whose size is shorter.
When that condition is guaranteed, it is no longer mandatory
to consider the upper layer of the bi-layer system sacricial for
the ultimate verications; conversely, the strength verication
can be performed using the LG system. In this case, thus, rgi
and rgo are calculated considering the composite behavior of
the plate. However, the composite behavior can be considered
only for the load combinations that imply a depth of the neutral
axis greater than the depth of the load-induced cracks (Fig. 7). For
the other load combinations, the maximum stresses have to be
calculated considering the lower layer only.
According to Tables 1 and 2, the maximum tension stress in the
lower glass layer, rgi, is much less than the tension strength of the
heat-strengthened glass. More specically, under the loads that
produce a deection of 1/200 of the span, the maximum stress in
the bi-layer system is always less than two-thirds of the allowable
tension stress for heat-strengthened glass. Moreover, under the
loads that produce a deection of 1/65 of the span, the maximum
stress in the bi-layer system is always less than three-quarters of
the allowable tension stress for heat-strengthened glass.
Those differences prompt the use of the above-described bilayer system in lieu of the tri-layer system of Section 2.3, where
it is possible. In fact, this design solution saves weight with
respect to the tri-layer system and reduces the number of laminations from three to two layers. Moreover, if the compression
zone of the upper layer is deeper than the load-induced cracks
(Fig. 7), the amount of glass weight saved by the bi-layer system
is substantial, which drastically increases transparency and
reduces the costs. Also in this case, design and assessment can
still be accomplished using Tables 1 and 2, since the behavior
of the LG plate is linear.
8. Conclusions
The paper focuses on the Laminated Glass (LG) plate and presents criteria and a method for concurrent design and material
selection, by using analytical exact modeling. The paper provides
information that allows the structural designer not only to dimension the LG plate, but also to choose the best geometry-material
combination for a LG plate used as bearing member (oor, covering
roof, stair) or non-bearing member (faade, partition).
The consequences classes that those glass members are categorized in require that they are fail-safe. To this end, resort shall be
made to the fail-safe conditions presented in Section 2, which
allow the design to obtain adequate failure modes of the various
components and the whole laminated system, necessary to ensure
suitable robustness and damage tolerance, and to avoid both brittle
collapses and that dangerous shards can fall down. According to
these conditions, the plate has to be composed of at least three layers and two interlayers (tri-layer system). The bi-layer system can
be accepted only if the design satises in another way those failsafe conditions that are not met.
This paper uses a recently published analytical exact model of
the sandwich plate, which was derived in closed-form from the
KirchhoffLove assumptions for the layers and considering an elastic interlayer. The model provides analytically the stress eld in the
layers and interlayer, and the displacements.
When a structural designer commits to certain materials (types
of glass, interlayer material), that model can be used to determine
the best geometry of the LG plate. Likewise, when architectural
design has dened the geometry, that model can be used to select
the best materials. However, xing the geometry and then choosing the material or xing the material and then determining the
geometry are not truly optimal, since xing one in general inuences the optimality of the other. Concurrently determining the
optimal geometry and selecting the best materials remained an
open issue in the design of LG plates; this paper has lled this
gap for the simply-supported glass plate.
The rst result is the hierarchy of resistance. A LG plate that
matches the serviceability limit state always satises the ultimate
limit state (furthermore, with a great margin). This result holds
true for faades and partitions, although the conditions in which
these structures become unt for the intended purpose is when
the maximum displacement exceeds 1/65 of the span, which is a
great deection. This result holds true even if the deection verication considers the serviceability load while the strength verication considers the ultimate load.
Moreover, this result also holds true for LG plates whose lower
layer is made of heat-strengthened glass instead of toughened
glass; however, this solution can be used only if the design satises
in another way the fail-safe condition that a heat-strengthened
outer layer does not meet.
Ultimately, the design and assessment of the LG plate are dictated by the stiffness and not by the load-carrying capacity.
The second result achieved by this research, which follows logically from the rst result, is that only the choice of the glass type
used for the central layer is dictated by glass strength, while the
choices of the glass types used for the upper and lower layers are
dictated by the fail-safe conditions only.
The glass ply that collects the loads (upper layer) has to be
made of toughened glass and has to be sacricial, since an adequately small probability of failure cannot be guaranteed for a
glass ply exposed to live loads. If both the external faces are
exposed to live loads, including the environmental actions (windborne debris), fail-safe design calls for another sacricial ply (four
glass layers). The lower layer of the tri-layer system is external;
therefore, in the event of breaking, it has to shatter into small,
j.matdes.2014.05.030
blunt pieces. Hence, this layer has to be made of toughened glass.

The central layer of the tri-laminated system has to provide the
plate with adequate post-breakage load-carrying capacity, which
can be obtained by using either heat-strengthened or annealed
glass. The choice is dictated by the maximum stress reached by this
layer.
Hence, the structural designer considers glass strength only to
decide whether using a central layer made of heat-strengthened
or annealed glass. Moreover, assessment considers the central
layer only when it is made of annealed glass, while when it is made
of heat-strengthened glass no strength verication is necessary. In
fact, if the plate satises the deection verication, the heatstrengthened central layer always satises the stress verication.
Ultimately, the selection of the glass type does not allow the
structural designer to minimize the glass weight for given loads
and available space, but only to reduce the cost by using when
this is possible annealed instead of heat-strengthened glass for
the central layer (the latter is more expensive than the former).
Hence, the design and assessment have to focus on the thicknesses
of the layers and interlayer, and the material of the interlayer.
The results show that a plate that fullls the fail-safe conditions
and satises the stiffness demand does not take benet of glass
tension strength. In a tri-layer fail-safe system, in fact, the maximum tension stress is always much less than glass tension
strength, which suggested revising the fail-safe approach.
The ply that collects the live loads can be considered sacricial
for the strength verication only, but not for the stiffness verication. Accordingly, the stresses derive from the composite behavior
of the central and lower glass layers, while the displacements from
the composite behavior of the upper, central, and lower glass layers. Under this assumption, hence, assessment uses a bi-layer system for the stress verication, while a tri-layer system for the
displacement verication (the latter has much greater stiffness
then the former).
Where glass fragments of broken glass cannot fall onto occupants and pedestrians, the tri-layer system can be replaced by a
bi-layer system. In this system, the upper layer is made of toughened glass. This layer collects the live loads, provides the system
with adequate stiffness, but theoretically it does not provide any
strength since it is sacricial for the stress verication. The lower
layer is made of heat-strengthened glass. This layer provides the
system with adequate stiffness and strength; moreover, it provides
the system with adequate post-breakage load-carrying capacity.
Hence, the composite behavior of this system is considered only
for the serviceability verications, while the ultimate verications
are performed using a monolithic system; i.e., the deections are
calculated considering the bi-layer system, while the stresses considering the monolithic system provided by the lower layer.
In many cases, the depth of the neutral axis in the upper layer is
greater than the depth of the cracks induced by the live loads. In
this case, it is no longer mandatory to consider the upper layer sacricial, since there is no difference between the upper and lower
layer. When the neutral axis is sufciently deep, hence, the composite behavior of the bi-layer system can be considered for both
the strength and stiffness verications. In this case, nevertheless,
the strength verication has to consider all the possible combinations of actions. If a combination implies a depth of the neutral axis
less than the depth of the load-induced cracks, then the upper layer
has to be considered as sacricial in the strength verication under
that load combination.
When the live loads act on both the faces of the plate, the design
can use the above-described bi-layer system plus a sacricial ply at
the bottom, made of toughened glass. On one hand, this system has
the same structural behavior as the bi-layer system, since the sacricial ply has no role. On the other hand, however, this system is
always fail-safe, while the bi-layer system is fail-safe only if the
15
collapse does not endanger anyone. This system can be considered

as a viable alternative to the quadri-layer system, with respect to
which it saves one layer and sometimes it also saves weight. The
sacricial ply at the bottom would allow this system to replace
the three-layer fail-safe system also when the live loads act only
onto the top layer. In this case, the role of the sacricial ply would
be only that, when the heat-strengthened glass breaks, the jagged
and large particles cannot fall (i.e., the heat-strengthened glass
layer would be conned). However, only the three-layer fail-safe
system is the solution that makes the best use of the triple lamination, which is the major cost. In fact, the three-layer fail-safe system guarantees much higher strength, stiffness, robustness,
damage tolerance, and redundancy than the three-layer system
with the sacricial ply at the bottom. Moreover, the glass saved
by the latter system since the sacricial ply is thinner than the
lower glass layer of former system is a marginal benet. Therefore,
the three-layer system with the sacricial ply at the bottom should
be considered only in the cases where the live loads can act both at
the top and bottom of the plate.
References
[1] Ahmadian MR, Vincenti A, Vannucci P. A general strategy for the optimal
design of composite laminates by the polar-genetic method. Mater Des
2011;32(4):231727.
[2] Ermolaeva NS, Kaveline KG, Spoormaker JL. Materials selection combined with
optimal structural design: concept and some results. Mater Des
2002;23(5):45970.
[3] Florez L, Castro-Lacouture D. Optimization model for sustainable materials
selection using objective and subjective factors. Mater Des 2013;46:31021.
[4] Grujicic M, Bell WC, Pandurangan B. Design and material selection guidelines
and strategies for transparent armor systems. Mater Des 2012;34:80819.
[5] Harik VM. Optimization of structural designs for a safe failure pattern: layered
material systems. Mater Des 2001;22(4):31724.
[6] Hou S, Zhao S, Ren L, Han X, Li Q. Crashworthiness optimization of corrugated
sandwich panels. Mater Des 2013;51:107184.
[7] Lee GC, Kweon JH, Choi JH. Optimization of composite sandwich cylinders for
underwater vehicle application. Compos. Struct. 2013;96:6917.
[8] Le Maot N, Verron E, Bgu J. Simultaneous geometrical and material optimal
design of hybrid elastomer/composite sandwich plates. Compos Struct
2011;93(3):11537.
[9] Poirier JD, Vel SS, Cacces V. Multi-objective optimization of laser-welded
steel sandwich panels for static loads using a genetic algorithm. Eng Struct
2013;49:50824.
[10] Qiao P, Fan W, Davalos JF, Zou G. Optimization of transverse shear moduli for
composite honeycomb cores. Compos Struct 2008;85(3):26574.
[11] Radisavljevic I, Balos S, Nikacevic M, Sidjanin L. Optimization of geometrical
characteristics of perforated plates. Mater Des 2013;49:819.
[12] Sebaey TA, Lopes CS, Blanco N, Costa J. Ant colony optimization for dispersed
laminated composite panels under biaxial loading. Compos Struct
2011;94(1):316.
[13] Theulen JCM, Peijs AAJM. Optimization of the bending stiffness and strength of
composite sandwich panels. Compos Struct 1991;17(1):8792.
[14] Wastiels L, Wouters I. Architects considerations while selecting materials.
Mater Des 2012;2012(34):58493.
[15] Zhu F, Wang Z, Lu G, Zhao L. Analytical investigation and optimal design of
sandwich panels subjected to shock loading. Mater Des 2009;30(1):91100.
[16] Axinte E. Glasses as engineering materials: a review. Mater Des
2011;32(4):171732.
[17] Foraboschi P. Behavior and failure strength of laminated glass beams. ASCE J
Eng Mech 2007;133(12):1290301.
[18] Foraboschi P. Laminated glass column. J Struct Eng Inst Struct Eng
2009;87(18):206.
[19] Foraboschi P. Analytical model for laminated-glass plate. Compos B
2012;43(5):2094106.
[20] Hooper JA. On the bending of architectural laminated glass. Int J Mech Sci
1973;15(4):30923.
[21] Sobek W. Glass structures. Struct Eng 2005;83(7):326.
[22] Gunasekaran U, Emani P, Malini ATP. Facades of tall buildings state of the art.
J Modern Appl Sci 2010;4(12):11625.
[23] Van Duser A, Jagota A, Bennison SJ. Analysis of glass/polyvinyl butyral
laminates subjected to uniform pressure. ASCE, J Eng Mech
1999;125(4):43542.
[24] Badalassi M, Biolzi L, Royer-Carfagni G, Salvatore W. Safety factors for the
structural design of glass. Constr Build Mater 2014;55(31):11427.
[25] Biolzi L, Cattaneo S, Rosati G. Progressive damage and fracture of laminated
glass beams. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(4):57784.
[26] Foraboschi P. Hybrid laminated-glass plate: design and assessment. Compos
Struct 2013;106:25063.
j.matdes.2014.05.030
16
[27] Pantelides C, Horst A, Minor J. Postbreakage behavior of heat strengthened

laminated glass under wind effects. ASCE J Struct Eng 1993;119(2):45467.
[28] Royer-Carfagni G, Silvestri M. Fail-safe point xing of structural glass. New
advances. Eng Struct 2009;31(8):166176.
[29] Bigoni D, Dal Corso F, Gei M. The stress concentration near a rigid line
inclusion in a prestressed, elastic material. Part II.: Implications on shear band
nucleation, growth and energy release rate. J Mech Phys Solids
2008;56(3):83957.
[30] Foraboschi P. Predictive multiscale model of delayed debonding for concrete
members with adhesively bonded external reinforcement, Composites:
Mechanics. Computations, Applications 2012;3(4):30729.
[31] Labuz JF, Biolzi L. Characteristic strength of quasi-brittle materials. Int J Solids
Struct 1998;35(3132):4191203.
[32] Radi E, Bigoni D, Capuani D. Effects of pre-stress on crack-tip elds in elastic,
incompressible solids. Int J Solids Struct 2002;39(15):397196.
[33] To QD, He Q-C, Cossavella M, Morcant K, Panait A, Yvonnet J. The tempering
of glass and the failure of tempered glass plates with pin-loaded joints:
modelling and simulation. Mater Des 2008;29(5):94351.
[34] Ascione F, Feo L, Maceri F. An experimental investigation on the bearing failure
load of glass bre/epoxy laminates. Compos B 2009;40(3):197205.
[35] Belis J, Depauw J, Callewaert D, Delinc D, Van Impe R. Failure mechanisms and
residual capacity of annealed glass/SGP laminated beams at room
temperature. Eng Fail Anal 2009;16(6):186675.
[36] Fam A, Sami Rizkalla S. Structural performance of laminated and unlaminated
tempered glass under monotonic transverse loading. Constr Build Mater
2006;20(9):7618.
[37] Xu J, Li Y, Liu B, Zhu M, Ge D. Experimental study on mechanical behavior of
PVB laminated glass under quasi-static and dynamic loadings. J Compos B: Eng
2011;42(2):3028.
[38] Appleby-Thomas GJ, Hazell PJ, Cleave R. Penetration mechanisms
in glass laminate/resin structures. Mater Des 2012;34:54151.
[39] Galuppi L, Manara G, Royer-Carfagni G. Practical expressions for the design of
laminated glass. Compos B Eng 2013;45(1):167788.
[40] Biolzi L, Cagnacci E, Orlando M, Piscitelli L, Rosati G. Long term response of
glassPVB double-lap joints. Compos B Eng 2014;63(July):419.
[41] Louter C, Belis J, Veer FA, Lebet J-P. Structural response of SG-laminated
reinforced glass beams; experimental investigations on the effects of glass
type, reinforcement percentage and beam size. Eng Struct 2012;36:292301.
[42] Overend M, Butchart C, Lambert H, Prassas M. The mechanical performance of
laminated hybrid-glass units. Compos Struct 2014;110:16373.
[43] Italian National Research Council (CNR), Guide for the Design, Construction,
and Control of Buildings with Glass Structural Elements (Istruzioni per la
progettazione, lesecuzione ed il controllo di costruzioni con elementi
strutturali di vetro). CNR-DT 210; 2013.
[44] prEN16613, Glass in building laminated glass and laminated safety glass Determination of inter-layer mechanical properties, CEN TC 129; 2013.
[45] prEN 13474, Glass in building determination of the load resistance of glass
panes by calculation and testing, CEN TC 129; 2012.
[46] prEN16612, Glass in building determination of the load resistance of glass
panes by calculation and testing, CEN TC 129; 2013.
[47] Dharani L, Ji F, Behr R, Minor J, Kremer P. Breakage prediction of laminated
glass using the sacricial ply design concept. ASCE J Arch Eng
2004;10(4):12635.
[48] Kaiser N, Behr R, Minor J, Dharani L, Ji F, Kremer P. Impact resistance of
laminated glass using sacricial ply design concept. ASCE J Arch Eng
2000;6(1):2434.
[49] Saxe T, Behr R, Minor J, Kremer P, Dharani L. Effects of missile size and glass
type on impact resistance of sacricial ply laminated glass. J Arch Eng ASCE
2002;8(1):2439.
[50] Gy R. Ion exchange for glass strengthening. Mater Sci Eng: B
2008;149(2):15965.
[51] Morse S, Norville H. Design methodology for determining the load resistance
of heat-treated window glass. J Arch Eng ASCE 2012;18(1):4251.
[52] ASTM E1300 Standard Practice for Determining Load Resistance of Glass in
Buildings.
[53] ASTM C1422-99, Standard specication for chemically strengthened at glass,
American Society for Testing Material (ASTM); 1999.
[54] ASTM E1300-09a, Standard practice for determining load resistance of glass in
buildings, American Society for Testing Material (ASTM); 2009.
[55] ASTM C158-02, Standard test methods for strength of glass by exure
(Determination of Modulus of Rupture); 2012.
[56] EN 572-1, Glass in building Basic soda lime silicate glass products Part 1:
Denitions and general physical and mechanical properties; 2012.
[57] EN 572-2, Glass in building basic soda lime silicate glass product 2012 Part
2: Float glass; 2012.
[58] EN 1863-1, Glass in building heat strengthened soda lime silicate glass Part
1: Denition and description; 2011.
[59] EN 1863-2, Glass in building heat strengthened soda lime silicate glass Part
2: Evaluation of conformity/product standard; 2004.
[60] EN 12150-1, Glass in building thermally toughened soda lime silicate safety
glass Part 1: Denition and description; 2000.
[61] EN 12150-2, Glass in building THERMALLY toughened soda lime silicate
safety glass Part 2: Evaluation of conformity/Product standard; 2004.
[62] EN 12337-1, Glass in building chemically strengthened soda lime silicate
glass Part 1: Denition and description; 2000.
[63] EN 12337-2, Glass in building chemically strengthened soda lime silicate
glass evaluation of conformity/Product standard; 2004.
[64] Kerr A, Smith MJ, Cowling MJ, Hodgkies T. The biofouling resistant properties
of six transparent polymers with and without pre-treatment by two
antimicrobial solutions. Mater Des 2001;22(5):38392.
[65] Awad ZK, Aravinthan T, Zhuge Y, Manalo A. Geometry and restraint effects on
the bending behaviour of the glass bre reinforced polymer sandwich slabs
under point load. Mater Des 2013;45:12534.
[66] Lee MG, Yoon JW, Han SM, Suh YS, Kang KJ. Bending response
of sandwich panels with discontinuous wire-woven metal cores. Mater Des
2014;55:70717.
[67] Mostafa A, Shankar K, Morozov EV. Inuence of shear keys orientation on the
shear performance of composite sandwich panel with PVC foam core:
numerical study. Mater Des 2013;51:100817.
[68] Zhen W, Wanji C. A higher-order displacement model for stress concentration
problems
in
general lamination congurations.
Mater
Des
2009;30(5):145867.
[69] Foraboschi P. Layered plate with discontinuous connection: exact
mathematical model. Compos B Eng 2013;47:36578.
[70] Foraboschi P. Three-layered sandwich plate: exact mathematical model.
Compos B Eng 2013;45(1):160112.
[71] Foraboschi P. Three-layered plate: elasticity solution. Compos B Eng
2014;60(April):76476.
[72] Bedon C, Amadio C. Buckling analysis of simply supported at glass panels
subjected to combined in-plane uniaxial compressive and edgewise shear
loads. Eng Struct 2014;59:12740.
j.matdes.2014.05.030

01 Sulvetro PF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

01 Sulvetro PF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

Optimal design of glass plates loaded transversally

Tel.: +39 041 2571289.

In order to achieve an exhaustive description of safety, three

2. Fail-safe transparent plates

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

impacts, abrasions or piercings. The former are called initial cracks

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

loads has to be considered as broken, independently of whether it

The total thickness of the interlayers ranges from 0.76 mm to

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Ultimately, only if the sacricial glass ply is made of toughened

Hence, the load-bearing system is anti-symmetric with respect

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

The greater the shear modulus Gt or the thinner the interlayer,

Fig. 7. Bi-layer system proposed as alternative to the fail-safe tri-layer system of

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

5. Laminated Glass plates that match exactly the most severe

5.2. Modeling and limit analysis

The results of the analysis are presented in Tables 1 and 2,

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Lower glass layer

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Lower glass layer

satisfy the limit states, for bearing and non-bearing members,

layer with adequate strength and stiffness. Since both of these

7.1. Selecting the glass type

7.2. Selecting the interlayer

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Lower glass layer

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Lower glass layer

the interlayer and, therefore, of the whole system. In fact, Gt

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

blunt pieces. Hence, this layer has to be made of toughened glass.

collapse does not endanger anyone. This system can be considered

P. Foraboschi / Materials and Design xxx (2014) xxxxxx

[27] Pantelides C, Horst A, Minor J. Postbreakage behavior of heat strengthened

Anda mungkin juga menyukai