Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
h i g h l i g h t s
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The evolution of damage of a glass-concrete façade panel is presented and discussed. The phenomenon is
Received 2 November 2015 strongly influenced by the mutual interaction between three materials (concrete, steel rebars and glass)
Received in revised form 10 April 2016 having different mechanical and rheological properties.
Accepted 26 April 2016
To assess the possible causes of the observed damages, detailed 3D finite element numerical analyses
Available online 4 May 2016
were conducted considering the effects of thermal loads, due to difference of temperature outside and
inside of the building, and the effects of concrete shrinkage. Furthermore, a construction stages analysis
Keywords:
was implemented to consider the loading history during the production process of the panel.
Glass-concrete
Composite panels
The analyses were performed both in linear elastic and non-linear conditions to assess the stress redis-
Shrinkage tributions in the panel due to concrete cracking. In particular, the analyses showed that the shrinkage of
Thermal loads concrete was the main reason of the detected damage in a case study, even considering the creep that
Numerical model mitigates the phenomenon leading to a delayed cracking. Finally, a parametric study is presented assum-
ing different factors (concrete rib sizes, different shrinkage laws, as a consequence of the addition of
shrinkage-reducing admixtures (SRA), different bond between glass and concrete and different reinforce-
ment ratio). The results of this parametric study suggest interesting remarks about suitable design prin-
ciples of glass-concrete façade panels.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The glass hollow blocks allow the reduction of supply costs with
respect to traditional windows because they join the intrinsic char-
The research of high degrees of transparency has become a acteristics of transparency with the worthwhile use of a modular
main concern in architecture following the increase of the applica- element (for transportation, storage and on-site installation) [2].
tion of glass in buildings. Therefore, from being used for simple In addition, the higher specific mass ensures a better sound insula-
infill panels, the glass is increasingly used to form complete load tion against impact noises and, the air chamber into the glass
bearing structures. Among them, precast glass concrete panels ensures a good thermal insulation. Glass is a homogeneous and iso-
have been employed as skylights, deck lights, stairs, landings, tropic material, having a linear elastic behavior up to a brittle fail-
bridges, sidewalks, walls and other original uses. A surprising ure [3]. The macroscopic strength of glass is dominated by
range of applications is conceivable with a resultant variety of microstructural flaws, which are always present, due to the pro-
aesthetic results [1]. duction processes and subsequent handling. Furthermore, cutting
processes negatively affect the mechanical response of glass ele-
ments, because of an additional defect production along the ele-
⇑ Corresponding author. ment boundaries that locally reduces the tensile strength [4]. The
E-mail addresses: luigi.biolzi@polimi.it (L. Biolzi), sara.cattaneo@polimi.it microcracks open in mode I when the tensile stress reaches a crit-
(S. Cattaneo), pietro.crespi@polimi.it (P. Crespi), nicola.giordano@polimi.it
(N. Giordano).
ical limit, but they can grow over time even for stress values much
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.106
0950-0618/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
236 L. Biolzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 235–244
lower than the critical ones. This phenomenon, usually denoted as aspects. The results of an extensive and detailed three dimensional
static fatigue or slow crack propagation, makes the glass strength finite element numerical analysis are illustrated. Linear and non-
dependent upon time and thermo-hygrometric conditions that, in linear analyses to evaluate the consequences of environmental
turn, affect the speed of the slow crack propagation. In a composite thermal conditions and concrete shrinkage are presented as well.
panel, in addition to glass, there is also concrete, which has a pecu- Even if the stress level was small, the creep effect was considered
liar long-term behavior. All concretes shrink, even the so-called to evaluate whether it could significantly reduce the shrinkage
shrinkage-compensating concrete, that is they show a time depen- effect. Finally, the influence of the concrete rib size, of the addition
dent strain. Concrete shrinkage strain persists to increase with of SRA, of the bond between glass and concrete and of different
time at a decreasing rate. Shrinkage reaches a final value as time reinforcement ratio were taken into consideration.
approaches infinity and is dependent on all the factors which affect
the drying of concrete, including the relative humidity, the temper-
ature, the mix characteristics (type and quantity of the binder, 2. Observed damage
water content, and water-to-cement ratio, ratio of fine to coarse
aggregate, and the type of aggregate), and the size and shape of The problem of damage in glass-concrete composite panels is
the element [5,6]. Because of a loss in volume, concrete shrinkage discussed with reference to an actual application of precast glass-
can lead to cracking when concrete is restrained [7]. Evident and/or concrete façade panels. The curtain wall, made of glass block con-
unreasonably wide cracks usually may be unpleasant and spoil a crete elements, was adopted in several façades of a complex build-
visible concrete surface; in addition they allow the entrance of ing, with all exposures. Since the façades had different sizes,
moisture thus accelerating corrosion of the reinforcement and several types of panels were built, containing a different number
leading to durability problems. Concrete shrinkage is an important of glass blocks, ranging from a minimum of 10 (panel size
design issue because it can cause, when restrained by a rigid glass 189 86.5 cm) up to a maximum of 65 (panel size 189 493 cm).
element, an additional state of stress more and more significant in The geometry of a panel with 25 blocks (5 5) and a portion of
time. This paper is addressed to present and discuss the effects of a the façade is shown in Fig. 1.
problematic combination of different materials, leading to irre- A damage of the façade panels was observed just after the end
versible damages of the glass-concrete composite panels with sig- of the construction works (about three months after the casting
nificant consequences on aesthetic, functional and economical of the panels). In particular, some glass blocks showed a crack
L. Biolzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 235–244 237
3. Materials
The concrete panels had a thickness of about 9.5 cm together with a distance
between glass blocks of 8 cm. The concrete ribs were reinforced with two rebars
(steel class B450C, according to European Standard [8], 8 mm diameter) as shown
Fig. 3. Main façade of the building: geometry and evolution of damage. in Fig. 1. The concrete cover was about 15 mm. Two bushes were introduced to
allow the handling of the panel.
The glass blocks were obtained by coupling a plane element with a diamond
shaped one. The detailed geometry of the glass block is shown in Fig. 5, the side
length is about 300 mm.
The conformity assessment of the product was done according to EN1051-2 [9]
while the evaluation of the thermal transmittance (Uf = 1.4 Wm2 K1) was done
following EN 673 [10]. Compression tests according to EN1051-1 [11] were per-
formed as well.
The compressive strength determined according to EN1051-1 Annex A (loaded
surface 298 98 mm) was about 10 MPa (coefficient of variation of about 12.22%),
while the tests according to EN1051-2 Annex E (determined over a 40 40 mm
load surface) showed an average strength of 16.74 MPa (coefficient of variation of
about 24.08%).
Additional tests according to EN1051-2 Annex B and EN ISO 7459 [12] were per-
formed to evaluate the thermal shock resistance (assumed temperatures were 50 °C
and 20 °C). All specimens did not show any damage.
3.2. Concrete
Fig. 4. Percentage of damaged blocks versus time. Concrete class C32/40 was selected for the production of glass-concrete com-
posite panels. During the production, a CEMII/B-LL 42.5R cement was used and
the maximum aggregate size was 16 mm. The compressive cubic strength mea-
sured after 460 days was 57.12 MPa, corresponding to 41.2 MPa at 28 days.
on the inner surface as shown in Fig. 2. In some cases, the crack
on the glass was related to a nearby crack on the concrete sur- 3.3. Connections
face. Usually cracks developed around the middle of the side of
the glass block (nothing was detected around the glass block cor- The connection between panels was achieved by using a vulcanized rubber with
mechanical properties evaluated according to EN ISO 8339 [13]. This type of con-
ners) (Fig. 2).
nection does not induce any additional stress.
The detected damage was randomly distributed whatever the The panels were connected to the structure by four hangers welded on-site to a
exposure of the façade, the size of the panel and the position of tubular steel frame fixed to the reinforced concrete structures through post-
the panel within the façade, as shown in Fig. 3 where the west installed bonded fasteners. Therefore, the panels are independent and subjected
only to self-weight.
and the north façade damages are shown. No significant differ-
ences in the damage distribution was detected.
The damage abruptly developed up to about one year later 4. Environmental conditions
when the rate of damage of the glass block decreased, as shown
in Fig. 4, where the percentage of damaged glass blocks versus time Environmental conditions (temperature and relative humidity)
is plotted. could be, among other factors, a cause of the observed damage.
238 L. Biolzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 235–244
For this reason, the collected data every hour for one year (in a
weather station close to the building) by the Regional Agency have
been considered (Fig. 6).
Fig. 8. Stresses within the concrete (rC) and the glass (rG) for concrete made with CEM42.5R concrete tensile strength (fctm) considering only shrinkage (left) or shrinkage
and creep (right).
6. Numerical model
Fig. 9. Numerical FEM model of the panel.
To evaluate the causes and evolution of the damage, a numeri-
cal model of a representative glass-concrete panel has been consid-
For instance, the shrinkage law given by CEB Model Code 2010 ered (Fig. 9). The model accounted for the complex geometry
[14] can be assumed as a reference, assuming a cement CEM 42.5R considering a symmetric 189 195 cm size panel, with 5 5
with a relative humidity of 67% (average value according to exper- glass-concrete single cells. The finite element model (FEM), using
imental data) and a time of beginning of shrinkage of 7 days the commercial code MIDAS FEA, was composed by 3D tetrahedral
(demoulding). and hexahedral elements within beam elements representing the
By considering the concrete tensile strength (fctm(t)) evaluated reinforcing bars placed in the concrete ribs (for an overall number
according to [14] it results that cracking appears after about of 266,219 elements and 271,541 nodes). The model was fully con-
58 days (Fig. 8 left, intersection between fctm and rc). Obviously strained in 4 connection points and subjected to the self-weight
this result depends on the shrinkage law adopted, and on several load. The concrete shrinkage and temperature gradient effects
factors (i.e. the actual tensile strength of the concrete) so it must due to the different temperatures between the indoor and outdoor
not be considered a ‘‘true value”, but it gives a reasonable value sides of the building were considered as well.
(according to in situ observation) in which the damage phenomena A complete time-dependent linear elastic construction stage
begun. analysis was performed to simulate the loading sequence of the
Nevertheless, even if creep in tension is still an open issue see panel. Five construction stages were considered as described in
e.g. [15–17], it is interesting to evaluate whether cracking could Table 1.
be avoided because of the relaxation due to creep. For this reason, During the first stage, the maximum tensile stress in the mate-
according to the age adjusted effective modulus method, an aging rials was about 0.1 MPa, significantly lower than their limit
coefficient v equal to 0.8 and a creep coefficient (u(t,t0)) reported strength.
Table 1
Description of the 5 construction stages.
Fig. 10. Stage 2: normal stresses rxx in the central cell of the panel.
Fig. 11. Stage 4: normal stresses rxx in the concrete ribs of the panel.
At the end of the second stage (7 days) the first effects of shrink- At the end of the curing period (7 days) the panel was placed in
age phenomenon were detected, with a maximum tensile stress in vertical position (Stage 3), and higher stresses near the 4 connec-
the concrete ribs that reached about 1.2 MPa. In any case the stress tion points were detected.
is still significantly lower than the concrete tensile strength evalu- The fourth stage considered the panel mounted on the façade
ated as 3.02 MPa according to the Model Code 2010 [13]. At the after about 6 months. The effects of concrete shrinkage lead to sig-
same time, the glass blocks and the reinforcing bars were under nificant increase of the stresses in the materials. In particular, the
a compression stress field. The normal stresses rxx contour in concrete has to be considered cracked, since a concrete tensile
the single central cell of the panel is reported in Fig. 10. stress of 7.4 MPa was evaluated.
L. Biolzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 235–244 241
Fig. 13. Stresses field before cracks: (a) axial force in the rebars; (b) normal stresses rxx.
242 L. Biolzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 235–244
Fig. 14. Stresses field after cracks: (a) axial force in the rebars; (b) normal stresses rxx.
Fig. 15. Slice plane representation of normal stresses rxx inside the glass block.
size of the concrete rib, bond between glass and concrete, rein-
forcement ratio) that should influence the overall behavior of the analytical model was considered to find the internal forces rising
panel. into both concrete and glass. Fig. 16 shows the axial forces as a
To evaluate the influence of the panel geometry (in terms of function of the concrete rib size, and highlights that both parame-
concrete rib thickness) and the possible addition of SRA (Shrinkage ters (size and SRA) strongly affect the results. Indeed, by consider-
Reduction Admixture) to reduce shrinkage [14], the linear elastic ing the shrinkage strain at 180 days (continuous line), it can be
L. Biolzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 235–244 243
Table 3
Effect of bond and reinforcement in glass block: maximum normal stresses.
which allow the slipping of the two materials (due to low mechan-
ical properties of the interface i.e. polyurethane shear modulus
G = 0.08 MPa).
The finite element model of the interface is shown in Fig. 18
with the results in the case of both perfect bonding and weak bond.
Maximum shear stresses nearby the crack are significantly differ-
Fig. 17. Tensile stresses on glass block for different thicknesses and addition of SRA. ent. In the first case, the level of stress is 17.94 MPa, while in the
second case the stress is negligible.
In addition, the amount of reinforcement plays a double role.
observed that the internal forces within the two materials are By increasing the reinforcement ratio, the restraint given by the
almost twice by considering a side of 80 mm instead of a side of reinforcement to the concrete is higher and thus cracking could
20 mm. By using a SRA in the concrete mix the shrinkage strain occur earlier. Nevertheless, after cracking, the steel rebars play
was reduced at 50% and thus, due to the linearity of the model an important role bridging the cracks and ensuring the transmis-
the actions will be reduced of the 50% as well (dashed line). sion of the internal forces.
On the basis of these results, additional numerical analyses had Table 3 summarizes the results obtained in terms of maximum
been performed considering different design conditions: with or normal stress in the glass block near a shrinkage crack in the
without SRA and with three different sizes of the concrete rib. concrete.
The obtained results in terms of normal stresses that can cause The results show that the presence of both parameters is bene-
the damage on the inner face of the glass block are reported in ficial for the stress field in the glass block. The perfect bond causes
Fig. 17. a strong increase of the tensile stresses: the shear stresses distribu-
It is clear that the addition of a proper amount of SRA allows to tion on the glass-concrete contact plane is characterized by a peak
use larger size for concrete ribs, while without SRA, ribs no larger value of 17.94 MPa as reported in Fig. 18.
than 20 mm should be adopted, because the stresses appear On the other hand, the effect of reinforcement is beneficial:
already significant for a float glass with unavoidable surface nearby the crack, the bar is able to resist to tensile forces and to
defects. reduce the stresses in the glass block.
Another way to modify the stress field in the panel, and in par- In the case of shrinkage cracks formation, tensile stress concen-
ticular in the glass blocks, is to reduce the bond between concrete trations in the glass blocks are reduced thank to the crack bridging
and glass blocks. To this end a suitable layer of soft material (e.g. of the steel rebar that allows to transfer internal tensile forces
polyurethane resins with poor mechanical properties) could be throughout the cracks. Therefore, preventing significant shear
used between concrete and glass blocks. stresses on the glass block to concrete interface and with a suitable
To evaluate the possible difference in the case of a reduced reinforcement, shrinkage cracking would not be a major concern
bonding (between the two materials) the analyses have been from a structural point of view. However, cracks in many cases
repeated by introducing an interface between glass and concrete may be a problem for aesthetic reasons.
Fig. 18. Shear stresses on the interface for perfect bond: (a) position; (b) stresses distribution.
244 L. Biolzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 116 (2016) 235–244