REPORT

Deliverable 1.2

Calculation Model determining mechanical strength of sandwich

panels with openings with and without additional internal frame
structure

Publisher:

Felicitas Rädel
Jörg Lange

This report includes 54 pages.

Date of issue: September 12th, 2011

 Project co-funded under the European Commission Seventh Research and Technology
Development Framework programme (2007-2013)
Theme 4 NMP – Nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies
Prepared by
Felicitas Rädel, TU Darmstadt

Drafting history
Draft version 1 05.01.2011
Draft version 2 28.01.2011
Draft version 3 04.02.2011
Draft version 4 28.03.2011
Draft version 5 08.07.2011
Final 12.09.2011

Dissemination Level
PU Public X
PP Restricted on the other programme participants (including
the Commission Services)
RE Restricted to a group specified by the Consortium (including
the Commission Services)
CO Confidential, only for members of the Consortium (including
the Commission Services)

Verification and approval

Coordinator
Industrial Project Leader
Management Committee
Industrial Committee

Deliverable
D1.2 Calculation model determining mechanical strength of sandwich Due date:
panels with openings with and without additional internal frame Month 30
structure Completed:
Month 30

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 2

Table of contents
1 Introduction __________________________________________________________ 4
1.1 General ________________________________________________________________ 4
1.1.1 State of the art _______________________________________________________________ 4
1.1.2 Lay-out and types of openings __________________________________________________ 6

1.2 Symbols and notations ___________________________________________________ 7

1.3 Definitions______________________________________________________________ 7
1.4 Design aspects __________________________________________________________ 8
2 Resistance of panels with openings without reinforcement ________________ 9
2.1 Resistance of single panels with flat faces _________________________________ 9
2.2 Transferring of loads to adjacent panels __________________________________ 13
2.2.1 Principles ___________________________________________________________________ 13
2.2.2 Modelling of static system of panels ____________________________________________ 14
2.2.3 Cross-sectional values of sandwich panels _______________________________________ 15
2.2.4 Resistance and stiffness of the longitudinal joints ________________________________ 19
2.2.5 Simplified test and design procedure ___________________________________________ 21
2.2.6 Verification _________________________________________________________________ 21

2.3 Resistance of single panels with profiled faces ____________________________ 22

2.3.1 Experimental investigations ___________________________________________________ 22
2.3.2 Design procedure ____________________________________________________________ 26

3 Resistance of panels with openings with reinforcement __________________29

3.1 Experimental Investigations with small openings __________________________ 29
3.1.1 Test set-up __________________________________________________________________ 29
3.1.2 Results _____________________________________________________________________ 29
3.1.3 Comparison with existing methods of calculation ________________________________ 30

3.2 Additional tests with small openings _____________________________________ 31

3.2.1 Test set-ups _________________________________________________________________ 31
3.2.2 Results _____________________________________________________________________ 32

3.3 Experimental investigations with large openings (TKS – FSI) _______________ 34

3.3.1 Test set-up __________________________________________________________________ 34
3.3.2 Results _____________________________________________________________________ 34
3.3.3 Comparison with existing methods of calculation ________________________________ 35

3.4 Experimental investigations with Fech - windows _________________________ 36

3.4.1 Test set-up __________________________________________________________________ 36
3.4.2 Results _____________________________________________________________________ 36

3.5 Calculation models for large openings____________________________________ 39

3.5.1 Types of large openings _______________________________________________________ 39
3.5.2 Ribbon windows with adapter profiles __________________________________________ 39
3.5.3 Ribbon windows with punctual fixing __________________________________________ 48
3.5.4 Windows with bonded frames _________________________________________________ 49

4 Conclusions __________________________________________________________53

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 3

1 Introduction

1.1 General

The report contains part of the Preliminary European Recommendations for design of
sandwich panels with openings, which will be published in 2011. This part of the text is
marked with italic style.

Self-supporting sandwich panels are known building components used to cover external and
internal walls and roofs. Most of the walls and roofs of buildings include openings due to the
doors, windows, HVAC lines and other technical inlets. Thus, also the covering components in
walls and roofs are often penetrated and cut with openings of different sizes and geometries.

European product standard EN 14509 gives guidance for manufacturing and design of
complete sandwich panels made in factories. It does not include any information about the
influence of the openings and detailing in the behaviour or resistance of panels. A partial
reason may be the fact that many of the openings are made on building site, thus being
outside of the control of the phase of the manufacture. This report includes the current
information about the influence of the openings in the behaviour and resistance of sandwich
panels. The intention of the report is to complete the directions given in European product
standard EN 14509. Thus, the report may give useful information for the design of sandwich
panels with openings but also for the cutting, forming and placing of the openings in practice.

The report introduces solid technical information such as the calculation models and
experimental arrangements which is based on research reports and reviewed publications.
The report introduces also useful practical directions based on the experience and guidance
from companies in practice. The latter information is presented in note boxes in order to
make a difference between the technical information based on experiments and theoretical
modelling and on the other hand, on the knowledge from practice. The report covers mainly
the mechanical design aspects.

1.1.1 State of the art

Because of the windows, doors and different kinds of technical inlets in typical walls, there are
obvious needs to make openings in the wall panels. The openings reduce the structural cross-
section of the faces and core of the panels, and thus, may have influence on load-bearing capacity
of the panels.

The "official" state of the art concerning the openings within the wall constructions made of self-
supporting sandwich panels is a "replacement", i.e. an additional support to the wall panels in the

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 4

area of the openings. Thus, all the applied loads on the window and door openings are to be
transferred to the spaced structural supports, e.g. framework, by longitudinal beams and cross
beams (Fig. 1.1). The replacing concept results in additional structural components and is a
substantial effort. According to the technical information of today the additional supports are not
always needed, which is also often in agreement to requirements of the visual and architectural
appearance.

In Nordic Countries, especially in Finland, since late 80’ies it has been a common practice to base
the design to transfer loads from panels with openings to adjacent panels on the manufacturer’s
directive. This procedure has been used with success and it has reduced significantly the need of
additional supporting structures.

Figure 1.1 Large openings require additional supporting of sandwich panels in the wall

The report introduces new possibilities to design sandwich panels with openings, having in mind
the following purposes.
• no additional supports shall be installed if really not needed
• sandwich panel shall have an adequate load bearing capacity and allowable span also
with openings
• careful analysis of stresses covering all load cases and the resistance in the area of
openings shall be made

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 5

1.1.2 Lay-out and types of openings

Typical lay-outs and alternatives of the openings depend on the intended use of them. For wall
panels they may differ in following ways:

• Size of the opening (Fig. 1.2a)

• Location of the opening (Fig. 1.2b)
• Direction of the span of the panels (Fig. 1.2c and d)

a: size of the openings b: location of openings

c: vertical alignment d: horizontal span direction

Figure 1.2 Openings in sandwich wall panels may vary a) in size and b) in location. Openings
may be cut in panels c) installed in vertical direction or d) in horizontal direction.

Based on the various arrangements shown in Fig 1.2, it is obvious, that the structural behaviour
and resistance of the panels varies in different cases which have to be taken into account in
structural design.

In roof panels the main reasons for openings are HVAC lines. Large openings for ventilation or
roof lights need a substructure in any case. Due to that the investigations regarding openings
in profiled panels are limited to openings with a width of less than 40 % of the panel in this
report.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 6

1.2 Symbols and notations

A area
B overall width of the panel
D overall depth of the panel
E E-Modulus
EIy bending stiffness
Fj load bearing capacity oft he joint
G G-Modulus
Iy moment of inertia
IT torsional rigidity
My bending moment
MT torsional moment
N normal force
Q shear force
V shear force
Vs,max maximum shear force (design value)
b width of the opening inside a panel
eC distance between centroids of faces
fCv shear strength of the core
kC reduction factor of shear stress
kF reduction factor of wrinkling stress
k2 reduction factor due to low cross-panel tensile strength
tFd design thickness of the face
γM material safety factor
β = b/B, parameter
σw wrinkling strength of the face
σF normal stress of a face layer
tc shear stress of the core
tcd design value of shear strength of the core
tcd,max maximum shear strength in the core (design value)

1.3 Definitions

additional support support of sandwich panel, which is needed additionally

because of the reduced resistance due to the opening
core layer of material, which is bonded between the internal
and external faces
face layer flat, lightly profiled or profiled thin metal sheet firmly
bonded to the core
fastening a point of connection between the sandwich panel and its
supporting framework or a point of connection in a face of

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 7

 a sandwich panel
nominal thickness thickness given in the product information table
large opening width of the opening is equal to or larger than the width
of the sandwich panel
opening opening may have a shape of a rectangular, circular or
non-regular hole, which perforates the face and core of a
sandwich panel
reinforcement stiffening and load bearing structure around the opening
or around the sandwich panel
remaining cross-section gross cross-section minus the cross-section of the opening
replacement resistance of the sandwich panel with opening is neglected
and the loads are carried by additional structures
sandwich panel building product consisting of two metal faces positioned
on either side of a core and firmly bonded to it so as to act
compositely under load
small opening width of the opening is smaller than the width of the
sandwich panel and the opening does not cut nor reach the
longitudinal joint of the panel
steel core thickness The thickness of the pure metal sheet layer alone.
In case of zinc-coated steel faces, the steel core thickness is
the nominal thickness minus the thickness of zinc layers.
sub-structure structure into which the fasteners of the sandwich panel
are fixed

1.4 Design aspects

In many cases the openings are located in places, in which the sandwich panel may have a reserve
of strength of a variable degree. The strength reserve may be caused by several reasons;

- opening may not be in a most stressed part of the panel,

- the panel may not be located in the corner or on the top floor of the building, where the
loads are typically at the highest, and
- the depth of the panel may have been determined by other requirements such as the
thermal insulation power.

Regardless of the reason of the strength reserve, the degree of the utilization of the strength of the
face and core shall be taken account of when evaluating the resistance of the panel with openings.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 8

2 Resistance of panels with openings without reinforcement

2.1 Resistance of single panels with flat faces

The term “small opening” is used in this report to describe openings, the width of which is smaller
than the width of the sandwich panel. A small opening shall not cut nor meet the longitudinal
joint of the panel.

The remaining cross-section of a sandwich panel with small openings may be able to carry the
loads exposed to a sandwich panel, if the size of the opening is small or the opening is located in a
less-stressed cross-section of the panel. The evaluation of the remaining resistance is obviously the
first useful task to be made in design. The remaining cross section is described by the difference of
the overall width (B) and the width of the opening (b) (Fig 2.1). The task is to check, whether the
bending moment and the shear force in the area of the opening can be carried by the cross-section
weakened by the opening.

Figure 2.1 Remaining cross section in the area of an opening in a sandwich panel.

It has to be pointed out that a simple calculation based on the pure remaining cross section leads
to an unsafe side, because of the substantial stress concentrations, which arise in the corners of
the opening. Thus, the design can not be based on the pure remaining cross-section, but the stress
concentrations have to be taken into account in calculations.

The remaining cross-section of a sandwich panel (B-b) is classified to be able to carry the loads
exposed to a sandwich panel with an opening, if the following verifications of the wrinkling
strength of the face and the shear strength of the core are fulfilled.

Verification of the wrinkling strength σFcd of a flat or a slightly profiled face with openings placed
symmetrically along the mid-line of the sandwich panel shall be made using the expression 1a

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 9

and 1b. The first expression (1a) is the usual verification of the full cross section in the point of
the highest bending moment of the panel. The second expression (1b) describes the verification in
the point of the highest bending moment in the area of the opening.

x1, critical cross-section to shear resistance, normally close to a support

x2 , critical cross-section to resistance of bending resistance,
normally close to the mid-span

B
b

Fig. 2.2 Coordinates describing the location of an opening

M d . max f 
σ Fcd = ≤ k 2 Fck 
eC B t Fd γM 
M od ( x) f Fck 
σ Fcd = ≤ k2 kF 
eC B t Fd γ M 
(1a,b)

where

 (1 − β )2 if 0 ≤ β ≤ 0.4
kF =  (2a,b)
0.6 (1 − β ) if 0.4 < β ≤ 0.8

k2 = (6.10 fCt +0.39) < 1.0 (3)

b = b/B (4)

In expressions fCt is characteristic cross panel tensile strength of the core in MPa. Md.max represent
the highest design bending moment of the sandwich panel and Mod(x) is the highest design
bending moment in the area of the opening.

Factor k2 is defined in the Section A.5.5.5 of EN 14509.

The cutting of the openings in the faces of the panel with low bonding strength is a sensitive task
and may reduce the strength of the bond and core and thus, cause a clear risk of delamination.

If the opening is located non-symmetrically to the mid-line of the sandwich panel with flat or
slightly profiled faces, the reduction factor kF.ecc expressed in 5a and 5b shall be used instead of the
factor kF in expressions 2a, 2b (Fig 2.3).

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 10

  (1 − β )2
 if 0 ≤ β ≤ 0.4
 1+ (1 − β ) B y S y e
 Iz
k F .ecc =  (5a.b)
 0.6 (1 − β )
if 0.4 < β ≤ 0.8
 (1 − β ) B y S y e
1 + Iz

b
yS = eo (6)
B−b
ye = y S − 0 .5 B (7)
1
Iz =
12
( )
b1 + b2 + b1 (0.5 B − y S − 0.5 b1 ) + b2 (0.5 B + y S − 0.5 b2 )
3 3 2 2
(8)

b1 = 0.5 B − 0.5 b + e0 (9)

b2 = 0.5 B − 0.5 b − eo (10)

where eo is the eccentricity of the mid-line of the opening to the mid-line of the cross-section. The
sign of eo shall be taken into account (Fig. 2.3).

x1, critical cross-section to shear resistance

x2 , critical cross-section to resistance
of bending resistance
b2
b/2 B/2
yS eo b/2 B
y b1 B/2

Figure 2.3 Definition of the eccentricity of the opening

Verification of the shear strength of a sandwich panel with flat or lightly profiled faces with
openings placed symmetrically along the mid-line of the sandwich panel shall be made using the
expression 11a and 11b. The first expression (11a) is the usual verification of the full cross
section in the point of the shear force of the panel. The second expression (11b) is the verification
in the point of the highest shear force in the area of the opening.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 11

 Vd ,max f Cvk 
τ Cd = ≤
eC B γ M 
f Cvk 
(11a,b)
Vod ( x )
τ Cd = ≤ kC
eC B γ M 

in which

k C = (1 − β ) if 0 ≤ β ≤ 0.8 (12)

In the expression Vd.max represents the highest design shear force of the sandwich panel and Vod(x)
is the highest design shear force in the area of the opening.

In verification of the shear strength of a sandwich panel with flat or slightly profiled faces having
openings which are placed non-symmetrically along the mid-line of the sandwich panel, the
reduction factor kC has to be modified.

Table 2.1. Numerical values of the reduction factors kF and kC

β=b/B kF kC
0,0 1,0 1,0
0,1 0,81 0,9
0,2 0,64 0,8
0,3 0,49 0,7
0,4 0,36 0,6
0,5 0,3 0,5
0,6 0,24 0,4
0,7 0,18 0,3
0,8 0,12 0,2

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 12

2.2 Transferring of loads to adjacent panels

2.2.1 Principles

Openings in a sandwich panel reduce the cross-section and the bending and shear stiffness of the
panel. Due to the difference of the stiffness, the loads or a part of the loads exposed directly to the
panel with openings will be transferred via the longitudinal joints to the adjacent panels (case A
in Fig. 2.4). The most severe case is the load transfer from a completely cut sandwich panel (case
B in Fig. 2.4). While in case “A” the panel might have enough capacity still to withstand the load,
case “B” relies on the load transfer. In both cases the neighbouring panels will receive additional
loads due to compatibility of the deflections in the longitudinal joints (Fig. 2.5). These loads are
transferred by the longitudinal joints and therefore, the assessment of the strength and stiffness of
the joints is important. Furthermore, the load transfer will result in an eccentric line load to
the panel without an opening activating its torsional rigidity and causing additional shear
stresses in the core material and additional normal stresses in the faces due to the eccentric
loads.

Figure 2.4 Small and full-width openings in walls covered with sandwich panels

Figure 2.5 Line loads in the longitudinal join between neighbouring sandwich panels with
different bending and shear stiffness.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 13

2.2.2 Modelling of static system of panels

The intensity of the load, which can be transferred through the longitudinal joints to adjacent
panels, depends on the bending, shear and torsional rigidity of the panels and in addition, on the
shear rigidity of the longitudinal joint. On the basis of the geometry and the stiffness parameters
of the panels, a numerical model can be generated to evaluate the internal forces and deflections
with software for 3D beam structures. As an example, a strut model of a three-panel-system is
shown in Fig. 2.6

5
1

1 6
7
X
1 Y
Z
5

8 2
4
3
4
9
5

Figure 2.6 A finite element beam model describing a three-panel-system. The panel in the middle
has an opening.

The finite element model shown in Fig. 2.6 consists of

- beam elements representing the complete sandwich panels (No 1),
- beam elements representing the partial elements along the opening (No 2 and 3),
- rigid load distribution struts (No 4),
- transfer struts representing the stiffness perpendicular to the main span (No 5),
- transfer struts with reduced size due to the opening (No 6 + 7) and
- transfer struts representing the joint stiffness (No 8 + 9).

Additional panels might be included in the model. The main goal of this model is the assessment
of the loads in the struts representing the joints. The derivation of the required cross-section
values of the beam elements can be made experimentally or by calculations as shown in following
sections.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 14

Alternatively, the approximate intensity of the shear loads in the longitudinal joint can be
evaluated using an analytical approach introduced in refs [Höglund 1986] and [Davies 2001].
The approach is based on the assumption of the compatibility of the deflections caused by the
bending and torsional moments and the shear forces in the mid-points in the longitudinal joints
and on the known, typically uniform distribution of shear loads in the joints. Thus, the approach
is valid for a system with openings, which are distributed over the span of the panel such as
regular lines of windows in a wall.

2.2.3 Cross-sectional values of sandwich panels

3.2.3.1 Torsional stiffness

The value of the torsional stiffness of a sandwich panel is needed for an analysis of the complete
wall structures consisting of sandwich panels with and without openings. The existing expressions
(13) and (14) have been derived in refs [Stamm, Witte 1974] and [Höglund 1986].

t ⋅t  tanh(0.5 λ ⋅ B ) 
VS .1 = GF I T 1 = GF ⋅ 4 ⋅ eC 2 ⋅ B ⋅ 1 2 ⋅ 1 −  (13)
t1 + t2  0.5 λ ⋅ B 

2
2 B 2
2 4  eC
VS .2 = G I T2 = GF
4 A0
=  3  (14)
ds  2B 3e 
∫ t 2  3 G t + G CB 
s  F Fd C 

G C t1 + t 2
λ= ⋅ and d c = ec − 0,5(t1 + t 2 ) (15)
G F d c t1t 2

in which IT is the torsional rigidity, GF and GC the shear modulus of the face and core materials,
and t1 and t2 the design thickness of the external and internal faces.

Expression to the distribution of the shear stresses caused by the torsional moment has been
derived in ref [Höglund]

3 MT
τ C .T = (16)
2 B B
4  eC
 3  3

Shear stress caused by the torsional moment shall be combined with the shear stress caused by
shear force (17)

V 27 M T
τ Cv + τ CT = + (17)
eC B 8 eC B 2

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 15

At the moment of the drafting of the report, the expressions (13 - 17) have been verified to foam
cored sandwich panels.

All the expressions above are based on the theory of St. Venant. Recent investigations showed
that this theory is not valid for sandwich panels.
Within EASIE two panel tests with one loaded panel have been done. They showed that the
theory of Stamm-Witte brings good correlation with test results regarding the deflection, but
for determining the stresses the model is not useful.
Also for other kinds of loading like point loads the formulas do not lead to good results.
At TU Darmstadt lightly profiled panels with eccentric point loads in midspan were tested.
These tests demonstrate that the equations (13-14) overestimate the torsional stiffness of
sandwich panels for this kind of load. If the effect of the longitudinal joint is neglected for
point loads at midspan the following expression can be used:

1,62 ⋅ (ec ⋅ B )
2

GF I T = (18)
 9⋅ B ec 
 + 10 ⋅ 
 t ⋅ G F ⋅ 10 B ⋅ GC 

The additional effect of the longitudinal joint is depending on its geometry. In the tests it
varied between 5 and 10 % of the torsional stiffness of the panel. At the moment only a few
tests were done. So the factor for the influence of the joint has to be verified by further tests.

According to the theory of St. Venant, the torsional moment causes only shear stresses. This
assumption leads to the expressions (16, 17). In recent tests at TU Darmstadt also additional
axial stresses in the faces were measured. These stresses cannot be neglected.
They depend on the stiffness of the panel, on the shear modulus of the core material and on
the aspect ratio of the panels.
For a lot of applications the load transfer to the neighbouring panel is similar to a sinus curve
like shown in Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7 Eccentric loaded panel

For this case a parametric study with finite elements has been performed. In the following
diagrams one can find the maximum normal stresses in the face for two different shear

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 16

moduli of the core material. They are given as a ratio to a not eccentric loaded panel with the
same load. In the following formula this value is called ks.

max . normal stress in the face for an eccentric "Sinus-load"

Gc= 3 N/mm2
1,70
max. stress in the face compared to a not

1,60

B = 20000 kNcm²/cm
eccentric loaded panel

1,50
B = 35000 kNcm²/cm
1,40 B = 50000 kNcm²/cm
B = 75000 kNcm²/cm
1,30
B = 100000 kNcm²/cm

1,20 B = 150000 kNcm²/cm

B = 200000 kNcm²/cm
1,10 B = 250000 kNcm²/cm
B = 300000 kNcm²/cm
1,00
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

length of the panel in m (width 1m)

max. normal stress in the face for an eccentric "Sinus-load"

Gc= 4 N/mm2
1,60
max. stress in the face compared to a not

1,50

B = 20000 kNcm²/cm
eccentric loaded panel

1,40
B = 35000 kNcm²/cm
B = 50000 kNcm²/cm
1,30 B = 75000 kNcm²/cm
B = 100000 kNcm²/cm
1,20 B = 150000 kNcm²/cm
B = 200000 kNcm²/cm

1,10 B = 250000 kNcm²/cm

B = 300000 kNcm²/cm

1,00
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

length of the panel in m (width 1m)

Figure 2.8 Parametric studies for eccentric loaded panels

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 17

The maximum normal stress in the face due to the eccentric load can be calculated as:

∙
σ , ,
∙ ∙
(19)

∙
with M , ,

q = max. value of “sinus-load” at midspan

The maximum value of the sinus-load can be derived from calculations like e.g. shown in
figure 2.6. Together with the uniform load of the panel itself, it results in the maximum
normal stress of the face:

, ∙
σ , ,
∙ ∙
(20)

For the additional shear stress, the panel can be calculated with an effective width of 250 mm.
The eccentric load leads to the following additional shear stress:

" ,
τ !
,
∙#$%
(21)

So the resulting shear stress is:

" , " ,
τ & ,
∙ ∙#$%
(22)

3.2.3.2 Bending and shear stiffness in direction of span

E F 1 AF 1x E F 2 AF 2 x 2
BSx = ∫ z x2 dz x = eCx (23)
E F 1 AF 1x + E F 2 AF 2 x
S x = B eCx GC (24)

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 18

3.2.3.3 Bending and shear stiffness perpendicular to the span

E F1 AF1 y E F 2 AF 2 y 2
BSy = ∫ z 2y dz y = eCy (25)
E F 1 AF 1 y + E F 2 AF 2 y
S y = B eCy GC (26)

2.2.4 Resistance and stiffness of the longitudinal joints

The longitudinal joints of the panels are loaded with shear forces, if the load is transferred
through the joint between the panels. Figure 2.9 shows the typical crack pattern that occurs when
the joint is overloaded. The panel on the left is the one with a reduced stiffness. It rests on the
panel on the right hand side of the picture. This produces a line load to the joint, which has to be
transmitted by the tongues and grooves of the metal sheet faces and the core. Ultimate load is
reached due to a combined failure of the core material and the delamination of the faces.

Figure 2.9 Cracks in the longitudinal joint due to the load transfer.

Modern sandwich panels usually have a joint geometry that allows a sufficient load transfer.
However, experimental information is needed in order to verify the shear resistance of the
longitudinal joints of the panels. Fig. 2.10 shows a test arrangement to measure the shear
resistance of the longitudinal joint. Panel No. 1 is a panel that was cut in longitudinal direction
in two halves. Both halves are restrained by steel profiles no. 3, a pair of load bearing structures,
e.g. U-sections with foamed rubber for soft load introduction. The load bearing structures are
fixed to a stiff structure (no. 4) by threaded rods (no 3). The specimen is fixed in sideway
direction with threaded rods (no. 7) in order to avoid the decomposition of the specimen, which
corresponds to the boundary conditions in wall panels in practice. The rod (no. 7) is preloaded
with a load, which provides a contact for the end plates (no 7) and the joints of the specimen. The

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 19

rod (no. 7) shall not be prestressed. A normal panel (no. 2) is fixed between the two halves. The
load is introduced into two loading beams (no. 5) by a spreader beam (no. 6). The typical length
of the panels in the test rig is app 800 mm.

The load deflection curve obtained in the test with this setup allows the derivation of the stiffness
and ultimate load of the longitudinal joint. Because of the different geometry, the load-deflection
curves and the ultimate loads may be different to the two joints of the specimen. However, the test
set up shows the lowest ultimate load, only. These properties can be used in further calculations.
Tests within EASIE showed that it is not possible to calculate the resistance of the joint itself.
The maximum load depends on various parameters like the exact geometry, the quality of the
foaming, the adhesive strength between core and face material etc. So tests are necessary for
each type of panel.

F
5 5

3 3 6 3 3

1 2 1

Figure 2.10 Test set up for the assessment of the shear stiffness and resistance of the longitudinal
joint

The thickness of the panel used in the tests shall represent the small, large and a medium
thickness of the sandwich panel product. The specimen is loaded with monotonously increasing
static load up to failure. The test series consists of minimum three similar tests. Measurements
and observations concerning the deformations and tightness may give useful information for
verification of the serviceability limit state. Repeated loading with an intensity of app ½ of the
ultimate load may give further interesting information for the verification of the joint.

In order to test the influence of glued joints, within EASIE also a test series with panels with
different faces (steel and glass fibre reinforced plastic) and different types of joints (without
glue, glued faces, glued cores, glued faces and cores) has been implemented. The results
showed that any kind of bonding has a positive effect on the resistance and stiffness of the
joint. The level of improvement depends on various factors. One factor is the face material. So
for steel and glass fibre reinforced plastic with glued faces and a glued core, the joint was not
the determining factor for failure anymore.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 20

2.2.5 Simplified test and design procedure

A simplified procedure to test the shear resistance of the longitudinal joint and thus the ability to
transfer loads from the panel with openings to the adjacent panel, is to place two simply
supported panels side by side on the supports. The panels are fixed to each other in the joints on
the supports. One panel is loaded up to the failure, while the second panel remains unloaded. The
ultimate load is compared to the ultimate load of a single panel. The increase of the load carrying
capacity in the term of the bending moment is marked as M joint (or shear force capacity as V joint)
and will be used as the load capacity able to be transferred to adjacent panels in the following
design procedure. The characteristic value and the corresponding design value of the increase of
the bending moment capacity M joint,d (or shear force capacity V joint,d) is determined on the basis
of three tests as a minimum. In the following the load increase capacity will be treated as increase
in bending moment capacity:

1. The bending moment capacity of the panel with opening Mod is determined according
to chapter 2.1.

2. If the bending moment capacity of the panel with opening is not adequate, the
additionally needed bending moment capacity ∆M and corresponding needed
additional load capacity ∆q is determined from the basic design procedure EULS:d < Rd

3. It is assumed that half of the additional load is distributed to each side of the panel
with opening.

4. If the additional needed bending moment capacity ∆M is less than 2*Mjoint,d no

additional supporting frame structure is needed

5. The panel, where half of the bending moment ∆M is transferred to over the joint is to
be designed with the transferred bending moment ∆M/2 in addition to the actual
bending moment on the panel.

6. If the additionally needed load capacity ∆M is bigger than 2*Mjoint additional

supporting frame structure has to be introduced according to chapter 3.3

In case the load transfer to the neighbouring panel has to be determined for a system with three
panels connected to each other it has to be loaded with same procedure as given above. The
transferred load to the third panel is marked as Mjoint2,d and the procedure is repeated as above.

Within EASIE, such tests with two panels were performed with different panels. Two different
types of panels with two different thicknesses were tested. In each series 3 single panels and
3 test set-ups with two panels were tested. For all of these tests the load could be increased
from 35% up to 50% compared to the tests with single panels.

2.2.6 Verification

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 21

Verification of the resistance to transfer the load through longitudinal joints shall follow the usual
practice of design and be made at serviceability and ultimate limit states with relevant load and
material safety factors. Criteria for serviceability limit state verification are the deformation and
tightness of the longitudinal joint and for ultimate limit state verification, the ultimate shear load
carried through the joint.

Ultimate limit state verification includes the bending and shear resistance of the panel with
opening and the adjacent panels and the resistance of the joint.

2.3 Resistance of single panels with profiled faces

In the chapters before openings in panels with flat or lightly profiled faces were studied.
Within EASIE WP1 also profiled panels with small openings have been assessed. Based on the
rigidity of the faces profiled panels are usually used as roof covering. The term “small
opening“ describes again an opening with a width smaller than the panel. The most common
reason for cutting openings in profiled panels are HVAC lines, so the investigations within
EASIE were concentrated on openings with a maximum width of 400 mm, which is also the
limit for the formulae given in this section. The load bearing capacity of the remaining cross
section of profiled panels depends severely on the position of the opening. It has to be
distinguished between openings in the flat part of the section and openings through the
profiled part of the section, like shown in figure 2.11. Further a differentiation between panels
with mineral wool and PUR core is necessary.

Figure 2.11a Opening in the flat part of a profiled panel

Figure 2.11b Opening in the profiled part of a profiled panel

2.3.1 Experimental investigations

Within EASIE WP1 different test series were implemented. The following distinctions were
made:

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 22

 • Core Material (mineral wool and PUR)
• Position of the opening (flat and profiled part of the panel)
• Failure mode (influence on bending moment capacity and shear capacity)
• Size of opening (200 mm and 400 mm)
• Geometry of the opening (circular, square and rectangular)

For the effect on the bending capacity a total of 18 panels were tested. 9 panels had a core of
mineral wool, 9 panels a core of PUR. In these tests all the openings were circular and had a
diameter of 200 mm.

In the following table, exemplary the results for the bending capacity of panels with PUR-core
and 200 mm circular openings are shown.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 23

 Table 2.2 Bending capacity of PUR-panels with openings

deviation to the
mean value of a
Test Opening Max. load in kN failure mode
complete panel in
%
wrinkling at load
1.1 no 13,38 0,45
application
wrinkling at load
1.2 no 13,12 -1,53
application
wrinkling at load
1.3 no 13,47 1,08
application
wrinkling around
2.1 flat part 12,93 -2,97
the opening
wrinkling around
2.2 flat part 12,54 -5,85
the opening
wrinkling around
2.3 flat part 12,87 -3,42
the opening
profiled wrinkling around
3.1 10,18 -23,60
part the opening
profiled wrinkling around
3.2 10,60 -20,45
part the opening
profiled wrinkling around
3.3 10,72 -19,55
part the opening

An opening in the flat part of the panel leads to a decrease of bending capacity of 3 % to 6 %,
whereas openings in the profiled part of the panel effect a decrease of about 20%. Panels with
mineral wool as core material show similar results for the openings in the flat part. For
openings in the profiled part a load drop of up to 35 % was measured.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 24

To assess the effect on the shear capacity another 30 panels with different positions and
geometries of the openings were tested. In table 2.3 exemplary the results for the shear
capacity of panels with PUR-core and 200 mm circular openings are shown.

Table 2.3: Shear tests on profiled panels with and without opening

size of area of the max. stress in

position of max. load in max. load in
Test opening in core in the core
opening kN the core in kN
mm mm² in N/mm²

S_1_1 - no opening 28,97 10,03 99333 0,101

S_1_2 - no opening 27,02 9,34 99333 0,094

S_1_3 - no opening 30,41 10,53 99333 0,106

S_4_1 flat part d = 200 mm 22,64 7,09 80533 0,088

S_4_2 flat part d = 200 mm 21,41 6,69 80533 0,083

S_4_3 flat part d = 200 mm 23,39 7,33 80533 0,091

profiled
S_5_1 d = 200 mm 18,59 6,14 79728 0,077
part
profiled
S_5_2 d = 200 mm 17,80 5,90 79728 0,074
part
profiled
S_5_3 d = 200 mm 17,21 5,74 79728 0,072
part

mean value from shear tests: 0,134

In table 2.3 a clear difference can be noticed for the core stresses between the panels with
openings, the panels without openings and the shear tests. The maximum load in the core has
been counted back with the formulas of Stamm/Witte. For the mineral wool panels no
difference of the core stresses is noticeable between panels with and without openings.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 25

2.3.2 Design procedure

Bending capacity

Comparable to panels with flat faces a simple calculation based on the pure remaining cross
section leads to results on the unsafe side. Stress concentrations around the openings have to
be taken into account in calculations.

For openings within the flat part of the panel the influence of stress concentrations is very
small. This is due to the fact that the stresses in the flat part are much lower than in the
profiled part and the expansion of the stress peaks is stopped by the profiled parts. So the
verification of the maximum bending moment MRd of a profiled face with openings in the flat
part of the sandwich panel section (see figure 2.11a) shall be made using the expression (27).

x , critical cross-section for bending resistance,

normally close to the mid-span

b B

Figure 2.12 Opening in a profiled panel

 b
M od ( x ) ≤ 1 − 0,5 ⋅  ⋅ M Rd (27)
 B

In expression (27) MRd represents the bending moment capacity of the sandwich panel and
Mod(x) is the highest design bending moment in the area of the opening. This moment
includes the moment due to loading and the moment due to temperature according to EN
14509, table E.10.2.

Openings within the profiled part of the section have a much bigger influence on the bending
moment capacity. In general the profiled areas of the panel carry almost the whole load. So
the verification of the maximum bending moment MRd of a profiled faced panel with openings
in the profiled part of the sandwich panel section (see figure 2.11b) shall be made using the
expression (28).

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 26

 (k − a)
M od ( x) ≤ ⋅ M Rd (28)
k

where Mod(x) = highest bending moment in the area of the opening

MRd = bending moment capacity of the sandwich panel
k= number of crowns across the sandwich panel section
a= number of missing crowns due to the opening

Both expressions can be used for panels with the core materials PUR and mineral wool.
The cutting of the openings in the faces of the panel with low bonding strength is a sensitive
task and may reduce the strength of the bond and core and thus, cause a clear risk of
delamination.

Shear capacity

For profiled panels with PUR-foam as core material and openings, the effect of stress peaks
around the corner further decreases the shear capacity. The degree of weakening is depending
on the core material, the position and the geometry of the opening.
The verification of the shear strength of a sandwich panel with profiled faces with openings
shall be made using the expression 29.


VO ( x) f Cvk 
τ Cd ,o = ⋅ ≤ m⋅ (29)
eC B − Ao γ M 

In the expression VO(x) is the highest design shear force component in the sandwich panel
core in the area of the opening. AO is the missing core area caused by the opening.

Table 2.4: m-Factor

m
Flat part of section
0,85
any opening
Profiled part of section,
0,70
circular opening
Profiled part of section,
0,6
rectangular opening

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 27

All the expressions above are derived from test series within EASIE. They should be verified
by further test results with different geometries and sizes of openings.

The calculation model regarding the shear capacity is only valid for panels with PUR as core
material. For panels with mineral wool as core material further investigations are necessary.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 28

3 Resistance of panels with openings with reinforcement

3.1 Experimental Investigations with small openings

3.1.1 Test set-up

In a first test series in EASIE sandwich panels with a window at midspan have been tested in a
six point bending test. Half of the panels were tested in a positive position (equates to wind
pressure), the other half in a negative position (equates to wind
w suction).

Figure 3.1: Experimental set-up

3.1.2 Results

Displacements

Comparing the displacements of the 60 mm-test

test panels with the calculated displacements of
an unweakened panel results in the following table:

Table 3.1: Comparison of deflections

deflections with and without window frame

corner of the window frame,

frame
midspan deflection in mm
midspan,
Load level deflection in mm
Calculation Calculation
Deviation Deviation
F = 1 kN Test without Test without
in % in %
opening opening
1 12,36 6,96 77,6 12,04 6,7 79,7
2 12,67 6,96 82,0 12,43 6,7 85,5
3 12,49 6,96 79,5 12,39 6,7 84,9
4 12,83 6,96 84,3 12,79 6,7 90,9

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 29

Level of failure:

All panels failed by wrinkling in the corner region of the opening. The following table shows a
comparison between the failure load of the test panels with openings and calculated failure
loads of unweakened panels. The calculation was done with the measured G- and E-moduli,
according to the formulas in EN 14509.

Table 3.2: Comparison of failure loads with and without opening

Calculated failure load

Thickness Failure load Deviation
Test of the complete
of the panel in kN in %
panel in kN
1 60 3,4 10,81 68,2
2 60 3,3 10,81 70,0
3 60 3,6 7,94 54,7
4 60 3,3 7,94 58,8
5 120 6,8 18,99 64,2
6 120 4,9 13,06 62,8

3.1.3 Comparison with existing methods of calculation

Different calculation proposals exist for single sandwich panels with openings. In table 3.3,
the failure loads of the tests are compared to calculation results for openings without frames
according to calculation proposals of Böttcher (2005) and Courage/Toma (1998).

Table 3.3: Comparison of the failure load in kN between test and calculation

Failure load
Deviation in Deviation in
in kN Tests Böttcher Courage/Toma
% %

60_1 3,44 1,92 +79 2,37 +45

60_2 3,25 1,92 +69 2,37 +37
60_3 3,60 1,41 +155 1,74 +106
60_4 3,27 1,41 +132 1,74 +88
120_1 6,80 3,37 +102 4,17 +63
120_2 4,85 2,32 +109 2,87 +69

The comparison shows, that window frames have a positive effect on the load bearing
capacity. The panels carry up to 155 % more load than the calculation results without
window-frames suggest.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 30

3.2 Additional tests with small openings

3.2.1 Test set-ups

Based on the first test series (see chapter before) some additional tests regarding the shear
and bending capacity of panels with openings have been performed. Also tests regarding the
bonding between the panel and the window frames were included in this series.

Altogether the following test series have been performed:

Table 3.4: Comparison of failure loads with and without opening

Series Description of the test Number

of tests
Series 0 6 point bending test, span 6 m, complete panel 3
Series 1 6 point bending test, span 6 m, width 700 mm (without 3
joints)
Series 2 6 point bending test, span 6 m, window at midspan 700 x 3
700 mm
Series 3 6 point bending test, span 6 m, width 700 mm (without 3
joints), window at midspan 700 x 700 mm
Series 4 4 point bending test, span 1.2 m, width 700 mm 3
Series 5 4 point bending test, span 1.2 m, width 700 mm, window 3
at midspan 700 x 700 mm
Series 6 Shear tests of the bonding 3

As an example the test set-ups of series 1 and 5 are shown in figure 3.2:

Figure 3.2: Experimental set-ups

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 31

3.2.2 Results

In the following table the mean values of the failure loads in each series are shown.

Table 3.5: Failure loads of the different test series

Test Failure load

Failure mode
series in kN

0 14,68 wrinkling of the upper face

1 9,85 wrinkling of the upper face
2 3,28 wrinkling with delamination of the face
3 < 0,50 failure of the bonding
4 16,11 shear failure in the core
5 1,02 failure of the bonding
6 2,20 failure of the bonding

The different failure modes are shown in the figures 3.3 and 3.4:

Figure 3.3: Failure modes (wrinkling series 1, wrinkling series 2 and shear failure series 4)

Figure 3.4: Failure of the bonding series 6, test set up and failure mode series 7

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 32

In test series 6 the bonding itself was tested. The strength of the bond is very low and that is
the principle reason for very small maximum loads in series 3 and 5.
A comparison between the tests with openings (series 2) and the tests with openings and
frames (see chapter 3.1) further showed a nearly identical distribution of stress in the upper
face:

Comparison of the stress distribution close to the opening with and

without frame
-140
without
-120 frame, load
Normal stress in N/mm²

level 1 kN
-100
frame, load
-80 level 1 kN

-60
without
-40 frame, load
level 3 kN
-20
frame, load
0 level 3 kN
0 200 400 600 800 1000
y-coordinate in mm

Figure 3.5: Comparison of the stress distribution with and without window-frame

All these determinations lead to the conclusion that the bonding that was tested is not able to
transfer loads from the panels to the window frames.
Nevertheless, the window frames have a positive effect on the load bearing capacity of the
panels by stabilising the faces in the high stressed regions around the opening. For example,
test 120_1 (see 3.1.3) with a bonded window frame had a failure load of 6,8 kN. The mean
value of series 2 (see 3.2.2) with the same geometry and the same openings without frame
was only 3,96 kN. Due to little variations of the material properties the results have to be
adjusted. After adjusting the results the panel with frame still carries 155 % of the load of the
panel without frame.
The calculation model of Böttcher (see chapter 2.1) gives conservatives results – compared to
the results of test series 2. The mean value of the failure load in the test series was 3,96 kN
(self weight included), the calculation model gives 2,78 kN.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 33

3.3 Experimental investigations with large openings (TKS – FSI)

3.3.1 Test set-up

Alike to the investigations with reinforced small openings also a test series with large
openings (width of the opening equates to width of the panel) with a window at midspan has
been tested in a six point bending test. In figure 3.6 the test set up is shown.

Figure 3.6: Experimental set-up

3.3.2 Results
Mode and level of failure:

All the panels failed by an overstressing of the longitudinal joint and

and a following collapse of
the complete system including wrinkling of the outer panels. In some cases the window
frames slipped out of the joint. The slipping of the frames did not lead to an immediate
collapse of the system, but certainly had an influence on the failure load. As the slipping is a
question of an exact fabrication of the window it can be avoided. Probably according to the
inexactnesses of the windows sizes, the failure load levels were different for each system.

Figure 3.7: Collapse of the system

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 34

 Table 3.6: Comparison of failure loads with and without window frame

Calculated
Thickness Failure load failure load Deviation
Test Mode of failure
of the panel in kN of the complete in %
panel in kN
1 60 9,30 15,94 41,66 Complete collapse
2 60 8,5 15,94 46,68 Complete collapse
Slipping out of the
3 60 6,7 12,91 48,10 window, then
collapse
4 60 4,5 12,91 65,14 Complete collapse
5 120 11,9 22,59 47,32 Complete collapse
Slipping out of the
6 120 8,0 18,05 55,68 window, then
collapse

3.3.3 Comparison with existing methods of calculation

In Böttcher (2005) a proposal exists for calculating a 3 panel system with an opening.
According to this proposal, there are three possible failure modes: Shear failure in the outer
panel, wrinkling of the outer panel and failure of the longitudinal joint. By recalculating the
tests according to the paper of Böttcher, one asserts that the longitudinal joint is always the
critical failure mode. For the bearing strength of the joint, in Böttcher (2005) only a rough
estimate is given. This is one of the reasons for significant deviations between some of the test
results and the recalculation according to Böttcher, like shown in table 3.7.

Table 3.7: Comparison between tests and calculations

Failure load per

panel in kN 60_1 60_2 60_3 60_4 120_1 120_2

Test result 9,3 8,5 6,7 4,5 11,9 8

Calculation
10,0 10,0 7,9 7,9 7,5 6,0
result
Deviation -7 % -15 % -16 % - 40 % + 59 % + 33 %

Within EASIE also tests on the load capacity of joints were performed. After recalculating the
test 120_1 with these results, the deviation of 59 % decreased to about 10 %.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 35

3.4 Experimental investigations with Fech - windows

3.4.1 Test set-up

Four tests (see table 3.8) with two different sizes of openings (width of the opening 0,7
respectively 1,9 m) with a window at midspan have been tested in a six point bending test. In
figure 3.8 the test set ups are shown. It has been distinguished between bonded and not-
bonded window-frames.

Figure 3.8: Experimental set-ups

3.4.2 Results
Mode and level of failure:

All the panels failed by wrinkling of the upper face in the corner regions of the window frame.
In case of the large windows this led directly to the collapse of the whole system. In the tests
with small windows a further load increase was possible up to an overstressing of the
longitudinal joint and a following collapse of the complete system.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 36

 Figure 3.9: Collapse of the system

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 37

 Table 3.8: Failure loads
Thickness
of panel in Size Failure load failure load
Window -
Test mm of window wrinkling collapse Mode of failure
Frames
in mm (Load per panel) (Load per panel)

1 120 700 x 1900 bonded 4,7 kN - wrinkling

120 not
2 700 x 1900 4,5 kN* - wrinkling
bonded
60 wrinkling, followed
3 700 x 700 bonded 5,9 kN /3,4 kN** 6,9 kN
by joint failure
60 not wrinkling, followed
4 700 x 700 4,7 kN /3,0 kN** 6,8 kN
bonded by joint failure
* failure during loading of a outer panel (unsymmetrical loading)
** mean value/load of middle panel

The results show that the bonding of the frames does not have a great influence on the failure
loads because of weak bond between face and window frame as shown in 3.2.1.

Tests with complete panels with 6 m length and a thickness of 120 mm had failure moments
of 13,5 kNm. The tests 1 and 2 lead to failure moments of approx. 2,8 kNm, which is 21 % of
the loading of a complete panel.

For the small windows (test 3 and 4) the wrinkling of the middle panel took place at 3,0
respectively 3,4 kN. Tests with the same panels and window sizes without neighbouring
panels (see chapter 3.1.2) failed also at 3,4 kN. So the neighbouring panels do not have an
influence on the failure load for wrinkling of the middle panel, but allow a load increase
afterwards again.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 38

3.5 Calculation models for large openings

3.5.1 Types of large openings

At the moment, there re are different types of large openings on the market. For windows, one
can differentiate three categories:

• Ribbon windows with adapter profiles (Figure 3.10a)

• Ribbon windows with punctual fixing (Figure 3.10b)
• Windows with bonded frames (Figure 3.10c)

Figure 3.10a Figure 3.10b Figure 3.10c

3.

The load transfer of these systems is very different so the calculations model has to be
adapted for each type. All the models are based on the existing beam model of Böttcher
(2005) which is described
ed in chapter 2.2.2.

3.5.2 Ribbon windows with adapter profiles

Based on the beam model of Böttcher (2005) a possibility is presented, to calculate the load
bearing and deflection behavior of sandwich panel systems with ribbon windows and adapter
profiles within
in the joint. The ribbon window itself is not able to transfer the load to the
substructure, so the whole load has to be transferred by the adapter profile and to the
adjacent panels. In the figure an example of an adapter profile with and without
without the sandwich
structure is shown.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 39

 Figure 3.11
3. Adapter profiles and beam model

Beam 1 represents the complete adjacent sandwich panel in longitudinal direction with the
related torsional rigidity IT and the bending stiffness EIL. The cross-beams
beams (2) represent the
behavior in cross direction (EIQ, GQ). They have a distance of lQ. The vertical elements (3)
represent the stiffness of the joint kF and the horizontal beam 4 represents the adapter profile
with its bending stiffness EIAdapter.
The following stiffnesses and material properties have to be applied:

Beam 1: E= ED= 21000 kN/cm² E-modulus of the face

G = GK,L G-modulus
modulus of the core in longitudinal direction

BF 1 ⋅ t F 1 ⋅ B F 2 ⋅ t F 2 2
I y,L = ⋅ ec Moment of inertia in longitudinal direction
BF 1 ⋅ t F 1 + BF 2 ⋅ t F 2

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 40

 )
λ ( )*,+ ∙
-./
Coefficient for the torsional stiffness according to
, ∙ -∙
Stamm/Witte

<
89:;∙ = ),
I1 4∙e #
∙B∙ -
∙ 51 7 < >
-∙ ;∙ )*,+

Torsional rigidity of the complete panel,

standardized to GD

AL = B . ec Area of the core

Beam 2: E= EV E-modulus of the face in cross direction

G = GK,Q G-modulus of the core in cross direction

-∙
I?,@ l@∙ ∙e ² Moment of inertia in cross direction
-
lQ= distance of the joint elements

A Q = lQ . ec Area of the core in cross direction

Beam 3: E= ED E-modulus of the face (definition)

∙ D ∙E
A F,
Back-calculated area for the stiffness of the joint
kF= spring rate for the joint
lF= length of beam 3 in the model

Beam 4: EI y,Adapter Bending stiffness of the adapter profile

(from tests)

G ∞ I 1 ∙ 10KL

An assumption for this model is the fact that the adapter profiles are supported by the
substructure. The adapter profile is loaded by half of the area load of the window. Depending
on the stiffness of adapter profile, joint and sandwich panel the loads will be divided on the
adapter profile and the adjacent sandwich panel. The panel is loaded eccentrically which
leads to additional stresses in the face and the core material. These stresses have to be added
to the stresses caused by the bending moment.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 41

The beam model brings the following results for the particular beams:

Longitudinal beam: My,L, MT, Qz,L

Cross-beam: My,Q und Qz
Joint elements: N
Adapter profile: My und Qz

After the determination of the stress resultants and deflections using the beam model the
structural analyses for the different failure modes can be implemented.

The following failure modes are possible:

1) Wrinkling of the face in the adjacent panel

2) Shear failure of the core in the adjacent panel
3) Joint failure
4) Failure of the adapter profile – This case will not be investigated in this report, the
producer of the adapter profiles are responsible for the load bearing capacity of the
profiles.

1) Wrinkling of the face:

The normal stress in the adjacent panel can be determined by addition of the normal stress
due to bending and the normal stress caused by the eccentric load.

The following two ratios of normal stress in the face exist:

σM ∙ :7 =
N
ON,+ #
Existing normal stress due to bending (33)

(Independent from the window)

K
σ# k Q ∙ M?,E ∙
# ∙ ON,+
Normal stress due to eccentric loading (34)

7e
The complete stress results in: σ RMy & kσ ∙ My,L U ∙ 2 ∙ I c (35)
y,L

The factor kϬ can be taken from diagrams (see the parametric study, figure 2.8).
The confirmation is then:

K Z [
γ ∙ RM? & k Q ∙ M?,E U ∙ Y
#∙ ON,+ \]
(36)

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 42

2) Shear failure of the core:

Also in the core the stresses caused by the centric shear force have to be superimposed with
the stresses from the eccentric loading. For the eccentric load an effective width of the panel
of 25 cm (panel width 100 to 120 cm) can be taken into account for conservative results.

The following two ratios of shear stress in the core exist (all dimensions in N, mm and
N/mm²):

@
Shear stress due to the existing shear force in the panel: τM ^+
(37)

`a,b
Shear stress due to the eccentric load: _# (38)
#$% cc ∙ de

The confirmation according to the technical approval is:

@ @f,+ Z
γ ∙ :^ & #$% = Y \g (39)
+ ∙ ]

3) Failure of the joint:

For the load transfer from the adapter profile to the adjacent panel the load bearing capacity
of the joint has to be proved as well.
The beam model provides the maximum load in the joint as normal force N in the joint
elements. The load bearing capacity of the joint Fj has to be determined by tests (see chapter
2.2.4).

The result from the beam model is:

l
Fijk8 (40)
D

The equation of approval is:

l
γ ∙ Y \m (41)
D ]

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 43

Calculation example

Below an example for a ribbon window with adapter profiles is calculated. For all load
capacities and stiffnesses realistic values derived from tests at TU Darmstadt are used.

Table 3.9 Input values for the calculation example

Geometry: Section properties:

L = 5000 mm AL = 120000 mm²
B = 1000 mm Iy,L = 3600000 mm4
IT = 1,816E+1 mm4
ec = 120 mm
0
tF2 = 0,5 mm ED = 210000 N/mm²
tF1 = 0,5 mm GD = 81000 N/mm²
lQ = 250 mm EV = 76284 N/mm²
lF = 100 mm GK,L = 3,4 N/mm²
GK,Q = 2,82 N/mm²
Values of the approval:
fcv = 0,09 N/mm² Load:
fFck/gm = -113 N/mm² wD = 0,8 kN/m²

Test results for the joint:

kF = 1,5 kN/m/mm
Fj/gM = 4,063 kN/m

For the calculation of the beam model you get the following input values:

Beam 1: E= ED= 210000 N/mm²

G = GK,L=3,4 N/mm²

-∙ -∙ ∙
I?,E ∙e ² 3600000 mmq
-∙ - ∙

) M
λ ( )*,+ ∙ 1,183 ∙ 10Ks
-./

, ∙ -∙

<
89:;∙ = )
I1 4∙e #
∙B∙ -
∙ 51 7 < >) , 3,51 ∙ 10M% mmq
-∙ ;∙ *,+

AE B∙e 120000 mm²

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 44

Beam 2: E= EV= 76184 N/mm²

G = GK,Q = 2,82 N/mm²

t F1 ⋅ t F 2 2
I y ,Q = l Q ⋅ ec = 900000 mm 4
t F1 + t F 2

AQ = lQ · ec = 30000 mm²

Beam 3: E= ED=210000 N/mm²

k F ⋅ lQ ⋅ LF
A= = 0,1785 mm²
ED

Beam 4: EIy,Adapter = 100 kNm² (if the adapter profiles have a different
diffe stiffness,
the profile with less stiffness has to be used)
G = ∞ = 1 · 106

Belastung: qAdapter= 0,4 kN/m

The calculation of the beam model brings the following results for beam 1:

Figure 3.12 Static system

0 100 200 300 400 500

0,000 0,000

1,093 1,093

2,075 2,075

2,850 2,850
3,514

Figure 3.13 Deflection in mm

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 45

 0 100 200 300 400 500

0,00 0,00

0,34 0,34

0,63 0,63

0,86 0,86
1,04

Figure 3.14 Bending moment in kNm

-0,69
-0,62
-0,48
0,00 100,00 200,00 300,00-0,32 400,00 500,00

0,05

0,40
0,56
0,69 0,67

Figure 3.15 Shear force in kN

-0,35
-0,31
-0,24
0,00 100,00 200,00 300,00-0,16 400,00 500,00

0,02

0,20
0,28
0,35 0,33

Figure 3.16 Torsional moment in kNm

In the joint elements the following normal forces exist:

0 125 250 375 500

0,046 0,046

0,074 0,074
0,086 0,086
0,091

Figure 3.17 Normal forces in kN

With these results the analyses for the ultimate limit state can be made.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 46

1) Wrinkling of the face:

K Z [
γ ∙ RM? & k Q ∙ M?,E U ∙ Y (42)
# ∙ ON,+ \]

An interpolation between the diagrams (Figure 2.8) leads to a factor m of 1,33. For gF 1,85 is
used:

0,8 uv/x² ∙ 1x ∙ y5xz² 760xx

1,85 ∙ 5 & 1,33 ∙ 1,04 uvx> ∙ Y 113 v/xx²
8 3600000xxq

l
119,7 } 113 N/mm² (43)

In this case the proof against wrinkling cannot be provided!!!

2) Shear failure of the core material (gM = 1,2):

@ @f,+ Z
γ ∙ :^ & #$% ∙
= Y \g (44)
+ ]

%,$∙%,• l/ ∙$ L€% l %,%€ l/ ²

1,85 ∙ : M#%%%% ²
& #$% ∙M#%
=Y M,#
(45)

l
0,0734 Y 0,075 N/mm² (46)

3) Failure of the longitudinal joint:

l
γ ∙ Y m
(47)
D \]

%,%€M l
1,85 ∙ Y 4,06 kN/m (48)
%,#$

l
0,673 Y 4,06 kN/m (49)

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 47

3.5.3 Ribbon windows with punctual fixing

Analog to the model described above, also sandwich facades with punctual fixed ribbon
windows can be calculated. As the windows are not supported at the end, the whole load has
to be transferred to the neighboring panels.

Figure 3.18 Test setup for a ribbon window with punctual fixing

The calculation and the analyses are the same as described before. Just the load is not applied
on an adapter profile but punctual on the crossbeams. An example for the beam model is
shown in figure 3.19.

Figure 3.19 Beam model for the calculation of a sandwich panel in neighborhood of a punctual
fixed ribbon window

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 48

Additional to the calculation of the panel, the punctual fixing has to be tested. An example is
given in Figure 3.20. The load bearing capacity of this detail is very dependent on the kind of
fixing, so the maximum load should be derived from tests.

Figure 3.20 Example for a punctual fixing

3.5.4 Windows with bonded frames

Sandwich facades with bonded window frames have a load bearing behavior which is a little
bit different. In this case not the whole panel is replaced by a window (see Figure 3.21). Parts
of the panel still participate in the load transfer.

Figure 3.21 Windows with bonded frames in a sandwich facade

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 49

Tests within EASIE showed that the frames improve the load bearing capacity of panels with
openings clearly. Further the tests showed that the frames do not carry parts of the load by
themselves but stabilise the faces in the high stressed regions around the opening. Therefore it
is necessary that the frame stabilises the face in a region of at least 5 cm around the opening.
Based on the test results of very few tests the existing equations (see equation 1a,b) can be
used to calculate the load bearing capacity of single panels with small openings and bonded
frames. The factor kF has to be adapted for the bonded frames to the factor kF,frame:

(1 − β ) ⋅ (1 − 0.6 ⋅ β ) if 0 ≤ β ≤ 0.4

k F , frame =  (50)
 0.6 (1 − 0.6 ⋅ β ) if 0.4 < β ≤ 0.8

1
Existing model

0,8 Model with frame

related load bearing capacity

Test with frame

0,6
Tests without frame

0,4

0,2

0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
related width of the opening

Figure 3.22 Load bearing capacity of panels with reinforced openings

The model above is based on only one test series, so further investigations are necessary to
verify these proposals! If the bonding strength can be improved the effect of the frame could
be even higher.

For openings through longitudinal joints like shown in figure 3.23 the load bearing capacity is
always the sum of the residual load bearing capacities of the outer panels. In case of a single
span panel the inner panels do not contribute to the load transfer.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 50

 b1 b2 b1 b2

n= 2 n= 4

B B B B B B

Figure 3.23 Geometries of large openings

The calculated load bearing capacity is very depending on the calculation model. If the panels
are lateral supported, they are able to carry
carry much more load than lateral unsupported panels.
In figure 3.24 the related load bearing capacity for a system of two panels with an opening
(width of the opening 1 m, according to figure 3.23, left side) with different eccentricities is
compared for lateral
teral supported and lateral not supported panels.

Figure 3.24 Load bearing capacity for a system of two panels with one opening
(Width of the opening 1 m)

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 51

Due to the neighboring panels and the bonding between the window frame and the panels a
lateral support can be assumed. In this case the following equation can be used:

…†‡ yˆz Œ‹- Œ‹ Ž•

•‚ƒ„ Y u# ∙ ∙ (51)
de ∙‰ ∙ Š‹‡ • •‘
with
y1 7 βk z# if 0 Y βk Y 0,4—
k ,k ’
0,6 ∙ y1 7 βk z if 0,4 – βk Y 0,8
(52)

The result for the system tested within EASIE (see chapter 3.4.2, Test 1, three panels and an
opening with a width of 1,9 m) is shown in figure 3.25. For this test a good correlation
between the test result and the calculation proposal can be stated.

0,50
related load bearing capacity

0,40
0,33 0,33

0,30
0,23

0,20
0,22

0,10
calculation, panels lateral supported test
0,00
-500 -300 -100 100 300 500

eccentricity of the opening in mm

Figure 3.25 Load bearing capacity for a system of two panels with one opening
(Width of the opening 1 m)

All the models above are based on very few tests, so further investigations are necessary to
verify these proposals!

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 52

4 Conclusions

The report is a state of the art report on the influence of openings on the behaviour and
resistance of sandwich panels. It introduces the currently known calculation models for the
design of sole sandwich panels and of complete sandwich panel walls, which have openings of
different sizes and shapes placed in different locations of the spans of the panels.

For profiled panels with small openings new calculation models – derived from test results at
TU Darmstadt within EASIE - are presented.
Test results from the EASIE project regarding openings with additional reinforcing are
presented and calculation models have been developed for three types of reinforcement. For
one case also a calculation example is presented.

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 53

REFERENCES
EN 14509, (November 2006) (European standard). Self-supporting double skin metal faced
insulating panels – Factory made products – Specifications. Published by CEN (Comité
Européen de Normalisation), Brussels.

DIN EN ISO 6892-1 (2009) (European standard). Metallic materials – tensile testing- Part 1:
method of tests at room temperature. Published by CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation),
Brussels.

Berner, K. 2006, Openings in sandwich panels. IS Mainz

Berner, K. 2006, Öffnungen in Sandwichbauteilen. Proceedings of LeichtBauen 16-17.3.2006

Technische Universität Darmstadt. pp 145-166. (in German)

Böttcher, M. 2005, Berechnungsverfahren für Wand-Sandwichelemente mit Öffnungen. IFBS-

Fachinformation 5.09 Statik, IFBS e.V, Düsseldorf (in German)

Courage, W. & Toma T. 1994, Structural detailing of openings in sandwich panels. TNO
report 94-CON-R0729-01

Davies JM. (ed) 2001, Lightweight Sandwich Construction. Blackwell Science.

Heselius, L. 2004, Wrinkling analysis of flat faced sandwich panels with respect to bonding
strength and core properties with mineral wool as core material. Dissertation. Darmstadt,
ISBN 952-91-8639-8

Höglund, T. 1986, Load Bearing Strength of Sandwich Panel Walls with Window Openings.
Proceedings of the IABSE Colloquium, Stockholm 1986, IABSE Report Vol. 49

Lange, J. & Böttcher, M. 2006, Theoretische und experimentelle Grundlagen für die
Berechnung von Wand-Sandwichelementen mit Öffnungen. Bauingenieur (81), Springer VDI
Verlag, Düsseldorf, 2006 (in German)

Lange, J. et al. 2010, Stahlleichtbau mit Verbundelementen. Stahlbau 79 (2010), Ernst &
Sohn Verlag, Berlin (in German)

Stamm, K. & Witte, H. 1974, Sandwichkonstruktionen. Springer Verlag, Wien, 1974 (in
German)

Warmuth, F. & Lange, J. 2010, Openings in sandwich elements. International Conference on

Steel & Composite Structures, Sydney 2010

EASIE WP1 Deliverable 1.2 54