Advances in Cold Bending SSG

CONFERENCE SESSIONS
JUNE 14-16, 2023
NOKIA ARENA
TAMPERE, FINLAND
Advances in cold bending SSG

Valérie Hayez, Jon Kimberlain, Jie Feng #GPD2023
www.gpd.fi
General Business
June 14-16, 2023 | Nokia Arena | Tampere, Finland
Historic Background
 Cold bent projects have been in
service for over a decade
 Corner cold bending versus
cantilever cold bending
Permanent bending force on
silicone may induce creep and tear
Project details knowledge crucial
Research publications on SSG
joint dimensioning
Besserud et al, Durability of Cold-Bent Insulating-Glass Units, Journal of ASTM International, Vol. 9, No. 3, JAI104120
Sitte, S., Hayez, V., Kimberlain, J. et al. Structural silicone joint behaviour study for cold bent glass. Glass Struct Eng 6, 39–63 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40940-020-00125-7
First presented in GPD 2023 General Business

Evaluation of cold bending projects: analytical method

 Durability as function of Stress peaks in:
 Sealant,
 IGU edge,
 Glass pane and
 Interlayer
 Partially numerical methods
 Advantage
Quick analysis in early design stage
 Caveats
 Limited applicability for complex designs or
large deformations typical of corner bending

Evaluation of cold bending projects: FEA

Durability as function of peak strain
Caveats
Longer computation times
Need for appropriate material behaviour
models for structural sealants
Enough accuracy in the model (frame, mesh,
bonding method…)
Experimental validation required
Kimberlain et al., Durability of Structural Silicone Sealant in Cold Bent Glazing Design, in Proceedings of GPD 2019
Sitte et al. Structural silicone joint behaviour study for cold bent glass. Glass Struct Eng 6, 39–63 (2021).
Goal of presented research

 Optimized methodology for cold bent glass and SSG design
 Combine the accuracy of FEA with the simplicity of an analytical equation
 Use a simulation-based Design of Experiment (DOE) study for different glass and
metal frame form factors as well as silicone sealant parameters
 Apply to cantilever bending
F
q
F
L
f f F
β q β F

Building the FEA model

Material Material Modulus Poisson Ratio
Model
Glass Elastic 70 GPa 0.23
Aluminium Elastic 70.3 GPa 0.33
DOWSIL™ 983 Hyperelastic Mooney-Rivlin Assume
Structural Glazing C01= 0.019361MPa, incompressible
Sealant C10 = 0.23516MPa
D=0
8-node linear brick, hybrid element (C3D8H)

Mesh
 Glass: element size of 10mm
 Sealant: element size of 4.25mm x 1.4mm

Building the DOE Length of the glass
Full Factorial Design

Flat glass before Bending
Parameter Range
Sealant thickness [mm] 6, 12 Width of the glass
Displacement in Y axis [mm]
Sealant width [mm] 20, 40

Frame thickness [mm] 25, 150
Frame gauge thickness [mm] 2-4
Extra frame width compared 10, 20 Cantilever Bending by 50 mm
to sealant width [mm]

Glass deflection [mm] 25, 50
Glass Length [mm] 1524- 1981.2 (100-130%)
Glass width [mm] 914.4- 1188.72 (100-130%)
Glass thickness [mm] 6, 12

Results

Peak strain and durability prediction

Peak Max Principal Strain
= 22.763% + 0.772% × Deflection mm − 0.021% × Glass Length mm + 0.675% × Glass Thickness mm
+ 0.265% × Frame Thickness mm − 1.795% Sealant Thickness mm + 0.119% × Sealant Width mm
SSG Durability year = 89.504 × exp −7.903 × 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ∗
*Kimberlain et al., Durability of Structural Silicone Sealant in Cold Bent Glazing Design, GPD 2019
Peak strain and durability prediction

Parameter Range SSG Width: 10 mm Glass Thickness: 6mm
Cold Bent Glass Design Evaluated by Design SSG Width: 20 mm Glass Thickness: 12mm
Peak Max Principal Strain

40,0%
Parameters Formula
30,0%
Deflection [mm] 30 (not in DOE model) 20,0%
Glass Length [mm] 1524 10,0%
0,0%
Glass Width [mm] 914.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Glass Thickness [mm] 6 -12 Frame / SSG Sealant Thickness Ratio
Frame Gauge Thickness [mm] 3
SSG Width: 10 mm Glass Thickness: 6mm
Extra Frame Width [mm] 10
Predicted Durability [Years]

SSG Width: 20 mm Glass Thickness: 12mm
Frame Thickness [mm] 25 -100 40,0
Sealant Thickness [mm] 10 (not in DOE model) 30,0
20,0
Sealant Width [mm] 10 - 20
10,0
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Limited difference between FEA and DOE Frame / SSG Sealant Thickness Ratio

Cold Bent Glass Design Parameters Parameter Range to be Evaluated by Design Formular
Deflection [mm] 60 (Outside DOE Design)
Robustness of DOE Glass Length [mm]

Glass Width [mm]
2400 (Outside DOE Design for Equation Fitting)
914.4
Glass Thickness [mm] 6 -12
Frame Gauge Thickness [mm] 3
Extra Frame Width [mm] 10
Frame Thickness [mm] 25 -100
Sealant Thickness [mm] 10 (not used in DOE model Fitting)
Sealant Width [mm] 20
# Frame Thickness Glass Length Glass Thickness Frame SSG FEA Predicted DOE Formula Error
[mm] [mm] [mm] Thickness Ratio Prediction
1 25 2400 6 2.5 12.7% 13.8% 1.1%
2 25 2400 12 2.5 16.6% 17.8% 1.2%
3 50 2400 6 5 19.3% 20.4% 1.1%
4 50 2400 12 5 22.6% 24.5% 1.9%
5 75 2400 6 7.5 25.8% 27.0% 1.3%
6 75 2400 12 7.5 28.8% 31.1% 2.2%
7 100 2400 6 10 32.1% 33.7% 1.5%
8 100 2400 12 10 35.0% 37.7% 2.7%

Conclusion: DOE
Hybrid approach combining accuracy of FEA and speed and ease of
analytical calculation methods for SSG joint dimensioning
 Limitations exist
 Range of parameters
 Simplifications (monolithic glass)
Can be used for corner cold bending

Conclusion: Design Approach

Determine a sufficient bite to keep average permanent loads at or below
sealant manufacturers stated allowable stresses over the contact area of the
actual bending.
Use FEA or use the DOE equation to determine peak strains of the silicone
Adjust silicone joint design or moment of bending to keep peak strains at or
below 15% of the original dimension of mesh element(s).
Attention:
Standards do not exist to determine the material properties of a specific
proprietary formulation. Communication with the silicone supplier on the material
properties, how the properties were measured and the expected variation due to
manufacturing process is essential to making a long-term successful design.

Thank You
ww.gpd.fi #GPD2023
First presented in GPD 2023
General Business

Advances in Cold Bending SSG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Cold Bending SSG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONFERENCE SESSIONS

JUNE 14-16, 2023

Advances in cold bending SSG

First presented in GPD 2023 General Business

Evaluation of cold bending projects: analytical method

First presented in GPD 2023 General Business

Evaluation of cold bending projects: FEA

Goal of presented research

First presented in GPD 2023 General Business

Building the FEA model

8-node linear brick, hybrid element (C3D8H)

First presented in GPD 2023 General Business

Building the DOE Length of the glass

Full Factorial Design

Sealant width [mm] 20, 40

to sealant width [mm]

First presented in GPD 2023 General Business

First presented in GPD 2023 General Business

Peak strain and durability prediction

Peak strain and durability prediction

Peak Max Principal Strain

Predicted Durability [Years]

First presented in GPD 2023 General Business

Robustness of DOE Glass Length [mm]

First presented in GPD 2023 General Business

First presented in GPD 2023 General Business

Conclusion: Design Approach

First presented in GPD 2023 General Business

You might also like