cross sections

Newsletter for the Structural Engineers Association of New York

March 2011 / Volume 16 No. 1

The Glass Issue

Glass Engineering Basics Glass Curtain Walls and the Engineer of Record Current Trends in Glass Design and Standards The Glass Pyramid at the Louvre Museum
also

The Cond Nast Cafeteria

The End of Fly Ash?

cross sections
March 2011 / Volume 16 No. 1

Contents
3 3 4
Presidents Message Editors Message NCSEA 2010 Conference Recap

SEAoNY 536 LaGuardia Place New York, NY 10012 www.seaony.org

Officers
Kevin Poulin, P.E.
President

Glass Engineering Basics

Design parameters for the structural engineer.
By Justin den Herder

Karl J. Rubenacker, P.E.

President-Elect

Glass Curtain Walls and the Engineer of Record

Guidance for the building structural engineer in the age of advanced faades.
By Justin Lawson

Deborah McGuinness, P.E.

Secretary

Scott Hughes, P.E.

Treasurer

The Glass Pyramid at the Louvre Museum

How a novelty became an international icon.
By Alice Oviatt-Lawrence

Christopher Cerino, P.E.

Past President

Cristobal Correa, P.E. Eli B. Gottlieb, P.E. Timothy D. Lynch, P.E. Joe Savalli, P.E. Jeffrey L. Thompson, P.E.
Directors

10

Current Trends in Glass Design and Standards

An in-depth look into the cutting edge of glass engineering.
By Russell H. Davies, P.E.

14

The Cond Nast Cafeteria

A study of architectural vision and structural engineering.
By Vincent DeSimone, P.E. and Chris Cerino, P.E.

Publications Staff
Eytan Solomon, P.E.
Editor in Chief

15

The End of Fly Ash?

The EPA debates the use of a popular supplemental cementitious material (SCM) in concrete.
By John Anderson

Alice Tao
Graphic Designer

Mohamed Arafa Justin den Herder Scott Hughes, P.E. Zak Kostura Rossella Nicolin Allan Olson, P.E. Jennifer Anna Pazdon
Editors-at-Large

ON THE COVER An example of the variety typical of New Yorks vast landscape of glass architecture, the Bloomberg Tower podium faade features exterior exposed supports.
Photo: Adam Kirk

Kevin Poulin, P.E.

Publications Liaison

Rebecca Jones, P.E.

Sponsorship Coordinator

publications@seaony.org
2 March 2011

For advertising inquiries, please contact our Sponsorship Coordinator, Rebecca Jones, at RJones@ThorntonTomasetti.com or 917.661.7996.

Presidents Message
Congratulations to everyone at SEAoNY - our hosting of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations Annual Conference in October was a tremendous success! I would like to thank our Past President, Board, Committee Chairs, and all the member volunteers who contributed to the effort. I would like to especially thank our NCSEA Conference Committee, the Committee Chair, Erik Madsen, and our Executive Director, Kristin Darga, for their efforts to plan and execute a fantastic conference. We started with a keynote address by Commissioner Robert LiMandri of the New York City Building Department and we finished with the 2010 Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards banquet. Since the conference we have pursued increased collaboration with area engineering organizations, including the Met Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the New York Interagency Engineering Council (NYIEC). The SEAoNY Programs Committee is working with ASCEs Forensic and Structures Groups to coordinate combined events. The SEAoNY Education Committee has discussed our participation with ASCEs Kids Day during Engineers Week in February and potential collaboration on college campuses. As many engineers are members of both SEAoNY and ASCE, we should work together to achieve common goals that will benefit our profession. We also asked the NYIEC, an organization of engineers from city, state, and federal agencies, to present at our day-long seminar, Building with New Yorks Public Sector held in February. The talks discussed the mission and vision of each agency, current projects, and opportunities for involvement by structural consultants. The seminar helped SEAoNY members to understand the qualification and proposal process required by agencies, including Con Edison, General Services Administration, and the Department of Design and Construction. In addition, the some of the speakers discussed their major initiatives and future capital programs. I hope many of you were able to attend. Over the past few years, SEAoNY has partnered with Columbia University to host technical seminars on the use of glass as a structural material. This edition of Cross Sections revisits that topic and focuses on recent developments and future trends in the structural engineering of glass. Enjoy.

Editors Message
The simultaneous transparency and strength of glass, when you think about it, form a magical aspect to design and the human experience. So much profound imagery in life derives directly from the material: looking out a window, or through a glass cup, or into a fish tank. People have been making glass for over four thousand years, and clear glass for at least two thousand years, with cast glass windows appearing in Roman architecture around the year 100. A pivotal moment came in the mid-19th century with the primitive early development of float glass techniques and the separate but concurrent creation of the Crystal Palace in London. Since then, each new generation of architects and engineers have sought the latest advances in glass technology to open new expressions in building design: Gropiuss 1914 Fagus Factory, Johnsons 1949 Glass House, Fosters 1975 Willis building. And today we see that glass can be used not only as Le Corbusiers curtain wall but as the main structure of the building, as in the UKs Broadfield Museum, and prominently in the Apple stores of New York City. With this edition of Cross Sections, we take stock of the current state of the art as well as glimpses into the future, from our view as structural engineers who recognize in various ways the possibilities and realities of glass as a building material. Justin den Herder breaks down for us the fundamentals of glass structural design and Justin Lawson describes the issues faced by the engineer of record for glass-faade buildings. We also examine two audacious glass projects of our time: I. M. Peis renovation at the Louvre in Paris (article by Alice Oviatt-Lawrence) and Frank Gehrys Cond Nast cafeteria (article by Vincent DeSimone and Chris Cerino). And in our feature piece, Russell Davies one of the leading experts on glass engineering takes us on a tour of current industry trends and design standards, including a sneak preview of what is on the horizon. Glass is often utilized as a means towards sustainable ends, such as natural daylighting and ventilation in buildings, and the use of recycled glass as concrete aggregate. As we are all committed to the goals of sustainability, we have also included in this edition a timely article by John Anderson about the current debate on fly ash in concrete, a critical topic for structural engineers. We hope you enjoy this issue of Cross Sections, and we look forward to another exciting year on the Publications committee.

Kevin Poulin, P.E.

Eytan Solomon, P.E.

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR We were very pleased to present the article on the Living Pavilion on Governors Island in the last issue of Cross Sections (September 2010 / Volume 15 No. 2). Please note that a revised version of the article has been included in the online edition, which can be found at: www.seaony.org/publications.

cross sections

NCSEA 2010 Conference Recap

By Erik Madsen, P.E. and Jennifer Pazdon

SEAoNY hosted this years NCSEA Conference from September 30 to October 2, 2010, in Jersey City. NCSEA is the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, the parent organization of SEAoNY and the many SEAs across the US. The conference attracted over 130 attendees from 43 states for technical lectures, networking, and committee meetings. The NCSEA board and out-of-state delegates were very pleased with the event. The speaking program was commended for its high level of quality, and the dedicated organizing efforts of the sponsorship committee resulted in a profit for SEAoNY. The Cross Sections supplement issue and SEAoNY logo-monogrammed cookies in the gift bags were a big hit with attendees. SEAoNY has set the bar high for the Conference next year by exceeding NCSEA's expectations. This effort by the many volunteers will increase SEAoNY and the New York communitys standing as the National Council gives more energy and attention to the New York member organization and our initiatives. Inspired by this years Conference, SEAoNY already has several new plans underway to attract more members and to continue to promote the profession of structural engineering. While the volunteers may have been reluctant to see the conference end, they must also feel a sense of relief! They have all done an amazing job, and this accomplishment is a testament to SEAoNY's progress in the past several years. The work of many has made something great. Congratulations to all.

Photo: Bob Johnson

March 2011

The faade of Jean Nouvels 100 11th Avenue building is a dramatic use of advanced glazing techniques. Read on for more on glass design in this special issue. Photo: Adam Kirk

cross sections

Glass Engineering Basics

Design Parameters for the Structural Engineer
By Justin den Herder

March 2011

LEFT The lobby of Alice Tully Hall at Lincoln Center in New York City features tall glazing facing two streets. Photo: Adam Kirk

When confronted by an architect with questions pertaining to glass, structural engineers often tend to defer to product manufacturers and specialty faade consultants. However, in such a competitive industry, there is no doubt that it is beneficial to have a basic understanding of the types of glass that are available, the terminology frequently used in its production, a rudimentary understanding of its mechanical properties (its abilities and limitations), and an idea of what is required by ASTM or Building Code standards. Having a grasp on these items with respect to glass can certainly help you, the structural engineer, bring to fruition the design intent of your client, even at a schematic level. Production Flat glass is typically made by floating melted glass over a pool of molten tin. This process was developed by an English glass producer, Pilkington in the 1950s. A plethora of techniques have been invented in subsequent years to help improve the strength and durability of glass. Annealing is one such method. During this process the glass is cooled down in a kiln, also known as a Lehr, from approximately 1100 degrees Fahrenheit to about 200 degrees Fahrenheit. This cooling process allows for the surface stresses to dissipate to a negligible level. One danger of using annealed glass is its susceptibility to shattering. Therefore, another strengthening process is often introduced, tempering. Tempering is the rapid cooling of glass. This process initially induces tension on the surface layers of the glass. As the interior cools at a later point in time, it pulls the outer layers into compression, in essence pre-stressing the surface of the glass to approximately 10 ksi, or roughly four times stronger than annealed glass. However, once tempering has taken place, the glass cannot be cut or drilled as this would disrupt the stress distribution within the panel. A similar process called heatstrengthening can improve the strength of annealed glass by about 200%. This process is typically used to improve the capability of glass to resist thermal shock. Laminated glass consists of two or more layers of flat glass. Sandwiched in between is a layer of Polyvinyl Butyral (PVB). The PVB is a highly ductile plastic to which the

surrounding layers of glass adhere, thus improving their resistance to shattering. Laminated glass is typically used in overhead or flooring applications. Mechanical Properties & Design Theoretically, glass is excellent in compression (with a compressive strength upwards of 3,000 ksi!). However, imperfections such as invisible, irregular cracks near the surface (also known as Griffith Flaws) or impurities near the surface can generate stress concentrations within the glass that often lead to failures at much lower strengths. Due to the unpredictability of production processes the acceptable design strength is far lower. The modulus of elasticity of glass is approximately 10,400 ksi, almost the same as aluminum, while its density is 158 pcf, slightly less than aluminum. Duration of load also significantly impacts the strength of glass. Non-factored loads usually must withstand a load duration of sixty seconds. ASTM Standards See Current Trends in Glass Design and Standards by Russell Davies on Page 10. NYC Building Code Requirements Where one or more sides of a glass pane are not firmly supported or are subjected to unusual loading conditions, detailed construction documents, shop drawings, and analysis are required. Framing Firmly Supported means that deflection at the edge of each individual pane of glass perpendicular to the pane shall not exceed L/175 of the edge length or , whichever is less under the loading combinations specified in Section 1605. Glass that is potentially subject to construction damage or weld splatter or located near material hoists must have a hardboard covering during the work process. Firmly Supported Glass sloped 15 degrees from vertical or less shall be designed in accordance with wind loads for components and cladding (Section 1609)

and the seismic requirements of ASCE 7 Section 9.6.2.10. If glass is not firmly supported on all four edges, analysis and test data must be prepared to guarantee that the maximum allowable load on glass Fge (from Figures 2404 of the Building Code, based on thickness) x c1 (glass type factor from Table 2404.1) is greater than the applied design wind load. Glass sloped greater than 15 degrees from vertical shall be designed for the governing load combination as specified in Section 2404.2. Section 2405 Horizontal Glass Support framing must be constructed of noncombustible materials and designed to support tributary roof loads. Section 2407 Glass Handrails Must be single fully tempered glass, laminated fully tempered glass, or laminated heat-strengthened glass. The nominal thickness must be greater than . The panels shall be designed to withstand the loads specified in Section 1607.7 with a safety factor of 4. (50 plf applied at the top or a 200 lbs concentrated point load applied in any direction.) Each handrail shall be supported by three glass balusters or otherwise supported in the event that one baluster panel fails. Each handrail must have an attached handrail guard. Glass in floors Design Loads: 1) actual load 2) concentrated load 3) uniformly distributed load from Section 1607 Load reductions are not permitted. Laminated glass shall have a minimum of two plies and should be able to support the total design load in the event that one ply fails. Design loads are specified in Section 2409.4.

cross sections

Glass Curtain Walls and the Engineer Of Record

Guidance for the building structural engineer in the age of advanced faades
By Justin Lawson

Architects are constantly seeking lighter, more transparent facades as advances in glass technology open up more possibilities. Architects look to innovative engineers to make these visions possible. Long-span curtain walls necessary for large assembly spaces and atria can present a substantial challenge to the design team, but can also provide a substantial opportunity for innovation. Successful design of a curtain wall requires thorough understanding of the several simultaneous functions they perform: moisture protection, thermal barrier, acoustic barrier, structural enclosure, and architectural surface. Since these functions often have conflicting requirements, the architect must achieve a balance. Oftentimes a specialty consultant who has experience with various materials and systems of curtain wall construction will be retained to help address these issues. Most commonly, final design and detailing of a custom curtain wall will be delegated to a fabricator specializing in glass structures. A conventional design-bidbuild approach generally is not used for structural glass scope of the project due to the high level of specialized knowledge that the curtain wall contractor already has. The buildings EOR often does not have experience or resources to design a glass structure efficiently. For example, laboratory testing of glass and glass assemblies can be critical to determining the structural safety of the system. The nature of glass as a loadbearing material presents a number of unique problems. In the first place, a wide variation is possible in strength properties of glass throughout a structure which can depend on a number of environmental factors. To provide a fail-safe design and ensure the stability of a curtain wall structure, a scenario of breakage of one glass unit must be designed for. Postbreakage behavior of a proposed assembly must be sufficiently understood, and currently, testing of actual glass components to failure is the only way to qualify this post-breakage load-carrying capacity.

Glass hardware components are also frequently proprietary and require testing to verify performance. Point-fixed glass has now become preferred over framesupported glass in large facades. Usually the highest stress in the glass pane occurs at the fixings and is very sensitive to the connection materials. Finite-element analysis is typically employed for verification of these details when the glass is under significant loading. Consideration must also be given to differential thermal movements which can be increasingly significant over large spans. Similarly, adequate detailing for adjustability in erection becomes critical. A few multidisciplinary engineering firms, however, have means to tackle the complex issues of curtain wall design and can offer it as part of their scope. Even then, most frequently the curtain wall fabricator takes responsibility for the final engineering work as part of a design-build contract. Despite specialized expertise required to realize glass structures, any structural engineer that is familiar with the types of curtain wall construction can assist the architect early in the design phase. A knowledge of glass construction possibilities can allow the engineer to provide a schematic design for a proposed building geometry. Also knowledge of different types of glass available, their applications and limitations, can help with assessing the feasibility of a concept. Many of the common design schemes seen in large curtain walls today had to be envisioned first as schematic designs by architects and engineers for a specific project. Architect Henri Bernard made use of suspended glass supported by glass mullions in the Radio France building in Paris in the 1960s. The glass was suspended from each floor to avoid problems with deflection of the primary structure. Since then, the glass fin wall has developed into a common method for large window back-up.

Always seeking lighter, more transparent options, architects called on engineers to eliminate the traditionally heavy steel members in multistory-high walls. A cable-truss-supported glass wall was first executed at the Museum of Science and Technology in Paris in 1986 by Peter Rice, Martin Francis, and Ian Ritchie. The concept of prestressed cable trusses braced by glass panes has been repeated in many varieties throughout the world. Going further in that direction, Jorg Schlaich and his firm proposed the cable net system for the atrium of the Hotel Kempinski in Munich. This system eliminated the structural depth of the cable trusses and relied on one plane of cables to support the glass plane by catenary action. Recent manifestations can be seen locally in the main entrances of the Time Warner Center and 7 World Trade Center. Systems relying on prestressed cables come at a cost to the building structure, however, since the supporting structure must be designed to accommodate the large loads imposed by these systems. As in all successful design, these systems have required close coordination between the parties involved, in this case between the curtain wall design-builder and the buildings structural engineer. The sequence of construction can also have a significant effect on the loads carried by the glass wall versus the support structure. Even in more conventional systems such as one-way spanning trusses and mullions, a preliminary analysis of the proposed curtain wall configuration is required in order to size the supporting structure and provide a cost estimate. Understanding the capabilities of glass as a load-bearing element can allow the engineer to provide a greater service to the architect and participate more collaboratively in design.

March 2011

LEFT AND BELOW The I.M. Pei-designed entrance to the Louvre in Paris was the first optical quality glass to be used in the built environment. Photos: Eytan Solomon

The Louvre Museum in Paris was a series of 19th century linear rooms on a site steeped in centuries of historical significance. Around 1980, a new entrance was conceived to create more space and to centralize use and circulation. I. M. Pei came up with a pyramidal glass, roof-entry design, with Nicolet Chartrand Knoll & Associe, Montreal for the structural plan. The glass at the Louvre Museums pyramid entrance was the first optical quality glass to be used in the built environment. This includes all 666 diamond shaped windows in the main pyramid, and the stair and side railings. Each piece is 10-foot high by 6-foot wide and weighs 333 pounds. The glass was manufactured at St. Gobain Vitrage. The objective was to eliminate the iron oxide, which causes the green color. So that all iron oxide could evaporate, a special electric-fusion furnace was designed and utilized. Two sheets were polished and glued together for the final 3/4-inch thick product. These were set into siliconcement in a truss supported aluminum diagonally-intersecting curtain wall having a 2.5-inch camber. When all the glass was placed, the camber flattened perfectly. The glass is washed several times a month on the interior and exterior by mountain climbers. There was a continuing condensation issue which required postconstruction analysis. The concept of a glass pyramid was considered trite by some, and was very controversial at the time, even leading to some fist-fighting in the Parisian streets. However its suggestions of monument, of representation of the protection of special items inside, and of technological advancements, all evoke the ancient Egyptian pyramidal structures.

The Glass Pyramid at the Louvre Museum

How a novelty became an international icon
By Alice Oviatt-Lawrence

cross sections

Current Trends in Glass Design and Standards

An in-depth look into the cutting edge of glass engineering
By Russell H. Davies, P.E.
From New Yorks Museum of Biblical Art (1998, FXFowle, and 2005, Selldorf) to World Trade Center projects (SOM, Snohetta, and others) currently under construction, the role of glass as a featured material in New York projects has changed and developed over the last ten years. This is true across the country, where glass is the main feature of many recent projects. Glass design and construction has grown in the United States, as evidenced by the increasing number of professionals offering services and by the number of projects including special glass designs. Lets take a quick chronological survey of projects in New York City that feature glass: Rose Center for Earth and Space, Museum of Natural History (2000, Polshek Partnership) New 42 Studio Building (2001, Platt Byard Dovell Architects) Apple Store, Soho (2002, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson) Double Cable Net Wall, Time-Warner Center (2003, James Carpenter Design Associates + Skidmore Owings and Merrill, LLP) Brooklyn Museum of Art (2004, Polshek Partnership) Harrison Street Residence (2005, 1100 Architect) Hearst Tower (2006, Foster and Partners) 40 Bond Street (2007, Herzog & de Meuron + Handel Architects, LLP) Sheila Johnson Design Center, Parsons School of Design (2008, Lyn Rice Architects) Rockefeller University Research Center (2009, Mitchell / Giurgola Architects LLP) Julliard School Expansion (2010, Diller Scofidio + Renfro / FX Fowle) Ask your favorite New York architect or consultant and you will hear another list of projects. There are more to come, too, especially downtown. Available Standards More consultants and designers have become comfortable with the challenges of conventional and complicated glass designs and systems. But where are the design guides and standards for these applications? Is there a manual for glass design similar to The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Edition 13 for structural steel design? The short answer is, "No." So where does glass design guidance come from and how is it regulated? Currently,
10 March 2011

standards published by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), the American Architectural Manufacturing Association (AAMA), the Glass Association of North America (GANA), the Insulating Glass Manufacturers Alliance (IGMA) and the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) provide references most commonly used in the U.S. design and construction industry. These documents cover important aspects of glass design and construction and should be on every United States professional's list of references. The following is a partial list of important U.S. Standards. ASTM provides standards covering glass material specifications, structural and other performance determination methods: ASTM C158 -02(2007) Standard Test Methods for Strength of Glass by Flexure (Determination of Modulus of Rupture) ASTM C1036 -06 Standard Specification for Flat Glass ASTM C1048 -04 Standard Specification for Heat-Treated Flat GlassKind HS, Kind FT Coated and Uncoated Glass ASTM C1172 -09 Standard Specification for Laminated Architectural Flat Glass ASTM C1376 -10 Standard Specification for Pyrolytic and Vacuum Deposition Coatings on Flat Glass ASTM E1300 -09a Standard Practice for Determining Load Resistance of Glass in Buildings E1423-06 Standard Practice for Determining Steady State Thermal Transmittance of Fenestration Systems E1425-07 Standard Practice for Determining the Acoustical Performance of Windows, Doors, Skylight, and Glazed Wall Systems ASTM E2190-08 Standard Specification for Insulating Glass Unit Performance and Evaluation E2431-06 Standard Practice for Determining the Resistance of Single Glazed Annealed Architectural Flat Glass to Thermal Loadings E2264-05 Standard Practice for Determining the Effects of Temperature Cycling on Fenestration Products While the above list includes a selection of standards for determining performance other than structural, the list does not include the many performance testing standards available through ASTM. Find more information at www.astm.org, including the publication Glass and Glazing Standards for the Building Industry. AAMA provides a host of useful documents, including Technical Information Reports (TIR). Some of the following do not appear on the website http://www.aamanet.org/ and may be out of print:

RIGHT The Apple Stores of New York City are showcases of cutting edge glass engineering. Photo: Adam Kirk

 TIR A1-04 Sound Control of Fenestration Products TIR A7-83 Sloped Glazing Guidelines TIR A8-84 Structural Properties of Glass TIR A8-08 Structural Performance of Thermal Barrier Framing Systems TIR A11-04 Maximum Allowable Deflection of Framing Systems for Building Cladding Components at Design Wind Loads GANA (http://www.glasswebsite.com/) provides, among others, the following references: Glazing Manual (2009 50th Anniversary Edition) Engineering Standards Manual Tempering Edition (2009) Guide to Architectural Glass (2010) IGMA (http://www.igmaonline.org/) offers a series of publications regarding the design, fabrication and testing of insulating glass products, including the following selected references: Preventing IG failures

Guidelines for Sloped Glazing NRFC (http://www.nfrc.org/) provides a host of technical documents to determine the energy performance of windows, doors, skylights and attachment products. The following are commonly used NFRC 100 - Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-Factor NFRC 200 - Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product Solar Heat Gain Coefficient and Visible Transmittance at Normal Incidence Other references vary in origin, specific application and usefulness. The following is a partial list of useful references to supplement the standards. Glass Design to Resist Seismic and Extreme Climatic Events, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Edited by Richard A. Behr, 2009. This book provides a comprehensive resource for designing glass to resist various loads in accordance with the latest United States code provisions and industry standards. The Institution of Structural Engineers, Structural Use of Glass in Buildings, 1999. This book provides a basis of information for those interested in the structural use of glass.

The Centre for Window and Cladding Technology website (http://www.cwct.co.uk/) provides a long list of publications available with and without membership to the organization, along with other information useful to designers. The website www.glassfiles.com provides a resource for glass professionals worldwide in the architecture and automotive industries, providing publications, product listings and events listings (such as Glass Processing Days, a bi-annual international conference). The website www.glassmagazine.com is an online glass industry resource that supplements Glass Magazine, a United States publication. These references can be very helpful but should be used responsibly along with the standards. Trends in Standards US standards evolve through input from industry to the standard-writing committees. Many committees actively seek this input through voluntary membership and commentary from glass manufacturers, fabricators and designers. In addition, research and testing published by product developers and academic institutions further provide a knowledge base for the standards. What are a few of the current trends in the standards?

cross sections

11

A good example would be revisions under consideration for ASTM E1300 -09a Standard Practice for Determining Load Resistance of Glass in Buildings. The following items are currently under review by the committee: Large glass: The standard will include charts to determine the load resistance of glass up to 200 in. and 15 kPa (331 psf), allowing designers to determine the resistance of jumbo glass sizes more recently on offer by fabricators. Note that the standard provides no comment on the effects of elevation and temperature on glass deflections within insulating glass (IG) units and on the potential for glass contact across the airspace of IG units. The standard will eventually need to provide guidance to avoid these effects, especially in jumbo IG units. Glass Type Factors for heat treated glasses: The standard uses Glass Type Factors for Heat-Strengthened (HS) and Fully Tempered (FT) glasses based on values determined approximately 50-years ago from testing a range of manufactured glass products. Since then, there is better knowledge of the heat-treating process and the stress state of heat-treated glasses. There is a proposal under review to revise factors for heat-treated glasses according to specific prestress values in glass products. Load Duration Factors for heat-treated glasses: The standard accounts for load duration effects on annealed but not heattreated glasses. There is a call for research into load duration effects on heat-treated glasses, including the influence of load duration, stress state and water vapor attack on glass strength. The outcome of this research will be a more intelligent approach to specifying heat-treated glasses. Thermal stress in Insulated Glass Units: There is an approved proposal for funding to develop a methodology to quantify thermal stresses in residential and commercial insulating glass units. The methodology responds to claims that thermal stress fractures are the leading cause of glass replacement. New Appendix for Laminated Glass: The latest standard version determines the effect of lamination on glass strength and deflection, providing the designer more information for glass specification. Previously, the standard referred to published research and simply charted laminate performance based on thickness and area. The new appendix provides guidance for determining the effect of interlayer product type on the performance of laminated products. To some, the above items may seem esoteric or of little impact to the building industry; in fact the opposite is true. These
12 March 2011

and other potential revisions could have wholesale impact on the design of glass and the quantity of material required to meet the standard and energy costs for manufacture and fabrication. Perhaps as exciting, ASTM has a committee currently drafting a standard for the design of walkable glass to address the increasing popularity of glass stair treads and floors. The current draft has benefitted from the input of over one hundred designers and fabricators, some whom have provided their experience directly into the standard of practice. The current draft has a number of items outstanding before it can become a publishable standard, some of which are as follows: Correlation between glass design and International Building Code (IBC) load cases: Currently, glass design is performance-based using a correlation between load duration factors on load case types (i.e. Dead, Live, etc.), breakage probability and useable glass strength. IBC, on the other hand, makes no specific comment about the load duration, giving equal importance to furniture (long duration) and pedestrian (short duration) live loads. The committee is determining how to describe the effects of load duration while maintaining consistency with IBC. Effects of lamination products on glass performance: There are many types of interlayer product advertised and utilized in conventional fenestration glass products. How do they work in floor assemblies? The draft still needs input for a number of product types (including liquid laminates and Ethyl Vinyl Acetate products) before providing commentary on their use in walkable glass applications. The above examples are only two of the above-listed standards under constant review by their respective committees. The process of maintaining the standards comes from the contribution of relatively few whose main objective is to provide guidelines effective and useable by all with minimum risk. Trends in Design There are a number of aspects of glass design without comment in the above standards, leaving designers on their own for important considerations. When information is unavailable, the advice of experience and sound judgment are the best tools to deal with issues such as the following: Strength of blasted and etched glass: U.S. standards are silent on this type of glass due to the major impact that etch and blast pattern, depth and texture can have on strength. Generally speaking, etched

and blasted glass has a lower strength than unetched and unblasted glass. Load duration factors: there is an initiative (see above) to consider load duration on heat-treated glasses, whereas the standards (and many designers) currently ignore it outright. The general approach is to consider heat-treated glass surfaces (i.e. prestressed surfaces) impervious to scratch accumulation due to weathering over the design life. Some designers are taking another approach that considers strength according to the accumulation of scratches over time and its statistical impact on breakage probability. So what are the design trends? Different glass designers can provide different answers and here are some examples: Custom match-fit slumping to create complex curvature in laminated and insulated assemblies, Casting molten glass and machining flat glass to create lighting and surface effects, Laminating glass to metal to create clean connections without complicated hardware or glass insertions, Cold-bending glass in the shop and in the field to increase strength and stiffness, Glass diaphragm superstructure bracing to maximize transparency. While the permutations may not be endless, the innovations are only limited by how hard designers can responsibly push the limits of the material. Looking Ahead Architectural interest in transparency seems only to increase, with an equal interest in the energy performance of glazed enclosure systems. The above trends and project examples are not a point of arrival as much as a point of departure. As long as clients are willing to pay for innovations in glass enclosures and structures, there will be designers willing to innovate. The best use of these innovations is not only to provide sensational features to buildings, but also to supply lessons-learned about energyuse to the professional community along with knowledge to further develop the standards.

RIGHT The Bloomberg Tower in New York City features a 6-story canoidal (sloping elipse) skylight between the two building podiums. Photo: Adam Kirk

cross sections

13

LEFT The complexly curved glass at the Cond Nast Cafeteria project required rigorous modeling and testing to verify design assumptions. Photo: Courtesy of DeSimone Consulting Engineers

The Cond Nast Cafeteria

A Study of Architectural Vision and Structural Engineering
By Vincent DeSimone, P.E. and Chris Cerino, P.E.
Excerpted from the February 2002 issue of Structure

It is understandable that a renowned, world-class publishing firm like Cond Nast would want the best when updating their New York offices. And so, Frank Gehry, architect of record, envisioned a masterpiece in glass for the new Cond Nast employee cafeteria. Mr. Gehrys vision included stunning free-form architectural glass panels as a back-drop to the cafeterias seating areas. The multiple compound curved surfaces of the panels were created and described in CATIA, a complex three-dimensional modeling software package widely used in the aircraft and automotive industries. By exporting the digital CATIA data to a CNC milling machine, C-Tek - the specialty glass and metal manufacturer - created a ceramic molding bed to the exact dimension and curvature of the threedimensional image. Two-dimensional methods of structural analysis proved to be largely inadequate with 400-pound panels that have a plan displacement of four feet top-to-bottom, three feet left-toright, and a top-to-base twist of 45 degrees! On average, the panels were to be connected from seven points- four at the top and three at the bottom.The glass consultant provided values for the modulus of elasticity, the shear modulus,
14 March 2011

a working stress of 2000 psi, and an ultimate stress of 6000 psi. DeSimone Consulting Engineers (DCE) was not confident that the PVB inner layer had the ability to transmit shear stresses from one panel ply to the other, so an analysis on a single 3/8 panel with half of the design loads was performed.The panels were loaded in accordance with New York City code loads for an interior partition wall. DCE used 5 psf for area lateral load in addition to a handrail load equal to 50 plf or 200 pound at 42 off of the finished floor. The analysis results exhibited a stress razor at the point of support on the glass panel, where in a very small area the stresses eclipsed the panels ultimate strength in several instances.To distribute the vertical load equally, DCE added sufficiently springy supports to the computer model.With a realistic vertical spring constant the reactions balanced to within 5% of being equal.To relieve the stress razor, DCE similarly reasoned that a springy surface between the steel support pin and the glass surface would serve to spread out the spike of force.The characteristics of the new support system were described to the project team:The top connections needed to deflect vertically to approximate a 10,000-kips/inch spring, and a

rubber grommet was added to isolate the metal support from the glass. TriPyramid Structures, the glass hardware manufacturers, incorporated the spring condition into the top connection by cantilevering an armature from the main support structure.This condition allowed the panels own weight to vertically displace the arm an amount approximate to DCEs design spring constant value. Also, C-Tek agreed to cut a larger hole in the panel at the connection point and cast-in a resin rubber grommet. The team proceeded in manufacturing a full-sized mock-up. After hanging for two days, the mock-up panel cracked at one of the top connections. The crack was only in one ply of the panel, but was of a type that would indicate a concentration of stress. It was determined that the moment-less joint assumed for the top connection was not happening in reality.The connection was a rigid clamp that had a pivot point three inches from the glass plane.While there was a pivot to relieve the moment, it could never be activated and the rigid clamps pinched the panel to failure. DCE described the findings to the team and, in cooperation with TriPyramid, developed a pure ball joint connection that sits in the plane of the glass.The developments of these buttons which accurately perform like the computer model required, was the key to resolving the problem. Now the glass had enough support to remain in the desired hanging position, but enough resilience to accept and disperse loads so that stress limits were not exceeded. Alluding to the projects digital communication between team members, Vincent DeSimone said,We believe that the building industry is shifting to this more complete modeling technique that can detect all interdisciplinary interferences and may ultimately replace the need for any paper drawings.

December 2010 marked the two-year anniversary of the Kingston coal ash spill in Tennessee, and structural engineers might be marking another occasion: the end of fly ash in concrete. Or, at least that is what the ACI1 and the ASTM2 are cautioning in letters to the EPA in their proposed rule on Coal Combustion Residues (CCR)3. In response to the failure of the Kingston coal ash impoundment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has put forth two proposed rules to prevent such a catastrophic failure again and to provide adequate groundwater protection. In contrast to the ACI and the ASTM, the EPA claims a third benefit of either rule would be to increase the incentives for the beneficial use of coal ash, such as its use in concrete. The use of Supplemental Cementitious Materials (SCM) in lieu of cement (e.g. fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, rice hull ash, etc.) offers one of the most effective strategies for structural engineers to directly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the built environment4. However, both the ACI and the ASTM fear that the classification of fly ash as a hazardous waste will result in little or no fly ash being used in concrete in the US1. This strong prediction is based upon the anticipated reaction of the concrete industry to liability concerns associated with the use of a material classified as a hazardous waste. The concerns of the concrete non-profit societies and green building enthusiasts have not been lost on the EPA. The Agency specifically acknowledges the beneficial uses of coal ash of concrete, and reaffirms that beneficial uses would still be allowed under the Beville Exemption. As engineers are aware, the inclusion of fly ash in a concrete mix will increase the concretes durability, improve its resistance to deleterious alkaliaggregate and sulfate reactions, increase its compressive strength, improve the workability of fresh concrete, and reduce the heat of hydration in mass concrete, all the while reducing the use of Portland cement. The EPA also states that they have no data showing potential health problems associated with fly ash encapsulated in concrete either during the life-span of the structure or upon demolition. The alternative rulings would be implemented under either Subtitle C or Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The main differences between the options lie in the implementation and enforcement of the respective rules. Under the Subtitle C option, enforcement would be realized through the States and the Federal government; whereas Subtitle D would rely upon citizen suits for enforcement. For permitting, the Subtitle C rule would have a Federal requirement for permit issuance by States, whereas Subtitle D would not require permits. Finally, the Subtitle C route could take several years for States to adopt the rule, while with Subtitle D, implementation would take approximately 6 months5. Regardless of the rule chosen by the EPA, it is important to remember that fly ash is a by-product of combusting coal to generate electricity. Consequently, structural engineers should continue to encourage the use of fly ash for a multitude of reasons, while continually encouraging forward-looking strategies that enable truly sustainable solutions for the built environment.

The End of Fly Ash?

The EPA debates the use of a popular supplemental cementitious material (SCM) in concrete
By John Anderson

ABOVE Fly ash particles, magnified 2,000 times. Image: United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/PAVEMENT/recycling/fach01.cfm)

1 Letter from the American Concrete Institute to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, September 4, 2009, http://www.concrete.org/flyash/EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-0021.pdf?R=0900006480a5130f, <accessed 11-17-2010> 2 Letter from the American Society for Testing and Materials International Committee C09 to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, December 23, 2009, http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a7be6b, <accessed 11-17-2010> 3 United States Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Rule on Coal Combustion Residuals, http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/ special/fossil/ccr-rule/index.htm, <accessed 11-17-2010> 4 Anderson, J., and Silman, R., A Life Cycle Inventory of Structural Engineering Design Strategies for Greenhouse Gas Reduction, Structural Engineering International, 3, 2009 5 United States Environmental Protection Agency Frequent Questions of the Coal Combustion Residues Proposes Rule, http://www.epa.gov/ epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccrfaq.htm, <access 11-17-2010>

cross sections

15

SEAoNY 536 LaGuardia Place New York, NY 10012