Pseudo static experimental study on spider-supported glass curtain walls
Glass Structures and Engineering, ISSN: 2363-5150, Vol: 7, Issue: 4, Page: 681-691
2022
- 1Citations
- 2Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Glass curtain walls (GCWs) are among the most commonly used building envelope components in modern buildings, and they can be divided into point-supported or frame-supported GCWs. Much of the current literature on the seismic performance of GCWs has focused on frame-supported GCWs, resulting in a dearth of data about point-supported GCWs. In this work, a pseudo-static experimental study was performed on spider-supported GCWs, a common type of point-supported GCW, with three different types of glass, namely monolithic, laminated, and insulating glass. The damage characteristics and seismic performance of each type of glass and the spiders were studied. For the tested 1.2 m by 1.2 m panels, the ultimate approximate inter-story drift ratios for monolithic, laminated and insulated glass panels were: 1/23, 1/28, and 1/24 rad, respectively. The integrality of the glass panels was believed to be the main reason for different behaviors of the tested specimens. Both monolithic and insulating glass specimens cracked abruptly and ejected numerous fragments onto the ground. The fragments of laminated glass panels would stay attached to the polymer film even after failure, preventing the ejection of fragments. The spiders were found severely deformed when the glass panels failed. More works are necessary to further systematically test and analyze their mechanical performance with more specimens under different height-to-width ratios, interlayer materials, glass thickness, and environmental temperatures.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know