The Laminated Glass Column
E.J. van Nieuwenhuijzen, F.P. Bos, F.A. Veer
Building Technology group, faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology,
www.zappi.bk.tudelft.nl
Keywords
1=glass 2=column
Abstract
A transparent column, consisting of
two glass tubes laminated with a clear
resin, has been developed during
several years of ZAPPI research. Intensive
testing led to a lamination process for
columns on a scale relevant to building
structures with close to perfect results.
Compression tests showed safe,
gradual and controlled failure behaviour
compatible with the ZAPPI safety
philosophy. This prescribes safe failure
behaviour of transparent structural
components rather than using gross
over dimensioning to achieve safety.
The composition of the column and
the results of compression testing are
discussed.
Introduction
In 1999 the first results of the
research into transparent columns was
described by Veer and Pastunink [1,2].
This work was continued over the
years and last year the research took
place within the framework of the All
Transparent Pavilion project (fig 1) [3].
The safety philosophy of this ZAPPI
pavilion is that safety can be guaranteed
by designing safe failure behaviour into
transparent components and not by
grossly over dimensioning the structure
as is current practice. Safe failure
behaviour means that a component
shows, during a test with gradually
increasing loading, clearly visible
damage without a risk of total failure
and thus shows endurable deformation
before complete failure (fig 2). Thus
ductile rather than brittle failure is the
result.
In the All Transparent Pavilion, the
columns carry the vertical loads and
are thus subjected to compressive
forces. Proper design of the joints
avoids bending loads. Research shows
that because of buckling, torsion and
commercial availability a tube is the best
shape for this transparent column.
The design of the column has
to meet strict requirements for
transparency, strength and safety. A
laminate of glass tubes with a clear
resin should fulfil these demands (fig
3). Both of the glass tubes can carry the
load, the resin will slow down and arrest
cracks while keeping the fragments of
broken glass together after failure in
such a way that they can still carry some
compressive forces.
GLASS PROCESSING DAYS 2005 - www.gpd.fi
3=production problems 4=quality
While this concept works nicely
for pure compression, bending loads
can result in local peak stresses and
tensional stresses, thus effecting the
failure mechanism. Therefore bending
should be avoided by using properly
designed hinged connections at the top
and bottom of the column.
The laminated tubes are similar to
the transparent columns produced
commercially by Schott Rohrglas [4],
but the structural concept is completely
different. Schotts laminated glass tubes
uses one core tube, a PVB layer as
intermediary and two half tube shells
Figure 1
that together form the outer tube. In
contrast with the ZAPPI column, only Original design of All Transparent Pavilion
the inner tube is the load bearing
Building Projects
element. The shells essentially protect
Case Studies
against impact damage. There is a risk
that if the load carrying inner tube
fragments the outer tube will simply slit
apart along the seam with the whole
structure collapsing.
The structural goal of the column
is that it can carry large compressive
loads without failure. In the unlikely
occurrence of any damage leading to
failure, there should be enough time
to if necessary remove the extra load Figure 2
that is causing the failure, to support Intended failure of laminated glass column
the damaged column or to flee. Thus
it is necessary that the column has a
significant fraction of it’s total strength
left after the first crack can be seen
and that subsequent failure behaviour
is gradual. In other words: once a first
crack appears during an increasing load,
the remaining load carrying capacity
should be sufficient to carry all loads.
The architectural and aesthetic
goal of this research is to produce a
completely transparent column on a Figure 3
scale that is relevant for normal building Cross section of laminated glass column
structures.
The production method consists of
Concept & production placing one small diameter tube within
a larger diameter tube and sealing
The concept is the earlier introduced
the bottom. The small (0.8 to 2 mm)
idea of laminating two glass tubes with
gap between the two tubes is slowly
a clear resin,[1,2]. The resin functions
filled with a liquid resin monomer.
to stop and slow down cracks during
After polymerisation of the resin, the
failure and to keep fragments of broken
laminated column is except for cleaning
glass together after failure of the glass
ready to be used in a building.
tubes. The damaged glass tubes can
Starting with small specimens in
still carry loads until the complete
1997, the behaviour of the resins during
cross-section at a particular height
curing proved to be a repetitive difficulty
delaminates.
for several years. Heat production,
1
 swelling and shrinkage result in Figure 4
occasional cracking of the glass, bubbles Final result laminated column
in the resin, delamination and other
defects compromising the visual quality.
It was possible to produce some visually
perfect specimens but not to do this
consistently. However the visual defects
did not effect the load bearing capacity
or structural safety in a negative way.
The problem of making the column
without visual unevenness is that the
shape of the cavity between the rigid
inner and outer tubes does not allow
for shrinkage of the resin during curing.
The most effective solution that was
found is to carefully control the curing
process. This by very continuously
and gradually filling the cavity with a
low shrinkage highly adhesive resin.
The resin thus cures in a very thin ring
which continuously moves upwards.
The shrinkage that occurs under these
conditions is only in the vertical direction
and can thus be filled up with new
resin. By using the right pumping rate
the top of ring i meets the bottom of
ring i+1 before it is fully cured thus
ensuring a physicochemical continuous
joint.
It was found that to carefully control
the curing process a custom made low
shrinkage highly adhesive resin had to
Figure 5
be developed which was developed in
collaboration between the TU Delft and Final result laminated column
industry. Intensive experimenting with
Building Projects

a range of developed resins and curing

Case Studies

conditions eventually led to a resin that

allows us to manufacture columns easy
and consistently with close to perfect
mechanical and visual results.

Compression tests
To examine the failure behaviour of
the column concept compression
test on small prototypes and real size
columns have been done. For the
columns the initial failure stress and the
maximum strength was also important.
The dimensions of the specimens
are summarized in table 1. The small
prototypes are made using Schott AR
glass tubes while the columns are of
Schott Duran borosilicate glass tubes.
All the glass is used in the annealed Specimen Outer diameter Inner diameter Wall thickness Cavity width Length (mm)
condition and is not pre-stressed. The of column of column glass tubes (mm)
tubes have been carefully cut where (mm) (mm) (mm)
necessary but the ends have not been Scale models 40 31 1.5 1.5 150
ground and polished. 1.2 m column 110 90 5 and 3 2 1200
1.5 m column 120 95 5 2.5 1500

Compression tests on small Table 1

prototypes dimensions specimens

The scale model compression

tests were carried out in a Zwick
Z 100, displacement controlled
electromechanical universal testing
machine. To prevent shards flying
around at or after failure all prototypes
were wrapped in several layers of clear
PET plastic foil or put in a steel safety
cage with polycarbonate window.
Before the final resin was developed
compression tests were conducted with
prototypes laminated with a range of
other resins. These all showed safe
failure behaviour and had sufficient
strength. These resins however did not
meet the essential requirement of being
100% optically distortion free.
The tests on the prototypes with the
final resin took place with two types of
joint:
• prototypes with PMMA heads/bases
adhesively bonded to the inner tube
• prototypes with the glass edges of
the column resting on PMMA sheets
as is illustrated in figure 6.
As PMMA is a material with significantly
lower hardness and Young’s modulus
than glass (3.3 compared to 70 GPa
for the Young’s modulus), it can easily
deform and function as a hinged
connection between the column and
the floor/support. Table 2 shows the
average compression strengths of the
various prototypes. The load versus
displacement curves of the prototypes
are given in figure 7 and 8. The dots
show the load where the first crack
occurred. In the graphs showing
the data of the prototypes directly
supported onto PMMA sheet, the curve

2 GLASS PROCESSING DAYS 2005 - www.gpd.fi

 prototype �in failure (MPa) �max (MPa)
Plane PMMA 1 15 154
Plane PMMA 2 30 187
Plane PMMA 3 90 169
Plane PMMA 4 60 227
Glued PMMA 1 3 22
Glued PMMA 2 1 11
Figure 6
Table 2
The two different column base designs
Initial failure and maximum stress of scale models

doesn’t show decreases for any of the Figure 7

cracks that appeared before final failure. Load displacement data for
A fall in strength is only visible after the prototypes with PMMA sheet
end
maximum load was applied.
The prototypes with adhesively
bonded on PMMA heads/bases show
several drops in the load-displacement
curves. This can be attributed to failure
of the adhesive connection.
Both types of prototype have a large
post initial crack strength and therefore
a safe failure behaviour. The prototypes
directly supported on PMMA sheet have
much higher initial failure strengths
and higher maximum. The reason for
the difference in strengths is that the
adhesive that is used for the prototypes
with glued endings is not properly
divided along the circumference and Figure 8
thus has weak and strong spots causing Load displacement data for
local peak stresses. Glass is sensible prototypes with glued PMMA
to local peak stress and thus failure ends
of the glass tubes starts earlier when
adhesively bonded on heads/feet are
used.

Building Projects
The conclusion of the scale model

Case Studies
compression test is that the resin with
100% visual defect free results can
also give a good structural results on a
scale suitable for use in buildings and
the failure behaviour of glass columns
is highly dependent on the way the
column is supported.

Compression test on 1.2m high

column
The column was supported at the
base by 20 mm thick wood (pine) and
at the top by 10 mm thick neoprene
rubber. The compression test was
carried out on a Lukas 20t-10t hydraulic
compression machine.
The first crack appeared in the outer
tube at a load of 73 kN (29 MPa). After
that no more cracks appeared till a load
of 140kN (56 MPa) was reached . From
here it only took a few seconds until
complete failure at a final load of 146
kN (58 MPa). This column could carry
200% of the initial failure load. The
punching of the column top through
the neoprene rubber onto the steel
support probably causes the rapidly
increasing number of cracks.
At failure glass fragments removed
themselves from the column at high
speed, cutting through the safety foil.
Compression test on 1.5m column
This test was carried out on a force
controlled hydraulic compression
machine. The displacement is the
shortening of the column, measured in
the middle of the column. The column
was laid on 3mm silicone rubber with
underneath a 10mm PMMA sheet. For
safety reasons a wooden board was put
on each side of the 200t compression
machine to catch any fragments.
Figure 10 shows the load
displacement curves of the two tested
columns. The first column has it’s first
crack at a load of 61kN ( 18 MPa) and
its maximal load is 196kN (61.7 MPa).
The maximal strength is three times as
high as the initial failure strength. The
second column has an initial failure load
of 40kN (11,8 MPa)and its maximal load
is 137 kN (40.4 MPa). This is almost
3,5 times the load that is needed for
initial failure. The results show that both
columns have a significant load carrying
capacity left after the first crack and a
gradual failure behaviour.
Discussion
The results of the experiments with
the 1.2m and 1.5m columns are
summarized in table 3. Because
several characteristics (glass type, edge
treatment) of the small prototypes and Figure 9 :
the columns are different, it is not easy Experimental setup

GLASS PROCESSING DAYS 2005 - www.gpd.fi 3

 to compare their strengths with each
other. The most important thing is that Figure 10
all models showed a significant load load displacement data
carrying capacity after the first crack and 1.5m columns
safe failure behaviour.
The main difference between the
1.2m column and the 1.5m column is
that the first one has a higher initial
failure stress value and more or less the
same maximal stress. This is due to the
influence of the different supporting
material that was used. Because the
column always has some irregularities at
the base and top, a supporting material
with a higher hardness can result at the
same nominal average stress in higher
local stresses on the glass edge. The
start of failure will therefore occur at a
lower average stress.
Neoprene and pine wood were
used for the 1.2m column and those Prototype Fin, failure (kN) Fmax (kN) �in,failure (MPa) �max (MPa)
materials are softer and less rigid than 1.2m column 73 146 28.9 57.8
1.5m column 1 61 196 18.0 57.9
PMMA. In case of the 1.5m column the 1.5m column 2 40 137 11.8 40.6
column punches through the silicone
rubber and then comes into contact Table 3
with the PMMA. If the contact with the Summary of test results columns
PMMA after punching through is only
local then significant local stresses in the
Conclusions
glass will result.
All specimens failed due to • The laminated glass column
compression. Buckling didn’t occur, production process can give
because the buckling strength consistent 100% visual defect free
was significantly higher than the results.
compression strength. The buckling • The laminated glass column has a
strength depends on the bending safe failure behaviour in compression.
Building Projects

stiffness E´I of the column section • The compression strength of the

Case Studies

and this is fairly high with this kind of
columns.
The biggest obstacle at this moment
is the problems in the availability of
long glass tubes and consistency of
manufacture of these tubes. So far inner
and outer tubes have been selected
from a large supply to match each
other. The problem is that the tubes
differ widely in diameter and usually
also show distortions at the end. This is
not a problem for the intended usage
of these tubes but will be a problem in
using these tubes as structural elements.
The interplay between the supports at
the column head and base and the ends
of the column is vital. A small difference
in length between the inner and outer
tube can result in a significant decrease
in strength due to the local peak stresses
this length difference will introduce. In
addition the distortion at the ends of
some of these tubes where the glass
is bent inwards due to insufficiently
controlled cooling after extrusion
will cause local tensile stress under
compression loading. This because the
distortion inwards will curve further
inwards under compression loading and
thus locally introduce bending stresses.
These problems with the glass
tubes also mean that the general
compression strength of these tubes
has not been measured. Only the
compression strength achievable under
these boundary conditions has been
measured.
column depends on the detailing of
the base and top of the column.
• The actual compressive strength of
the column cannot be determined
due to the effect of detailing of base
and top
• Transparent columns that can
function as building elements can be
produced.
References
[1] F.A.Veer, J.R. Pastunink
Developing a transparent tubular laminated column
Glass-Technology International, vol 11, no 6, p 134,
november 2000
[2] F.A.Veer, J.R. Pastunink
Developing a transparent tubular laminated column
Proceedings 5th international glassprocessing days ,
Tampere Finland, 1999
[3] All Transparent Pavilion, this conference
[4] F. Doenitz, H. Jung/ Schott-Rohrglas GmbH, S.
Behling,
J. Achenbach/ University of Stuttgart
Laminated glass tubes as structural elements in
building industry,
Proceedings GPD 2003 conference, Tampere, 2003
Acknowledgements
The material assistance of the van
Noordenne groep in supporting our
research is gratefully acknowledged.
The vital contribution of Mike Huizer to
this research is also acknowledged. The
technical assistance of Henk Rijgersberg
and Kees Baardolf is acknowledged and
gratefully appreciated.

4 GLASS PROCESSING DAYS 2005 - www.gpd.fi