Not Just Glass Fins – MIT Brain and Cognitive
Science Project
Neil McClelland, Ove Arup & Partners
155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013, USA
Keywords
1=Glass 2=Fins
Abstract
The MIT Brain and Cognitive Science
Project, Cambridge MA has a large
glass enclosed conservatory. Spliced
laminated glass fins support the 13.2m
high walls. A number of structural
stability and material technology issues
were encountered and solved. Issues
of friction-grip splices in laminated
glass, effective thickness of laminated
glass under high temperatures,
buckling stability of partial fin restraints
and accommodation of seismic
movements were all addressed. Full
scale mock-up testing was carried out
to verify structural behavior under
wind and seismic loads as well as to
demonstrate redundancy when key
elements were broken. The project
was delivered through a collaborative
approach between the architect, facade
consultant, builder, glazing contractor
and glass manufacturer.
Introduction
The MIT Brain and Cognitive Science
Project is located in Cambridge
Massachusetts on the main MIT campus.
Part of the new construction consists
of a large glazed conservatory area
that is approximately 24m wide, 9m
deep and 13m high. The front and one
side elevation is stepped and there is
a 1m wide glazed skylight around the
perimeter of the walls.
The glazed walls are constructed
Figures 1 and 2
The glazed conservatory
GLASS PROCESSING DAYS 2005 - www.gpd.fi
3=Buckling 4=Seismic
of insulating glass units typically 3.2m
wide and 2.2m tall with patch fittings
supported off glass fins. Due to the
steps in the elevations, pairs of glass
fins at each glass module were adopted
rather than a single glass fin per
module.
The glass fins span up to 13.2m.
This is too long to manufacture in one
piece so structural splices were required.
Given the glazed skylight strip at the top
of the glazing and the nature of the wall
glass connections, there would be no
direct vertical load path for the weight
of the wall glass in the event of a glass
fin breakage so laminated glass was
required.
The contract form chosen to deliver
the project was performance based
with some latitude for the prospective
contractors to suggest alternate details
and products. Despite this not being
the most common form of contract
within the US market, it was probably
the most cost effective and timely
format for the client given that the
spliced laminated glass fins required
proof of manufacture and performance.
Given the size and construction of
the assembly, allowance for seismic
movement and the required lateral
restraints to prevent fin buckling were
conflicting requirements that needed
carefully designed details.
The analysis of the glass fin
was complicated by both the
restraint locations as there were no
standard solutions for this particular
configuration, and by the effects of
elevated temperature on the behaviour
of the interlayer within the fin.
Testing was used to first determine
the safe working load of the fin splices.
After successful completion of these
tests, a full sized mock-up test was
carried out on one module of the
glazing to structurally proof the overall
design.
Manufacture of the laminated glass
fin proved to be problematic. The
design team, glazing contactor and
the manufacturer both hoped to use
a Sentry Glass Plus (SGP) interlayer
for its good performance at elevated
temperatures but time did not allow the
Building Projects
effects of the high clamping forces of a
Case Studies
friction grip connection to be addressed
so pvb interlayers were used.
Installation was generally
straightforward, particularly as the
installation team had used the assembly
of the mock-up sample as a trial run.
A few pieces of glass damaged during
shipping and installation were able to be
replaced without too much difficulty.
Loading and Substructure
Movements
Wind loading on the vertical walls is
2.1 kPa with local high pressure suction
zones on the skylight strips up to 4.9
kPa. The skylights were also subjected
to snow loads which peaked at 2.4 kPa
1
 where drifting against the main building
may occur.
The building is only in a moderate
seismic zone but as the Conservatory is
so tall, the resulting seismic movements
that the glazing must accommodate are
very high; 125mm in the E-W direction
(in the plane of the main elevation) and
85mm in the N-S direction.
Building movements between the
top and bottom of the wall were up to
40mm with 6mm of that being due to
live load. The dead load was hung from
the top fin connection and all vertical
movements were accommodated within
the fin shoe.

Analysis
The glass fins consisted of two layers of
19mm tempered glass with a 1.52mm
pvb interlayer.
The analysis of the glass fins was
complicated by the use of a pvb
interlayer which will soften at the
internal summertime temperatures
within the Conservatory.
Whilst creep of off-vertical laminated Figure 3
glass at temperatures above 20 °C is Conservatory schematic
understood by many in the industry, and wind loading
temperature effects on laminated
‘window’ glass are usually ignored. This governs. The ‘overestimation’ of Mcr more conservatively, take yh to be zero
is typically not a problem as the mode using the AS1288 approach versus the where it would otherwise be negative in
of failure in ‘window’ glass is governed FEA approach was typically not greater the AS1288 calculations.
by stress where there is usually some than about 1.6 for the conditions Given the doubt of the AS1288 fin
Building Projects

reserve capacity. Where the failure checked. buckling method and the application of
mode is governed by buckling, such as
Case Studies

This is a concern given that the safety a draft code methodology, we carried
in glass beams or fins as we have here, factor against buckling in AS1288 is out our own check of the laminated
there is no reserve capacity and it is 1.7. The effective safety factor against glass fin use FEA buckling analysis. The
unsafe to ignore temperature effects in buckling based upon the FEA results interlayer was directly modelled along
laminated glass. is 1.06. This is not sufficient and with the glass using brick elements.
There is no industry standard we would recommend not using the Temperature properties as supplied
method to calculate effective thickness AS1288 method for calculating Mcr for by the interlayer manufacturer were
for laminated glass at elevated glass fins. used. The results indicated that the
temperatures. The manufacturer chose Whilst a rigorous explanation for fin would not buckle at the design
to use the effective glass thickness this discrepancy has not been derived, load. Interestingly, the Mcr as calculated
calculation method included in prEN it would appear that the case where using AS1288 but taking yh to be zero
13474-1 [1]. The effective fin thickness loading is applied below the centroid was quite close to the buckling load as
was then used in the fin buckling (resulting in a negative yh) does not calculated by the FEA.
equations contained in Appendix H of give the predicted increase in Mcr as per We also calculated Mcr using a
AS 1288:1989 [2]. AS1288. We would recommend that a simpler FEA plate model assuming
We also carried out our own FEA buckling analysis be carried out or, monolithic and layered behaviour as
independent finite element calculations
using brick elements and explicitly
modelling the pvb interlayer properties
at various temperatures. This analysis
was not in good agreement with the
equivalent thickness method and it
indicated a lesser capacity than the
equivalent thickness method. This
discrepancy required some explanation.
To eliminate this potential
discrepancy, a check was carried out on
the fin buckling equation of AS1288.
Finite element analyses (FEA) buckling
checks were carried out on a few fin
geometries.
For the limited sizes of fins checked
here, there is quite a wide discrepancy
between the two approaches with
the FEA bucking method providing
the lower values for the more slender
fins. For the thicker fins, the FEA
predicts much higher Mcr values than Figure 4
the AS1288 approach however, at Comparison of AS1288 and FEA calculated Mcr values on representative fins (300, 400 and 500mm
these values the elastic section capacity deep, 6 to 19 mm thick spanning 6m with a 2 kN/m uniformly distributed load

2 GLASS PROCESSING DAYS 2005 - www.gpd.fi

 Figure 6
Fin assembly included 2
friction grip connections
on the long span fins and
2 on the shorter span fins
(shown)

worse than two independent fins. Based plates to prevent the glass from

Building Projects
Figures 5 upon this, a simple calculation method cracking. This design was changed by

FEA buckling analysis including interlayer at el-
evated temperature
well as using the calculated effective
thickness as per the prEN method. The
results for the monolithic case (38mm
thick glass) had about a 10% higher
Mcr than for a full brick FEA model
with 20°C interlayer properties. This
can explained by the softer-than-glass
interlayer material being accounted for
in the brick model. Interestingly, the
equivalent thickness model predicted a
slightly lower Mcr than the layered model
(19mm fin taking half the load). It does
not make sense that two pieces of glass
laminated together would perform
assuming layered behaviour may provide
results that are not unduly conservative
for laminated glass fins.
Detailing
The performance specification
contractually allowed the glazing
contractor to modify the design to suit
their preferred details, construction
methods and to a limited extent,
materials. For the glass fin moment
splices, the only practical approach was
for the manufacturer to develop their
own details. A detail was documented
based upon a friction grip connection
that relied upon an aluminium plate
between the glass layers at the clamp
Case Studies
the contractor to a system that relied
upon stiff plastic rather than aluminium
as a spacer material.
The glazing fittings used were
proprietary Pilkington Planar fittings.
This system did not require any specific
testing or major modifications for the
project. The use of paired fins offset
from the plane of the glass meant that
there was no lateral support as is usually
provided by the silicone joint between
face and fin glass. The typical Pilkington
detail is designed with a significant
amount of lateral movement and
adjustment. This detail alone would not
have provided any lateral restraint to the
fins and so plastic spacers were added
to the detail. These were not located at

Figures 7 and 8
Typical fin fitting and with
spacers added

GLASS PROCESSING DAYS 2005 - www.gpd.fi 3

 all connections but typically at the mid-
height fittings on the face glass to allow
for lateral movement of each individual
piece of glass as described later.
Insulating glass was used in all face
glass locations. The vertical glass had
a soft low e coat (Suncool HP) and as
the horizontal glass was laminated for
safety, a hard coat low e (Optifloat
K) was used. All glass was heat
strengthened or tempered.
Given the height of the assembly, the
differential lateral seismic movements of
the structural supports were significant.
These high movements needed to be
designed for at the detail level but the
whole glass assembly also needed to be
checked to ensure there were adequate
loads paths to hold everything together
under seismic movements.
One design change suggested by the
glazing contractor was to replace the
fin head connections that consisted of
horizontal angles that captured the full
top of the fin and were welded back to
the main structure with vertical angles
that only captured the inner edge of
the fins. Whilst this change provided a
visually ‘cleaner’ fin head connection,
it eliminated the rotational restraint at
the head. This proved to be problematic
when seismic restraint was being
considered. One solution option was
to mobilize the in-plane stiffness of the
skylight glazing attached to the ‘free’
Building Projects
edge of the fin however this would have
Case Studies
resulted in increased patch fitting sizes
and potentially thicker skylight glass so
lateral restraint cables were added. As
the glazing has 90° corners, there was
nothing stiff for these lateral restraint
cables to attach to so triangulated steel
trusses were added at the corners.
The corner fins were orientated at
45° to each of the glass walls. These
were stabilized by horizontal struts
running parallel to the shorter east and
west walls.
Whilst the overall stability of the
system was addressed by judiciously
placed rods and struts, there was still
considerable movement between each
piece of glass. With a maximum lateral
design movement of about 125mm over
the full height of the assembly, each of
the 6 vertical glass models was required
Figure 9
Head of corner fins show-
ing stabilizing struts along
the short elevation and
stabilizing tie along the
long elevation with trian-
gulated end support
4 GLASS PROCESSING DAYS 2005 - www.gpd.fi
to accommodate just over 10mm
of movement. Two possible glass
movement scenarios were checked.
The fist conservatively assumed that the
glass panels remained horizontal and
all movements were accommodated
by shear of the horizontal joints. The
vertical joints remained basically
static but there would be high shear
movements at the crossover junction
between the horizontal and vertical
joints. The second option assumed a
degree of in-plane free body rotation of
each panel. Shear movements would
be less in the horizontal joints and the
crossover junction than the horizontal
movement only model but there would
be some shear in the vertical joints. The
typical joints were designed as 14mm
wide with 20mm joints at the corners
where tension and compression as well
as shear movements will occur. Under
some movement scenarios, the Dow
Corning DC 795 structural silicone
used in the joints would be strained
greater than the published movement
capacity. Given that these strains would
be in shear rather than in tension-
compression and published information
[3] indicated that actual shear strain
capacity could be up to 3 times the
published movement capacity (based
upon tension-compression movement),
Dow Corning were asked to provide a
project specific warranty allowing shear
movements above 50% (the published
movement of DC795) which they did.
Structural silicone was used in the
joints for two reasons. The first being
that the lateral stability of the main
south wall fins effectively relies upon
the face glass plane to transmit the
small but real lateral loads. This is best
achieved by utilizing structural silicone.
The second reason structural silicone
was adopted was in the unlikely event
of major glass failure, it would provide a
better resistance to collapse than a low
modulus high movement silicone.
Testing
Basic material testing was carried
out by the glass manufacturer. It
had been hoped to manufacture
the glass fins using a SGP interlayer
because of its increased stiffness and
higher ‘softening’ temperature when
compared to pvb. We were advised
by the manufacturer that much testing
was carried out on various assembly
combinations to proof the friction
grip splice detail required for the fins.
Unfortunately there was not enough
time to complete all the basic material
testing to the satisfaction of the fin and
SGP manufacturers so a pvb interlayer
was used. Given the relatively low
temperature softening of pvb and the
lateral buckling behaviour of the fins as
described above, thicker 19mm glass
layers were required in the fins verses
15mm glass layers required for a SGP
interlayer.
A number of half sized fins were
tested to verify the performance of
the friction grip moment connection.
Slippage, displacement, lateral
displacement and strength criteria were
all met.
Figure 10
Testing of half-size friction grip moment connec-
tion for the laminated fins
Once the main fin design had been
verified, a full size mock-up test was
carried out. This consisted of one
full height bay of glazing 13.2m high
and 3.2m wide. The testing covered
weatherproofing, structural behaviour
and seismic movement capacity. Each
of these conditions was met with
measured displacements correlating
well with predicted displacements.
During proof loading, one of the lights
on the face glass broke. The breakage
occurred about 3 seconds into the
10 second proof loading period. The
broken glass remained in place for the
full duration of the test and was not
considered a failure.
After the proof load test, glass
layers within one fin were progressively
broken and the assembly re-tested to
demonstrate robustness of the design in
the unlikely event of fin breakage. The
mock-up was able to withstand at least
50% of the design load with one layer
of glass in the bottom two fin segments
broken.
 Figure 11
Full size mock-up testing

Figure 12
Breaking of fin to test robustness of the design

The mock-up process enabled

the installation team to familiarize
themselves with the erection process.
A method for making positional
adjustments of the fin splices with the
face glass attached was developed on
the mock-up which proved to be useful
on site.

Installation
With the benefit of the lessons
learned during the mock-up assembly,
installation on site proved to be
relatively straightforward. One or two
glass elements had edge chips when
they arrived on site and one segment of
fin was broken after installation when
impacted by the access equipment (the Figure 13

Building Projects
assembly performed as per the mock-up
Accidental breakage of
redundancy tests and did not collapse).

Case Studies
fin on site
These pieces of fin were able to be
replaced with the face glass still in place.

Summary
The glazed conservatory on the MIT
Brain and Cognitive Science Project
presented a number of technical
challenges due to its size. The glass
fins needed to be laminated for
structural redundancy and they needed
to be spliced due to their length.
This required the development of a
high capacity friction grip connection
that did not crush the glass or cause
the interlayer to delaminate. The
behaviour of laminated glass fins
at elevated temperature required
careful consideration. In studying
this behaviour, the applicability of the
AS1288 method of fin buckling analysis
was found to be unconservative in some
cases. The size of the conservatory
meant that careful detailing was
required to allow for seismic movements
and approval from the silicone
manufacturer was obtained to impart
greater than published shear strains
into the sealant. On initial inspection,
the glass assemblies look reasonably
conventional but they are more than
just glass fins.
Specialist structural and façade References
Acknowledgements
consultant: Ove Arup & Partners [1] European Draft Standard prEN 13474-1,
Client: MIT Construction manager: Turner August 1997 Glass in building – Design of
Concept architect: Charles Correa Constructions glass panes – Part 1: General Basis of Design
Associates Glazing Contactor: Karas and Karas [2] Australian Standard AS1288-1989 Glass in
buildings – selection and installation
Local architect: Goody Clancy & Glazing Supplier and Manufacturer: W [3] ASTM C 1401-02 Standard Guide for Structural
Associates & W Glass Systems and Pilkington Planar Silicone Glazing

GLASS PROCESSING DAYS 2005 - www.gpd.fi 5