Dow Structural and Insulating Glass Sealant

Engineering Data

Whether using classical structural mechanics or sophisticated finite

element engineering analysis, structural engineers require accurate
DOWSIL™ 795 Silicone
representation of sealant behavior appropriate for the methods being Building Sealant
Engineering Stress (Mpa)
0.5
used for design. The following is a description of different sealant
performance characteristics to aid in that activity in addition to 0.4
recommendations for use and interpretation of modeling efforts.
0.3 TA Data
Conventional Material Behavior Models
0.2
Previous methods used in conventional design rely on the stress
strain relationship of a tensile adhesion joint or H-piece. The test 0.1
specimen represents the sealant behavior of a prototypical structural
joint as shown by the orange line in Figure 1, where DOWSIL™ 0
795 Silicone Building Sealant was tested according to ASTM 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
C1135, “Test Method for Tensile Adhesion in Pull.” Engineering Strain
On each material behavior data sheet, a set of stress strain
Figure 1: DOWSIL™ 795 Silicone Building Sealant Tensile
relationships are shown with sealant pulled to failure. Typically the
Adhesion Joint
geometry of the test specimen is 12.7 mm by 12.7 mm by 50.8 mm
pulled in tension.
Linear Elastic Data – Young’s Modulus (E)
Data in raw form can be provided via spreadsheet if needed. The use
of data may be of great importance as it can be used for validation Silicone sealants are hyperelastic as indicated by changes in
in different modeling techniques as the testing is based on industry modulus of the material depending on the degree of strain. Some
recognized methodology and the size of a model is relatively small, software packages or structural calculations utilize linear
which would allow rapid solution. approximations of modulus or spring constants. Because of the
hyperelastic nature, linear approximations were developed for
Young’s Modulus (E) for strain regions of 10%, 25% and 50% to
represent average modulus of the sealant. Figure 2 illustrates the
linear relationship approximation. When using this information, the
designer should place the appropriate boundaries of strain on the
calculation to ensure relative accuracy in the design. For example, if
designing to relatively small normal exposures of windload, the E10
modulus would be more appropriate where designs for large
deformation for extreme events would be more likely described by
E50 value. Linear approximations will use the least amount of
computer to solve the fastest but are the most approximate
calculation methodology.
 be provided to be input into software for model solution as well as
DOWSIL™ 795 Silicone stress strain curves from tensile adhesion joints to validate those
solutions. In general, the level of accuracy is relatively similar such
Building Sealant as between a 2-parameter or 5-parameter Mooney-Rivlin. The
preferred model was selected as having the best accuracy relative to
Engineering Stress (Mpa)

0.45
0.4 the solution. Most solutions were within 5 and 10% accuracy with
0.35 divergence occurring in the larger regions of strain.
0.3
TA Data Poisson’s Ratio and Bulk Modulus
0.25
0.2 Mod15 In terms of homogenous isotropic materials, there are relationships
0.15 when treated as linear elastic materials between Young’s Modulus,
Mod25 Shear Modulus, Bulk Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio. Typical silicone
0.1
0.05 Mod50 sealants used in structural or insulating glass applications are
0 considered incompressible. This is indicated by Poisson’s ratio (ν)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 → 0.50. Based on a linear elastic relationship, this would indicate
Engineering Strain that the Bulk Modulus (K) would approach infinity.
For linear approximations, changing Poisson’s Ratio from 0.499 to
0.490 has been shown to have little impact to the accuracy of the
Linear Elastic Data – Shear Modulus (G) model. It may be plausible to slightly adjust Poisson’s Ratio when
using linear approximations to get a more accurate fit if using a
Shear modulus (G) has been observed to be relatively linear as
validation method with Tensile Adhesion Joint data.
indicated by the single value. Shear modulus is also a linear
approximation or spring constant to describe designs that may
experience dead load in the vertical, thermal dilation or racking such Thermal Properties
as seismic activity. When using modeling software to predict thermal efficiency of
structural glazed insulating glass units, it is generally accepted that a
Table 1: Linear Approximations of Modulus for Sealants from Dow
conductivity of 0.35 W·m/k (a default in use with THERM,
Sealant Shear Modulus (G) software provided by Lawrence Berkley National Labs for silicone
(MPa) sealants) is appropriate for most sealants. No discrepancies have
been made aware between predicted and actual thermal performance
DOWSIL™ 795 Silicone 0.284 of structurally glazed curtain wall assemblies when using the
Building Sealant software output to compare to actual testing performance.
DOWSIL™ 791 Silicone 0.366
If performing a thermal mechanical model, one also needs thermal
Weatherproofing Sealant expansion data. Based on testing, an average of 220 ppm is adequate
DOWSIL™ 121 Structural 0.316 for use in model simulation.
Glazing Sealant
DOWSIL™ 983 Structural 0.398 Recommended Practices in Design
Glazing Sealant
DOWSIL™ 995 Silicone 0.295 Mesh Sensitivity and Size of Transient Time Step Size
Structural Sealant Good design practices in finite element include determining mesh
DOWSIL™ 3-0117 0.512 sensitivity to determine an appropriate mesh size to adequately
Silicone Insulating Glass discriminate stress distribution in models. Dow recommends
Sealant performing this activity when developing finite element models.
The number of steps that are used to solve in the model can play an
importance in the accuracy or reliability of a given model. Using too
Hyperelastic Model Constants few steps can overly inflate the calculation errors which usually will
Dow has solved and validated non-linear material models for finite accumulate along the edges of the model. Using 10 steps to iterate
element software packages that can describe the hyperelastic nature through a model may be insufficient if 100 steps were necessary.
of structural silicones. Models were derived from data sets
developed from specific test specimens for uniaxial, biaxial, and Model Validation
planar shear. Material datasheets provide preferred hyperelastic When first using material model data for the first time or trying to
models based on the simulation of a tensile adhesion joint or develop robust practices for mesh sensitivity or number of iterative
H-piece comparing accuracy to the stress strain relationship to steps, a simple method to employ is to validate a theoretical model
actual physical tests. Dow trialed Yeoh, Mooney-Rivlin and Neo- of the tensile adhesion joint versus actual tested data to understand
Hookean models during validation. If an analyst would like to solve if the methods provide sufficient accuracy.
for additional models such as Ogden or Arruda Boyce, data sets can
Potential Source of Errors in Modeling
Loose Mesh
Underestimate the stress.
Locking
Locking is when a model overestimates the local stress due to the
incompressible nature of the sealant. Reductions in Poisson’s Ratio
can reduce error from locking.
Model Comparison
Meshing distribution and size (scheme) used in the model to
validate capabilities should be the same for design models of
structurally glazed curtain wall and insulating glass.

Prediction of Failure
When using finite element software or more advanced methods of
structural mechanics, the designer should be aware that there are no
current methods to evaluate failure criteria for the more advanced
methods. Maintaining relevant boundaries should include setting
average allowable stresses and principle or Von Mises stresses in
comparison to existing material behavior, as well as maintaining
appropriate boundaries in strain such as modulus or yield points in
the hyperelastic behavior. New or unique uses of sealants designed
in this manner should always be followed by physical mock-up or
testing to confirm design outputs.

Statement
Dow continues to evolve and innovate in the use of advanced
engineering methods when used in structural or insulating glass
applications. Please feel free to contact the regional expertise
network for any inquiries.

LIMITED WARRANTY INFORMATION – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

The information contained herein is offered in good faith and is believed to be accurate. However,
because conditions and methods of use of our products are beyond our control, this information should
not be used in substitution for customer’s tests to ensure that our products are safe, effective and fully
satisfactory for the intended end use. Suggestions of use shall not be taken as inducements to infringe
any patent.

Dow’s sole warranty is that our products will meet the sales specifications in effect at the time of
shipment.

Your exclusive remedy for breach of such warranty is limited to refund of purchase price or
replacement of any product shown to be other than as warranted.

TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, DOW SPECIFICALLY

DISCLAIMS ANY OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY.

DOW DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR ANY INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL

DAMAGES.
®
™ Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company ("Dow") or an affiliated company of Dow

© 2018 The Dow Chemical Company. All rights reserved.

86602 Form No. 63-6669-01