General information
Anda Gesion Global S.L. manages Odalys Campus, a university residence in Seville. With the aim of continuous improvement in energy efficiency, it decides to develop an energy generation project through the installation of photovoltaic panels on the façade. After some time, the installation shows visual deficiencies that suggest that the installation does not meet the safety standards required by the Technical Building Code (CTE).
In this project, Atreydes Ingeniería resolves whether the installed configuration meets the safety criteria, both for people and for the structure itself, as required by the CTE by means of the finite element analysis (FEA).

Calculation
The installed photovoltaic panels have a tempered glass base and, although there are different sizes on the facade, the largest is 1800x600x10 mm, arranged vertically or in portrait mode.
The panels are installed on vertical guides made of 6063-T5 aluminum alloy, fixed on their short sides with two aluminum brackets of the same alloy fixed to the guides by means of self-tapping steel screws.
The guides are fixed to the wall by means of L-shaped anchors of different widths. Lag screws secure the L-shaped anchors and, therefore, the whole assembly to the wall of the building.
Images of the study model are shown below.
The engineering unit is subjected to its own weight and suction and compression wind loads, the former being higher than the latter, so only suction loads will be considered as they are more restrictive than the compression ones.
For the FEA model, shell-type elements will be used for the tempered glass and L-shaped anchors since the thickness of these elements remains constant. We will use solid-type elements for the guides and brackets for the glass, which is more three-dimensional in shape.
Failure in any mechanical or structural system can mean that a part has separated into two or more pieces; it has become permanently distorted, thus ruining its geometry; its reliability has been degraded; or its function has been compromised, for whatever reason.
Structural material performance is typically classified as either ductile or brittle. Typically, materials are classified as ductile when the unit strain at the breaking point ( \epsilon_f ) is greater than 0.05 and when they have an identifiable yield strength that is often the same in tension as in compression ( S_{yt} = S_{yt} = S_y ). Brittle materials, \epsilon_f < 0.05, have no identifiable yield strength and are typically classified by ultimate tensile ( S_{ut} ) and compressive (S_uc) strengths. identifiable creep and are typically classified by ultimate tensile ( S_{ut} ) and compressive ( S_{uc} ) strengths.
Ductile materials
Von Mises theory ( \sigma_{VM} ) is applied to prevent yield failure of the material. This theory, considered to be the most appropriate for the failure of ductile materials, states that material yield failure will not occur if the equivalent von Mises stress does not exceed the yield limit of the material, reduced by a safety coefficient ( \gamma ):
\sigma_{VM} \leq S_y' = \Large \frac{S_y}{\gamma}
Where:
- \sigma_{MV} : von Mises stress.
- \S_y : material yield stress
- \gamma : reduction coefficient, usually of value 1.05
- \S_y' : corrected yield stress
Therefore, the validation of results by this criterion requires the quantification of stress levels through the determination of equivalent Von Mises stress, which results from the combination of principal stresses, and is determined by the equation:
\sigma_{MV} = \sqrt{\Large \frac{(\sigma_1-\sigma_2)^2+(\sigma_2-\sigma_3)^2+(\sigma_3-\sigma_1)^2}{2}}
To apply this theory, the material performance is idealized as elastic, i.e., whatever the stress level, the analysis will be based on the hypothesis that the stress-strain material performance is linear (stress-strain proportionality):
\sigma = E \epsilon; \forall \epsilon < \epsilon_y
\epsilon_y = \Large \frac{\sigma_y}{E}
With:
- E : material elastic modulus
- \epsilon : unit strain
- \epsilon_y : unit strain at yield stress
- \sigma : stress
- \sigma_y : yield stress limit

Where:
- S_y : yield strength defined by unit strain a.
- S_u : ultimate strength limit
- S_f : ultimate fracture limit
- \epsilon_y : unit strain at yield point
- \epsilon_u : unit strain at resistant point
- \epsilon_f : unit strain at racture point
- pl : proportionality limit
- el : yield limit
Using the xyz components of the three-dimensional stress, von Mises stress can be written as:
\sigma_{MV} = \sqrt{\Large \frac{(\sigma_x-\sigma_y)^2+(\sigma_y-\sigma_z)^2+(\sigma_z-\sigma_x)^2+6 (\tau_x^2+\tau_y^2+\tau_z^2)}{2}}
Brittle materials
The maximum normal stress theory (ENM) stipulates that failure occurs when one of the three principal stresses equals or exceeds the strength. If the principal stresses of a general state of stress are placed in the ordered form \sigma_1 > \sigma_2 > \sigma_3 , this theory predicts that failure occurs when \sigma_1 \geq S_{ut} or \sigma_3 \leq -S_{uc} , where S_{ut} and S_{uc} are tensile and compressive strengths, respectively, given as positive quantities.

Since yield stress ( S_y ) is very close to the strength ( S_u ) in brittle materials, the following will be assumed as validation criteria:
\sigma_{MV} \leq \Large \frac {1}{\gamma} \normalsize min (S_{ut}, S_{uc})
Where:
- S_{ut} : tensile fracture strength of the material.
- S_{uc} : compressive fracture strength of the material
- S_u' : corrected ultimate limit of fracture
The following are the physical properties of the materials used in this project for the components described:
- Aluminum 6063-T5: Guides, glass brackets, L-shaped anchors.
- Tempered glass: photovoltaic panels

Engineering unit is subjected to its own weight and wind loads.
Once the material properties of each element in the engineering unit have been established in the engineering unit, the self-weight loads are established. The most restrictive wind loads affecting the system according to the Technical Building Code (CTE) are determined below.
Wind
Basic wind speed ( v_b ) for this site is 26m/s.

According to CTE, pressure w provided by the wind, can be calculated as follows:
w = q_{ref} C_e(z) C_p
Being:
q_{ref} = \Large \frac{1}{2}\normalsize \rho v_b^2
With \rho as the wind density at 1.25kg/m³.
The height of the building (18 meters) in type IV terrain has been considered In the calculation of the exposure coefficient ( C_e ).

With these values, the parameter C_e is 2.20.
The external pressure coefficients ( C_p ) shall be taken from table D3 Vertical parameters for buildings of document DB SE-AE Actions in the building (CTE):


For a surface larger than 10m², as in our case, the maximum external pressure coefficients ( C_e ) for our engineering unit are 0.8 in the pressure cases and -1.2 for the suction cases.
Since the suction coefficient is higher than the pressure one, and because certain connections, such as bolts and anchor bolts, are calculated at tensions that appear due to suction winds, we will calculate our engineering unit in these cases. If all components withstand such suction loads, we can ensure that they will also do so in cases where the wind acts in pressure.
Also, we must increase this load with the safety coefficients dictated by the CTE in its document DB SE Structural Safety, in Table 4.1 Partial safety coefficients ( \gamma ) for actions, where this coefficient is 1.5 for unfavourable variable actions in persistent or transitory situations.
With all these considerations our design wind load will be:
P_v = \gamma \Large \frac{1}{2}\normalsize \rho v_b^2 C_e(z) C_p
P_v = 1.5 · \Large \frac{1}{2}\normalsize · 1.25 · 26^2 · 2.2 · (-1.2) = -1673 N/mm^2
Results
Observing the results, there are very pronounced bending phenomena in photovoltaic panels made of tempered glass. The images are magnified in deformation to better see these effects. Although there is this bending in the panel, the stresses in the material are below its allowable stress around 50Mpa.
Another important effect is that since the panel fixings are on the short side, two per side, the force is transmitted directly through these fixings arranged at the beginning and end of the aluminum rails, so the guides do not transmit the load to the building wall through the intermediate L-anchors. It can be seen that only the end L-anchors transfer load and are stressed beyond their yield point as can be seen in the white color of the images, a color chosen to quickly identify this issue. In the wall anchorage areas next to the slotted holes, white areas are observed where the yield point of the material is exceeded, running the risk of getting into the plastic regime and bending, or breaking due to the creation of concentrated cracks, in the worst case.
The aluminum guides are loaded at the beginning and at the end of their length as mentioned above but the material does not reach its yield point so the component withstands the load without problems.
The mean concern is the aluminum fixings with an insufficient number to transmit this bending load from the PV panel to the guides. We can see how, with white color, its yield stress is exceeded in almost all its totality. This component represents an inadmissibility when it comes to compliance with the Technical Building Code (CTE).
Conclusions
The chosen configuration of vertical glass panels together with vertical guides means that the whole assembly does not perform in accordance with the Technical Building Code (CTE).
Normally this type of glass panels are placed horizontally with vertical guides, this makes that the fixings of panels are positioned on its long side, being able to increase their number on this long edge, so that the bending on them is reduced, since the vertical span is decreased from 1800mm to 600mm, and by increasing their number each one of them would carry less load when transmitting to the guides.
In this way, the loads would be distributed more evenly over the whole assembly, also reducing the load on the L-anchors, so that each of them would take a load similar to the adjacent one. In our case, only the L-anchors at the ends are loaded, thus exceeding their yield point.
According to these statements, we can conclude that the system does not comply with the requirements defined in the Technical Building Code (CTE), being in itself a system that contains risks for its own integrity, as well as for the people living in or around the building.