I'm sorry to say that fixation of UCW is not correct (around minute 30), you cannot bolt the bracket directly to the panel. Bracket is fixed in position, if you bolt directly you block all the movements and this is not correct.
You can block the movement in a single corner of each panel (top left corner of all panels or top right corner of all panels) but then the bracket must accomodate the movement of the adjacent panel (ie the movement side) this allows for thermal expansion only, then the interslab movement and slab deflection is accommodated in the stack joint. One thing which always confused me is that there are multiple different unitised concepts which allow for building movement in different ways. In europe they tend to use female to female systems, these typically have sword plates to maintain alignment up the facade and force the panels to rotate when the slabs shift. Then in the US and other parts of the world you have the male to female systems which essentially hang from the slab above and allow all of the interslab movement and slab deflection to happen at the stack joint. If your slabs shift by 10mm then the joint will appear offset by 10mm. But if the slab deflects then the mullion joints essentially slide along each other to create a stepped effect along the top of the frames.
@@Nickgowans Thanks for your reply, I know how to design a UCW doesn’t matter if it’s male/female or female/female, I’m on this business for more than 20 years. But the bracket design your showing on this video is not correct. You mention to fix (as example on top right corners) but you’re not showing the fixation that needs to slide at the top left corner. This is the point that I want to reach. The bracket design showing here doesn’t work. If you need to allow for vertical adjustments and also horizontal movements to allow thermal expansions, this bracket doesn’t work, one direction is missing. Hope you can see what I mean. Regards
@@sergicastel hello sergi, thank you for your reply, I didn't make this video and spotted the same issue that you did, this bracket design allows for no vertical adjustment and no lateral movement. However some systems don't require the lateral movement and rely on a sliding movement. This video is very flawed in many ways and there are multiple different approaches to the bracket design which aren't covered here. I've been in the facade industry for about 15 years primarily targeting parametric design through inventor and Revit and I would be interested to see how quickly this system would fail in a dynamic model :-)
@@Nickgowans you only have to put this design into a model and apply normal forces. Wind, lateral movements and live loads. Then you have always 3 movements to allow. As this bracket doesn’t have, it’s a wrong design and shouldn’t be take as an example. For sure there are many ways to design a bracket, so many inputs to be consider. That once again, this bracket is wrong, doesn’t matter which system or loads yo apply. By the way, ALL Unitized Sytems needs to allow lateral movements, imagine the stress at the profiles if you don’t allow lateral movements due to thermal, live loads and seismic. Just think how this panel or any will move if you don’t allow lateral movements 😉
![OsamaSon - ik what you did last summer [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4DIQDnu3mr4/mqdefault.jpg)
Sir i would like to join facade engineer course, plz provide the guidelines.
I'm sorry to say that fixation of UCW is not correct (around minute 30), you cannot bolt the bracket directly to the panel. Bracket is fixed in position, if you bolt directly you block all the movements and this is not correct.
You can block the movement in a single corner of each panel (top left corner of all panels or top right corner of all panels) but then the bracket must accomodate the movement of the adjacent panel (ie the movement side) this allows for thermal expansion only, then the interslab movement and slab deflection is accommodated in the stack joint. One thing which always confused me is that there are multiple different unitised concepts which allow for building movement in different ways. In europe they tend to use female to female systems, these typically have sword plates to maintain alignment up the facade and force the panels to rotate when the slabs shift. Then in the US and other parts of the world you have the male to female systems which essentially hang from the slab above and allow all of the interslab movement and slab deflection to happen at the stack joint. If your slabs shift by 10mm then the joint will appear offset by 10mm. But if the slab deflects then the mullion joints essentially slide along each other to create a stepped effect along the top of the frames.
@@Nickgowans Thanks for your reply, I know how to design a UCW doesn’t matter if it’s male/female or female/female, I’m on this business for more than 20 years. But the bracket design your showing on this video is not correct. You mention to fix (as example on top right corners) but you’re not showing the fixation that needs to slide at the top left corner. This is the point that I want to reach. The bracket design showing here doesn’t work. If you need to allow for vertical adjustments and also horizontal movements to allow thermal expansions, this bracket doesn’t work, one direction is missing. Hope you can see what I mean. Regards
@@sergicastel hello sergi, thank you for your reply, I didn't make this video and spotted the same issue that you did, this bracket design allows for no vertical adjustment and no lateral movement. However some systems don't require the lateral movement and rely on a sliding movement. This video is very flawed in many ways and there are multiple different approaches to the bracket design which aren't covered here. I've been in the facade industry for about 15 years primarily targeting parametric design through inventor and Revit and I would be interested to see how quickly this system would fail in a dynamic model :-)
@@Nickgowans you only have to put this design into a model and apply normal forces. Wind, lateral movements and live loads. Then you have always 3 movements to allow. As this bracket doesn’t have, it’s a wrong design and shouldn’t be take as an example. For sure there are many ways to design a bracket, so many inputs to be consider. That once again, this bracket is wrong, doesn’t matter which system or loads yo apply. By the way, ALL Unitized Sytems needs to allow lateral movements, imagine the stress at the profiles if you don’t allow lateral movements due to thermal, live loads and seismic. Just think how this panel or any will move if you don’t allow lateral movements 😉