Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Structures & Buildings 157
October 2004 Issue SB5
Pages 333341
Paper 13357
Received 2/05/2003
Accepted 18/08/2003
Keywords:
Codes of practice & standards

Chris J. Newman
Centre for Timber
Technology and Construction,
Building Research
Establishment, Watford, UK

Evaluation of an impact standard for curtain walling

C. J. Newman BSc

1. INTRODUCTION
Within the European Committee for Standardization (CEN)
committee CEN/TC33/WG6 is developing a suite of standards
for the performance of curtain walling. At the head will be a
product standard for curtain walling, the draft version of which
1
is prEN 13830. The head standard will set out the classes for
various performance requirements, including impact resistance.
Drafts of the product standard to date have set impact
resistance as an optional requirement. Standards are also being
developed for the performance tests. The drafts of the standard
for impact resistance of curtain walling have been designated
2
prEN 14019. The European evaluation of impact resistance is
intended to maintain safety in use and integrity in the event of
accidental impacts to the curtain walling by humans and by
equipment used for activities such as cleaning, maintenance
and repair.
Final draft versions of these two standards are currently being
considered for circulation for a final vote on whether they
should be accepted as European standards. Following a positive
vote, the standards would be adopted by the BSI (British
Standards Institution) and would supersede any conflicting
British standards. They could be adopted in two years time,

although agreement and thus the timetable for European

standards is typically uncertain. Once the standards are in
place, it is likely to become commonplace for specifications for
curtain walling to include a requirement for impact resistance
according to what will then be EN 14019.
Recent drafts of prEN 14019 specify soft, heavy-body impacts
using a 50-kg impactor in which contact is made by a pair of
pneumatic tyres. The impactor was developed for evaluating
3
the safety of glass when subjected to impact, but its design is
relatively novel for much of Europe, including the UK. The
impactor is suspended pendulum-fashion on a cable
immediately in front of the specimen, pulled back until its
centre of gravity has been raised by the required drop height,
and then released. The severity of the impact is determined by
the drop height. The suspension cable must be of sufficient
length that when raised, its angle remains not less than 148
from the horizontal. The principle is illustrated in Fig. 1.
This paper describes an evaluation of the test method
undertaken at the Building Research Establishment (BRE) using
specimens donated by manufacturers of curtain walling. The
evaluation aimed to determine the response of typical UK
specimens of curtain walling to the draft impact standard. In

Suspension point

Suspension cable
Plane of specimen face

A new European standardprEN 14019is being

developed to classify the safety in use and integrity of
curtain walling against impacts from humans and
equipment used for cleaning and maintenance. Test
impacts are made using a 50 kg twin-tyre pendulumtype impactor. The Building Research Establishment has
evaluated the draft version of this standard on three
curtain walling systems. In addition, the deflections
occurring during impact were monitored on one system,
and compared with impacts by a 50 kg glass bead-filled
bag of BS 8200, currently used in the UK. The tests
showed that from the same drop height, the twin-tyre
impactor produced substantially more severe impacts
than the BS 8200 bag. The new standard requires
clarification of the treatment of glass and opening
windows in the specimens. The test method functioned
satisfactorily on the systems tested. It appears to be
effective in reproducing potential risks to safety from
impacts resulting from human activity. This evaluation
suggests that soundly constructed curtain walling
systems are likely to meet the most severe classification
in the latest draft of the standard.

Traction
cable

Drop height h

Fig. 1. Principle of pendulum impacts

Structures & Buildings 157 Issue SB5 Evaluation of an impact standard for curtain walling
Downloaded by [ Arup] on [06/10/15]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Impactor

Newman

333

order to maximise the information that could be gained from

impacting a small number of specimens, impacts were made at
all the specified positions from a series of increasing drop
heights unless damage prevented further testing. The objective
was to ensure that the standard is useable, is effective in use, is
able to classify typical British products at reasonable levels,
and is unlikely to disadvantage British products unreasonably.
In addition, a series of impacts were made with displacement
monitored by laser, to compare the severity of impacts from
the twin-tyre impactor and the canvas bag filled with glass
beads that is currently used in the UK.
2. CURRENT UK PRACTICE
The UK did not have a British Standard specifically for the
impact resistance of curtain walling prior to the recent
European drafts. The most appropriate standard has been BS
4
8200. This code proposes levels of resistance to both hardand soft-body impacts, with levels depending on location, and
separate criteria for retention of performance and for safety.
The soft-body impact test, which is broadly equivalent to that
required by prEN 14019, uses a sphero-conical canvas bag
filled with 3-mm-diameter glass spheres to a mass of 50 kg.
5
The test method is specified in more detail in ISO 7892. BS
8200 requires impact tests to be carried out on the weakest part
of the specimen, which must be determined during the test
procedure. The soft-body impact drop height for determining
safety to persons in most low-level situations is 1020-mm, with
710-mm impacts for areas above shoulder height where access
is required for regular cleaning and maintenance. Because this
test is part of a general code rather than a product standard, it
is not called up routinely by specifications.
3. KEY DETAILS OF THE DRAFT CEN STANDARD
3.1. prEN 14019: October 2000
When the first specimen was tested at BRE, the most
authoritative version of the draft standard available was that
2
circulated for public comment. Four impact positions were
described and marked on an indicative diagram of a specimen.
These were described as below and shown on a diagram similar
to Fig. 2:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

centre mullion height between fixings

centre transom width
100-mm from joint centreline
centre of spandrel unit (of non-glass construction).

Table 1 shows the drop heights specified (with 45-kg impactor

inflated to 4.0 bar 0.4 MPa).
A summary of the requirements was that no components must
break or become detached, while if permanent displacement
occurred, the impact should be repeated until no further
displacement occurred or there was a failure.
3.2. prEN 14019: draft 2002-03-28
After the first specimen had been tested at BRE, a revised draft
6
of the standard, for internal circulation to national standards
committees prior to formal vote, became available to BRE. This
had some key changes, particularly in the proposed drop
heights, but also in the impact positions, described below and
illustrated in Fig. 3:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

centre mullion height between fixings (external only)

centre width (external, internal at cill height)
crossing mullion and transoms
centre of spandrel unit.

Note that there are two alternative locations shown for position
Internal test class
1
2
External test class
1
2
3

Drop height: mm
1500
2000
Drop height: mm
700
1100
1800

Table 1. Drop heights in prEN 14019: October 2000

Floor slab level

4
4

Fig. 2. Impact positions for prEN 14019: October 2000

334

Structures & Buildings 157 Issue SB5

Fig. 3. Impact positions for prEN 14019: draft 2002-03-28

Evaluation of an impact standard for curtain walling

Downloaded by [ Arup] on [06/10/15]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Newman

2, presumably depending on whether the system includes a cill

height mullion.
Table 2 shows the drop heights specified (identical internal and
external, with the 50-kg impactor inflated to 0
35 MPa).
Displacement ceased to be a criterion, and with it the
requirement to repeat impacts in the event of permanent
displacement. The only criteria relate to safety and integrity.
4. BRE TEST PROCEDURE
4.1. Specimen frame
Specimens were erected in a square specimen frame with a 4m-square aperture, made of 150-mm-square hollow steel
section. The specimen frame was supported on a mobile frame
also of 150-mm-square hollow section steel. The support frame
was mounted on heavy duty castors for mobility, but with
three screw jacks to raise the castors just off the floor when in
position. The foot of each specimen was about 260-mm above
the floor. The support frame restricted access to one face of the
specimen by a small extent. The support and specimen frames
were considered to be sufficiently rigid and large enough to
provide stable support to the specimen during impacts.
4.2. prEN 14019 impactor and rig
The impactor used for this evaluation is of the twin-tyre design,
3
defined in prEN 12600. It is based on two wheels with
pneumatic tyres of a specific size and form (3.5 R 8 4 PR with
round section and flat, longitudinal tread). The wheel bearings
are replaced with solid bushes, and the wheels are placed in close
contact together on a vertical axis formed by a screwed rod. Steel
weights are added axially, symmetrically above and below the
tyres, to bring the total mass to 50  0.1 kg. The tyre pressure in
use is set at 0.35  0.02 MPa (MN/m2 ). The draft for public
2
comment version of prEN 14019 was based on a previous
version of the impactor specified in an earlier version of prEN
7
12600, and also in prEN 13049. This had a total mass of 45 kg,
while prEN 12600 and prEN 13049 required it to be inflated to
different pressures for different drop heights. The draft for public
comment version of prEN 14019 referred to prEN 13049 for the
6
impact test. However, the latest draft of prEN 14019 no longer
refers to prEN 13049, while all three draft standards have now
adopted the 50-kg version of the impactor inflated to 0.35 MPa.
BRE tested all specimens using the 50-kg version of the
impactor, inflated to 0.35 MPa, in anticipation of the adoption
of that version for prEN 14019.
The BRE rig for impacting curtain walling with the twin-tyre
impactor is mounted on a forklift truck, enabling impacts to be
made at a range of heights. The centre of gravity of the twinTest class
1
2
3
4

Drop height: mm
200
300
450
700

Table 2. Drop heights in prEN 14019: draft 2002-03-28

tyre impactor hangs 2.63 m below its suspension point. To

make an impact, the forklift truck is manoeuvred until the
impactor hangs about 10-mm away from the impact position. A
winch is used to draw the impactor away from the specimen
and upwards, in a vertical plane perpendicular to the face of the
specimen, until the centre of gravity of the impactor is raised to
the required extent. The impactor is released and swings into
the specimen on its suspension cable. A stop rope is then
tightened to prevent bounces from creating further impacts.
4.3. prEN 14019 impact sequence
Prior to each impact a bridge was mounted on the specimen
frame or supporting A frame, spanning the specimen
vertically, and a displacement transducer mounted on the
bridge opposite the impact position. A reading was taken from
the measurement gauge prior to impact, the gauge pegged back
during the impact, and a further measurement taken
subsequently to monitor permanent displacement or
deformation of the specimen as a result of the impact.
Impacts were first made from the lowest drop height, on each
internal impact position and then each external impact
position. (On specimen 1, internal impact position 3 from prEN
14019 October 2000, 100 mm above joint centreline, was not
accessible as the support frame would have obstructed the
impactor. On specimens 2 and 3, prEN 14019 2002-03-28 did
not call for impacts to internal position 1, centre mullion
height between fixings.) After each impact, the specimen was
inspected for damage. No repeat impacts from the same drop
height were made, even if permanent displacement occurred.
On completion of the impacts to both faces from the lowest
drop height, impacts from the next drop height commenced.
Any positions where substantial damage had occurred were
omitted from this and further rounds of impacts. This process
continued until impacts had been completed from eight drop
heights ranging from 200-mm to 2000-mm.
4.4. Laser monitored impacts comparing impactors
On completion of the prEN 14019 impacts to specimen 2,
further impacts were made to the external face of the specimen
while the displacement opposite the impact position was
monitored dynamically using a laser system. An alternative
suspension and release system, more suitable for repeated
impacts at the same position but unable to achieve all of the
impact positions required by prEN 14019, was used for these
impacts. For these tests, two types of impactor were used: the
prEN 14019 twin-tyre impactor, and the 50-kg sphero-conical
4
canvas bag filled with 3-mm glass beads used by BS 8200 and
5
specified in ISO 7892. Impacts were made at the mullion and
transom crossing position that had been impacted as internal 3,
and on the spandrel panel that had been impacted as external
4. Three impacts were made at each position with each
impactor at each of three drop heights: 200 and 700-mm as
used by prEN 14019 and 1020-mm as used by BS 8200. These
comparative impacts were only made on specimen 2.
5. SPECIMENS
5.1. Specimen 1
Specimen 1 occupied the full 4 3 4 m of the specimen frame. It
had been assembled for the original purpose of investigating

Structures & Buildings 157 Issue SB5 Evaluation of an impact standard for curtain walling
Downloaded by [ Arup] on [06/10/15]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Newman

335

the response of a lightweight, flexible aluminium curtain

walling system to various wind load and watertightness test
methods. It had four mullions, one at each side and two
intermediate, and four transoms, one just above the foot of the
system, one at the top, and two intermediate. The spacing of
the mullions and transoms was slightly uneven, giving
apertures ranging from 1.17 to 1.42 m wide and 1.135 to
1.445 m high. Six of these apertures had windows, all with
different opening modes, while the remaining three were direct
glazed. All had double glazing units of 6-mm annealed glass,
which were covered on both outer faces with shatterproof film
prior to impacting.
Impact position external 3 100-mm from joint centre line was
set near the foot of an intermediate mullion, 100-mm above
the bolt to the bottom fixing brackets. The equivalent internal
position was obstructed by the support frame, and so was
omitted. Positions 4 Centre of spandrel unit (of non-glass
construction) were set in bottom and mid height fixed glazing
units, as there were no non-glass units. Figure 4 shows a
diagram of specimen 1 with all impact positions marked.

5.2. Specimen 2
Specimen 2 was 3 m wide, positioned centrally in the 4-mwide aperture of the specimen frame, and the full 4-m-height
of the aperture. It was supplied by a manufacturer and
assembled by one of their installing companies, specifically for
this evaluation. The structural elements were aluminium. It had
four mullions, equally spaced at approximately 1 m centres.
There were three transoms, about 100-mm from the head and
foot of the specimen, and at approximately 1 m height from
the foot. The standard is intended primarily to cover the
structure of curtain walling rather than any glass that is
included within it. Hence, for evaluating the standard, the six
major apertures formed were infilled with plywood panels 18mm thick, as an alternative to glass that would be safe during

impacts. (Specific infill material should be used for a definitive

assessment of a curtain walling system.) These panels had thin
packing strips tacked to their edges to pack them out to the
thickness of double glazing units. The small apertures above
the top transoms and below the bottom transoms remained
unfilled.
Impact positions 2 Centre width (external, internal at cill
height) were set on the centre transom (approximately 1 m
above the foot of the specimen) at mid width of the specimen,
impacting at the same position on each face. Impact position 4
was set at the centre of the lower plywood panel at the righthand side of the impact face of the specimen. Figure 5 shows a
diagram of specimen 2 with all impact positions marked.

5.3. Specimen 3
Specimen 3 occupied the full 4 3 4 m of the specimen frame. It
was supplied and installed by a manufacturer for this
evaluation. The structural elements were aluminium. It had five
mullions, arranged to give three equal bays 1150-mm wide,
and a narrow bay to fill the opening. There were four transoms,
at the head and foot and 1100-mm in from these. For
evaluating the standard, all of the apertures formed were
infilled with plywood panels 25-mm thick, except two that
were glazed with double glazing units of 6.4-mm laminated
glass on which impact positions were located. Impact positions
were similar to specimen 2, and are shown in Fig. 6.

6. RESULTS OF PREN 14019 IMPACTS

6.1. prEN 14019 impacts to specimen 1
At 200-mm drop height, the impacted pane of the glass infill
unit at position external 4 failed by fracturing with numerous
cracks, although it was retained in place by the shatterproof
film. Also, some of the external caps to mullions were dented,

E4
I1

E1

4m

E1

4m

E2

I2

E3

I4

I2, E2

I4

I3

E4

E3

4m

4m

Fig. 4. Specimen 1 as viewed externally, showing impact

positions

336

Structures & Buildings 157 Issue SB5

Fig. 5. Specimen 2 as viewed externally, showing impact

positions

Evaluation of an impact standard for curtain walling

Downloaded by [ Arup] on [06/10/15]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Newman

At 1200-mm drop height, a lateral gap, about 6-mm, opened

between the mullion and outer transom when the crossing
position (position external 3) was impacted. This was deemed
to be because of the lack of lateral restraint in the specimen,
which did not extend to the sides of the specimen frame, and
was thus not representative of normal construction. Wood
noggings were placed between the outer mullions and the
specimen frame, and the gap at the joint then tended to close
up during the subsequent impacts from greater drop heights.
E1

4m

E3

I2, E2

At 2000-mm drop height, the impact at position internal 2

caused the ends of the outer web of the transom to bend
outwards against the connecting pins holding it in place. The
impact at position external 1 bent the mullion slightly along its
length.

I3

I4

E4

4m

Fig. 6. Specimen 3 as viewed externally, showing impact

positions

and the window opened at position internal 2, with its

mechanism slightly damaged.
Testing with increased drop heights did not generate any
damage at other positions until 900-mm drop height, when the
other glass infill unit that was being impacted directly, at
position internal 4, failed. On this occasion, both panes
fractured with numerous cracks, and a hole about 100-mm
across was punched through the unit, although the remainder
of the glass was retained in place by the shatterproof film. At
this stage, both of the failed glazing units were replaced by
plywood panels, to maintain any structural effects from the
infill while avoiding risks from broken glass. (However, design
codes for curtain walling specifically exclude structural
assistance from glass or infill.) The plywood panels were not
impacted.
No further damage occurred until 1500-mm drop height, when
the transom bent at position external 2, and the window at
position external 2 opened and could not be closed properly.
At 2000-mm drop height another transom bent, at position
internal 2, and the transom impacted as external 2 bent to the
extent that both panes of the fixed glazing unit above it failed
by fracturing with numerous cracks, although they were
retained in place by the shatterproof film.
Permanent deformations or displacements measured as a result
of impacts were generally small, of the order of 2-mm, except
when transoms or mullions were bent, as detailed above. The
transom at position external 2 was bent approximately 19-mm
across a 1 m span after its final impact.
6.2. prEN 14019 impacts to specimen 2
No damage was sustained until the 700-mm drop height; the
external caps to mullions and transoms first became dented at
700 or 900-mm.

Permanent deformations or displacements measured as a result

of impacts were generally very small at less than 1-mm. The
exceptions occurred with the two members distorted by the
2000-mm drops. The distortion at the ends of the transom at
position internal 2 produced a deformation of almost 3-mm,
while the bending of the mullion at position external 1
produced a deformation of almost 6-mm.
6.3. prEN 14019 impacts to specimen 3
The external cap to the mullion at position external 1 became
dented at the first impact, 200-mm drop height. The other
external caps to mullions and transom sustained dents as the
drop height increased.
At 450-mm drop height the inner laminate of the interior pane
of the sealed glass unit at position internal 4 fractured. No
holes were made in the unit and no glass became detached. No
further impacts were made at this position.
At 1500-mm drop height the centre transom was displaced
about 1.5-mm between its mullions, and the lower wall of the
transom was distorted very slightly when impacted internally
(position internal 2). At 2000-mm drop height this same
transom was dented, and bent about 1-mm over 1 m span in
the horizontal plane, and about 4-mm upwards. Also at 2000mm drop height, the glazing unit at position external 4 was
broken. This impact punched a hole about 200-mm diameter
through both panes, with many tiny glass splinters, while most
of the detached glass was retained in two discs by the
laminates.
Permanent deformations or displacements measured as a result
of impacts were generally very small at less than 1-mm. The
exception occurred with the centre transom, as described
above.
7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE REQUIREMENTS OF
PREN 14019
7.1. Uncertainties within the latest draft of prEN 14019
The latest draft of prEN 14019 available at the time of writing,
dated 2002-03-28, does not make clear the status of glass and
opening windows. (Windows may be classified individually to
7
prEN 13049 .) In order to allow samples of curtain walling to
be selected and tested consistently, the standard must establish
the following.

Structures & Buildings 157 Issue SB5 Evaluation of an impact standard for curtain walling
Downloaded by [ Arup] on [06/10/15]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Newman

337

Whether or not opening windows may be included in the

test specimen.
Whether infill panels with glass should be considered as
potential impact positions under this standard, or assessed
only to prEN 12600.
If opening windows are included in a specimen, whether or
not they should be considered as potential impact
positions.
If opening windows are included in a specimen, what
criteria apply if an impact to a window or the adjacent
mullion or transom opens the window, or damages its
fixings.
If impacts to transoms or mullions damage adjacent
infilling material, particularly glass, what criteria apply.

Half-peak
duration
1020 mm
drop

40

30
Displacement: mm

20

10

10
000

7.2. Performance of the specimens against prEN 14019

The specimens in this evaluation were subjected to successive
impacts of increasing severity at the same positions. Hence any
assessments after the first round would have been somewhat
more severe than intended the 2002-03-28 version of prEN
14019, which requires that only one impact shall be made at
any single position.
It is not clear how the performance of specimen 1 should be
assessed against the 2002-03-28 version of prEN 14019
because of the lack of explanation of the treatment of glass
and windows. One glass infill panel failed when impacted
directly from 200-mm drop height and window mechanisms
were damaged. Another type of failure not clearly addressed by
prEN 14019 occurred from a drop height beyond the range of
the 2002-03-28 version of the standard, when a glass infill
panel failed as a result of an impact to the transom below it.
None of the minor damage sustained by specimen 2 would
constitute failure against the criteria of prEN 14019, despite
impacts from almost three times the maximum 700-mm drop
height specified in the 2002-03-28 version. With specimen 3,
only the damage to glass when impacted directly might
constitute failure against the criteria of prEN 14019.
8. RESULTS OF COMPARATIVE IMPACTSPREN
14019 AND BS 8200
Following the impacts to assess specimen 2 to prEN 14019,
further impacts on the external face of that specimen, to a
mullion and transom crossing position and to a plywood infill
panel, were monitored dynamically by a laser system to
compare the characteristics of the twin-tyre and BS 8200
sphero-conical bag impactors. Examples of an impact trace
from each drop height for impacts to the crossing position by
the twin-tyre impactor are shown in Fig. 7. Examples of traces
from impacts by the BS 8200 sphero-conical bag are shown in
Fig. 8.
Table 3 shows mean values for the maximum transient
338

Structures & Buildings 157 Issue SB5

005

015

020

40
200 mm drop height
700 mm drop height
1020 mm drop height
30

20

10

10

000

005

010
Time: s

015

020

Fig. 8. Typical impact traces at the mullion transom crossing

position by sphero-conical bag

displacement measured during each impact. The most severe

impacts showed small residual displacements, which were
consistent for each of the three impacts at the same level.
Equivalent residual displacements were not measured during
the prEN 14019 impacts, when measurement was from a bridge
mounted on the specimen frame, while the laser system was
floor mounted to avoid vibration. Hence the residual
displacements measured with the laser system are believed to
represent movement of the entire specimen and supporting
frames across the floor.
These transient displacements indicate the flexing of the
curtain walling system occurring as a result of the impacts. As
might be expected, impacts on the plywood panel produced
greater deflections than impacts on the mullion transom
crossing position. The twin-tyre impactor produced greater
deflections than the sphero-conical bag.

Evaluation of an impact standard for curtain walling

Downloaded by [ Arup] on [06/10/15]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

010
Time: s

Fig. 7. Typical impact traces at the mullion transom crossing

position by twin-tyre impactor

Displacement: mm

The drafting committee will be in the best position to decide

how to deal with glass and windows, but the lack of guidance
in the current draft of the standard causes problems when
attempting to assess systems. Also, neither prEN 14019 nor the
1
draft product standard for curtain walling give any guidance
on which impact class is appropriate for a given service
condition.

200 mm drop height

700 mm drop height
1020 mm drop height

Newman

Drop height: mm

Mean maximum displacement: mm

Twin tyre impactor

200
700
1020

Sphero-conical bag

Mullion transom crossing

Plywood panel

Mullion transom crossing

Plywood panel

12.8
24.2
30.4

21.0
36.2
39.5

5.8
14.0
18.5

11.4
23.7
29.1

Table 3. Maximum transient displacements measured during monitored impacts

During previous work to characterise these impactors, impacts

had been made from a range of drop heights onto a plywood
panel, 25.4-mm thick 3 650-mm high 3 1114 mm wide,
clamped against rigid steel members at the top and bottom.
This more rigidly mounted panel was chosen as having a high
fundamental resonant frequency. The duration of loading from
the impact was longer than the fundamental period of the
structure so that the deflection of the plywood would have
been roughly proportional to the load on it at that time. The
panel did not sustain any visible damage or permanent
displacement during the impacts. A plot of deflections of the
rigidly mounted plywood panel against impact drop heights is
given in Fig. 9.
When the duration of the displacement caused by impact was
investigated, it was found that the impact traces of the rigidly
fixed plywood panel when impacted by the sphero-conical bag
in particular, lacked a rebound through zero. In order to make
a clear comparison of durations of impact displacements, the
duration for which each displacement exceeded half of its
maximum value was established. This is illustrated on the
1020-mm drop height trace shown in Fig. 7. Mean values for
these half peak height durations, for impacts to specimen 2 and
to the rigidly fixed plywood panel, are given in Table 4.
The deflections of the rigidly mounted plywood panel when
impacted by the twin-tyre impactor had the shortest duration
at about 0.03 s, with little variation with drop height.
Deflections of this panel when impacted by the sphero-conical

Maximum deflection: mm

Twin tyre
impactor

12

Spheroconical bag

10

Deformation within the twin-tyre impactor, in contrast, occurs

primarily by flattening the contact area of the tyres. The
energy is stored as an increase in air pressure within the tyres,
and is then recovered as a bounce away from the target. The
impact traces were relatively symmetrical, and only about half
of the impact duration would have been required to arrest the
twin-tyre impactor, the other half representing the impactor
pushing itself away from the target. These low-energy impacts
to the rigidly supported plywood panel were also characterised
by much smaller deflections from the sphero-conical bag than
from the twin-tyre impactor, as shown in Fig. 9. The ratio of
these deflections was about 2.6:1 at the lower drop heights.
Within the elastic limit, the force required to deform the
plywood panel should be proportional to its deflection, and the
energy transferred into deforming it proportional to the square
of its deflection. Thus from the lower drop heights, the twintyre impactor was transferring around seven times as much
energy into the plywood panel as the sphero-conical bag.
The duration of the deflections to the curtain wall specimen 2
were slightly longer than those to the rigidly fixed plywood
panel, ranging from 0.035 s for impacts by the twin-tyre onto
the mullion transom crossing position, to 0.05 s for low-energy
impacts by the sphero-conical bag to the panel in specimen 2.
The ratios between the deflections were also smaller than for
impacts to the rigidly supported panel, ranging from less than
1.4 for 1020-mm drop height impacts to the panel to almost
2.2 for 200-mm drop height impacts to the crossing position.

16
14

bag had a rather longer duration, particularly from low drop

heights when they exceeded 0.04 s. This is believed to be
associated with a change of shape of the bag during impact
the glass beads can spread out across the face of the panel until
constrained by tension in the fabric of the bag. Energy tends to
be dissipated during this rearrangement, and the bag shows
little rebound unless it is thrown back by a springy target with
a sufficiently low fundamental resonant frequency. Hence the
impact duration effectively indicates the time taken to arrest
the forward motion of the bag.

8
6
4
2
0
0

200

400

600
800
Drop height: mm

1000

1200

Fig. 9. Deflections of rigidly fixed plywood panel, indicating

load developed by the impactors

The characteristics of the twin-tyre impactor had been

measured on a load testing machine (this could not be done for
a bag-type impactor). This indicated that if impacting an
immovable plane surface, from a drop height of 1020-mm, it
would deflect by 54-mm and apply a maximum force of 21 500
N. The deflections measured on specimen 2 were less than the
tyre impactor would have sustained against a totally rigid
target, yet not substantially smaller. This indicates that the

Structures & Buildings 157 Issue SB5 Evaluation of an impact standard for curtain walling
Downloaded by [ Arup] on [06/10/15]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Newman

339

Drop height: mm

Mean duration of displacement (half maximum): s

Twin tyre impactor

Sphero-conical bag

Specimen 2 mullion
transom crossing

Specimen 2
plywood panel

Specimen 2 mullion
transom crossing

Specimen 2
plywood panel

0.036
0.034
0.035

0.043
0.040
0.041
Plywood panel in rigid
mounting
0.030
0.029
0.029
0.028
0.028
0.029

0.047
0.041
0.041

0.050
0.043
0.040
Plywood panel in rigid
mounting
0.042
0.042
0.039
0.034
0.031
0.033

200
700
1020
170
240
510
710
820
1020

Table 4. Duration of displacement, measured at half maximum extent

stiffness of impactor and target were fairly closely matched,

under which conditions a substantial proportion of the kinetic
energy of the impactor would be transferred into the specimen
(more when the panel was impacted than the mullion transom
crossing position). Similarly, the force applied to the specimen
would have been a substantial fraction of that measured during
the static load tests. Energy transfer and applied force from the
sphero-conical bag would have been lower, corresponding to
the smaller deflections.
Overall, this work shows that impacts from the twin-tyre
impactor are typically much more severe than impacts from the
same drop height with the BS 8200 sphero-conical bag,
although both are the same mass and thus carry the same
kinetic energy. This difference is greatest for low drop height
impacts onto rigid targets, and reduces as drop height increases
and with targets that deflect more readily. Hence impacts to the
upper test classes of prEN 14019 (450 or 700-mm drop heights)
are likely to be more severe than safety to persons soft body
impacts to BS 8200 (710 or 1020-mm drop heights).
This work did not investigate which impactor more closely
represents the characteristics of a human body, but it can be
assumed that the nature of bodily impact would vary greatly
according to the attitude of the body relative to the impact
direction.

9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The text of prEN 14019 should be expanded to state clearly
whether glass and opening windows may be included in test
specimens, where impacts may be made in relation to these
components, and how their performance should relate to the
classification given to the system. These issues need to be
resolved before publication as a full standard.
The test method functioned satisfactorily, although problems
might arise if trying to impact spandrel panels that are recessed
behind deep transoms. When impacting the panels on
specimens 2 and 3 from the internal face, the diameter of the
340

Structures & Buildings 157 Issue SB5

impactor was only just sufficient to allow a clean impact

without the suspension cable contacting the transom above.
The test method appeared to be effective in reproducing
potential risks to safety from impacts to curtain walling
resulting from human activity.
This evaluation suggests that soundly constructed curtain
walling systems typical of those used in Britain are likely to
meet the most severe classification (700-mm drop height) in
the 2002-03-28 version of prEN 14019.
Impacts using the 50-kg twin-tyre impactor as proposed in
prEN 14019 are typically substantially more severe than
impacts from the same drop height using the 50-kg spheroconical bag filled with glass beads, as specified in BS 8200.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The funding for this research, by the Construction Industry
Directorate of the UK Department for Trade and Industry, is
gratefully acknowledged, as is the provision of specimens by
companies within the curtain walling industry.
REFERENCES
1. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION. Draft European
Standard: Curtain WallingProduct Standard. CEN, Brussels,
2000, prEN 13830.
2. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION. Draft European
Standard: Curtain WallingImpact ResistancePerformance
Requirements. CEN, Brussels, 2000, prEN 14019.
3. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION. Draft European
Standard: Glass in BuildingPendulum TestImpact Test
Method for Flat Glass and Performance Requirements. CEN,
Brussels, 1999, prEN 12600.
4. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Code of Practice for Design of
Non-loadbearing External Vertical Enclosures of Buildings.
BSI, London, 1985, BS 8200.
5. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION. Vertical
Building ElementsImpact Resistance TestsImpact Bodies
and General Test Procedures. ISO, 1988, ISO 7892.

Evaluation of an impact standard for curtain walling

Downloaded by [ Arup] on [06/10/15]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Newman

6. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION. CEN Committee

Document for Internal Enquiry in View of Formal Vote CEN/
TC 33 N 1452: Curtain WallingImpact Resistance
Performance Requirements. CEN, Brussels, 2002, prEN 14019.

7. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION. Draft European

Standard: WindowsSoft and Heavy Body ImpactTest
Method, Safety Requirements and Classification. CEN,
Brussels, 1997, prEN 13049.

Please email, fax or post your discussion contributions to the secretary by 1 April 2005: email: daniela.wong@ice.org.uk;
fax: 44 (0)20 665 2294; or post to Daniela Wong, Journals Department, Institution of Civil Engineers, 17 Great George Street,
London SW1P 3AA.

Structures & Buildings 157 Issue SB5 Evaluation of an impact standard for curtain walling
Downloaded by [ Arup] on [06/10/15]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

Newman

341