Edinburgh Research Explorer

The breakage behavior of different types of glazing in a fire

Citation for published version:

Wang, Y 2018, The breakage behavior of different types of glazing in a fire. in Proceedings of the 11th Asia-
Oceania Symposium on Fire Science and Technology.

Link:
Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer

Document Version:
Peer reviewed version

Published In:
Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Oceania Symposium on Fire Science and Technology

General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)
and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Take down policy

The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer
content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please
contact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and
investigate your claim.

Download date: 14. Jul. 2020

 The breakage behavior of different types of glazing in a fire
Yu Wang*
School of Engineering, BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, United Kingdom

Abstract

Different from concrete and steel, window glass or glass façade breaks very easily when subjected to a compartment fire.
The new vent created by the glass fallout may cause fire spread out and fresh air entrance which can markedly change the
enclosure fire dynamics. Nowadays, different types of glazing, such as clear, coated, ground, and multi-pane glazing, are
increasingly employed in newly constructed buildings. However, very little is known about their fire risk, especially the
comprehensive comparison between them is yet to be investigated. In this paper, the fire resistance comparison of different
types of glazing is conducted based on the author’s very recent and ongoing experimental results. Literature works of other
researchers are also presented for comparison. Additionally, fire safety design and recommendation of glass in buildings are
discussed in detail. This research is proposed to provide valuable references for the fire safety performance-based design of
glass façades in high-rise buildings.

Keywords: Glass type; Fire; Thermal breakage; Fire resistance

1. Introduction

Glass has many advantages, such as high transparency, long-term durability and good aesthetics. Therefore, to satisfy the
high requirement of building aesthetic consideration, glass is extensively used both in envelopes and structures of modern
constructions [1, 2]. However, compared with concrete and steel, glass is considerably more prone to breaking due to its
brittleness while encountering a huge fire. After the glass breaks, it would fall out with a high probability which may create
a new vent in a building fire. This vent could result in a flashover or backdraft that will significantly accelerate the fire
development of a compartment [3]. Fig. 1 shows two fire disasters that respectively occurred in China and the United
Kingdom in June 2017. It can be seen that after the glass was broken by a compartment fire, the ejected flame went higher
and broke the window upstairs, causing bigger disaster. This occurred regardless of the existence of combustible cladding.
Both fires demonstrate that the glass breakage and fallout caused by fire heating are very important to the fire development
in modern high-rise buildings.

(a) The Hangzhou residence fire (b) London Grenfell Tower fire
Fig. 1. Fire disasters occurred in June 2017.

This research issue was first highlighted by Emmons [4]: “there is one structural problem of importance to fire growth
and this is the breaking of window glass”. Subsequently, a large number of theoretical, numerical and experimental
investigations were conducted. For example, Keski-Rahkonen [5, 6] calculated the critical breakage conditions of a glass
panel with circular and square dimensions. Skelly et al. [7] heated the glass panel in a designed compartment model and
determined the temperature difference of glass breakage of approximately 90 ºC. Pagni et al. [8, 9] developed a software for
the time prediction of single and double glazing breakage in a fire. In recent years, more research started to focus on the

* Corresponding author: E-mail address: ywang232@foxmail.com; Yu.Wang@ed.ac.uk (Y. Wang)

glass façade other than the four-edge-covered window glass panel. Wang et al. [10, 11] first investigated the fire
performance of point-supported glass façade and found that the combination of mechanical and thermal stress is responsible
for the crack initiation at fixing points. Through full-scale experiments, Chow et al. [12, 13] studied the effect of smoke
movement on the breakage of double skin façade and the cavity depth was optimized according to the experimental results.
Shao et al. [14, 15] conducted full-scale experiments to investigate the efficiency of sprinkler protection for float and
toughened glass façades. All previous studies indicate that the glass breakage in fires may be affected by a large number of
factors. It is anticipated that the glass type also has a significant influence on the thermal breakage of glass. Considering the
increasing number of various types of glazing used in buildings, it is of great importance to study the fire performance of
different types of glazing.
However, the comparative study of different kinds of glazing is very limited [1, 16]. In particular, some new types of
glazing, such as low-E, coated and multi-pane glazing, are employed extensively, which may cause potential fire risk for
buildings. In the present work, the comparison of these glasses is systematically addressed for the fire safety design based
on the author’s previous and ongoing experimental work. The details and results of experiments are reviewed and design
recommendations are proposed.

2. Different types of single glazing

A large number of studies have focused on the fire performance of single glazing. The glass types include clear, coated,
ground, wired, low-E etc.. In this section, all these glasses are discussed based on our previous experimental work.
Toughened glass is also selected to make a comparison.
We select the clear float glass as a reference. In our previous work [17], both clear and low-E glasses with a dimension of
600×600×6 mm3 were heated under uniform radiation conditions in a well-designed facility. A radiation panel with a
maximum power of 90 kW was utilized to provide adequate heat making the glass break. The experimental results have
shown that the critical temperature differences of clear float glass and Low-E glass were 95 ºC and 108 ºC. The critical
breakage condition of clear float glass was very similar to the results obtained by Skelly et al. [7] who established that edge-
protected tests resulted in breakage at an average temperature of 90 ºC. In addition, under a pool fire condition, another
study [18] highlighted that the clear float glass can withstand the temperature difference that is slightly more than 90 ºC
(94 °C). Therefore, we estimate the critical temperature difference of clear float glazing is 90 ºC, and other kinds of glass
are compared to this value. Then, the critical temperature difference of low-E glass is 14% higher than clear ones according
to [17].
For coated glass pane, a 500×500 mm2 heptane pool fire was placed 750 mm away from glass panel with a dimension of
600×600×6 mm3 [19], as shown in Fig. 2. A total of sixteen tests were performed. The experimental results indicated that
regardless the installation form, the critical breakage condition of coated glass is around 80 ºC, which is smaller than that of
clear ones.

Fig. 2. The schematic of the experimental system with heat flux gauge and thermocouple distributions for coated glazing test [19].

To clarify the difference in critical breakage condition, quasi-static tensile experiments were conducted using Material
Testing System 810 (MTS 810) to explore the strength of clear, coated and ground glass panes [20]. As exceeding tensile
stress is the primary cause of the crack initiation of glass in a fire [5, 21, 22], the direct measurement of this parameter can
give a very good reference of glass fire resistance. All glass samples were designed in the shape of a ‘dog-bone’. Their
thicknesses were 6 mm. The overall length and width of each sample were 265 mm and 20 mm, respectively. The central
part of the sample, with a length of 55 mm and width of 10 mm, was the testing section, as shown in Fig. 3(a). It should be
noted that the specimens were cut by water knife with a diameter of 1 mm. The cross sections and surface conditions of
coated and ground glass are shown in Fig. 3(b). For each type of glazing, 7 specimens were repeated. For clear, coated and
ground glass, the tensile strengths were 35.7, 32.9 and 31.0 MPa [20]; the standard deviations were respectively 1.3, 1.0 and
2.0. It was found that the fire resistance order is: clear glass, coated glass and ground glass. The relationship between clear
and coated glass is consistent with the full-scale tests in a real fire which confirms the rationality of this tensile tests. For
clear glass pane, its tensile strength is 35.7 MPa, while the 31.0 for ground one. Thus, from this work, it can be established
that the critical tensile strength of clear glass is about 15% higher than the ground one.

(a) Before and after test, clear glass (b) Coated (up) and ground glass

(c) The temperature measurement by R type thermocouple and strain measurement by extensometer.
Fig. 3. The specimen in MTS 810, before and after testing.

Harada et al. studied the wired and float glass panel heated by a propane radiation panel [23]. For wired glass without the
lateral restraint, the temperature difference at initial crack was 22 ºC. It should be noted that the thickness of wired glass was
6.8 mm which was larger than that of 3 mm of float one. Despite the different thicknesses, the average critical temperature
difference of float glass without lateral restraint was around 52 ºC which was two times more than a wired one. From the
comparison, it can be seen that the wired glass pane is the most prone to breakage in a fire. The existing micro crack caused
by the wires in glazing may be primarily responsible for the relatively poor fire resistance. The thicker float glass normally
has better fire resistance [24], so the wired glass in this work is considered much weaker than the 6 mm float clear one. Here,
it is assumed to ignore the effect of 0.8 mm thickness, and concluded that the wired glass is 58% smaller than that of clear
float glass.
All the above-mentioned glasses are float glass, i.e. they are not tempered. However, tempered glass is increasingly used
in high-rise buildings instead of ordinary float glass, which has been addressed in the previous work [25-27]. No matter the
tempered glass is installed as frame-supported or point-supported glass façades, its fire resistance is significantly better than
float one. For example, when the glass was placed 350 mm from the pool fire, no cracks were observed, while the float glass
cracked at 89 s under an identical condition during experiments [27]. Fig. 4 demonstrates that the tempered glass bent at the
final stage but did not break when directly heated by flame radiation. In the authors’ ongoing experiments, eleven 6 mm-
thick-tempered glass panels were heated in a compartment model with a dimension of 1000×1000×1000 mm3. It was
concluded that the average critical temperature difference is 357 °C, which is around four times more than that of clear float
glazing. This result is similar to previous studies which indicated the critical temperature difference of tempered glazing was
above 300 ºC [26, 28]. However, it should be noted that the compartment ventilation condition change caused by glass
fallout is a very important issue. The process comparison is shown in Fig. 5, in which the crack initiation time is set as 0 s. It
can be found that tempered glazing fell out completely within 1 second once the first crack was initiated, while float one
with much earlier crack initiation may fall out gradually. This difference may markedly affect the compartment fire
dynamics.
 (a) Initial stage, straight glass (b) Final stage, bent glass
Fig. 4. Tempered glass heated by a 300×300 mm2 pool fire.

0.00s 0.22s 0.44s 0.80s

(a) The fallout of tempered glazing

0s 57s 69s 70s

(b) The fallout of float glazing
Fig. 5. The fallout process comparison of single tempered and float glazing.

Based on the reference object of float clear glass, the fire resistance of different kinds of glazing is summarized in Fig. 6,
where the fire resistance of clear float glass is set as 1. According to these studies, the order of single glazing is: tempered
glass, clear glass, coated glass, ground glass and wired glass. The reason for high thermal resistance of tempered glass is
because its manufacture process is markedly different from that in the other types of glass. Tempering puts the outer
surfaces into compression and the inner surfaces into tension. The strengths of coated and ground glass are relatively small
since the surface treatment during manufacturing results in more tiny flaws or defects than clear ones [20]. Fig. 7
demonstrates the surface conditions of clear and ground glass. Critical breakage condition of wired glass is low because it is
difficult to be cut, and many defects would exist at the cutting edge even before heating [23]. The micro cracks around wire
may also be the reason for its breakage behavior which needs to be investigated further.
 4.0

3.5

Fire resistance comparison

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
clear coated ground wired tempered
Glass type

Fig. 6. Fire resistance comparison of different types of single glazing.

(a) Clear glass (b) Ground glass

Fig. 7. The surface conditions of clear and ground glasses.

3. Different types of multi-pane glazing

Compared with single glazing, fewer studies have been conducted on the behaviour of multi-pane glazing in a fire. In this
section, insulated, laminated and triple-pane glazing will be discussed based on the previous work.
Most of the multi-pane glazing work is concerning the installed glazing (IG), more commonly known as double glazing.
Cuzzillo and Pagni [8] first developed a theoretical model and calculated the temperature using an in-house software
McBreak. Shields at al. [29] installed the double glazing panels in the front wall of ISO 9705 room and heat them using pool
fires. A simple lumped model approach was developed to predict the response of the glazing to thermal insult. In their tests,
the double glazing may withstand for more than 23 min in corner fire, while the maximum time of about 11 min for single
glazing under similar conditions. The result shows that the double glazed systems consistently perform much better
regarding the provision of integrity [29]. It is similar to the conclusion of Mowrer’s double glazing window study [30].
These works are primarily about the double glazed window. However, very little is known about the fire performances of
insulated glazing in curtain walls and its potential influence on fire dynamics. In our very recent work, the installed glazing
with different air gap thickness and installation forms were heated by a 500×500 mm2 pool fire [31]. It was found that semi-
exposed framing glass façades last longer before breaking than those of fully-exposed framing glass, but are more prone to
falling out. The behavior of ambient side panel is related to the fallout of fire side pane. Fig. 8 shows the breakage and
fallout of insulated glazing in the experiments. Fallout occurred in the tests of horizontal and vertical hidden glass façades.
To determine the critical breakage condition of insulated glazing, the burner-glazing distance was changed from 750 mm to
450 mm, and the fuel mass was increased from 2 kg to 6 kg [32]. It was found that the critical heat flux of double glazing is
more than 25 kW/m2, while 6 kW/m2 for single glazing. From the experimental tests in which the insulated and single
glazing were heated under a similar condition [16], the installed glazing failure time is 366 s and the average of single
glazing breakage time is 157 s. It should be noted that the single glazing was coated and the burner-glazing distance of
insulated glazing was smaller than that in single glazing test. Generally, it can be concluded the fire resistance of insulated
glazing is two or three times of single ones [16, 29].

(a) Exposed framing (b) Horizontal hidden (c) Vertical hidden

(c) Thermocouples in double glazing

Fig. 8. The behavior of insulated glazing installed in different forms.

Very little work has been conducted for laminated glazing in a fire. Manzello et al. [26] compared the single and
laminated tempered glazing in a real compartment fire. After the fire, all the single glazing fell out, but the unexposed panel
of laminated glazing still kept in place and intact. The results show that the laminated glazing has very excellent fire
performance even in a real fire situation. In our recent study [16], under an identical condition (burner-glazing distance of
750 mm and 2 kg fuel), the average breakage time of single float glazing is 157 s, while 118 s and 199 s for the expose and
unexposed side panes of float laminated glazing, respectively. This result is consistent with the study of Manzello et al [26].
It can be concluded that the fire resistance of laminated glass is about 27% higher than that of clear single glazing. Although
the fire resistance of laminated glazing is not as good as insulated glazing, it can keep intact in a fire which still can provide
a barrier preventing the fire spreading out.
Therefore, from the above study of the double glazed system, it can be projected that the fire resistance will increase
significantly when employing triple-pane glazing specimens. To the author’ knowledge, the study by Klassen et al. [33] is
the only open literature that addresses this issue. The triple-pane glazing was laminated by interlayer and air gap. For
incident heat fluxes 30 kW/m2 or lower, the triple-pane glazing samples had a total transmittance less than 10% of the
incident heat flux, back-side surface temperatures did not exceed 100 ºC. For double-pane laminates, the total transmittance
was less than 25% of the incident heat flux, the back-side temperature did not exceed 220 ºC. However, what is interesting
is that the fire exposed pane of triple-glazing broke earlier than the double-pane laminated glazing at the given incident heat
flux. It is because the exposed panel of the triple-pane glazing samples was isolated from the two inner panes by an air gap;
this feature allowed for the more rapid development of thermal stresses in the outer pane and faster breakage times. In most
tests, the unexposed panel did not break, which shows its good fire resistance. However, it is difficult to compare the double
and triple glazing in this work as no complete failure was reported. Therefore, more tests concerning complicated glass
structures need to be conducted in the future, which is believed to be helpful for their fire resistance evaluation. However, as
the mechanism of double glazing and laminated glazing is being well understood, the numerical simulation should be more
suitable for trip glazing rather than more experimental tests.
According to above analysis, we select the float clear single glazing as the reference, and the fire resistance comparison
of different multi-pane glazing is shown in Fig. 9. The fire resistance is determined by the failure time of unexposed panel
which represents the failure of whole glazing system. The mechanism of these differences is the heat transfer and thermal
stress in glazing [8, 16]. The thermal resistance of air gap is much larger than interlayer material. However, it should be
noted that in experiments insulated glazing will fall out more easily due to the weakness in perimeter sealer [31], while
laminated glazing can keep intact despite both of panel break. Therefore, before glass type selection, more factors should be
considered based on the state of art in this area.

Fire resistance comparison 3.0 To be tested

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
clear single laminated insulated triple
Glass type
Fig. 9. Fire resistance comparison of different types of multi-pane glazing.

4. Conclusions

Increasing number of different glass types are employed in modern buildings, but their performance may determine the
fire spread way and speed, which will challenge the whole building safety. A large number of studies have focused on the
thermal glass breakage in a fire. Ten years ago, most of the research in this area was concerning the ordinary window glass.
However, the objective is changing to glass façades in recent years due to the high-rise building fire safety requirement.
Regardless of the research objective, glass type is always a major issue to be addressed. In particular, glass products are
becoming more diverse and often composited with other construction materials. Thus, it becomes necessary to know the fire
resistance of different types of glazing.
The paper summarizes and discusses the fire resistance of glazing based on the author’s previous and ongoing studies
and some other open literature. Only experimental work is selected to be present so as to make the comparison more
reasonable and reliable. The fire resistance order of different kinds of glazing is provided. Tempered and multi-pane
glazings, especially laminated glazing, have much better fire resistance, which is recommended to be used in engineering.
However, these glasses are considerably more expensive than float single glazing according to the price survey. What is
more, they will inevitably increase the weight of façades. Thus, more factors should be considered during the selection of
glass type.
In the future, more new types of glazing would emerge in the industry, for which fire resistance should continue to be
tested to deepen the understanding of the glazing thermal behavior. In addition, accurate heat transfer and breakage behavior
models need to be developed to benefit the fire performance prediction and risk evaluation. Glass fallout in a fire is still a
very challenging issue to be studied due to many influence factors. Different types of glazing have different ways to fall out
with different mechanisms, and despite some island formed, sometimes no pieces fall out which is very difficult to predict.
More research is needed with considering the influence of fire and smoke on its fallout behaviour, which is believed to
significantly improve the building fire dynamic analysis. In addition, glass fire performance may also be improved by fire
resistance coating or property optimization, which may need significantly more efforts in the future.
Acknowledgements

Dr. Yu Wang is supported by IRIS-Fire project of UK (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Grant no.:
EP/P029582/1).

References
[1] M. Debuyser, J. Sjöström, D. Lange, D. Honfi, D. Sonck, J. Belis, Behaviour of monolithic and laminated glass exposed to radiant heating,
Construction and Building Materials, 130 (2017) 212-229.
[2] E. Axinte, Glasses as engineering materials: A review, Materials & Design, 32 (2011) 1717-1732.
[3] Y. He, L. Poon, Experimental Observations And Modelling Of Window Glass Breakage In Building Fires, Fire Safety Science, 3 (1988) 295-306.
[4] H. Emmons, The needed fire science, in: Fire Safety Science-Proceedings of the First International Symposium, IAFSS, 1986, pp. 33-53.
[5] O. Keski‐Rahkonen, Breaking of window glass close to fire, Fire Mater., 12 (1988) 61-69.
[6] O. Keski‐Rahkonen, Breaking of window glass close to fire, II: circular panes, Fire Mater., 15 (1991) 11-16.
[7] M.J. Skelly, R.J. Roby, C.L. Beyler, An experimental investigation of glass breakage in compartment fires, J. Fire. Prot. Eng., 3 (1991) 25-34.
[8] B.R. Cuzzillo, P.J. Pagni, Thermal breakage of double-pane glazing by fire, J. Fire. Prot. Eng., 9 (1998) 1-11.
[9] A.A. Joshi, P.J. Pagni, Users' guide to BREAK1, the Berkeley algorithm for breaking window glass in a compartment fire, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, 1991.
[10] Y. Wang, Q. Wang, G. Shao, H. Chen, Y. Su, J. Sun, L. He, K.M. Liew, Fracture behavior of a four-point fixed glass curtain wall under fire
conditions, Fire Saf. J., 67 (2014) 24-34.
[11] Y. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Sun, L. He, K.M. Liew, Effects of fixing point positions on thermal response of four point-supported glass façades,
Construction and Building Materials, 73 (2014) 235-246.
[12] W. Chow, W. Hung, Y. Gao, G. Zou, H. Dong, Experimental study on smoke movement leading to glass damages in double-skinned façade,
Construction and Building Materials, 21 (2007) 556-566.
[13] W. Chow, W. Hung, Effect of cavity depth on smoke spreading of double-skin façade, Build Environ, 41 (2006) 970-979.
[14] G. Shao, Q. Wang, H. Zhao, Y. Wang, J. Sun, L. He, Thermal Breakage of Tempered Glass Façade with Down-Flowing Water Film Under Different
Heating Rates, Fire Technol., 52 (2016) 563-580.
[15] G. Shao, Q. Wang, H. Zhao, Y. Wang, H. Chen, Y. Su, J. Sun, L. He, Maximum temperature to withstand water film for tempered glass exposed to
fire, Construction and Building Materials, 57 (2014) 15-23.
[16] Y. Wang, Q. Wang, J.X. Wen, J. Sun, K.M. Liew, Investigation of thermal breakage and heat transfer in single, insulated and laminated glazing under
fire conditions, Appl. Therm. Eng., 125 (2017) 662-672.
[17] Q. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Zhang, H. Chen, J. Sun, L. He, A stochastic analysis of glass crack initiation under thermal loading, Appl. Therm. Eng., 67
(2014) 447-457.
[18] Y. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Sun, L. He, K. Liew, Thermal performance of exposed framing glass façades in fire, Mater. Struct., 49 (2016) 2961-2970.
[19] Y. Wang, Q. Wang, Y. Su, J. Sun, L. He, K.M. Liew, Fracture behavior of framing coated glass curtain walls under fire conditions, Fire Saf. J., 75
(2015) 45-58.
[20] Y. Wang, Q. Wang, G. Shao, H. Chen, J. Sun, L. He, K.M. Liew, Experimental study on critical breaking stress of float glass under elevated
temperature, Materials & Design, 60 (2014) 41-49.
[21] A.A. Joshi, P.J. Pagni, Fire-Induced Thermal Fields in Window Glass .1. Theory, Fire Saf. J., 22 (1994) 25-43.
[22] H. Chowdhury, M.B. Cortie, Thermal stresses and cracking in absorptive solar glazing, Construction and Building Materials, 21 (2007) 464-468.
[23] K. Harada, A. Enomoto, K. Uede, T. Wakamatsu, An experimental study on glass cracking and fallout by radiant heat exposure, in: Fire Safety
Science—Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium, IAFSS, 2000, pp. 1063-1074.
[24] Y. Zhang, Q. Wang, X. Zhu, X. Huang, J. Sun, Experimental Study on Crack of Float Glass with Different Thicknesses Exposed to Radiant Heating,
Procedia Engineering, 11 (2011) 710-718.
[25] M. Li, G. Lu, Z. Hu, X. Mei, L. Li, L. Wang, Research on Fire Endurance of Tempered Glass based on Infrared Imaging Technology, Procedia
Engineering, 84 (2014) 553-557.
[26] S.L. Manzello, R.G. Gann, S.R. Kukuck, K.R. Prasad, W.W. Jones, An experimental determination of a real fire performance of a non-load bearing
glass wall assembly, Fire Technol., 43 (2007) 77-89.
[27] Y. Wang, Q. Wang, G. Shao, H. Chen, Y. Su, J. Sun, L. He, X.J. Wen, R. Zong, K.M. Liew, Experimental Study on Thermal Breakage of Four-Point
Fixed Glass Facade, in: Fire Safety Science—Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium, IAFSS, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2014, pp. 666-
676.
[28] V. Babrauskas, Glass breakage in fires, Fire Science and Technology, Inc. https://www.doctorfire.com/GlassBreak.pdf, 22 (2011).
[29] J. Shields, G.W. Silcock, F. Flood, Behaviour of double glazing in corner fires, Fire Technol., 41 (2005) 37-65.
[30] F.W. Mowrer, Window breakage induced by exterior fire, in, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1998.
[31] Y. Wang, Q. Wang, Y. Su, J. Sun, L. He, K.M. Liew, Experimental study on fire response of double glazed panels in curtain walls, Fire Saf. J., 92
(2017) 53-63.
[32] Y. Wang, K. Li, Y. Su, W. Lu, Q. Wang, J. Sun, L. He, K.M. Liew, Determination of critical breakage conditions for double glazing in fire, Appl.
Therm. Eng., 111 (2017) 20-29.
[33] M.S. Klassen, J.A. Sutula, M.M. Holton, R.J. Roby, T. Izbicki, Transmission through and breakage of multi-pane glazing due to radiant exposure, Fire
Technol., 42 (2006) 79-107.