How Industry Leaders, Codes, Standards and Hard Lessons Built Today’s Protective Glazing Industry
by Ellen Rogers
If you know someone whose life was saved by safety glazing, they might have Della Reese to thank.
In 1970, the singer and actress was severely injured when she walked through an unmarked sliding glass door that did not have safety glass. She spent more than four hours in surgery, needed seven pints of blood, 1,000 stitches and a month in the ICU followed by a five-month recovery that involved multiple hospital stays.
Once better, Reese was so passionate about the need for safety glass that she volunteered to speak out on the matter and share her story. In 1972, the National Safety Council issued a public service announcement featuring Reese on the use of safety glazing materials, stating, “It contains good advice from someone who is deeply involved because of an accident that happened to her.”
While the American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials Used in Buildings – Safety Performance Specifications and Methods of Test (today ANSI Z97.1) was published in 1966, it was voluntary at the time of Reese’s accident.
According to the 2011 article, “History of the Safety Glazing Certification Council [SGCC],” in the early 1970s, there was a growing recognition of the need for a mandated, uniform national safety glazing standard. Only 25 states had adopted some form of safety glazing codes by the end of 1973, and the remaining 25 states had no safety glazing mandates at all.
To address this issue, the Consumer Glazing Safety Committee, an ad hoc group of 28 industry, union, and public-interest entities, was formed. The group lobbied the U.S. Congress to mandate a federal national safety glazing standard, and in 1977, Section 16 CFR 1201 was added to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Act of 1972, specifying a national safety glazing standard and test method. As a federal statute, “the use of safety glazing in many glazing applications finally became nationally mandated by law,” says the SGCC article.
The standard’s stringency continued to evolve. The 1984 edition of ANSI Z97.1 underwent a significant update, establishing more rigorous testing procedures that aligned closer with the CPSC 16 CFR 1201 standards.
A lot has changed in the world of safety glass since the 1970s. Products have gotten stronger, and so have the codes, standards and other regulations, many of which are driven by catastrophic events. From hurricanes to bomb blasts to school shootings, the goal has not changed: protecting people.
“Glass has always had some potential to cut or pierce human skin. Everything from a dropped juice glass, to a framed picture falling from the wall, to walking through openings and sitting on furniture has that potential,” says Julia C. Schimmelpenningh, technical engagement manager – architectural with Eastman Chemical in Springfield, Massachusetts. “The goal [from the start] was to reduce the cutting and piercing injuries that came from walking through larger lites of glass that broke into large shards with the ability to cut or pierce. Since that time, products have evolved, as has our knowledge of what various configurations of those products can bring to protection by glass.”
Looking Back
What began as a response to a growing safety crisis ultimately reshaped the glass industry, laying the foundation for today’s protective glazing standards and certification systems.
“Safety protection came into being in the mid-1960s as patio doors started to be used. The (then) Glass Tempering Association and Laminated Glass Association [which later combined with the Flat Glass Marketing Association to form the Glass Association of North America] got together with other industry influencers and developed standards for break-safe glass to help reduce the tragic injuries that were occurring,” says Schimmelpenningh. “What came from that was the first published version of ANSI Z97.1-1966.”
At the time the standard was published, individual manufacturers were responsible for ensuring compliance.
“Since it is frequently not possible to ascertain from simple visual inspection if a piece of glazing is in fact a true safety glazing, some type of certification testing and labeling identification process is necessary,” reads the 2011 SGCC article, explaining that while such processes are conducted under the auspices of national governmental authorities in other countries, in the United States, “by law, the responsibility is generally left to the manufacturer, though frequently with at least some governmental direction and oversight.”
SGCC was formed in 1971 to validate manufacturers’ statements of compliance and the appropriate performance of the safety glazings. The independent organization was a collaboration of several industry and public-interest organizations, establishing a nationally recognized and accepted entity that provides a single comprehensive program for the third-party certification of all safety glazings (laminated glass, tempered glass, and solid and rigid plastics). Today, more than 3,800 products are SGCC-certified.
Continuous Development
While the addition of 16 CFR 1201 to the CPSC in 1977 was a substantial step toward safety glazing, few changes followed until the 1990s. Since then, advances have continued (see the timeline on pages 42-43).
In 1992, Hurricane Andrew devastated South Florida, ultimately making simple but effective construction a code-driven requirement in windborne-debris areas. That same year brought the Rodney King riots in California, which Schimmelpenningh says began to solidify the use of enhanced glazing for security purposes in the public’s eye.
“In the years since, more tragic events have made us question when and where these enhanced glasses could and should be used,” she says. “Today, new schools are having a difficult time justifying non-protective glazing as parents and staff are learning about the options that allow the value of natural light along with forced entry or ballistic protections (see related article on page 48).”
In 2022, the glazing industry achieved a major milestone in ensuring school safety with the publication of ASTM F3561, the Standard Test Method for Forced-Entry-Resistance of Fenestration Systems After Simulated Active Shooter Attack. Schimmelpenningh led efforts to develop the test method, intended to help school districts choose from a range of high-performance products that will provide additional protection for schools. ASTM F3561 is a whole unit test that involves weakening the system through a ballistic attack and a series of impacts. It simulates a shooter trying to shoot out the glass or locking mechanism, approaching it and impacting the system to open a space.
Eric Hatty, chief revenue officer with Total Security Solutions in Fowlerville, Michigan, recalls when “protective glazing” was almost synonymous with bank teller windows; i.e., thick bullet-resistant glass installed in very controlled environments. Today, he says, the definition is much broader.
“Protective glazing refers to integrated architectural systems designed to protect people while still functioning as part of the building’s design,” he says, explaining several forces have driven that evolution.
“First is the growing awareness of targeted violence and forced-entry threats in everyday places such as schools, healthcare facilities, retail environments and corporate campuses. Second is the expectation that security should not compromise design,” says Hatty. “Architects and owners now expect protective glazing to blend seamlessly into the built environment rather than look like a fortress.”
Gerry Sagerman, director of sales with Insulgard Security Products in Brighton, Michigan, agrees that major events have significantly accelerated both awareness and acceptance of protective glazing. Even events like the COVID-19 pandemic have normalized the use of protective barriers in customer-facing environments, he says.
“In the past, some customers were hesitant to add protective glazing, citing diminished customer service and personal one-on-one contact with their customers. Now, the perception has shifted from intrusive to practical,” says Sagerman. “As a result, more organizations are proactively seeking solutions to protect employees and occupants rather than reacting after an incident.”
Bomb Blasts and Ballistics
Ed Conrath is a senior principal at Protection Engineering Consultants headquartered in Dripping Springs, Texas. He has more than 40 years of experience in protective glazing and has witnessed its evolution and rise following major events throughout his career. Having previously worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the Protective Design Center, Conrath was highly involved in the development of blast- and ballistic-resistant glazing materials.
“Under the Unified Facilities Criteria, we developed a document called the Department of Defense Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings (UFC 4-010-01). That established minimum requirements for glazing and other parts of a facility,” he says. “But the impetus for that work goes back to the 1980s with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. Events like that pushed the government to begin developing protective design criteria. Later attacks, including bombings targeting Department of State buildings and the Oklahoma City bombing further drove development of those standards.”
He says that early in his career, protective glazing design was very conservative. For example, with blast-resistant glazing, the expectation was that the glass would resist everything without failing. Over time, he says, the industry has matured.
“But as we learned more through testing and engineering analysis, today, we accept that laminated glass may fracture under blast loading, but that doesn’t mean it has failed to provide protection to people. It can still protect the interior and prevent hazardous debris,” says Conrath. “Allowing that type of performance has made glazing systems more efficient and economical. Instead of designing glass that must resist everything, we accept that it may fracture or even fall inward in a controlled way while still providing protection.”
Growing Awareness
Major events such as hurricanes, terrorist attacks and school shootings have shaped more than the evolution of protective glazing products and standards. They’ve also brought awareness and understanding.
“Organizations are no longer treating protective glazing as a niche security upgrade. They’re incorporating it into broader life-safety strategies,” says Hatty. “At the same time, these events have pushed manufacturers and standards bodies to refine testing protocols and performance expectations so products can be evaluated and specified with greater confidence.”
Conrath adds, however, the cost of protection is also an obstacle.
“For example, vehicle crashes into buildings happen multiple times every day, sometimes accidentally and sometimes intentionally. There are ASTM standards for testing barriers and systems to protect against those kinds of impacts, but many property owners still choose not to install them because of the cost,” he says. “You see more awareness in places like Washington, D.C., where federal buildings are protected with barriers and other security measures. But in many everyday situations, e.g., convenience stores, owners may accept the risk rather than invest in protection. People are becoming more aware of the issue, but there is still hesitation when it comes to actually implementing protective measures.”
Another challenge Schimmelpenningh sees is the confusion that can come with these developments.
“Many times we, as an industry, forget just how much jargon we use. Without repeatedly defining our classifications, limits and designed uses of products, the general public can under- or over-specify the products and simply not get what they want or more importantly, what they need,” she says.
The Next Phase
If past events have shaped the history of protective glazing, its future will be defined by how well the industry anticipates and adapts to emerging threats.
“I feel that specifications are going to be driven to enhanced glazing for a critical reason for the project, and the other benefits will be an ‘ah ha’ moment. As those spread, there will be greater use of the products you see today,” says Schimmelpenningh. “As storms and other assaults intensify, you will likely see more products and combinations of products being offered to resist the threats, manage the risk and reduce the vulnerability. I don’t think it’s natural to dwell on the next type of devastation that may impact human life, but that is exactly what people in the defense business have to do.”
Hatty expects to see security integrated into the building lifecycle earlier in the design process.
“Too often, protective glazing is introduced late in a project as a product selection rather than part of the architectural strategy. As awareness grows, we’re seeing more collaboration between architects, security consultants and manufacturers during the design phase so that protection can be incorporated without compromising the building’s function or appearance.”
Conrath adds, “When bombing incidents were more common, there was a lot of focus on blast protection, particularly by the government. When those threats occur less frequently, attention tends to shift elsewhere and funding for blast protection in construction is cut. For example, when the active shooter threat at schools started occurring, schools started implementing protective measures to protect students and staff. School security has been one of the major areas driving change in protective glazing in recent years. Because of the unacceptability of an active shooter, I think it will eventually become routine for schools to incorporate protective measures in renovations and new construction, whether that means glazing designed to resist ballistic penetration or systems designed to delay entry under standards like ASTM F3561.”
Sagerman points to several other types of projects that are seeing an increased need for protection.
“Due to some of the violence targeted at churches and synagogues across the country, we’ve received a major uptick in requests for security windows and doors in places of religious worship. There has also been a noticeable increase in corporate security applications as organizations take a more proactive approach to workplace safety,” he says. “Healthcare is another emerging market, including hospitals and specialty facilities, where security requirements are being driven directly by internal safety officers. We’re also seeing expanded use in major retail environments, particularly at entry points, where rising incidents of organized theft and civil unrest are pushing owners to view protective storefronts as a strategic investment rather than a reactive solution.”
Another emerging issue to consider is the potential threat posed by drones, says Conrath.
“The drone strike could introduce an explosive threat at upper levels of a building rather than at ground level. That raises new questions about how we design buildings and glazing systems to address that kind of threat.”
Certainly, as long as there is a need to keep people safe, products, codes and regulations will continue to evolve. But as Hatty points out, the goal isn’t just stronger glass.
“It’s better-designed environments that protect people while maintaining openness and usability.”
Ellen Rogers is the vice president of editorial content and editor of USGlass magazine. Email her at erogers@glass.com and connect with her on LinkedIn.
To view the laid-in version of this issue in our digital edition, CLICK HERE.