Complete the form and we’ll be in touch.
Not all security window film test ratings measure the same type of protection. A film-and-glass sample may be evaluated for human impact, while another glazing system may be tested for forced entry or blast-related hazards. The standard used, the specimen tested, and the results achieved all matter.
When commercial property owners review proposals for security window film, they need to know whether the supporting test results are relevant to their existing glass, window frames, and security objectives. A rating achieved under one test does not automatically establish performance against a different threat or in a different installation.
Our security window film overview explains that, in large commercial and government facilities, film selection depends on glazing type and frame construction, building height and exposure, occupancy and safety planning requirements, and threat mitigation objectives. Test ratings are where those selection factors meet documented evidence. This guide explains how to read that evidence and how to judge whether it applies to a particular building.
A security window film test rating describes how a particular material or glazing system performed under controlled conditions.
Testing may measure glass breakage, resistance to repeated impacts, the ability to delay forced entry, or the hazards caused by flying glass during a blast. Each test follows specific procedures and establishes results within those conditions.
However, there is an important difference between a product being tested, passing a test, and receiving certification.
These distinctions are important when comparing security film products.
A manufacturer may advertise that its film has been tested under a recognized ASTM standard. Without the actual results, however, a building owner cannot determine the level of protection demonstrated or whether the test applies to the proposed installation.
The International Window Film Association (IWFA) recommends reviewing the glass type and thickness used during testing, confirming the actual performance achieved, and avoiding claims that exaggerate the protective capabilities of window film.
Several recognized standards are used to evaluate safety glazing, security glazing materials, and complete window systems.
They address different threats and should not be treated as interchangeable measures of security.
| Standard | What It Evaluates | Important Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| ANSI Z97.1 / CPSC 16 CFR 1201 | Safety glazing performance under human-impact conditions | Does not establish forced-entry or ballistic resistance |
| UL 972 | Resistance of glazing materials to specified burglary attacks | Does not cover the glazing mounting method |
| ASTM F1233 | Resistance of security glazing materials and systems to defined threats, including tool and ballistic impacts | Results apply to the specific threats and conditions tested |
| ASTM F3561 | Forced-entry resistance following a simulated active-shooter attack | Primarily a complete-system test; does not establish ballistic resistance |
| ASTM F1642 / F2912 | Glazing response and hazard classification under specified airblast loading | Results depend on the blast conditions and tested glazing configuration |
ANSI Z97.1 and the federal requirements under CPSC 16 CFR 1201 address safety glazing performance. Their provisions and applications are not identical, but both are concerned with reducing injury risks associated with glass breakage.
These requirements are relevant where glazing must meet specified human-impact safety criteria.
However, passing a safety glazing test does not establish that a window will resist a deliberate break-in, withstand a bomb blast, or stop bullets.
Building owners should also recognize that a laboratory result does not automatically establish compliance with every building-code requirement. The applicable requirements depend on the glazing location and building conditions.
UL 972 evaluates glazing materials intended to resist specified burglary attacks, particularly the type of rapid break-in commonly described as a hit-and-run attack.
The standard addresses the performance of the glazing material itself. It does not cover the mounting methods used to install that material.
This is a significant distinction for commercial buildings.
Even when a glazing product has demonstrated resistance under UL 972, the window frame and installation must be evaluated separately. A strong glazing material cannot provide the intended protection if the surrounding system cannot adequately retain it.
ASTM F1233 evaluates security glazing materials and systems against specified threats, including ballistic impacts, blunt tools, sharp tools, thermal stress, and chemical deterioration.
The standard provides a way to compare resistance under defined conditions. It does not establish that a glazing system is impossible to penetrate.
For example, a product tested against a particular hand-tool attack has not necessarily demonstrated equivalent protection against other attack methods.
The actual report should identify the testing procedure, resistance level, and performance achieved.
The current edition, ASTM F1233-26, was published in October 2026. Older reports may still provide useful information, but their editions should be identified accurately when comparing results with current project requirements.
ASTM F3561 is especially important to understand because its results are sometimes referenced in discussions about security window film.
The test simulates an attacker firing at a window or door system to weaken it, followed by mechanical impacts intended to create an opening.
The objective is to evaluate resistance to forced entry after the simulated ballistic attack.
ASTM F3561 does not establish ballistic resistance. The standard permits test projectiles to penetrate the specimen.
The current ASTM F3561-25 edition primarily evaluates complete fenestration systems, including windows and doors. It also provides for certain component tests, but a component capability statement is not equivalent to a complete-system rating.
For existing commercial buildings, this distinction is critical.
A test performed on a complete window assembly cannot automatically be applied to security film installed on a different window with different glass, framing, or attachment.
The proposed installation must be evaluated against the actual configuration tested, including any limitations stated in the report.
ASTM F1642/F1642M provides a method for testing glazing and glazing systems subjected to specified airblast loads.
ASTM F2912 establishes the corresponding glazing hazard classification.
These standards are particularly relevant to government buildings and other facilities where reducing injuries from flying glass is an important security objective.
A blast test may examine how glazing breaks, whether fragments remain attached, and how much glass debris enters the occupied area.
The reported results depend on the applied blast pressure, impulse, specimen construction, and test conditions.
A successful result under one blast scenario does not establish that a glazing system will withstand every possible explosion.
For building owners, the most useful information is the actual blast loading and hazard classification achieved, not simply a statement that the film has been blast-tested.
Security window film is only one part of a glazing system.
The glass, film, adhesive, window frame, and any attachment system all influence how the installed window responds to impact or other loading.
Two buildings can use the same security film and still have different performance characteristics.
Several factors need to be considered:
Glass type and thickness: Annealed, tempered, laminated, and insulating glass configurations can respond differently to impact and breakage.
Window size: Performance demonstrated on a particular specimen may not apply directly to a substantially larger glass panel.
Framing and glazing retention: The strength and construction of the frame affect how the glass is supported and retained.
Film attachment: Some applications use a perimeter attachment system, such as a wet glaze (structural silicone) attachment, to connect the filmed glass to the frame. Other installations apply the film only to the exposed glass surface.
The distinction between attached and unattached film is particularly important in some forced-entry and blast-mitigation applications.
A film may hold broken glass fragments together after an impact. However, if the glass-and-film assembly is not adequately retained, the entire unit may become dislodged from the opening.
CWS explains these installation differences in its discussion of fragment retention window films and its article on security window film attachment.
The performance of the finished system depends on the relationship between these components.
Therefore, a test report should be evaluated against the actual glazing configuration, rather than assuming that the same film will produce identical results on every window.
A test report provides more information than the abbreviated performance claims commonly found in product literature.
Building owners, facility managers, architects, and general contractors should review the following details before relying on a particular rating.
Confirm the manufacturer, film product name, and relevant product specifications.
A report for one film should not automatically be applied to another product, even if both have similar thicknesses.
The product being proposed should match the one identified in the supporting documentation.
Determine whether the film was tested on annealed, tempered, laminated, or another type of glass.
Also review the glass thickness and construction.
These details should be compared with the building’s existing windows.
If the proposed installation uses a significantly different glass configuration, the manufacturer or a qualified glazing professional should assess whether the test results remain applicable.
Establish whether the test involved a glass specimen, a glazing component, or a complete framed assembly.
If the tested configuration included a perimeter attachment system, identify the attachment materials and installation arrangement.
A result achieved with a specific attachment system should not be assumed to apply to an installation that does not include it.
The report should identify the complete standard designation, including the edition used.
Standards are periodically updated. A report prepared under an older edition may still be informative, but it should not automatically be represented as meeting the newest version.
Where a construction specification requires a particular edition, the supporting documentation should address that requirement.
Look beyond the standard number to understand how the specimen was tested.
Depending on the performance being evaluated, important details may include:
These details establish what the test actually measured.
A product may be described as tested under a particular standard without having achieved the performance required for a project.
Check the report for the actual result, resistance level, hazard classification, or other relevant performance measure.
Also review any limitations or recorded failures.
The achieved result is more important than the standard number printed on a brochure.
Identify the laboratory, test date, and report number.
Where possible, obtain the complete test report or supporting documentation from the manufacturer.
An independent laboratory report can provide important evidence, but it should not automatically be described as product certification unless an applicable certification program supports that designation.
For example, LLumar’s safety and security film test-document library provides separate reports for different films, glass configurations, attachment arrangements, and performance categories.
Finally, determine whether the tested configuration reasonably represents the windows in the building.
The comparison should consider the glass, framing, attachment system, window dimensions, and intended security objective.
Where significant differences exist, a qualified professional should determine whether additional documentation, engineering evaluation, or testing is necessary.
This review helps establish whether the reported performance is relevant to the project rather than relying on a rating that may have been achieved under very different conditions.
Laboratory testing provides a controlled way to measure performance, but its results have limits.
For example, an impact test cannot establish ballistic resistance. A forced-entry test cannot guarantee that an intruder will never gain access. A blast-related hazard classification does not mean that a window is capable of withstanding every explosion.
Film thickness is also not a substitute for relevant performance testing. Commercial security films are commonly supplied in thicknesses from about 4 to 21 mils, but thickness describes the film’s construction, not the performance a complete glazing system has demonstrated.
A thicker film may have different physical properties, but that alone does not establish the protection offered by the complete glazing system.
These limitations do not reduce the value of testing. They explain why the correct standard, test configuration, and performance results must be considered together.
Security window film is intended to improve certain aspects of existing glazing performance. The specific benefits depend on the product, the installation method, and the hazard being addressed.
Commercial buildings have different security requirements.
An office building concerned about broken-glass injuries may need different performance evidence from a school evaluating forced-entry vulnerabilities or a government facility considering blast-mitigation measures.
The first step is to establish the intended protection. The next is to identify testing that addresses that particular risk.
The selection factors listed in our overview translate directly into questions for the test report:
For existing buildings, the evaluation must also account for the glass and framing already installed. A product’s laboratory performance is useful only when its relevance to those conditions is understood.
Commercial Window Shield has extensive experience installing safety and security window films in government facilities, schools, airports, commercial buildings, and other institutional environments. These projects often involve complex glazing systems and installation conditions that require careful assessment.
Security window film test ratings should help determine whether a proposed system is suitable for the building—not simply provide another specification on a product brochure.
Understanding the tests, reviewing the results, and matching the evidence to the proposed installation are essential steps in making that determination.
To see how these considerations apply on an installation project, return to our overview of commercial security window film installation.
Important Note
This article provides general information about security window film testing standards and their applications. Actual performance depends on the tested glazing configuration, installation conditions, and applicable requirements. Building owners and project teams should review manufacturer test documentation and consult qualified professionals when evaluating security glazing solutions for specific buildings.
The information presented in this article draws on published glazing industry guidance, recognized testing standards, and technical documentation, including:
These references provide additional information about the testing methods, performance criteria, and technical limitations discussed above.
“I’ll Feel More Comfortable Knowing The Installation Has Been Done Correctly If Commercial Window Shield Completes The Work.”
Phyllis Liebman, Senior Construction Manager,
Vornado/Charles E. Smith
Complete the form and we’ll be in touch.