Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100863

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Comprehensive appraisal of the safety of hidden frame glass curtain wall T

based on fuzzy theory
Huang Teng-tenga, Zhang Da-weia,*, Zhao Yu-xia, Liu Jun-jinb, Li Jian-huib
a
College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China
b
China Academy of Building Research, Beijing, 100013, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The falling accident of a building's curtain wall may bring adverse social impact and economic loss. It is therefore
Hidden frame glass curtain wall of great importance to efficiently and reliably identify the security status of existing curtain walls. Current safety
Analytic hierarchy process appraisal methods for glass curtain walls are facing the adverse effect of a large amount of imperfect information
Fuzzy theory and subjective indicators. There are shortcomings of these methods, such as: i) The appraisal rank is easily
Safety appraisal
affected by subjective judging, ii) The key appraisal indicators are not clear, and iii) The top-level indicators are
not scientifically determined and systematically evaluated through the lower-level indicators. This paper takes
existing hidden frame glass curtain wall as the research object, divides the safety grade of curtain walls into four
fuzzy ranks (fine, good, poor and dangerous) and establishes five levels of appraisal hierarchy for components.
An appraisal weight determination system is established for existing hidden frame glass curtain walls in three
aspects (appearance, material testing and bearing capacity testing) based on a survey among experienced curtain
wall experts from diverse areas and professions. The frequency statistics method is used to determine the weights
of the indicators. The ranks of quantitative and qualitative indicators are quantified using fuzzy theory. Finally,
applicability of the proposed safety appraisal model is verified with a real project. The appraisal result obtained
through the proposed models is consistent with the actual situation on a real project.

1. Introduction
The hidden frame glass curtain wall has been widely applied by the
architects and owners because of the clean and tidy outer surface of the
building. During its service life, the hidden frame glass curtain wall is
usually subjected to gravity load, wind load, temperature variation and
various environmental erosion effects, together with design defects,
material erosion, corrosion and aging, etc. Its performance deteriorates
with time, causing potential danger to its safety [1–8]. Although the
damage of the glass curtain wall generally does not threaten the safety
of the main structure, its fall is unpredictable and can cause serious
safety accidents and arise adverse social impacts. In 2018 alone, there
have been many reports, e.g. in Shiyan City, Hubei Province, China, the
curtain wall glass of an existing building fell off, which smashed the
head of a 3-year-old child, causing his unfortunate death [9]. In the UK,
a man died after reportedly being hit by a windowpane that fell around
76 m from the top of a block of flats in Albert Embankment of London
[10]. Similar incidents have aroused great concern from the society and
the government, and it is imperative to ensure the safety of existing
glass curtain walls. Establishing a comprehensive safety appraisal
system for existing glass curtain walls and regularly assessing the safety
of existing curtain walls may allow us to keep abreast of the state of the
existing curtain wall and take appropriate protective measures in a
timely manner.
Due to objective factors such as unclear construction situation, un-
certainty of material properties, and complexity of service load and
environment, etc., most current safety appraisal of glass curtain wall
uses multi-indicators appraisal methods based on a large number of
unclear information and subjective indicators [3,6–8,11]. Most of ex-
isting safety appraisal methods are essentially analytic hierarchy pro-
cesses, and their core issues include the division of ranks, the de-
termination of weights and ranks. At present, codes for inspection of
bearing capacity and performance of glass curtain wall are available in
United States [12], Europe [13], Japan [14] and Australia [15], where
there are still no relevant provisions for the overall appraisal of the
safety of existing curtain wall. In China, specifications for appraisal of
curtain wall include local standards and national standards, of which
national standards [16] are based on the hierarchy of overall curtain
walls, appraisal units, subunits, a kind of component or connection, a
single component or connection. Local standards [17–20] mostly divide

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dwzhang@zju.edu.cn (Z. Da-wei).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100863
Received 29 March 2019; Received in revised form 6 July 2019; Accepted 7 July 2019
Available online 08 July 2019
2352-7102/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Teng-teng, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100863

the bearing capacity and performance of existing glass curtain walls wherein v1-v4 indicates respectively the degree to which the indicator
into three hierarchy levels: component (including connection), subunit, matches the rank 1–4. When the indicator in the appraisal set is a fuzzy
and appraisal unit. Through the appraisal of three aspects: appearance, indicator, the value of v1-v4 is between 0 and 1, in which 1 means
structure and bearing capacity, the ranks of each hierarchy level (au, complete coincidence and 0 means complete non-conformity.
bu, cu, du) are identified. The above-mentioned local and national
standards determine the rank of the higher level indicators according to 3. Fuzzy comprehensive appraisal method
the quantitative proportional relation of the lower level indicators. In
terms of rank determination, the four-level absolute interval is adopted, Referring to the existing curtain wall appraisal specifications [16–20],
while the effect of uncertainty is not considered, and the weight re- the building curtain wall is divided according to panel materials and curtain
lationship between different indicators is not considered, neither. wall types, and the curtain wall area that can independently perform safety
Generally speaking, the current appraisal method has following short- appraisal is used as an appraisal unit. Taking the three component subunits
comings: 1. the result is susceptible to subjective judgement, 2. the key of the curtain wall appraisal unit n as input indicators, the component
assessment indicators are not clear, and 3. the appraisal of higher-level setUn = [glass panel un1, metal frame un2, structural glue u n3]. For the
indicators through lower-level indicators lacks scientific and systemic glass panel, there has un1 = [appearance un11, material un12, bearing capacity un13],
foundation. whereinu n11, u n12 and u n13 can be set by several specific appraisal indicators.
Fuzzy theory is a method of strictly quantifying the concept of fuzzy The set of factors of other appraisal units and subunits can be obtained in
uncertainty into information that can be processed by computer. It does the same ways.
not advocate the use of complicated mathematical analysis or model to Considering the bearing capacity factor set of glass panel
solve the model. Fuzzy theory is applicable to the appraisal system u n13 = [un131, u n132, u n133], where u n131 indicates impact resistance ca-
combining quantitative indicators and qualitative indicators. Structural pacity, u n132 indicates recheck of design bearing capacity and u n133 in-
performance appraisal method based on fuzzy theory has been widely dicates wind pressure resistance capacity. Define the single factor ap-
studied in the field of bridges, tunnels, etc [21–23]. Due to insufficient praisal matrix as:
research on related mechanisms, the safety appraisal of curtain wall
1 2 3 4
structure has more subjective and qualitative indicators than the main rn13y1 rn13y1 rn13y1 rn13y1
structure of buildings and infrastructures such as bridges and highways, 1
rn13y2 2
rn13y2 3
rn13y2 4
rn13y2
Rn13y = (y = 1,2,3)
and is more susceptible to subjective judgment. Therefore, the fuzzy
appraisal method is regarded more suitable to the safety appraisal of 1
rn13y 2 3 4
m rn13ym rn13ym rn13ym
the existing hidden frame glass curtain wall.
Some scholars have conducted research on the application of fuzzy Where rn13y
x
i represents the degree to which the y-th appraisal in-
evaluation methods in the curtain wall. Zhang et al. [6] proposed an dicator of the i-th glass panel component matches the rank-
appraisal method for comprehensively evaluating the safety of glass x (x = 1,2,3,4; i = 1,2, …, m) , and m is the total number of components of
curtain wall structure by using area method combined with uncertain the glass panel in the appraisal unit n. The weight distribution of each
analytical hierarchy process. Zhao et al. [3] proposed the fuzzy com- component constitutes the weight matrix Wn13y =
prehensive appraisal method to evaluate the safety performance of glass [wn13y1, wn13y2, …, wn13ym]. The set of factors of other subunits can obtain
curtain wall. Wu and Wu et al. [7,8] established a set pair analysis the corresponding appraisal matrix and weight matrix according to the
appraisal method and interval fuzzy comprehensive method in the glass above definition.
curtain wall safety appraisal. However, the existing research lacks the Define Bn13y as the comprehensive appraisal matrix of indicator ,
overall performance evaluation of the curtain wall corresponding to the Bn13y is a 4 × 1 matrix, and have:
quantitative measurement of the detection indicators and it is difficult 1 2 3 4
Bn13y = Wn13y ORn13y = [bn13y , bn13y , bn13y , bn13y ] (y = 1,2,3)
to be used in engineering practice. Therefore, it is necessary to establish
a safety performance appraisal indicator system and appraisal method where O represents the fuzzy operator, bn13y x
represents the degree to
for curtain wall structure with on-site engineering operability and which the performance of indicator matches the rank-x (x = 1,2,3,4).
verification. While there is no single predominant appraisal factor in the hidden
It is worth noting that the structural performance assessment is di- frame curtain wall structure, the appraisal of its safety needs to com-
vided into three stages: “structural inspection”, “analytical appraisal” prehensively consider all aspects of performance indicators. Referring
and “decision management”. In this paper, the hidden frame glass to the application of multi-level fuzzy comprehensive appraisal in other
curtain wall is taken as the research object only on the “analytical ap- fields [25–29], this study uses the average weighted operator, that is:
praisal” process. With reference to the existing curtain wall appraisal Bn13y = Wn13y *Rn13y , bn13
x
y =
m
i=1
x
(wn13yi *rn13y i).
specifications [16–20,24], a five-level comprehensive appraisal system The result of normalizing Bn13y is still recorded as Bn13y . The ap-
for hidden frame glass curtain wall as shown in Table 1 is established praisal results of various appraisal indicators of the bearing capacity
based on the multi-indicator analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy ap- factors together constitute the appraisal matrix of the bearing capacity
praisal theory. of the glass panel, that is: Rn13 = [Bn131, Bn132 , Bn133]T . The weight dis-
tribution of each appraisal indicator constitutes the weight matrix, that
2. Division of ranks is: Wn13 = [wn131, wn132, wn133]. Then there have:
Bn13 = Wn13 ORn13 = [bn13 1 2
, bn13 3
, bn13 4
, bn13], where the result of normal-
Referring to the current curtain wall appraisal specification [19], izing Bn13 is the appraisal result of the bearing capacity of the glass
the safety status is divided into four fuzzy ranks of good, general, poor panel subunit.
and dangerous, and classified according to Table 2. The same method can be used to evaluate the appearance and ma-
For quantitative indicators, the slight deviation of the test results terial property of the glass panel subunit. By analogy, after the same
will directly lead to different appraisal results at the boundary level; for method is used to determine the judgment results and weights of each
qualitative indicators, different engineers have deviate understanding indicator, the overall safety appraisal result of the hidden frame glass
of the fuzzy evaluation language such as “good” and “poor”. The fuzzy curtain wall is finally obtained B = WOR .
appraisal results in matrix form can not only describe the gradual
transition of appraisal ranks well, but also describe the ambiguity in 4. Weight determination
natural language well. Thus, unlike the deterministic ranking of ex-
isting specifications, the appraisal set V = {v1, v2, v3, v4} is defined, The weight matrix is an important computational component that

2
H. Teng-teng, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100863

Table 1
Appraisal model for the safety of existing hidden frame curtain wall.
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Overall appraisal of building curtain wall safety appraisal unit (1,2, …,n) Glass panel Appearance Panel type
Panel size
Defects on the surface
Warping deformation of the panel
Panel material color change
Laminating, blistering, degumming
Foaming, condensation, water ingress
Mechanical edging around the glass
Material test Glass panel tempering, surface stress
Bearing capacity Impact resistance capacity
Review of design bearing capacity
Wind pressure resistance capacity
Metal frame Appearance Metal frame size
Defects on the surface
Corrosion of metal components
The structure of connections
Material test Vickers hardness
Bearing capacity Review of design bearing capacity
Wind pressure resistance capacity
Structural adhesive Appearance Structural adhesive size
Colloid discoloration, chalking
Colloidal blistering, defect
Partial failure of bonding
Bonding of the outer surface of the insulating glass
Material test Tensile bond strength
Shore hardness of structural adhesive
Shear strength of structural adhesive
Colloidal bond failure area ratio

transforms the lower-rank indicator appraisal matrix into the upper-
rank indicator appraisal matrix. The assignment of weights must be
scientific and objective, which requires appropriate weight determi-
nation methods. The objective weighting method is relatively short-
lived and still not perfect. It has a strong mathematical theoretical basis,
but the determined weight may be inconsistent with people's subjective
wishes or actual conditions. The subjective weighting method is an
early and mature method. The survey results often directly reflect the
actual situation of the project, and there is no contradiction between
the attribute weight and the actual importance of the attribute.
Therefore, this paper chooses the subjective weighting method after
comprehensive comparison.
The frequency statistics method [30] is a questionnaire survey
method. The respondents can express their opinions without inter-
ference. After the data screening and statistical analysis, the results are
more objective and easy to operate. Therefore, we use this method to
determine the weight of the appraisal indicator in this study. In the
process of issuing and counting the questionnaire data, some factors
that have little effect on the safety of the glass curtain wall are added as
trap questions. If the score of the factor is too high, the questionnaire is
considered invalid. Through this process, the professionalism of the
experts surveyed has been verified and screened.
The survey collected questionnaires from experts from Beijing,
Shanghai, Hangzhou, Guangzhou, etc., involving 22 provinces or mu-
nicipalities and 42 different cities in China. A total of 231 responses
were collected. The composition of the experts is shown in Fig. 1 to
Fig. 2. The respondents include curtain wall engineering experts with
many years of engineering experience in design, construction, super-
vision, testing and other types of work. Among them, curtain wall ex-
perts in design, construction and inspection with rich firsthand en-
gineering experience accounted for 82%, curtain wall experts with no
less than 6 years working experience accounted for 73%, and senior
curtain wall experts with no less than 10 years engineering experience
accounted for 48%.
In the questionnaire, the 5 content sections of glass panel, metal
frame, structural adhesive, material properties and bearing capacity are
surveyed. For each appraisal indicator, the ten-grade appraisal standard
is adopted. The surveyed experts should judge the degree of influence of
the appraisal results of the indicator on the overall safety of the existing
glass curtain wall. 0 means no effect at all, and 10 means heavy effect,
as an example shown in Table 3.
For the weight of each indicator, the magnitude of the weight value
is not a key factor, while the relative difference between the different
indicators will have a direct impact on the judgment result. Each ex-
pert's score is homogenized by the average of the scores as the relative
weights, which are used as a direct statistical result. Frequency statistics
is performed on the relative weights of the experts and distribution map
is given. A scoring value that considers the relative weights of different
experts may have a normal distribution, and a corresponding normal
distribution curve is drawn. Taking the glass panel component indicator
(shown in Table 4) as an example, the frequency distribution map is
shown in Fig. 3, and other indicators are deduced by analogy.
It can be seen from the frequency distribution map of each indicator
that the frequency distribution maps of different indicators have large
differences. A normal D test is used for each set of data to test the
goodness-of-fit of the frequency distribution of the data for the normal
distribution. Getting Y ≤ Y0.05 of indicator 1-1 means that fitting the
frequency distribution to a normal distribution does not have sufficient
reliability. The goodness-of-fit test of the normal distribution of the
other indicators of the panel shows that only some of the indicators, like
1–4, 1–5, 1–7, 1–8, have sufficient credibility that the frequency dis-
tribution is fitted to a normal distribution, while the others are not. The
results of the goodness-of-fit test for the structural adhesive and the
metal frame are similar. Therefore, the statistical operation using the
normal distribution is not universal for each indicator, and the statis-
tical calculation of the weight is obtained by direct frequency statistics.
Using the frequency statistics method, the weight calculation of the
underlying indicators is firstly performed. For the i th appraisal in-
dicator (ui), the questionnaire results of its weights (wij , j = 1,2, , k )
from k (k ≥ 30) individuals (respondents) are divided into p groups (p
generally is taken 5–10), whose class interval is
h = (max {wij} min {wij})/p , and then calculate the frequency ki and
wk = ki /k , the weight corresponding to the appraisal indicator ui is
min {wij} + kh
p
wi = k = 1 wk . Finally wi is normalized to obtain the required
2

3
H. Teng-teng, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100863

impact on the bearing capacity. The curtain wall is

The curtain wall has defects, and it has seriously

in a dangerous state of safety.

Dangerous
4th rank

Fig. 1. Distribution of expert's career field.

The curtain wall has defects, and it has a significant
impact on the bearing capacity. The curtain wall is
in a poor state of safety.
3rd rank

Poor

significantly affect the bearing capacity. The curtain

Fig. 2. Distribution of expert's career experience.

The curtain wall has defects, but it does not

Table 3
Example of questionnaire survey on weights of appraisal indicator.
wall is in a general state of safety.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

a) The dimensions of the panel do ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

not match the design.

lower-rank indicator weight wi . For each component in the same

component subunit, the weights can be considered equal. For upper-
2nd rank

General

rank indicator including n lower-rank indicators, the statistical data is

the statistical result of all n indicators that all experts include.
Therefore, by replacing the statistical data, the same calculation
method can be used to obtain the weight values of all upper-rank in-
sufficient bearing capacity. The curtain wall
The curtain wall has few defects, and has

dicators.
The weight values of the various indicators calculated according to
the above-mentioned frequency statistical processing method are
shown in Table 5. It is worth noting that not all indicators in the table
is in a good state of safety.

can get the corresponding inspection results. For example, for a single-
Safety rank classification of building curtain wall.

layer ordinary glass, there is no detection indicator of ‘Foaming, con-

densation, water ingress’. In such case, this indicator and its weight
should be deleted, and the remaining indicators should be re-
normalized.
1st rank

Good

5. Rank determination
Safety performance status

Based on the Chinese glass curtain wall inspection standard [31],

the current Chinese curtain wall appraisal specifications [19] gives rank
intervals of quantitative indicators and qualitative indicators or its
method of class interval determination. For example, for Shore hard-
Safety rank

Condition

ness, the rank intervals of 1–4 ranks are divided into [20, 60), [60, 70),
Table 2

[67, 75), [0, 20) U [75, + ∞). By using fuzzy theory, the rank de-
termination of quantitative and qualitative indicators can be given as

4
H. Teng-teng, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100863

Table 4
Glass panel component indicator.
number 1–1 1–2 1–3 1–4 1–5 1–6 1–7 1–8

content Panel type Panel size Defects on the Warping deformation Panel material Laminating, blistering, Foaming, condensation, Mechanical edging
surface of the panel color change degumming water ingress around the glass

below.
5.1. Quantitative indicators
For quantitative indicators, the rank can be determined according to
the relevant provisions in the specification, and the degree of rank
matching in the matched interval is 1. But for other ranks, the change of
degree of rank matching should be gradual rather than abrupt. The
common linear rank determination considers that the change rate of the
degree of rank matching is the same, but usually the same change in the
indicator value near the boundary of the interval has different influence
on rank determination; therefore, the optimal interval type rank

Fig. 3. Glass panel component indicator.

5
H. Teng-teng, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100863

Table 5
Calculation results of appraisal indicator weights of hidden frame glass curtain wall.
Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Indicator Weight Indicator Weight Indicator Weight

Glass panel 0.334 Appearance 0.315 Panel type 0.187

Panel size 0.130
Defects on the surface 0.144
Warping deformation of the panel 0.154
Panel material color change 0.114
Laminating, blistering, degumming 0.134
Foaming, condensation, water ingress 0.136
Mechanical edging around the glass 0.187
Material test 0.315 Glass panel tempering, surface stress 1.000
Bearing capacity 0.370 Curtain wall impact resistance test 0.355
Review of design bearing capacity 0.369
Wind pressure resistance test 0.275
Metal frame 0.298 Appearance 0.325 Metal frame size 0.242
Defects on the surface 0.227
Corrosion of metal components 0.260
The structure of connections 0.271
Material test 0.314 Vickers hardness 1.000
Bearing capacity 0.361 Review of design bearing capacity 0.490
Wind pressure resistance test 0.510
Structural adhesive 0.368 Appearance 0.506 Structural adhesive size 0.199
Colloid discoloration, chalking 0.204
Colloidal blistering, defect 0.187
Partial failure of bonding 0.222
Bonding of the outer surface of the insulating glass 0.188
Material test 0.494 Tensile bond strength 0.257
Shore hardness of structural adhesive 0.256
Shear strength of structural adhesive 0.233
Colloidal bond failure area ratio 0.253

determining formula [15] is developed as: rcd = 0 for the remaining ranks.

1+ ( ) s
b
d 2
d
3(s b)
b d
s
b
d
d
d<s b 5.2. Qualitative indicators
rcd = 1 c<s d
For the qualitative indicators of the appearance observation, the
( )
s
c
a 2
a
3(s c )
c a
s
c
a
a
a<s c
(1) rank determination matrix of the four appraisal ranks is considered, and
the matrix of the subjective appraisal indicator is assumed in Table 7.
where: s is the actual measured value of the quantitative indicator, the In order to compare the difference of result between the fuzzy ap-
lower bound is a, the upper bound is b; The values of the upper and praisal method proposed in this study and the absolute appraisal
lower bounds [a, b] are referred to Table 6; [c, d] is the optimal interval method based on the current specification [19], define the equivalent
4
corresponding to a certain rank, the value of which is determined by the appraisal rankH = j = 1 jbj , where j refer to the safety rank
current specification; And rcd is the degree of rank matching of the given (j = 1,2,3,4). For the consideration of field engineering operability and
quantitative indicator. verifiability, this paper makes the assumption that the appraisal result
The interval division and upper/lower bounds of each appraisal of the qualitative indicators are consistent with the equivalent appraisal
indicator are taken according to relevant specifications; if the appraisal rank of the hypothesis value matrix. The equivalent result of the fuzzy
indicator follows hard and fast rules, it should be converted into a appraisal set should be the same as the evaluation result of the absolute
performance degradation degree (percentage) compared with the method after considering the approximation principle of rounding.
standard performance and substituted into Eq. (1). For the case where Therefore, the assumed value should satisfy the following relationship:
the actual value of the indicator exceeds the upper and lower bounds, ①For the subjective appraisal indicator uij , if the appraisal result of
the following is processed: For the indicators the smaller whose value 100% component is rank i (i =1,2,3,4), the appraisal result of the
the better, if the actual value of the indicator is lower than the lower component uij of the component subunit must be the same rank. Then
bound, rcd = 1 for rank-1, rcd = 0 for the remaining ranks; if the actual there has:
value of the indicator exceeds the upper bound, rcd = 1 for rank-4, x11 + 2x12 < 1.5 x11 + x12 = 1
rcd = 0 for the remaining ranks. For the indicators the bigger whose 1.5 x21 + 2x22 + 3x23 < 2.5 x21 + x22 + x23 = 1
value the better, the actual value of the index is lower than the lower 2.5 2x32 + 3x33 + 4x34 < 3.5 x32 + x33 + x34 = 1
bound, rcd = 1 for rank-4, rcd = 0 for the remaining ranks; if the actual 3.5 3x 43 + 4x 44 x 43 + x 44 = 1 (2)
value of the indicator exceeds the upper bound, rcd = 1 for rank-1,

Table 6
Value table of upper and lower bounds [a, b] of indicators.
optimal interval Rank-1 [c1,d1] Rank-2 [c2,d2] Rank-3 [c3,d3] Rank-4 [c4,d4]
Indicator type

For those indicators whose value is larger, the safer [c2,d1] [c3,d1] [c4,d2] [c4,d3]
For those indicators whose value is smaller, the safer [c1,d2] [c1,d3] [c2,d4] [c3,d4]

6
H. Teng-teng, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100863

Table 7
Rank determination hypothesis of subjective appraisal indicator.
Judging result v1 v2 v3 v4

1st rank x11 x12 0 0

2nd rank x21 x22 x23 0
3rd rank 0 x32 x33 x34
4th rank 0 0 x 43 x 44

②Referring to the current curtain wall appraisal code [19], when the
third- and fourth-rank components are not included, and the secondary
component is ≤ 30%, the component sub-unit is ranked as 1st. The
first-rank judging rules are:

x11 x12 0 0
[0.7 0.3] = Fig. 4. H–R/γS function image.
x21 x22 x23 0
(3)
The second, third and fourth ranks of judgment rules can obtain
similar inequality relations. On the basis of satisfying all the above
inequality relations, the inequality group can obtain a set of solutions of
Table 7, and the table of subjective appraisal indicators can be ob-
tained, as shown in Table 8. For the qualitative indicators of the ap-
pearance observation, the appraisal matrix can be determined ac-
cording to Table 8.
Taking the indicator of bearing capacity recheck R/γS as an ex-
ample, the functional relationship between the value of R/γS and its
equivalent appraisal rank H is established, as shown in Fig. 4. It can be
verified that the equivalent appraisal rank H is a continuous and dif-
ferentiable value (marked in black solid lines in Fig. 4) with the change
of R/γS, so as to provide more elaborate appraisal results than the four-
rank absolute appraisal results (marked in red solid lines in Fig. 4),
which is discrete and suddenly changed at given boundaries from
Equation (4) (marked in red dashed lines in Fig. 4).
At present, the rank decision of qualitative indicators such as “de-
fects” is judged by field engineers according to the requirements of
existing curtain wall inspection specifications. More refined interval
division and more accurate rank decision are also the prospects of this
study.
It is worth noting that the safety appraisal model established in this
paper is only applicable to the existing hidden frame glass curtain wall.
The research on the safety appraisal of other types of glass curtain wall
and stone curtain wall still has extensive significance and deserves
further study. In addition, the rapid appraisal system based on on-site
engineering inspection can give engineers a grasp of the overall struc-
tural safety of the curtain wall in a short time. The proposal of the rapid
appraisal system of the hidden frame curtain wall and the accuracy of
its appraisal results are still to be further studied.
6. Examples
Taking an office building in Shanghai, China as an example, the
building uses curtain wall compositing glass and stone as an external
enclosure structure with a total height of about 132 m and a curtain
wall area of about 19,500 square meters. In order to know the safety
status of the building curtain wall at the present stage, the engineers
carried out safety appraisal of the building curtain wall in April 2013
Table 8
Subjective appraisal indicator rank matching suggestion.
Judging result v1 v2 v3 v4
1st rank 0.82 0.18 0 0
2nd rank 0.08 0.54 0.38 0
3rd rank 0 0.08 0.48 0.44
4th rank 0 0 0.08 0.92
and issued corresponding test reports. The engineers selected two dif-
ferent typical areas of hidden glass curtain wall, as two appraisal units
for the appraisal of hidden frame curtain walls, namely I and II.
According to the relevant test report, the curtain wall was evaluated
from three aspects: the metal frame, the glass panel and the silicone
structural adhesive. Due to the space limitation, only partial appraisal
results are given below. In order to verify the rationality of this ap-
praisal method and to reveal the difference with the existing curtain
wall appraisal specifications, the appraisal results of hidden frame glass
curtain wall of the office building following the existing curtain wall
appraisal specification were compared [19].
6.1. The appraisal process using fuzzy rank matching method
Indicator appraisal of level-5 indicators.
The initial appraisal of each appraisal indicator of the level 5 of the
appraisal unit I is carried out, taking the qualitative indicator ‘panel
type’ and the quantitative indicator ‘short hardness of the structural
adhesive’ as an example.
‘Panel type’: After spot check on the curtain wall of the appraisal
unit I, it is found that the outer sheets of the 5 examined hollow glass
plates are all tempered glass that meets the safety specification, and the
inner pieces are ordinary float glass. The safety is slightly lower than
the requirements of the existing curtain wall specifications, and the
bearing capacity is not significantly affected, the curtain wall safety
status is General. All five components were rated rank-2. The appraisal
matrix is given according to Table 7. For the same component of the
same appraisal unit, the weights are equal. Then the appraisal matrix
R1111 of the indicator is
R1111 = [0.08 0.54 0.38 0] (4)
‘Shore hardness of surface structural adhesive’: A sample of the si-
licone rubber of the appraisal unit I was selected for laboratory testing.
The test results showed that the silicone structural adhesive used in the
glass curtain wall was aging, and the actual measured value of Shore
hardness was s1322 = 47 , thus the performance do not meet the re-
quirements of the specification. According to the current specification
[19], for Shore hardness, the 1–4 ranks are divided into [20, 60), [60,
70), [67, 75), [0, 20) U [75, +∞). According to Eq. (1),
x
r1322 (x = 1,2,3,4) corresponding to each level division interval is cal-
culated, and the final result is normalized. Then the appraisal matrix
R1322 of the indicator is
1
B1322 = [r1322 2
r1322 3
r1322 4
r1322 ] = [0.571 0.429 0.000 0.000] (5)
For the other bottom-layer indicators of the appraisal units I and II,
the initial appraisal may be performed by referring to the above
method, and details are not described herein again.

7
H. Teng-teng, et al. Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100863

6.2. Appraisal of other levels

Glass panel tempering, surface stress [1.000 0.000

Defects on the surface [0.000 0.080 0.480 0.440 ]

Wind pressure resistance test [1.000 0.000 0.000

Review of design bearing capacity [1.000 0.000

After the initial appraisal of the bottom-layer indicators, the weight
matrix of each level of indicators can be established according to the
weights of the indicators in Table 5, and the final appraisal results are
Panel type [0.080 0.540 0.380 0.000]

obtained recursively. Partial results are shown in Table 9, and their

comprehensive score is calculated as H = 1.254. According to the final
appraisal result and the appraisal result of the bottom layer index, the
safety appraisal result of the curtain wall project can be obtained as
follows: the curtain wall structure has sufficient carrying capacity, and
the curtain wall safety status is good. However, the inner glass sheet of
0.000 0.000]

0.000 0.000]

the empty glass panel is ordinary float glass. The safety is slightly lower
than that of the existing curtain wall specification. It is recommended to
Level 5

0.000]

take appropriate measures to rectify the inner glass sheet. The silicone
structural adhesive used in the glass curtain wall of the project has an
aging phenomenon, and some performance indicators do not meet the
Appearance [0.318 0.246 0.302 0.134]

Material test [1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000]

requirements of the specification, and appropriate measures should be

Bearing capacity [1.000 0.000 0.000

taken for rectification.

6.3. The appraisal process using the current curtain wall appraisal
specification [19] (referred to as current specification) is as follows

The two appraisal units of the curtain wall were evaluated by the
Structural adhesive [0.775 0.098 0.082 0.046]

appraisal method of the current specification [19], and part of the ap-
praisal results are shown in Table 10. Finally, the appraisal result of the
Level 4

0.000]

Metal frame [0.970 0.030 0.000 0.000]

curtain wall is rank-2, the safety is slightly lower than the requirements
of the existing curtain wall specifications, and the bearing capacity is
Glass panel [0.787 0.077 0.094

not significantly affected. In fact, from the inspection report and sub-
unit appraisal results of the curtain wall project, the metal frame part of
the curtain wall project is in a rank-1 state. Though the glass panel and
the structural adhesive are flawed, they have a good ability to resist
loads. Therefore, the comprehensive comparison shows that the ap-
praisal results of the curtain wall using the proposed method are more
consistent with the actual situation, and the appraisal results using the
Level 3

0.042]

current specification [19] are more conservative.

Appraisal unit II [0.862 0.067 0.047 0.024]

7. Summary
Appraisal unit I [0.843 0.069 0.058

The safety of building facades can cause undesirable social impacts.

Taking the hidden glass curtain wall as research target, this paper refers
to the hierarchical system of the existing appraisal codes, and estab-
lishes the five-level appraisal hierarchy system. For each component or
connection, multiple indicators are evaluated for individual compo-
nents or connections from three aspects: appearance and construction,
material testing, and bearing capacity testing, thereby establishing a
Level 2

0.029]

five-level appraisal model for the hidden glass curtain wall. Some of the
characteristics of the proposed appraisal methods are as follows:
Overall appraisal of hidden frame glass curtain wall safety [0.852

(1) With reference to the relevant specifications of the current curtain

wall, the safety rank of the hidden frame glass curtain wall is di-
vided into four fuzzy ranks of good, general, poor and dangerous,
and the degree of rank matching are continuously changed, which
is in line with the current curtain wall specification and avoids the
Appraisal result of fuzzy appraisal method.

adverse effects of mutations. The fuzzy comprehensive appraisal

method is used to judge the safety rank of the existing hidden frame
glass curtain wall, and the optimal interval rank determination
criterion is adopted for both quantitative and qualitative indicators.
(2) We surveyed the opinions of curtain wall experts from many fields,
and the curtain wall experts with 10 years or more of curtain wall
0.068 0.053 0.027]

engineering experience accounted for 48%. The frequency statistics

method is used to determine the weight of each appraisal indicator,
and the expert engineering experience is transformed into data,
H = 1.254

which reduces the subjective influence to some extent.

(3) The comprehensive appraisal method parameterizes the quantita-
Level 1
Table 9

tive and qualitative indicators, which matches the existing codes as

well. It has the characteristics of solid engineering base, more

8
H. Teng-teng, et al.
Table 10
Curtain wall appraisal results of specification appraisal methods.
Overall curtain wall Appraisal unit
Overall appraisal of hidden frame glass curtain wall safety: Rank-2 Appraisal unit I: IIu
Appraisal unit II: Iu
consistent with the actual situation, programmable, easy to operate,
etc. However, due to the complexity of the actual curtain wall en-
gineering environment, the curtain wall appraisal method proposed
in this paper is not universal to other types of glass curtain wall, and
the rapid appraisal method for various curtain wall forms still has
great research value.
Acknowledgments
The financial support from the National Key Research and
Development Program (2017YFC0806100), the self-funded research
project of China Academy of Building Research (20160122330730017)
and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities in
China (2019FZA4017) are greatly appreciated.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100863.
References
[1] Q. Xu, H. Wang, Comparative Study on Safety Indexes of Structural Silicone Sealant
for Glass Curtain Wall, China Building Waterproofing, 2013.
[2] H. Wang, Z. Yu, Q. Xu, Discussion on On-Site Inspection Techniques for Adhesive
Safety Performance of Existing Glass Curtain Wall, China Building Waterproofing,
2013.
[3] M. Zhao, L. Sun, H. Zhao, Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method for structural
safety performance of existed glass curtain wall, Sichuan Building Science 34 (5)
(2008) 80–84.
[4] Z. Huang, et al., Rapid evaluation of safety-state in hidden-frame supported glass
curtain walls using remote vibration measurement, Journal of Building Engineering
19 (2018) 91–97.
[5] X.G. Liu, Y.W. Bao, Reliability evaluation of glass curtain wall via vibration de-
tection, Key Eng. Mater. 492 (2011) 410–414.
[6] S.S. Zhang, et al., Safety evaluation of existed glass curtain wall, Earthq. Resist. Eng.
Retrofit. (04) (2010) 94–99.
[7] W. Hong-Hua, Study on safety evaluation method of glass curtain wall, J. Nat.
Disasters (5) (2010) 96–100.
[8] W. Hong-Hua, W. Jie, Safety evaluation method of glass curtain wall based on set
pair analysis, J. Nat. Disasters 20 (4) (2011) 66–70.
[9] C.C.W. Web, Warning! the Glass Fell and the Child Died! Pay Close Attention to the
Safety of Existing Curtain Wall, (2018).
[10] T. Batchelor, Pedestrian Killed after ‘glass Windowpane Falls 250ft from Top Floor
of London Tower Block’, (2018).
[11] W. Zuohu, P. Jie, L. Jianhui, The differences of safe inspection for existing building
Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100863
Component subunit Kindred Component Single indicator
Panel: Bu Glass panel: Bu' Panel type: Bu'′
Defects on the surface: Bu'′
Glass panel tempering, surface stress: Au'′
Wind pressure resistance test: Au'′
Review of design bearing capacity: Au'′
Connection: Bu Metal frame: Au'
Structural adhesive:u′
curtain walls of China and America, Construction Technology (22) (2014) 68–72.
[12] A.S.T.M. ASTMCOMPASS, E283—04 Standard Test Method for Determining Rate of
Air Leakage through Exterior Windows,curtain Walls,and Doors under Specified
Pressure Differences across the Specimen, (2013).
[13] C. CENELEC, BS EN 12153—2000 Curtain Walling Air Permeability Test Method,
BSI, 2000.
[14] J.A.I.M. Subcommittee, JASS14 Curtain Wall Construction, (2011).
[15] J.T.C. BD, AS/NZS 4284—2008 Testing of Building Facades, (2008).
[16] M.O.C. China, GB/T 21086—2007, Curtain Wall for Building, China Standard Press,
2007.
[17] Sichuan Province, D.O.C., DB51/T 5068—2010 Technical Specification for Safety
Performance Testing and Appraisal of Existing Glass Curtain Walls, China Standard
Press, 2010.
[18] Guangdong Province, D.O.C., DBJ/T15—88—2011 Technical Specification for
Appraisal of Reliability of Curtain Wall, China Standard Press, 2011.
[19] D.O.C. Shanghai, DG/TJ08—803—2005 Testing and Evaluating Technical Code for
Glass Curtain Wall Safety Performance, China Standard Press, 2005.
[20] D.O.C. Jiangsu Province, DGJ32/J63—2008 Technical Specification for Inspection
and Evaluation of Reliability of Existing Glass Curtain Walls, China Standard Press,
2008.
[21] W. Fangwen, Y. Caofang, X. Chengfeng, Durability evaluation of reinforced con-
crete arch bridge based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method, Open Civ. Eng.
J. 9 (1) (2015) 888–895.
[22] W. Zhang, et al., Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process synthetic evaluation models for
the health monitoring of shield tunnels, Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 29 (9)
(2014) 676–688.
[23] M.B. Anoop, B.K. Raghuprasad, K. Balaji Rao, A refined methodology for durability-
based service life estimation of reinforced concrete structural elements considering
fuzzy and random uncertainties, Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 27 (3) (2012)
170–186.
[24] M.O.C. China, JGJ/T324-2014 Standard for Test Method of Building Curtain Wall
Engineering, China Building Industry Press, 2014.
[25] W. Zhang, et al., Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process synthetic evaluation models for
the health monitoring of shield tunnels, Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 29 (9)
(2014) 676–688.
[26] W. Fangwen, Y. Caofang, X. Chengfeng, Durability evaluation of reinforced con-
crete arch bridge based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method, Open Civ. Eng.
J. 9 (1) (2015) 888–895.
[27] Y.C. Fang, N. Di Tao, Durability assessment of RFC bridges based on the analytic
hierarchy process and fuzzy synthetic evaluation, J Xi an Univ of Arch & Tech.
(Natural Science Edition) (06) (2010) 829–834.
[28] J. Jixiao, W. Fumin, L. Qi, Bridge construction risk assessment based on analytic
hierarchy process and grey fuzzy theory, Journal of Xihua University( Natural
Science) (05) (2016) 58–63.
[29] Y. Guangqiang, Research on Durability Assessment of Bridge Based on the Fuzzy
Theory, Southwest Jiaotong University, 2005, p. 64.
[30] N. Guorong, Probability Prediction and Evaluation Method of Durability of
Reinforced Concrete Highway Bridges and Corresponding Program System,
Zhejiang University, 2006, p. 91.
[31] M.O.C. China, JGJ/T 139-2001 Standard for Testing of Engineering Quality of Glass
Curtain Walls, China Standard Press, 2001.