Lifetime performance evaluation of stick and panel curtain wall systems by full-scale testing Elif Tugba Yalaz a,⇑ , Aslihan Unlu Tavil b , Oguz C. Celik c a Istanbul Technical University (ITU), Faculty of Architecture, Taskisla, Room: 118D, Taksim, 34437 Istanbul, Turkey b Istanbul Technical University (ITU), Faculty of Architecture, Taskisla, Room: 118F, Taksim, 34437 Istanbul, Turkey c Istanbul Technical University (ITU), Structural & Earthquake Engineering Division, Faculty of Architecture, Taskisla, Room: 103A, Taksim, 34437 Istanbul, Turkey highlights  Mandatory tests are inadequate to evaluate lifetime performance of façade systems.  Full-scale tests can provide realistic information about system performance.  Stick system might be fragile than panel system under similar extreme conditions.  Thermal cycling test is significant for lifetime performance evaluation.  Air and water infiltration are the most common problems in curtain wall systems. article info Article history: Received 14 October 2017 Received in revised form 9 February 2018 Accepted 6 March 2018 Available online 23 March 2018 Keywords: Stick curtain wall Panel curtain wall Lifetime performance Full-scale test Performance comparison abstract This study presents stick and panel curtain wall systems’ lifetime performance comparison by conducting full-scale testing according to a proposed test method. The procedure is based on Turkish standards and supported by CWCT. Besides weather tightness, wind and seismic resistance tests, thermal cycling are included to the procedure in two-stages between 10 °C and +50 °C considering temperatures in 20 years in Istanbul. Results showed that stick system might be more fragile than panel system under the same conditions. This study is thought to be a leading work in lifetime performance assessment of such curtain wall types by considering specific local conditions. Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Curtain walls are mostly preferred systems for multi-story buildings as they provide advantages such as lightness (especially for seismically vulnerable areas), ease of construction, weather tightness performance, accommodate of various movements, com- fortable internal environment and aesthetics [1–4]. Stick systems are widely used in low-to-medium rise buildings and are assem- bled on site with numerous components such as anchors, mullions, transoms, infill panels and sealants. Thus, workmanship quality has a crucial role for system performance [5]. Panel systems, on the other hand, vary from stick systems with their manufacture and assemble processes. These systems are manufactured at fac- tory as units which are assembled on site providing less worksite labor than stick systems. Moreover, panel system components are assembled under stable ambient conditions without being affected by weather conditions increasing system quality. This would lead to the known fact that weather tightness performance of panel systems might be better than stick systems. On the other hand, due to different assembly and manufacture processes, the overall cost of panel systems is generally higher than stick systems [6,7]. Since both systems are the most common systems and widely used in construction market, building type, users, number of stories, built environment, surrounding area, expected perfor- mance criteria, and climatic conditions should be considered for selecting the most suitable system for a specific project. Many researches have been conducted so far on curtain wall systems since they constitute a large part of a building cost and related new technologies have been developing. By considering the complexity of curtain wall systems in recent years, Gonçalves and Jutras, suggest that performance assessment before installa- tion process be given crucial importance for preventing unwanted https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.061 0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: etyalaz@itu.edu.tr (E.T. Yalaz), tavil@itu.edu.tr (A.U. Tavil), celikoguz@itu.edu.tr (O.C. Celik). Construction and Building Materials 170 (2018) 254–271 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Construction and Building Materials journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat