Security film · materials explainer

Polyurethane vs. PET Security Film: Why the Usual Spec-Sheet Numbers Point the Wrong Way

Put a polyester security film next to 3M S2400 on tensile strength and the polyester looks ten times stronger. Put them in front of a bat and it isn’t. Here is how to read the numbers, which ASTM tests they come from, and which two properties actually decide what happens when glass breaks.

7 min read · Updated October 5, 2026

The short answer

Almost every security window film on the market is made of polyester (PET). 3M™ Scotchshield™ S2400 is made of polyurethane. On the two numbers most spec sheets lead with — tensile strength and break strength — polyester is far “stronger.” On the two numbers that govern what a film does when glass is struck — elongation and tear resistance — polyurethane leads by a wide margin: about 4X the elongation (560% vs 130%) and two-thirds more tear resistance (24.6 vs 14.8 lbf·in) than a 22-mil polyester security film, by 3M’s own published bulletin. A forced-entry event loads a film in exactly those two ways, which is why Epic specifies S2400 for entries and vestibules and installs it anchored to the frame with the Epic Method.

The numbers, side by side (3M published data)

3M’s technical bulletin on S2400 physical properties compares it directly with a 22-mil polyester (PET) security film. These are 3M’s figures, not Epic’s.

PropertyTestPET security film (22 mil, 3M’s comparison)3M S2400 (polyurethane, 24 mil)What it tells you
Tensile strengthASTM D88222,000 psi3,200 psiPeak pull per square inch of cross-section. PET leads ~7:1. Not how glass loads a film.
Break strengthASTM D882469 lb/in77 lb/inForce to snap a strip in a slow, straight pull. PET leads ~6:1. Same caveat.
Elongation at breakASTM D882130%560%How far it stretches before failing. Polyurethane leads ~4:1. This is energy absorption.
Graves tear resistanceASTM D100414.8 lbf·in24.6 lbf·inForce to start and run a tear from a notch. Polyurethane leads by two-thirds (166%). This is what broken glass does to film.

Source: 3M™ Scotchshield™ Security Window Film S2400 — Physical Properties Technical Bulletin, Revision A, March 2024; 3M S2400 product page (“its polyurethane construction provides greater tear strength and elongation than PET resin films of similar thickness”). Figures as published; test methods as stated by 3M.

Why the first two rows mislead

Tensile and break strength come from the same test: clamp a strip of film, pull it slowly in one direction, record the peak force before it snaps. It is a fine way to compare two polyesters. It is a poor way to predict a forced-entry event, for three reasons.

  • The load is a point, not a pull. A bat, a hammer or a boot concentrates force on a few square inches of film that is bonded to shattered glass. Nothing is pulling the film evenly from the ends.
  • The load is fast and repeated. D882 pulls at inches per minute. An impact arrives in milliseconds and then arrives again. What matters is how much energy the film can take per blow, not the single peak force it can resist once.
  • The film is already notched. The moment the glass breaks, the film is in contact with thousands of sharp edges. Every one is a potential tear point. Peak tensile strength says nothing about whether a tear starts there and how far it runs.

What actually decides it: energy, not force

A material’s ability to absorb a blow is the area under its stress–strain curve — force multiplied by how far it stretches before it fails. PET has a tall, short curve: very high peak stress, little stretch. Polyurethane has a lower, much longer curve. The area under the long curve is larger, so the film absorbs more of the blow by deforming instead of passing it straight to the nearest notch. That is the whole argument in one picture.

Illustrative stress–strain curves: PET versus polyurethane PET rises steeply to a high peak stress and fails at low elongation; polyurethane rises to a lower stress but keeps stretching to roughly four times the elongation, so the shaded area under its curve — the energy absorbed — is larger. Elongation (how far the film stretches) → Stress (force) → PET: high peak, snaps early Polyurethane: lower peak, ~4X the stretch Shaded area = energy absorbed before failure ILLUSTRATIVE — SHAPES, NOT PLOTTED DATA
The curves are drawn to show the principle, not plotted from test data. The published end points are in the table above: 130% vs 560% elongation; 22,000 vs 3,200 psi tensile.

Tear resistance is the second half of the story. A high-tensile film that tears easily is a strong film with a weak point everywhere the glass touches it. 3M’s Graves figure — 24.6 lbf·in for S2400 against 14.8 for the 22-mil PET film in its bulletin — is the number that says how hard it is to start that tear and keep it going. It is also why Epic cuts S2400 by machine in the shop: a nick in a hand-cut edge is a tear point before the film ever meets a window. That is the reason Epic Precision exists.

How to compare films properly

  1. Ask what the film is made of. Polyester or polyurethane. If the answer is a brand name, ask again.
  2. Read the right rows. Elongation at break (ASTM D882) and Graves tear (ASTM D1004). Treat tensile and break strength as background, not the headline.
  3. Insist on assembly tests. Film alone is never what an intruder meets. Ask for the test of the complete assembly — glass, film, attachment, frame — and the standard it was run to. If the answer is ASTM F3561, read why that standard was written for a different product before you weigh it.
  4. Ask how it is attached. The most tear-resistant film in the world does nothing if the whole filmed pane is pushed out of the frame in one piece. The attachment is half the product; the Epic Method is how Epic installs it.
  5. Ask how it is cut. A notched edge is a tear point. Shop-cut, machine-cut film arrives with clean edges; film trimmed by hand on site does not.

Where PET still belongs

None of this makes polyester a bad film. 3M’s Ultra series — micro-layered PET — is an excellent product, and Epic installs it where it is the right answer: upper floors, safety-glazing and seismic applications, storefronts where smash-and-grab is the threat, and budgets that cannot reach S2400 across every opening. The point of this page is narrower: when the question is a person with a tool at a school entry, the film property that matters is how it fails, and polyurethane fails better.

FAQ

Polyurethane vs. PET — questions

Is polyurethane security film stronger than polyester (PET) security film?
It depends entirely on which “strong” you mean. On tensile strength and break strength — the numbers on most spec sheets — PET wins by a wide margin: 3M’s bulletin lists 22,000 psi tensile for a 22-mil PET security film against 3,200 psi for polyurethane S2400. On the two properties that govern what happens when glass is struck — elongation and tear resistance — polyurethane wins: 560% elongation against 130% (about 4X) and 24.6 lbf·in Graves tear against 14.8 (two-thirds more). A film holding broken glass against repeated blows is loaded in exactly those two ways.
Why don’t tensile strength and break strength predict forced-entry performance?
Because those tests pull a strip of film slowly, in one direction, until it snaps. A forced-entry event is nothing like that: it is a point load — a bat, a hammer, a boot — delivered fast and repeatedly to film that is already bonded to shattered glass and anchored to a frame. What matters is how much energy the film can absorb before a tear starts and how far a tear runs once it does. That is elongation and tear resistance, not peak pull strength.
What is “elongation at break” and why does 560% matter?
Elongation at break (ASTM D882) is how far a strip of film stretches before it fails, as a percentage of its starting length. 3M’s bulletin lists 560% for S2400 and 130% for a 22-mil PET security film. A film that can stretch to five and a half times its length absorbs the energy of a blow by deforming — the way a trampoline catches a jumper — instead of transmitting it to the nearest nick and tearing. The energy a material absorbs is the area under its stress–strain curve, and a long, tough curve has far more area than a tall, short one.
What is Graves tear resistance?
ASTM D1004 — the Graves test — measures the force needed to start and propagate a tear from a notch in a film. 3M’s bulletin lists 24.6 lbf·in for S2400 and 14.8 lbf·in for a 22-mil PET security film. It is the closest bench test to what a security film actually faces: once glass breaks, the film is full of sharp-edged “notches” and the question is whether a tear runs.
Which test should I ask for instead?
Ask for system tests, not film tests. The film is one part of an assembly — glass, film, attachment and frame — and only the assembly can be tested the way an intruder loads it. Blast performance is rated under ASTM F1642 and GSA TS01; forced-entry claims should come with the assembly test report, the exact film and attachment tested, and how that matches what is being quoted for your glass. Be careful with ASTM F3561 — it was written for complete factory-built window systems, not retrofit film; the Epic Method page explains why.
Does thicker always mean better?
No. 3M’s bulletin compares 24-mil S2400 with a 22-mil PET film — nearly the same thickness, different materials — and the tensile figure is per square inch of cross-section, so thickness is already normalised out; PET still leads on it by about seven to one. Polyurethane is specified for forced entry because of how it fails, not because of how thick it is.
Is S2400 bulletproof?
No. No window film is bulletproof, bullet-resistant or ballistic. S2400 keeps broken glass in the opening when it is anchored to the frame; it does not stop projectiles.