Windows as means of escape

Monti Redux

RKQ wrote: »

We live in the Republic thank God!
"Moot" is not really true considering our Building Regulations are a direct copy of the UK regs. (TGD L is slightly different but Document B - Fire - is based on British Codes of Practise. BS 9999 has just been revised - BS 9999 will supersede DD 9999, and the entire BS 5588 series)

Look at Documents K & M - exact copies of UK Doc K & M! - QED

I think to be fair Kitser & Monti Redux have a point and they are entitled to their opinion. This could be an interesting debate if negative comments were left out.

In fairness child restrictors at a height of 2m is crazy. I am constantly weary of getting my fingers stuck in them, approaching them like a Bomb desposal expert!

Common sense will prevail and we will follow the lastest UK Code of Practice , so look up the revised codes and follow "best" practice where possible. Their (UK) rules today will be ours tomorrow - as always.

If we were still labouring under the yoke of the previous management at least we’d have a semblance of Building Control but we can save that ‘what did the Romans ever do for us’ thread until 2016.

Hefty chunks of TGD-B are also the work of copy n’paste hacks down in the Custom House with some oddball ‘localisation’ efforts. I don’t know if you recall the draft proposals to the 2006 revision that were put out for consultation (and forgotten about for nearly 2 years). That proposed a change from the old 500x850 to 0.35m/2 for vertical sliders but only in the vicinity of existing ‘period’ buildings. Complete nonsense that fortunately was dropped from the final version.

Monti

PS. I'm not entirely comfortable being lumped in with that other fella for the purpose of this discussion.

RKQ

Monti Redux wrote: »

PS. I'm not entirely comfortable being lumped in with that other fella for the purpose of this discussion.

No offense intented to you, kitser or anyone else. Simply felt that this could be an interesting thread if we could all exchange opinions without taking things to heart.

Nice to discuss the regs without falling out over them. They aren't perfect but they are Law and any changes for the better can only be a good thing. We all want legal, safe and functional windows and structures. Especially went it comes to saving lives.

Interesting post on BS 6180 etc by the way!

muffler

Monti Redux wrote: »

PS. I'm not entirely comfortable being lumped in with that other fella for the purpose of this discussion.

And Im not particularly comfortable with your input to this thread. Please explain the comment quoted above.

Where BS codes are enshrined into the regs here they may be quoted, debated or whatever. But we dont want to see mention of a BS when there is an IS in place.

sinnerboy

Monti Redux wrote: »

BS 6180 ‘Barriers in and about Buildings’ is the reference document.
“8.2.1 Glass Types
Laminated glass is a safety glass suitable for all barriers where the glass is used fully framed."
Para 8.6.4 goes on to note
The designer should select materials that will not break when the barrier is subjected to the normal design loads that may be applied and will not be penetrated at the required impact class. Since BS 6206 classifies toughened glass as a safety glass only for safe breakage when impact tested and does not classify it for resistance against penetration, the following recommendations are given as guidance for the selection of toughened glass:
class C to BS 6206 : 1981 (no penetration) min. 6 mm toughened glass;
class A to BS 6206 : 1981 (no penetration) min. 10 mm toughened glass.
Other types of safety glass, e.g. laminated glass, will normally be classified as a safety glass because of their resistance to penetration.”

Laminated glass although physically less strong then toughened glass offers better containment which is the essence of the barrier requirement. Going through 4mm toughened glass from 5 floors up and landing on small nuggets of glass isn’t ideal as I'm sure you'll agree.

Monti

Good info Monti - I assume this criteria would apply to glass guarding at mezzanine edges i.e the types you would see in shopping complexes

Monti Redux

RKQ wrote: »

Interesting post on BS 6180 etc by the way!

More reading material on its way via pm.

Montgomery

Monti Redux

muffler wrote: »

And Im not particularly comfortable with your input to this thread. Please explain the comment quoted above.

Well you can't keep all the people happy all the time and judging by the replies yours appears to be a minority opinion. The other bloke was advocating ignoring building regulations and not unreasonably I didn't want to be associated with that line of thinking.

Where BS codes are enshrined into the regs here they may be quoted, debated or whatever. But we dont want to see mention of a BS when there is an IS in place.

I'm more then happy to reference Irish Standards where they are appropriate but I can't think of any that are pertinent to the discussion. Which ones did you have in mind ? Somewhat ironic that you're advocating censoring discussion of British Standards given the day thats in it.

Montgomery

Monti Redux

sinnerboy wrote: »

Good info Monti - I assume this criteria would apply to glass guarding at mezzanine edges i.e the types you would see in shopping complexes

It depends on the type of barrier. I'll email you further reading as I may not be around for much longer. Think Goodmorning Vietnam.

Montgomery

muffler

Monti Redux wrote: »

Well you can't keep all the people happy all the time and judging by the replies yours appears to be a minority opinion.

I am posting in a moderating capacity so I fail to see your point.

Monti Redux wrote: »

The other bloke was advocating ignoring building regulations and not unreasonably I didn't want to be associated with that line of thinking.

No. You missed the point of the question. Who in your opinion is advocating ignoring the building regs?

I have seen no evidence of this but Id be happy for you to point this out to me.

Monti Redux wrote: »

I'm more then happy to reference Irish Standards where they are appropriate but I can't think of any that are pertinent to the discussion.

Really?

Monti Redux wrote: »

Which ones did you have in mind ?

As above - Im not actively involved so I will keep that to myself.

Monti Redux wrote: »

Somewhat ironic that you're advocating censoring discussion of British Standards given the day thats in it.

And what day would that be apart from Friday?

Poor Uncle Tom

Thank you for the reply.

Monti Redux wrote: »

To state that the glazing must be toughened is wrong.
BS 6180 ‘Barriers in and about Buildings’ is the reference document.

I think there is a fundamental oversight in the TGD's as they stand and this is a perfect example. Something as important as the glass element in a window in a guarded location is left to a mere reference to a BS in TGD part K. Where, imo, this part should be detailed in full.

Also the content of BS 6262, Glazing for Buildings. Safety related to human impacts., is an enlightening document, but again here is left to a mere reference.

But, on the lighter side, I think your comment about Good Morning Vietnam is a bit melodramatic given that your future here is at your own fingertips.

muffler

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

But, on the lighter side, I think your comment about Good Morning Vietnam is a bit melodramatic given that your future here is at your own fingertips.

Couldn't have put it better myself

RKQ

Thanks for the PM Monty. I've found your input informative & postive. Keep up the good work!

I have found 104 references to Irish Standards in TGD B. I have yet to find an Irish Standard that is relevent to this thread - ie Escape Windows - restrictors, handles, locks. (There is an I.S refering to emergency push bars, on escape Doors)

Muffler I would appreiate it if you could clarify your comment above by referencing the Irish Strandard you are refering too? (I'm lost!!)

Document B states "Lockable handles or restrictors, which can only be released by removable keys or other tools, should not be fitted to window opening sections." I assume lockable handles that can be opened by "push button" are perfectly compliant.

Monti Redux

muffler wrote: »

I am posting in a moderating capacity so I fail to see your point.

Thanks for clarifying the protocol of the forum. Its clearly the moderators prerogative to post ex officio.

No. You missed the point of the question. Who in your opinion is advocating ignoring the building regs?


I have seen no evidence of this but Id be happy for you to point this out to me.

My pleasure. You might have a peek at post #34 in this thread. The offence was serious enough to warrant a sin-binning by a mod who shall remain nameless (post #36 for the curious)

Really?

Would you please elaborate.

As above - Im not actively involved so I will keep that to myself.

Of course.

And what day would that be apart from Friday?

You missed the obits for the Cruiser ?

Montgomery

Monti Redux

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Thank you for the reply.


I think there is a fundamental oversight in the TGD's as they stand and this is a perfect example. Something as important as the glass element in a window in a guarded location is left to a mere reference to a BS in TGD part K. Where, imo, this part should be detailed in full.

Also the content of BS 6262, Glazing for Buildings. Safety related to human impacts., is an enlightening document, but again here is left to a mere reference..

My opinion would be that TGD K is adequate on the subject of guarding. It provides guidance in telling you where to get appropriate information. It would not be practical to have 6180, 6262 et al re-printed in full. Furthermore the onus is firmly on the building designer to state if a window is to act as a barrier. Its rare to meet an architect who has a good grip on this issue but then should they be expected to. Architectural technicians should certainly be aware of what is required.

While we are on the subject there is another anomaly in TGD -D . 1.5 Glazing - Any unguarded glazing, below the level of 800mm above the floor, should be safety glazing in accordance with the recommendations of BS6262, Part 4. The critical locations described in 6262, 7.1 through 7.8 include areas above 800mm when it comes to doors and adjacent side lights. This is frequently over-looked as is an analysis of areas of special risk. How many people would specify safety glazing for all the glazing in a creche for example ?

But, on the lighter side, I think your comment about Good Morning Vietnam is a bit melodramatic given that your future here is at your own fingertips.

Wasn’t that the deal Cronauer was offered….

Montgomery

Monti Redux

muffler wrote: »

Couldn't have put it better myself

I’m trying my best but it would be easier if you wouldn’t keep leading with your chin. :rolleyes:

Montgomery

Monti Redux

RKQ wrote: »

Thanks for the PM Monty. I've found your input informative & postive. Keep up the good work!

I have found 104 references to Irish Standards in TGD B. I have yet to find an Irish Standard that is relevent to this thread - ie Escape Windows - restrictors, handles, locks. (There is an I.S refering to emergency push bars, on escape Doors)

Muffler I would appreiate it if you could clarify your comment above by referencing the Irish Strandard you are refering too? (I'm lost!!)

Thank you for the compliment.
IS EN 1125 (panic bars) is a European technical standard which typically supersede national standards. I’d be surprised if it originated in Glasnevin.
I would also hope that Muffler would be prepared to post ex cathedra on this issue.

Montgomery

smashey

Monti Redux wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying the protocol of the forum. Its clearly the moderators prerogative to post ex officio.

"Ex officio" has nothing to do with being appointed a moderator on boards.ie

Monti Redux wrote: »

My pleasure. You might have a peek at post #34 in this thread. The offence was serious enough to warrant a sin-binning by a mod who shall remain nameless (post #36 for the curious)

Sin-binning? The correct term for what happened there is "ban" and it's well covered in the charter. I don't care much for your attitude when you say "a mod who shall remain nameless". Shít or get off the pot.

Monti Redux wrote: »

Would you please elaborate.

I think it's you who should elaborate. After all, you made the point about Irish standard.

Monti Redux wrote: »

You missed the obits for the Cruiser ?

The life and times of Conor Cruise O'Brien has nothing to with this forum.

Now, earlier in this thread, I asked you to back this up...

Up to a point. Mellors omnibus post is wrong on several points despite being a “sucker for for completeness of info”
His words not mine.

I'm still waiting.

smashey

Monti Redux wrote: »

I’m trying my best but it would be easier if you wouldn’t keep leading with your chin. :rolleyes:

Monti Redux wrote: »

I would also hope that Muffler would be prepared to post ex cathedra on this issue.

A wee bit of advice, you aren't doing yourself any favours here. I'll talk to muffler and Mellor about this.

Monti Redux

smashey wrote: »

Now, earlier in this thread, I asked you to back this up...


I'm still waiting.

I did, in post #50. Comprehensively.

Montgomery

muffler

Monti Redux wrote: »

I’m trying my best but it would be easier if you wouldn’t keep leading with your chin. :rolleyes:

Montgomery

Ah well it was good while it lasted.

I suppose its a case of Monty being "smashed" and "muffled"

Goldenarse

muffler wrote: »

Ah well it was good while it lasted.

I suppose its a case of Monty being "smashed" and "muffled"

"Sir, in my heart, I know I'm funny"
Lt. Hauk

smashey

Goldenarse wrote: »

"Sir, in my heart, I know I'm funny"
Lt. Hauk

See ya Monty.

Banned.

muffler

Goldenarse wrote: »

"Sir, in my heart, I know I'm funny"
Lt. Hauk

Must say I like the new nick. Suits you Monty.

Bye.